Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T04:26:09.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Crossflow microfiltration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

Greg Foley
Affiliation:
Dublin City University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In Chapter 2 it was seen that dead-end filtration is characterised by the flow of suspension normal to the filter. In crossflow microfiltration (CFMF), the suspension flows parallel (or tangential) to the membrane. The rationale behind the crossflow mode of operation is that the ‘scouring’ action of the flow parallel to the membrane inhibits the growth of filter cake, thus creating the potential for high filtrate fluxes and steady state operation. CFMF is normally considered when the solids in a suspension prove difficult to separate in a dead-end filter or a centrifuge. Dead-end filtration is difficult when the particles are ‘small’ and have the tendency to form highly resistant and compressible filter cakes. Problems in centrifuging suspensions arise when the particles are small and have densities that are close to that of the suspending fluid. All of the above characteristics are typical of microbial suspensions. Consequently, crossflow systems have the potential to be economically viable for bacterial cells (as compared to centrifugation) and larger filamentous cells (as compared to pre-coat rotary vacuum filtration). CFMF is also useful for separating shear sensitive animal cells, for clarifying beverages such as beer and fruit juice, in separation of blood cells from plasma (plasmapheresis) and in sterile filtration of pharmaceuticals. Use of crossflow microfiltration as a key component of submerged membrane bioreactors (MBRs) is now commonplace. These devices combine biological waste treatment with membrane filtration, the performance of the latter being improved by the presence of the air bubbles required by the biological reactions. This use of air sparging to improve membrane filtration is discussed later in this chapter.

It is very important to remember that comparing dead-end and crossflow microfiltration is not really comparing like with like. In dead-end processes, a filter cake is recovered. An example of this is use of rotary vacuum filters in production of cakes of baker's yeast used in the bread making industry. In CFMF, however, no substantial cake is formed and the best that can be achieved is to concentrate a suspension. Both dead-end and crossflow techniques can, of course, be used for soluble product recovery.

Type
Chapter
Information
Membrane Filtration
A Problem Solving Approach with MATLAB
, pp. 48 - 87
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

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

References

Patel, P.N., Mehaia, M.A. and Cheryan, M. (1987). Cross-flow membrane filtration of yeast suspensions. Journal of Biotechnology, 5, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, D.T. and Acrivos, A. (1986). Viscous resuspension. Chemical Engineering Science, 41, 1377–1384.CrossRef
Davis, R.H. and Leighton, D.T. (1987). Shear-induced transport of a particle layer along a porous wall. Chemical Engineering Science, 42, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, C.A. and Davis, R.H. (1988). Global model of crossflow microfiltration based on hydrodynamic particle diffusion. Journal of Membrane Science, 39, 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R.H. and Sherwood, J.D. (1990). A similarity solution for steady-state crossflow microfiltration. Chemical Engineering Science, 45, 3203–3209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R.H. (1992). Modelling of fouling of crossflow microfiltration membranes. Separation and Purification Methods, 21, 75–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwood, J.D. (1998). The force on a sphere pulled away from a permeable half-space. Physicochemical Hydrodynamics, 10, 3–12.Google Scholar
Field, R.W., Wu, D., Howell, J.A. and Gupta, B.B. (1995). Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 100, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachin, P., Aimar, P. and Field, R.W. (2006). Critical and sustainable fluxes: theory, experiments and applications. Journal of Membrane Science, 281, 42–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, R.W. and Pearce, G.K. (2011). Critical, sustainable and threshold fluxes for membrane filtration with water industry applications. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 164, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foley, G., Malone, D.M. and MacLoughlin, F. (1995). Modeling the effects of particle polydispersity in crossflow filtration. Journal of Membrane Sciences, 99, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghidossi, R., Veyret, D. and Moulin, P. (2006). Computational fluid dynamics applied to membranes: state of the art and opportunities. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 45, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, R.G. (1977). Design of membrane separation plant. 1. Design of RO Modules. 2. Fouling of RO modules. Chemical Engineer (London), 322, 510–513 and 521–523.Google Scholar
Kern, D.Q. and Seaton, R.E. (1957). A theoretical analysis of thermal surface fouling. British Chemical Engineering, 4, 258–262.Google Scholar
Kuberkar, V.T. and Davis, R.H. (2001). Microfiltration of protein-cell mixtures with crossflushing or backflushing. Journal of Membrane Science, 183, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, S.W. (1977). Friction-factor equation spans all fluid flow regimes. Chemical Engineering, 84, 91–92.Google Scholar
McCarthy, A.A., Walsh, P.K. and Foley, G. (2002). Experimental techniques for quantifying the cake mass, the cake and membrane resistances and the specific cake resistance during crossflow filtration of microbial suspensions. Journal of Membrane Science, 201, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, W.M. and Ju, S.C. (1989). Selective particle deposition in crossflow filtration. Separation Science and Technology, 24, 517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, T., Abe, K. and Nakanishi, K. (1994). Shear-induced arrangement of cells during crossflow filtration of E. coli cells. Biotechnology Techniques, 8, 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J.Z.Q., Fang, T., Luo, G. and Lye, P.H.T. (1995). Yield stress and maximum packing fraction of concentrated suspensions. Rheologica Acta, 32, 544–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakeman, R.J. and Williams, C.J. (2000). Additional techniques to improve microfiltration. Separation and Purification Technology, 26, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postlethwaite, J., Lamping, S.R., Leach, G.C., Hurwitz, M.F. and Lye, G.J. (2004). Flux and transmission characteristics of a vibrating microfiltration system operated at high biomass loading. Journal of Membrane Science, 228, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mores, W.D., Bowman, C.N. and Davis, R.H. (2000). Theoretical and experimental flux maximization by optimization of backpulsing. Journal of Membrane Science, 165, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, M., Kim, S.M., Mutenyo, I., Broens, L. and Schippers, J. (1998). Intermittent crossflushing of hollow fiber ultrafiltration systems. Desalination, 118, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le-Clech, P., Chen, V. and Fane, A.G. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 284, 17–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, M.S., Spark, L.B., Ward, P.S. and Ladwa, N. (1984). Microbial asparaginase recovery by membrane processes. Journal of Membrane Science, 21, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Crossflow microfiltration
  • Greg Foley, Dublin City University
  • Book: Membrane Filtration
  • Online publication: 05 July 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236843.004
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Crossflow microfiltration
  • Greg Foley, Dublin City University
  • Book: Membrane Filtration
  • Online publication: 05 July 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236843.004
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Crossflow microfiltration
  • Greg Foley, Dublin City University
  • Book: Membrane Filtration
  • Online publication: 05 July 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236843.004
Available formats
×