Advertisement

Performance of Intermeshed Spinning Basket Membrane Module in Ultrafiltration of Oil-Water Emulsion

  • Mithu Naskar
  • Basudeb Das
  • Digvijayee Pal
  • Debasish Sarkar
Original Paper

Abstract

Membrane separation is a well-accepted modern downstream technique with low energy budget relative to conventional separation processes, such as distillation, absorption, and liquid-liquid extraction. However, the process of membrane separation suffers from the serious drawback of transient flux decline from the start-up to the steady state because of two well-known operational non-idealities, namely concentration polarization and membrane fouling. Dynamic shear-enhanced (DSE) modules, initially developed couple of decades earlier, are able to effectively counter the problem of transient flux decline upon generating feed flow rate-independent high shear stress at the membrane surface. Yet with all its advancement, even the most efficient DSE module cannot totally arrest the problem of permeate decline, and therefore, periodic membrane cleaning is necessary. The present article illustrates the design and performance characteristics of a self-cleaning enabled DSE module in treatment of pine oil-water emulsion. The module has been named as Intermeshed Spinning Basket Membrane (ISBM) module as it consists of two intermeshed spinning baskets fitted with rectangular membranes on their alternate sides. The maximum permeate flux as high as 5.76 × 10−4 L m−2 h−1 was recorded at a transmembrane pressure of 3.92 bar. Moreover, after each cleaning run of only 5-min duration, 75–89% flux regeneration was achieved in all the experimental runs.

Keywords

Intermeshed spinning basket module Permeate flux Oil-water emulsion Transmembrane pressure Rotational speed 

Notations

C0

feed concentration (kg m−3)

Cp

permeate concentration (kg m−3)

g

acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s−2)

Q

feed flow rate (m3 s−1)

TMP

transmembrane pressure (Pa)

Vθ

tangential velocity of the basket (m s−1)

Rm

hydraulic resistance of membrane

J

permeate flux (m s−1)

Δπ

osmotic pressure difference (kPa)

Greek letters

Ω

rotational speed of the basket (rpm)

μ

viscosity of feed solution (Pa s)

ρ

density of membrane (kg m−3)

πm

feed side osmotic pressure (kPa)

πp

permeate side osmotic pressure (kPa)

Subscript

m

membrane

p

permeate

Notes

Funding information

The financial assistance provided by TEQUIP, Phase-II, and RGNF funds is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang Z, An Q, Liu T, Zhou Y, Qian J, Gao C (2012) Fabrication and characterization of novel SiO2-PAMPS/PSF hybrid ultrafiltration membrane with high water flux. Desalination 297:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belfort G, Davis RH, Zydney AL (1994) The behavior of suspensions and macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration. J Membr Sci 96:1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ladner DA, Vardon DR, Clark MM (2010) Effects of shear on microfiltration and ultrafiltration fouling by marine bloom-forming algae. J Membr Sci 356:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crozes G, Anselme C, Mallevialle J (1993) Effect of adsorption of organic matter on fouling of ultrafiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 84:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones WF, Valentine RL, Rodgers VGJ (1999) Removal of suspended clay from water using transmembrane pressure pulsed microfiltration. J Membr Sci 157:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hilal N, Ogunbiyi OO, Miles NJ, Nigmatullin R (2005) Methods employed for control of fouling in MF and UF membranes: a comprehensive review. Sep Sci Technol 40:1957–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaffrin MY (2008) Dynamic shear-enhanced membrane filtration: a review of rotating disks, rotating membranes and vibrating systems. J Membr Sci 324:7–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sen D, Roy W, Das L, Sadhu S, Bhattacharjee C (2010) Ultrafiltration of macromolecules using rotating disc membrane module (RDMM) equipped with vanes: effects of turbulence promoter. J Membr Sci 360:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroner KH, Nissinen V (1988) Dynamic filtration of microbial suspensions using an axially rotating filter. J Membr Sci 36:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SS, Russotti BG, Buckland B (1995) Microfiltration of recombinant yeast cells using a rotating disk dynamic filtration system. Biotechnol Bioeng 48:386–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feuerpeil HP, Blasé D, Olapinski H (2003) Aaflowsystems GmbH, German Patent DE 102 39 247 C1Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zondervan E, Roffel B (2007) Evaluation of different cleaning agents used for cleaning ultra filtration membranes fouled by surface water. J Membr Sci 304:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D’Souza NM, Mawson AJ (2007) Membrane cleaning in dairy industry: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutrit 45:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tran-Ha MH, Wiley DE, Lawrence ND, Iyer M (2002) Development of a standard cleaning protocol to evaluate the effect of cleaning on membrane performance. Aust J Dairy Technol 57:20–29Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blanpain-Avet P, Migdal JF, B’en’ezech T (2009) Chemical cleaning of a tubular ceramic microfiltration membrane fouled with a whey protein concentrate suspension-characterization of hydraulic and chemical cleanliness. J Membr Sci 337:153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarkar A, Sarkar D, Gupta M, Bhattacharjee C (2012) Recovery of polyvinyl alcohol from desizing waste water using a novel high - shear ultrafiltration module. Clean – Soil Air Water 40:830–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sarkar A, Sarkar D, Bhattacharjee C (2012) Design and performance characterization of a new shear enhanced module with inbuilt cleaning arrangement. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 87:1121–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarkar D, Sarkar A, Roy A, Bhattacharjee C (2012) Performance characterization and design evaluation of spinning basket membrane (SBM) module using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Sep Purif Technol 94:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarkar A, Moulik S, Sarkar D, Roy A, Bhattacharjee C (2012) Performance characterization and CFD analysis of a novel shear enhanced membrane module in ultrafiltration of bovine serum albumin (BSA). Desalination 292:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ullah A, Holdich RG, Naeem M, Starov VM (2012) Shear enhanced microfiltration and rejection of crude oil drops through a slotted pore membrane including migration velocities. J Membr Sci 421-422:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mostefa N, Frappart M, Akoum O, Ding L, Jaffrin MY (2010) Separation of water from metal working emulsions by ultrafiltration using vibratory membranes. J Hazard Mater 177:978–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karakulski KJ, Kozfowski A, Morawski AW (1995) Purification of oily wastewater by ultrafiltration. Sep Technol 5:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montgomery DG (2001) Design and analysis of experiments, 5 th edition. Wiley, New York, pp 228–247Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moslehyani A, Mobaraki M, Ismail AF, Othman MHD, Mayahi A, Shamsaei E, Abdullah MS, Razis M (2016) PVDF membrane for oil-in-water separation via cross-flow ultrafiltration process. Jurnal Teknologi 78:211–216Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karakulski KJ, Kozfowski A, Morawski AW (1997) Purification of oily wastewater by ultrafiltration. Sep Technol 5:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mithu Naskar
    • 1
  • Basudeb Das
    • 1
  • Digvijayee Pal
    • 1
  • Debasish Sarkar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations