CHE 412: Integrated Chemical Engineering

To: Professor Joseph Woo Ref: 101917_04

From: Aleeza Ajmal, Noureen Abdelrahman, George Bell, Rukhmitha Shridhar
Date: October 26, 2017
Subject: Membrane Separation of Brackish Water Laboratory Report

Objective: The objective of this lab was to assess the functionality of the reverse osmosis membrane
separation unit in the desalination of brackish (salt) water. The experiment aimed to determine the
separation of brackish water between the retentate and permeate streams as a function of pressure
drop across the membrane, to characterize the membrane unit for salt rejection and to evaluate the
operational cost of running the membrane unit.

Summary: In this experiment, conductivity of permeate and retentate streams at five different
pressure drop values that ranged from 300 psi to 500 psi was measured over a period of 10 minutes
with 1-minute intervals. The conductivities of salt in the retentate and permeate streams collected
were measured using the electron probe. The conductivity values determined for the permeate and
retentate streams were related to salt concentration in those streams by plotting a calibration curve
based on the known concentration of the salt solutions. In addition to determining the salt
concentrations in the permeate and retentate streams as a function of time for each pressure drop, the
values of salt rejection, which represents the percentage of salt removed by the membrane from the
feed, were also determined at each pressure drop to determine which pressure drop gave the
maximum salt rejection and to evaluate the trend of salt rejection as a function of time. Lastly, the
operational cost of running the membrane unit at each pressure drop tested over a period of one year
was calculated to determine feasibility.

Conclusions:
 Desalination of brackish water to drinkable water using the membrane system can’t be
achieved due to the salt concentration in the permeate being greater than the allowable salt
concentration (0.2 mg/L) in potable water as per EPA standards
 Negative slopes were obtained for the linear regression plots of osmotic pressure as a
function of retentate concentration at all values of pressure drop tested
 Positive slopes were obtained for the linear regression plots of osmotic pressure as a function
of permeate concentration at all values of pressure drops tested
 Salt rejection decreased over time for all pressure drop values except for the trial conducted
at 300 psi. Highest value of salt rejection was obtained at ΔP= 500 psi
 Operating cost per year to run the membrane unit increased as the pressure drop increased
 At the pressure drop of 500 psi, the operating cost to run the membrane unit for 8 hours per
day over a period of 1 year was calculated to be $129.5

Recommendations:
 Permeate staging configuration should be used to obtain permeate stream with lower salinity
 Permeate flow rate should be measured to calculate the permeability of the salt across the
membrane
 Percent recovery of water can be calculated to further evaluate the efficiency of the
membrane
 INTRODUCTION

Global potable water demands are proliferating at an unprecedented rate. With an

increase in population, the natural supply of potable water remains relatively static and is

constrained geographically. One of the ways to increase the supply of potable water is

desalination. Desalination is the process of removing sodium chloride (salt) from saline water in

order to obtain potable water that is suitable for human consumption. Most common desalination

methods employ reverse osmosis in which salt water is forced through a membrane that allows

water molecules to pass but blocks the molecules of salt. Reverse osmosis is among one of the

leading pressure driven membrane processes to purify water.

Discussion of the concept of osmosis can help understand the phenomenon of reverse

osmosis. An example of a semi permeable membrane that is only permeable to water can be used

to understand notion of osmosis. If a semi-permeable membrane is placed between two

compartments in a tank, and one of the compartments has salt solution and the other has pure

water solution. Then the water will pass from the pure water compartment to the salt water

compartment, causing an increase in the liquid level in the salt water compartment. For the

system to reach equilibrium, concentrations on both sides of the membrane should be equal.

Hence, the liquid level will keep on increasing in the salt water compartment until there is

enough pressure to stop the osmosis. This pressure in known as the osmotic pressure. However,

if a pressure greater than the osmotic pressure is applied to the concentrated salt solution, then

according to Le Chatelier’s principle, the direction of the flow of water will be reversed, and the

water will move against the concentration gradient, producing pure water since the membrane is

only permeable to water. This phenomenon is known as Reverse Osmosis (RO).

 The permeate (diluted stream) and retentate (concentrated stream) streams from the

reverse osmosis membrane separation process are evolved when the water flows back against the

concentration gradient when pressure greater than the osmotic pressure is applied to the salt

solution. As the difference between the external pressure and osmotic pressure increases, more

water is able to flow back through the membrane leading to more salt rejection. However, as

more salt is rejected by the semi permeable membrane, a boundary layer is formed near the

surface of the membrane. This phenomena is commonly known as concentration polarization and

is characterized by a buildup of salt which leads to the increase in the salt concentration on the

membrane over time, which eventually reduces the separation performance of the membrane and

increases the potential for membrane fouling. However, if the reverse osmosis system is

operating at perfect conditions, then a cross-flow mechanism can cycle or flush out the

accumulated particles minimizing the leakage of salt to the permeate side leading to stable

separation concentrations in the two exiting streams: permeate and retentate.

In this experiment, the functionality of the reverse osmosis membrane unit in

effectively desalinating brackish water to potable water will be explored. The analysis carried out

will assess the salt concentration of the permeate and retentate streams as a function of the

osmotic pressure in addition to the characterization of salt rejection as a function of time and the

determination of the cost to operate the membrane over a period of one year. To achieve these

objectives, the experiment will be conducted at 5 different pressure drops ranging from 300-500

psi over a time period of ten minutes.

 EXPERIMENTAL THEORY

The RO membrane is only permeable to water, therefore it doesn’t allow salt to pass

through it creating two streams: permeate and retentate. To determine the percentage of the salt

that is rejected, the following equation will be used (Seader, et al. 2011):

(1)

Where, SR, represents salt rejection, Cpermeate is the concentration of the permeate in g/L and C tank

is the concentration of the tank (flow into the membrane) in g/L. Salt rejection determines the

effectiveness of the RO membrane in removing salt from water. The higher the value of salt

rejection, the better the system is performing. A low salt rejection value means that the

membrane requires cleaning or replacement. Hence, it is one of the main performance indicators

in the operation of reverse osmosis membrane system.

In addition, to the salt rejection, osmotic pressure will also be calculated since the driving

force of the separation of water and salt is the pressure gradient created by the pump as it pushes

the salt water through the semi-permeable membrane. The osmotic pressure will be calculated

using the equation shown below (Seader, et al. 2011):

(2)

Where, T is the temperature of the inlet flow to the membrane (K), C salt is the salt concentration

of the inlet salt water (g/L), and MW is the molecular weight of sodium chloride (58.44 g/mol).

Lastly, cost analysis will be conducted on the reverse osmosis membrane unit, to find the

operational cost of running the system per year. To determine the operational cost, the following

equation will be used:

 (3)

Where, the term kWh/yr will be calculated by multiplying power required to operate the reverse

osmosis unit with the number of hours per day the membrane system will be run for.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Materials:
In order to separate salt from brackish water using the reverse osmosis membrane unit, the

experiment utilized deionized water and salt as the experimental reagents. In addition to that,

three major pieces of equipment used to conduct the experiment were: electron probe (Omron-

122), centrifugal pump (Hydra-Cell) and a membrane separation unit (Alfa Laval), shown in the

piping and instrumentation diagram in Figure 1A in the appendix.

Methods:
In this experiment an Alfa Laval membrane was used to desalinate a solution of brackish

water (35 g/L). A positive displacement pump was used to pump water through the membrane.

Permeate stream was constantly removed from the system and the retentate was recycled back to

the feed tank. Prior to starting the experiment, all valves were closed and glass shields were

positioned in front of the pump and the membrane separation unit, to avoid any safety concerns

related to over pressurization of the pump and the membrane unit.

Salt water was filled into the tank via PMP-2 to the desired water level in addition to the salt

water already present inside the feed tank. Once the water level reached the desired point, pump

PMP-1 was turned on by plugging the power cord into the power source. The reading of PI-3

was adjusted to meet the desired pressure drop value and valves, V-12 and V-13 were opened to

collect the permeate and retentate samples, respectively.

To assess how the concentration of salt in the permeate and retentate streams change over time

due to the presence of the recycle stream, the conductivity of the permeate and retentate streams

was measured at 5 different pressure drop values (300, 350, 400, 450 and 500 psi) over a time

period of 10 minutes with 1 minute intervals. The conductivity probe was used to measure the

conductivities of the sample and equation of the linear regression of the calibration curve was

used to convert the conductivity values to the concentration values.

When the experiment was performed, V-12 and V-13 were closed and the set point of the

flow controller, FC-1 was lowered to 0 Hz to shut off the membrane separation unit.

DATA CALCULATION & ANALYSIS

Prior to conducting the experiment, conductivity of known salt concentrations (0-25 g/L

with 5 g/L intervals) was measured in order to prepare a calibration curve of conductivity as a

function of salt concentration. The calibration curve is shown in Figure 2B in the Appendix

below.

The conductivity values of the permeate and retentate streams were measured during the

lab at pressure drops ranging from 300-500 psi over a period of 10 minutes with 1 minute

intervals. The conductivity values at all respective pressure drops and time points determined for

the permeate and retentate were converted to concentration values using equation of the linear

regression line of the calibration curve shown in Appendix B. Table 1 shows the concentration

values of the permeate and retentate streams at each time point for a period of 10 minutes for the

pressure drop of 500 psi. Concentration values of retentate and permeate streams at other

pressure drops can be found in the supplementary excel spreadsheet.

Table 1. Salt concentrations determined for permeate and retentate streams at each time point
for a pressure drop of 500 psi
Time (min) Permeate (g/L) Retentate (g/L)
1 3.185 12.815
2 3.539 12.697
3 3.953 12.933
4 4.248 12.342
5 4.485 12.224
6 4.485 12.165
7 4.603 12.638
8 4.544 12.815
9 4.603 12.874
10 4.603 13.288

The salt rejection values for all the trials conducted at various pressure drops were calculated

using equation (1). Table 2 below shows how the salt rejection changes with respect to time at a

pressure drop of 500 psi.

Table 2. Salt rejection values for the trial conducted at the pressure drop of 500 psi at each
time interval
Time (min) Salt rejection
1 0.693
2 0.659
3 0.619
4 0.591
5 0.568
6 0.568
7 0.557
8 0.563
9 0.557
10 0.557

Relationship between osmotic pressure and outlet concentrations (retentate and permeate)
To calculate the osmotic pressure for each trial conducted at different pressure drop, equation (2)

was used. Since the permeate concentration was used to calculate the osmotic pressure, all linear

regressions of osmotic pressure versus permeate concentration had a slope of 22.4016 (appendix

C). Linear regression plots for osmotic pressure versus retentate concentration were also

generated and analyzed for each trial performed. Figure 1 below shows the linear regression plot

for the trial conducted at the pressure drop of 400 psi.

105

100
Osmotic Pressure (atm)

95

90

85
12.75 12.80 12.85 12.90 12.95 13.00 13.05
Retentate Concentration (g/L)

Figure 1. Linear regression plot for osmotic pressure vs retentate concentration (g/L) at the
pressure drop of 400 psi. The linear regression equation is:

. 95% CI for the slope is

(-56.407, -8.687)

Since the slope of the linear regression of osmotic pressure versus retentate concentration is

negative with a p-value of 0.014, it can be concluded that for this trial the retentate concentration

decreased with an increase in the osmotic pressure. However only 3 out of 5 trials conducted

showed a similar trend (i.e p-value was less than or equal to 0.05). The results for all 5 trials

conducted at pressure drops ranging from 300-500 psi are shown in table 3 below
Table 3. Slopes and their respective p-values and 95% CI obtained for the linear regression
between osmotic pressure as a function of retentate concentration at the pressure drops tested

Pressure drop (psi) Slope (atm g/L) P-value 95% CI (atm g/L)
300 - 15.2 0.251 (-43.5, 13.1)
350 - 6.3 0.017 (-11.2, -1.5)
400 - 32.5 0.014 (-56.4, -8.7)
450 - 19.8 0.05 (-39.5, -0.02)
500 - 3.1 0.794 ( -29.4, 23.2)

As stated earlier, only trials conducted at the pressure drop values of 350, 400 and 450 psi

produced linear regression slopes with p-values less than or equal to 0.05. This supports the

conclusion that osmotic pressure increases as retentate concentration decreases for each of these

trials. However a similar conclusion cannot be made for the trials conducted at the pressure drop

of 300 and 500 psi, because the linear regression slopes had p-values greater than 0.05. It should

be noted that all five linear regressions of osmotic pressure as a function of retentate

concentration generated negative slopes, implying an inverse relationship between osmotic

pressure and retentate concentration. This could be explained by the fact that the retentate stream

was continuously being recycled into the RO membrane feed, and thus overtime the salinity of

the feed increased. This increase in feed salinity over time caused an increase in osmotic pressure

because the concentration gradient of the solution across the membrane was continuously

increasing. The regressions and their respective residual plots for each trial conducted at pressure

drop of 300, 350, 450 and 500 psi can be found in appendix C.
Salt rejection over time at pressure drops tested

0.62

0.61

0.60

0.59
Salt rejection

0.58

0.57

0.56

0.55

0.54

0.53
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (min)

Figure 2. Salt rejection variance over time for the pressure drop of 350 psi. The linear regression
equation is . The 95% CI for the slope is
(-0.010581, -0.006371)

Looking at the trend of the salt rejection as a function of time, it is apparent that there is an

inverse relationship between salt rejection and time. The p-value (0.000) for the slope of this

regression confirms this relationship that as time increases the salt rejection decreases because

the p-value obtained is less than 0.05. The results for the remaining trials conducted are shown in

table 4 below:

Table 4. Slope values determined from the linear regression of salt rejection as a function of time
at the pressure drops tested

Pressure drop Slope P-Value 95% CI of slope

 (psi) (min-1) (min-1)
300 0.0114 0.001 (0.0063, 0.0165)
350 -0.0085 0.000 (-0.0105, -0.0063)
400 - 0.0046 0.039 (-0.0089, -0.0003)
450 - 0.0140 0.000 (-0.0196, -0.0083)
500 - 0.0141 0.001 (-0.0203, -0.0079)

From the values of the slopes of the linear regression of salt rejection as a function of time at all

the trials conducted at the indicated pressure drop values illustrated in table 4 above, it can be

seen that for 4 out of 5 trials conducted at various pressure drops the salt rejection decreased as

the time passed by because the slopes obtained were negative. The p-values for all the trials

conducted at various pressure drops were lower than 0.05, meaning the relationship seen in each

regression is valid meaning salt rejection decreases with time since majority of the trials

conducted showed that trend. The observed trend can be explained by given that the retentate

stream is continuously being recycled during each experimental run conducted at different values

of pressure drop, which will cause the salt concentration of the RO membrane feed stream to

increase over time, eventually causing the amount of salt being removed in the membrane

(permeate stream) to increase. This increase in permeate concentration results in a lower salt

rejection, which support the conclusion that salt rejection decreases over time. The linear

regression plots for salt rejection as a function of time for pressure drops of 300, 400, 450 and

500 psi and their respective residual plots can be found in appendix D.

Operational cost of running the reverse osmosis unit

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that the concentration of salt in

drinking water should not exceed 20 mg/L because if the concentration of salt in water exceeds

this particular value, it may result in adverse health effects. The maximum salt rejection obtained

in this experiment was 0.69 (at the pressure drop of 500 psi), which produced permeate salt
concentrations above the recommended limit of 20 mg/L. Therefore, a cost analysis was

performed to predict the cost to run the membrane system eight hours per day for an entire year,

rather than calculating the profit that could be made by selling purified (drinkable) water. This

was done by first calculating pump power, using the amps required to run the pump at each

pressure drop and multiplying it by the outlet voltage (208V). Pump power was then multiplied

by the number of hours the pump would run over a year (2,920 hours) and the average

commercial cost of a kWh in Easton, PA (5.61¢) to determine the operational cost per year for

running the membrane unit. A linear regression of the operational cost per year versus pressure

drop values tested in the experiment was generated, shown in figure 3 below.

130

120
Cost per year (USD)

110

100

90

80

70
300 350 400 450 500
Pressure (PSI)

Figure 3. Linear regression of pump pressure (psi) versus the operational cost of running the
pump per annum. Regression equation is:

From the linear regression of operational cost per year versus the pressure drop values, it can be

concluded that the cost to run the pump increases as the pressure drop increases as seen by the

positive relationship. Since, the maximum salt rejection value was obtained at the pressure drop

of 500 psi, the reverse osmosis membrane system should be run at the pressure drop of 500 psi.
If the RO membrane unit is run at the pressure drop of 500 psi 8 hours a day for every day of the

year, the cost incurred would be approximately $129.5. The low cost makes sense because the

amount of amps required to run the pump were considerably low due to the fact that the RO

globe valve was not fully opened (only 0.2 turns). The cost per year for every pressure drop

tested in the experiment can be found in the appendix E.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiment aimed to characterize the functionality of the reverse osmosis membrane

in desalinating brackish water by examining how brackish water separates between the permeate

and retentate streams a function of membrane pressure, calculating the salt rejection and the

operational costs incurred to run the membrane unit over a period of one year.

Results indicate that the current reverse osmosis membrane system is inefficient in

desalinating brackish water to potable water because the permeate concentration obtained at all

the pressure drop values tested is not below the standard allowable limit of salt concentration (20

mg/L) in potable water as per the EPA regulations. The linear regression plots prepared for the

osmotic pressure as function of retentate concentration displayed negative relationship between

the osmotic pressure and the retentate concentration, however only for the trials conducted at the

pressure drops of 350, 400 and 450 psi, it can be concluded with 95% confidence that as the

osmotic pressure increases the retentate concentration decreases because the p values obtained

were less than 0.05. Furthermore, it was determined that the salt rejection of the membrane

decreased over time for all trials except for the one conducted at the pressure of 300 psi.

When a cost analysis was performed on the RO system, it was found that the cost per

year (USD) to run the system increased as pump pressure increased (regression line had a p-
value of 0.000). At a pump pressure of 500 psi the cost to run the system 8 hours a day, 365 days

a year, was determined to be $129.5. The amount of the cost determined can be explained by the

low ampere requirements by the pump because the RO globe valve not fully opened (only 0.2

turns).

RECOMMENDATIONS

A general trend in most of the graphs of salt rejection plotted as a function of time

showed a decrease in salt rejection with time. This trend can be explained by a number of

reasons ranging from mechanical failures to membrane fouling. Mechanical failures involve the

presence of faulty o-rings. A faulty o-ring can allow leakage of the solution through the

membrane thereby leading to decreased salt rejection. In addition to the possibility of the o-ring

being faulty, membrane fouling could also be another likely factor effecting the amount of salt

rejection observed. Given repeated use of the membrane during the semester, a potential build of

salt is possible due to concentration polarization which reduces the flow rate of the feed. This in

turn leads to a decreased salt rejection over a period of time. Appropriate replacement or cleaning

of the membrane is recommended to obtain higher salt rejection. If the value of the normalized

salt passage increases by 15%, the RO membrane needs to be cleaned in order to obtain higher

salt rejection. In this experiment the values of salt passage (1-SR) obtained for all the trials

conducted at pressure drops ranging from 300-500 psi were above 15% indicating the presence

of fouling and the need for cleaning the reverse osmosis membrane. To achieve further reduction

in permeate salinity, permeate staging configuration or two membrane units in series can be used

to increase the salt rejection and achieve a greater percent of water recovery.

Permeate flow rate can be determined by measuring the mass of the permeate stream over a

particular time period. A linear regression between the permeate flow rate and the pressure drop

across the membrane can then be performed to calculate the permeability of salt through the
membrane for future experiments which can then be used to calculate the permeate flow rates for

scaled up systems.

Appendix A- Piping and Instrumentation Diagram

Figure 1A. The piping & instrumentation diagram shown above was taken from the Reverse
Osmosis HAZOP preparatory report written by Group B. The salt water flow is first pumped
from TK-2, the reservoir tank, to TK-1, the storage tank, by pump, PMP-2. Saltwater inside the
storage tank is pumped into the membrane, M-1, as the feed stream via V-3, and V-5, two flow
regulator valves. The membrane desalinates the pumped water and separates the feed stream into
the permeate and the retentate. The permeate stream flows to the drain via V-12, a flow regulator
valve. The retentate stream flows to either the drain via V-8, a flow regulator valve, or is recycled
back to the storage tank via HEX-1, the heat exchanger, and V-11, a flow regulator valve.

Appendix B- Probe Conductivity versus Salt Concentration Calibration Curve

Figure 2A. Calibration curve for the conductivity as a function of NaCl concentration. The 95%
CI obtained for the intercept and slope are (-0.634, 2.253) and (1.597, 1.788), respectively. The
concentration of sodium chloride can be determined by using the equation of the calibration
curve and the value of conductivity measured during the experiment

Appendix C- Osmotic pressure versus permeate and retentate concentration plots

140

130
Osmotic Pressure (atm)

120

110

100

90

80
11.50 11.75 12.00 12.25 12.50 12.75 13.00 13.25
Retentate Concentration (g/L)

Figure 3 C (a). Linear Regression of Osmotic Figure 3 C (b). Linear Regression of

Pressure (atm) vs. Permeate Concentration (g/L) Osmotic Pressure (atm) vs. Retentate
when pump is running at 450 psi. Regression Concentration (g/L) when pump is running
equation is: at 450 psi. Regression equation is:
 Residual Plots for Osmotic Pressure (atm)
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99

90 20

Residual
Percent
50
0

10

1 -20
-40 -20 0 20 40 80 90 100 110
Residual Fitted Value

Hist ogram Versus Order

3
20
Frequency

Residual
0
1

0 -20
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 3 C (c). Residual plot for osmotic pressure as a function of retentate concentration when
the pump is running at 450 psi

105 105
Osmotic Pressure (atm)

Osmotic Pressure (atm)

100 100

95 95

90 90

3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0
Permeate Concentration (g/L) Retentate Concentration (g/L)

Figure 4 C (a). Linear Regression of Osmotic Figure 4 C (b). Linear regression of osmotic
Pressure (atm) vs. Permeate Concentration (g/L) pressure (atm) vs Retentate Concentration
when pump is running at 350 psi. Regression (g/L) when pump is running at 350 psi.
equation is: Regression equation is:

.
 Residual Plots for Osmotic Pressure (atm)
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99
5.0
90
2.5

Residual
Percent
50 0.0

-2.5
10
-5.0
1
-10 -5 0 5 10 90 93 96 99 102
Residual Fitted Value

Histogram Versus Order

4
5.0
3 2.5
Frequency

Residual
2 0.0

-2.5
1
-5.0
0
-7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 4 C (c). Residual plot for osmotic pressure as a function of retentate concentration when
the pump is running at 350 psi

105
105

100
Osmotic Pressure (atm)

100
Osmotic Pres sure (a tm)

95 95

90 90

85 85
3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 12.75 12.80 12.85 12.90 12.95 13.00 13.05
Permeate Concentration (g/L) Retentate Concentration (g/L)

Figure 5 C (a). Linear Regression of Osmotic Figure 5 C (b). Linear regression of osmotic
Pressure (atm) vs. Permeate Concentration (g/L) pressure (atm) vs Retentate Concentration
when pump is running at 400 psi. Regression (g/L) when pump is running at 400 psi.
equation is: Regression equation is:
 Residual Plots for Osmotic Pressure (atm)
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99

90 5.0

Residual
2.5

Percent
50
0.0

10 -2.5

1 -5.0
-8 -4 0 4 8 90.0 92.5 95.0 97.5 100.0
Residual Fitted Value

Histogram Versus Order

4
5.0
3
Frequency

2.5

Residual
2
0.0

1 -2.5

0 -5.0
-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 5 C (c). Residual plot for the linear regression of osmotic pressure as a function of
retentate concentration when the pump is operating at 400 psi.

130 130

125 125
Osmotic Pressure (atm)

Osmotic Pressure (atm)

120 120

115 115

110 110

105 105
4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9
Permeate Concentration (g/L) Retentate Concentration (g/L)

Figure 6 C (a). Linear regression of osmotic Figure 6 C (d). Linear regression of osmotic
Pressure (atm) vs permeate concentration (g/L) pressure (atm) vs retentate concentration (g/L)
When pump is operating at 300 psi. Regression when pump is running at 300 psi. Regression
Equation is: equation is:
 Residual Plots for Osmotic Pressure (atm)
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99
10
90
5

Residual
Percent
50 0

-5
10
-10
1
-20 -10 0 10 20 110.0 112.5 115.0 117.5 120.0
Residual Fitted Value

Histogram Versus Order

3
10

Frequency 5
2

Residual
0

1 -5

-10
0
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 6 C (c). Residual plot for the linear regression of osmotic pressure as a function of
retentate concentration when the pump is operating at 300 psi

105 105

100 100
Osmotic Pressure (atm)
Osmotic Pressure (atm)

95 95

90 90

85 85

80 80

75 75

70 70
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4
Permeate Concentration (g/L) Retentate Concentration (g/L)

Figure 7 C (a). Linear regression of osmotic Figure 7 C (b). Linear regression of osmotic
Pressure (atm) vs permeate concentration (g/L) pressure (atm) vs retentate concentration (g/L)
When pump is operating at 500 psi. Regression when pump is operating at 500 psi. Regression
Equation is: equation is:
 Residual Plots for Osmotic Pressure (atm)
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99
10
90
0

Residual
Percent
50
-10
10
-20
1
-20 -10 0 10 20 93 94 95 96
Residual Fitted Value

Histogram Versus Order

4 10

3
0
Frequency

Residual
2
-10
1
-20
0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 7 C (c). Residual plot for the linear regression of osmotic pressure as a function of
retentate concentration when the pump is operating at 500 psi

Appendix D- Linear regression plots of salt rejection as a function of time for pressure drops of
300, 400, 450 and 500 psi and the respective linear regression residual plots

Residual Plots for Salt rejection

0.575 Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99 0.050

0.550 90
0.025

Residual
Percent

50

0.525 0.000
Salt rejection

10

1
-0.050 -0.025 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550
0.500 Residual Fitted Value

Histogram Versus Order

0.475 3 0.050
Frequency

2 0.025
Residual

0.450
1 0.000

0 2 4 6 8 10 0
Time (min) -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 8 D (a). Linear regression of salt Figure 8 D (b). Residual plot for the linear
rejection as function of time at the membrane regression of salt rejection as a function of
pressure of 300 psi. Regression equation is: time at the pressure drop of 300 psi
 Residual Plots for Salt rejection
0.63
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99
0.62
0.02
90
0.01

Residual
0.61

Percent
50
0.00

0.60
Salt rejection

10 -0.01

1 -0.02
0.59 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60
Residual Fitted Value

0.58 Histogram Versus Order

4
0.57 0.02
3

Frequency
0.01

Residual
0.56 2 0.00

1 -0.01
0.55
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 -0.02
Time (min) -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 9 D (a). Linear regression of salt Figure 9 D (b). Residual plot for the linear
Rejection as a function of time at the regression of salt rejection as a function of
pressure drop of 400 psi. Regression time at the pressure drop of 400 psi
Equation is:

Residual Plots for Salt rejection

0.68 Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99 0.04
0.66
90
0.02
0.64

Residual
Percent

50
0.00
0.62
10
Salt rejection

-0.02
0.60 1
-0.050 -0.025 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65
Residual Fitted Value
0.58
Histogram Versus Order
0.56
0.04
2.0

0.54 1.5 0.02

Frequency

Residual
0.52 1.0 0.00

0.5
0.50 -0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.0
Time (min) -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 10 D (a). Linear regression of salt Figure 10 D (b). Residual plot for the linear
Rejection as a function of time at the regression of salt rejection as a function of
Pressure drop of 450 psi. Regression time at the pressure drop of 450 psi
Equation is:
 Residual Plots for Salt rejection
0.70
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fit s
99 0.04

90 0.02

Residual
Percent
0.65 50 0.00

-0.02
Salt rejection

10

1 -0.04
-0.050 -0.025 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.66
Residual Fitted Value
0.60
Histogram Versus Order
0.04
3

0.02

Frequency
2

Residual
0.55
0.00
1
-0.02

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 -0.04
Time (min) -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Residual Observation Order

Figure 11 D (a). Linear regression of salt Figure 11 D (b). Residual plot for the linear
Rejection as a function of time at the regression of salt rejection as a function of
pressure drop of 500 psi. time at the pressure drop of 500 psi
Regression equation is:

Appendix E.

Table 1E. Yearly operational cost of RO pump at pressure drops of 300, 350, 400, 450 and 500
psi

Trial Pressure (psi) Amps Power kWh/Year cost/year (USD)

1 450 3.4 707.2 318.24 115.8
2 350 2.6 540.8 189.28 88.6
3 400 2.8 582.4 232.96 95.4
4 300 2.3 478.4 143.52 78.4
5 500 3.8 790.4 395.2 129.5

Appendix F- Sample Calculations

Calculation of permeate concentration, retentate concentration, feed concentration, salt rejection

and osmotic pressure for trial 1 conducted at the pressure drop of 450 psi at the time point of 1
minute.
Appendix G- References

1. Reverse Osmosis basics, ‘TORAY’ innovation by chemistry, retrieved from:

http://www.toraywater.com/knowledge/kno_001_01.html
2. Reverse Osmosis – Answers to the Top 20 Asked Questions, Idaho water solutions,
retrieved from: https://idahowatersolutions.com/reverse-osmosis-faqs/
3. Uri Lachish, guma science, Osmosis Reverse Osmosis and Osmotic Pressure what they
are, retrieved from: http://urila.tripod.com/
4. Healthy drinking water for Massachusetts, retrieved from:
https://ag.umass.edu/sites/ag.umass.edu/files/fact-sheets/pdf/sodium.pdf
5. Troubleshooting your RO, Hydranautics, retrieved from:
http://www.membranes.com/docs/trc/TROUBLES.PDF