The discovery of selective water channel proteins—aquaporins—has prompted growing interest in using these proteins, as the building blocks for designing new types of membranes. However, as with any other new and potentially disruptive technology, barriers for successful market entry exist. One category includes customer-related barriers, which can be influenced to some extent. Another category includes market-technical-related barriers, which can be very difficult to overcome by an organization/company aiming at successfully introducing their innovation on the market—in particular if both the organization and the technology are at early stages. Often, one faces barriers from both these categories at the same time, which makes it necessary to gain insight of the particular market when introducing a new innovative product. In this review we present the basic concepts and discuss some of these barriers and challenges associated with introducing biomimetic aquaporin membranes. These include technical issues in membrane production and product testing. Then we discuss possible business models for introducing new technologies in general, followed by a presentation of beach-head market segments relevant for biomimetic aquaporin membranes.

Forward osmosis (FO) is a low energy-intensive process since the driving force for water transport is the osmotic pressure difference, Δπ, between the feed and draw solutions, separated by the FO membrane, where π > π. The potential of FO in wastewater treatment and desalination have been extensively studied; however, regeneration of the draw solution (thereby generating clean water) requires application of an energy-intensive process step like reverse osmosis (RO). In this study, the potential of applying FO for direct water recirculation from diluted fermentation effluent to concentrated feedstock, without the need for an energy-intensive regeneration step (e.g. RO), has been investigated. Butanol production during crude glycerol fermentation by Clostridium pasteurianum, has been selected as a model process and the effect of cross-flow velocity and the dilution of draw solution on the water flux during short-term experiments (200 min), were investigated. Statistical analysis revealed that the dilution of the draw solution is the most influential factor for the water flux. Subsequent modelling of an integrated FO-fermentation process, showed that water recoveries could lead to substantial financial benefits, although the integrated FO-fermentation process demonstrated lower water flux than expected. FTIR analyses of the membrane surface implied that the decrease in water flux was due to the presence of proteins, polysaccharides and other extracellular polymeric substances on the membrane active layer, indicating the presence of a fouling layer. Based on these findings, possible fouling alleviation strategies and future research directions are discussed and proposed.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract

Reactive distillation and membrane assisted reactive distillation have been considered as possible alternatives to extractive distillation for the concentration of ethanol from diluted streams. Aquaporin-based biomimetic forward osmosis membranes have been tested for ethanol tolerance and ethanol rejection. The experimental results were used to construct the process simulations developed by Aspen Plus. Different alternatives were proposed where the pre-concentration step was performed by membrane stand alone or a combination of membrane and ordinary distillation. In all the configurations reactive distillation using ethylene oxide was considered to reach the ethanol final concentration of 99.9 wt%. Ethanol recovery, the energy consumed per kg of ethanol produced, the total annual cost and economic analysis were used to compare the alternatives. It was obtained that ordinary distillation coupled with reactive distillation is at the moment the only alternative competing with extractive distillation. However, the sequence of membrane, ordinary distillation and reactive distillation has clear potentials to compete with the distillation stand-alone processes once that solutions for draw recovery and minimization of ethanol lost will be available.