Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering 

 Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013) 71- 79 

ISSN: 1997-4884 

 
 
 
 

Concentration of Orange Juice Using Forward Osmosis Membrane 

Process 

 
Khalid W. Hameed  

Biochemical Engineering Department- Al-Khwarizmi College of Engineering- University of 

Baghdad 

  

Abstract 

   Forward osmosis (FO) process was applied to concentrate the orange juice. FO 

relies on the driving force generating from osmotic pressure difference that result 

from concentration difference between the draw solution (DS)  and orange juice as 

feed solution (FS). This driving force makes the water to transport from orange juice 

across a semi-permeable membrane to the DS without any energy applied. Thermal 

and pressure-driven dewatering methods are widely used, but they are prohibitively 

energy intensive and hence, expensive. Effects of various operating conditions on flux 

have been investigated. Four types of salts were used in the DS, (NaCl, CaCl2, KCl, 

and MgSO4) as osmotic agent and the experiments were performed at the 

concentration of the salts in the DS ranged (3.5 – 20% by wt), the temperature of DS 

ranged    (20 – 50
o
C), and the flow rate of the FS and DS ranged (1 – 4 lit/min). It was 

observed that the optimum operating conditions are: concentration of salt = 20% by 

wt for CaCl2, temperature of DS = 50
o
C, and the flow rate of FS = 4 lit/min where at 

these conditions the maximum flux was obtained equal to 13.2 lit/m
2
.h or the total 

volume of the water transferred from the juice (during 3 hours and membrane area of 

0.0135 m
2
) was 0.535 lit. NaCl performed much higher efficiency as osmotic agent 

than the others salts up to the concentration of 15.2%, but after 15.2% the CaCl2 was 

the best. 

 

Key Words: Forward osmosis, reverse osmosis, fruit juice, osmotic pressure, draw 

solution. 

 

Introduction 

   Membrane separation processes have 

become one of the emerging 

technologies in the last few decades 

especially in the separation technology 

field. They offer a number of 

advantages over conventional 

separation methods in a wide variety of 

applications such as distillation and 

evaporation. Membrane processes can 

be easily scaled up due to their 

compact and modular design; they are 

able to transfer specific components 

selectively; they are energy efficient 

systems operating under moderate 

temperature conditions ensuring gentle 

product treatment [1]. 

   Osmosis is the transport of water 

across a selectively permeable 

membrane from a region of higher 

water chemical potential to a region of 

lower water chemical potential. It is 

driven by a difference in solute 

concentrations across the membrane 

Iraqi Journal of Chemical and 
Petroleum Engineering 

 

University of Baghdad 
College of Engineering 



Concentration of Orange Juice Using Forward Osmosis Membrane Process 

 

72                                    IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)          -Available online at: www.iasj.net 
 

that allows passage of water, but 

rejects most solute molecules or ions 

[2]. Water molecules will therefore 

move from one solution to another to 

achieve maximum mixing, i.e. 

equilibrium. Thermodynamically, the 

strength of this mixing tendency is 

measured by the solution’s “osmotic 

potential,” or “osmotic pressure.” The 

osmotic potential is high for 

concentrated solutions and low for 

dilute solutions, and is roughly 

proportional to the molar concentration 

of dissolved species. Osmotic pressure 

is the pressure that must be applied to a 

solution to prevent a net transfer of 

water into the solution across a semi-

permeable membrane [3].  

   By applying a pressure in excess of 

the osmotic pressure, pure water flows 

from the high solute concentration side 

through a membrane to the low solute 

concentration side and thus, the 

separation of water from the solution is 

achieved. This is the reverse of the 

normal osmosis process and termed as 

reverse osmosis (RO) [4, 5]. In 

wastewater treatment applications 

where the solvent is usually water and 

the solutes are the contaminants, the 

semi-permeable membrane allows the 

flux of water across the membrane but 

rejects contaminates. In such a system 

the wastewater, or feed, is passed on 

one side of the membrane and an 

osmotic agent (OA), such as salt water, 

is passed on the other. The OA can use 

any solute as long as it can produce an 

osmotic pressure that is higher than 

that of the feed and the solute used is 

well rejected by the membrane [6].  

Forward osmosis (FO) is emerging 

membrane separations technologies 

that have the potential to be innovative, 

sustainable, and affordable alternatives 

to reverse osmosis (RO) and 

electrodialysis reversal (EDR) because 

of its ability to utilize the green energy 

available in natural systems [7]. The 

term forward osmosis is used to refer 

to normal osmotic processes is that 

will occur on its own, without any 

form of external pressure or push. Our 

system adapts the FO theory and the 

advantages include:  

 Elimination of external pressure  

 Reduce cost by eliminating large 
pressure pumps and pressure 

exchanger systems  

 Pressure generated in draw solution 
can be utilized in place of external 

pressure  

 Supports the objective of small-
scale power generation  

 Availability of FO membranes that 
can be used to develop PRO 

situations [8]. 

   Compared to RO, FO systems and 

the principle of osmotic pressure have 

a wide range of applications in the 

areas of wastewater treatment and 

water purification systems; seawater 

desalination and brackish water 

processes; concentration of solutions 

of food products, pharmaceutical 

solutions and chemical streams; and 

power generation [9, 10, 11].  

   Traditionally, orange juice has been 

concentrated using a thermal process. 

Such a process results in a loss of 

flavor top notes, color degradation, and 

a cooked taste. The citrus industry 

compensates for the product 

degradation through essence recovery, 

careful process control and blending to 

produce a good quality concentrate 

which, although readily distinguishable 

from fresh juice, has received broad 

consumer acceptance. The membrane 

process was designed to produce a 

concentrate juice with fresh juice 

flavor and commercial levels of 

stability [12].   

   Eq. (1) shows the relationship 

between water flux across the 

membrane and both the hydrostatic and 

osmotic pressure differentials across 

the same membrane [13]. This 

equation is stated in the form most 

relevant to RO as follows: 



Khalid W. Hameed 

-Available online at: www.iasj.net                 IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)                             73 
 

Fw = AC (∆P - ∆π)                         …(1) 

 

Where: 

Fw = Total water flux across the 

membrane (lit/m
2
.h) 

AC = Membrane flux resistance 

constant (lit/m
2
.
 
h.kPa) 

∆P = Hydrostatic pressure (kPa) 

∆π = Opposing osmotic pressure 

potential (kPa) which is equal to the 

difference between osmotic pressure of 

the draw solution and the feed solution 

In FO, the hydrostatic pressure 

supplied is zero and the same 

governing equation can be rearranged 

to Eq. (2):  

 

Fw = AC ∆π                                    …(2) 

  

   As a result of Eq. (2) it can be seen 

that the membrane can be configured 

such that no hydrostatic pressure exists 

across the membrane and thus no 

pressure housing and/or support is 

required. This allows the membranes to 

operate in soft bags packed within 

water walls. 

In most cases some hydrostatic 

pressure is still present as a result of 

the act of supplying the membrane 

with a flow of liquid. This flow is 

required for both sides of the 

membrane and should be near to 

balanced (i.e. ΔP still zero across the 

membrane). In this situation the 

hydrostatic pressure could be in either 

the forward or opposing direction 

relative to the intended water flux 

direction, but in either case will be 

negligible in comparison to the 

osmotic pressures [14]. AC dependent 

on such membrane characteristics as 

membrane thickness, partition 

(sorption) coefficient of water into the 

membrane, and diffusivity of water 

within the polymer membrane phase 

[15]. 

   The aim of the present work is to 

concentrate the orange juice by low 

cost method and retain the juice with 

its properties compared with the other 

methods such as reverse osmosis (high 

pressure required) or evaporation 

(caused loss of some properties of the 

juice such as its vitamins, flavor, color 

degradation …etc). In this research 

Cellulose triacetate membrane was 

proposed for forward osmosis, fresh 

orange juice as feed solution (FS), and 

salt solution (sodium chloride, 

potassium chloride, calcium chloride, 

or magnesium sulfate) as draw solution 

(DS). The parameters studied were: 

concentration of salt in DS in the range 

of (3.5 – 20% by weight), temperature 

of DS in the range of (20 – 50
o
C), and 

volumetric flow rate of DS and FS in 

the range of (1 – 4 lit/min) were 

studied on the effect of flux of water 

from FS to DS.   

 

Experimental Work 

1. Materials 
Orange juice:  

   The orange juice (feed solution) was 

obtained from fresh natural orange of 

local market, then the juice was filtered 

using filter paper to remove suspended 

solids, fiber, coarse pulp and pieces of 

orange. 
Draw solution: 

   The concentrated solution on the 

permeate side of the membrane is the 

source of the driving force in the FO 

process. The draw solution was 

prepared by smelting one of the 

following salts in the distilled water: 

sodium chloride (NaCl), calcium 

chloride (CaCl2), potassium chloride 

(KCl), or magnesium sulfate (MgSO4). 

Pumps:  

   Two pumps were used. Each of 150-

720 gal/h, 11.4-54.6 lit/min. One used 

to the draw solution and the other used 

to the feed solution. 

Membrane:  

   Cellulose triacetate (CTA) sheet 

membrane (Hydration Technology Inc. 

Albany, OR) have been used in the 

forward osmosis (FO) process. 



Concentration of Orange Juice Using Forward Osmosis Membrane Process 

 

74                                    IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)          -Available online at: www.iasj.net 
 

Refractometer:  

   Digital Refractometer was used to 

measure the sucrose content in the 

orange juice. It is calibrated by 

depending on the literature given by 

Randle [16].  

Conductivity meter: 

   Digital conductivity meter was used 

to measure the conductivity of 

permeate solution. 

 

2. Experimental Procedure 
   The experiments were run on a 

bench-scale laboratory system. A 

schematic diagram is presented in Fig. 

(1). The separation cell of membrane 

unit was built of two rectangular 

channels with the dimensions 15 cm 

long×9 cm wide×2 cm deep (the area 

of membrane = 0.0135 m
2
) on both 

sides of the membrane. The volume of 

draw solution (DS) is 51 lit (in order to 

its osmotic pressure does not affected 

significantly with water transferred and 

then the change in flux with time will 

be small) and the volume of feed 

solution (FS) is 1 lit and  they were run 

in a closed loop. The FS flows on the 

active layer of the membrane. In order 

to increase the mass transport on both 

sides of the membrane, mesh spacers 

made of polypropylene were inserted 

within both channels; also these mesh 

support the membrane and protect it 

from deformation. The temperature of 

both solutions was controlled using 

heating coil holding thermostat, and 

the volumetric flow rate of both 

solutions was controlled using 

rotameter. The pressures have kept on 

the FS side about 1.1 bar and on the 

DS side about 1.05 bar using gauge 

pressures mounted on above the box 

which contain the membrane as shown 

in Fig. (1).  

 

 
1 Orange juice vessel 6 Draw solution vessel 
2 Valve 7 By-pass flow 
3 Pump 8 Recycle flow 
4 Rotameter 9 Heating coil with thermostat 
5 Box contained the membrane 10 Gauge Pressure 

Fig. 1, Schematic diagram of the laboratory scale forward osmosis membrane unit system 
 

   The time of experiment was three 

hours. Water flux (permeate) into the 

DS was measured by the elevation in 

the DS volume during a selected period 

of time and compare with the reduction 

in the FS volume for checking where 

the vessels of the DS and FS are 

graduated and calibrated accurately 

with volume.  

   Dividing the water transferred by the 

area of membrane per time gives the 

flux in (L/m
2
.h). After each 

experiment, FS return to its original 

volume by adding the distilled water 

4 

3 

8 

6 

8 

7 

2 
1 

5 

9 

10 



Khalid W. Hameed 

-Available online at: www.iasj.net                 IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)                             75 
 

instead of the water lost and then 

reused again for three another 

experiment, after that FS (orange juice) 

is eliminated and new juice is used. DS 

also is return to its original 

concentration by adding a suitable 

amount of salt and checking its 

concentration using conductivity 

meter.  

Also the fouled membrane is 

backwashed using salt solution in the 

juice circuit and fresh water in the DS 

circuit and operate for 15 min then 

washed for 30 min by circulating using 

RO water in each side.    

 

Results and Discussion 

1. Effect of Draw Solution 
Concentration 

   Fig. (2) shows the effect of draw 

solution (DS) concentration on the flux 

of water through the membrane for 

four types of salts (NaCl, CaCl2, KCl, 

and MgSO4). The experiments were 

conducted at the same conditions 

(temperature of feed and draw solution 

are 20
o
C, and volumetric flow rate of 

feed and draw solution are 1 lit/min). 

As shown in Fig. (2) the flux of water 

increases with increasing of salt 

concentration and the sodium chloride 

salt (NaCl) has the more osmotic 

pressure than the other salts up to 

15.2% by wt, after this concentration 

the calcium chloride salt (CaCl2) 

exhibits more osmotic pressure and 

then more flux than the other salts. 

Also magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) has 

less osmotic pressure than the other 

salts, where before concentration of 

7.4% gave negative flux (from draw 

solution to feed solution).  

   The high osmotic pressure is 

obtained when the osmotic agent is 

highly soluble in water and has low 

molecular weight [5], and since NaCl 

has lower molecular weight (58.5) and 

higher solubility (357 g/lit at 20
o
C) 

than the other salts [17] it gave more 

osmotic pressure and then more flux 

than the others salts. Nevertheless 

CaCl2 (its molecular weight = 111 and 

its maximum solubility at 20
o
C = 

294g/lit [17]) gave osmotic pressure 

greater than NaCl after concentration 

of 15.2%.  

   Based on Eq. (2), the increase in flux 

should be linear with the osmotic 

pressure difference. Fig. (2) however, 

shows a non-linear phenomenon, 

especially at higher driving forces. 

This phenomenon is attributed to 

internal concentration polarization, 

most likely due to microporosity at the 

membrane permeate side. 
 

 
Fig. 2, Effect of DS concentration on the flux 

of water at temp of FS and DS = 20
o
C, 

Flowrate of FS and DS = 1 lit/min 

 

2. Temperature Effect 
   Fig. (3) shows the effect of 

temperature of draw solution (DS) on 

the osmotic pressure difference 

between the FS and DS and then on the 

flux of water. The experiments of the 

Fig. (3) are achieved at the 

concentration of DS is 10% by wt, 

temperature of FS is 20
o
C, and flow 

rate of FS and DS are 1 lit/min. The 

results in Fig. (3) indicate that with 

increasing temperature of DS leads to 

increase the flux of water from FS to 

DS through membrane because of the 

viscosity decreases with increasing 

temperature which increases the 

diffusion rate of water through the 

membrane and thus, its water 

permeability coefficient and lead to 

Concentration wt%

F
lu

x
 (

li
t/

m
2
h
)

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

2 6 10 14 18 22

NaCl

CaCl 2

KCl

MgSO 4



Concentration of Orange Juice Using Forward Osmosis Membrane Process 

 

76                                    IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)          -Available online at: www.iasj.net 
 

increase of the osmotic pressure of the 

DS and then increase the flux of the 

water. An increased diffusion 

coefficient for the DS will increase the 

mass transfer coefficient, reducing the 

impact of the external concentration 

polarization (ECP) modulus. The effect 

is similar for the internal concentration 

polarization (ICP) modulus, where an 

increased diffusion coefficient reduces 

solute resistivity. However, since both 

the ECP and ICP moduli are 

exponential functions of the permeate 

water flux as well, the temperature 

effect on these phenomena will be 

lessened, as an increase in the water 

permeability coefficient of the 

membrane will increase flux.  

The viscosity of a solution is a measure 

of the fluid's resistance to flow or 

deformation [18]. Also the osmotic 

pressure of the solution increased with 

increasing temperature according to the 

Van’t Hoff equation [5, 19]:  
 

π = iRCT                                       …(3) 
 

Where:  

π = Osmotic pressure (kPa)    

i = dissociation factor (van't Hoff 

factor) 

R = gas constant (8.314 kJ/kmol.K) 

C = molar concentration (kmol/m
3
) 

T = absolute temperature (K)  

 

   For three salts (NaCl, CaCl2, and 

KCl) with increasing the temperature 

of DS gave slight increasing in water 

flux, while for MgSO4 salt with 

increasing the temperature of DS gave 

slight decreasing in water flux.   

Fig. (4) and (5) show the effect of 

concentration of NaCl and CaCl2 

respectively as osmotic agent (OA) on 

the flux of water through membrane at 

different temperatures. Again, by 

increasing the concentration of OA the 

flux of water increases and also 

increases with increasing the 

temperature of DS as shown in Fig. 

(3). From Fig. (3), (4), and (5) it can be 

seen that the temperature plays a minor 

role in osmosis driven processes 

compared with the concentration of the 

DS. 

 

 
Fig. 3, Effect of Temperature of DS on the flux 

of water at Concentration of salt in DS = 10%, 

flow rate of FS and DS = 1 lit/min and at 

temperature of FS = 20
o
C 

 

 
Fig. 4, Effect of concentration of NaCl on the 

flux of water at different temperature  of DS 

and at temp of feed = 20
o
C, flow rate of feed 

and DS = 1 lit/min 

 

 
Fig.5 Effect of concentration of CaCl2 on the 

flux of water at different temperature of  DS, 

temp of FS = 20
o
C, flow rate of feed and DS = 

1 lit/min 
 

Temperature of DS 
o
C

F
lu

x
, 

li
t/

m
2
h

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

NaCl

KCl

CaCl 2 

MgSO 4

Concentration wt%

F
lu

x
 (

li
t/
m

2
h
)

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

2 6 10 14 18 22

T =20
o
C

T = 30
o
C

T = 40
o
C

T = 50
o
C

Concentration wt%

F
lu

x
 (

li
t/

m
2
h
)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2 6 10 14 18 22

T = 20
o

C

T = 30
o

C

T = 40
o

C

T = 50
o

C



Khalid W. Hameed 

-Available online at: www.iasj.net                 IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)                             77 
 

3. Flow Rate Effect 
   Fig. (6) and (7) show the effect of 

flow rate of FS and DS on the flux of 

water respectively. Fig. (6) explains 

that the flux of water increases by 

increasing the flow rate of FS while 

from Fig. (7) the flux decreases by 

increasing the flow rate of DS for all 

four salts. Increasing the flow rate of 

FS prevents the concentration buildup 

in the solution at the vicinity of the 

membrane surface, thus reducing the 

accumulated solute on the surface of 

the membrane and lead to increase the 

water flux. This behavior contradicts 

the case of increasing the DS flow rate.  

   Fig. (6) and (7) illustrate that the 

flow rate has slight effect on the flux 

compare with the effect of 

concentration of the DS. 
 

 
Fig. 6, Effect of flow rate of FS on the flux of 

water at concentration of DS = 10% by wt, 

Flow rate of DS = 1 lit/min and temperatures 

of FS and DS = 20
o
C 

 

 
Fig. 7, Effect of flow rate of DS on the flux of 

water at concentration of DS = 10% by wt , 

flow rate of FS = 1 lit/min and temperature of 

FS and DS = 20
o
C 

4. Membrane Flux Resistance 
Constant 

   Fig. (8) shows the osmotic pressure 

against concentration of sucrose [20]. 

After calibration of refractometer by 

depending on the literature given by 

Randle [16] the sucrose content in the 

orange juice was measured where the 

refractive index was equaled to 1.3539 

that gives the sucrose content in the 

juice = 13.9% by wt [16], then from 

Fig. (8) the osmotic pressure of orange 

juice = 1180 kpa. 

Fig. (9) shows the osmotic pressure 

against concentration of NaCl solution 

[20]. At concentration of NaCl = 10% 

by wt, from Fig. (9) the osmotic 

pressure is evaluated to be 8700 kPa. 

From Fig. (3) or (4), at 10% NaCl by 

wt, Temp = 20
o
C for FS and DS , and 

flow rate  = 1 lit/min for FS and DS, 

The flux of water = 3.605 lit/m
2
h. 

 
The membrane flux resistance constant 

AC is calculated at 20
o
C from Eq. (2): 

 
Fw = AC ∆π                                                

 
3.605 = AC (8700 – 1180) 

 
→ AC = 4.8×10

-4
 lit/m

2
h.kPa   

 

 
Fig. 8, Osmotic pressure of the sucrose against 

concentration 

 

Flow rate of FS, Lit/min 

F
lu

x
, 

lit
/m

2
h

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

NaCl

CaCl 2 

KCl 

MgSO 4

Flow rate of DS lit/min

F
lu

x
 l
it
/m

2
h

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

NaCl

CaCl 2 

KCl

MgSO 4

%sucrose by wt

O
s
m

o
ti
c
 p

re
s
s
u
re

, 
k
P

a

200

600

1000

1400

1800

2200

2 6 10 14 18 22 26



Concentration of Orange Juice Using Forward Osmosis Membrane Process 

 

78                                    IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)          -Available online at: www.iasj.net 
 

 
Fig. 9, Osmotic pressure of the Sodium 

chloride against concentration 

 

Conclusion 

   The obtained results in this research 

demonstrate the applying of forward 

osmosis (FO) process for the 

concentration of orange juice. The 

draw solution concentration is a 

serious parameter that influences water 

flux in the FO process where it has the 

biggest effect on the water flux 

compared with the others variables. 

Temperature and flow rate were found 

to have a minor effect on the permeate 

water flux, where as increased the 

temperature leads to little increase in 

water flux for salts (NaCl, CaCl2, and 

KCl) and little decrease in water flux 

for MgSO4 salt. Also increasing of 

flow rate of FS or DS leads to little 

change in the flux, so it can be execute 

the FO membrane process at ambient 

temperature and with small scale 

pump. NaCl salt gave higher osmotic 

pressure up to concentration of 15.2% 

by wt than the other salts (KCl, CaCl2, 

MgSO4) that used in the draw solution, 

but CaCl2 gave higher osmotic 

pressure than NaCl when the 

concentration exceed 15.2%.  

   This technology can be applied for 

other fruit juices. 
 

Nomenclature 

FS                Feed solution  

DS               Draw solution 

FO               Forward osmosis 

RO               Reverse Osmosis  

DS            Draw solution 

OA           Osmotic agent      

EDR         Electrodialysis reversal  

AC      Membrane flux resistance 

constant (lit/m
2
.
 
h.kPa) 

C              Molar concentration 

(kmol/m
3
) 

Fw            Total water flux across the 

membrane (lit/m
2
.h) 

i               Dissociation factor (van't 

Hoff factor) 

R             Gas constant (8.314 

kJ/kmol.K) 

T             Absolute temperature (K)  

∆P           Hydrostatic pressure (kPa) 

π              Osmotic pressure (kPa) 

 

References 

1- Pelin Onsekizoglu, 2011, 
“Membrane Distillation: Principle, 

Advances, Limitation and Future 

Prospects in Food Industry”, Trakya 

University Department of Food 

Engineering, Edirne Turkey, 

www.intechopen.com , p.1. 

2- George Moise, Vasile Jascanu, 
2008, “Forward Osmosis: 

Theoretical Background”, 

University of Craiova, P.2. 

3- Andy Senecal, Owen Rehrauer, 
Jack Herron, Danielle Anderson, 

Nicole Favreau , and Keith Lampi, 

2003, “Self Hydrating Ration”, 

Paper, held in Boston, United 

States, 10-11 December  and 

published in RTO-MP-HFM-086, 

P.3. 

4- Lawrence K. Wang, Jiaping Paul 
Chen, Yung-Tse Hung, Nazih K. 

Shammas, 2011, “Handbook of 

Environmental Engineering, 

Membrane and Desalination 

Technology Volume 13” © Springer 

Science and Business Media, LLC, 

p.7. 

5- Anthony Jacob, 2006, “A critical 
review of the history, development 

and future prospects for Forward 

Osmosis”, Elsevier 28th November, 

P. 1-3. 

Concentration of NaCl% by wt

O
s
m

o
ti
c
 p

re
s
s
u

re
, 

k
P

a
 

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

0 4 8 12 16 20

http://www.intechopen.com/


Khalid W. Hameed 

-Available online at: www.iasj.net                 IJCPE Vol.14 No.4 (December 2013)                             79 
 

6- Michael T. Flynn, Monica Soler, 
Sara Shull, James Broyan, Joe 

Chambliss, A. Scott Howe, Sherwin 

Gormly, Mona Hammoudeh, Hali 

Shaw, and Kevin Howard,  2012, 

“Forward Osmosis Cargo Transfer 

Bag” , 42nd International 

Conference on Environmental 

Systems 15 - 19 July,  San Diego, 

California. P.3. 

7- Steven J. Duranceau, 2012, 
“Emergence of Forward Osmosis 

and Pressure-Retarded Osmotic 

Processes for Drinking Water 

Treatment” , Florida Water 

Resources Journal, July, P.1  

8- Olawoyin Richard,  York Jason, 
Madu Christian, Li Hang, Ahn 

Chong Hyun, Enab Khalid, 2011, 

“Optimization of Well Stimulation 

Fluids in the Marcellus Shale Gas 

Development Using Integrated 

Technologies” Final Report, P.5-8 

9- Youn-Kook Kim and Soo-Young 
Lee, 2008, “Forward Osmosis 

Water Treatment” TechUpdate, 

December, P.1. 

10- George Moise, Vasile Jascanu, 
2008, “Forward Osmosis: Recent 

Developments”, University of 

Craiova, p.1 

11- Ngai Yin Yip, Alberto Tiraferri, 
William A. Phillip, Jessica D. 

Schiffman, and Menachem 

Elimelech, 2010, “High 

performance Thin-Film Composite 

Forward Osmosis Membrane”, 

Environmental and Science 

Technology, Vol. 44, No. 10, 3812-

3818. 

 

 

12- Stephen Cross, 1989, 
“Membrane Concentration of 

Orange Juice”, Proc. Fla. Hort. Soc. 

102: 146-152. 

13- Corbitt, R., 1990, “Standard 
Handbook of Environmental 

Engineering”, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

NY, pp.5.147-5.148. 

14- Sherwin Gormly, Michael Flynn, 
and Alex Polonsky, 2010, 

“Membrane Based Habitat Wall 

Architectures for Life Support and 

Evolving Structures” Copyright © 

by the American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics, P.4. 

15- Jeffrey R. McCutcheon, Robert 
L. McGinnisb, Menachem 

Elimelech, 2005, “A novel 

ammonia-carbon dioxide forward 

(direct) osmosis desalination 

process”, Elsevier Desalination 174, 

1–11. 

16- Randle A. Macon, 2011, 
Technical Procedure Manual, 2000, 

“Brix Measurement”, August, P.4-7. 

17- Sigma-Aldrich 2000. 
18- Robert H. Perry, Don W. Green, 

1999, Perry’s Chemical Engineering 

Handbook, McGraw Hill, Vol.2, 

P.276. 

19- Hoffman A.M., 2008, Ms.C. 
Thesis “Desing Guidelines for a 

Reverse Osmosis Desalination 

Plant”, P. 41. 

20- Thomas T. Cochrane and 
Thomas A. Cochrane, 2005, 

“Osmotic Potential Properties of 

Solutes Common in the Soil-Plant 

Solution Continuum” Copyright © 

by Lippincott Williams, Inc. Printed 

in USA June, Vol.170, No.6, P. 3-5.