Nanofiltration of single and mixed salt solutions: Analysis of results using principal component analysis (PCA)

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

Volumn 88, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1569-1579

  Hesampour, Mehrdad ^a   Tanninen, Jukka ^b   Reinikainen, Satu Pia ^a   Platt, Samantha ^c   Nyström, Marianne ^a  

^a LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^b Qutotec Research Oy   (Finland)

^c UPM Group   (Finland)

Author keywords

Desal 5DK; ESNA 1 LF; Na2SO4; NaCl; Nanofiltration; NF 20; NF 270; NF Filmtec; Principal component analysis

Indexed keywords

DESAL-5DK; ESNA-1-LF; NA2SO4; NACL; NF 20; NF 270; NF FILMTEC; PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS;

MICROFILTRATION; NANOFILTRATION; NANOFILTRATION MEMBRANES; OSMOSIS MEMBRANES; REVERSE OSMOSIS; SODIUM ALLOYS; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

EID: 78649762223     PISSN: 02638762     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.03.010     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Afonso M.D., de Pinho M.N. Transport of MgSO4, MgCl2, and Na2SO4 across an amphoteric nanofiltration membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 2000, 179(1-2):137-154.
2. Agenson K.O., Oh J.I., Urase T. Retention of a wide variety of organic pollutants by different nanofiltration/reverse osmosis membranes: controlling parameters of process. J. Membr. Sci. 2003, 225(1-2):91-103.
3. Aleman J.G., Dickon J.M. Permeation of mixed-salt solutions with commercial and pore-filed nanofiltration membranes: membrane charge inversion phenomena. J. Memb. Sci. 2004, 239(2):163-172.
4. Alt F.B., Smith N.D. Multivariate process control. Handbook of Statistics 1988, vol. 7:333-351. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
5. Beebe K.R., Pell R.J., Seasholtz M.B. Chemometrics: A Practical Guide 1998, John Wiley & Sons, Canada.
6. Boussu K., Vandecasteele C., Van der Bruggen B. Relation between membrane characteristics and performance in nanofiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 310(1-2):51-56.
7. Bowen W.R., Jones M.G., Welfoot J.S., Yousef H.N.S. Predicting salt rejections at nanofiltration membranes using artificial neural networks. Desalination 2000, 129(2):147-162.
8. Bowen W.R., Mukhtar H. Characterisation and prediction of separation performance of nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1996, 112(2):263-274.
9. Djuric M., Gyura J., Zavargo Z. The analysis of process variables influencing some characteristics of permeate from ultra-and nanofiltration in sugar beet processing. Desalination 2004, 169(2):167-183.
10. Hagmeyer G., Gimbel R. Modelling the rejection of nanofiltration membranes using zeta potential measurements. Sep. Purif. Technol. 1999, 15(1):19-30.
11. Kallioinen M., Huuhilo T., Reinikainen S.P., Jokinen J.N., Mänttäri M. Examination of membrane performance with multivariate methods: a case study within a pulp and paper mill filtration application. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2006, 84(1-2):98-105.
12. Kallioinen M., Reinikainen S.P., Jokinen J.N., Mänttäri M., Sutela T., Nurminen P. Chemometrics approach in studies of membrane capacity in pulp and paper mill application. Desalination 2005, 175(1):87-95.
13. Kresta J., MacGregor J.F., Martin T.E. Multivariate statistical monitoring of process operating performance. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1991, 69(1):35-47.
14. Krieg H.M., Modise S.J., Keizer K., Neomagus H.W.J.P. Salt rejection in nanofiltration for single and binary salt mixtures in view of sulphate removal. Desalination 2004, 171(2):205-215.
15. Martens H., Naes T. Multivariate Calibration 1993, John Wiley & Sons.
16. Massart D.L., Vahdeginste B.G.M., Buydens L.M.C., De Jong S., Lewi P.J., Smeyers-Verbeke J. Handbook of Chemometrics and Qualimetrics: Part A 1997, Elsevier, The Netherlands.
17. Metsämuuronen S., Reinikainen S.P., Nyström M. Analysis of protein filtration data by PLS regression. Desalination 2002, 149(1-3):453-458.
18. Oh J.I., Lee S.H., Yamamoto K. Relationship between molar volume and rejection of arsenic species in groundwater by low-pressure nanofiltration process. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 234(1-2):167-175.
19. Pihlajamäki, A., 1998, Electrochemical characterization of filter media properties and their exploitation in enhanced filtration, Doctoral thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland.
20. Pontie M., Chasseray X., Lemordant D., Laine J.M. The streaming potential method for the characterization of ultrafiltration organic membranes and the control of cleaning treatments. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 129(1):125-133.
21. Pontie M., Durand-Bourlier L., Lemordant D., Laine J.M. Control fouling and cleaning procedures of UF membranes by a streaming potential method. Sep. Purif. Technol. 1998, 14(1-3):1-11.
22. Santafe-Moros A., Gozalvez-Zafrilla J.M., Lora-Garcia J., Garcia-Diaz J.C. Mixture design applied to describe the influence of ionic composition on the removal of nitrate ions using nanofiltration. Desalination 2005, 185(1-3):289-296.
23. Santos J.L.C., Hidalgo A.M., Oliveria R., Velizarov S., Crespo J.G. Analysis of solvent flux through nanofiltration membranes by mechanistic, chemometric and hybrid modeling. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 300(1-2):191-204.
24. Schaep J., Vandecasteele C., Wahab Mohammad A., Bowen W.R. Modelling the retention of ionic components for different nanofiltration membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2001, 22-23:169-179.
25. Nanofiltration: Principles and Applications 2005, Elsevier, Oxford, UK. A.I. Schäfer, A.G. Fane, T.D. Waite (Eds.).
26. Spiegler K.S., Kedem O. Thermodynamics of hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis): criteria for efficient membranes. Desalination 1966, 1:311-326.
27. Tanninen, J., 2004, Importance of Charge in Nanofiltration, Doctoral Thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland.
28. Tanninen J., Mänttäri M., Nyström M. Effect of salt mixture concentration on fractionation with NF membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 283(1-2):57-64.
29. Wold S. Principal component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1987, 2(1-3):37-52.