4.5 Article

Generalization and Expansion of the Hermia Model for a Better Understanding of Membrane Fouling

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes13030290

关键词

membrane fouling; Hermia model; fouling model; pore blocking; blocking mechanism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to extend the Hermia model by introducing new values of parameter n and improving its effectiveness in fitting experimental data. The extended Hermia model (EHM) performs consistently better than the original model in six micro- and ultrafiltration examples. The study also discusses the impact of factors such as transmembrane pressure, crossflow rate, crossflow velocity, membrane composition, and pretreatments on the blocking mechanisms.
One of the most broadly used models for membrane fouling is the Hermia model (HM), which separates this phenomenon into four blocking mechanisms, each with an associated parameter n. The original model is given by an Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE) dependent on n. This ODE is solved only for these four values of n, which limits the effectiveness of the model when adjusted to experimental data. This paper aims extend the original Hermia model to new values of n by slightly increasing the complexity of the HM while keeping it as simple as possible. The extended Hermia model (EHM) is given by a power law for any n?2 and by an exponential function at n = 2. Analytical expressions for the fouling layer thickness and the accumulated volume are also obtained. To better test the model, we perform model fitting of the EHM and compare its performance to the original four pore-blocking mechanisms in six micro- and ultrafiltration examples. In all examples, the EHM performs consistently better than the four original pore-blocking mechanisms. Changes in the blocking mechanisms concerning transmembrane pressure (TMP), crossflow rate (CFR), crossflow velocity (CFV), membrane composition, and pretreatments are also discussed.

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

4.5
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