Modeling of flux decline during crossflow ultrafiltration of colloidal suspensions

Abstract Mass transfer during crossflow ultrafiltration is mathematically expressed using the two-dimensional convective–diffusion equation. Numerical simulations showed that mass transfer in crossflow filtration quickly reaches a steady-state for constant boundary conditions. Hence, the unsteady nature of the permeate flux decline must be caused by changes in the hydraulic boundary condition at the membrane surface due to cake formation during filtration. A step-wise pseudo steady-state model was developed to predict the flux decline due to concentration polarization during crossflow ultrafiltration. An iterative algorithm was employed to predict the amount of flux decline for each finite time interval until the true steady-state permeate flux is established. For model verification, crossflow filtration of monodisperse polystyrene latex suspensions ranging from 0.064 to 2.16 μm in diameter was studied under constant transmembrane pressure mode. Besides the crossflow filtration tests, dead-end filtration tests were also carried out to independently determine a model parameter, the specific cake resistance. Another model parameter, the effective diffusion coefficient, is defined as the sum of molecular and shear-induced hydrodynamic diffusion coefficients. The step-wise pseudo steady-state model predictions are in good agreement with experimental results of flux decline during crossflow ultrafiltration of colloidal suspensions. Experimental variations in particle size, feed concentration, and crossflow velocity were also effectively modeled.

[1]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Factors affecting flux in crossflow filtration , 1985 .

[2]  S. W. Yuan,et al.  Laminar Pipe Flow With Injection and Suction Through a Porous Wall , 1955, Journal of Fluids Engineering.

[3]  D. A. Saville,et al.  Colloidal Dispersions: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS , 1989 .

[4]  Joseph R. V. Flora,et al.  Floc restructuring in varied turbulent mixing , 1991 .

[5]  E. Leonard,et al.  THE DEPOSITION OF REJECTED MATTER IN MEMBRANE SEPARATION PROCESSES , 1984 .

[6]  Robert H. Davis.  Modeling of Fouling of Crossflow Microfiltration Membranes , 1992 .

[7]  A. Fane,et al.  Ultrafiltration of Colloidal Silver Particles: Flux, Rejection, and Fouling , 1993 .

[8]  S. Chellam,et al.  Particle transport in clean membrane filters in laminar flow , 1992 .

[9]  Robert H. Davis,et al.  Shear-induced transport of a particle layer along a porous wall , 1987 .

[10]  G. Green,et al.  Fouling of ultrafiltration membranes: lateral migration and the particle trajectory model , 1980 .

[11]  C. Gooding,et al.  A dynamic model for low‐pressure, hollow‐fiber ultrafiltration , 1985 .

[12]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Kinetics of deposition of colloidal particles in porous media , 1990 .

[13]  Mark R. Wiesner,et al.  Mass Transport Considerations for Pressure‐Driven Membrane Processes , 1992 .

[14]  HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL AND EXPERIMENTS FOR CROSSFLOW MICROFILTRATION , 1987 .

[15]  Mark M. Clark,et al.  A numerical model of steady-state permeate flux during cross-flow ultrafiltration , 1997 .

[16]  Robert H. Davis,et al.  Global model of crossflow microfiltration based on hydrodynamic particle diffusion , 1988 .

[17]  Pierre Aimar,et al.  Coagulation of colloids retained by porous wall , 1996 .

[18]  A. S. Berman.  Laminar Flow in Channels with Porous Walls , 1953 .

[19]  M. C. Porter.  Concentration Polarization with Membrane Ultrafiltration , 1972 .

[20]  Andrew L. Zydney,et al.  A CONCENTRATION POLARIZATION MODEL FOR THE FILTRATE FLUX IN CROSS-FLOW MICROFILTRATION OF PARTICULATE SUSPENSIONS , 1986 .