Naturally osmotic water transport across nanopores in relation to pore diameters of forward osmosis membrane
Source abstract
Abstract
It is of great significance to explore the osmotic transport mechanisms across nanopores for the design and applications of forward osmosis membranes. To deeply understand the quantitative relationship between pore diameters and water transport across nanopores of forward osmosis membrane at molecular level, systematic molecular dynamic simulations are conducted on water transport behaviors across nanopores with a length of 16 Å and with diameters ranging from 8.14 to 16.28 Å. The phase interface barrier on water flux across nanopores is predicted by the potential of mean force and hydrogen-bonding number. The combined effects of water structure, interface barrier and flow resistance of nanopores, and hydrogen bonds on the water flux are analyzed. A non-monotonic profile of the water flux with respect to pore diameters is observed due to the fact that the water flux of forward osmosis is determined by the interface barrier and flow resistance being the same order of magnitude with the naturally osmotic pressure rather than the driven pressure which is one order of magnitude higher than the naturally osmotic pressure. For the pore diameters between 8.14 and 10.85 Å where water structures are highly ordered, the water flux increases with the increasing diameter owing to the combined effects of the increasing diffusion coefficients and decreasing potential of mean force and hydrogen-bonding number. The increasing low resistance within nanopores caused by the water structure transition to be disordered at a critical diameter of 12.21 Å takes account for the obviously decreasing water flux. For the pore diameter being greater than12.21 Å, a linear increase of the water flux with increasing diameter is ascribed to the stabilized diffusion coefficient, potential of mean force, and hydrogen-bonding number.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies · Membrane Separation Technologies · Membrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Shakeri A, Salehi H, Khankeshipour N et al (2018) Magnetic nanoparticle-crosslinked ferrohydrogel as a novel class of forward osmosis draw agent. J Nanopart Res 20:325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-018-4437-610.1007/s11051-018-4437-6 ↗
2. Suwaileh W, Pathak N, Shon H et al (2020) Forward osmosis membranes and processes: a comprehensive review of research trends and future outlook. Desalination 485:114455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.11445510.1016/j.desal.2020.114455 ↗
3. Yip NY, Tiraferri A, Phillip WA et al (2010) High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. Environ Sci Technol 44(10):3812–3818. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100255510.1021/es1002555 ↗
4. Arena JT, McCloskey B, Freeman BD et al (2011) Surface modification of thin film composite membrane support layers with polydopamine: enabling use of reverse osmosis membranes in pressure retarded osmosis. J Membr Sci 375:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.01.06010.1016/j.memsci.2011.01.060 ↗
5. Widjojo N, Chung TS, Weber M (2011) The role of sulphonated polymer and macrovoid-free structure in the support layer for thin-film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes. J Membr Sci 383:214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.04110.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.041 ↗
6. She Q, Wang R, Fane AG, Tang CYY (2016) Membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes: a review. J Membr Sci 499:201–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.10.04010.1016/j.memsci.2015.10.040 ↗
7. Silva V, Prádanos P, Palacio L, Hernandez A (2009) Alternative pore hindrance factors: what one should be used for nanofiltration modelization? Desalination. 245:606–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.02.02610.1016/j.desal.2009.02.026 ↗
8. Fierro D, Boschetti-de-Fierro A, Abetz V (2012) The solution-diffusion with imperfections model as a method to understand organic solvent nanofiltration of multicomponent systems. J Membr Sci 413:91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.04.02710.1016/j.memsci.2012.04.027 ↗
9. Moradi A, Farsi A, Mansouri SS, Sarcheshmehpoor M (2012) A new approach for modeling of RO membranes using MD-SF-PF model and CFD technique. Res Chem Intermed 38:161–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-011-0334-710.1007/s11164-011-0334-7 ↗
10. Matthews TD, Yan H, Cahill DG et al (2013) Growth dynamics of interfacially polymerized polyamide layers by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry. J Membr Sci 429:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.11.04010.1016/j.memsci.2012.11.040 ↗
11. Wang J, Mo Y, Mahendra S (2014) Effects of water chemistry on structure and performance of polyamide composite membranes. J Membr Sci 452:415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.02210.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.022 ↗
12. Bian LX, Fang YY, Wang XL et al (2016) Analysis of membrane parameters for forward osmosis membrane based on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Membr Sci Technol 36:75–83. https://doi.org/10.16159/j.cnki.issn1007-8924.2016.04.01210.16159/j.cnki.issn1007-8924.2016.04.012 ↗
13. Halder P, Bhattacharya S (2022) Preparations and electrical characterization of copper-molybdate glassy nanocomposites. Nat Conf Condens Matter Phys 66:3381–3386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.07.23110.1016/j.matpr.2022.07.231 ↗
14. Poddar A, Roy M, Bhattacharya S (2022) Dynamics of Ag+ ions in CdI2 doped electrolytes. Nat Conf Condens Matter Phys 66:3373–3376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.07.22910.1016/j.matpr.2022.07.229 ↗
15. Sengupta A, Bhattacharya S, Ghosh CK (2022) Conduction process in some promising lithium-ion doped glassy ceramics. Nat Conf Condens Matter Phys 66:3287–3291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.41010.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.410 ↗
16. Yamanaka S, Shimosaka A, Shirakawa Y (2010) Molecular dynamics simulations of the formation for NaCl cluster at the interface between the supersaturated solution and the substrate. J Nanopart Res 12:831–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9713-z10.1007/s11051-009-9713-z ↗
17. Ju SP, Lin JS, Hsieh JY et al (2013) Water molecular flow control with a (5,5) nanocoil switch. J Nanopart Res 15:1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1889-610.1007/s11051-013-1889-6 ↗
18. Eslami H, Heydari N (2014) Hydrogen bonding in water nano confined between graphene surfaces: a molecular dynamics simulation study. J Nanopart Res 16:2154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-2154-810.1007/s11051-013-2154-8 ↗
19. Gao W, Jiao Y, Dai LL (2016) The effects of size, shape, and surface composition on the diffusive behaviors of nanoparticles at/across water–oil interfaces via molecular dynamics simulations. J Nanopart Res 18:91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3393-210.1007/s11051-016-3393-2 ↗
20. Sun PF, Yang Z, Song XX et al (2021) Interlayered forward osmosis membranes with MXene and carbon nanotubes for enhanced municipal wastewater concentration. Environ Sci Technol 55:13219–13230. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c0196810.1021/acs.est.1c01968 ↗
21. Liang LJ, Kang ZZ, Shen JW (2016) Translocation mechanism of C-60 and C-60 derivations across a cell membrane. J Nanopart Res 18:333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3647-z10.1007/s11051-016-3647-z ↗
22. Li L, Zhang YW, Ma HB, Yang M (2010) Molecular dynamics simulation of effect of liquid layering around the nanoparticle on the enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 12:811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9728-510.1007/s11051-009-9728-5 ↗
23. Rissanou AN, Harmandaris V (2013) Structure and dynamics of poly (methylmethacrylate)/graphene systems through atomistic molecular dynamics simulations. J Nanopart Res 15:1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1589-210.1007/s11051-013-1589-2 ↗
24. Lu G, Duan YY, Wang XD (2014) Surface tension, viscosity, and rheology of water-based nanofluids: a microscopic interpretation on the molecular level. J Nanopart Res 16:2564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2564-210.1007/s11051-014-2564-2 ↗
25. Hummer G, Rasaiah JC, Noworyta JP (2001) Water conduction through the hydrophobic channel of a carbon nanotube. Nature. 414:188–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/3510253510.1038/35102535 ↗
26. Alexiadis A, Kassinos S (2008) Self-diffusivity, hydrogen bonding and density of different water models in carbon nanotubes. Mol Simul 34:671–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/0892702080207305710.1080/08927020802073057 ↗
27. Zhao KW (2015) Molecular dynamics study on behavior and physical mechanism for water transport across nanochannels. Dissertation. Shanghai Jiaotong University
28. Zhang X, Zhou W, Xu F et al (2018) Resistance of water transport in carbon nanotube membranes. Nanoscale. 10:13242–13249. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8nr03116a10.1039/c8nr03116a ↗
29. Varanasi SR, Subramanian Y, Bhatia SK (2018) High interfacial barriers at narrow carbon nanotube–water interfaces. Langmuir. 34:8099–8111. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b0061610.1021/acs.langmuir.8b00616 ↗
30. Suk ME, Aluru NR (2017) Modeling water flow through carbon nanotube membranes with entrance/exit effects. Nanoscale Microscale Thermophys Eng 21:247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567265.2017.135594910.1080/15567265.2017.1355949 ↗
31. Suk ME, Aluru NR (2010) Water transport through ultrathin graphene. J Phys Chem Lett 1:1590–1594. https://doi.org/10.1021/jz100240r10.1021/jz100240r ↗
32. Ye H, Zhang H, Zheng Y, Zhang ZQ (2011) Nanoconfinement induced anomalous water diffusion inside carbon nanotubes. Microfluid Nanofluidics 10:1359–1364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-011-0772-y10.1007/s10404-011-0772-y ↗
33. Cohen-Tanugi D, Grossman JC (2012) Water desalination across nanoporous graphene. Nano Lett 12:3602–3608. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl301285310.1021/nl3012853 ↗
34. Zhao KW, Wu HY (2015) Structure-dependent water transport across nanopores of carbon nanotubes: toward selective gating upon temperature regulation. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17:10343–10347. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cp06054g10.1039/c4cp06054g ↗
35. Chopra M, Choudhury N (2014) Comparison of structure and dynamics of polar and nonpolar fluids through carbon nanotubes. J Phys Chem C 117:18398–18405. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp404089e10.1021/jp404089e ↗
36. Corry B (2008) Designing carbon nanotube membranes for efficient water desalination. J Phys Chem B 112:1427–1434. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp709845u10.1021/jp709845u ↗
37. Thomas JA, McGaughey AJH (2009) Water flow in carbon nanotubes: transition to subcontinuum transport. Phys Rev Lett 102:184502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.18450210.1103/PhysRevLett.102.184502 ↗
38. Jia YX, Li Y, Hu YD (2011) Behavior of carbon nanotube membranes as channels of salt and water in forward osmosis process. Acta Phys Chim Sin 27:228–232. https://doi.org/10.3866/PKU.WHXB2011010410.3866/PKU.WHXB20110104 ↗
39. Shen C, Guo WL (2019) Manipulation of long-range water ordering in less confined nanotubes. J Phys Chem C 123:10101–10106. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b0042010.1021/acs.jpcc.9b00420 ↗
40. Pan JC, Xiao SB, Zhang ZL et al (2020) Nanoconfined water dynamics in multilayer graphene nanopores. J Phys Chem C 124:17819–17828. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c0489710.1021/acs.jpcc.0c04897 ↗
41. Xu XJ, Zhao YY, Wang JC (2020) Water flow inside various geometric nano-confinement channels. Phys Chem Chem Phys 22:24633–24639. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0cp04491a10.1039/d0cp04491a ↗