Docstoc

Fluid Flow In Pipe Systems

Document Sample
Fluid Flow In Pipe Systems Powered By Docstoc
					Ultrafiltration                                              University of Illinois at Chicago




                           Ultrafiltration


                                         Lab Report
                                    Unit Operations Lab I
                                      February 2, 2011

                                             Group 2
                                        Eleftherios Avtzis
                                          David Garcia
                                         Andrew Haight
                                           Bryan Isles
                                         Alena Nguyen
                                        Priyanka Oroskar
                                          Chris Starrick




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 1                  Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


1. Summary


        The following report will provide a detailed analysis of the unit operation,

ultrafiltration, a separations process that removes particles from a solution on a molecular

scale. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the relationship between the

effects of output pressure and recovery of the solvent on the solvent flux. This was

measured with skim milk as the retentate and water as the permeate, which was done by

adjusting the pressure drop at various recoveries, 10%, 30% and 58%. Then the resulting

flux was measured. A water only run was conducted in order to measure the pure water

flux without the concentration polarization effect.


        In the run with pure water, at a pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was 0.00025

ft/sec and at a pressure differential of 15 psid, the flux was approximately 0.00023 ft/sec.

In the runs with skim milk however, it is observed that the flux decreases as the percent

recovery increases. This is seen with the following results: at 0% recovery of milk, a

pressure drop of 5 psid had a flux that was 5.533E-5 ft/sec and at a pressure drop of 15

psid, the flux was 5.391E-5 ft/sec. At a 10% recovery of skim milk, the pressure drop of 5

psid, the flux was 5.603E-5 ft/sec and at a pressure drop of 15 psid, the flux was 4.045E-5

ft/sec. At a 30% recovery of skim milk, the pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was

4.285E-5 ft/sec and at a pressure differential of 15 psid, the flux was 3.131-5 ft/sec. Lastly,

at a 58% recovery of skim milk with a pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was 4.379E-5

ft/sec and at a pressure differential of 15 psid, the flux was 3.437E-5 ft/sec. The observed

trend is because at higher recoveries, milk proteins and other particles build up at the



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 2                        Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                        University of Illinois at Chicago


membrane surface and clog the pores of the ultrafiltration system thus decreasing the

solvent flux. Errors accounted for in this experiment include some outliers in the data

because at high recoveries the motor of the apparatus began to pump air causing air

bubbles to form. However, the run was just restarted to obtain more reliable results.

Overall, the system had few issues and maintained consistent throughout the experiment

with reliable results.


2. Results


           The objective of this lab was to obtain flux values for the ultrafiltration system for

various percent recoveries at increasing pressures. The experiment was conducted with

water only to obtain solvent flux values. One gallon of skim milk was added to the system

for the runs at increasing recoveries.



                                      0% Recov. Skim Milk
                       6.00E-05
                       5.80E-05
                       5.60E-05
                       5.40E-05
       Flux (ft/sec)




                       5.20E-05                                             0% Recovery Run
                       5.00E-05                                             1
                       4.80E-05                                             0% Recovery Run
                       4.60E-05                                             2
                       4.40E-05
                       4.20E-05
                       4.00E-05
                                  0   5    10        15     20        25
                                          Pressure (psid)




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 3                            Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                  University of Illinois at Chicago


Figure 2-1: Flux vs. Pressure at 0% Recovery

                    For the zero percent recovery case the experimental data was collected twice, the

first set is graphed as run 1 and the second is graphed as run 2 in Figure 2-1 (above). It

was repeated due to the fact that the milk still needed more time to circulate through the

system and form the gel layer in the filter membrane. The data for run two is still not

consistant with the theoretical anticipated results and does not follow what the subsequent

data sets show below.



                                      10% Recov. Skim Milk

                   6.00E-05


                   5.50E-05


                   5.00E-05
   Flux (ft/sec)




                   4.50E-05
                                                                                       10% Recovery

                   4.00E-05


                   3.50E-05


                   3.00E-05
                              0      5        10        15        20        25
                                             Pressure (psid)


Figure 2-2: Flux vs. Pressure at 10% Recovery


                    The above figure is a plot of flux versus pressure for the ten percent recovery run.

The over all trend is almost identical to the trend for the zero percent series two case. It




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                   p. 4                                Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                 University of Illinois at Chicago


shows a flat line from five to ten pounds per square inch and then a decrease as pressure

increases from ten to twenty pounds per square inch.




                                        30% Recov. Skim Milk
                  4.50E-05


                  4.00E-05
  Flux (ft/sec)




                  3.50E-05

                                                                                      30% Recovery
                  3.00E-05


                  2.50E-05


                  2.00E-05
                             0      5        10        15        20        25
                                            Pressure (psid)

Figure 2-3: Flux vs. Pressure at 30% Recovery


                    The above figure is a plot of flux versus pressure for the thirty percent recovery run.

The over all trend is almost identical to the trend for the next case which is the fiftyeight

percent recovery case. It shows a linear decrease as pressure is increased from five to

twenty pounds per square inch.




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                   p. 5                               Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                 University of Illinois at Chicago



                                      58% Recov. Skim Milk
                   4.60E-05
                   4.40E-05
                   4.20E-05
                   4.00E-05
   Flux (ft/sec)




                   3.80E-05
                   3.60E-05                                                           58% Recovery

                   3.40E-05
                   3.20E-05
                   3.00E-05
                   2.80E-05
                              0   5        10        15          20        25
                                          Pressure (psid)

Figure 2-4: Flux vs. Pressure at 58% Recovery



                                        Flux vs. Pressure
                   7.00E-05

                   6.00E-05

                   5.00E-05
   Flux (ft/sec)




                   4.00E-05                                                      0% Recovery Run 1
                                                                                 10% Recovery
                   3.00E-05                                                      30% Recovery

                   2.00E-05                                                      58% Recovery
                                                                                 0% Recovery Run 2
                   1.00E-05

                   0.00E+00
                              0   5      10        15       20        25
                                        Pressure (psid)


Figure 2-5: Flux vs. Pressure at different recoveries



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                 p. 6                                 Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                University of Illinois at Chicago


                    The above figure plots the flux versus pressure for the increasing recoveries, note

that the ten, thirty, and fiftyeight percent recoveries show a decreasing trend as pressure

increases.



                                         Effect of Milk on Flux
                   3.00E-04

                   2.50E-04
   Flux (ft/sec)




                   2.00E-04

                   1.50E-04
                                                                                     Pure Water
                   1.00E-04
                                                                                     10% Recovery
                   5.00E-05

                   0.00E+00
                              0      5        10        15       20       25
                                             Pressure (psid)


Figure 2-6: The effect of skim milk on the membrane flux.


                    The above figure is a comparison between the solvent flux, the blue “pure water”

line, and ten percent recovery, the red line. The pure water flux is greater than the flux for

ten percent recovery because the addition of milk to the system causes a gel layer to form

on the filter medium. The formation of this layer causes the rate of transfer of the sovent to

decrese at the same pressure.




3. Discussion

                    The theory, which pertains to this experiment, leads to several assumptions about

the results. First, an increase in pressure differential will not cause an increase in flux.


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                   p. 7                              Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                     University of Illinois at Chicago


This is seen throughout all the runs, except in a few outliers, and is made especially clear in

the water only run. The flux does increase with increasing pressure inside the membrane,

however this change is marginal. That means the outlet pressure was high, relatively

speaking to other settings. The outlet pressure is always less than the inlet pressure to

prevent backflow, but when psid is decreased, the pressure inside the membrane is

increased, as water is required to push its way out of the membrane. Therefore a low delta

P simply means a high outlet pressure and vice-versa. The inlet pressure was always set at

a constant 25 psi since the flux doesn’t depend on osmotic pressure as discussed in the

theory section of the handout.

        For the pure water flux test pressure differential setting at 5 psid, the flux was

0.00025 feet per second; when the pressure differential was 15 psid, the flux was

approximately 0.00023 ft/s.           This is precisely the almost negligible effect that was

discussed in the handout. All of the flux values are clustered together with the only clear

variation coming from the pure water run and the trials with skim milk (Figure 6-1). The

concentration polarization of milk forming a boundary layer on the membrane is what

affects the flux. As milk proteins and other particulates begin to block pores, the flux of

water traveling through the membrane decreases as expected. This observation changes

only slightly with increasing concentration as the solute would’ve blocked most pores even

at a slight concentration since the system is on a small scale where total recycle time is

minimal.

        The second assumption that was made was that the boundary layer on the

membrane would increase with increasing concentration. Therefore the flux will decrease


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 8                         Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                  University of Illinois at Chicago


with higher concentrations given by percent recovery. This was observed during the milk

run; with 20 psid and 10% recovery, the permeability was 3.58*10-5 ft/s and at 58%

recovery at the same differential pressure, the flux was 2.99*10-5 ft/s. Therefore one can

say that the data observed in the experiment fit theory. Since no prior data was acquired,

only the theory was tested. Therefore these assumptions were proven reliable and one can

conclude that while pressure does not significantly affect the flux, the percent recovery

does.    A closer look reveals that the flux doesn’t necessarily decrease with higher

concentrations but that it becomes more consistent resulting in a graph of flux versus psid

whose slope becomes smaller, almost approaching zero. The flux values cluster closer

together with increasing internal membrane pressure at higher recoveries.

        The results obtained in this lab revealed some problems with the experimental

procedure. Most notably is the behavior of the system at very high recoveries. At 70%

recovery the motor began to pump air and caused a pressure drop at the inlet of the

system. This also introduced air bubbles to the membrane and gave unreliable data.

During some runs the system had trouble building a pressure head and maintaining that

pressure. At that point it was necessary to restart the run. These two situations may have

been the cause of some outlying data points. Keeping the solvent level above fifty liters in

the feed tank solves the problems encountered at high recoveries. As for the trouble with

building the pressure head, which can be solved with patience; one should not start the run

before one notices the pressure build up and then allowing it to stabilize. One can also tell

by the sound, when the motor has a higher pitch, the water is building a sufficient pressure

head. Therefore the operator should be familiar to the apparatus and it will return


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 9                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                           University of Illinois at Chicago


consistent data. A few outliers were observed and must be attributed to human error upon

recovery of solvent in order to measure the flux.

        A few questions remain unanswered such as what happens at high recoveries since

the apparatus had problems with such a small amount of solution pumping in the system.

Either adjusting the pump or using a different pump that is able to operate at a lower feed

may solve this problem. There aren’t any improvements to be made on this experiment as

the apparatus is in proper working order however, it may be interesting to see how the

system behaves at different temperatures since the membrane specs show different

performance levels based on temperature.                   The extensive cleaning cycle prohibits a

temperature experiment to a single group. As for low recoveries, extrapolating the data

recovered at the 105 °C temperature allows one to assume a greater clustering of flux

values at various outlet pressure settings with increasing recovery.



4. Conclusion


        Ultrafiltration is a type of separation process used to remove particles from a

solution much like in a standard filtration system. The filter mediums in ultrafiltration

apparatuses are capable of removing much smaller particles, ranging from 30Å to 1100Å.

This unit operation is useful for concentrating a feed by allowing the solvent to pass

through the filter medium leaving behind the particles entrained by the medium. These

entrained particles are of importance in the pharmaceutical industry amongst others. This

unit operation is less energy intensive than evaporation and the goal is the same; removing



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 10                              Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


excess solvent from the desired product. As was researched in the theory of this unit

operation, an increase in pressure on the system does not cause a change in the flux. Once

there is a concentration polarization of milk at the boundary on the membrane surface, the

solvent flux is no longer affected by pressure but instead by the rate of back diffusion of the

solute.

          At a constant inlet pressure of 25 psi, the solvent flux is the various runs stayed

relatively constant. In the run with pure water, at a pressure differential setting of 5 psid,

the flux was 0.00025 ft/sec and at a pressure differential of 15 psid, the flux was

approximately 0.00023 ft/sec. In the runs with skim milk however, it is observed that the

flux decreases as the percent recovery of skim milk increases.            This is due to the

concentration polarization of milk at the membrane surface as stated before. At a 0%

recovery of skim milk and a pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was 5.533E-5 ft/sec and

at a pressure differential of 15 psid, the flux was 5.391E-5 ft/sec. At a 10% recovery of

skim milk and a pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was 5.603E-5 ft/sec and at a

pressure differential of 15 psid, the flux was 4.045E-5 ft/sec. At a 30% recovery of skim

milk and a pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was 4.285E-5 ft/sec and at a pressure

differential of 15 psid, the flux was 3.131-5 ft/sec. Lastly, at a 58% recovery of skim milk

and a pressure differential of 5 psid, the flux was 4.379E-5 ft/sec and at a pressure

differential of 15 psid, the flux was 3.437E-5 ft/sec. These results do not match theory

exactly however they are close. This is expected as stated before because at higher

recoveries, milk proteins and other particles build up at the membrane surface and clog the

pores of the ultrafiltration system thus decreasing the solvent flux.


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 11                       Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


        To minimize error it is recommended to wait until stabilization of pressure builds

up before running the experiment since building a pressure head is difficult. Also, at high

recoveries, the motor of the apparatus began to pump air, which caused pressure drop and

air bubbles to form in the membrane. If air bubbles form, the run needs to be restarted

since this will result in unreliable data recovery. Overall, the system had few issues and

maintained nicely throughout the experiment with reliable results.

5. References

[1] ChE 382: Unit Operations Laborator – Ultrafiltration Handout. Rev. Fall 2005.



* Refer to the Ultrafiltration Pre Lab of Group 2 for further refrence material.




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 12                       Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
 Ultrafiltration                                                                      University of Illinois at Chicago




 6. Appendix I: Data Tabulation/Graphs


                              Pressure
                               (psig)
                                             Vol. Perm. time       Vol in Pr.Tk.   flux         Lp (sqft- delP
                            Inlet   Outlet   (mL)       (sec)      (L)             (ft/sec)     s/kg)     (psid)
                             25       5        2490       30             50        1.17E-04     2.79E-09    20
Water Flux
              0% Recov.




                             25      10        4850       30             50        2.28E-04     5.43E-09    15
                             25      15        5000       30             50        2.35E-04     5.60E-09    10
                             25      20        5340       30             50        2.51E-04     5.98E-09     5
                                                                                         avg:   4.95E-09
 Table 6-1: Water Flux Test


                              Pressure
                               (psig)
                                             Vol. Perm. time       Vol in Pr.Tk.   flux     Lp (sqft- delP
                            Inlet   Outlet   (mL)       (sec)      (L)             (ft/sec) s/kg)     (psid)
                             25       5        1240       30            83.79      5.84E-05 1.39E-09    20
                             25      10        1145       30            83.79      5.39E-05 1.28E-09    15
              0% Recovery




                             25      15        1000       30            83.79      4.71E-05 1.12E-09    10
                             25      20        1175       30            83.79      5.53E-05 1.32E-09     5
  Skim Milk




                             25       5        1305       32            83.79      5.76E-05 1.37E-09    20
                             25      10         910       30            83.79      4.28E-05 1.02E-09    15
                             25      15        1025       30            83.79      4.83E-05 1.15E-09    10
                             25      20        1225       30            83.79      5.77E-05 1.37E-09     5
                             25       5         760       30           75.411      3.58E-05 8.51E-10    20
     Recov.
      10%




                             25      10         860       30           75.411      4.05E-05 9.63E-10    15
                             25      15        1185       30           75.411      5.58E-05 1.33E-09    10


 Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                       p. 13                                Spring 2011 11/27/11

 Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                            University of Illinois at Chicago


                                    25       20       1190      30         75.411        5.60E-05    1.33E-09          5
            58% Recov. 30% Recov.   25        5        515      30         58.653        2.42E-05    5.77E-10         20
                                    25       10        665      30         58.653        3.13E-05    7.45E-10         15
                                    25       15        810      30         58.653        3.81E-05    9.07E-10         10
                                    25       20        910      30         58.653        4.28E-05    1.02E-09          5
                                    25        5        635      30        35.1918        2.99E-05    7.11E-10         20
                                    25       10        730      30        35.1918        3.44E-05    8.18E-10         15
                                    25       15        830      30        35.1918        3.91E-05    9.30E-10         10
                                    25       20        930      30        35.1918        4.38E-05    1.04E-09          5
                                                                                              avg:   1.06E-09
Table 6-2: Skim Milk data at different recoveries.


                                                       Flux vs. Pressure
                        7.00E-05


                        6.00E-05


                        5.00E-05
   Flux (ft/sec)




                        4.00E-05                                                             0% Recovery Run 1
                                                                                             10% Recovery
                        3.00E-05                                                             30% Recovery
                                                                                             58% Recovery
                        2.00E-05                                                             0% Recovery Run 2


                        1.00E-05


                     0.00E+00
                                         0        5     10        15      20        25
                                                       Pressure (psid)



Figure 6-1: Flux vs. Pressure at different recoveries




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                               p. 14                              Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                          University of Illinois at Chicago



                                                      Effect of Milk on Flux
                   3.00E-04

                   2.50E-04
   Flux (ft/sec)




                   2.00E-04

                   1.50E-04
                                                                                               Pure Water
                   1.00E-04
                                                                                               10% Recovery
                   5.00E-05

                   0.00E+00
                                         0        5        10        15       20    25
                                                          Pressure (psid)



Figure 6-2: The effect of skim milk on the membrane flux.


                                                      0% Recov. Skim Milk
                                   6.00E-05
                                   5.80E-05
                                   5.60E-05
                                   5.40E-05
                   Flux (ft/sec)




                                   5.20E-05                                                 0% Recovery Run
                                   5.00E-05                                                 1
                                   4.80E-05                                                 0% Recovery Run
                                   4.60E-05                                                 2
                                   4.40E-05
                                   4.20E-05
                                   4.00E-05
                                              0       5      10        15      20    25
                                                            Pressure (psid)




Figure 6-3: Flux vs. Pressure at 0% Recovery




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                                p. 15                          Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                            University of Illinois at Chicago



                                         10% Recov. Skim Milk

                      6.00E-05


                      5.50E-05


                      5.00E-05
      Flux (ft/sec)




                      4.50E-05
                                                                                 10% Recovery

                      4.00E-05


                      3.50E-05


                      3.00E-05
                                 0   5        10        15      20    25
                                             Pressure (psid)


Figure 6-4: Flux vs. Pressure at 10% Recovery


                                         30% Recov. Skim Milk
                  4.50E-05


                  4.00E-05
  Flux (ft/sec)




                  3.50E-05

                                                                                 30% Recovery
                  3.00E-05


                  2.50E-05


                  2.00E-05
                                 0   5       10        15      20    25
                                            Pressure (psid)


Figure 6-5: Flux vs. Pressure at 30% Recovery



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                  p. 16                          Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                      University of Illinois at Chicago



                                  58% Recov. Skim Milk

                   4.60E-05

                   4.40E-05

                   4.20E-05

                   4.00E-05
   Flux (ft/sec)




                   3.80E-05
                                                                           58% Recovery
                   3.60E-05

                   3.40E-05

                   3.20E-05

                   3.00E-05

                   2.80E-05
                              0   5    10        15        20   25
                                      Pressure (psid)

Figure 6-6: Flux vs. Pressure at 58% Recovery

7. Appendix II: Error Analysis


 Instrument                             Confidence

 500mL Graduated Cylinder               ± 1 mL

 1000mL Graduated Cylinder              ± 2.5 mL

 Balance (?)                            ± 0.50 grams

 Collection buckets                     ± 5.0 Liters

 Stopwatch                              ± 0.1 seconds

 PSI gauge                              ± 0.5 PSIG

Table 7-1: Errors associated with instruments




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 17                         Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                        University of Illinois at Chicago


        As with any experiment, especially with analog measuring devices, there is human

error. The bulk of human error was in response lag to times being called by the time

keeper, or other verbal coordination attempts. Though this is not expected to raise timing

errors past ± 1.0 seconds.


        Another large source of error was the calibration of the collecting buckets used to

mix solutions to be filtered, and the supernatant liquid. The team did confirm the initial 10

liter calibration mark, but this was done with 10 1-L increments from a gradated cylinder.

The collection buckets were marked in 10 L increments, and not all of the lines were even

enough to distinguish the actual increment. Measuring supernatant volumetric flows with

a graduated cylinder mitigated this inaccuracy.


        Another possible source of error was we assumed the apparatus was clean and

properly rinsed, and every attempt was made to follow the proper cleaning procedure,

however the filter was never actually checked. The filter is old and may have cracking do to

the fact its sits dry most of its cycle life. Additionally, the apparatus had many valves, turns

and dead ends (closed valves) that could accumulate additional material. While the

apparatus was not confirmed visually to be clean, this should not have affected the results

of the experiment drastically.




8. Appendix III: Sample Calculations


      Pressure (psig)
   Inlet        Outlet          Time (sec)       Vol. Perm   Orig. Vol. in     memb. Area (sqft)


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 18                           Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


                                                     (mL)                  Pr.Tk. (L)
     25             5               30                760                   83.79                   25
Table 8-1: 10% Recovery of Skim Milk Process

          The first thing that should be addressed is the calculation of how much is needed in

the process tank for each of the different recovery runs. Recovery is defined as the volume

of the collected permeate in the permeate tank per unit of volume of the original mixture

within the process tank.          Once the solvent fluxes through the membrane the solute

becomes concentrated within the process tank. The concentrated volume is defined as

Vconcentrate, Vpermeate is the solvent volume collected in the permeate tank, the original

mixture volume is defined as Voriginal, and R is the recovery fraction in the following

equation.

                                           Vpermeate Vorginal -Vconcentrate
                                      R=             =                                                     Eq. 8-1
                                           Voriginal        Voriginal

                                                         Vconcentrate
                                               R =1-
                                                          Voriginal

                                         Vconcentrate = Voriginal (1- R)

Using values from Table: 8-1 one can observe that

                               Vconcentrate = 83.79 L * (1- 0.10) = 75.41 L

This is the volume that is left within the process tank after permeating a portion of the

solvent.

After determining the volume of the concentrated solution and adjusting the process to the

specified recovery and pressure, the procedure on collecting the permeate begins. As one




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 19                                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                                University of Illinois at Chicago


can see the value that was actually collected for the volume of the permeate at the 10%

recovery was 760 mL.

Flux is then calculated by

                                                            Vpermeate
                                                     Q=                                                Eq. 8-2
                                                          t × Amembrane

                                              760mL             1 ft 3
                                    Q=
                                            30sec× 25 ft 2 2.832 ´10 4 mL

                                                                      ft
                                                Q = 3.58´10-5
                                                                     sec

where t is the constant time used to collect the permeate, Amembrane is the area of the

membrane, Q is the flux of the solvent, and Vpermeate is the volume of the permeate collected.

Finally the calculations for the membrane permeability for the solvent is to be determined

based on the previous values in Table 8-1 and the calculated values done in this section of

the appendix (III).



                                                      Q = Lp × DP                        Eq. 8-3 (Handout)

                                                ft            lb f   N
                                3.58 ´10-5                1                1
                                                s             in 2   m2    1 ft
                         Lp =
                                         lb f                  N     kg 0.3048m
                                   20                6.895´10 3 2 1
                                         in 2                  m    m × s2

                                                                      ft 2 s
                                                L p = 8.51´10-10
                                                                       kg

The membrane permeability of the solvent, Lp, is determined using the flux, Q, and the

pressure drop, ΔP.


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2                  p. 20                              Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago




9. Appendix IV: Individual Team Contributions

NAME: Eleftherios Avtzis
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING
FINAL LAB EDITING
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY
APPARATUS                                   1              5%
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PROCEDURE
ANTICIPATED RESULTS                         4              100%
RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2             p. 21                       Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


DISCUSSION                                  4              50%
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS                    1              5%
ERROR ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS
POWER POINT PRESENTATION                    2              33%
TOTAL                                       20




NAME: David Garcia
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING
FINAL LAB EDITING
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY                  6              50%
APPARATUS
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PROCEDURE
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
RESULTS                                     3              100%

DISCUSSION


Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 22                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES                                  1
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS
ERROR ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS
POWER POINT PRESENTATION                    2              33%
TOTAL                                       20




NAME: Andrew Haight
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING
FINAL LAB EDITING
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION                                4              100%
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY
APPARATUS
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PROCEDURE
ANTICIPATED RESULTS



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 23                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS
ERROR ANALYSIS                              4              100%
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS
POWER POINT PRESENTATION
TOTAL                                       16




NAME: Bryan Isles
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING                             3              90%
FINAL LAB EDITING                           4              100%
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY
APPARATUS
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PROCEDURE                                   1              100%



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 24                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


ANTICIPATED RESULTS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES                                  1
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS                    3              95%
ERROR ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS                         1              100%
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS
POWER POINT PRESENTATION
TOTAL                                       21




NAME: Alena Nguyen
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING
FINAL LAB EDITING
SUMMARY                                     4              100%
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY
APPARATUS                                   4              95%
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 25                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


PROCEDURE
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS
ERROR ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS
POWER POINT PRESENTATION
TOTAL                                       16




NAME: Priyanka Oroskar
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING
FINAL LAB EDITING
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY                  5              50%
APPARATUS



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 26                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                    University of Illinois at Chicago


MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PROCEDURE
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION                                  4              100%
REFERENCES                                  1
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS
ERROR ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS
POWER POINT PRESENTATION
TOTAL                                       18




NAME: Chris Starrick
                                            TIME (HOURS)   DESCRIPTION (% Contribution)
OPERATOR (BOTH LAB DAYS)                    8
PRE-LAB EDITING                             1              10%
FINAL LAB EDITING
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW / THEORY



Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 27                      Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick
Ultrafiltration                                                   University of Illinois at Chicago


APPARATUS
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES                        3              100%
PROCEDURE
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
DATA TABULATION / GRAPHS                    1              5%
ERROR ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS                         3              100%
POWER POINT PRESENTATION                    2              33%
TOTAL                                       18




Unit Operations ChE-382 Group No. 2              p. 28                     Spring 2011 11/27/11

Avtzis, Garcia, Haight, Isles, Nguyen, Oroskar, Starrick

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:11/27/2011
language:English
pages:28