membranes

Article
Using the Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) and
ε-NTU Methods to Analyze Heat and Mass Transfer in Direct
Contact Membrane Distillation
Mohammed A. Almeshaal 1 and Karim Choubani 1,2, *

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University, Riyadh 11432, Saudi Arabia
2 Research Unit: Mechanical Modeling, Energy & Materials (M2 EM), UR17ES47, National School of Engineers
of Gabes (ENIG), Avenue of Omar Ib-Elkhattab, Zrig 6023, Gabes, Tunisia
* Correspondence: kElChobani@[Link]

Abstract: In direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD), heat and mass transfers occur through
the porous membrane. Any model developed for the DCMD process should therefore be able to
describe the mass transport mechanism through the membrane, the temperature and concentration
effects on the surface of the membrane, the permeate flux, and the selectivity of the membrane. In
the present study, we developed a predictive mathematical model based on a counter flow heat
exchanger analogy for the DCMD process. Two methods were used to analyze the water permeate
flux across one hydrophobic membrane layer, namely the log mean temperature difference (LMTD)
and the effectiveness-NTU methods. The set of equations was derived in a manner analogous to that
employed for heat exchanger systems. The obtained results showed that the permeate flux increases
by a factor of approximately 220% when increasing the log mean temperature difference by a factor of
80% or increasing the number of transfer units by a factor of 3%. A good level of agreement between
this theoretical model and the experimental data at various feed temperatures confirmed that the
Citation: Almeshaal, M.A.; model accurately predicts the permeate flux values for the DCMD process.
Choubani, K. Using the Log Mean
Temperature Difference (LMTD) and Keywords: direct contact membrane distillation; heat exchanger; log mean temperature difference;
ε-NTU Methods to Analyze Heat effectiveness-NTU method; flux prediction
and Mass Transfer in Direct Contact
Membrane Distillation. Membranes
2023, 13, 588. [Link]
10.3390/membranes13060588
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Emmanuel A scarcity of potable water presents a serious problem in many countries. Due to
Kweinor Tetteh, Sudesh Rathilal, the ample water resources in seas and oceans, desalination is becoming an increasingly
Babatunde Femi Bakare and Martha
attractive solution. Studies have demonstrated the potential of membrane distillation for
Noro Chollom
direct water desalination, and the simplest process for membrane distillation is direct
Received: 19 March 2023 contact membrane distillation.
Revised: 29 May 2023 In direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD), a difference in partial pressure
Accepted: 30 May 2023 through a membrane is generated through a temperature difference between feeds of hot
Published: 7 June 2023 and cold liquids on both sides of the hydrophobic membrane. The volatile molecules
evaporate at the liquid/steam transition, pass through the membrane and condense at the
steam/liquid transition.
Mohsen et al. [1] used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate the direct
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
contact membrane distillation (DCMD) process. They showed that the pressure gradient
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of water vapor is increased when cold fluid flows in the permeate channel because the
This article is an open access article
temperature increases along the membrane contactor. Janajreh et al. [2], meanwhile, devel-
distributed under the terms and
oped a numerical model for a DCMD system, with them considering numerous parameters
conditions of the Creative Commons
in an attempt to achieve an optimal condition. The results show that when mass flux is
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
[Link]/licenses/by/
the objective, one should use a higher temperature, thicker membrane, a relatively lower
4.0/).
conductivity, and a higher velocity in counter and converging flow design.

Membranes 2023, 13, 588. [Link] [Link]

Membranes 2023, 13, 588 2 of 15

Swaminathan et al. [3] developed a simplified numerical model for membrane distilla-
tion energy-efficiency modules based on the heat exchanger analogy. It was found that, over
a wide range of operating conditions, the results of the simplified heat exchanger model
were within 11% of the results from more detailed simulations. Karam et al. [4] presented
a predictive dynamic model for direct contact membrane distillation and discussed the
results under numerous dynamic parameters, with them showing that the temperature
distribution profiles along the length of the module were nonlinear and that the behavior
of the temperature polarization coefficient was asymptotic at high inlet velocities.
A. Khalifa et al. [5] used an analytical model based on heat and mass transfer equations
to predict the system performance at different parameters. They showed that the permeate
flux increases with increasing feed temperature, permeate flow rate, feed flow rate, and pore
size, and it decreases along with increasing feed concentration and permeate temperature.
Park et al. [6] developed a two-dimensional CFD model to investigate the performance of a
direct contact membrane distillation system under different conditions. Their numerical
simulation showed that the permeate flux increased along with the inlet feed temperature,
with it also verifying that the feed temperature had a greater impact on the water flux than
the permeate temperature.
Soukane et al. [7] implemented a three-dimensional CFD model to predict heat and
mass transfer in a DCMD module, with their simulation results showing that momentum
and heat transport strongly affected the distribution of salinity and permeate fluxes over
the membrane surface, while the temperature and concentration polarization follows the
flow pattern distribution. In addition, at low operating temperatures, dead zones tend to
accumulate salt. Next, Lee et al. [8] used an experimentally validated model to simulate
the effect of convection heat and mass transfer on the MD performance parameters. They
investigated the mean permeate flux, temperature polarization coefficient, and specific
energy consumption in a direct contact membrane distillation process. Their results showed
that, with low mass transfer coefficients, the temperature polarization coefficient is high,
while the effect of the convection heat transfer coefficient on the process performance was
not significant. Moreover, a rise in the mass transfer coefficient increased the effect of the
convection heat transfer coefficient on water production.
Long et al. [9] proposed a modified model for characterizing the heat and mass transfer
in the DCMD process in order to evaluate the effect of heat recovery, the gain output ratio,
and the mass recovery rate on the performance of a DCMD system. The obtained results
show that the gain output ratio reaches a maximum value for the optimal mass flow
rate, while the mass recovery rate reaches a maximum at higher flow rates where the
gain output ratio decreases. Perfilov et al. [10] developed a predictive model for DCMD
based on describing the momentum, mass, and heat balances through systems of ordinary
differential, partial differential, and algebraic equations. The obtained results effectively
estimated the effects of the operating conditions and physical membrane properties on the
performance of DCMD, such as the velocity, concentration, and temperature distributions
in the DCMD units.
Kuang et al. [11] developed a numerical simulation of the DCMD process based
on computational fluid dynamics, with their results revealing that making a structural
modification by employing baffles can enhance the temperature polarization phenomenon
and decrease the concentration polarization phenomenon, thus increasing the water flux
production. Lou et al. [12] developed and experimentally validated a two-dimensional CFD
code to simulate heat and mass transport in a DCMD system, with this showing that vapor
flux, temperature, and concentration vary significantly in the downstream direction, such
that they could not be accurately predicted by common Nusselt and Sherwood correlations.
Moreover, temperature polarization considerably decreases with the inlet flow rate, whereas
concentration polarization decreases only slightly.
Kim et al. [13] proposed a mathematical model that was confirmed through experi-
mental measurements for predicting membrane tortuosity based on measured porosity to
calculate the operational parameters in DCMD systems, particularly for water flux produc-
 sults showed that although unsteady vortex structures are able to mix
ization layers with the bulk, they are unable to mix the concentration
spacers often increase the permeate flux at the expense of greater mine
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 3 of 15
Lim et al. [15] used a lab-scale DCMD system to investigate the e
concentration of organic and inorganic contents in feed bulk on wettin
Their results
tion. It was foundshow
that thethat a saltinconcentration
differences water flux predictedrise inproposed
by the the added solution i
tortuosity
model increased considerably as the width and length of the membrane were increased.
brane wetting. Moreover, salts could pass through wetted pores and fo
Lou et al. [14], meanwhile, developed the CFD code to simulate unsteady two-dimensional
on
heatthe
and distillate
mass transportside of thesystems
in DCMD membrane. Noamani
with cylindrical [Link]
[Link]
[16] showed
developed
that was based on heat and mass transfer and simulated bylayers
that although unsteady vortex structures are able to mix temperature polarization the ε-NT
with the bulk, they are unable to mix the concentration layers. Moreover, spacers often
tained results
increase the permeateshowed
flux at thethat theof feed
expense greatertemperature
mineral scaling. and physical membr
were Limthe most
et al. influential
[15] used a lab-scale parameters
DCMD system to oninvestigate
water production and energ
the effect of varying
the concentration of organic and inorganic contents in feed bulk on wetting membrane
DCMD system. Moreover, the developed model was also used to deter
pores. Their results show that a salt concentration rise in the added solution increased
conditions
the membrane for achieving
wetting. Moreover,greater performance
salts could in terms
pass through wetted pores of
andpermeate
form a flu
layer of scale on the distillate side of the membrane. Noamani et al. [16] developed a
ciency.
theoretical model that was based on heat and mass transfer and simulated by the ε-NTU
method. This
The present study
obtained results was that
showed inspired
the feed by the logand
temperature mean temperature
physical membrane diffe
characteristics
the were the most influential
effectiveness-NTU methods, parameters on water production
so a theoretical modeland was energy
develope
efficiency in the DCMD system. Moreover, the developed model was also used to determine
and mass conditions
the optimum transferfor analysis
achievingof the performance
greater DCMD [Link] terms ofThe developed
permeate flux and mod
analyze the performance of the process in terms of permeate flux.
energy efficiency.
This present study was inspired by the log mean temperature difference (LMTD) and
the effectiveness-NTU methods, so a theoretical model was developed based on a heat
2.
andModeling
mass transferand Configuration
analysis Description
of the DCMD process. The developed model was also used to
analyze the performance of the process in terms of permeate flux.
For the current modeling, the system is defined in Figure 1. Thi
2. Modeling
water and Configuration
channel Description
and a cold-water channel separated by a porous hydro
For the current modeling, the system is defined in Figure 1. This consists of a hot-water
material. The hot-water temperature drops over the feed side to the
channel and a cold-water channel separated by a porous hydrophobic membrane material.
temperature, while drops
The hot-water temperature the over
cold-water temperature
the feed side to the membranerises
surfaceacross the cold
temperature,
while the
brane cold-water
surface temperature rises
temperature as across the coldcondenses
the vapor layer to the membrane
into the surface
fresh water
temperature as the vapor condenses into the fresh water. The driving force is therefore the
is therefore
vapor the vapor
pressure difference pressure
between difference
the hot and between
cold membrane [Link] hot and cold me

Figure 1. Permeate
Figure flux across
1. Permeate fluxa single-layer
across a hydrophobic membrane
single-layer in the DCMD
hydrophobic process.
membrane in the D

In an analysis of the DCMD process for water desalination, it is

bine all the various thermal resistances to heat flow from hot water int
single resistance R and express the rate of heat transfer between the tw

Q = U. A. ∆T
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 4 of 15

In an analysis of the DCMD process for water desalination, it is convenient to combine

all the various thermal resistances to heat flow from hot water into cold water into a single
resistance R and express the rate of heat transfer between the two fluids as:

Qtot = U.A.∆T (1)

U = 1/(1/hh + δ/Km + 1/hc ) (2)

According to the first law of thermodynamics, we have:
.
Qtot = mc Cpc (Tc,out − Tc,in ) (3)
.
Qtot = mh Cph (Th,in − Th,out ) (4)
Next, we define the heat capacity rate for the hot- and cold-water flows as:
.
Cc = mc Cpc (5)
.
Ch = mh Cph (6)
With the definition of the heat capacity rate given above, Equations (3) and (4) can
also be expressed as:
Qtot = Cc (Tc,out − Tc,in ) (7)

Qtot = Ch (Th,in − Th,out ) (8)

2.1. The Heat Transfer Model

2.1.1. The Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) Method
In the DCMD process, the temperature difference between the hot and cold water
varies along the membrane, so it is convenient to use a mean temperature difference ∆Tlm
in the equation:
Qtot = U.A.∆Tlm (9)
In order to develop a formula for the equivalent average temperature difference
between the hot and cold water, we consider the counter flow configuration:

∆T1 − ∆T2
∆Tlm = (10)
∆T1
 
ln ∆T 2

This difference, called the log mean temperature difference, is a form of average
temperature difference that is suitable for use in the analysis of heat exchangers. Here, ∆T1
and ∆T2 represent the temperature difference between the hot and cold water.
In the case of counter flow:

∆T1 = Th,in − Tc,out (11)

∆T2 = Th,out − Tc,in (12)

The LMTD method is easy to use in the DCMD process analysis when the inlet and outlet
temperatures of the hot and cold fluids are known or can be determined from the energy
balance. Once ∆Tlm , the mass flow rates, and the overall heat-transfer coefficient are available,
the heat transfer surface area of the membrane can be determined from Equation (9).
When the mass flow rates and inlet and outlet temperatures of the hot and cold fluids
are specified, the LMTD method is very suitable for determining the size of the membrane
needed to realize prescribed outlet temperatures.
In this study, we applied this method to calculate the outlet temperatures of hot
and cold fluids and the heat transfer rate for prescribed fluid mass flow rates and inlet
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 5 of 15

temperatures when the size and the type of the membrane were specified. The heat transfer
surface area A of the membrane is known in this case; however, the outlet temperatures
are not, so the objective here was to determine the heat transfer performance of a specified
membrane and thus determine whether that membrane will perform appropriately.

2.1.2. The Effectiveness-NTU Method

The LMTD method could also be used for the alternative problem of determining
the performance of the DCMD process, but this procedure would require monotonous
iterations, making it impractical. In an attempt to eliminate such an iteration from the
solution of this problem, and thereby simplify the analysis, the effectiveness-NTU (ε-NTU)
method was applied.
This method is based on the heat transfer effectiveness (ε), which is a dimensionless
parameter, defined as follows:

Qtot Actual heat transfer rate

ε= = (13)
Qmax Maximum possible heat transfer rate

From the energy balance on the hot and cold fluids, the actual heat transfer rate can be
expressed as:
Qtot = Cc (Tc,out − Tc,in ) = Ch (Th,in − Th,out ) (14)
To determine the maximum possible heat transfer rate, we first posit that the maximum
temperature difference as the difference between the inlet temperatures of the hot and
cold water:
∆Tmax = Th,in − Tc,in (15)
When Cc 6= Ch , which is usually the case, the water with the lower heat capacity
rate will experience a larger temperature change, so it will be the first to reach a maximum
temperature, at which point any heat transfer will come to a halt. Thus, the maximum
possible heat transfer rate is:

Qmax = Cmin (Th,in − Tc,in ) (16)

. .
where Cmin is the least of Cc = mc Cpc and Ch = mh Cph .
Determining Qmax requires the inlet temperature of the hot and cold water and their
mass flow rates to be available, and fortunately, these are usually specified. Thus, once
the effectiveness of the membrane is known, the actual heat transfer rate Qtot can be
determined as:
Qtot = εQmax = εCmin (Th,in − Tc,in ) (17)
The effectiveness therefore enables us to determine the heat transfer rate without
knowing the outlet temperatures of the water flows.
Effectiveness relations typically involve the dimensionless group CUA
min
. This quantity
is called the number of transfer units (NTU), which is expressed as:

UA
NTU = (18)
Cmin

where A is the heat transfer surface area and U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, which
is defined as:
1
U= 1 δ 1
(19)
h + Km + hc
h

The value of NTU is a measure of the heat transfer surface area A. In heat analysis, it
is also convenient to use another dimensionless quantity called the capacity ratio C, which
is defined as:
C
C = min (20)
Cmax
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 6 of 15

It can be shown that the effectiveness is a function of the number of transfer units
(NTU) and the capacity ratio C:

ε = function (NTU, C) (21)

An extensive range of effectiveness charts and relations are available in the literature.
During a phase-change process, all effectiveness relations reduce to [17]:

ε = εmax = 1 − exp(−NTU) (22)

2.2. Mass Transfer Model

2.2.1. Relevant Quantities and Relations Involved in Mass Transfer Modeling
The mass flux Jm depends on the diffusion coefficient Bm as well as on the difference
in partial vapor pressure between the hot and cold water on both sides of the membrane
(Pmh − Pmc ). It is given by the following equation:

Jm = Bm (Pmh − Pmc ) (23)

For pure water, Pmh , Pmc are determined by Antoine’s equation, which relates these
pressures to the temperatures of the membrane surfaces as follows:
 
3816.44
Pmh = exp (23.1964) − (24)
Tmh − 46.13
 
3816.44
Pmc = exp (23.1964) − (25)
Tmc − 46.13
where Tmh and Tmc are the average membrane surface temperature on the hot-water side
and the cold-water side, respectively. Tmh and Tmc are given by the following equations:

Qtot
Tmh = Th,in − (26)
hh

Qtot
Tmc = Tc,in + (27)
hc
The convective heat transfer coefficient hi is given by the following equation:

Nu × Ki
hi = (28)
dh,i

where i = h (hot) or c (cold).

The Nusselt number is given as a function of the Prandtl number and the Reynolds
number (Table 1), where the Prandtl number Pr is given as follows:

µi .Cp,i
Pr = (29)
Ki

While the Reynolds number is defined as follows:

ρ.vi .dh,i
Re = (30)
µi
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 7 of 15

Table 1. Numerical correlations used to calculate the Nusselt number.

Correlations Flow Regime References

 1/3
Nu = 1.86 [Link]
(31) Laminar [18]
L
 dh 
6dh 0.8 1/3 Turbulent [19]
Nu = 0.023 1 + L Re Pr (32)

2.2.2. Diffusion Coefficient of the Membrane (Bm )

Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the combined Knudsen-molecular
diffusion is the most efficient approach that best reflects reality, so we adopted this mode
of diffusion for our study [20]. Under this approach, the coefficient Bm is given by the
following expression:
" r # −1
3.τ.δ π.[Link] τ.δ.Pa .[Link]
Bm = + (33)
ε 0 .dp [Link] ε 0 .[Link]

where Tmav = Tmh +2 Tmc is the absolute mean temperature in the pores.
The diffusivity of water vapors (P.D) through the static air in the membrane is calcu-
lated using the following expression [16]:

P.D = 1.895 × 10−5 × T2.072

mav (34)

3. Numerical Simulation
To predict the permeate flux production, some code was established and implemented
in MATLAB. An iterative approach was carried out by simultaneously solving the heat
and mass transfer equations to calculate the surface temperatures of the membrane before
deducing the permeate flux.
Initially, the temperatures of the hot and cold surfaces of the membrane were estimated
to be equal to the inlet temperatures of the hot and cold water (i.e., Tmh0 = Th,in0 and
Tmc0 = Tc,in0 ). These temperature values were used to calculate the vapor pressures Pmh
and Pmc and then estimate the permeate flow Jm . The (Tmh ) value was then decreased by
Qtot Qtot
hh , while the (Tmc ) value was increased by hc . The new values of Tmh and Tmc were then
used to estimate a new value for the permeate flux Jm . The above procedures were repeated
until the maximum difference between two consecutive values for the temperatures Tmh
and Tmc was within an error margin of 0.1%. The flowchart in Figure 2 depicts the multistep
procedure that was adopted to predict the permeate flux:
Membranes 2023,13,
Membranes2023, 12,588
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of1516

[Link]
Figure Flowchartfor
forthe
thecalculation
calculationprocess.
process.

[Link]
ResultsandandDiscussion
Discussion
In
In this work,the
this work, theinfluences
influencesofofthe
thefeed
feedsolutions’
solutions’temperature
temperatureand
andthe
themembrane
membrane
characteristics on the permeate flux for a pure water solution were simulated
characteristics on the permeate flux for a pure water solution were simulated and analyzed
and ana-
using
lyzedthe LMTD
using and ε −and
the LMTD NTUε−methods.
NTU methods.
4.1. Model Validation
4.1. Model Validation
In this section, we first validate the predictions of the developed mathematical model
In this section, we first validate the predictions of the developed mathematical model
against the experimental data obtained by Andrjesdóttir et al. [21]. In our code, we used
the samethe
against experimental
membrane data obtained
properties by Andrjesdóttir
and geometrical constantsetas
[Link]óttir
[21]. In our code,
et [Link] used
[21] in
the same
their membrane
experiments properties
(Table 2). and geometrical constants as Andrjesdóttir et al. [21] in
theirThis
experiments
validation(Table 2). was performed for feed water temperatures varying from
procedure
45 C to 65 C, a constant permeate water temperature equal to 20 ◦ C, a hot-water flow of
◦ ◦

12 L/min., and a cold-water flow of 4 L/min. Figure 3 shows the corresponding goodness
of fit between the experimental results (the black points) of Andrjesdottir et al. [21] and
our theoretical results using the LMTD method (the red points) and the ε − NTU method
(the blue line). The relative error between the experimental and theoretical results is within
4%, with the results of the ε − NTU method being closer to the experimental results. From
 Table 2. Membrane characteristics and geometrical constants used in the validation process
[21,22].

Values Used in Both Our Code and Values Used in Both Our Code and
Symbols
the Work of Andrjesdóttir et al. [21] the Work of Cath et al. [22]
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 Δ 160 μm 175 μm 9 of 15
ε 0.88 0.7
K 0.029 W/mK 0.029 W/mK
K 0.259 W/mK 0.259 W/mK
Figure 3, we can see that a 20 ◦ C rise in the feed temperature leads to a 70% increase in the
d 0.2 μm 0.45 μm
vapor flux.
A 11.7 × 10 m 6 × 10 m
d 5.2 × 10 m 2.4 × 10 m
Table 2. Membrane characteristics and geometrical constants used in the validation process [21,22].

This validationValues
procedure was
Used in performed
Both Our Codefor andfeed water temperatures
Values Used in Bothvarying
Our Code from
45 °CSymbols
to 65 °C, a constant permeate
the Work water temperature
of Andrjesdóttir et al. [21] equal
andtothe20Work
°C, aofhot-water
Cath et [Link]
[22] of
12 L / min.,
∆ and a cold-water flow160 of µm
4 L / min. Figure 3 shows the corresponding
175 µm goodness
of fit between
ε0 the experimental results
0.88 (the black points) of Andrjesdottir0.7 et al. [21] and
our theoretical
Kg results using the LMTD
0.029 W/mK method (the red points) and ε − NTU method
theW/mK
0.029
KP line). The relative error
(the blue 0.259 W/mK
between the experimental and 0.259 W/mK results is
theoretical
d 0.2
within 4%, with the results of the ε −
p µm NTU method being closer to the −µm 0.45 experimental re-
A 11.7 × 10−3 m2 6 × 10 4 m2
sults. From Figure 3, we can see that−a3 20 °C rise in the feed temperature leads to a 70%
d 5.2 × 10 m 2.4 × 10−3 m
increase hin the vapor flux.

Figure 3.
Figure Results for
3. Results for the
the validation
validation of
of the
the model
model with
with Andrjesdóttir
Andrjesdóttir et
et al. [21].
al [21].

To support our developed code, the predicted permeate flux was validated against
To support our developed code, the predicted permeate flux was validated against
the experimental work of Cath et al. [22]. This validation was performed for feed water
the experimental work of Cath◦ et al. [22]. This validation was performed for feed water
temperatures varying from 30 C to 60 ◦ C, a constant permeate water temperature equal
temperatures varying from 30 °C to 60 °C, a constant permeate water temperature equal
to 20 ◦ C, and feed and permeate velocities equal to 1.75 m/s. Figure 4, which depicts the
to 20 °C, and feed and permeate velocities equal to 1.75 m/s. Figure 4, which depicts the
effects of increasing the feed temperature, shows that there is good agreement between the
effects of increasing the feed temperature, shows that there is good agreement between
model predictions and experimental results with a relative error of less than 5%.
the model predictions and experimental results with a relative error of less than 5%.
4.2. Effect of Log Mean Temperature on the Permeate Flux
Figure 5 illustrates the effect of the log mean temperature ∆Tlm on the DCMD flux
for a variable membrane porosity and constant permeate temperature Tc,in and membrane
thickness δ. Increasing ∆Tlm enhances the permeate flux significantly. This can be attributed
to an increase in the feed-side membrane surface temperature (Th,in ), which in turn increases
the driving force and partial vapor pressure gradient. Our results show that, with constant
membrane porosity, an 80% increase in ∆Tlm increases the permeate flux by approximately
222%. Increasing the membrane porosity, meanwhile, increases the permeability of the
membrane, decreases the heat loss effect through conduction, and elevates the permeate
flux [23]. The reason behind lower heat loss is the presence of air or water vapor in the
pores. Therefore, as shown in Figure 5, increasing the membrane porosity from 0.85 to
0.95 µm increased the permeate flux by 52%, with it going from 51.5 to 78.3 kg/m2 h (for
the highest value of ∆Tlm ).
Membranes 2023,
Membranes 2023, 13,
12, 588
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10of 16
of 15

Figure 4. Results for the validation of the model with Cath et al. [22].

4.2. Effect of Log Mean Temperature on the Permeate Flux

Figure 5 illustrates the effect of the log mean temperature ∆T on the DCMD flux
for a variable membrane porosity and constant permeate temperature Tc,in and membrane
thickness δ. Increasing ∆T enhances the permeate flux significantly. This can be at-
tributed to an increase in the feed-side membrane surface temperature (Th,in), which in
turn increases the driving force and partial vapor pressure gradient. Our results show
that, with constant membrane porosity, an 80% increase in ∆T increases the permeate
flux by approximately 222%. Increasing the membrane porosity, meanwhile, increases the
permeability of the membrane, decreases the heat loss effect through conduction, and el-
evates the permeate flux [23]. The reason behind lower heat loss is the presence of air or
water vapor in the pores. Therefore, as shown in Figure 5, increasing the membrane po-
rosity from 0.85 to 0.95 μm increased the permeate flux by 52%, with it going from 51.5 to
Figure
Figure 4.
78.3 kg/m Results for
2 h (for
4. Results thehighest
the
for the validation of
of the
value
validation the ∆T ).with
of model
model with Cath
Cath et
et al.
al. [22].
[22].

4.2. Effect of Log Mean Temperature on the Permeate Flux

80 Tc = 20°C; δ = 140μm
Figure 5 illustrates the effect of the log mean temperature ∆T on the DCMD flux
ε0 = 0.85
for a70variable membrane porosity and constant permeate temperature Tc,in and membrane
Permeate flux (kg/[Link])

ε0 = 0.9 ∆T enhances the permeate flux significantly. This can be at-

thickness δ. Increasing
60
tributed to an εincrease in the feed-side membrane surface temperature (Th,in), which in
0 = 0.95
turn increases the driving force and partial vapor pressure gradient. Our results show
that,50with constant membrane porosity, an 80% increase in ∆T increases the permeate
flux by approximately 222%. Increasing the membrane porosity, meanwhile, increases the
40
permeability of the membrane, decreases the heat loss effect through conduction, and el-
evates
30
the permeate flux [23]. The reason behind lower heat loss is the presence of air or
water vapor in the pores. Therefore, as shown in Figure 5, increasing the membrane po-
rosity
20 from 0.85 to 0.95 μm increased the permeate flux by 52%, with it going from 51.5 to
78.3 kg/m2 h (for the highest value of ∆T ).
10
20 25 30 35 40 45
80 Tc = 20°C; δ = 140μm
log mean temperature difference ΔTlm(°C)
ε0 = 0.85
70
Permeate flux (kg/[Link])

Figure 5. Effect of the

the log
log mean
mean temperature
temperature difference
difference on the permeate flux for different membrane
porosities. ε0 = 0.9
porosities.
60
ε0 = 0.95
Figure 6 illustrates the effect of varying ∆Tlm on the DCMD flux for variable membrane
50
thicknesses with a constant permeate temperature Tc,in and membrane porosity ε. The
results show that, with a constant membrane thickness, an 80% increase in ∆Tlm leads to an
40
increase in the permeate flux of approximately 220%. Increasing the membrane thickness,
meanwhile,
30 leads to greater resistance against the mass and heat transfer, resulting in a
higher membrane surface temperature on the feed side (Tmhin ) and a lower total mass trans-
fer coefficient.
20 There is an inverse relationship between the permeate flux and thickness of
the membrane. As the thickness increases, the flux decreases. The thicker the membrane,
the higher
10 the mass transfer resistance is, resulting in reduced permeate flux [24]. Therefore,
20
as illustrated 25
in Figure 30
6, increasing 35 membrane
the 40 45
thickness from 120 to 160 µm decreased
2 .h (for the highest value of ∆T ).
the permeate log mean temperature difference ΔTlm(°C)
flux by 28%, from 75.5 to 59 kg/m lm

Figure 5. Effect of the log mean temperature difference on the permeate flux for different membrane
porosities.
 sulting in a higher membrane surface temperature on the feed side (Tmhin) and a lower
total mass transfer coefficient. There is an inverse relationship between the permeate flux
and thickness of the membrane. As the thickness increases, the flux decreases. The thicker
the membrane, the higher the mass transfer resistance is, resulting in reduced permeate
flux [24]. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 6, increasing the membrane thickness from 120
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 11 of 15
to 160 μm decreased the permeate flux by 28%, from 75.5 to 59 kg/m2.h (for the highest
value of ∆T ).

80

TC=20°C, ε0=0.91
70
δ=120 μm

Permeate flux (kg/[Link])

δ=140 μm
60
δ=160 μm

50

40

30

20

20 25 30 35 40 45

log mean temperature difference ΔTlm(°C)

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Effect
Effectof
oflog
logmean
meantemperature
temperature difference
difference on permeate
on permeate flux flux
withwith various
various membrane
membrane thick-
thicknesses.
nesses.
4.3. Effect of the Number of Transfer Units (NTU) on the Permeate Flux
4.3. Effect of the heat
In ε-NTU Number of Transfer
transfer Unitsit(NTU)
analysis, on the Permeate
is traditional Fluxthe results as plots of
to present
efficiency (ε) versus the number of transfer units (NTU),
In ε-NTU heat transfer analysis, it is traditional to present the but for theresults
DCMD as module
plots of per-
effi-
formance,
ciency (ε) it is more
versus theappropriate to present
number of transfer the (NTU),
units output water
but forproduction
the DCMDrate versusperfor-
module NTU
because
mance, it theisformer is the parameter
more appropriate of concern.
to present The effect
the output of NTU
water on DCMD
production rateperformance,
versus NTU
with various membrane porosities, is illustrated in Figure 7. Upon
because the former is the parameter of concern. The effect of NTU on DCMD performance, increasing the NTU
from 0.24441 to 0.24887 (an increase of about 2.5%), the permeate
with various membrane porosities, is illustrated in Figure 7. Upon increasing the flux increases by 222%.
NTUA
possible explanation for this is an increase in the overall heat transfer
from 0.24441 to 0.24887 (an increase of about 2.5%), the permeate flux increases by 222%.coefficient due to an
Membranes 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
increase in the convection 12 of 16
A possible explanation forheat
thistransfer coefficients,
is an increase in thewhich
overallinheat
turntransfer
leads tocoefficient
a greater driving
due to
force and permeate flux.
an increase in the convection heat transfer coefficients, which in turn leads to a greater
driving force and permeate flux.
80 TC=20°C, δ=140 μm
ε0=0.85
70 ε0=0.91
Permeate flux (kg/[Link])

60 ε0=0.95
Th,in from 45 to 65°C
50

40

30

20

10
0.225 0.230 0.235 0.240 0.245 0.250
Number of transfer units (NTU)
Figure 7. Effect of increasing NTU on the permeate flux
flux with
with various
various porosities.
porosities.

Next, Figure
Figure 88 illustrates
illustratesthe
theeffect
effectofofincreasing
increasingNTU
NTU onon thethe
permeate flux
permeate forfor
flux various
vari-
membrane
ous membrane thicknesses.
[Link] As
cancan
be be
seen,
seen,a 2.5%
a 2.5%increase
increaseininthe
theNTU
NTUvalue
value leads
leads to
to an
increase
increase of
of 222%
222% inin the
the water
water flux.
flux.
 Number of transfer units (NTU)
Figure 7. Effect of increasing NTU on the permeate flux with various porosities.

Membranes 2023, 13, 588

Next, Figure 8 illustrates the effect of increasing NTU on the permeate flux for12vari-
of 15
ous membrane thicknesses. As can be seen, a 2.5% increase in the NTU value leads to an
increase of 222% in the water flux.

Figure 8. Effect of increasing NTU on the permeate flux

flux with
with various
various membrane
membrane thicknesses.
thicknesses.

4.4. Effect of Feed Temperature on the NTU

4.4. Effect of Feed Temperature on the NTU
Figure 9 illustrates the effect of varying the feed temperature on the NTU for various
Membranes 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 9 illustrates the effect of varying the feed temperature on the NTU for various 13 of 16
porosities but with a constant membrane thickness and permeate temperature. As can be
porosities but with a constant membrane thickness◦and permeate ◦ temperature. As can be
seen, increasing the hot-water temperature from 45 C to 65 C causes the NTU to increase
seen, increasing the hot-water temperature from 45 °C to 65 °C causes the NTU to increase
by 2.5%. Moreover, an increase in the membrane porosity reduces the NTU, such that
by 2.5%. Moreover, an increase in the membrane porosity reduces the NTU, such that
to increasethe
increasing by membrane
2.5%, but increasing
porosity fromthe membrane thickness
0.85 to 0.95—with thefrom 120 to 160 μm
feed temperature reduces
remaining
increasing the membrane porosity from 0.85 to 0.95—with the feed temperature remain-
the NTU by about the
constant—caused 28%. Thistois decrease
NTU likely thebyresult
9%. of a decrease
This in the
is possibly overallanheat
because transfer
increase in
ing constant—caused the NTU to decrease by 9%. This is possibly because an increase in
coefficient
membranedue to a decrease
porosity leads to aindecrease
the conduction heattransfer
in the heat transfersurface
coefficients.
area.
membrane porosity leads to a decrease in the heat transfer surface area.
Figure 10 shows the effect of varying the feed temperature on the NTU for various
0.250
membrane thicknesses, but with a constant membrane porosity and permeate tempera-
ture. As can be seen, increasing the feed temperature from 45 °C to 65 °C causes the NTU
Number of transfer unit (NTU)

0.245

TC=20°C, δ=140 μm
0.240 ε0=0.85
ε0=0.91
ε0=0.95
0.235

0.230

0.225

45 50 55 60 65

Feed Temperature (°C)

Figure 9. Effect of varying feed temperature on the NTU with various porosities.
porosities.

Figure 10 shows the effect of varying the feed temperature on the NTU for various
0.27
membrane thicknesses, but with a constant membrane porosity and permeate temperature.
As can be seen, increasing the feed temperature from 45 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C causes the NTU to
mber of transfer unit (NTU)

0.26
increase by 2.5%, but increasing the εmembrane
TC=20°C, 0=0.91 thickness from 120 to 160 µm reduces
the0.25
NTU by about 28%. This is likely δ=120
theμmresult of a decrease in the overall heat transfer
δ=140 μm heat transfer coefficients.
coefficient due to a decrease in the conduction
0.24 δ=160 μm

0.23

0.22
 Nu
0.225

45 50 55 60 65
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 Feed Temperature (°C) 13 of 15

Figure 9. Effect of varying feed temperature on the NTU with various porosities.

0.27

Number of transfer unit (NTU)

0.26
TC=20°C, ε0=0.91
δ=120 μm
0.25
δ=140 μm
0.24 δ=160 μm

0.23

0.22

0.21

0.20
45 50 55 60 65

Feed temperature (°C)

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Effect
Effect of
of varying
varying feed
feed temperature
temperature on
on the
theNTU
NTUfor
forvarious
variousthicknesses.
thicknesses.

5.
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
This
This study
study has
has drawn
drawn some
some parallels
parallels between
between the
the classical
classical method
method for for heat
heat transfer
transfer
and
and the LMTD and ε-NTU methods for membrane distillation. It has shown even
the LMTD and ε-NTU methods for membrane distillation. It has shown that that with
even
changes in membrane
with changes porosity,
in membrane membrane
porosity, thickness,
membrane and feedand
thickness, andfeed
permeate temperatures,
and permeate tem-
the LMTD and
peratures, ε-NTU and
the LMTD methods
ε-NTU provide
methodsgoodprovide
estimations
goodthat are comparable
estimations that aretocomparable
those from
the classical
to those frommodel. The difference
the classical model. inThethedifference
results between
in the the twobetween
results methods theis also
twonegligible
methods
because the membrane area is constant. In summary, among all the studied
is also negligible because the membrane area is constant. In summary, among all the stud- parameters,
the
ied NTU was found
parameters, to have
the NTU wasthe mostto
found significant
have the effect on permeate
most significant flux,onfollowed
effect permeate byflux,
the
LMTD. In terms of membrane properties, membrane thickness and
followed by the LMTD. In terms of membrane properties, membrane thickness and po-porosity were found to
have a great effect on the permeate flux.
rosity were found to have a great effect on the permeate flux.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.A.; methodology, K.C.; software, K.C.; validation,
M.A.A. and K.C.; formal analysis, K.C.; investigation; resources, M.A.A.; data curation, K.C.;
writing—original draft preparation, K.C.; writing—review and editing, M.A.A.; visualization, M.A.A.
and K.C.; supervision, M.A.A.; project administration, M.A.A.; funding acquisition, M.A.A. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
Bm Mass transfer coefficient (kg × m−2 × h−1 × Pa−1 )
Cp Specific heat of water (J × kg−1 × K−1 )
Cc Heat capacity rate for the cold water (W × K−1 )
Ch Heat capacity rate for the hot water (W × K−1 )
. .
Cmin Min (mc Cpc , mh Cph ) (W × K−1 )
. .
Cmax Max (mc Cpc , mh Cph ) (W × K−1 )
Cmin
C Capacity ratio (C = C max
)
dh Hydraulic diameter (m)
dp Mean pore diameter of the membrane (m)
A Surface area of the membrane (m2 )
hc Heat transfer coefficient of permeate (W × m−2 × K−1 )
hh Heat transfer coefficient of feed (W × m−2 × K−1 )
hm Heat transfer coefficient of the membrane (W × m−2 ×K−1 )
Jm Permeate flux (kg × m−2 × h−1 )
Ki Mean thermal conductivity (W × m−1 ×K−1 )
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 14 of 15

Km Thermal conductivity of the membrane (W × m−1 × K−1 )

Kg Thermal conductivity of the gas filling the membrane pores (W × m−1 × K−1 )
Kp Thermal conductivity of the polymer (membrane material) (W × m−1 × K−1 )
Mw Molecular weight of water (g × mol−1 )
.
mc Mass flow rate of the cold water (kg × s−1 )
.
mh Mass flow rate of the hot water (kg × s−1 )
Nu Nusselt number (Dimensionless)
Pa Air pressure inside the membrane pores (Pa)
P×D Diffusion coefficient in the pores (Pa × m2 × s −1 )
Pmc Membrane interface partial pressure of water molecule on the permeate side (Pa)
Pmh Membrane interface partial pressure of water molecule on the feed side (Pa)
Pr Prandtl number (Dimensionless)
Qtot Rate of heat transfer between hot and cold fluids (W)
Qmax Maximum possible heat transfer rate (W)
R Universal gas constant (8.314472 J × mol−1 × K−1 )
Re Reynolds number (Dimensionless)
Tc Permeate temperature (◦ C)
Th Feed temperature (◦ C)
Tmc Membrane interface temperature on permeate side (◦ C)
Tmh Membrane interface temperature on feed side (◦ C)
Tmav Mean temperature (Tmav = (Th + Tc )/2) (◦ C)
U Overall heat transfer coefficient (W × m−2 × K−1 )
∆Tlm Log mean temperature difference (◦ C)
ε Effectiveness
NTU Number of transfer units
v Average velocity (m × s−1 )
δ Membrane thickness (m)
ε0 Membrane porosity (%)
µ Dynamic viscosity (Pa × s)
ν Kinematic viscosity (m2 × s−1 )
ρ Density (Kg × m−3 )
τ Membrane tortuosity
Subscripts:
c cold
h hot
m membrane surface
in inlet
out outlet

References
1. Hasanizadeh, M.; Jafari, P.; Farshighazani, B.; Moraveji, M.K. CFD simulation of heat and mass transport for water transfer
through hydrophilic membrane in direct-contact membrane distillation process. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 57, 18109–18119.
[CrossRef]
2. Janajreh, I.; Suwwan, D.; Hashaikeh, R. Assessment of direct contact membrane distillation under different configurations,
velocities and membrane properties. Appl. Energy 2016, 185, 2058–2073. [CrossRef]
3. Swaminathan, J.; Chung, H.W.; Warsinger, D.M.; Lienhard, J.V.H. Membrane distillation model based on heat exchanger theory
and configuration comparison. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 491–505. [CrossRef]
4. Karam, A.M.; Alsaadi, A.S.; Ghaffour, N.; Laleg-Kirati, T.M. Analysis of direct contact membrane distillation based on a
lumped-parameter dynamic predictive model. Desalination 2016, 402, 50–61. [CrossRef]
5. Khalifa, A.; Ahmad, H.; Antar, M.; Laoui, T.; Khayet, M. Experimental and theoretical investigations on water desalination using
direct contact membrane distillation. Desalination 2017, 404, 22–34. [CrossRef]
6. Park, D.J.; Norouzi, E.; Park, C. Experimentally-validated computational simulation of direct contact membrane distillation
performance. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 129, 1031–1042. [CrossRef]
7. Soukane, S.; Naceur, M.W.; Francis, L.; Alsaadi, A.; Ghaffour, N. Effect of feed flow pattern on the distribution of permeate fluxes
in desalination by direct contact membrane distillation. Desalination 2017, 418, 43–59. [CrossRef]
8. Lee, J.-G.; Jeong, S.; Alsaadi, A.S.; Ghaffour, N. Influence of high range of mass transfer coefficient and convection heat transfer
on direct contact membrane distillation performance. Desalination 2018, 426, 127–134. [CrossRef]
Membranes 2023, 13, 588 15 of 15

9. Long, R.; Lai, X.; Liu, Z.; Liu, W. Direct contact membrane distillation system for waste heat recovery: Modelling and multi-
objective optimization. Energy 2018, 148, 1060–1068. [CrossRef]
10. Perfilov, V.; Ali, A.; Fila, V. A general predictive model for direct contact membrane distillation. Desalination 2018, 445, 181–196.
[CrossRef]
11. Kuang, Z.; Long, R.; Liu, Z.; Liu, W. Analysis of temperature and concentration polarizations for performance improvement in
direct contact membrane distillation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 145, 118724. [CrossRef]
12. Lou, J.; Vanneste, J.; DeCaluwe, S.C.; Cath, T.Y.; Tilton, N. Computational fluid dynamics simulations of polarization phenomena
in direct contact membrane distillation. J. Membr. Sci. 2019, 591, 117150. [CrossRef]
13. Kim, W.-J.; Campanella, O.; Heldman, D.R. Predicting the performance of direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD):
Mathematical determination of appropriate tortuosity based on porosity. J. Food Eng. 2020, 294, 110400. [CrossRef]
14. Lou, J.; Johnston, J.; Cath, T.Y.; Martinand, D.; Tilton, N. Computational fluid dynamics simulations of unsteady mixing in
spacer-filled direct contact membrane distillation channels. J. Membr. Sci. 2021, 622, 118931. [CrossRef]
15. Lim, J.; Son, K.P.; Kang, S.M.; Park, J.; Min, S.; Cho, H.; Kim, S.-H.; Lee, S.; Chae, S.; Park, P.-K. Correlation between the feed
composition and membrane wetting in a direct contact membrane distillation process. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7,
1020–1031. [CrossRef]
16. Noamani, S.; Niroomand, S.; Rastgar, M.; Azhdarzadeh, M.; Sadrzadeh, M. Modeling of Air-Gap Membrane Distillation and
Comparative Study with Direct Contact Membrane Distillation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 59, 21930–21947. [CrossRef]
17. Lienhard, J.H., IV; Lienhard, J.H., V. A Heat Transfer Textbook; Phlogiston Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 121–127.
18. Sieder, E.N.; Tate, G.E. Heat transfer and pressure drop of liquid in tubes. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1936, 28, 1429–1435. [CrossRef]
19. Thomas, L.C. Heat Transfer; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1992.
20. Lawal, D.U.; Khalifa, A.E. Flux Prediction in Direct Contact Membrane Distillation. Int. J. Mater. Mech. Manuf. 2014, 2, 302–308.
[CrossRef]
21. Andrjesdóttir, Ó.; Ong, C.L.; Nabavi, M.; Paredes, S.; Khalil, A.; Michel, B.; Poulikakos, D. An experimentally optimized model
for heat and mass transfer in direct contact membrane distillation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2013, 66, 855–867. [CrossRef]
22. Cath, T.Y.; Adams, V.D.; Childress, A.E. Experimental study of desalination using direct contact membrane distillation: A new
approach to flux enhancement. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 228, 5–16. [CrossRef]
23. Nishad, V.; Rajput, M.S. Membrane Distillation for Desalination and Water Treatment. J. Innov. Appl. Res. 2023, 6, 21–33.
[CrossRef]
24. Shirazi, M.M.A.; Kargari, A. A review on application of membrane distillation (MD) process for wastewater treatment A Review
on Applications of Membrane Distillation (MD) Process for Wastewater Treatment. J. Memb. Sci. 2015, 1, 101–112.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.