The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Energy Efficiency and Power Density in Pressure Retarded Osmosis and Reverse Electrodialysis
Open accessAbstract
Pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) and reverse electrodialysis (RED) are emerging membrane-based technologies that can convert chemical energy in salinity gradients to useful work. The two processes have intrinsically different working principles: controlled mixing in PRO is achieved by water permeation across salt-rejecting membranes, whereas RED is driven by ion flux across charged membranes. This study compares the energy efficiency and power density performance of PRO and RED with simulated technologically available membranes for natural, anthropogenic, and engineered salinity gradients (seawater-river water, desalination brine-wastewater, and synthetic hypersaline solutions, respectively). The analysis shows that PRO can achieve both greater efficiencies (54-56%) and higher power densities (2.4-38 W/m(2)) than RED (18-38% and 0.77-1.2 W/m(2)). The superior efficiency is attributed to the ability of PRO membranes to more effectively utilize the salinity difference to drive water permeation and better suppress the detrimental leakage of salts. On the other hand, the low conductivity of currently available ion exchange membranes impedes RED ion flux and, thus, constrains the power density. Both technologies exhibit a trade-off between efficiency and power density: employing more permeable but less selective membranes can enhance the power density, but undesired entropy production due to uncontrolled mixing increases and some efficiency is sacrificed. When the concentration difference is increased (i.e., natural → anthropogenic → engineered salinity gradients), PRO osmotic pressure difference rises proportionally but not so for RED Nernst potential, which has logarithmic dependence on the solution concentration. Because of this inherently different characteristic, RED is unable to take advantage of larger salinity gradients, whereas PRO power density is considerably enhanced. Additionally, high solution concentrations suppress the Donnan exclusion effect of the charged RED membranes, severely reducing the permselectivity and diminishing the energy conversion efficiency. This study indicates that PRO is more suitable to extract energy from a range of salinity gradients, while significant advancements in ion exchange membranes are likely necessary for RED to be competitive with PRO.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Recent developments and future perspectives of reverse electrodialysis technology: A review
Mei, Y., & Tang, C. Y. (2018) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.021 · Cited by 499
2D materials as an emerging platform for nanopore-based power generation
Macha, M., Marion, S., Nandigana, V. V. R., & Radenovic, A. (2019) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/s41578-019-0126-z · Cited by 426
Salinity Gradients for Sustainable Energy: Primer, Progress, and Prospects
Yip, N. Y., Brogioli, D., Hamelers, H. V. M., & Nijmeijer, K. (2016) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b03448 · Cited by 388
Self-citationPressure-retarded osmosis for power generation from salinity gradients: is it viable?
Straub, A. P., Deshmukh, A., & Elimelech, M. (2016) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c5ee02985f · Cited by 361
Self-citationArola, K., Van der Bruggen, B., Mänttäri, M., & Kallioinen, M. (2019) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2019.1594519 · Cited by 148
Foo, Z. H., Thomas, J. B., Heath, S. M., Garcia, J. A., & Lienhard, J. H. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c04472 · Cited by 112
Metadata
- Authors
- Yip, N. Y., & Elimelech, M.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-09-05
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 11002-11012
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2062529869
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.