0% found this document useful (0 votes)
20 views4 pages

Membrane Permeate Flux Calculation Example

This document provides an illustrative example of calculating the average membrane permeate flux for two particle suspensions based on the Song and Elimelech concentration polarization model. It shows the steps to calculate necessary parameters like diffusion coefficient and particle number concentration. It then calculates the filtration number and cake forming factor to determine which flux equation to use. Finally, it applies the equations to calculate the average permeate flux for each suspension, showing that the flux is higher for the suspension with larger particles, as intuitively expected.
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
20 views4 pages

Membrane Permeate Flux Calculation Example

This document provides an illustrative example of calculating the average membrane permeate flux for two particle suspensions based on the Song and Elimelech concentration polarization model. It shows the steps to calculate necessary parameters like diffusion coefficient and particle number concentration. It then calculates the filtration number and cake forming factor to determine which flux equation to use. Finally, it applies the equations to calculate the average permeate flux for each suspension, showing that the flux is higher for the suspension with larger particles, as intuitively expected.
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Illustrative Example of Calculating Average Membrane Permeate Flux in the Presence of Concentration Polarization Based on Song and Elimelech

Model1
Let us consider two different particle suspensions having a volume fraction of 10-3 (0.1%): suspension A with particle size (diameter) of 50 nm (0.05 m) and suspension B with particle size (diameter) of 500 nm (0.5 m). We will calculate the flux for each suspension using the analytical expressions developed in the paper. These examples will illustrate some of the features of the theory.

The following parameters and operating conditions are given2 (expressed in SI units):

Boltzmanns constant (k) Temperature (T) Length of filter channel (L) Shear rate ( ) absolute viscosity () Transmembrane pressure (P) Membrane resistance3 () Particle radius (ap) Suspension A Suspension B

1.3803 10-23 J K-1 293 K 0.5 m 1000 s-1 1.002 10-3 kg m-1 s-1 6.9 104 Pa (10 psi) 1 108 Pa s m-1 2.5 10-8 m 2.5 10-7 m

Song, L. and Elimelech M. (1995). Theory of Concentration Polarization in Crossflow Filtration, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. Vol. 91(19), pages 3389-3398.
1 2 3

These are typical of crossflow membrane filtration systems.

membrane resistance can be calculated from measurement of pure water flux at a given applied pressure [Eq. (3.29)]

The following are the steps in calculating the average permeate flux
Step 1: Calculate necessary parameters

Diffusion coefficient (D) can be calculated from Stokes-Einstein equation, i.e.,

D=
D for Suspension A D for Suspension B

kT 6 a p
8.565 10-12 m2 s-1 8.565 10-13 m2 s-1

Calculate the particle number concentration (C0)


C0 = volume fraction 0.001 = 4 3 4 a3 p 3 3 ap

C0 for Suspension A C0 for Suspension B

1.528 1019 m-3 1.528 1016 m-3

Note that for a given volume fraction, the particle number concentration of suspension A (smaller particles) is much higher. Hence, we expect that more resistance to water flow through the accumulated particle layer will be provided by suspension A, and as a result, the water flux through the membrane should be smaller. This emphasizes the necessity to consider the particle number concentration (not the volume fraction) to understand flux reduction due to concentration polarization in crossflow membrane filtration.

Step 2: Calculate the filtration number NF

Use the definition of NF given by Eq. (3.17) NF for Suspension A NF for Suspension B 1116.65 1.117 106

For both cases, NF>NFc(=15.00). Hence, we need to consider the equations for Cake Formation.

Step 3: Calculate the cake forming factor Nc

Because the membrane resistance is usually negligible compared to the resistance provided by accumulated particles (as is the case of MF, and most UF operations), we can calculate Nc from Eq. (4.6). The parameters needed for calculating Nc are obtained as follows: * Since NF>15.00, As ( max ) =23.559 (Table 1). As(max) is calculated from Eq. (3.11) for = max; that is the value corresponding to a porosity ( ) of 0.36 (maximum packing). Note that =(1 )1/3. The calculated As(max) is

123.219 Because the membrane resistance is negligible, Pc=P-Pp, where Pp is calculated from Eq. (4.2). The calculated Pp for two suspensions are: Pp for suspension A 926.9 Pa Pp for suspension B 0.9269 Pa

Thus, with As ( * ) , As( max), Pc, and Pp, we can use Eq. (4.6) max to calculate Nc. The results are: Nc for Suspension A 14.04 Nc for Suspension B 1.423 104

Step 4: Calculate the average permeate flux V

Use Eq. (4.19) to calculate the average permeate flux. We will use the values of parameters determined in the previous steps. The results for the average permeate velocity are:
V for Suspension A 1.468 10-5 m s-1 (or 30.83 GFD or 52.85 l m-2 h-1) V for Suspension B 3.104 10-5 m s-1 (or 65.18 GFD or 111.74 l m-2 h-1)

Because Nc>>NFc for both suspensions, one can use the approximation given by Eq. (4.21) to calculate the average permeate flux. The results are:
V for Suspension A 1.441 10-5 m s-1 (or 30.26 GFD or 51.88 l m-2 h-1) V for Suspension B 3.104 10-5 m s-1 (or 65.18 GFD or 111.74 l m-2 h-1)

The flux for suspension A is very close to that obtained using Eq. (4.19). The flux for suspension B is identical. Hence, Eq. (4.21) can be used safely to calculate the permeate flux for MF operations. It is clearly seen that, for a given volume fraction, the flux for the suspension with the larger particles is higher, as one intuitively expects. This is, of course, not the case when using the film/gel layer-model.

You might also like