Sieving variations due to the choice in pore size distribution model

Journal of Membrane Science

Volumn 209, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 1-17

  Derjani Bayeh, S ^a   Rodgers, V G J ^a,b,c  

^a IA United States   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c 4136 Seamans Center ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Pore size distributions; Sieving; Ultrafiltration

Indexed keywords

MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PORE SIZE; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; SIEVES;

AREA AVERAGE WATER FLUX;

POLYMERIC MEMBRANES;

CELLULOSE ACETATE; POLYSULFONE;

MEMBRANE; PORE SIZE; SIZE DISTRIBUTION; ULTRAFILTRATION;

ARTICLE; CHANNEL GATING; MEMBRANE; MEMBRANE MODEL; MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; POROSITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STATISTICS; ULTRAFILTRATION;

EID: 0036843882     PISSN: 03767388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00737-2     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Michaels A.S. Analysis and prediction of sieving curves for ultrafiltration membranes: a universal correlation? Sep. Sci. Tech. 15:1980;1305.
2. Aimar P., Miereles M., Pimbley J.M., Sanchez V. A contribution to the translation of retention curves into pore size distributions for sieving membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 54:1990;321.
3. Mochizuki S., Zydney A.L. Theoretical analysis of pore size distribution effects on membrane transport. J. Membr. Sci. 82:1993;211.
4. Zydney A.L., Aimar P., Miereles M., Pimbley J.M., Belfort G. Use of the log-normal probability density function to analyze membrane pore size distributiones: functional form and discrepancies. J. Membr. Sci. 91:1994;293.
5. Wendt R.P., Mason E.A., Bresler E.H. Effect of heteroporosity on membrane rejection coefficients. J. Membr. Sci. 8:1981;69.
6. Deen W.M., Bridgers C.R., Brenner B.M. Biophysical basis of glomerular permselectivity. J. Membr. Sci. 71:1983;1.
7. Mason E.A., Viehland L.A. Statistical-mechanical theory of membrane transport for multicomponent systems: passive transport through open membranes. J. Chem. Phys. 68:1978;3562.
8. Leypoldt J.K. Determining pore size distributions of ultrafiltation membranes by solute sieving-mathematical limitations. J. Membr. Sci. 17:1987;173.
9. Deen W.M. Hindered transport of large molecules in liquid-filled pores. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 33:1987;1409.
10. P.M. Bungay, H.K. Lonsdale, M.N. Pinho, Synthetic Membranes: Science, Engineering and Applications, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983.
11. Spiegler K.S., Kedem O. Thermodynamics of hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis): criteria for efficient membranes. Desalination. 1:1966;311.
12. Bungay P.M., Brenner H. The motion of a closely-fitting sphere in a fluid-filled tube. Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 1:1973;25.
13. P. Bratley, B.L. Fox, E. Linus, Schrage, A Guide to Simulation, Springer, New York, 1983.
14. M.G. Kendal, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1, Lippincott Company, London, 1943.
15. Tam C.M., Tremblay A.Y. Membrane pore characterization - comparison between single and multicomponent solute probe techniques. J. Membr. Sci. 57:1991;271.
16. Tkacik G., Michaels A. A rejection profile test for ultrafiltration membranes and devices. BioTechnology. 9:1991;941.
17. Zeman L.J. Adsorption effects in rejection of macromolecules by ultrafiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 15:1983;213.
18. Millipore, unpublished data.
19. W. Cheney, D. Kincaid, Numerical Mathematics and Computing, Pacific Grove, California, 1985.