1

4.0 Results and Discussion

4.1 Flowrate of Filtrate

80
70
y = 0.3959x + 7.5569
60
50
VF, cm3

40
30
20
10
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
t, s

VF vs t Linear (VF vs t)

Figure 4.1 Graph of volume of filtration versus time at 100mmHg pressure drop

Based on Figure 4.1, the volume of filtration increases with time and data is
collected until 65 cm3 of filtrate is collected. The filtrate flow is obtained from the
gradient of volume of filtration versus time. For 100mmHg pressure drop, the filtrate
flow is 0.3959 cm3/s.
 2

80
70 y = 0.7493x + 10.216

60
50
VF, cm3

40
30
20
10
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
t, s

VF vs t Linear (VF vs t)

Figure 4.2 Graph of volume of filtration versus time at 200mmHg pressure drop

Based on Figure 4.2, the volume of filtration increases with time and data is
collected until 70 cm3 of filtrate is collected. The filtrate flow is obtained from the
gradient of volume of filtration versus time. For 200mmHg pressure drop, the filtrate
flow is 0.7493 cm3/s.

80
70 y = 0.8212x + 9.2381

60
50
VF, cm3

40
30
20
10
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
t, s

VF vs t Linear (VF vs t)

Figure 4.3 Graph of volume of filtration versus time at 250mmHg pressure drop
 3

Based on Figure 4.3, the volume of filtration increases with time and data is
collected until 70 cm3 of filtrate is collected. The filtrate flow is obtained from the
gradient of volume of filtration versus time. For 250mmHg pressure drop, the filtrate
flow is 0.8212 cm3/s.

80
70 y = 1.1808x + 4.1895

60
50
VF, cm3

40
30
20
10
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
t, s

VF vs t Linear (VF vs t)

Figure 4.4 Graph of volume of filtration versus time at 280mmHg pressure drop

Based on Figure 4.4, the volume of filtration increases with time and data is
collected until 70 cm3 of filtrate is collected. The filtrate flow is obtained from the
gradient of volume of filtration versus time. For 280mmHg pressure drop, the filtrate
flow is 1.1808 cm3/s.

It is observed that as the pressure drop increases, the filtrate flow also increases.
This is due to the higher suction force which increases the rate of filtrate flow.
 4

4.2 Specific Resistance of Filter Cake and Specific Resistance of Filter

Medium

3.00

2.50 y = 0.0253x + 0.8425

2.00
t/VF, s/cm3

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
VF , cm3

t/VF vs VF Linear (t/VF vs VF)

Figure 4.5 Graph of time/volume of filtration versus volume of filtration at

100mmHg pressure drop

From Figure 4.5, the gradient obtained is 0.0253 x 10-12 s/m2 and the intercept
is 0.8425 x 10-6 s/m. Theoretically, the graph is supposed to be linear therefore, the best
straight line is plotted. The fractional solid content per unit volume of filtrate, cs is 20.98
kg/m3. The specific resistance of the filter cake, α is 5.7958 x 10-14 m/kg while the
resistance of filter medium, Rm is 15.9519 x 10-3 m-1. The sample of calculations for
100mmHg pressure drop is shown in appendix.
 5

1.40

1.20 y = 0.0128x + 0.3511

1.00
t/VF, s/cm3

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
VF , cm3

t/VF vs VF Linear (t/VF vs VF)

Figure 4.6 Graph of time/volume of filtration versus volume of filtration at

200mmHg pressure drop

From Figure 4.6, the gradient obtained is 0.0128 x 10-12 s/m2 and the intercept
is 0.3511 x 10-6 s/m. Theoretically, the graph is supposed to be linear therefore, the best
straight line is plotted. The fractional solid content per unit volume of filtrate, cs is 21.37
kg/m3. The specific resistance of the filter cake, α is 5.7575 x 10-14 m/kg while the
resistance of filter medium, Rm is 13.2954 x 10-3 m-1.

1.20
y = 0.01x + 0.4345
1.00

0.80
t/VF, s/cm3

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
VF, cm3

t/VF vs VF Linear (t/VF vs VF)

 6

Figure 4.7 Graph of time/volume of filtration versus volume of filtration at

250mmHg pressure drop

From Figure 4.7, the gradient obtained is 0.0100 x 10-12 s/m2 and the intercept
is 0.4345 x 10-6 s/m. Theoretically, the graph is supposed to be linear therefore, the best
straight line is plotted. The fractional solid content per unit volume of filtrate, cs is 20.77
kg/m3. The specific resistance of the filter cake, α is 5.7850 x 10-14 m/kg while the
resistance of filter medium, Rm is 20.5670 x 10-3 m-1.

1.00

0.80
y = 0.0041x + 0.5451
t/VF, s/cm3

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
15 25 35 45 55 65 75
VF , cm3

t/VF vs VF Linear (t/VF vs VF)

Figure 4.8 Graph of time/volume of filtration versus volume of filtration at

280mmHg pressure drop

From Figure 4.8, the gradient obtained is 0.0041 x 10-12 s/m2 and the intercept
is 0.5451 x 10-6 s/m. Theoretically, the graph is supposed to be linear therefore, the best
straight line is plotted. The fractional solid content per unit volume of filtrate, cs is 20.62
kg/m3. The specific resistance of the filter cake, α is 2.6758 x 10-14 m/kg while the
resistance of filter medium, Rm is 28.8985 x 10-3 m-1.
 7

Next, in order to investigate the effect of vacuum pressure (i.e. the pressure drop
across the filter) on the specific resistance of the filter cake and the specific resistance
of the filter medium, two graphs of specific resistance of the filter cake versus pressure
drop and specific resistance of the filter medium versus pressure drop were plotted as
shown in Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 respectively.

7.0000

6.0000

5.0000
α 10-14, m/kg

4.0000

3.0000
a vs P
2.0000

1.0000

0.0000
100 200 250 280
P, mmHg

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Specific resistance of the filter
cake versus pressure drop

Based on Figure 4.9, the specific resistance of the filter is independent of the
pressure drop from 100mmHg to 250 mmHg where the gradient of the graph is almost
horizontal. This mean that the pressure drops across the filter have no effect on the
specific resistance of the filter cake. However, there is a drop in specific resistance at
280mmHg. This is due to error in data collection. Theoretically, it is impossible for the
specific resistance to drop as differences in pressure increases. Perhaps, the flowrate of
the filtrate is too fast therefore the reaction time to press the stop watch is slow.

Therefore, only data from 100 mmHg till 250 mmHg is taken into consideration.
Which can be interpreted as independence of specific resistance of the filter cake from
 8

the pressure drop is due to the incompressibility of the calcium carbonate in the slurry.
In other words, calcium carbonate is a rigid incompressible solid in the slurry.

35.0000

30.0000

25.0000
Rm 10-3, m-1

20.0000

15.0000
R vs P
10.0000

5.0000

0.0000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
P, mmHg

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..2 Specific resistance of the filter
medium versus pressure drop

Based on Figure 4.10, the specific resistance of the filter medium increases with
pressure drop from 200mmHg to 280 mmHg where the gradient of the graph is almost
linear. This mean that the pressure drops across the filter have a positive effect on the
specific resistance of the filter medium. However, there is a drop in specific resistance
of filter medium from 100mmHg to 200mmHg. This is due to error in data collection.
Theoretically, it is impossible for the specific resistance to drop as differences in
pressure increases.

The increase in the specific resistance of the medium shows that perhaps some
particles of the cake get stuck in the pores of the medium due to high pressure drop and
thus increasing the specific resistance of the filter medium.
 9

Due to certain errors that occur during data collection, a few crucial steps can
be followed to improve for future experiment. Firstly, the time taken for the first volume
collected is suggested to be at 15 cm3. This is to allow the experimenter to have more
time to react to rapid flowrate of the filtrate. Secondly, the experimenter is also advised
to use more calcium carbonate. Little amount of calcium carbonate might cause the
filter paper to tear easily under high pressure. Therefore, with huge amount of calcium
carbonate, the cake formed should be thicker and prevent tearing of the filter paper.
 10

Sample calculations for 100mmHg pressure drop

Mass of wet filter cake = Mass of petri dish and filter medium with wet filter cake –
Mass of petri dish and filter medium without filter cake

= 41.3313 – 36.8870

= 4.4443 g

Mass of dry filter cake = Mass of petri dish and filter medium with dry filter cake –
Mass of petri dish and filter medium without filter cake

= 38.2203 – 36.8870

= 1.3333 g

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒

Moisture ratio, MR = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑘𝑒

4.4443
= 1.3333

= 3.3333

s = mass fraction of solid in slurry

= 1.5 g / 76.281 g

= 0.01966
 11

Let 𝑐𝑠 be dry mass of cake deposited per unit volume filtrate and assume at 25 °C, density of
water, ρ used is 0.99708 g/mL (997.08 kg/m3).

𝑠𝜌
𝑐𝑠 =
1 − 𝑀𝑅 𝑠

0.01966(997.08)
=
1 − (3.3333)(0.01966)

= 20.98 kg solids/m3 filtrate

In this experiment, the diameter of filter area is 40.2 mm.

A = πD2/4

= 1.2692×10-3 m2

Assume at 25°C, the viscosity of water, μ is about 8.937×10-4 kg/m*s

𝐾𝑃
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
2
𝜇𝛼𝑐𝑠
𝐾𝑃 = 2 ∗ 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝐴2 ∆𝑃

2𝐴2 ∆𝑃 ∗ 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
∴ specific resistance of filter cake, 𝛼 =
𝜇𝑐𝑠

2(1.2692𝑥10−3 )2 (13332.24)(0.0253𝑥10−12 )
𝛼=
8.937𝑥10−4 (20.98)

𝜶 = 5.7958 x 10-14 m/kg

 12

𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 = 𝐵

𝜇𝑅𝑚
𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 =
𝐴∆𝑃

𝐴∆𝑃 ∗ (𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡)
𝑅𝑚 =
𝜇

(1.2692𝑥10−3 )(13332.24)(0.8425𝑥10−6 )
𝑅𝑚 =
8.937𝑥10−4

𝑹𝒎 = 15.9519 x 10-3 m-1

The same calculations are used for 200mmHg, 250 mmHg and 280mmHg.