Microfiltration of Deforming Droplets

  • A. UllahEmail author
  • M. Naeem
  • R. G. Holdich
  • V. M. Starov
  • S. Semenov
Conference paper
Part of the Progress in Colloid and Polymer Science book series (PROGCOLLOID, volume 139)


Control of permeate flux is important in microfiltration processes as it influences trans-membrane pressure and fouling of a membrane. Particles of vegetable oil ranging from 1 to 15 μm were passed through a 4 μm slotted pore membrane at various flux rates. Various intensities of shear were applied parallel to the membrane by vibrating the membrane at different frequencies. At the lowest permeate flux rate (200 l m−2 hr−1) the membrane fouled because the drag force was too low to squeeze the deformable oil droplets through the membrane. At higher flux rates the drag force over the oil droplets increased and deformation, and passage, of oil droplets into the permeate was possible. Without any applied shear highest trans-membrane pressure was observed due to fouling, which could be modelled by a pore blocking model. A positive displacement pump was used in experiments which maintained nearly constant flow of permeate. Flux rates varied from 200 up to 1200 l m−2 hr−1, and the highest shear rate used was 8,000 s−1. The experimental system provided a simple technique for assessing the behaviour of the microfilter during the filtration of these deforming particles.


Shear Rate Drag Force Flux Rate Membrane Fouling Apply Shear Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Zhao Y, Xing W, Xu N, Wong FS (2005) Effects of inorganic salt on ceramic membrane microfiltration of titanium dioxide suspension. J Membr Sci 254:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guiziou GG, Wakeman RJ, Daufin G (2002) Stability of latex crossflow filtration: cake properties and critical conditions of deposition. Chem Eng J 85:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Persson A, Jonsson AS, Zacchi G (2001) Separation of lactic acid producing bacteria from fermentation broth using a ceramic microfiltration membrane with constant permeate flow. Biotechnol Bioeng 72:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwon DY, Vigneswaran S, Fane AG, Aim RB (2000) Experimental determination of critical flux in cross-flow microfiltration. Sep Purif Technol 19:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holdich RG, Kosvintsev S, Cumming IW, Zhdanov S (2006) Pore design and engineering for filters and membrane. Phil Trans R Soc A 364:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cumming IW, Holdich RG, Smith ID (2000) The rejection of oil microfiltration of a stabilised kerosene/water emulsion. J Membr Sci 169:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee C, Baik S (2010) Vertically-aligned carbon nano-tube membrane filters with superhydrophobicity and superoleophilicity. Carbon 48:2192–2197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee CH, Johnson N, Drelich J, Yap YK (2011) The performance of superhydrophobic and superoleophilic carbon nanotube meshes in water–oil filtration. Carbon 49:669–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Filippov A, Starov VM, Lloyd RD, Chakravarti S, Glaser S (1994) Sieve mechanism of microfiltration. J Membr Sci 89:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ullah
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Naeem
    • 3
  • R. G. Holdich
    • 1
  • V. M. Starov
    • 1
  • S. Semenov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughborough, LeicestershireUK
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringNWFP (KPK), UETPeshawarPakistan
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryAWKUMMardanPakistan

Personalised recommendations