Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Membrane Science
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ memsci
Modeling and analytical simulation of rotating disk ultraltration module
Debasish Sarkar
a
, Chiranjib Bhattacharjee
b,
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Calcutta University, Kolkata 700 009, India
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700 032, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 September 2007
Received in revised form 2 April 2008
Accepted 9 April 2008
Available online 4 June 2008
Keywords:
Ultraltration
Rotating disk membrane
Permeate ux
Back transport
Mathematical model
a b s t r a c t
An unsteady state mass transfer model has been developed for rotating disk ultraltration module. Start-
ing from the basic physics of the system, analytical expression of back transport ux generated due to
rotation-induced shear eld is determined, which is subsequently incorporated in the fundamental mate-
rial balance equation. In order to get an analytical solution of governing partial differential equation via
Laplace transformation, pseudo steady state consideration is imposed both on permeate as well as back
transport ux. Once the analytical form of concentration eld is obtained using the expression permeate
ux, membrane surface concentration are evaluated using polymer solution theory and irreversible ther-
modynamics. Finally an iterative scheme is designed to simulate the permeate ux and membrane surface
concentration under specied set of operating parameters. The prediction from this model is found to be
in good agreement with experimental data obtained fromPEG-6000/water systemusing cellulose acetate
membrane of 5000Da molecular weight cut-off.
2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction
Over the last few decades ultraltration (UF) has emerged as a
cutting edge technology because of its inherent ability to separate
chemical and biochemical compounds up to molecular level. The
present day application of UF includes the treatment of industrial
efuents, oil emulsion, biological macromolecule, colloidal system
and many others.
From a fundamental standpoint ultraltration is nothing but
a rate governed separation process in which pressure acts as a
driving force. Generally the operating pressure varies in the range
of 10140psi, with membrane pore size ranging between 10 and
100

A. Despite all its attractive features, the process of ultra-
ltration suffers from a serious drawback of continuous solute
accumulation on the membrane surface due to their rejection
by membrane, characteristics of any pressure driven membrane
separation process. Because of this phenomenon, known as
concentration polarization, a concentration gradient set in, evi-
dently in the directions opposite to that of permeate ux. As
a result the permeate ux decreases, which is not at all desir-
able for efcient separation. A broad overview of concentration
polarization was rst reported by Bruin et al. [1]. Later on sev-
eral studies on different aspects of concentration polarization were
reported. Youm et al. [2] studied the effects of natural convection

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 33 2414 6203; fax: +91 33 2414 6203.
E-mail address: cbhattacharyya@chemical.jduv.ac.in (C. Bhattacharjee).
instability both in dead end and cross ow module. Thermody-
namic interpretation of concentration polarization was presented
by Peppin and Elliott [3]; where as effect of viscosity was studied
by Gill et al. [4]. Zaidi and Kumar reported a detail experimental
analysis of concentration polarization in dead end ultraltration of
dextran [5].
Different modules, proposed so far are basically designed with
a sole objective to reduce the effect of concentration polariza-
tion, though in some of the recent articles it is established that
concentration polarization can be reduced by using electric eld
[6,7], two phase system [8] or by direct gas sparging [9]. One of
the popular methods in module design is to induce a high-shear
eld near the membrane surface so as to homogenize the adverse
concentration gradient, thereby minimizing the effect of concen-
tration polarization. In cross owmodules the very structure of the
module incorporates a shear eld, where as in batch UF cell the
primary step is to introduce a stirrer placed in very close proximity
of membrane. Several analytical models fromdifferent standpoints
for single stirred UF cell have been developed over years [1013],
in addition to that neural network models for the same are also
available [14,15]. Following the idea of inducing high-shear eld,
progresses have been made by introducing the concept of rotat-
ing disk membrane (RDM), with the same fundamental intention
to increase the effect of shear on concentration polarization. In
RDM module, membrane and stirrer of practically same diame-
ter are placed face to face with a very small distance of separation
between them. Under this condition as membrane and stirrer, both
rotates in the direction opposite to each other, a high-shear eld
0376-7388/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2008.04.015
D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355 345
is introduced, which counters the effect of concentration polar-
ization. In reality, the primary effect of shear eld is to give rise
a new ux called Back Transport Flux, in the direction same as
that of concentration polarization ux. Halstr om and Lopez-Liva
rst proposed the basic structure of RDM module [16]. Experi-
mental studies using mineral suspension [17] and black liquor [18]
are also available. In a recent article computational uid dynamic
model and simulation of RDM was presented by Torras et al. [19].
In a previous article of single stirred UF cell, Bhattacharjee and
Datta reportedthe analytical simulationof permeate ux by using a
semi-empirical parameter called Back Transport Coefcient [10].
Though the model was good enough to predict the behavior of sin-
gle stirred cell, but it cannot be directly extended to RDM module
as the ow eld, hence the proper evaluation of the back transport
ux is much complicated in the latter system.
The present work has been undertaken in an attempt to develop
a rigorous mathematical model of RDM cell used in the process of
ultraltration. Starting from the basic physics of the system, the
back transport ux is evaluated exploring the probable locus of a
solute molecule initially at the membrane surface. Once the ana-
lytical expression of back transport ux is at hand, fundamental
mass balance equation is developed under unsteady state condi-
tion, which is analytically solved. No analytical solution for RDMor
any such high-shear device has been reported in the literature. In
this context, theproposedmodel couldbeusedfor thesimulationof
UF performance inRDMandthe approachcouldalsobe extendedto
other high-shear device, like multi-shaft disk (MSD), etc. The model
prediction is validated with experimental data for RDM module
during Ultraltration of PEG-6000 by cellulose acetate membrane
under unsteady state condition for different transmembrane pres-
sure, initial concentration, stirrer speed and membrane speed.
2. Theoretical development
2.1. Development and analytical solution of model equation
The schematic diagramof a rotating disk membrane module has
been shown in Fig. 1, in which different ux components have been
highlighted clearly. As stated earlier, the stirrer and the rotating
membrane are placed face to face, and rotate in opposite direc-
tion with respect to each other with angular speeds,
1
and
2
,
respectively. In order to impart a high-shear eld in the vicinity of
membrane surface, the distance of separation between the stirrer
and membrane is made very small compared to the radius of the
UF cell, so that a linear velocity prole can be assumed to exist in
the space between the stirrer and membrane.
The primary stepof theoretical modeling is to quantify the shear
induced back transport ux. This term is used in order to account
for the backtransport of solute due toeddybackmixing; naturallyit
Fig. 1. Mass balance diagram inside rotating disk membrane module.
should have the same dimension of volumetric ux, i.e., LT
1
. From
an intuitive point of view it can be inferred, as the membrane and
the stirrer are rotating in opposite direction, any particle released
tangentially on the membrane surface will follow a helical path
from membrane to the stirrer. The tangential velocity versus axial
distance prole for the proposedlocus canbe depictedqualitatively
as in Fig. 2. Though the helix angle, will vary from point to point,
for simplicity the stated angle is assumed to be constant over the
entire path. In accordance with the assumption the axial velocity
at any radial location can be related to the tangential velocity at the
same point as
v
x
(r) = v
0
(r) tan (1)
Whereas the tangential velocity prole can be written as
v
0
(r) =
_
1

1
+
2
x
t
x
_
r (2)
Assuming Newtonianuid, existing shear eldcanbe expressed
in the following form:
z(r) =
dv
0
dx
=
_

1
+
2
x
t
_
r (3)
It may be argued that in dealing with PEG in water, power law
model must be used for proper estimation of shear eld, but keep-
ing in mind the high dilution level of the system, Newtons law is
said to be fairly valid. Now in order to correlate the axial veloc-
ity to shear stress a thin cylinder between r and r +dr, with axial
spanfromthemembranetostirrer surfaceis considered. Thetorque
balance equation over any horizontal section of the cylinder yields:
z(r)du

r = dvr
2

0 (4a)
Simplifying Eq. (4a)
z(r)

du

dv
r = r

0 = u
t
= v
0
dv
0
ds

(4b)
Fig. 2. Tangential velocity prole vs. longitudinal distance for any solute particle
inside RDM module.
346 D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355
where a
t
is the tangential acceleration and ds

is the differential
length traversed by the particle along the helix. Now
v
0
dv
0
ds

=
v
x
tan
2

dv
x
(r)
ds

(5)
Combining Eqs. (4b) and (5)
z(r)

du

dv
r =
v
x
(r)
tan
2

dv
x
(r)
ds

(6)
Notingthat da

/dV=1/x
t
for thecylinder, Eq. (6) canbesimplied
as
z(r)

tan
2

x
t
ds = v
x
(r)dv
x
(r) (7)
Integrating Eq. (7) from any point between stirrer and mem-
brane where s =0 up to the stirrer surface, where s

=2rn (n is
the number of helix turns necessary to reach the stirrer surface
fromthe stated intermediate position) and v
x
(r) = 0, incorporating
the expression of shear stress in Eq. (3) the following relation is
obtained:
v
x
(r) =
_
4n(
1
+
2
)

_
r
x
t
_
tan (8)
Averaging the axial velocity over the radial space, the volumetric
expressionof backtransport uxat anyintermediatepoint between
the stirrer and the membrane can be written as follows:
j
BT
=
_
16n(
1
+
2
)
9
_
R

x
t
_
tan (9)
Once the basic expression of back transport ux is obtained,
an unsteady state solute balance over a differential shell between
distance x and x +dx from membrane surface yields the following
PDE:
(j j
BT
)
c
x
+D

2
c
x
2
=
c
t
(10)
Eq. (10) assumes constant diffusivity and a pseudo steady state
approximation on permeate ux, J. The boundary conditions are as
follows:
(i) at t =0, c =c
0
for all x
(ii) at x =0, c =c
m
for t >0
(iii) as t , c remains nite for all x.
The boundary condition also assumes a pseudo steady state
approximation on membrane surface concentration, c
m
the time
evolution of which will be solved by separate physical considera-
tion.
Introducing the following dimensionless parameters, Eq. (10)
can be reduced to a dimensionless form, which is easier to deal
with:
c

=
c
c
0
, x

=
x
x
t
and t

=
Dt
x
2
t
With these parameters Eq. (10) reduces to

2
c

x
2
+/
c

=
c

(11)
where A=(J J
BT
)x
2
/D.
The dimensionless boundary conditions are as follows:
(i) at t* =0, c* =1, for all x
*
(ii) at x* =0, c* =c
m
/c
0
for t* >0
(iii) as t* , c* remains nite.
Taking Laplace transformof Eq. (11) andapplying boundary con-
dition (i)

2
c

x
2
+/
c

sc

= 1 (12)
Eq. (12) can be solved by solving for CF and PI individually as
I. Complementary function:
CF : c

(x

, s) = C
1
e
m
1
x

+C
2
e
m
2
x

where m
1
, m
2
= /
_
/
2
+4s]2, C
1
, C
2
are arbitrary con-
stants.
II. Particular integral:
PI :
1
s
Hence the complete solution in Laplace domain can be written
as
c

(x

, s) = C
1
e
m
1
x

+C
2
e
m
2
x

+
1
s
(13)
Applying boundary conditions (ii) and (iii) the solution
becomes
c

(x

, s) =
_
(c
m
]c
0
) 1
s
_
exp
_
/
_
/
2
+4s
2
x

_
+
1
s
(14)
Taking inverse Laplace transform using shifting theorem and
Laplace transform tables the complete solution in time domain
is as obtained:
c

(x

, t

) =
_
(c
m
]c
0
) 1
2
__
crjc
_
x

+
/

2
_
+/e
/x

_
crjc
_
x

2
___
+1 (15)
The next step is to get the expression of permeate ux.
2.2. Calculation of permeate ux
The ux condition at the membrane surface can be represented
as
j(c
m
c
p
) = D
c
x

x=0
+ j
BT

x=0
c
m
j
=
D
c
m
c
p
c
x

x=0
+ j
BT

x=0
c
m
c
m
c
p
(16)
Eq. (16) is basedonthe pseudo steady state assumptionof mem-
brane surface concentration.
Now
c
x

x=0
=
c
0
x
t
c

=0
(17)
Combining Eqs. (15)(17) followed by subsequent simplica-
tion, the expressionfor permeate ux couldbe obtainedas follows:
j =
D
c
m
c
p
_
c
0
x
t
_
_
1 (c
m
]c
0
)
2
__
2

exp
_

/t
2
4
_
+/
_
1 +crj
_
/

2
___
+
j
BT
|
x=0
c
m
c
m
c
p
(18)
D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355 347
where
/ =
(j j
BT
|
x=0
)x
t
D
In the expression of permeate ux, back transport ux, J
BT
is
to be considered separately. Looking into the expression of J
BT
in
Eq. (9) it is evident that the form of back transport ux has been
derived by averaging the axial velocity at any particular distance
from membrane surface over the radial space. But in Eq. (18) back
transport ux is the same evaluated at membrane surface, i.e., at
x =0. In order to get that expression Eq. (7) is to be integrated from
the membrane to stirrer surface assuming N number of helix turns
is required to reach the stirrer from membrane surface (nN, as n
is the number of helix turns necessary to reach the stirrer fromany
intermediate point between the stirrer and the membrane). Thus
integrating Eq. (7) the back transport ux at the membrane surface
is as obtained:
v
x
(r)|
x=0
=
_
4N(
1
+
2
)

_
r
x
t
_
tan (19)
Before averaging the expression over the radial space total num-
ber of helix turns, N can be replaced in terms of radial distance, r
and helix angle, as
p =
x
t
N
= 2r tan (20)
where p is the pitch of the traced helix. Incorporating Eq. (20) in
(19) and averaging the expression over the radial space the back
transport ux at the membrane surface becomes:
j
BT
|
x=0
=
_
32(
1
+
2
)R

25x
t
tan (21)
For calculation, solute diffusivity is expressed as a function of
molecular weight of the same, M following a standard empirical
equation as given below [20]:
D = 2.74 10
9
M
1]3
pol
(22)
Nowfromthe expression of permeate ux, as given in Eq. (21) it
canbe inferredthat inorder toget a time evolutionof the same time
history of membrane surface concentration, c
m
as well as permeate
concentration, c
p
aretobedetermined, sothenext taskof themodel
is to explore polymer solution theories in order the evaluate the
stated parameters.
2.3. Calculation of permeate and membrane surface
concentration
In the process of UF, no matter whether the cell is stirred
or unstirred transmembrane pressure drop, ^P acts as a driving
force and because of concentration difference on two sides of the
membrane surface, osmotic pressure differential, ^

acts as a hin-
drance factor to the process objective. Still, because of inherent
irreversibility the net driving force is not exactly the difference of
transmembrane and osmotic pressure, but difference of ^P and
o ^

, where o is known as reective coefcient. The permeate

ux, which represents the rate of the process can be related to
the stated difference in accordance to a linear equation (osmotic
model):
j =
^P o ^

R
m
(23)
where R
m
is the membrane hydraulic resistance, and is determined
by making a series of water runs in UF module, after allowing initial
compaction. R
m
is calculated for all the experiments after allowing
for initial compaction, by inducing the membrane to high pres-
sure than that of experimental range. The average of all the values
obtained from different water runs is considered as the accept-
able value for R
m
. The viscosity of PEG-6000 solution in water was
correlated with the solution concentration at 30

C as [21,22]:
=
0.85 +0.1446c

+2.734 10
4
c
2
4.276 10
6
c
3
+2.84 10
8
c
4
10
3
(24)
where c

is in gcm
3
Inorder to express ^

as a functionof c
m
andc
p
, FloryHuggins
theory is to be used. The theory states that osmotic pressure of a
polymeric solution can be related to solute concentration as

=
R1
v
1
_
ln(1 v
p
) +
_
1
1
n
_
v
p
+y
12
v
2
p
_
(25)
where v
p
= c]
pol
, n = M
pol
]M
mono
.
For PEG,
pol
=1125kgm
3
, M
pol
=6000, M
mono
=44, y
12
,
the FloryHuggins parameter depends upon the type of
polymersolvent interaction and is 0.45 for PEGwater sys-
tem. The values of R,T and V
1
used are R=8314Pa m
3
kmol
1
K,
T =303.15K and V
1
=0.001m
3
/kg.
Using Florys equation (Eq. (25)) for permeate and membrane
surface concentration followed by substitution of osmotic pressure
differential in Eq. (23) results:
j =
^P +
oR1
v
1
_
ln
_
(
pol
c
m
)](
pol
c
p
)
_
+
__
1 (1]n)
_
+y
12
(c
m
+c
p
)]
pol
_
(c
m
c
p
)]
pol

R
m
(26)
Eqs. (18) and (26) constitutes two non-linear equations relat-
ing J, c
m
and c
p
. In order to determine the time evolution of these
three parameters another equation relating these three parameters
are required. Additionally for the back transport ux at membrane
surface, the unknownhelixangle () is tobe determinedseparately.
2.4. Relation of ux and rejection from irreversible
thermodynamics
Irreversible thermodynamics is used to express the rejection as
[23]
R
r
1
c
p
c
m
=
o(1 F)
1 oF
(27)
where F =exp{(1o)J/P
m
}, P
m
is the permeability of the mem-
brane. Now three Eqs. (18), (26) and (27) can be solved
simultaneously to predict the time evolution of J, c
m
and c
p
, but
the prerequisite is the quantitative determination of back transport
ux, which is yet not done.
The reection coefcient, o and solute permeability, P
m
are
determined by a modication of the method outlined by Nakao and
Kimura [23]. The iterative technique is briey outlined as follows:
(i) Initially a o value is assumed, using this value membrane
surface concentration is temporarily determined for all experi-
mental runs using Eqs. (23)(25).
(ii) P
m
is calculated fromEq. (27) for the mentioned assumed value
of o and using experimental values of J and c
p
. The procedure
is repeated to calculate all P
m
values for different experiments.
(iii) Standard deviation in the P
m
values is now calculated for the
same assumed value of o.
(iv) In this way different o values are assumed and the proce-
dure is repeated to calculate standard deviation for all of them.
348 D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355
Fibonacci search technique is used to locate the o value after
minimization of standard deviation.
(v) Average of all P
m
values for different experiments gives the
correct value of solute permeability.
For the stated system, the values of P
m
and o determined by
the above-mentioned method are 1.827510
6
ms
1
and 0.98322,
respectively.
2.5. Calculation of back transport ux
Considering the expression of back transport ux at membrane
surface, the only unknown parameter left is the helix angle (),
which is necessary for nal simulation of RDM. For this purpose,
rst experimental data of ux versus time for different values of
pressure differential, ^P; stirrer speed,
1
; membrane speed,
2
and bulk concentration, c
0
are curve tted in order to minimize the
experimental error and for data smoothening. The best-t equation
in terms of highest correlation coefcient and minimum standard
deviation is found to be
j = j
0
(1 u +ub
t
) (28)
In Eq. (28), J
0
is the initial ux, time (t) is in minutes, whereas
the values of coefcient a and b are different for different experi-
mental conditions. As an example, for an experiment conducted at
c
0
=20kgm
3
, ^P=827kPa,
1
=5.2rad/s and
2
=55.5rad/s, the
calculated values of J
0
, a and b are 3.048249210
5
m
3
m
2
s
1
,
0.11459235 and 0.974425, respectively. Now Eqs. (28) and (18) can
be combined for a particular set of c
0
, ^P,
1
and
2
as
j
0
(1 u +ub
t
) =
D
c
m
c
p
_
c
0
x
t
_
_
1 (c
m
]c
0
)
2
_
_
2

exp
_

/t
2
4
_
+/
_
1 +crj
_
/

2
___
+
j
BT
|
x=0
c
m
c
m
c
p
(29)
In order to solve for tan (through the expression of J
BT
|
x=0
in
Eq. (9)) using Eq. (29) values of c
m
and c
p
are to be determined from
experimental data. c
p
, i.e., the permeate concentration at different
time for a particular run can be determined experimentally. But for
c
m
theoretical equations are to be used in combination with exper-
imental data. For this purpose again the FloryHuggins equation is
used, but in a different form.
Eq. (25) is directly used to evaluate the permeate side osmotic
pressure,

p
. Again using Eqs. (23) and (28) ^

(=

p
) can be
determined at different time interval for a particular run as
^

=
^P R
m
j
0
(1 u +ub
t
)
o
(30)
Now the osmotic pressure on the feed side can be obtained as

m
= ^

p
. Once the numerical value of

m
is known mem-
brane surface concentration, c
m
at that time for the same run can
be determined using simple NewtonRaphson method of iterative
solution for single variable non-linear equation. The working equa-
tion for this calculation is
j (c
m
) =

m
+
R1
v
1
_
ln
_
1
c
m
c
p
_
+
_
1
1
n
_
c
m

pol
+y
12
c
2
m

2
pol
_
(31)
Knowing the value of

m
at each time instant and using c
(0)
m
= c
0
as an initial guess c
m
can be solved as
c
(k+1)
m
= c
(k)
m

j (c
(k)
m
)
j

(c
(k)
m
)
(32)
Once the values of c
m
and c
p
are determined at a particu-
lar time instant, Eq. (29) can be viewed as a non-linear equation
of parameter tan, as all the other variables of the same equa-
tion have been reduced to their numerical values for a particular
run. Modied form of Eq. (29) that can be expressed in a func-
tional form as f(tan=0) is solved again by using single variable
NewtonRaphsonmethodwithaninitial guess of =0.1(indegree)
and a tolerance of 0.001

.
2.6. Simulation for J, c
m
and c
p
Once the values of tan, hence J
BT
at a particular time instant
are known, Eqs. (18), (26) and (27) can be solved simultaneously to
get the time evolution of permeate ux, J, membrane surface con-
centration, c
m
and permeate concentration, c
p
. An iterative scheme
is outlined below for this purpose:
(i) A specic ^t is selected.
(ii) Initialization step: t = 0, c
(0)
m
= 0, c
(0)
p
= 0 and j = (^P
o^

)]R
m
with ^

p
.
(iii) Eqs. (18), (26) and (27) are simultaneously solved by multi-
variable NewtonRaphson method with a specic relaxation
parameter to enhance the speed of convergence.
(iv) t =t +^t
(v) Steps (iii) and (iv) are repeated up to the desired time. At time
t, the previous step values are used as an initial guess.
The chosen ^t value must be sufciently small in order to avoid
divergence. In the present analysis the chosen criteria for ^t selec-
tion is ^t <5 for all the runs.
3. Experimental [21,22]
3.1. Materials
Polyethylene glycol (PEG-6000, AR grade) of molecular weight
range of 60007000 dissolved in water was used as feed solu-
tion and was obtained from Fluka, England. Moist Spectra-Por
C5 asymmetric cellulose acetate complex membrane (cut-off size:
5000) was obtained from Spectrum Medical Industries (USA). The
membranes showedahydrophilic property, has noadsorptionchar-
acteristics and resistant to temperature up to 90

.
3.2. Apparatus
In order to eliminate the effects of concentration polarization so
as to obtain highest possible steady state ux high-shear devices
are becoming more and more popular as industrial ultra ltration
module instead of its inherent mechanical complexity. In the same
line of RDM, multi-shaft disk membrane module, though asym-
metric, replicates the basic structure of RDMon compartment basis
havebeenalreadycommercializedbyWestfaliaSeparator Filtration
GmbH (previously known as Aaowsystems), Aalen, Germany. The
commercial module consists of ceramic membrane disks mounted
on parallel hollow shafts with disks of two successive shafts over-
lapping eachother. So withrespect to a particular disk, the adjacent
disks functions as stirrer, and hence a MSD unit may be viewed as
an asymmetric collection of several RDM units placed in series-
parallel sequence, but the ow rate between membranes in actual
D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355 349
MSDunit is periodical and unsteady because of multi-shafts geom-
etry. The largest MSD unit known so far consists of 31cm diameter
disks mounted on up to eight shafts with a total membrane area of
80m
2
. Ina veryrecent articleHeet al. [24] presentedanexperimen-
tal analysis of MSDthat shows theincreasedperformanceefciency
of MSD over cross ow and single stirred disks.
For the present work the RDMmodule made of SS316, was man-
ufacturedby Gurpreet Engineering Works, Kanpur, UP(India) as per
specieddesign. Themodule(Fig. 3) was equippedwithtwomotors
with speed-controllers to provide rotation of the stirrer and mem-
brane housing. The module has the facility to rotate membrane and
the stirrer in opposite direction to provide maximum shear in the
vicinity of the membrane. Digital tachometer was used to mea-
sure the rotational speed of both the membrane and the stirrer.
The setup was equipped with necessary arrangement for recycling
of the permeate to the feed cell, to run it in continuous mode with
constant feed composition. The later mode was not investigated in
this study. Adequate mechanical sealing mechanism was provided
toprevent leakagefromtherotatingmembraneassembly. Themag-
netic drive stirrer mechanismprevents any leakage possibility from
the top stirrer. The complete schematic diagramof the rotating disk
module setup is given in Fig. 3. The at disk membrane operable in
pH range of 114, has an actual diameter of 76mm whereas the
effective diameter was 56mm.
3.3. Analysis
Solution concentrations were measured with a refractometer
(model P70, Warsaw, Poland). The density andviscosity were deter-
mined by solution concentration at 30

C.
3.4. Design of experiment
In order to validate the model with respect to permeate ux,
experiments were designed in such a way so that the effect of
four independent variables, namely bulk concentration (20, 50, 70
and 90kgm
3
), transmembrane pressure drop (965, 827, 689 and
552kPa) and stirrer speed (63.3, 55.5, 47.1 and 34.0rad/s) could be
investigated. Any three of the variables were kept constant while
the fourth was varied in order to get the actual nature of depen-
dence. The effect of membrane rotation (5.2, 31.2 and 62.8rad/s)
was studied in conjugation with the variable parameter, as an
example while studying the effect of transmembrane pressure on
ux prole the membrane speed was changed to the next level
(from 5.2 to 31.2rad/s or from 31.2 to 62.8rad/s) after exploring
the effect of transmembrane pressure for a particular membrane
speed. In order to compare the performance of RDM module with
that of corresponding single stirred cell, all the different runs were
repeated with static membrane (
1
=0), with the same paramet-
ric conditions. Additionally for the single stirred cell three different
types of stirrer, namely propeller agitator, turbine andat diskwere
used separately in order to compare the general characteristics of
different single stirred cell with that of RDM. This comparison was
necessary in order to establish the gross effectiveness of introduc-
ing membrane stirring effect over different single stirred mode.
But as the develop model can handle only the at disk tted stir-
rer, all the single stirred cell data reported in the study was purely
experimental.
3.5. Procedure
The membrane was placed on a disk shaped porous support
mounted on a hollow shaft through which permeate ows out
through the cell, and the cell was assembled which contains a at
stirrer having the same diameter as that of the membrane, placed
face to face. In order to overcome compaction effect of membrane,
the cell was pressurized with distilled water for at least 2h at
900kPa, which was higher than the highest operational pressure.
After getting constant water ux membrane hydraulic resistance
(R
m
) was determined. This was followed by actual experimen-
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of rotating disk module set up.
350 D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355
tal run. The stirrer and membrane speeds were adjusted rst to
desired rpm by the use of speed controller tted with digital rpm
tachometer. A metering pump was used to charge the cell with
feed solution, as well as for the purpose of recycling the perme-
ate intermittently, so as to keep bulk concentration more or less
constant. The pressure inside the cell was maintained at a xed
preset value using pneumatic pressure delivered through compres-
sion, controlled by a digital pressure controller. An intermediate
air reservoir was used for this purpose. To determine current value
of permeate ux, 10cm
3
of permeate was collected in a measur-
ing cylinder and time for this collection was recorded. Flux values
were recorded every 5min. A particular run was continued until
two successive ux reading were equal.
Once the run was over, the membrane was thoroughly cleaned
with distilled water at least for 2h to remove any deposition. The
water ux then again checked to detect any variation in the mem-
brane hydraulic resistance. The same procedure was repeated for
each set of operating condition.
4. Results and discussion
Once the membrane has been compacted, several water runs
were takenat different pressures as mentionedbefore to determine
membrane hydraulic resistance (R
m
). Out of all the generated sets
of experimental data 24 sets were used for the purpose of com-
parison with the trend predicted by analytical model. Fig. 4ac
shows the comparative plots of permeate ux prole under dif-
ferent transmembrane pressure (^P) and membrane speed (
1
),
while keeping the bulk concentration (c
0
) and stirrer speed (
2
)
unchanged. From these proles it becomes clear that the perme-
ate ux reaches its steady state value practically within 57min,
where as for a single stirred cell (
1
=0) of similar geometry the
corresponding time is in the order of 1h [10]. This shows an extra
advantage of RDM module over single stirred cell. The permeate
ux clearly shows an increasing trend both with the increase of
transmembrane pressure as well as membrane speed. It is observed
that for a transmembrane pressure change from552 to 965kPa the
steady state ux increases by 6067% under three different mem-
brane speeds. Where as for the change of membrane speed from
5.2 to 62.8rad/s, the increase of steady state permeate ux is more
than 100% for the same operating pressure. In addition to the gen-
eral ux prole, a comparative bar chart representing the steady
state ux both for RDM and single stirred cell tted with different
stirrers (propeller agitator, turbine and at disk) is shown in Fig. 5.
Fromthe bar chart it becomes very evident that the introduction of
membrane stirring in addition to stirrer is always much more effec-
tive than the most efcient single stirred module (single stirred cell
tted with propeller agitator) reected by the fact that the steady
state ux of RDMwas at least 10%higher that of propeller tted sin-
gle stirred cell, though the RDM itself is tted with at disk stirrer,
which is the least effective one in single stirred mode. Moreover
with the increase of membrane speed from 5.2 to 62.8rad/s the
permeate ux increases practically by 90%.
In order to establish the general effectiveness of membrane
rotation, permeate ux prole for different stirrer and membrane
speeds under xedconditions of transmembrane pressure andbulk
concentration is shown in Fig. 6. Considering two comparable pro-
les, one with stirrer and membrane speeds of 63.3 and 31.2rad/s
and another with 34.0 and 62.8rad/s, respectively it can be inferred
that though the sum of the stirrer and membrane speeds remains
practically constant but the steady state value of permeate ux for
the second case, i.e., the case with higher membrane speed (stir-
rer: 34.0rad/s and membrane: 62.8rad/s) is 12% higher than the
rst. This result claries the fact that membrane rotation is much
Fig. 4. (ac) Variation of experimental and predicted ux as a function of time (min)
at different transmembrane pressure and membrane speed but at constant bulk
concentration (c
0
=20kgm
3
) and stirrer speed (
2
=55.5rad/s).
D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355 351
Fig. 5. Variation of steady state ux as a function of transmembrane pressure
(TMP, in kPa) at different membrane speed, but at constant bulk concentration
(c
0
=20kgm
3
) and stirrer speed (
2
=55.5rad/s).
more effective fromthe standpoint of permeate ux thanthe stirrer
speed. Moreover it can be observed that the effect of stirrer speed
increase is more pronouncedat higher side values of the membrane
speeditself as theindividual bandwidthof different uxprolesets
Fig. 6. Variation of experimental and predicted ux as a function of time (min)
at different stirrer and membrane speed, but at constant transmembrane pressure
(^P=552kPa) and bulk concentration (c
0
=70kgm
3
).
Fig. 7. Variation of steady state ux as a function of stirrer speed at different mem-
branespeed, but at constant bulkconcentration(c
0
=70kgm
3
) andtransmembrane
pressure (^P=552kPa).
increases with the increase of membrane speed. A comparative bar
chart of steady state permeate ux with respect to stirrer speed
under xed conditions of transmembrane pressure, concentration
and membrane speed is shown in Fig. 7. Here once again the steady
permeate ux is compared with single stirred cell with different
types of stirrer.
Effect of bulk concentration on ux prole is depicted in Fig. 8a
and b under xed conditions of stirrer speed and transmembrane
pressure. Here the effect of membrane speed was studied in conju-
gation with bulk concentration. Fig. 8a represents the ux prole at
membrane speeds of 5.2 and 31.2rad/s where as Fig. 8b represents
the same variation at 31.2 and 62.8rad/s. It is very evident that
as bulk concentration increases rejection by the membrane sur-
face increases resulting an increased resistance in polarized layer
and thereby ux gets reduced. But with the increase of membrane
speed the increased effect of back transport ux reduces the inu-
ence of concentration polarization; hence permeate ux increases
practically by 3550% for all different concentrations.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of helix angle of the solute particle
trajectory due to back transport ux at the membrane surface with
different stirrer and membrane speed, all the other process param-
eters remains constant. The helix angle () shows a decrease with
increasing stirrer and membrane speed, which is expected because
of thefact that increasedstirrer as well as membranespeed, induces
a tendency in solute to follow horizontally oriented circular path
with very little vertical displacement under each turn, exactly con-
sistent with the oweld produced by combined rotation of stirrer
and membrane. As the ratio of vertical to circular displacement
decreases the helix angle must decrease with increase in stirrer
speed. Alternatively it can be argued that in high turbulent regime,
ow structure is practically independent of system parameters, as
a result the back transport ux that occurs in high turbulent regime
becomes constant. Since the ux at membrane surface (J
BT
|
x=0
) is
directly proportional to
_
(
1
+
2
) tan , increase in
2
or
1
, i.e.,
in (
1
+
2
) tan and therefore must decrease to keep the entire
term constant. For the increase of transmembrane pressure helix
angle decreases insignicantly. It is observed that decreases very
sharplywithtimeandattains its steadystatevaluewithin510min,
consistent with the trend of permeates ux. No signicant trend of
helix angle with bulk concentration is observed.
352 D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355
Fig. 8. (a and b) Variation of experimental and predicted ux as a function of time
(min) at different bulk concentration and membrane speed, but at constant trans-
membrane pressure (^P=827kPa) and stirrer speed (
2
=55.5rad/s).
Variation of membrane surface concentration (c
m
) with time
at different transmembrane pressure and stirrer speed with two
distinct membrane speeds are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respec-
tively. Initially the membrane surface concentration increases very
sharply but the rate of increase in c
m
diminishes with time and
Fig. 9. Variation of helix angle () in degree, with time at different stirrer and
membrane speeds (c
0
=20kgm
3
and ^P=827kPa).
after a short span of time it becomes almost at. This is due to
the fact that as time increases membrane surface concentration
shows a positive trend resulting in increase in the osmotic pres-
sure differential, which opposes the applied pressure differential.
This results in decrease of the effective driving force giving rise to
a retarded volumetric ux and hence a lower solute transporta-
tion rate at the membrane surface. In addition to the above effect,
concentration polarization increases with membrane surface con-
centration and the phenomena of back-diffusion becomes more
pronounced and hence the rate of increase in membrane surface
concentrationbecomes small. Withthe increase intransmembrane
pressure thats why the surface concentration seems to be increas-
ing. Further it can be concluded from these gures that turbulence
Fig. 10. Variation of membrane surface concentration with time at different pres-
sures and membrane speeds (c
0
=70kgm
3
and
2
=55.5rad/s).
D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355 353
Fig. 11. Variation of membrane surface concentration with time at different stirrer
and membrane speed (c
0
=20kgm
3
and ^P=827kPa).
near the vicinity of membrane surface have an important effect in
ascertaining the concentration polarization phenomena. An inter-
esting observation that can be noticed from both of Figs. 10 and 11
that membrane rotation is more effective in reducing the mem-
brane surface concentration compared to the stirring effect. In fact
the concentration build up is reduced by maximum 1.1% per unit
increase of membrane speed where as it is reduced by 0.75% per
unit increase of stirrer speed. Though not separately studied but it
is also quite obvious that increase in bulk concentration must give
rise to increased membrane surface concentration.
In order to be more informative about the trend of steady state
ux with respect to transmembrane pressure, a plot of steady ux
versus pressure at different bulk concentration and membrane
speed is represented in Fig. 12. It is evident fromthe gure that per-
meate ux increases almost linearly with pressure, where as with
increasing concentration permeate ux by signicant amount as
expected because increased concentration results in severe polar-
izationtherebyreducing the steadyux. The effect of concentration
increase is counteredmore effectively by the increase inmembrane
rotation. It is tobenotedthat as themembranespeedincreases from
5.2 to 31.2rad/s there is practically 75115% increase in permeate
ux under different transmembrane pressure and bulk concentra-
tion. The effect of stirrer speed increase is separately shown in
Fig. 13 in the form of a bar chart. Though the steady ux seems
to be increasing with stirrer speed but it is limited to maximum
50%, much lower than the corresponding enhancement with the
increase in membrane speed.
The effect of transmembrane pressure and membrane rota-
tion on % rejection is depicted in Fig. 14. At lower pressure lower
rejection is observed. As pressure increases more liquid permeates
through the membrane having more solute to retain thereby con-
stricting the pore opening and subsequently increasing rejection.
Turbulence created by membrane rotation has a moderate inu-
ence on rejection, though not as high as pressure, but stirrer speed
does not seem to have any appreciable effect on rejection.
Fig. 12. Variation of steady state ux with transmembrane pressure (TMP, in kPa)
at different bulk concentration and membrane speed (
2
=63.3rad/s).
The sources of deviation between experimental result and
model prediction may be inherent in the fact that the formulated
model is strictly one-dimensional considering variationof different
systemvariables along axial direction only. Though not very signif-
Fig. 13. Variation of steady state ux with transmembrane pressure (TMP, in kPa)
at different stirrer speed (
1
=31.2rad/s and c
0
=20kgm
3
).
354 D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355
Fig. 14. Variation % rejection with transmembrane pressure (TMP, in kPa) at differ-
ent membrane speed (
2
=63.3rad/s and c
0
=20kgm
3
).
icant but due to high-speed rotational eld there must be certain
radial variation of the same, which were not included because of
mathematical complexity. Secondly, the equation of velocity eld
(Eqs. (1) and(2)) was simpliedinorder toget theanalytical expres-
sion of back transport ux, otherwise it was not possible to get
the trend of proposed helix angle with respect to different operat-
ing parameters. Instead of these two simplications on an average
the deviation of predicted result from that of experiment was well
within 7%, which establishes the general usability of the model
for any standard RDM module.
5. Conclusion
Ananalytical model basedonsolutionof PDEarisingfromfunda-
mental mass balanceincorporatingtheexpressionof backtransport
ux for rotating disk membrane is proposed in this study. Unsteady
state membrane surface and permeate concentration are also eval-
uated through Florys equation and related to permeate ux via
irreversible thermodynamics, whereas the permeate ux is related
to concentration eld by balance equation developed at the mem-
brane surface. Finally an iterative scheme is developed to simulate
permeate ux and rejection under any operating condition. The
model prerequisite is accurate estimation of four system parame-
ters, i.e., R
m
, , P
m
and o, in this point of view the model can be
termed as a four-parameter model of RDM. The proposed model
is validated with experimental data for PEG-6000 in water treated
with cellulose acetate membrane in a standard RDMcell. Lowvalue
of deviation (within 7%) both for permeate ux and rejection
establishes that model couldbe usedfor accurate simulationof per-
meate ux and rejection for any system subjected to ultraltration
in a standard RDM module.
Acknowledgements
Experimental part of this work was carried out utilizing
the infrastructures developed under Indo-Australian Project,
entitled Milk nutraceuticals: A biotechnology opportunity for
Australian and Indian Dairy Producers, funded by DBT under Indo-
Australian Biotechnology Fund (IABF) (vide sanction letter no.
BT/PR9547/ICD/16/754/2006 of DBT/Indo-Aus/01/35/06 dated 02
July 2007). The contribution of IABF is gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
a,b constants used in Eq. (28)
a
t
tangential acceleration (ms
2
)
a

area element dened in Eq. (4a)

A parameter dened in Eq. (11)
c solute concentration (kgm
3
)
c
m
solute concentration at membrane surface (kgm
3
)
c
p
solute concentration in the permeate (kgm
3
)
c
0
bulk solute concentration (kgm
3
)
c

solute concentration (gcm

3
)
c* dimensionless concentration=c/c
0
C
1
, C
2
constants used in Eq. (13)
D solute diffusivity (m
2
s
1
)
F parameter dened in Eq. (27)
J volumetric permeate ux (m
3
m
2
s
1
)
J
BT
back transport ux (m
3
m
2
s
1
)
M
mono
molecular weight of repeat unit (kgkmol
1
)
M
pol
molecular weight of polymer (kgkmol
1
)
n number of helix turns required to stirrer surface
from any intermediate point, used in Eq. (8)
N total number of helix turns used in Eq. (19)
P hydraulic pressure (Pa)
PEG polyethylene glycol
P
m
solute permeability (ms
1
)
r radial coordinate (m)
R gas constant
R
m
membrane hydraulic resistance (m
1
)
R

radius of stirrer and membrane (m)

s

displacement along helix path (m)

t time (s)
t* dimensionless time = Dt]x
2
t
T absolute temperature in Eq. (25)
v
x
axial velocity (ms
1
)
v
0
tangential velocity (ms
1
)
V volume element used in Eq. (4a)
V
1
specic volume of the solvent
x axial distance from membrane surface (m)
x
t
distance of stirrer from membrane surface (m)
x* dimensionless distance =x/x
t
Greek letters
helix angle
0 angular displacement, used in Eq. (4a)

osmotic pressure (Pa)

density of solution (kgm
3
)

pol
density of polymer (kgm
3
)
o reection coefcient
z shear stress (Pa)
y
12
FloryHuggins interaction parameter

1
,
2
angular velocity of membrane and stirrer, respec-
tively
References
[1] S. Bruin, A. Kikkert, J.A.G. Weldering, Overview of concentration polarization
in ultraltration, Desalination 35 (1980) 223.
[2] K.H. Youm, A.G. Fane, D.E. Wiley, Effect of natural convection instability on
membrane performance in dead end and cross ow ultraltration, J. Membr.
Sci. 116 (1996) 229.
[3] S.S.L. Peppin, J.A.W. Elliott, Non-equilibriumthermodynamics of concentration
polarization, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 92 (2001) 1.
[4] W.N. Gill, D.E. Wiley, C.J.D. Fell, A.G. Fane, Viscosity effect on concentration
polarization, AIChE J. 34 (2004) 1563.
D. Sarkar, C. Bhattacharjee / Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344355 355
[5] S.K. Zaidi, A. Kumar, Experimental studies in the dead end ultraltration of
dextran: analysis of concentration polarization, Sep. Purif. Technol. 36 (2004)
115.
[6] T.R. Mollee, Y.G. Anissimov, M.S. Roberts, Periodic electric eld enhanced trans-
port through membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 278 (2006) 28.
[7] A.D. Enevoldsen, E.B. Hansen, G. Jonsson, Electro ultraltration of industrial
enzyme solution, J. Membr. Sci. 299 (2007) 28.
[8] H.M. Wang, C.Y. Li, S.J. Chen, T.N. Cheng, T.L. Chan, Abatement of concentra-
tion polarization in ultraltration using n-hexadecane/water two-phase ow,
J. Membr. Sci. 238 (2004) 1.
[9] Z. Cui, T. Taha, Enhancement of ultraltration using gas sparging: a comparison
of different membrane module, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 78 (2003) 249.
[10] C. Bhattacharjee, S. Datta, Simulation of continuous stirred ultraltration pro-
cess: an approach based on analytical solution couples with turbulent back
transport, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 78 (2003) 11351141.
[11] C. Bhattacharjee, S. Datta, Analysis of mass transfer during ultraltration of
PEG-6000 in a continuous stirred cell: effect of back transport, J. Membr. Sci.
119 (1996) 3946.
[12] S. Bhattacharjee, A. Sharma, P.K. Bhattacharya, A unied model for prediction
of ux in stirred and unstirred batch ultraltration, J. Membr. Sci. 111 (1996)
243.
[13] P. Bacchin, M. Meireles, P. Aimar, Modeling of ltration: frompolarized layer to
deposit formation and compaction, Desalination 145 (2002) 139.
[14] M. Cabassud, N.D. Vincent, C. Cabassud, L.D. Bourlier, J.M. Laine, Neural net-
works: a tool to improve ultraltration plant productivity, Desalination 145
(2002) 223.
[15] C. Teodosiu, O. Pastravanu, M. Macoveanu, Neural network models for ultral-
tration and backwashing, Water Res. 34 (2000) 4371.
[16] B. Halstr om, M. Lopez-Liva, Description of rotating ultraltration module,
Desalination 24 (1977) 39.
[17] R. Bouzerar, P. Paullier, M.Y. Jaffrin, Concentration of mineral suspensions and
industrial efuent usinga rotatingdiskdynamic ltrationmodule, Desalination
158 (2003) 79.
[18] C. Bhattacharjee, P.K. Bhattacharya, Ultraltration of black liquor
using rotating disk membrane module, Sep. Purif. Technol. 49 (2006)
281.
[19] C. Torras, J. Pallares, R.G. Valls, M.Y. Jaffrin, CFD simulation of rotating disk at
membrane module, Desalination 200 (2006) 453.
[20] T.K. Sherwood, R.L. Pigford, C.R. Wile, Mass Transfer, McGraw Hill, New York,
1980.
[21] C. Bhattacharjee, P.K. Bhattacharya, Prediction of limiting ux in ultraltration
of Kraft black liquor, J. Membr. Sci. 72 (1992) 137.
[22] S. Bhattacharjee, S. Ghosh, S. Datta, C. Bhattacharjee, Studies on ultraltration
of Casein hey using a rotating disk module: effect of pH and membrane disk
rotation, Desalination 195 (2006) 95108.
[23] S. Nakao, S. Kimura, Analysis of solute rejection in ultraltration, J. Chem. Eng.
Jpn. 14 (1981) 32.
[24] G. He, L.H. Ding, P. Paullier, M.Y. Jaffrin, Experimental study of a dynamic l-
tration systemwith overlapping ceramic membrane and non permeating disks
rotating at independent speed, J. Membr. Sci. 300 (2007) 63.