Liquid-liquid displacement porometry to estimate the molecular weight cut-off of ultrafiltration membranes

Desalination

Volumn 268, Issue 1-3, 2011, Pages 174-181

  Calvo, José Ignacio ^a   Peinador, René Israel ^a   Prádanos, Pedro ^a   Palacio, Laura ^a   Bottino, Aldo ^b   Capannelli, Gustavo ^b   Hernández, Antonio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Dextran retention; Liquid liquid porometry; Molecular weight cut off; Pore size distribution

Indexed keywords

CUT-OFF VALUE; LIQUID-LIQUID DISPLACEMENTS; LIQUID-LIQUIDS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT CUT-OFF; POROMETRY; SOLUTE RETENTION; UF MEMBRANES; ULTRAFILTRATION MEMBRANES;

DEXTRAN; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ESTIMATION; GLUCOSE; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; POLYACRYLONITRILES; PORE SIZE; SIZE DETERMINATION; SIZE DISTRIBUTION; ULTRAFILTRATION;

LIQUIDS;

MEMBRANE; MOLECULAR ANALYSIS; POLYSACCHARIDE; POROSITY; ULTRAFILTRATION;

EID: 78650797114     PISSN: 00119164     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2010.10.016     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Zydney A.L., Xenopoulos A. Improving dextran tests for ultrafiltration membranes: effect of device format. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 291:180-190.
2. Schlichter B., Mavrov V., Chmiel H. Comparative characterization of different commercial UF membranes for drinking water production. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA 2000, 49.6:321-328.
3. Platt S., Mauramo M., Butylina S., Nyström M. Retention of pegs in cross-flow ultrafiltration through membranes. Desalination 2002, 149:417-422.
4. Jacangelo J.G., Adham S.S., Laîné J.M. Mechanisms of cryptosporidium, giardia and MS2 virus removal by MF and UF. J. AWWA 1995, 7:107-121.
5. Brown P. Assessing the molecular weight cut-off value of UF membranes. Membr. Technol. 1995, 61:7-9.
6. Kim K.J., Fane A.G., Ben Aim R., Liu M.G., Jonsson G., Tessaro I.C., Broek A.P., Bargeman D. A comparative study of techniques used for porous membrane characterization: pore characterization. J. Membr. Sci. 1994, 87:35-46.
7. Mulherkar P., van Reis R. Flex test: a fluorescent dextran test for UF membrane characterization. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 236:171-182.
8. Van der Bruggen B., Vandecasteele C. Modelling of the retention of uncharged molecules with nanofiltration. Water Res. 2002, 36:1360-1368.
9. Chakrabarty B., Ghoshal A.K., Purkait M.K. Effect of molecular weight of PEG on membrane morphology and transport properties. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 309:209-221.
10. Anderson J.L., Quinn J.A. Restricted transport in small pores: a model for steric exclusion and hindered particle motion. Biophys. J. 1974, 14:130-150.
11. Deen W.M. Hindered transport of large molecules in liquid-filled pores. AIChE J. 1987, 33:1409-1425.
12. Causserand C., Rouaix S., Akbari A., Aimar P. Improvement of a method for the characterization of ultrafiltration membranes by measurements of tracers retention. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 238:177-190.
13. Opong W.S., Zydney A.L. Diffusive and convective protein transport through asymmetric membranes. AIChE J. 1991, 37:1497-1510.
14. Combe C., Guizard C., Aimar E., Sanchez V. Experimental determination of four characteristics used to predict the retention of a ceramic nanofiltration membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 129:147-160.
15. Bowen W.R., Mukhtar H. Characterisation and prediction of separation performance of nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1996, 112:263-274.
16. Bowen W.R., Mohammad A.W. Diafiltration by nanofiltration: prediction and optimization. AIChE J. 1998, 44:1799-1812.
17. Mohammad A.W., Hilal N., Al-Zoubi H., Darwish N.A. Prediction of permeate fluxes and rejections of highly concentrated salts in nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 289:40-50.
18. Zydney A.L., Bohonak D.M. Compaction and permeability effects with virus filtration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 254:71-79.
19. Brock T.D. Membrane filtration: a user's guide and reference manual 1983, Science Tecn. Inc., Madison, WI.
20. Calvo J.I., Bottino A., Capannelli G., Hernández A. Comparison of liquid-liquid displacement porosimetry and scanning electron microscopy image analysis to characterise ultrafiltration track-etched membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 239:189-197.
21. Sanz J.M., Jardines D., Bottino A., Capannelli G., Hernández A., Calvo J.I. Liquid-liquid porometry for an accurate membrane characterization. Desalination 2006, 200:195-197.
22. Otero J.A., Mazarrasa O., Villasante J., Silva V., Prádanos P., Calvo J.I., Hernández A. Three independent ways to obtain information on pore size distribution of nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 309:17-27.
23. Calvo J.I., Bottino A., Capannelli G., Hernández A. Pore size distribution of ceramic UF membranes by liquid-liquid displacement porosimetry. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 310:531-538.
24. Peinador R., Calvo J.I., Prádanos P., Palacio L., Hernández A. Characterisation of polymeric UF membranes by liquid-liquid displacement porosimetry. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 348:238-244.
25. R.I. Peinador, J.I. Calvo, K. ToVinh, V. Thom, A. Hernández, Liquid-liquid displacement to characterize retention of virus membranes, submitted to J. Membr. Sci., 2010.
26. van Reis R., Zydney A. Bioprocess membrane technology. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 297:16-50.
27. Aimar P., Meireles M., Sanchez V. A contribution to the translation of retention curves into pore size distributions for sieving membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1990, 35:321-338.
28. He T., Frank M., Mulder M.H.V., Wessling M. Preparation and characterization of nanofiltration membranes by coating polyethersulfone hollow fibbers with sulfonated poly(ether ether ketone) (SPEEK). J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 307:62-72.
29. Wickramasinghe S.R., Bower S.E., Chen Z., Mukherjee A., Husson S.M. Relating the pore size distribution of ultrafiltration membranes to dextran rejection. J. Membr. Sci. 2009, 340:1-8.
30. Venturoli D., Rippe B. Ficoll and dextran vs globular proteins as probes for testing glomerular permselectivity: effects of molecular size, shape, charge and deformability. Am. J. Physiol. Renal. Physiol. 2005, 288:F605-F613.
31. Schultz J.S., Valentina R., Choi C.Y. Reflection coefficients of homopore membranes: the effect of molecular size and configuration. J. Gen. Physiol. 1979, 73:49-60.
32. Cheng L.P., Lin H.V., Chen L.W., Young T.H. Solute rejection of dextran by EVAL membranes with asymmetric and particulate morphologies. Polymer 1998, 39:2135-2142.
33. Munari S., Bottino A., Capannelli G., Moretti P. Membrane morphology and transport properties. Desalination 1985, 53:11-23.
34. CHARMME Network "Harmonization of characterization methodologies for porous membranes", EC Contract SMT4-CT 98-7518.