1 / 15

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of a bentonite suspension after four settlings

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of a bentonite suspension after four settlings. Figure 2. Influence of the time step  t on the k -value determination by using the representation for the experiment using a 0.2 µm membrane ( C = 10 -2 g/L and  P = 0.3 bar). Step III. Step II.

joseph-collins
Download Presentation

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of a bentonite suspension after four settlings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Figure 1. Particle size distribution of a bentonite suspension after four settlings

  2. Figure 2. Influence of the time step t on the k-value determination by using the representation for the experiment using a 0.2 µm membrane (C = 10-2 g/L and P = 0.3 bar)

  3. Step III Step II Step I n = 2 n > 2 n = 0 Figure 3. Example of the determination of the slope n in the representation for the fouling mechanisms identification ( experimental data for 5 µm membrane; C = 10-2 g/L and P = 0.3 bar)

  4. (A) QB,0 (B) n =2 VB,0 (C) n = 0 VC,0 Figure 4. Split of the curves into successive mechanisms: (A) very low fouling mechanism , ( B) blocking , (C) cake filtration.

  5. Figure 5. Plot of cumulative permeate volume V versus time t - comparison between experimental and calculated curves for four experiments (C = 10-2 g/L and P = 0.3 bar): ( 0.2 µm;  0.8 µm;  5 µm;  8 µm)

  6. Figure 6. Effect of the transmembrane pressure P on the final surface coverage ratio, B,f for two different membranes (0.2 µm and 8 µm)

  7. Figure 7. Symbols are the values of VB,f – VB,0 versus B, for a series of data (dpore = 0.2; 0.8; 5; 8 µm). Operating conditions were kept the same for all these experiments: C = 10-2 g.L-1, P = 0.3 bar. Lines are the calculated data of VB,f – VB,0 versus B, for different values of B,f

  8. Figure 8. Evolution of a clean and fouled filter media resistance (respectively, Rm,0 and RmB,f) with its initial mean pore diameter, dpore

  9. Figure 9. Effect of feed suspension concentration C on the specific parameter, C, for cake formation at constant pressure 0.3 bar

  10. Figure 10. Effect of feed suspension concentration C on the specific parameter, B, for pore blockingat constant pressure 0.3 bar

  11. Figure 11. Plot of B versus the product of feed concentration, C times the number of blocked pores per unit of blocking particle, p/pore (Cp/pore) at constant pressure 0.3 bar

  12. Figure 12. Effect of transmembrane pressure on cake formation: comparison between two membranes (0.2 µm and 8 µm) by considering the plot of C /C1.1 versus P

  13. Figure 13. Effect of transmembrane pressure on pore blocking for two different membranes (0.2 µm and 8 µm) by considering the plot of B versus P

  14. Figure 14. Effect of the wall shear stress, w on pore blocking mechanism for two different membranes (0.2 µm and 8 µm)

  15. Figure 15. Effect of the mean pore diameter of the filter media on the specific parameter, B, for pore blocking (C = 10-2 g/L and P = 0.3 bar)

More Related