|
CONTENTS
FIGURES III
TABLES IX
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PREFACE 1
1.2 MEMBRANE SEPARATION 1
1.3 THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF ULTRAFILTRATION MEMBRANE 3
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY 9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2.1 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MEMBRANE FILTRATION 11
2.2 THE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 13
2.3 A NOVEL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM - MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR 15
2.4 THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF MBR EQUIPMENT 20
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL CALCULATION 29
3.1 THE ANALYSIS OF THE FILTRATION RESISTANCE 29
3.2 MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AND CONCENTRATION BOUNDARY LAYER 30
ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LAYER THEORY, WHEN A FLUID FLOWS THROUGH A PLATE, THE THICKNESS OF THE HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY LAYER IS: 30
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND METHOD 35
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS 35
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD 35
4.3 MATERIALS 36
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 40
5.1 THE PURE WATER FLUX OF MEMBRANES 40
5.2 SINGLE SOLUTE SYSTEM 41
5.2.1 0.8 μm PMMA system 42
5.2.2 Dextran T500 system 44
5.3. BISOLUTE SYSTEM 46
5.3.1 System with θ=900 46
5.3.2 System with θ=1600 47
5.4 EFFECT OF PERIODIC OPERATION 48
5.5 STUDY OF THE PHENOMENA ON THE MEMBRANE SURFACE 48
5.6 FILTRATION RESISTANCE 50
5.7 THEORETICAL FLUX OBTAINED FROM CONCENTRATION BOUNDARY LAYER THICKNESS 53
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 100
NOMENCLATURE 102
REFERENCES 104
APPENDIX 110
Figures
Figure 1.1 Schematic representations of dead-end filtration and cross-flow filtration 10
Figure 2.1 The schematic representation of membrane filtration is by crossflow 25
Figure 2.2 Evolution of water reclamation treatment trains 25
Figure 2.3Schematic presentation of a bioreactor 26
Figure 2.4Under fixed flux method, variation of stabilized flux with TMP for different circulation velocities, T= 20oC, Suspended Solids at 10g/l 26
Figure 2.5 Experimental determination of critical flux 27
Figure 2.6 Under fixed TMP method, variations of permeate flux with time under step increments of trans-membrane pressure, u = 4 m/s, T= 20oC, Suspended Solids at 10g/l 27
Figure 2.7 Trans-membrane pressure changes during long-term constant flux in the membrane bioreactor in stabilized biological conditions 28
Figure 4.1 The schematic representation of flat sheet submerged membrane bioreactor 36
Figure 4.2 Schematic representation of flat sheet submerged membrane bioreactor 37
Figure 5.1 Pure water fluxes at different pressures of new membranes (MWCO=100k & 500k) 56
Figure 5.2 SEM photomicrographs of a new 500k membrane at 30KX, 50 KX , 100 KX, 1000 KX were taken from the top surface 56
Figure 5.3 SEM photomicrographs of a new 500k membrane at 10 KX, 20 KX, 30KX, 50 KX, 100 KX were taken from the cross section 57
Figure 5.4 Calibration curves of gas flow meters no.1 and no.2, respectively. 58
Figure 5.5 Fluxes at different trans-membrane pressures and at different aeration amounts (MWCO=100k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3) 58
Figure 5.6 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-20 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3) 59
Figure 5.7 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-40 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3) 59
Figure 5.8 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-60 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3) 60
Figure 5.9 Flux behavior in a long period (θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 60
Figure 5.10 Different retention rates at different trans-membrane pressure differences (θ= 900, C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, G = 0L/min) 61
Figure 5.11 Different retention rates at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-30 cmHg, C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, θ= 900) 61
Figure 5.12 Fluxes at different trans-membrane pressures (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, G = 0 L/min, θ= 900) 62
Figure 5.13 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900) 62
Figure 5.14 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900) 63
Figure 5.15 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k & 500k, θ= 900) 63
Figure 5.16 Different retention rates at different inclined angles (ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3) 64
Figure 5.17 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 + C0.8μmPMMA =1 kg/m3 + 0.5 kg/m3 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k , θ= 900) 64
Figure 5.18 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 + C0.8μmPMMA =1 kg/m3 + 0.5 kg/m3 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900) 65
Figure 5.19 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k , θ= 900) 65
Figure 5.20 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k , θ= 900) 66
Figure 5.21 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 , C0.8μmPMMA= 0.75 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900) 66
Figure 5.22 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 , C0.8μmPMMA= 0.75 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900) 67
Figure 5.23 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.5 kg/m3, C0.8μmPMMA= 1 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900) 67
Figure 5.24 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.5 kg/m3, C0.8μmPMMA= 1 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900) 68
Figure 5.25 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C0.8μmPMMA= 1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 900) is the flux of pure water of 100k MWCO 68
Figure 5.26 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C0.8μmPMMA= 1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 1600) 69
Figure 5.27 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C0.8μmPMMA= 0.75 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 1600) 69
Figure 5.28 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 900) 70
Figure 5.29 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 1600) 70
Figure 5.30 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 71
Figure 5.31 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 71
Figure 5.32 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 72
Figure 5.33 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 72
Figure 5.34 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 , MWCO=100k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 73
Figure 5.35 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 73
Figure 5.36 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μm PMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=100k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 74
Figure 5.37 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2 min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μm MMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600) 74
Figure 5.38 Size distribution report by intensity of Dextran water solution CDextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 (by TREKINTAL CORP.) 75
Figure 5.39 Size distribution report by intensity of PMMA water solution C0.8μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 (by TREKINTAL CORP.) 75
Figure 5.40 Size distribution report by intensity of PMMA water solution C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 (by TREKINTAL CORP.) 76
Figure 5.41 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 76
Figure 5.42 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 77
Figure 5.43 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 77
Figure 5.44 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 78
Figure 5.45 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 78
Figure 5.46 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 79
Figure 5.47 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 79
Figure 5.48 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 80
Figure 5.49 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 80
Figure 5.50 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 81
Figure 5.51 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 81
Figure 5.52 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min) 82
Figure 5.53 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 82
Figure 5.54 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 83
Figure 5.55 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 83
Figure 5.56 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 84
Figure 5.57 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 84
Figure 5.58 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 85
Figure 5.59 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 1KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 85
Figure 5.60 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 1KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 86
Figure 5.61 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 86
Figure 5.62 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 87
Figure 5.63 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 87
Figure 5.64 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 88
Figure 5.65 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 88
Figure 5.66 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min) 89
Figure 5.67 Different resistances at different pressure differences (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 900, C0.8μmPMMA= 3 kg/m3) 89
Figure 5.68 Different resistances at different pressure differences (ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 900, G= 0 L/min) 90
Figure 5.69 Different resistances at different inclination angles and aeration rates (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, C0.8μmPMMA= 1.5 kg/m3) 90
Figure 5.70 Different resistances at different solute compositions and aeration rates (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 900) 91
Figure 5.71 Bubble sizes at the gas flow rate of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 L/min 92
Figure 5.72 Different bubble velocities at different aeration rates (the inclination angle of the module is 900) 93
Figure 5.73 The tendency of that boundary layer thickness decreases with the increasing flux (100k MWCO the inclination angle of the module is 900) (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k , θ= 900) 93
Figure 5.74 Different experimental fluxs and theoretical fluxes were at different aeration rates. (μ:Cb, D:Cb) means that the viscosity(μ) and diffusivity(D) are calculated in the calculation of flux all by using the mean concentration (Cb) in the boundary layer; (μ:Ci, D:Cb) means that μ &D are calculated by using the initial feed concentration(Ci) and Cb respectively; (μ:Ci, D:Cm) means that μ &D are calculated by using the Ci and the concentration on the membrane surface (Cm) respectively. (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k , θ= 900) 94
Tables
Table 4.1 The list of the flat sheet membrane characteristics 36
Table 5.1 Pure water fluxes of new membranes at different trans-membrane pressures 89
Table 5.2Size ave and zetapotential of PMMA water solution ( C0.16μm PMMA = 0.75 kg/m3) and DEXTRAN water solution(C Dextran T500 = 0.75 kg/m3) and PMMA& DEXTRAN combined water solution by Malvern Zatamaster ( an instrument measuring size and zetapotential) 89
Table 5.3 Experimental parameters in the flux-time experiments. (8;2) means operation: 8min, pause 2min.(0-4) means the aeration is 0 L/min in operation and 4L/min in pause 90
Table 5.4 Different Rfp at different membrane MWCOs, aeration amounts and transmembrane pressure differences 91
Table 5.5 Different Rfp at different solute species and concentrations, membrane MWCOs, and transmembrane pressure differences 91
Table 5.6 Different Rfp at different aeration amounts, and inclined angles 92
Table 5.7 Different Rfp at different solute species and concentrations, and aeration amounts 92
Table 5.8 Data of estimating the rise velocity of bubble 93
Table 5.9 Concentration boundary layer thickness obtained from boundary-layer model 93
Table 5.10 Different fluxes obtained from concentration polarization model 93
|
|
Cheryan, M. (1998). Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook. Pennslvania: Technomic Inc.
Côté, P., Buisson, H., Pound, C., & Arakaki, G. (1997). Immersed membrane activated sludge for the reuse of municipal wastewater. Desalination, 113(2-3), 189-196.
Defrance, L., & JaffrinMember of Institut Universitaire de France.,M.Y. (1999). Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 152(2), 203-210.
Eikelboom, D. H. (1993). High performance bioreactor, a physiological approach to wastewater treatment with zero sludge production by complete retention. Japan- Netherlands Workshop on Integrated Water Management,
Fane, A. G., & Cho, B. D. (2002). Fouling transients in nominally sub-critical flux operation of a membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science, 209(2), 391-403.
Field, R. W., Wu, D., Howell, J. A., & Gupta, B. B. (1995). Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 100(3), 259-272.
Flemming, H., Schaule, G., Griebe, T., Schmitt, J., & Tamachkiarowa, A. (1997). Biofouling -- the Achilles heel of membrane processes. Desalination, 113(2-3), 215-225.
Gander, M., Jefferson, B., & Judd, S. (2000). Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment: a review with cost considerations. Separation and Purification Technology, 18(2), 119-130.
Gui, P., Huang, X., Chen, Y., & Qian, Y. (2003). Effect of operational parameters on sludge accumulation on membrane surfaces in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 151(2), 185-194.
Kedem, O., & A. Katchalsky. (1961). A physical interpretation of the phenomenological coefficients of membrane permeaility. The Journal of General Physiology, 45, 143.
Krishna, R., Urseanu, M. I., van Baten, J. M., & Ellenberger, J. (1999). Rise velocity of a swarm of large gas bubbles in liquids. Chemical Engineering Science, 54(2), 171-183.
Kwon, D. Y., Vigneswaran, S., Fane, A. G., & Aim, R. B. (2000). Experimental determination of critical flux in cross-flow microfiltration. Separation and Purification Technology, 19(3), 169.
Li, L. N. (2002). A Study on Gas-Liquid Two-phase Ultrafiltration in Inclined Flat-Plate Membrane Modules. Taipei: Master thesis of Graduate Institute of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University (in Chinese)
Lin, C. T. (2001). Membrane Ultrafiltration for Suspension Solutions of Macromolecules. Taipei: Master thesis of Graduate Institute of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University (in Chinese)
Michaels, A. S. (1968). New separation techique for the chemical process industries. Chemical Engineering Progress, 64, 31-43.
Nagaoka, H., Ueda, S., & Miya, A. (1996). Influence of bacterial extracellular polymers on the membrane separation activated sludge process. Water Science and Technology, 34(9), 165-172.
Nakao, S., Nomura, T., & Kimura S. (1979). Characteristics of macrocular gel layer formed on ultrafiltration tubular membrane. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, 25, 615-622.
Ognier, S., Wisniewski, C., & Grasmick, A. (2004). Membrane bioreactor fouling in sub-critical filtration conditions: a local critical flux concept. Journal of Membrane Science, 229(1-2), 171-177.
Pan, S. Y. (2003). A study on the Critical Flux of Submerged Membrane Filtration System. Taipei: Master thesis of Graduate Institute of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University (in Chinese).
Schlichting, H., Gersten, K., Krause, E., & Oertel, H. J. (2000). Boundary-layerTheory. Berlin: Springer.
Schweitzer, P. A. (1997). Handbook of Separation Techniques for Chemical Engineers (Third Edition ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shimizu, Y., Okuno, Y., Uryu, K., Ohtsubo, S., & Watanabe, A. (1996). Filtration characteristics of hollow fiber microfiltration membranes used in membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment. Water Research, 30(10), 2385-2392.
Sondhi, R., & Bhave, R. (2001). Role of backpulsing in fouling minimization in crossflow filtration with ceramic membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 186(1), 41-52.
Ueda, T., Hata, K., Kikuoka, Y., & Seino, O. (1997). Effects of aeration on suction pressure in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Water Research, 31(3), 489-494.
van Dijk, L., & Roncken, G. C. G. (1997). Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: the state of the art and new developments. Water Science and Technology, 35(10), 35-41.
Wijmans, J. G., Nakao, S., van den Berg,J. W. A., Troelstra, F. R., & Smolders, C. A. (1985). Hydrodynamic Resistance of Concentration Polarization Boundary Layers in Ultrafiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 22, 117.
Wintgens, T., Rosen, J., Melin, T., Brepols, C., Drensla, K., & Engelhardt, N. (2003). Modelling of a membrane bioreactor system for municipal wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 216(1-2), 55-65.
Yeh, H. M., & Cheng, T. W. (1999). Analysis of the slip effect on the permeate flux in membrane ultrafiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 154(1), 41-51.
|
| |