4.7 Article

Fouling mechanisms in constant flux crossflow ultrafiltration

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 574, 期 -, 页码 65-75

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2018.12.001

关键词

Ultrafiltration; Threshold flux; Fouling; Crossflow; Constant flux

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (MRSEC) [DMR-1720595]
  2. Australian-American Fulbright Commission
  3. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four fouling models due to Hermia (complete pore blocking, intermediate pore blocking, cake filtration and standard pore blocking), have long been used to describe membrane filtration and fouling in constant transmembrane pressure (Delta P) operation of membranes. A few studies apply these models to constant flux dead-end filtration systems. However, these models have not been reported for constant flux crossflow filtration, despite the frequent use of this mode of membrane operation in practical applications. We report derivation of these models for constant flux crossflow filtration. Of the four models, complete pore blocking and standard pore blocking were deemed inapplicable due to contradicting assumptions and relevance, respectively. Constant flux crossflow fouling experiments of dilute latex bead suspensions and soybean oil emulsions were conducted on commercial poly (ether sulfone) flat sheet ultrafiltration membranes to explore the models' abilities to describe such data. A model combining intermediate pore blocking and cake filtration appeared to give the best agreement with the experimental data. Below the threshold flux, both the intermediate pore blocking model and the combined model fit the data well. As permeate flux approached and passed the threshold flux, the combined model was required for accurate fits. Based on this observation, a physical interpretation of the threshold flux is proposed: the threshold flux is the flux below which cake buildup is negligible and above which cake filtration becomes the dominant fouling mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据