A surface‐renewal model for constant flux cross‐flow microfiltration. Issue 21 (13th December 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jiang, Shaopeng; Chatterjee, Siddharth G.; Escobar, Isabel C.; Van der Bruggen, Bart
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied polymer science. Volume 132:Issue 21(2015:Nov. 05)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2014-12-13
• Subjects: Polymers -- Periodicals; Polymerization -- Periodicals; 668.9
• DOI: 10.1002/app.41778
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8995

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>ABSTRACT</title> <p>A mathematical model using classical cake‐filtration theory and the surface‐renewal concept is formulated for describing constant flux, cross‐flow microfiltration (CFMF). The model provides explicit analytical expressions for the transmembrane pressure drop (TMP) and cake‐mass buildup on the membrane surface as a function of filtration time. The basic parameters of the model are the membrane resistance, specific cake resistance, and rate of surface renewal. The surface‐renewal model has two forms: the complete model, which accounts for cake compressibility; and a subsidiary model for incompressible cakes, which can be derived from the complete model. The subsidiary model is correlated against some of the experimental TMP data reported by Miller <italic>et al</italic>. (J Membrane Sci 2014, 452, 171) for constant flux CFMF of a soybean‐oil emulsion in a cross‐flow filtration cell having unmodified and surface‐modified, fouling‐resistant membranes, and has an average root‐mean‐square (RMS) error of 6.2%. The complete model is fitted to the experimental TMP data reported by Ho and Zydney (J Membrane Sci, 2002, 209, 363) for constant flux microfiltration of a bovine serum albumin solution in a stirred cell using polycarbonate track‐etched membranes and has an average RMS error of 11.5%. This model is also correlated against the TMP data of Kovalsky <italic>et al</italic>. (J Membrane Sci 2009, 344, 204) for constant flux yeast filtration in a stirred cell (average RMS error = 9.2%). © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. <bold>2015</bold>, <italic>132</italic>, 41778.</p> </abstract>