i

Membrane-Solute and m

Liquid-Particle Interaction i

0
Z

Effects in Filtration m
"n
"n
m
t'>
Professor R.J. Wakeman
D e p a r t m e n t of C h e m i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g , L o u g h b o r o u g h U n i v e r s i t y , L o u g h b o r o u g h , -4
Or)
Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK

G. Akay
D e p a r t m e n t of C h e m i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of N o t t i n g h a m , U n i v e r s i t y Park,
Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

Solid/liquid separation is concerned with the removal of molecules and molecular aggregates,
colloids and particulates from liquids. Interaction forces can make the separation easier or more
difficult. The nature of the dominant interactions varies according to the type of dispersed phase,
and according to the properties (for example, ionic strength) of the continuous phase. Traditional
approaches to modelling filtration processes, and hence to design methodologies, fail to
incorporate any of the relevant forces that exist in fine particle separations. However, effects of L .', •

the interactions are interpreted through the use traditional approaches combined with t • • •

experimental data. Future theoretical developments need to be better based on the fundamentals
of solid/liquid systems. Particle or solute interactions with the separating surface are important. In
cake filtration these determine the ease of cake discharge, or in crossflow filtration Ihey determine t •

the propensity of a surface to foul. The separating surface can take many forms -- woven textile
media, sinters or felts, for example -- and can be made from a wide variety of materials, such as
polymer films, synthetic or naturally occurring fibres, metals, ceramics or glass. The paper
discusses the general nature of mechanical and thermodynamic interactions between these
media and Ihe dispersed phase.

I n spite of the potential relevance of colloid science to

Wetting
sedimentation and filtration, [1] little systematic research by solvent
has been carried out to determine its importance. I So-M J
Flocculation, coagulation and flotation are notable separation Dispersi~ ~ n s i o n s eO0~
techniques where surface science has played a prominent gO00,
e O
role• The purpose of this paper is to explore the roles played I Par iolo I 00 00
deposition I
by membrane-solute and liquid-particle interactions in filtra- i Solute absorption I M P I
tion processes. and deposition I I ego
The filtration processes to be considered are ultrafiltration, s M So I / eoe
ioe
microfiltration and cake filtration. The first two are generally ] growth I
operated in a crossflow mode, where feed is tangential to a I P:.£J *oo
IJll
porous filtering surface. The shear stress then limits the cake
growth, and a steady state is reached when the cake thickness
remains constant, but there can be continual renewal and Cake I °,°°
discharge I
motion of particles at the cake surface. [2] This notion is valid
ni ~c~e_a
M e ~ tne p-M-So I
for suspensions, but for dispersions molecules absorb onto
the surface to form a so-called gel layer. [3]
Some microfilters, and almost all cake filters, operate in a
dead-end mode, where the feed is directed normally and
towards the separator surface. Cake growth is then limited by So Solvent S Solute M Membrane or filter septum P Particle -n

Hydrodynamics affects gel or cake deposition and growth rates, B.

IIIIIII IIIII IIIIIII

,t ,, I'111111IIIII
o
Figure 2. Principal Interactions st different stages In the flltrstion
process.
Cmssttow o0
(1)

! ! !,
"O

llillil IIIIIIIII
Deadend
the fluid pressure loss resulting from accumulated drag at the
particle surfaces; when the cumulative drag stress equals the

! Illillll 111111
lIII1,1 Ill fluid driving pressure, cake growth ceases. The applications "m

of these processes in relation to the sizes of solutes or e

r_..
particles to be separated is shown in Figure 1; the boundary r-
;ration i between them is not distinct, offering technical alternatives for
.m
(I)

10
-3
IIllIIri iii
10
-2
10 -1
Solute/particle
III! ,,
1
size.
10
microns
100 I000
many separations.
In the context of this paper, the term 'membrane' takes on
much wider connotations than is usual. Membranes are often
regarded as thin polymeric films containing pores of a
controlled size. In this paper the various septa used in
filtration are loosely referred to as membranes; hence
e
-o

ceramic and metallic elements, woven and felted media, _.L

Figure 1.The operating mode and applicability of filtration processes. _.L
 and papers, for example, are included within the discussion. of the inevitability of membrane-solute interactions, and the
The stages in the filtration of dispersions and suspen- ineffectiveness of high crossflow velocities, concentration
0
sions are shown in Figure 2, together with the interactions polarisation still occurs, and the solute concentration on the
U. thought to be most important at each stage. In general, an membrane exceeds the feed concentration, This concentra-
U. initial stage is to wet the membrane, and this is followed by tion (or gel) p o l a r i s a t i o n is important, because it is
LLI
the absorption and deposition of solute and by gel layer responsible for the decay of permeate flux to unacceptably
z growth in the case of dispersions, or by particle deposition low levels.
0 and cake growth for a suspension. Membrane rejuvenation The establishment of a gel layer is also often essential in
I-- by cleaning is usually required, with the ease of cleaning order to obtain solute rejection at acceptable permeate
0 being determined by the strength of adhesion of either fluxes. [3-8] The psuedo gel concentration c~ is evaluated
solutes or particles to the membrane. experimentally from a plot of the steady-state permeate flux
tr
Jo~ versus log W, by extrapolating the linear portion of this
~J
curve [3-12! to Jo~ = 0. By definition, at #co = 0 the feed
MEMBRANE-SOLUTE INTERACTIONS
z concentration c/ equals the pseudo gel concentration c~.
In crossflow filtration the following stages lead to gel layer Figure 3 shows a typical set of experimental data, and the
formation of a fresh membrane: !3] (i) wetting of the membrane extrapolation for c~. Use of the term 'gel concentration' %
by the solvent, (ii) absorption and deposition of solute on the should be avoided, as the actual flux is rarely zero at
membrane, (iii) growth of the gel Ihyer, and (iv) establishment this extrapolated point, which of course it must be at the
of the steady state. In stages (i) and (ii) the surface forces true gel concentration.
. , .
resulting from the membrane-solvent-solute interactions Welting of membranes
dictate the transient behaviour of molecule deposition onto Wetting is often quantitatively described by reference to a
the membrane, or of a liquid crystalline structure at the liquid drop resting at equilibrium on a solid surface, where the
".',',"
membrane surface when surfactants or similar solutes are tensions ?SL, ~SVo and ~/LV at the three-phase contact point
present in the solvent. Membrane-solute interactions are represent the interracial force per unit length (or free energy
,.:::::: most important in the initial stages of wetting and solute
absorption and deposition.
per unit area) between solid/liquid (SL), solid/vapour (SV°)
and liquid/vapour (LV), respectively. The Young equation,
Crossflow filtration was originally devised to reduce relating these tensions to the equilibrium contact angle 8e is a
IIilllll ~ concentration polarisation by utilising hydrodynamic forces result of the fact that the surface free energy is invariant with
IlllIIi
z ~ IXJ~
I to hinder solute deposition at a membrane surface. Because respect to any small change in the area covered by the liquid:
")'SV ° -- '~SL -- ")'LV COSee ~-- 0 (1)

When 8e = 0 the liquid wets the solid completely at a rate

F I I I fill
depending on the liquid viscosity and solid surface rough-
I ! ness.
3000
PES In thermodynamic equilibrium "Tsvo can never exceed
d:OA pa 7SL + 7LV. However, if we deal with nonequilibrium situations,
\ &p=30 psi we may have a solid/vapour interfacial energy
\ u = z,.O m/s ~SV > (?SL -[- ~LV). The difference
:::::::: 'E

a=
2000~-
\ T = 60° C
-O-
\
-O-
-o- & s = "rsv - ('rsL + " r J ) (2)
el°o°o°o
e o ~ \
N
is the spreading coefficient of the liquid over the solid.
eeeoeo° ~
e 4 e e
\ Physically, "Ysv is associated with a 'dry' solid surface, while
\ 3"svo is associated with a 'moist' surface. The difference
e e e e
e e~e,e e (3'sv-7svo) can be very large ( ~ 0.003 Jim for metallic
- I000~-- \
\ oxides and water). For high energy surfaces "Tsv is large
(0.005 to 0.05 J/m), while for molecular solids and liquids
° ° * o
° , ° ° ~fsy ~-- 0.0005 J/re. When SLs is large and positive, spreading
o , , o
* • ° • takes place. Before the application of the transmembrane
oi.l ! I [ lllf
1.0 [ f (g/t) 10
:~ , IIlll]
I0
Pressure differential, the pores of the membrane are filled
Ef=O 0.1 with water and air saturated with vapour. The minimum
pressure required to force liquid through a pore in the
Rgure 3.Varlutlon of stcodyistute permeate flux with feed iurfautant membrane (assuming single capillary behaviour) is given by
Arosurf TA-100) concentration for polyethersulphone memhrInes. the Laplace equation.
In real situations, a distribution of pore sizes exists, and the
O3 I0 b ; -- -- ~ - - T [ 1 membrane pores cannot be represented as capillaries.
O3
: I 0 g litre -t hrosurf TA- tO0 Knowledge of ~LV and 8e enables the pore size distribution
t- Y
02 /Lm pore rating in membranes and other porous structures to be determined.
.c P r e s s u r e 2 0 4 b a r (30 psi)
.--j c~
i1~ ' t e m p e r a t u r e 60°C ]
The effective transmembrane pressure drop at the start of
e E ~0 a I ". Crossflow velocity 4.0 ms crossflow filtration is given by the difference between the
¢- applied pressure Ap and the Laplace pressure:
. IO ~^~^ PTFE m e m b r a n e
Ape = A p + 2")'LV COSOe (3)
Q. f- Nylon66 m e m b r a n e T
O
O9 i 10 3 where r is the capillary radius. As solute deposition occurs
*TLV iS lowered, making the Laplace pressure contribution to
the effective pressure become insignificant. Spontaneous
O
(negative pressure) penetration of the liquid is only possible if
10 2 I I I I I.
ee < 90 °, and when 8e - 0° (complete wetting) the driving
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 5000
LL force for the liquid penetration is a maximum. When ee > 90°,
Time (seconds)
Pc is positive and external pressure is required to force the
Figure 4.11runsleutpermeate flux belMvlour of two membranes with liquid lnto the pores.
slmlhlr pore size rutlngu but differing hydrophobl¢lty during ©ross- Using PTFE membranes, for which 8~ = 117°, the average
®
O~ flow fllt~tlco of a ©utlonlosurfautant dispersion In water at low feed value of the Laplace pressure is 636 kPa (93 psi) for water (~/LV
13. concentration.
 m
= 70 mN/m) for r = 0.1 #m. Hence, in the absence of solute it nents such as electrolyte, oil or co-surfactant. As a result of Z
is expected that J(t) = 0 when the transmembrane pressure aggregate formation, surfactants can be removed from --I
is <636 kPa. This is in fact what is observed. [3' s] Figure 4 water [7] using membranes with pore sizes much larger than I'rl
shows the variation of permeate flux with time for hydrophilic the surfactant molecule size. ~0
~>
(Nylon66) and hydrophobic (PTFE) membranes; as the In the case of self-structuring solutes, we are concerned C)
membrane becomes coated with solute, the flux declines with the equilibrium orientation of the molecules at the ~1
using the hydrophilic membrane, and increases using the membrane surface. When the filtration temperature is above C)
hydrophobic membrane. the Kraft boundary, and the surfactant concentration is Z
Assuming that the flux decay (or rise) occurs after sufficiently high so that a lyotropic liquid crystal phase is
monolayer surface coverage, the rate of increase of the established, the membrane surface may appear to be part of rrl
-I"1
permeate flux dJ(t)/dt is also a measure of the surfactant the liquid crystal structure. The cationic surfactant used in the -I1
deposition rate. According t o W e , [13] the size of the unwetted experiments reported [3-8] forms a lamella structure at high rrl
interfacial voids A , can be related to the spreading coefficient concentrations, and the illustrations used here are based on L")
"-t
SLS through this phase.
When considering surfactant deposition on the membrane
('> surface which is already wetted by water, four types of
interfacial structure can arise. TM These are shown in Figure 5.
where A0 and m are constants. This equation indicates that The difference between the interfacial structures in (be--(de is
the size of unwetted regions decreases ~ith large spreading in the thickness of the water layer between the surfactant
assembly and the membrane. In (be the water layer thickness
coefficient. Since the dominant term in Eqn. 2 for SLS is the
surface tension of the solid (3'sv), Eqn. 4 indicates that the size is zero while in (de it is large, and in (c) the water layer
of the unwetted regions will be small for high-energy surfaces thickness is the same as the intra-lamella water layer ....
thickness between the bilayers . . . . .
(i.e. when ~fsv is large).
In predicting the type of interface structure, the Flory . . . . .
Molecular a t t a c h m e n t a n d orientation a t membrane surface Huggins[14. ~s] free energy parameter approach can be ....
Absorption and deposition of a solute, either as simple used.t3, s] The interaction pararneter Xm for a binary system i : : i
molecules or as molecular aggregates, is a dynamic process is defined as
which will not be considered here. Recent work has been |
carried out [3-6] on the crossflow filtration and deposition of (6! 62)2
X]2 -- ~ (5) ' "" 1
surfactant dispersions, because of the widespread use of
these or similar self-aggregating solutes in industry and the
where R is the gas constant and T is temperature, and 6~ and " ~=,
frequent need to filter them, and they provide an interesting
62 are the Hildebrand solubility parameters [~s-18] for the
solute with which to study fouling phenomena. Surfactants in
phases 1 and 2. However, since we are dealing with a tertiary
water form aggregates, the size, shape and structure of which
system involving membrane (me, solute (or surfactant, s) and
are dependent on the surfactant molecular structure, con-
water (we, direct application of Eqn. 5 is not possible•
centration, temperature, and the presence of other compo-
Furthermore, we are dealing with charged molecules in a
highly polar liquid medium.
All of the membranes used in the experiments were non-
ionic, but Nylon66 can form strong hydrogen bonds. The
t,
• • • o
•%••%q
cationic surfactant, by its very nature, has both hydrophobic %'o%*(•
• •
and hydrophilic parts. The HLB (hydrophile-lipophile balance) %o%=q
number of the surfactant reflects the balance between ",'s°, °,
hydrophobic and hydrophilic parts of the surfactant, and "°'°sS"oo,.
should be converted to the solubility parameter and be o:.:,:.'
WWW WWWW W WW
decomposed into the so-called Hansen parameters: disper- °,',',°,
stun (~d), polar (6p) and hydrogen bonding (She contributions• :o:,:,:
The Little-Singleterry [~] equation is used to estimate the .'.','.
solubility parameter of the surfactant: • .••..
o0"," •
W ~ ~ '~ W W
243 ....
6, (in M P a °'5) -- ( 5 4 - H L B ) F ].2.3 (6) , . .

,ylw~'...".2"2" / ~//// which yields 6s (cationic) = 17.9 MPa °5 since HLB = 9.7 for ....

(a) (be the cationic (Arosurf TA-100) used in the experiments.

The decomposition of the surfactant solubility parameter
into 68~, 68p and 68h is done using
-n
-~

W W W W W W -~ W W W W W W where the factor 0.25 is a result of the molecular orientation

present in the polar and hydrogen bonding. [17' 18] The
dispersion solubility parameter can be calculated from the "o
m
Small equation: [2°]
~-., Ni Fi o
6sd = P2.., ~- (8) =
e

W W W W W %4 W where p is the density, M is the molecular weight, and ~ N~Fi ~-¢"

is the sum of the molar attraction constants. Here Fi is
associated with each functional group, and N~ is the number of
W %4 W %4 %4 W %4
W W v4 W W W %4 %4 %4 W such groups in the molecule.
W %4 W W W W W Assuming that the hydrophobic part of the Arosurf •
/ / //// / / / / ~
(c) (d) surfactant can be written as (ClaHaT)NH and the density is
0.86 g/cm 3, 6s,i is found to be 16.7 MPa °'s. The values of ~ are
obtained from Wu. [21] The value of 6sd can also be obtained
from Beerbower and Hill, [22] who give values of Hansen
-o
©

o?.
Figure 6. Surlamtunt structure at the mombreno surl#o.
 TABLE 1. SOLUBILITY PARAMETERS FOR FILTER MEMBRANES USED IN EXPERIMENTS FILTERING Arosurf TA-IOO
(DIOCTYLDIMETHYLAMMONIUM CHLORIDE) DISPERSIONS.

Membranetradename Chemicalname 5m,MPaos 5~,MPa°'s 5p,MPa°s 5h, MPau c~,0/1

Z Sart0riusSMl1807" P-i'FE 13.9 13.9 0 0 16
0 PHP" Polystyrene 19.7 19.6 08 2.0 28
Nuclep0ret P01ycarb0nate 19.1 17.6 4.2 6.1 20
Sart0riusSM25007" Ny10n66 22.9 18.6 5.1 12.3 33
X-Flowt P01yethersulph0ne 21.1 19.4 4.2 7.3 33
Ceramesh Zirc0nia ~200 -- -- -- 47
Z

Water 47.8 15.6 16.0 42.3

Ar0surfTA-1O0 17.9 16.7 5, = 12.9 --

• FromReference23.
* Calculatedfromgroupcontributionmethod01H0ftyzerandVanKrevelen[16]

. . 0 .

p a r a m e t e r s for the h y d r o p h o b i c and h y d r o p h i l i c parts of the

.... surfactants. For a stearate chain 5d = 16.8 MPa °5 and f(h) -- 6 r h 3 t- K t e x p + 64nokTj32exp2(-ah) (12)
•...'..",. = = o.
•".'='.' From Eqns. 6 and 7, the c o m b i n e d p o l a r and hydrogen where
' =K , I' , ')l, ' m b o n d i n g c o m p o n e n t s of the s o l u b i l i t y p a r a m e t e r for the
surfactant [la] is 2 05 =\ ereokT ] fl = t ~ h ~ (13)
6,° = + = - ~,d) " (9)
Eqn. 12 a p p l i e s when J ~ = 0 (i.e. c / = c g ) . When Joe > 0
w h i c h y i e l d s 5 ~ = 12.9 M P a °5. h y d r o d y n a m i c forces should be included in the equation.
The solubility p a r a m e t e r s of the non-ionic p o l y m e r s can The total force acting on the particle, F ( h ) , is given by
also be d e c o m p o s e d into 5,,d, 5rap and 5mh through
F(h) = 7rb~f(ho) + 2~rrf(h)dr (14)
± ~2 ~0.5 (no orientation) (10)
IOOOqP
DO@O,
g i g •
• • • • S o l u b i l i t y p a r a m e t e r s for the m e m b r a n e p o l y m e r s used in When the surfactant a g g r e g a t e is highly d e f o r m a b l e , the
.==°•°='•°•
• the e x p e r i m e n t s a r e s h o w n in T a b l e 1. The s o l u b i l i t y contact radius b0 is equal to the particle radius R, and the
';,;,;.~,. p a r a m e t e r of w a t e r can also be d e c o m p o s e d into 5~d, 5~v integral term in Eqn. 14 has a value of zero. At the e q u i l i b r i u m
o n e •
and 5=h, and is s h o w n in T a b l e 1. The m e a s u r e d p s e u d o gel distance ho, F = 0. A c c o r d i n g to S h a r m a et al., t~l ho can be
°eooo=e e
eeeo c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of A r o s u r f TA-100 d e p o s i t e d on each m e m - e s t i m a t e d from the solution of the Hertz contact p r o b l e m for a
eeee
eoeo
°eeeeee b r a n e type is also s h o w n in T a b l e 1; c; is i n d e p e n d e n t of the particle on a flat surface. However, one still r e q u i r e s s o m e
, o . e
p r o c e s s i n g conditions, but is d e p e n d e n t on the m e m b r a n e - physical p a r a m e t e r s (such as the elastic m o d u l u s and
Poisson's ratio) to d e s c r i b e the m e c h a n i c a l d e f o r m a t i o n of
solute interactions,
. 4 . t the surfactant a g g r e g a t e .
, . . o o It is clear that w h e n
.
.
o
.
.
o
°
.
Although the w a t e r layer thickness at e q u i l i b r i u m (he) may
. . . °
° ° , , &~d >> 5m~ and 58d >> 5s~ (11) not be m e a s u r e d accurately, the w a t e r l a y e r t h i c k n e s s
between the surfactant bilayers can be d e t e r m i n e d accurately
i.e. with a h y d r o p h o b i c m e m b r a n e and a low HLB surfactant,
by X-ray diffraction. If h~ is the i n t r a - l a m e l l a w a t e r spacing,
strong a d h e s i o n between the surfactant and m e m b r a n e is then w e can a s s u m e that w h e n 5m= ~ 5t~, (i = d, p, h), then
obtained p r o v i d e d that 5rod ~-- 5,d as a result of van d e r Waals h0 > h~ (Figure 5d). But in all the other cases h0 ~ h~, since
attraction and high compatibility, since the Flory-Huggins d e p o s i t i o n of the surfactant on the m e m b r a n e surface results
interaction p a r a m e t e r b e t w e e n the m e m b r a n e and solute in e s s e n t i a l l y a 'surfactant-like' structure.
o3
o3
(surfactant) Xm8 = ( 5 ~ - 5sd)2/~ approaches zero. Eqn. 14 indicates that a large r e p u l s i v e force (and hence
Although this a p p r o a c h is useful in non-ionic m e m b r a n e / large s e p a r a t i o n distance h0) is only possible w h e n the van
(D solute systems, in the case of ionic surfactants its a p p l i c a b i l i t y
t,--
--3 is limited to the l o w HLB surfactants. A b s o r p t i o n of the
surfactant tails on the m e m b r a n e surface will now create a TABLE 2. HAMAKER CONSTANTS ( A l l ) OF MEMBRANES,
O
e.- SURFACTANT AND WATER IN A VACUUM. [=el
m o r e h y d r o p h i l i c surface, thus creating the structure shown in
O
Figure 5a. PTFE, p o l y s t y r e n e and p o l y c a r b o n a t e m e m b r a n e s
fall into this category. Substance An × 10~,J
{Z When the c o n d i t i o n s given in Eqn. 11 a r e not satisfied, and
O Water 4.3
O3 electrostatic forces are significant, the o r i e n t a t i o n s of the
PTFE[271 3.8
surfactant m o l e c u l e s can be a s s u m e d to be as shown in
t-
O Figure 5b--d. In this case, the w a t e r layer thickness should PS 6:4
be calculable. Metals 16- 45
Estimation of w a t e r / a y e r thickness Metaloxides 10-- 15
LL
O The force p e r unit a r e a b e t w e e n the m e m b r a n e and the
Cati0nics1 4;I
surfactant a s s e m b l y can be calculated as the s u m m a t i o n of
van d e r Waals, structural and electrostatic (neglecting Born
o~
o repulsion) forces: [24-26] t Calculatedbyassumingsurfactant/water/sudactant
Hamakerconstantt ~ = 10- 21j.
n
der Waals forces are small. The magnitude of the first term in
Eqn. 12 (van der Waals forces) is dependent on the value of the
Hamaker constant .4, With reference to the surfactant
dispersions discussed so far, A refers to the Hamaker
constant of the membrane/water/solute assembly, which is
given by
0.5 - Ao.5
A = Amw~ = (Atom ~(AO.5 - A,,~)
--~,~,,--~a 0.5 (15)
where Atom A~ and A ~ are the Hamaker constants for the
membrane, solute (surfactant assembly) and water, respec-
tively. When the surfactant assembly is in the lamellar phase,
the Hamaker constant A,~ may be expressed as
. . . . Ass ) (16)
where Ass is the Hamaker constant for the surfactant.
Hamaker constants for various polymers, metals, cationics
and water are given p7-291 in Table 2. It can be seen that since
the Hamaker constant for PTFE is smaller than the Hamaker
constant for water, `4m~, will be negative, thus indicating that
the surfactant will be rejected from the membrane surface.
However, because of the presence of the transmembrane
pressure drop, energy is expended to overcome the repulsion
of the surfactant, and once the surfactant deposition is
completed, the Hamaker constant for the membrane/water/
surfactant assembly can be taken as that of the surfactant/
water/surfactant.
lamella particle channels will decrease, resulting in an z
increased shear rate in these channels, and causing more
fragmentation from the lamella particles and increasing the r11
permeate concentration. A diagrammatic illustration of
the permeate flow through the gel layer' is shown in
Figure 6a. This mechanism can explain why in PTFE and
Nylon66 membranes rejection is nearly independent of
0
permeate flux. [3]
z
When h0 > h,v there is a permanent water flow over the
membrane surface, as illustrated in Figure 6b. Lamella m
-n
particles in the gel layer do not experience high shear rates -n
for two reasons: first, the high shear rate region over the m
membrane is occupied by water; and secondly', available flow
volume is now high since the flow on the membrane surface
-t
o3
allows the permeate flow in regions away from the membrane
surface pores• Although the increased surfactant concentra-
tion in the gel layer will reduce the size of the channels, h0 will
not be affected significantly. Since the membrane pores are
also fed through the water layer on the membrane, the
increase in the shear rate at the capillary entrance will not be
excessively high so as to increase the surfactant concentra-
tion in the permeate through the erosion of the lamella
droplets. This situation applies to ceramic and polyethersul-
phone membranes filtering Arosurf surfactant. [3]
• • • .
LIQUID-PARTICLE INTERACTIONS

Mechanism of reject/on The two critical parameters in the design and specification of
When the equilibrium separation of the lamella particles and cake filters are the specific resistance ~ the cake deposited I I ]11
membrane is similar to the water layer thickness (h0 ~ he), and its voids ratio e*, as these determine the pressure loss X
II
x
the permeate flow is confined to a narrow region near the across the filter cake. This manifests itself in several practical ~)~
membrane surface pores through the inter-lamella particle ways, such as in determining the size of pump needed to
pores. Although some of the membrane pores may be supply the filter and limiting the amount of solid which can be
blocked, others will provide a permanent flow path for the collected• Both ~ and e* are affected by interparticle
permeate. As the concentration of the surfactant is increased interactions, as well as by the operating conditions of
in the gel layer, both the number and the size of the inter- the filter.
Pressure disb'ibut/on in filter c a k e s
The specific resistance c~ of filter cakes has been represented
by several alternative power-law expressions. One which
t
..
.~.~..
represents experimental data over a wide range of compres- %% "
sive pressures i s [30] :':" :

(~ = OLO ( l + p ) ns (17) ""

eeeo •"

The voids ratio of filter cakes is related to compressive :,: o °

pressure [3°] by .'..
~* : ~o - blog(1 +p,) (is) :-'. : :
® .°, o •

t', (a) The pressure drop across a filter cake is equal to the sum of
the pressure in the liquid phase and the compressive drag
pressure acting on the particles. The compressive pressure
on any particle at a particular plane arises from the
°',
'
, o

~ Derail cumulative frictional drag over all the particles between the
cake surface and that plane; the cumulative drag force acting
Lamella on successive layers of particles in the cake therefore "rl
D,
decreases from a maximum at the medium/cake interface
(x = 0) to zero at the cake/slurry interface (x := L). Here p~ is
related to the distance through the cake by [31]

x _ 1 fro" dps/c~(1 - e) (19) o0

L ~oodPs/a(1 - c) "10

Substituting Eqns. 17 and 18 into Eqn. 19 gives

E
(1 + eo)[(1 + ps) 1-n 1] b
2.303r,-n) r ~ - n ) in (l + p ~)- I _ L-
[ (l+p.)"- 11 3

Z=I
- -

X e
(1 + 9 ) [ ( 1 + p)l-n _ _ 1] ~ b ) ~ o +,p ) , + 1]
[r ~ -(,+p),
c..
c

(2oa) ...&

for n ~- 1 and
e
Rgure 6. Illustration of the effect of surfactont essembiy.membraes
intarxtlon on the flow into the membrane pores. (e) No flow over the x (1 -t- eo) ln(1 +Ps) - 4.---~ln2(1 + P s ) "o
--1 (2oh)
membrane surface and surfaetont deposition In the pores, hones high L (1 + eo)ln(1 + p) - ~ ln2(1 + p) (o
defornuitlon rate at tim pore entrmon. (b) Permanent flow of perme- ol
ate end no deposition In the pores, hence low deformaUon rate at the for n = 1. O1
II~mreentrance.
 t- 1.0 I I I I
O
LJJ Solids: anatase
LL, M e a n particle size: O.5~m_1
I.L, 6 Crossflow velocity: 2.3ms
LLJ 0.8 ...-, Suspension cone: l.O%v/v
;.,.~ F i l t r a t i o n pressure: 35psi
Z 5
Membrane: 0.2/~m rated Sartorius CN
o ?
0.6 E
4
O
X
3
LU 0.4
)--
~ ~ - o pH = 2.45
Z 2

0.2 i
1
pH = 6.0 /
~'-~-~-~'.~-~'-~-~'.~'-~,-~'--~.p. 1~.o1
0
0.0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0.0 0.~ 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Distance from filter surface, x/L F i l t r a t i o n t i m e (s)

Figure 8. Effect of surface potential on permeate flux decline during

. . . ° Figure 7.Variation of compressive pressure through • filter cake ac- the crossflow filtration of enutase suspensions.
cording to ECln.20; p= 300 kPo, n : 0.65, eo : 2.968, b : 0.65.
',~="=',

.... Eqn. 20 is plotted in Figure 7 to show the variation of TABLE 4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF BRIDGER et el. Is4] FOR
j • • • = I i• ' cumulative drag acting on the particles, normalised by the FILTRATION OF 0.93/~m latex.
,".=='.'
:11(11)1
filtration pressure, with distance through the cake. At the
~" = ~ m e m b r a n e / c a k e interface ( x / L = O) the cumulative drag
Salt$oncentraUon, Zetapotential, Specificresistance,
pressure compressing the particles is at a maximum, and mol/I mV x 1012m/kg
the hydraulic pressure is zero as p, + p l = p. The case n = 0
0,01 95 7.1
corresponds to an incompressible solid/liquid mixture, and
higher values of n are indicative of greater compressibility. 0,02 80 4.6
More compressible cakes show a greater dissipation of 0.04 70 5.4
pressure close to the filter medium, and particles in the
0.08 60 4.0
surface layers of the cake can be loosely packed.
0.10 55 5.0
' Effect~ of interpartlcle forces on specific resistance
:.~.:o**.' There is evidence that interparticle forces affect the specific 0.20 48 3.2
co.%°. = resistance and steady-state voids ratio of cakes formed during 0.30 40 2.2
='.'.'." dead-end filtration. Table 3 shows the effect of adding 1:1 and 0.50 29 3.4
o:.:,;°; 2:3 electrolytes to anatase suspensions before filtering.
" . . . ."" " Cakes formed during crossflow filtration are affected by the
• . .• . . ~ l surface potential of the particles, which in turn determines the
, • • • •

. , , = •

steady-state flux. Figure 8 shows the effect of pH on the

•
.
°
. .
°
°
• microfiltration of anatase suspensions with a mean particle
• . . , TABLE 3. EFFECT OF MONO- AND TRIVALENT IONS OH
SPECIFIC RESISTANCE AND EQUIUBRIUM VOIDS RATIO OF size of 0.5 #m. At pH 2.45 the surface potential is small and
ANATASE FILTER CAKES FORMED AT pH 7.05 (pH positive ((~ = + 1 4 mV), and at pH 11.0, ~ ~ - 4 4 mV. High
CONTROLLBI) WITH NaOH) and ~ p : 1011 kPa. surface potential particles are well dispersed by repulsive
electrostatic forces, and form cakes of higher resistance
during filtration, 132' 33] leading to lower permeate or filtrate
Liquidcondectiv~,mSIcm ~ x 10~zm/ko eoo fluxes. Conversely, near to the isoelectric potential particles
1:1electrolyte(HCI)added: tend to aggregate, the cakes formed are thicker and yet have a
O~
lower resistance to flow.
T-
0.2 5.25 1.906
Variations of specific resistance indicated by the data in
6.0 3.72 2.209 Table 3 are also a result of induced aggregation. It is also
11.0 2.04 1.683 noted that at high solution conductivities using AI 3+ the
r-
35.0 1.82 1.567 double-layer thickness is suppressed, causing a limited
@ increase in specific resistance.
50.0 1.80 1.567 Few experimental works on cake filtration have reported
e.t zeta potential data. B r i d g e r et el. [34] reported data on the effect
3:2 electrolyte(AI2(S04)3)added: of salt concentration on the filtration of 0.93 #m monodisperse
m
polystyrene latex. These are reproduced in Table 4, and also
0.2 5.25 1.906
¢- generally show that higher specific resistances are asso-
@ 1.0 2.71 2.013 ciated with better dispersed suspensions.
2.0 1,52 2.267 The variations of cake specific resistance and voids ratio
with pressure and electrophoretic mobility (EM) are shown in
3.0 1fl8 2.619
0
Figure 9 for anatase cakes formed in a dead-end pressure
59 1.36 2.325 filter. Corresponding data are shown for china clay cakes in
11.6 1.66 2.619 Figure 10. The trend of specific resistance is similar to that
indicated in Tables 3 and 4, but the equilibrium voids ratio is
20.0 2.24 2.601
n
almost independent of particle surface potential.
 u

potential at the midpoint between the two surfaces (1 and 2) is Z

0 'pH-4.0 .....
~ = -' o . 4 ~ '1 o '-S'
~ ' Z '--I'Ll
v 1 approximated by [21] -4
• 7.0 - 2 . 8 5 x 10-emsS-s v - Ill
~' 9.1 --3.34 x 10- rn s - V -1
:D
¢~1~ = ¢~ + ~
2
\ ze / ~>
¢3
Expanding cosh(zeCh/~/kT) as a power series, and retaining i
-4
only the leading terms, gives (see also Eqn. 12) 0
1013 Z
~7 Fn ~ nokT ~ 64nkT~3~exp:(-~h) (23) rrl
'~' ~ OO • "11
• • • 0 -11
0 Eqn. 23 shows the force acting between two particles as a nl
¢J 0
O
OO function of particle and solution properties. To calculate the C)
-4
net repulsion acting on a particle at any plane in the cake, it is
03
necessary to sum the repulsive forces arising from the
cO
presence of all other particles in the cake. In this way the
effects of solution properties and interparticle repulsion on
specific resistance may be assessed qualitatively using Eqns.
1012 . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . I - - - - 13 and 23 together with Eqn. 20.
10 2 10 3 10 4 McDonogh et a|. (35] adopted a similar approach to
Filtration pressure (kPa) incorporate the charges of constituent colloid particles into
cake pressure profile and permeability calculations. However,

' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' I ° , ,o.

#
1015 I
•
•
a
• pH=7.0 i . . . . . . . I --8' 2'--li--'f'"~
• phL2.9'" E~--' - ~ 0 ~ x ~0 0 % s , I 1 ffn =
X7 p H = 9 . 1 X7 5.2 -2.01 x I0- e m s - V- -i
nll~ J
• 10,2 -4,03 x I0- mZs-Iv -1 I X

~O ~7

v
o

1014

O 0 0 0
O O 0 0

::::::::
e e o c

O
16000QO I
o a e o
o o a e
o o o J
v o o e l
101~ a e a J
e e o c
J l e o
o o e o
= i , , , ,,] , , , J ~ = * J - - - r a c e
•' ~ ' , , ,,,,t t u = =i~111 i . . . . . . c o o s
o i ~ o
0~ 10 3 104 t ~ = o
10 ~ 103 104 I0 s o ~ o *

Filtration pressure (kPa) . , I D

Filtration pressure (kPa) o 0 , ,
o , , ,
Figure 9.Vurlation of (o) spncltlc rosiatonce, and (b) voids ratio of • • • ,

cnatnce (particle size 0.6/~m) cakes with filtration pressure and

electrophoratlc mobility. 1.50 . . . . . . . )

v • pH=2.9
pH=5.2
Consider the force per unit area acting between two 1.25
~7 "11
~7 • pH=10A3 m,
particles whose sizes are equal and large such that their m

surfaces can be approximated as planes. At equilibrium, all 9

forces on any volume element of a solution must balance, and
o 1.00
the repulsive force between two particles is equal to the @o
osmotic pressure generated by the accumulation of ions Co
~7 ¢b
between the particles. Evaluating the ionic concentrations
using the Gouy-Chapman model, the repulsive force per unit 0
0.75
area evaluated at the midpoint between the particles in a
symmetrical z:z electrolyte where a zero potential gradient -q
(Maxwell stress) exists, iS [24] o
0.5C f__
{-
] + exp \---~---](ze¢h/2~
F~=n°kT[exp( -ze~bh/2"~kT -- 2] (21)
= 2nokT[cosh(~)- 11 0.2~

102
, , L .....

I0 a
I . . . . . . .

104
i ~ . . . . . .

lO s o

In Eqn. 21, Fn is expressed in terms of the potential at the Filtration pressure (kPa)
midpoint position between neighbouring particles, and is the Figure lO.VarlaUon of (c) specific resistance, end (b) voids ratio of
force per unit area with which the particles are pushed apart. china clay (particle size 6/~m) cakes with filtration pressure end ..L

When the half-distance between the particles is large, the eleclbrophuratlc mobility. -q
 Or)
I"- 1.0 0.8 0.8
0
LU ......... "(¢) ¢.
¢3
o
LL
It.
0.8 °
0.6 25=v 0.6
LU
Z O.6
0
o
0.4 0.4 "~
e~
0

"~ 0.4 {
0.2 .................."-'.'...... ---.._ ~, 0.2
~C
LU ~3 0.2
OmV "%. 150 mV ---'.~.......

t . , . . . . ,l . . . . . . . ! • • * ' ' ' "

Z
., .%.__.L., lO-3 I 0 -~ lff ~
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Lo C,o n c e n t . r a t i o n (molar)

Distance f~x,m tilter surface, x/L

Figure 13. Compressibility coefficients n and ;k as functions of solu-
tion ionic strength end zeta potential for 20 nm particles. (:"s]
Figure 11. Effect of particle zeta potential on compressive drag pres-

particles in ultrafiltration and microfiltration systems. They

. . • °

0.8 0.8 argued that when the compressive drag pressure exceeds the
m a x i m u m repulsive pressure p*, the particles come into
, , m . ,
contact and the specific resistance (for monosized spheres)
o~
| ~ m l
0.6 0.6 will be that corresponding to a close-packed particulate
l a ~ n l
assembly. Under these conditions, the specific resistance and
25 mV ~
porosity will be pressure-independent, i.e. n = A = O. Here p*
u
0.4 O.a .~ is strongly dependent on zeta potential, particle size and ionic
strength. When p, > p*, n = A = 0 and the. cake is incompres-
sible and ps is linear with x/L. For values of x/L where
0.2 .....::::2.smv \\ 0.2 Ps < P*, n and A are nonzero and ps is nonlinear with x/L.
Figure 11 shows this effect, giving rise to more unusual
6
pressure profiles in the filter cake.
0 ............ i..;'"--:--,. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The dependence of the indices n and A in constitutive
16' ~6' ~o~ lO* ]o" Eqns. 24 and 25 according to McDonogh's model [3s] are
Particle radius (in) shown in Figures 12 and 13. The two p a r a m e t e r s vary in
O00 O0
000qD
O0000•dJo0
different ways: n decreases for increasing particle size, with
• • • • • Figure 12. Compressibility coefficients n and A as functions of portl. a plateau around 10-- 100 nm, it becomes fairly constant for x
• •••*•.*• cle size and zeta potential In a O.01M solution. [as) > 1 #m, and shows a m a x i m u m for around O.01M solution
e°eeo°e°o
eooe
i o o e o
concentration. A decreases with both particle size and
eooo
eeeee salt concentration.
eee°e°eee
*Doe
o*eo they used the following constitutive relationships suggested
* o J o * CONCLUSIONS
by Tiller and Leu: [36]
. . . . Interaction forces affect all stages of the filtration of disper-
. o , .
. . * , , (
o~ = O~o 1 + Ps
P,,/
(24) sions and fine particle suspensions, even for mean particle
sizes up to about 10 /~m. The effect in these coarser
suspensions is most likely because of the finer particles in
the size distribution, which have been shown to have a
controlling effect on filtration. [3°' 37]
These interactions not only affect the performance of cake
w h e r e e is the porosity and Pa is a scaling factor. Tiller and Leu filtration processes, but also the post-treatment processes
O3
suggested that n has values between about 0.2 and 1.2, and such as cake washing. Replacement of the solution in the
O3 between about 0.05 and 0.3. Knowing the midpoint potential pores of a cake by another of different ionic composition and
oe- (Eqn. 21), the particle separation can be estimated from the strength during washing not infrequently leads to a reduction
-1 Poisson-Boltzmann equation for symmetric electrolytes:
in cake permeability, and practical difficulties ensue with any
further washing.
t-
O
(z W./Q ff (26) The effects of m e m b r a n e - s o l u t e and liquid-particle inter-
actions on filtration are not fully understood, and require
further research involving a w i d e r range of m e m b r a n e
Q. types, solutes, particles and electrolytes. This paper has
(D w h e r e the particle surface potential ¢ is usually assumed to
09 be the particle zeta potential. McDonogh et al. [3s! then attempted to outline the important qualitative aspects of
assumed a tetrahedral packing of the particles to estimate the topic, and to illustrate effects using the sparse experi-
c-
O the cake porosity, and used the Carman-Kozeny equation: mental data.
Constitutive equations for the solid/liquid mixture should
.0..p 180(1 - e) (27) be pressure-independent, and the need to use equations like
iT -- ~3 x2 p~
Eqns. 17 and 18 or 24 and 25 points to inadequate force-
e
to predict the specific resistance. This approach gave good momentum balance equations in the formulation of filtration
Cn agreement with the data of Bridger et aL, [~] and is an problems. This aspect is under investigation, I~-4°1 so that
o interesting one which warrants further consideration for the links between interaction forces and process parameters can
prediction of the permeability of cakes formed from colloidal be properly understood.
n
 i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT double chain surfactant dispersion in water. I: Effect of process and
membrane characteristics on permeate flux and surfactant rejection', Z
Chem. Eng. Sci., 1994, 49(2), pp. 271-283. -I
T h e a u t h o r s w i s h to r e c o r d t h e i r g r a t i t u d e t o t h e UK 5 Akay, G. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Crossflow microfiltration behaviour of a rrl
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council for double chain surfactant dispersion in water. I1: Effects of membrane
f u n d i n g t h e p r o j e c t o f w h i c h t h i s w o r k f o r m s a part. physico-chemistry on concentration polarisation and rejection efficiency',
Chem. Eng. Sci. (to be submitted).
6 Akay, G. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Mechanisms of permeate flux decay, --'4
solute rejection and concentration polarisation in crossflow filtration of a m

double chain ionic surfactant dispersion', J. Membrane ScL 1994, 88, 0

NOMENCLATURE pp. 177-195.
7 Akay, G. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Ultrafiltration and microfiltration of
Z
A, A~ = H a m a k e r c o n s t a n t surfactant dispersions. An evaluation of published research', Chem. Eng. m
Res. Des., 1993, 71, pp. 411-420. "rl
b = C o m p r e s s i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (Eqn. 18)
8 Chevalier, Z. and Zemp, T.: 'The structure of micelles and micro- "11
b0 = Contact r a d i u s (Eqn. 14) emulsions', Rep. Prog. Phys., 1990, 53, pp. 279--371. I'rl
c = Concentration 9 Grieves, R.B., Battacharyya, D., Schomp, W.G. and Bewlay, J.L.:
e = C h a r g e on a proton 'Membrane ultrafiltration of a non-ionic surfactant', AIChE J., 1973, 19,
e* = Voids ratio pp. 766-774. -I
10 Christian, S.D. and Scamehorn, J.F.: 'Use of micellar enhanced
c1)
e0 = Voids ratio at p~ = 0
FR = R e p u l s i v e f o r c e per unit a r e a ultrafiltration to remove dissolved organics from aqueous streams'; in:
Scamehorn, J.F. and Harwell, J.H. (Eds.): 'Surfactant based separation
h = D i s t a n c e b e t w e e n m e m b r a n e and particle, or particle processes' (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1989).
and particle 11 Aimar, P. and Field, R.: 'Limiting flux in membrane separations: A
h0 = Water t h i c k n e s s b e t w e e n m e m b r a n e and s u r f a c t a n t model based on the viscosity dependency of the mass transfer
assembly coefficient', Chem. Eng. Sci., 1992, 47, pp. 579-586.
h~ = W a t e r t h i c k n e s s b e t w e e n m e m b r a n e and s u r f a c t a n t 12 Wakeman, R.J. and Akay, G.: 'Ultrafiltration of hydrophobically
bilayers modified water soluble polymers', J. Membrane Sci., 1994, 91,
pp. 145-152.
HLB = Hydrophile-lipophile balance
13 Wu, S.: 'Polar and nonpolar interactions in adhesion', J. Adhesion,
J = P e r m e a t e flux 1973, 5, pp. 39.
k = Boltzmann constant 14 Flory, P.J.: 'Statistical mechanics of swelling of network structures',
Kz, ! = Structural f o r c e p a r a m e t e r s J. Chem. Phys., 1950, 18, pp. 108. • • , ,

M., = Molecular weight 15 Huggins, M.L.: 'Solutions of long chain compounds', J. Chem. Phys., , , o ,

n = Compressibility coefficient 1941, 9, pp. 440. m

o m m m
• • •
no = N u m b e r of ions p e r cubic m e t r e 16 van Krevelen, D.W. and Hoftyzer, P.J.: 'Properties of polymers: m m ~ i
n • • •
N~F~ = Molar attraction constant Correlation with chemical structure' (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1972). n|mm| m m I

p = Applied pressure 17 Hansen, CM. and Beerbower, A.: 'Solubility parameter'; in: Standen, ummllmm m
A. lEd.): 'Kirk-Othmer encyclopaedia of chemical technology'(Suppl, vol.,
P8 = Solids c o m p r e s s i v e p r e s s u r e 2nd edn., Interscience, New York, 1971).
p* = Maximum repulsive pressure 18 Barton, A.F.M.: 'CRC handbook of solubility parameters and other
Ap = Transmembrane pressure cohesion parameters' (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1983).
r = Pore radius; particle radius 19 Little, R.C. and Singleterry, C.R.: 'The solubility of alkali dinonyl-
R = Gas c o n s t a n t naphthalenesulfonates in different solvents and a theory for the solubility
T = Temperature of oil-soluble soaps', J. Phys. Chem., 1964, 68, pp. 3453.
20 Small, P.A.: 'Some factors affecting the solubility of polymers', J. AppL
x = Particle d i a m e t e r Chem., 1953, 3, pp. 71_
X~j = Interaction p a r a m e t e r 21 Wu, S.: in: Paul, D.R. and Newman, S. (Eds.): 'Polymer blends, Vol. r
z = V a l e n c e of the e l e c t r o l y t e (Academic Press, New York, 1979).
22 Beerbower, A. and Hill, M.W.: 'Application of the cohesive energy ratio .%%.°.,
O: = C a k e specific r e s i s t a n c e
(CER) concept to anionic emulsifiers', Am. Cosmet. Perfum., 1972, 87,
pp. 85. .:.:.'.:,
23 Koenhen, D.M. and Smolders, C.A.: J. AppL Polymer Sci., 1975, 19,
.:.:.:.:
O l i l
0~0 = Cake specific r e s i s t a n c e at p, = 0
pp. 1163.
7 = Interracial e n e r g y
24 Adamson, A.W.: 'Physical chemistry of surfaces, 4th edn.' (Wiley, New oeoo
= Solubility constant York, 1982).
oooo
• o o o
E = Porosity 25 Hiemenz, P.C.: 'Principles of colloid and surface chemistry' (Marcel o°e°o°e m
= Relative p e r m i t t i v i t y (dielectric constant) Dekker, New York, 1986). ~°eeeOom
eQe
EO = P e r m i t t i v i t y of a v a c u u m 26 Sharma, M.M., Chamoun, H., Sarma, D.S.H.S.R. and Schechter, R.S.: lee
J. Colloid & Interface Sci., 1992, 149, pp. 121.
=
=
Contact angle
Reciprocal double-layer thickness 27 Hough, D.B. and White, L.R.: Adv. Colloid & Interface Sci., 1980, 14, "i+'..
* l l .

A = Compressibility coefficient pp. 3. o i l

28 van Oss, C.J., Chaudhury, M.K. and Good, R.J.: 'lnterfacial Lifstitz-van
ps = Solids density
der Waals and polar interactions in macroscopic systems', Chem. Rev., . , , o
= Potential of an i n t e r a c t i n g s u r f a c e 1988, 88, pp. 927.
° , o .

• ° , ,
29 van de Ven, T.G.M.: 'Colloidal hydrodynamics' (Academic Press, . , ° ,

London, 1989).
Subscripts: 30 Wakeman, R.J.: 'Scale-up procedures and test methods in solid/liquid
d = dispersion separation'. Separation Processes Centre Report no. 13193, University of
= equilibrium value Exeter, UK, November 1993.
e

/ 31 Shirato, M , Murase, T., Iritani, E., Tiller, F.M. and AIciatore, A.F.:
= feed 'Filtration in the chemical process industry'; in:Mattesor=, M.J. and Orr, C,
g = gel (Eds.): 'Filtration' (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1987).
h = hydrogen bonding 32 Wakeman, R.J., Sabri, MN. and Tarleton, E.S.: 'Factors affecting the
LS = liquid/solid formation and properties of wet compacts', Powder Technology, 1991, 65,
LV = liquid/vapour pp. 283-292.
m = membrane 33 Tarleton, E.S. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Understanding flux decline in
crossflow microfiltration. I1: Effects of process parameters', Trans.
P = permeate, or polar
IChemE, Pt. A, 1994, 72, pp. 431-440.
3 = solute 34 Bridger, K., Tadros, M., Leu, W. and Tiller, FM.: 'Filtration behaviour
SL = solid/liquid of suspensions of uniform polystyrene particles in aqueous media', Sep.
SV = solid/vapour Sci. & TechnoL, 1983, 18, pp. 1417-1438.
W = water 35 McDonogh, R.M., Welsch, K., Fane, A.G. and Fell, C.J.D.: 'Incorpora-
tion of the cake pressure profiles in the calculation of the effect of particle
charge on the permeability of filter cakes obtained in the filtration of
colloids and particulates', J. Membrane Sci., 1992, 72, pp. 197--204.
38 Tiller, F.M. and Leu, W.F.: 'Basic data fitting in filtration', J Chinese
REFERENCES Inst. of Engineers, 1980, 11, pp. 61--70.
37 Tarleton, E.S. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Understanding flux decline in
1 Wakeman, R.J., Thuraisingham, S.T. and Tarleton, E.S.: 'Colloid crossflow microfiltration. I: Effects of particle and pore size', Trans.
science in solid-liquid separation technology: Is it important?', Filtration & IChemE, Pt. A, 1993, 71, pp. 399--410.
Separation, July/August 1989, 26(4), pp. 277-283. 38 Koenders, M.A. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'The initial stages of compact
2 Wakeman, R.J.: 'Visualisation of cake formation in crossflow micro- formation from suspensions by filtration', Chem. Eng. Sci., 1996, 51, pp.
filtration', Trans. IChemE, Pt. A, 1994, 72, pp. 530--540. 3897 -- 3908.
3 Akay, G. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Effects of membrane physico-chemistry 39 Koenders, M.A. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Initial deposition of interacting
on the gel polarisation and rejection efficiency of a double chain cationic particles by filtration of dilute suspensions', AIChE J., 1997, 43, pp.
surfactant in water during microfiltration'. Separation Processes Centre 946-- 958.
Report No. 3/92, University of Exeter, UK, July 1992. 40 Koenders, M.A. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Filter cake formation from
4 Akay, G. and Wakeman, R.J.: 'Crossflow microfiltration behaviour of a structured suspensions' Trans. IChemE, Pt.A, 1997, 75, pp. 309-320.