Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter December 15, 2018

Mathematical Modelling of Molecular Separation Processes in Aggressive Solvent Systems

Issara Sereewatthanawut, Supranee Lisawadi and Lapyote Prasittisopin

Abstract

Research works on membrane technology, particularly molecular separation in solvent-based systems, has increased tremendously in recent years. In order to apply this technology at industrial scale, a suitable mathematical model for process design and optimisation must be developed. In the present study, mathematical models to describe process performance were developed with different levels of complexities. The models were developed based on two general transport mechanisms, pore-flow and solution-diffusion principles. Models with different complexity levels were developed, ranging from simple process models to a combination of transport, mass transfer and osmotic pressure effects. Series of molecular separation experiments were conducted to validate the models and to compare the difference among all models. The experimental system conducted in this study was a mixture of organic dyes in n-Dimethylformamide (DMF) solution, which mimics a typical industrial application where molecular purification in aggressive organic solvent is required. The filtration results obtained from any mathematical models are in good agreement with the experiments. The calculated purity of the organic dyes in the permeate ranging from 99.72 % to 100 % in comparison to 99.76 % from the experiments at 8000 s. The results obtained from this study can potentially be applied for industrial application as a prediction tool without conducting any excessive experiments.

References

[1] Bhanushali D, Kloos S, Bhattacharyya D. Solute transport in solvent-resistant nanofiltration membranes for non-aqueous systems: experimental results and the role of solute–solvent coupling. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2002;208:343–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(02)00315-0.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Huang L, Chen J, Gao T, Zhang M, Li Y, Dai L, et al. Reduced graphene oxide membranes for ultrafast organic solvent nanofiltration. Adv Mater [Internet]. 2016;28:8669–74. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27514930.10.1002/adma.201601606Search in Google Scholar

[3] Marchetti P, Solomon MF, Szekely G, Livingston AG. Molecular separation with organic solvent nanofiltration: a critical review. Chem Rev [Internet]. 2004;114:10735–806. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/cr500006j.10.1021/cr500006jSearch in Google Scholar

[4] Silva P, Livingston AG. Effect of solute concentration and mass transfer limitations on transport in organic solvent nanofiltration — partially rejected solute. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2006;280:889–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2006.03.008.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Vankelecom IF, De Smet K, Gevers LE, Livingston AG, Nair D, Aerts S, et al. Physico-chemical interpretation of the SRNF transport mechanism for solvents through dense silicone membranes. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2004;231:99–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2003.11.007.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Xu YC, Tang YP, Liu LF, Guo ZH, Shao L. Nanocomposite organic solvent nanofiltration membranes by a highly-efficient mussel-inspired co-deposition strategy. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2017;526:32–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.026.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Silva P, Livingston AG. Organic solvent nanofiltration (OSN) modelling — from pure solvents to highly rejected solutes [Internet]. London: Imperial College, 2007: 152 p. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16454467.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Van der Bruggen B, Greens J, Vandecasteele C. Influence of organic solvents on the performance of polymeric nanofiltration membranes. J Sep Sci Technol [Internet]. 2007;37:783–97. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/SS-120002217.10.1081/SS-120002217Search in Google Scholar

[9] Bowen WR, Welfoot JS. Predictive modelling of nanofiltration: membrane specification and process optimisation. Desalination [Internet]. 2002;147:197–203. DOI: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00534-9.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Combe C, Guizard C, Aimar P, Sanchez V. Experimental determination of four characteristics used to predict the retention of a ceramic nanofiltration membrane. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 1997;129:147–60. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00290-6.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Santos JL, de Beukelaar P, Vankelecomb IF, Velizarov S, Crespo JG. Effect of solute geometry and orientation on the rejection of uncharged compounds by nanofiltration. Sep Purif Technol [Internet]. 2006;50:122–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2005.11.015.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Machado DR, Hasson D, Raphael S. Effect of solvent properties on permeate flow through nanofiltration membranes: part II. Transport model. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2000;166:63–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(99)00251-3.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Robinson JP, Tarleton ES, Millington CR, Nijmeijer A. Solvent flux through dense polymeric nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2004;230:29–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2003.10.027.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Bowen WR, Mohammad AW, Hilal N. Characterisation of nanofiltration membranes for predictive purposes—use of salts, uncharged solutes and atomic force microscopy. Characterisation of nanofiltration membranes for predictive purposes — use of salts, uncharged solutes and atomic force microscopy. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 1997;126:91–105. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00276-1.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Deen WM. Hindered transport of large molecules in liquid‐filled pores. AlChe J [Internet]. 1987;33:1409–25. DOI: 10.1002/aic.690330902.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Nakao SI, Kimura S. Analysis of solutes rejection in ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Jpn [Internet]. 1981;14:32–7. Available at: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jcej1968/14/1/14_1_32/_pdf.10.1252/jcej.14.32Search in Google Scholar

[17] Lonsdale HK, Merten U, Riley RL. Transport properties of cellulose acetate osmotic membranes. J Appl Polym Sci [Internet]. 1965;9:1341–62. DOI: 10.1002/app.1965.070090413.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Paul DR, Garcin M, Garmon WE. Solute diffusion through swollen polymer membranes. J Appl Polym Sci [Internet]. 1976;20:609–25. DOI: 10.1002/app.1976.070200305.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Peeva LG, Gibbins E, Luthra SS, White LS, Stateva RP, Livingston AG. Effect of concentration polarisation and osmotic pressure on flux in organic solvent nanofiltration. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2004;236:121–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2004.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Scarpello JT, Nair D, Freitas Dos Santos LM, White LS, Livingston AG. The separation of homogeneous organometallic catalysts using solvent resistant nanofiltration. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2002;203:71–85. Available at: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-2324b76c-46ac-3504-831f-e847f1eb9589.10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00751-7Search in Google Scholar

[21] Stafie N, Stamatialis DF, Wessling M. Insight into the transport of hexane–solute systems through tailor-made composite membranes. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2004;228:103–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2003.10.002.Search in Google Scholar

[22] White LS. Transport properties of a polyimide solvent resistant nanofiltration membrane. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2002;205:191–202. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(02)00115-1.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Wijmans JG, Baker RW. The solution-diffusion model: a review. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 1995;107:1–21. DOI: 10.1016/0376-7388(95)00102-I.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Kovács Z, Discacciati M, Samhaber W. Modeling of batch and semi-batch membrane filtration processes. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2009;327:164–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.11.024.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Murthy ZV, Gupta SK. Estimation of mass transfer coefficient using a combined nonlinear membrane transport and film theory model. Desalination [Internet]. 1997;109:39–49. Available at: http://www.eprint.iitd.ac.in/bitstream/2074/327/1/murthyest97.pdf.10.1016/S0011-9164(97)00051-9Search in Google Scholar

[26] van Den Berg GB, Smolders CA. Concentration polarization phenomena during dead-end ultrafiltration of protein mixtures. The influence of solute-solute interactions. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 1989;47:1–24. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(00)80857-1.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Haijmans FR. A computer simulation of the pulmonary microvascular exchange system – alveolar flooding [Internet]. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1985: 242 p. Available at: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0058699.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Yoshioka N, Ichihashi K. Determination of 40 synthetic food colors in drinks and candies by high-performance liquid chromatography using a short column with photodiode array detection. Talanta [Internet]. 2008;74:1408–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2007.09.015.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Sereewatthanawut I, Lim FW, Bhole YS, Ormerod D, Horvath A, Boam AT, et al. Demonstration of molecular purification in polar aprotic solvents by organic solvent nanofiltration [Internet]. Org Process Res Dev. 2010;14:600–11. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/op100028p.10.1021/op100028pSearch in Google Scholar

[30] Daoud M, Raïos K, Gharbia M, Gharbi A, Nguyen HT. Matter diffusion in hexagonal columnar phases. Brazillian J Phys [Internet]. 1998;28. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-97331998000400005.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Aygün A, Yenisoy-Karakaş S, Duman I. Production of granular activated carbon from fruit stones and nutshells and evaluation of their physical, chemical and adsorption properties. Microporous Mesoporous Mater [Internet]. 2003;66:189–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2003.08.028.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Daifullah AA, Girgis BS. Removal of some substituted phenols by activated carbon obtained from agricultural waste. Water Res [Internet]. 1998;32:1169–77. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00310-2.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Przepiórski J. Enhanced adsorption of phenol from water by ammonia-treated activated carbon. J Hazard Mater [Internet]. 2006;135:453–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.12.004.Search in Google Scholar

[34] Pacak P. Polarizability and molecular radius of dimethyl-sulfoxide and dimethylformamide from refractive index data. J Solution Chem [Internet]. 1987;16:71–7. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00647016.10.1007/BF00647016Search in Google Scholar

[35] Gibbins E, Antonio MD, Nair D, White LS, Freitas Dos Santos LM, Vankelecom IF, et al. Observations on solvent flux and solute rejection across solvent resistant nanofiltration membranes. Desalination [Internet]. 2002;147:307–13. DOI: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00557-X.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Loh XX. Polyaniline membranes for use in organic solvent nanofiltration [Internet]. London: Imperial College, 2009: 187 p. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17294720.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[37] See-Toh YH, Silva M, Livingston A. Controlling molecular weight cut-off curves for highly solvent stable organic solvent nanofiltration (OSN) membranes. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 2008;324:220–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.07.023.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Tarleton ES, Robinson JP, Millington CR, Nijmeijer A, Taylo ML. Solvent induced swelling of membranes - measurements and influence in nanofiltration J Mem Sci. 2006;278:318–27.10.1016/j.memsci.2006.01.050Search in Google Scholar

[39] Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN, editors. Transport phenomena. NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1960: 780 p.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Schock G, Miquel A. Mass transfer and pressure loss in spiral wound modules. Desalination [Internet]. 1987;64:339–52. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001191648790107X.10.1016/0011-9164(87)90107-XSearch in Google Scholar

[41] Yang YT, Hwang CZ. Calculation of turbulent flow and heat transfer in a porous-baffled channel. Int J Heat Mass Transfer [Internet]. 2003;46:771–80. DOI: 10.1016/S0017-9310(02)00360-5.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Platt S, Mauramo M, Butylina S, Nyström M. Retention of pegs in cross-flow ultrafiltration through membranes. Desalination [Internet]. 2002;149:417–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00767-1.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Pradanos P, Arribas JI, Hernandez A. Mass transfer coefficient and retention of PEGs in low pressure cross-flow ultrafiltration through asymmetric membranes. J Membr Sci [Internet]. 1995;99:1–20. DOI: 10.1016/0376-7388(94)00197-7.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Um MJ, Yoon SH, Lee CH, Chung KY, Kim JJ. Flux enhancement with gas injection in crossflow ultrafiltration of oily wastewater. Water Res [Internet]. 2001;35:4095–101. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00155-5.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Yeh HM, Ho CD, Hou JZ. Collector efficiency of double-flow solar air heaters with fins attached. Energy [Internet]. 2002;27:715–27. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00010-5.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-05-03
Revised: 2018-11-17
Accepted: 2018-11-26
Published Online: 2018-12-15

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston