Development of Mathematical Models for the Prediction of Flux and Rejection Based on Dimensional

Analysis Approach

Projjwal Sarkar, Dwaipayan Sen, Chiranjib Bhattacharjee

1. Introduction

One of the critical aspects in membrane separation process is the possibility of various interactions

between membrane material and the feed that is fed to the membrane module. Hence, development of any

predictive model in order to predict the permeate flux or the rejection percentage attributing to the extent

of separation, is not only cumbersome, but also relying on too much stochastic inferences. The inheritance

of stochastic process manifolds the complexity of the formulation once the interaction parameters are

considered (Debashishda, paper doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.02.056). However, Variousseveral attempts have so

far been made so far regarding on the development of theoretical deterministic modeling for a membrane

separation process in order to avoid the complexity of such stochastic approach, which mainly relies on

the assumption of the appropriate distribution function. of the fouling phenomenon and thereby predicting

flux and rejection as a function of time. In most of the research papers published in various

journalsworks, the formulation based on continuity had been done one of theusing three following basic

well established concept models on has been suggested to explain the fouling phenomenon:membrane

separation a) Rresistance in series theorymodel, b) Gel gel polarization theory model and c) Osmotic

osmotic pressure theorymodel. ForIn the past two or three decades substantial experimental efforts hads

been made to investigate the effects of various parameters on flux decline and mechanisms of attributing

to membrane fouling. While data of time-dependent fluxes have been collected from numerous

ultrafiltration experiments under various conditions, However, not much progressmany progresses has

have been made so far in understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of membrane fouling that

eventually varies with the feed, membrane materials and the type of module used. In case of ultrafiltration

(UF) process, the widely used membrane process at different sectors, the tortuosity of the porous path

across the membrane thickness is high enough compared to microfiltration (MF). This leads to a mean

path dependent Knudsen diffusivity for the low molecular weight molecules permeation. While, for

nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) process the almost impervious membranes follow the Ficks

diffusion process for separation, that is more convenient to enumerate compared to the previous ones.
Hence, proper formulation, especially for UF, considering all those interacting qualitative and quantitative

parameters restricts the development of the model with less idealization or less intricacy. This results in

difficulty regarding the theoretical prediction of flux and rejection in such separation

process.Furthermore, the difficulties with the development of such dependable formulation restrict the

automation of a membrane plant that might be helpful in proper separation with good selectivity.

Aforesaid, Tthe development of mathematical models has providesd a conceptual framework for

understanding the phenomena responsible for flux decline. Most of the equations used to characterize UF

systems process are extrapolations of models that are developed previously developed for other filtration

systems. Some of those approaches are Tthe gel model was specifically developed for the UF of

macromolecules (Nakao et al., 1979), real time . Ssimulation of an UF process in case ofcarried out with

BSA in hollow-fiber membranes (is reported by Seechi et al., (1999) etc.. One of the key points in

deriving the mass transfer formulation for any process is the Pprediction of mass transfer coefficient and

thereby henceforth, simulating flux and along with the rejection ( has been discussed by Minnikanti et al.,

(1999). Moreover, the geometry of the modules infers the nature of turbulence over the membrane surface

and therefore, the mass transfer coefficient for the diffusion of the solutes through the membrane. The

common flow modules, namely,like rectangular channel, tubular and radial cross flow UF and as well as

the MF were investigated by perceivingconsidering the membrane fouling as a dynamic process from non

equilibrium to equilibrium (Song, 1998). A computer simulation was discussed by Lebrun et al.(1989) to

calculate the membrane performance data for a rectangular slit configuration. A very goodpromising work

in formulating the concentration polarization phenomenon was reported by Song and Elimach (1995) for .

The model applies to concentration polarization of interacting particles in through a cross flow filtration

system. An obvious phenomena with any membrane separation process, is membrane fouling, which

might be either reversible or irreversible. Moreover, as a result with the fouling of the membrane, the

separation efficiency will be reduced, the process cost will be high enough because of the increased

washing cycle and also the fixed cost will be more due to reduction in the period of membrane reusability.
In order to alleviate the issue with the fouling, several strategies attributing to a creation of shear action

over the membrane have been implemented through the fabrication of high sheared device (Sirsha

putatundas paper in RSC Advances DOI: 10.1039/C3RA44117B and DOI: 10.1039/C5RA09621A).

However, with such kind of devices, the modeling becomes more complex and critical to solve even after

formulation because of the involvement of multivariate parameters. A significant work was carried out by

Redkar et al. (1996) in this regard i.e. theregarding modeling of concentration polarization and

depolarization with after including high frequency back pulsingation to the membrane was reported by

Redkar et al. (1996).. On a different note, Kim and Kim (2003) had designed Aa glass-ball inserted

module design has been suggested by Kim and kim (2003) to enhance the membrane flux. The

Eeffectivenessiciency of this module was tested examined for three different modes of filtration -: normal

dead-end filtration, vortex flow filtration and enhanced vortex flow. It was found that for with glass ball

inserted membrane module, permeate flux tented to increased with an increase in the feed flow rate. In

recent past Sarkar et al. (Debasishdas paper on RFMM modeling doi:10.1016/j.desal.2014.09.020) had

developed semiempirical model for a high sheared membrane module called radial flow membrane

module (RFMM). The model proposed in the study comprises of a mass balance model and Spiegler-

Kadem model in conjunction to predict flux for concentrating BSA solution from its dilute solution.

However, the complexity arises in case of once the protein solution is replaced with a complex solution,

where the components of the mixture will be in varied form. A water treatment application of UF process

coupled with coagulation process has been reported by Jung and Kang (2003). This work is based on

detailed experimental investigation with an objective to remove natural organic matter.

Most of the works reported in the literature are either related with dynamic or steady state analysis /

simulation, and all this works are essentially based on any one of the three basic classical models or any

combination of that. Moreover, the formulation said before Most of this works are general in nature and

were validated applies towith a specific case of a solute-membrane configuration. Infact, tThe exact

modeling of a membrane separation process, like, UF is very difficult unlikely to be formulated from
itsafter envisage from microscopic point of viewpurview, and therefore, the validation can only be

possible establishment of any model has to be corroborated based on indirect experimental evidences. In

this the present study, a dimensional analysis approach has been explored to develop a model of rotating

disk ultrafiltration membrane module (RDM) to correlate the permeate flux and rejection with other

process variables. The utility with the approach attributes to a relatively easy understanding of the

parameters on which the process (i.e. the flux and the rejection) depends followed by a formulation of a

functional relation. The correlation will be established, without going through a detailed intricacy of the

pros and cons of the process. For this purpose BSA solution is introduced throughwas concentrated using

30 kDa PES membrane in this regard based on which the correlation had been establisheda 30 kD PES

membrane. Predicted Three (two for flux and one for rejection) nonlinear models have been developed

for prediction of flux and rejection by non-linear regression was performed by using MATLAB. The

simulated rresults are were found to be in good agreement with the experimental data with an absolute

average deviation of . In all the cases predicted value are found to be within 10% of thefrom the

corresponding experimental data.

2. 8.2 Model DevelopmentFormulation of the predictive model

In this study a dimensional analysis approach has been used to correlate flux (for both pressure and

mass transfer control region) and rejection with other process variables. Here the term permeate

concentration is introducing instead of rejection, as rejection itself is a dimensionless group.

In this study the variables involved may be listed as follows:

Independent Variables:-

DP = Pressure difference, N/m2 (ML-1T-2)

 Cb = Bulk concentration, kg/m3 (ML-3)

h m = Membrane speed, rpm (T-1)

h s = Stirrer speed, rpm (T-1)

h = Liquid level, m (L)

t = Time, s (T)

Dependent Variables:-

J = Permeate flux, m/s. (LT-1)

Cp
= Permeate concentration, kg/m3 (ML-3)

It is desired to obtain two different relations, one for permeate flux and other for rejection. The

dimensional analysis has been done by Buckingham method, where by the two relations are assumed to

be of the form:

J = f [ DP, Cb ,h s ,h m , h, t ]
(8.1)

C p = f [ DP, Cb ,h s ,hm , h ]
(8.2)

It may be noted that time (t) has not been considered as a variable in the relation for permeate

concentration
(C ) .
p
This is because it was observed that during experimental analysis, permeate

concentration was not found to vary appreciably with time in most of the cases.

8.2.1 Development of dimensionless relationship for flux:

 J = f [ DP, Cb ,h s ,h m , h, t ]

Total number of variables = 7

Number of fundamental units = 3
Number of repeating variables = 3
Therefore total number of dimensionless groups = (7-3) = 4

Let, the repeating variables be h s , h and Cb , the dimensionless groups be denoted by p .

p 1 = h s a hb Cb c ( J )
1 1 1

J
It can be shown that p 1 = h h (8.3)
s

p 2 = h s a hb Cb c ( DP )
2 2 2

Therefore, p 2 =
DP 2 2 (8.4)
h s h Cb

Similarly, p 3 = hm h (8.5)
s

p 4 = th s (8.6)

The variables of the system may be related by a functional relationship between these four groups
x1 y
DP 2 2 hm 1 th z1
J
hs h
=a ( s ) (8.7)
h s h Cb hs

8.2.2 Development of dimensionless relationship for rejection:

C p = f [ DP, Cb ,h s ,hm , h ]

Total number of variables = 6

Number of fundamental units = 3
Number of repeating variables = 3
Therefore total number of dimensionless groups = (6-3) = 3
Taking the same repeating variables h s , h and Cb .

p 1 = h s a1 hb1 Cb c1 ( C p )

Cp
It can be shown that p 1 = (8.8)
Cb

p 2 = h s a hb Cb c ( DP )
2 2 2

Similarly, p 2 = DP h 2 h 2 C (8.9)
s b

p 3 = hm h (8.10)
s

The variables of the system may be related by a functional relationship between these three groups

x2 y
Cp
=bDP 2 2 hm 2 (8.11)

Cb h s h Cb h s
x2 y

R = 1- b DP 2 2 hm 2 (8.12)

h s h Cb h s
Cp
as R = 1-
Cb

The dimensionless groups may be denoted as follows:

J Dimensionless flux ( N J )
hs h

hm
hs Dimensionless membrane speed Nh ( )
th s Dimensionless time ( N t )

DP Modified Power number ( N Po )

h s 2 h 2Cb
 Cp
Cb Dimensionless bulk concentration N Cb( )
a , b , x1 , y1 , z1 , x2 and y2 are constant which is to be determined by non-linear regression technique using
MATLAB.

8.3 Materials and methods

The materials used in the experimental work and the corresponding methodology followed are
illustrated below.

8.3.1 Materials

Bovine serum albumin was purchased from E. Merck (India). All other chemicals (required for
membrane cleaning) were purchased from E. Merck (Mumbai, India). The ultra-pure deionised (DI)
water, used in this study was obtained from Arium 611DI ultrapure water system (make: Sartorius A.G.,
Gttingen, Germany). The feed for DI water system was distilled water prepared by reverse osmosis (RO)
system (Model: Arium 61315, make: Sartorius AG, Gttingen, Germeny).

8.3.2 Methodology

Experiments were performed in a rotating disk membrane module so that the effects of major
independent variables, i.e. membrane rotation (0, 50, 100, 200 and 300 rpm), stirrer rotation (0, 100, 300
and 500 rpm), bulk concentration (500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 ppm), TMP (294, 490, 686, 784, 882 and
980 kPa) and feed level (8,9 and 10 cm) on flux and rejection/permeation can be properly understood.
During experiments, four variables were held constant while the fifth was varied to get an exact picture of
the dependences. The details description of rotating disc module was presented in 3.2.2 (Figure 3.1). All
experimental runs were carried out at a fixed temperature of 30 20C.

8.3.3 Analysis

Concentration of BSA was measured using a Hitachi dual beam UV-visible spectrophotometer by the
principal of Bradford protein assay at 590 nm. The assay is based on the observation that the maximum
absorbance for an acidic solution of Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 shifts from 465nm to 595nm when
binding to protein occurs.

8.4. Results and Discussions

8.4.1 Analysis of Experimental Results

 Variation of permeate flux and permeate concentration obtained by the experimental run was
compared in the present study. Membrane hydraulic resistances ( Rm ) were determined by taking a series
of run after allowing initial compaction, the average value of Rm which was found to be 3.98 10 12 m-1
for 30 kD membrane. Water runs were also carried out after each experiment to determine the extent of
fouling, the results of which showed mostly reversible nature of the fouling after following suggested
cleaning methodology.

Effects of TMP on permeate flux for rotating disc membrane assembly under fixed Cb ,h s ,hm and h
has been shown in Figure 8.2. As expected, permeate flux increases with increase in TMP and decreases
with time to attain near steady state value. Further, it was observed that during the initial stage flux was
quite higher at higher TMP, but the effect of TMP gets less pronounced during the later stage of
ultrafiltration process. As the concentration polarization layer develops, it imparts in negative effect to
solvent flow through the membrane and thereby creates the retarding effect on the increase of flux with
TMP. The dynamic variations of percentage drop in flux with time as well as with TMP have been shown
in the inset of the Figure 8.3. It could be observed that at any point of time, the percentage drop in flux
was higher at higher TMP, which could be explained by considering the formation of compacted
deposited layer. At higher TMP, more solutes get carried away towards the membrane surface due to
higher convective flow, resulting in more solute deposition and thicker deposited layer that offers extra
resistance to the permeate flux.

DP = 296 kPa
250 DP = 490 kPa
DP = 686 kPa
DP = 784 kPa
DP = 882 kPa
200 DP = 980 kPa
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1

at Cb= 1000 ppm, hs= 0,

hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.
3

150
6

100

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.2: Variation of permeate flux with time under different TMP with rotation of membrane at
50 rpm, bulk concentration at 1000 ppm, feed level at 8 cm and no stirrer rotation.
 1.0

0.8

% drop in flux 0.6 DP

= 296 kPa
DP
= 490 kPa
DP
= 686 kPa
DP
= 784 kPa
0.4 DP
= 882 kPa
DP
= 980 kPa
at Cb= 1000 ppm, hs= 0,
0.2 hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.3: Variation of % drop in flux with time under different TMP with rotation of membrane
at 50 rpm, bulk concentration at 1000 ppm, feed level at 8 cm and no stirrer rotation.

Variations of steady state permeate flux with TMP under different bulk concentration with a fixed
membrane rotation, fixed feed level and no stirrer rotation are presented in Figure 8.4. It is found from the
figure that under conditions of low transmembrane pressure, low feed concentration, and high hydraulic
turbulence, permeate flux is linearly proportional to transmembrane pressure. The linear permeate
flux/transmembrane pressure relationship is idealized in the case of a clean water feed. This is called the
pressure controlled region. After that there is no further appreciable increase in permeate flux with
increase in pressure. This is called the mass transfer controlled region. Figure 8.5 shows the variation
of permeate flux with time at different bulk concentration under fixed operating condition ( DP =294
kPa, hs=0, hm=50 rpm, feed level=8 cm). It was found that permeate flux decreases with increasing bulk
concentration. As the concentration of solids in the feed increases, its viscosity, and density increases and
its diffusivity decreases. These changes in the physical properties will, of course, affect the absolute value
of the flux according to well-established mass transfer models, but higher feed concentrations will also
usually aggrative fouling.
 240

Cb= 500 ppm

200
Cb= 1000 ppm

Steady-state flux, Jx10 (m m s )

-2 -1
Cb= 1500 ppm
Cb= 2000 ppm
3 160 water flux
at hs= 0,hm= 50 rpm
6

Feed level = 8 cm.

120

80
Mass-transfer
controlled region
40
Pressure
controlled region
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
TMP, DP (kPa)

Figure 8.4: Variation of steady state permeate flux with TMP under different bulk concentration
with a fixed membrane rotation, feed level and no stirrer rotation.

120 Cb= 500 ppm

Cb= 1000 ppm
Cb= 1500 ppm
100
Cb= 2000 ppm
at DP= 294 kPa, hs= 0,
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )

80
-2 -1

hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.

3

60
6

40

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.5: Variation of permeate flux with time under different bulk concentrations at a fixed
TMP, membrane rotation, feed level and no stirrer rotation.
 Variation of permeate flux with time under different membrane and stirrer rotation kipping the other
process variables are constant are presented in Figure 8.6 to Figure 8.9. Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.7 show
the variation of flux for membrane rotation where as Figure 8.8 and Figure 8.9 show the variation of flux
for stirrer rotation. These figures show that the permeate flux is higher for rotating disk membrane than
the fixed membrane module. Permeate flux increases with membrane rotation because, solutes in the
vicinity of the membrane has been swept away by the high shear rate created as a result of membrane
rotation. When most of the solutes were swept away by this shear rate, there will be no further increase in
the flux with increase in membrane rotation speed. It was found from the figure that the rate of permeate
flux decline is higher when there is no stirring and membrane rotation effect, because a thin film layer
was built up within a very short period of time. It is also evident from the figures that the effect of
membrane or stirrer rotation is more pronounced in mass transfer controlled region than that of in
pressure controlled region.

hm= 0
hm= 50 rpm
150 hm= 100 rpm
hm= 200 rpm
hm= 300 rpm
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1

at DP = 294 kPa, Cb= 1000 ppm,

hs= 0, Feed level = 8 cm.
3

100
6

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.6: Variation of permeate flux with time under different membrane rotation at a fixed TMP
( DP = 294kPa , Pressure control region), bulk concentrations, feed level and no stirrer rotation.
 250

200

Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1
3

150
6

hm= 0
hm= 50 rpm
100 hm= 100 rpm
hm= 200 rpm
hm= 300 rpm
at DP = 980 kPa, Cb= 1000 ppm,
hs= 0, Feed level = 8 cm.
50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.7: Variation of permeate flux with time under different membrane rotation at a fixed TMP
( DP = 980kPa , Mass transfer control region), bulk concentrations, feed level and no stirrer
rotation.

120 hs= 0
hs= 100 rpm
hs= 300 rpm
hs= 500 rpm
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1

at DP = 294 kPa, Cb= 1000 ppm,

hm= 0, Feed level = 8 cm.
80
3
6

40

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)
Figure 8.8: Variation of permeate flux with time under different stirrer rotation at a fixed TMP
( DP = 294kPa , Pressure control region), bulk concentrations, feed level and membrane rotation.

200

150
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1

hs= 0
hs= 100 rpm
3

hs= 300 rpm

6

hs= 500 rpm

100 at DP = 980 kPa, Cb= 1000 ppm,
hm= 0, Feed level = 8 cm.

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.9: Variation of permeate flux with time under different stirrer rotation at a fixed TMP
( DP = 980kPa , Mass transfer control region), bulk concentrations, feed level and membrane
rotation.

Variations of permeate concentration with bulk concentration under fixed membrane and stirrer speed
have been shown in Figure 8.10. It is found from the figure that permeate concentration increases with
increase in bulk concentration. Variation of permeate concentration with TMP at a fixed membrane and
stirrer rotation, feed level and bulk concentration is shown in Figure 8.11. It is clearly evident from the
figure that the permeate concentration increases with increasing pressure because of high driving force.
 at DP= 294 kPa, hs= 0,
140 hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.

Permeate concentration,Cp (ppm) 120

100

80

500 1000 1500 2000

Bulk concentration,Cb (ppm)

Figure 8.10: Variation of permeate concentration with bulk concentration at a fixed TMP,
membrane and stirrer rotation and feed level.

150

140 at Cb= 1000 ppm, hs= 0,

Permeate concentration,Cp (ppm)

hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.

130

120

110

100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TMP, DP (kPa)

Figure 8.11: Variation of permeate concentration with TMP at a fixed membrane and stirrer
rotation, feed level and bulk concentration.
8.4.2 Regression Analysis

The constant terms, a , b , x1 , y1 , z1 , x2 and y2 of equations (8.7) and (8.12), which were obtained by
dimensional analysis using Buckingham method, are calculated by non-linear regression technique using
MATLAB. For these perpose 70% of the experimental data have been used to correlate the dimensionless
groups and remaining 30% for model validation.

The summary of the results obtained while fitting Eqs. are given below:

So the model Eq. (8.7) can be written with the parameter values obtained from above as:

( N J ) = 1.6947 10-6 ( Nh ) ( N Po ) ( Nt )
0.329 0.216 -0.125
(8.13)

and

( N J ) = 1.5886 10-6 ( Nh ) ( N Po ) ( Nt )
0.489 0.039 -0.117
(8.14)

Equation 8.13 is for pressure control region and Equation 8.14 is for mass transfer control region.

In a similar manner, co-relation for rejection (R) from Eq. (8.12) was obtained as:

R =1-1.1013 ( Nh ) ( N Po )
0.087 0.199
(8.15)

Where, J is in m.s-1

DP is in kPa

Cb is in kg.m-3

h s andh m are in rad.s-1

h is in m.
 t is in s.

and R is dimensionless.

8.4.3 Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results

Once the parameter values of the model have been obtained, Eq.(8.13), Eq.(8.14) and Eq.(8.15) are
capable of predicting the permeate flux during the dynamic and steady state phases of operation under
any given combination of input variable values, provided the membrane characteristics and the filtered
species remain the same. In the following figures a comparison is made between the results predicted by
the model and those obtained experimentally.

As seen in the Figures. 8.12, 8.13 and 8.14, the predicted values of flux are very near to those
obtained experimentally. However, more importantly, it is clearly seen that the trend of variation of flux
with time, which basically characterizes the fouling phenomenon predicted by the model, is very similar
to that exhibited by the experimental values. At the same time, as is expected, the flux is found to increase
with increasing values of DP (Figure 8.12), and also with h m (Figure 8.14 ) while the other parameters
remain constant. The prediction from the model Eq. (8.15) has been shown in Figure 8.15, in addition to
the experimental data. From the figure it is found that the experimental and predicted values of rejection
are very much comparable both in terms of precision and trend of variation. Absolute average deviations
were calculated for both flux and rejection and were found to be 5.2 % and 9.1 % respectively.

200 Jexper. at DP = 3 kgf.cm

-2

-2
Jexper. at DP = 5 kgf.cm
-2
Jexper. at DP = 7 kgf.cm
-2
Jcalc. at DP = 3 kgf.cm
-2
Jcalc. at DP = 5 kgf.cm
150 Jcalc. at DP = 7 kgf.cm
-2
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )

at Cb= 1000 ppm, hs= 0,

-2 -1

hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.

3
6

100

50

0 20 40 60
Time, t (min.)
Figure 8.12: Comparison between predicted and experimental values of flux plotted against time or
different DP ( pressure control region) at constant Cb ,hm ,h s and h .

-2
Jexper. at DP = 8 kgf.cm
-2
Jexper. at DP = 9 kgf.cm
-2
Jexper. at DP = 10 kgf.cm
-2
Jcalc. at DP = 8 kgf.cm
-2
Jcalc. at DP = 9 kgf.cm
Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1

-2
Jcalc. at DP = 10 kgf.cm
at Cb= 1000 ppm, hs= 0,
3

hm= 50 rpm, Feed level = 8 cm.

6

150

0 20 40 60
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.13: Comparison between predicted and experimental values of flux plotted against time
for different DP (mass transfer control region) at constant Cb ,hm ,h s and h .
 200 Jexper. at hm= 0
Jexper. at hm= 50 rpm
Jexper. at hm= 100 rpm
Jexper. at hm= 200 rpm
Jexper. at hm= 300 rpm
150 Jcalc. at hm= 0
Jcalc. at hm= 50 rpm

Flux, Jx10 (m m s )
-2 -1
Jcalc. at hm= 100 rpm
Jcalc. at hm= 200 rpm
3

Jcalc. at hm= 300 rpm

-2
100 at DP = 3 kgf.cm , Cb= 1000 ppm,
6

hs= 0, Feed level = 8 cm.

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, t (min.)

Figure 8.14: Comparison between predicted and experimental values of flux plotted against time
for different h m at constant Cb , DP,hs and h .

0.95

0.90

0.85
R

0.80
Rexpe.For Cb= 2000 ppm
Rexpe.For Cb= 1000 ppm
Rexpe.For Cb= 500 ppm
0.75 Rcalc.For Cb= 2000 ppm
Rcalc.For Cb= 1000 ppm
Rcalc.For Cb= 500 ppm
0.70
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
NPo
Figure 8.15: Comparison between predicted and experimental values of rejection varying with
Power number at different bulk concentration .

8.5 Conclusion

It was found that for a given membrane operating with a given species, the obtained model has been
quite accurate in predicting the permeate flux and rejection. Moreover, it may be noted that the model
equation obtained here does not contain parameters characteristic to the membrane e.g. pore diameter,
membrane hydraulic resistance etc. So, it may be done as an extension of work to carry out experimental
runs for different membranes operating with different filtered species. It may be possible to include these
variables in the dimensional analysis and thus obtain a more generalized model. If the model parameters
for such a model are recognized as standard parameters and are reported by the manufacturer, or are
established by a pilot experiment before being applied in any industrial application, this model can then
be used very suitably in any practical application to predict flux and rejection.

8.6 Notations

Cb - Bulk concentration [Kg/m3]

DP - Pressure differential [N/m2]

hs - Speed of stirrer [s-1]

hm - Speed of rotating disk membrane [s-1]

h - Liquid level, [m]

J - Permeate volumetric flux [m3.m-2.s-1]

Cp - Permeate concentration [kg/m3]

t - Time [s.]
R - rejection [-]

Rm - Membrane hydraulic resistance.

p 1 , p 2 , p 3 and p 4 are the dimensionless groups

a , b , x1 , y1 , z1 , x2 and y2 are constants

Abbreviations

BSA- Bovine Serum Albumin

MF- Microfiltration

PES- Polyether Sulfone

RDM- Rotating Disc Membrane

TMP- Transmembrane pressure

UF- Ultrafiltration