Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-fsdjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T01:26:52.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the influence of pore connectivity on performance of membrane filters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2020

B. Gu Open the ORCID record for B. Gu [Opens in a new window] ,
D. L. Renaud ,
P. Sanaei ,
L. Kondic Open the ORCID record for L. Kondic [Opens in a new window]  and
L. J. Cummings
B. Gu*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ07102-1982, USA
D. L. Renaud
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ07102-1982, USA
P. Sanaei
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, New York Institute of Technology, New York, NY10023-7692, USA
L. Kondic
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ07102-1982, USA
L. J. Cummings
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ07102-1982, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: bg263@njit.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the influence of a membrane filter's internal pore structure on its flow and adsorptive fouling behaviour. Membrane performance is measured via (1) comparison between volumetric flow rate and throughput during filtration and (2) control of concentration of foulants at membrane pore outlets. Taking both measures into account, we address the merits and drawbacks of selected membrane pore structures. We first model layered planar membrane structures with intra-layer pore connections, and present comparisons between non-connected and connected structures. Our model predicts that membrane filters with connected pore structures lead to higher total volumetric throughput than those with non-connected structures, over the filter lifetime. We also provide a sufficient criterion for the concentration of particles escaping the filter to achieve a maximum in time (indicative of a membrane filter whose particle retention capability can deteriorate). Additionally, we find that the influence of intra-layer heterogeneity in pore-size distribution on filter performance depends on the connectivity properties of the pores.

JFM classification

Low-Reynolds-number flows: Porous media Complex Fluids: Suspensions

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 902 , 10 November 2020 , A5
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

Present address: Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

References

REFERENCES

Ambashta, R. D. & Sillanpää, M. E. T. 2012 Membrane purification in radioactive waste management: a short review. J. Membr. Sci. 396, 22–31.Google Scholar
Bacchin, P., Derekx, Q., Veyret, D., Glucina, K. & Moulin, P. 2014 Clogging of microporous channels networks: role of connectivity and tortuosity. Microfluid Nanofluid 17, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. R., Boesch, A. W. & Lazzara, M. J. 2006 a The effect of flow rate on membrane capacity: development and application of adsorptive membrane fouling models. J. Membr. Sci. 279, 625–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. R., LaCasse, D. & Kuriyel, R. 2006 b Combined models of membrane fouling: development and application to microfiltration and ultrafiltration of biological fluids. J. Membr. Sci. 277, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, W. R. & Jenner, F. 1995 Theoretical descriptions of membrane filtration of colloids and fine particles: an assessment and review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 56, 141–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, S.-S. & Roper, M. 2019 Microvascular networks with uniform flow. J. Theor. Biol. 462, 48–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chew, J. W., Kilduff, J. & Belfort, G. 2020 The behavior of suspensions and macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration: an update. J. Membr. Sci. 601, 117865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collum, B. 2017 Process engineering. In Nuclear Facilities, chap. 6, pp. 139–183. Woodhead Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalwadi, M. P., Griffiths, I. M. & Bruna, M. 2015 Understanding how porosity gradients can make a better filter using homogenization theory. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 471, 0464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, R. C., Billing, J. M., Russell, R. L., Shimskey, R. W., Smith, H. D. & Peterson, R. A. 2011 Integrated pore blockage-cake filtration model for crossflow filtration. Chem. Engng Res. Des. 89, 1094–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, R. C., Schonewill, P. P., Shimskey, R. W. & Peterson, R. A. 2010 A brief review of filtration studies for waste treatment at the hanford site. Tech. Rep. PNNL-20023. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ersahin, M. E., Ozgun, H., Dereli, R. K., Ozturk, I., Roest, K. & van Lier, J. B. 2012 A review on dynamic membrane filtration: materials, applications and future perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 112, 196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, I. M., Kumar, A. & Stewart, P. S. 2014 A combined network model for membrane fouling. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 432, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, I. M., Kumar, A. & Stewart, P. S. 2016 Designing asymmetric multilayered membrane filters with improved performance. J. Membr. Sci. 511, 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, C.-C. & Zydney, A. L. 1999 Effect of membrane morphology on the initial rate of protein fouling during microfiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 155, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, C.-C. & Zydney, A. L. 2000 A combined pore blockage and cake filtration model for protein fouling during microfiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 232, 389–399.Google ScholarPubMed
Hwang, K. J., Liao, Ch. Y. & Tung, K. L. 2007 Analysis of particle fouling during microfiltration by use of blocking models. J. Membr. Sci. 287, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iritani, E. 2013 A review on modeling of pore-blocking behaviors of membranes during pressurized membrane filtration. Dry. Technol. 31, 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacod, J. & Protter, P. 2004 Probability Essentials. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanani, D. M., Fissell, W. H., Roy, S., Dubnisheva, A., Fleischman, A. & Zydney, A. L. 2010 Permeability–selectivity analysis for ultrafiltration: effect of pore geometry. J. Membr. Sci. 349, 405–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondic, L. 2018 Capstone Laboratory. Available at: http://cfsm.njit.edu/capstone.Google Scholar
Li, W. 2009 Fouling models for optimizing asymmetry of microfiltration membranes. PhD thesis, University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
Meng, F., Chae, S.-R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H. S. & Yang, F. 2009 Recent advances in membrane bioreactors: membrane fouling and membrane material. Water Res. 43, 1489–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polyakov, Y. S. 2008 Depth filtration approach to the theory of standard blocking: prediction of membrane permeation rate and selectivity. J. Membr. Sci. 322, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probstein, R. F. 1994 Physicochemical Hydrodynamics. Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanaei, P. & Cummings, L. J. 2017 Flow and fouling in membrane filters: effects of membrane morphology. J. Fluid Mech. 818, 744–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanaei, P. & Cummings, L. J. 2018 Membrane filtration with complex branching pore morphology. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 094305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanaei, P., Richardson, G. W., Witelski, T. & Cummings, L. J. 2016 Flow and fouling in a pleated membrane filter. J. Fluid Mech. 795, 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
der Sman, Van, Vollebregt, R. G. M., Mepschen, H. M., Noordman, A. & R., T. 2012 Review of hypotheses for fouling during beer clarification using membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 396, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, V. C. & Quadri, M. G. N. 2013 Organic-inorganic hybrid membranes in separation processes: a 10-year review. Braz. J. Chem. Engng 30, 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, S. Y., Park, J., Yoon, J., Ree, M., Jang, S. K. & Kim, J. K. 2008 Virus filtration membranes prepared from nanoporous block copolymers with good dimensional stability under high pressures and excellent solvent resistance. Adv. Funct. Mater. 18 (9), 1371–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahid, M., Rashid, A., Akram, S., Rehan, Z. A. & Razzaq, W. 2018 A comprehensive review on polymeric nano-composite membranes for water treatment. J. Membr. Sci. Technol. 8, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zydney, A. L. 2011 High performance ultrafiltration membranes: pore geometry and charge effects. In Inorganic Polymeric and Composite Membranes (ed. Oyama, S. T. & Stagg-Williams, S. M.), pp. 333–352. Elsevier.Google Scholar