neering

ngi

Chemical Engineering &

&
lE
Saha and Das, J Chem Eng Process Technol 2015, 6:5

Pr
a
l of Chemic

oc
ess Techno
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-7048.1000252

Process Technology
na

ISSN: 2157-7048
ur

og l
Jo y

Research Article
Research Article Open
OpenAccess
Access

Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids

Batch Ultrafiltration
Suman Saha and Chandan Das*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam, India

Abstract
This work focuses on the membrane ultrafiltration technique to separate humic acids from aqueous solution. An
unstirred dead end ultrafiltration of synthetic aqueous humic acids solutions of 50, 150 and 250 mg L-1 was performed
with Polyethersulfone membrane. To observe the effects of applied transmembrane pressure (TMP) drops during
separation, the experiments were carried out at 207, 276, 345 and 414 kPa with 50 kDa molecular weight cutoff
(MWCO) membrane. The performance of this process is expressed in terms of volume reduction factor (VRF). To
analyze flux decline and pore blocking behavior, Hermias fouling mechanism models, namely, complete, standard,
intermediate and cake filtration models have been studied in search of best fittings in flux decline system. After
completion of the experiment with 50 mg L-1 feed solution, the concentration of Humic acids in permeate was 2.9 mg
L-1, revealing 94% rejection during the membrane ultrafiltration.

Keywords: Humic acids; Unstirred batch cell; Volume reduction during early diagenesis of bio matters and occur in soils, peats,
factor (VRF); Hermia model; Cake filtration model (CFM) sediments, natural water, ocean, sewages, waste effluents of different
industries like, food, textile, paper and pulp industries [1]. Literatures
List of symbols reveal that it is not possible to write a molecular structure that can
J w Water flux (m3m-2min-1) describe the connectivity within molecules of humic substances. The
compositions of naturally occurring humic acids are dominated by
w Viscosity of pure water (Pa s) benzene rings, amino acids, aliphatic moieties, and carboxyl, hydroxyl,
J HAs Permeate flux (m3m-2min-1) amine groups and also linkages like ester, amide, ether, etc. [2]. This
highly polydisperse material has large number of molecular weight
J f Water flux after experiment (m3m-2min-1) distribution from 2 kDa up to over 500 kDa [3]. The secondary
LP Hydraulic permeability (mPa-1 s-1) effluents from pulp and paper industry contain huge number of humic
compounds [4]. Humic acids can be used as an efficient fertilizer.
P Trans Membrane pressure (TMP) drop (kPa) According to survey, sludge extracted Humic acids contain more
V0 Initial feed volume (mL) number of organic compounds, higher H/C molar ratio, greater surface
activity, more lipids, more nitrogen content, higher N/C ratio than
VPHAs Collected permeate (mL) commercial Humic acids. Few studies have been showed to estimate
the separation and purification of sludge humic acids for use as fruitful
VRHAs Volume of retentate sample (mL) fertilizer in our environment [5]. Ultrasonication followed by acid
Am Membrane active area (m2) alkali extraction [6] and super critical fluid extraction [1] were already
Viscosity of permeate sample (Pa s) performed to extract humic substances from different sources. Acid
alkali extraction process was evaluated to extract humic acids from
Rt Total membrane resistance (m-1) vegetable residues [7]. In recent times, nitric acid oxidation process
using coal sample [8], Coacervate extraction using polyethoxylated
Rc Cake layer resistance (m-1)
alcohols and alkyl phenol polyethoxylate [9], electro coagulation
Rf Fouling resistance (m-1) process [10] were already performed during extraction of Humic acids
form different sources.
Rm Membrane hydraulic resistance (m-1)
The requirement of many reactive chemical reagents, high
kA Membrane surface blocked per unit of total volume permeated (m-1)
temperature and high operating cost are important demerits during
k s CPBM Constant (s-1)
k s SPBM Constant (m-1/2s-1/2)
*Corresponding author: Chandan Das, Department of Chemical Engineering,
ki IPBM Constant (m-1) Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati-781 039, Assam, India, Tel: 91 361
2582268; E-mail: cdas@iitg.ac.in
k B Decrease of membrane pore cross section wise with permeation (m-1)
Received September 21, 2015; Accepted October 04, 2015; Published October
k glHAs CFM Constant (m-2s) 15, 2015

k D Cake layer area per unit of permeation (m-1) Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux
Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process Technol 6:
252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252
Introduction
Copyright: 2015 Saha S, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under
Humic acids (HAs) are highly heterogeneous amorphous mixture the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
of organic compounds. These poly functional polymers are formed use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.

J Chem Eng Process Technol

ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252
Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252
extraction processes. Oxidation process can limit the reuse of humic
acids as fertilizer in agriculture due to the reduction of H/C ratio or
nitrogen content. In recent years, membrane technology has become
a novel separation technology to purify and clarify effluent water.
Several chemical and mechanical treatment processes, such as,
chemical coagulation, high speed mechanical stirring and mixing,
flocculation, activated sludge treatment electrolysis have been used to
treat natural organic matters [11]. The membrane separation processes
can offer large number of advantages as compared these conventional
methods [12]. This novel separation process is becoming a vital tool for
separation of variety of materials ranging from natural organic matter
separation to sludge purification. Membrane processes are potentially
better for the environmental science since the membrane approach
require the use of relatively simple and non-harmful materials. Humic
acids substances can be recovered using membrane technology [13].
There are few literatures about the recovery and purification of valuable
components like humic acids from paper, food or textile industry waste
effluents using membrane ultrafiltration [5].
The aim of this paper is to identify flux decline behavior during
humic acids ultrafiltration. The transient flux decline behavior was
analyzed at various operating conditions, such as, applied TMP drops
and initial feed concentration. The Hermia model was applied to evaluate
and confirm the fouling mechanism during dead end ultrafiltration of
humic substances. The impact of solute particles and membrane pores
to the transient flux decline and permeate quality were studied. The
mechanisms of various fouling models were shown using Hermias
model, and the predictions have been matched with experimental
values. The fouling behavior of batch cell was also analyzed in terms of
variation of total membrane resistance (Rt) during operation. Filtration
stability and membrane performance were analyzed with respect to
volume reduction factor (VRF).
Materials and Methods
Materials
Commercial Humic acids powder (HAs), oxidizing agent:
potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7), sulphuric acid (H2SO4), mercuric
sulphate (HgSO4), silver sulphate (Ag2SO4), ferrous ammonium
sulphate [(NH4)2 Fe(SO4)2 6H2O], cleaning agents: sodium dodecyl
sulphate (SDS) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) were obtained from
Loba Chemie, India. All the chemicals were analytical grade and used
without further treatment.
Membrane
The separation process was done using commercial flat sheet
asymmetric hydrophilic polyethersulfone membrane, obtained from
Permionics Membranes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, and Gujarat, India.
Molecular weight cutoff was 50 kDa. Membrane characteristics are
given in Table 1.
Experimental setup
Unstirred batch cell membrane module (U.S.B.C.M.M):
The schematic diagram of unstirred batch cell membrane module
(U.S.B.C.M.M) is shown in Figure 1. Air compressor was used to create
transmembrane pressure drop during separation through batch cell.
A circular polyethersulfone membrane was placed over a metallic
support. Rubber gasket was used on the membrane to prevent the
leakage. Permeate was collected from the bottom of the batch cell into
the measuring cylinder, made by Borosil Glass Works Ltd., Kolkata,
India.
J Chem Eng Process Technol
ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal
Page 2 of 7
Experimental procedure
In this study, ultrafiltration experiments were conducted using
unstirred batch cell membrane module with 33.4 10-4 m2 membrane
area. Batch cell was pressurized with deionized water for 2 hr at 414
kPa applied TMP drop to overcome compaction effect of the fresh
membrane. The water flux was measured as a function of time until a
steady value was obtained.
Preparation of synthetic feed sample
Synthetic feed solution was made by dissolving HAs powder
sample in Millipore water. Continuous stirring was performed for 1 hr
to dissolve the polyfunctional powder sample into the water properly.
Operating conditions
TMP drop and feed concentration were important parameters
during humic acids ultrafiltration. To observe the effects of applied
TMP drops, the experiments were carried out by varying operating
pressures at 207, 276, 345 and 414 kPa. Feed concentrations were taken
as 50, 150 and 250 mg L-1. Operating pressure was adjusted with the
help air compressor.
Sample analysis
Solution concentrations were measured using UV-vis spectroscopy
(Thermofisher Scientific, India) with max at 254 nm. The ionic
conductivities (Sm-1) and total dissolved solids (TDS, mg L-1) of all the
streams like, feed as well as collected permeates were analyzed by an
auto ranging conductivity meter provided by VSI Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Punjab, India. Viscosity was measured using a rheometer at a constant
water bath at 28 1C (HAAKE RheoStress, Thermo Scientific,
Germany). pH of the sample was measured by a pH meter provided
by Jenway, Bibby Scientific UK. COD was measured on the basis of
oxygen consumed during the oxidation of the organic matter in water
by a strong oxidizing agent [14].
Theoretical consideration
Performance of U.S.B.C.M.M. during ultrafiltration of Humic
acids at two operating conditions, such as, TMP drop and initial feed
concentration were analyzed in terms of permeate flux declination,
volume reduction factor (VRF), total membrane resistance (Rt).
Permeate flux and membrane hydraulic permeability (Lp, mPa-1s-1) for
UF membrane module with time were analyzed using Darcys law [15]
dV P
J HAs = LP P = = (1)
Am dt Rt
Where Am the effective membrane area (m2) was, dV was the
collected permeate volume (mL). P was TMP drop (kPa). Was
the viscosity (Pa s) of permeate sample. Rt Was the total membrane
resistance (m-1). Total Rt was defined as the combination of three
different resistances [15] as:
Membrane Unstirred batch cell membrane module
Membrane material Polyethersulfone (PES)
Molecular weight cutoff (kDa) 50
Water permeability at 28C (mPa-1s-1) 3.974 10-11
Membrane resistance ( Rm, m-1) 1.250 1013
pH acceptance 2-14
Maximum temperature tolerance (C) 90
Membrane working area (m2) 33.4 10-4
Table 1: Membrane characteristics.
Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252
Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252

Page 3 of 7

Analysis of fouling characteristics using hermia model:

Pressure gauge Feed entrance
Membrane fouling occurs due to the deposition of retained
particles on the membrane surface, pore mouth or pore wall causing
transient flux. In the present study, to describe the fouling mechanism,
Hermia blocking law model has been used. This law consists of four
different fouling models to predict the mode of membrane fouling
Air Compressor characteristics, like, complete pore blocking model (CPBM), standard
pore blocking model (SPBM), intermediate pore blocking model
(IPBM) and cake filtration model (CFM) [17,18]. Figure S1 in the
Feed Chamber
supplementary material illustrates the graphical representation of all
types of membrane fouling mechanisms. Equation (8) describes the
Hermia blocking model for dead end filtration mode.
Membrane n
d 2t dt
=K (8)
dV 2 dV
Metal support
To analyze each type of fouling module, the parameter n takes
different values like,
CPBM n = 2 , SPBM n=3/2, IPBM n = 1 , CFM n = 0 .
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of an unstirred batch cell membrane module Based on the various development of the filtration model, all these
(U.B.C.M.M.).
four models are linearized in terms of permeate flux with filtration time
and are summarized in Table 2.
R t = R c + R f + R m (2)
Results and Discussion
Rc Was the cake layer resistance (m ) Rf was the fouling resistance
-1

(m-1) on membrane surface. Rm, fresh membrane resistance before
separation was calculated from pure hydraulic flux (Jw, m3/m2/min)
using following equation:
P TMP drops, such as, 207, 276, 345 and 414 kPa in a dead end unstirred
Rm = (3)
w Jw
w was viscosity (Pa s) of pure water. Fouled membrane resistance
( R f (m-1)) was evaluated using following equation:
P decline is maximum at 414 kPa pressure. As the TMP drop increases,
=
Rf Rm (4)
w J f
where Jf (m3/m2/min) was the calculated water flux after experiment.
Finally, the cake layer resistance can be evaluated using Equation
(5)
Rc =[Rt (R f + Rm )] (5)
Transient flux decline for unstirred batch cell membrane
module (U.S.B.M.M.)
Figure 2 shows the variation of permeate flux with time for four
filtration model. As shown in figure, the permeate flux declines sharply
with process time for the first 10 mins. Due to the enhancement of
driving force, the flux decline increases with increasing TMP drops.
For example, it can be observed from Figure 2 that variation of flux
the growth of concentration boundary layer on the membrane surface
is increased faster due to the faster deposition of rejected solutes [14] This
behavior leads to decline the permeate flux at higher pressure drop and
gives faster steady flux value. For this reason, the resistance to the water
flux decreases with increasing TMP drop producing higher permeates flux.
The steady state permeate flux values at different TMP drops of 207, 276,
345 and 414 kPa are 1.82, 2.07, 3.09 and 3.21 10-4 m min-1, respectively.

Variation of observed rejection (Robs) defined as under steady state
condition
Cp
Robs = 1 HAs (6)
C0HAs
Where CPHAs is solute concentration in the permeate side (mg L-1)
CHAs is solute concentration in the bulk solution (mg L-1)
The VRF value was calculated using Equation (7):
V0 V0
VRF = = (7)
VRHAs (t ) V0 VPHAs (t )
where V (mL) was the initial feed volume (mL). VRHAS (mL) was
the retentate final volume at particular time (t) period. VPHAS (mL) was
the collected permeate with respect to time for both modules. VRF
values vary from 1 to . At the beginning of operation VRHAs (t ) = V0 ,
means VRF = 1. When the entire feed passes through the membrane,
VRHAs (t ) = 0 , VRF = [15,16].
Effect of feed concentration on permeate flux
Initial feed concentration of pure HAs solution was varied as 50,
150 and 250 mg L-1 at constant operating pressure condition (207
kPa). It is clearly seen from Figure 3(a) and 3(b) that, with increasing
initial HAs concentration, permeates flux decreases. One interesting
behavior has been observed in Figure 3(a) that, with increasing feed
concentration from 50 to 150 mg/L, the permeate flux decline is almost
same for first 50 mins. At low TMP drop (207 kPa), rejected solute
deposition near the membrane surface is slower initially. Due to the
dead end filtration, the concentration nearby the membrane surface
increases gradually, which gives lower permeate flux at 150 mg L-1 than
50 mg L-1 after 50 mins of separation. When the feed concentration is
250 mg L-1, the permeate flux is lower than other conditions. The high
feed concentration can form a gel or cake layer very fast due to the high
rejection of solute particles. The gel layer becomes thicker with time
which gives lower permeate flux than other initial feed concentrations.
When the constant TMP drop is 414 kPa (Refer Figure 3(b)), the
permeate flux decreases quickly for each concentration in first 25 mins.

J Chem Eng Process Technol

ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252
Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252

Page 4 of 7

Different blocking mechanism Linearized form [18] Physical significance Model Constants (k) [18]

CPBM ln J=
HAs ln J 0 kc t Membrane pore entrance clogging kc = k A J 0 , (s -1
)

1 1 Deposition of retentate particles over the k

SPBM =
1/2
+ kst ks = 2 B AJ 01/2
J HAs J 01/2 pore walls A0 , (m-1/2s-1/2)

1 1 Pore clogging with membrane surface

IPBM = + ki t ki = k A , (m-1)
J HAs J 0 deposition

1 1 Membrane surface deposition of the 2 Rc k D

CFM = + k glHAs t k glHAs =
J 0 Rm
2
J HAs J 02 retentate particles
, (m-2s-2)
Table 2: Linearized forms and significances of different blocking mechanisms.

10
Feed Conc.(mg L-1):50
9 pH: 6.4
TMP drop(kPa)
8 207
Permeate flux x 104 (m min-1)

274
7 345
414
6

1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time(min)

Figure 2: Comparison of permeate flux with respect to time at different operating pressures condition during batch cell operation.

6.5 10.5
(a) 10.0 (b) TMP Drop(kPa): 414
6.0 TMP Drop(kPa): 207
9.5
Permeate flux 104 (m min-1)

Permeate flux 104 (m min-1)

5.5 9.0
Flux at 50 mgL-1 8.5 Flux at 50 mgL-1
5.0 Flux at 150 mgL-1 8.0 Flux at 150 mgL-1
7.5
4.5 Flux at 250 mgL-1 7.0 Flux at 250 mgL-1
4.0 6.5
6.0
3.5 5.5
3.0 5.0
4.5
2.5 4.0
2.0 3.5
3.0
1.5 2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Time(min) Time(min)
Figure 3: Variation of HAs permeate flux at different feed concentration with respect to time at (a) 207 kPa and (b) 414 kPa operating pressure.

This behavior may be assigned to the concentration polarization. HAs permeate quality in terms of solute rejection improves for each initial
particles deposit quickly on the membrane surface and block the active feed concentration. For example, at 50 mg/L feed concentration,
pores in a short time. With gradually increasing feed concentration, an increase in TMP drop from 207 to 414 kPa, solute rejection also
membrane fouling assembles into cake formation along with short increases from 92.1 to 94.2%. For 150 and 250 mg L-1, results are 91.5
time. As a result, permeate flux decreases fast with increasing initial to 95% and 91.3 to 96%, respectively. This can be described in terms
feed concentration and reach its steady value faster than lower TPM of generation of cake layer due to concentration polarization. At
drop at 207 kPa. increased TMP drop, rejected solutes form a polarized gel or cake layer
which gives additional mass transfer resistance. This resistance acts like
Variation of observed rejection at different TMP drops during
a secondary membrane in series with the actual membrane [14]. This
U.S.B.C.M ultrafiltration of HAs solution interesting phenomenon gives higher rejection at high TMP drop. At
Variation of permeate quality in terms of rejection of HAs solutes constant pressure of 207 kPa with increasing initial feed concentration
with TMP drop at three different initial feed concentrations is shown rejection decreases. This reverse phenomenon has occurred due to the
in Figure 4. It is clearly observed that with increasing pressure drop, lower compaction of deposited layer which cannot retain the small

J Chem Eng Process Technol

ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252
Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252

Page 5 of 7

particles at high concentration of 150 and 250 mg L-1 firstly. As the TMP
drop becomes higher, the formed layer also becomes compacted. Thus
solutes get obstructed due to the thick layer and give more rejection
with increasing initial feed concentration of HAs.
Variation of VRF with time for U.S.B.C.M operation
Variation of VRF with operating time at different TMP drops (207,
276, 345, 414 kPa) for batch cell operation has been shown in Figure
5. Increase of VRF has a significant impact on membrane permeation.
It has an important role over membrane performance as well as
permeates quality. With increasing driving force, permeate rate is
enhanced resulting VRF to increase. In Figure 5 during batch filtration
a sharp change in VRF has been observed. At 207 kPa, VRF value is
approx. 3.5. It increases upto 4.5 when pressure drop is 414 kPa within
operating time 125 min.
Application of hermia model
In this present work, Hermia model was used to analyze the fouling
characteristics involved in Humic acids dead end ultrafiltration. The
more detailed study of this model has been provided to explain the
mechanism of pore clogging with different TMP drop conditions. Due
to widely distributed molecular weight of the polydispersed materials,
elongated morphology and non-rigid chemical structures, some
molecules passed through the membrane pores at high TMP drops and
caused membrane pore clogging.
Figure 6(a)-(d) shows the implementation of Hermia model to
understand the fouling mechanisms, occurring in the humic acids
ultrafiltration test. Figure 6(a) shows the fitting of the experimental
results to the CPBM. At high TMP drop of 345 and 414 kPa with 50
mg L-1 feed concentration, high deviations were obtained between
much accurate due to the faster solute deposition on the membrane
surface for all the experimental conditions applied during experiment.
Table 3 reviews the model constants and initial flux values (J0) for all
pore blocking models. It was obtained that the CFB and IPBM revealed
the best fitting to flux profile for all the parametric conditions.
Variation of total resistance during U.S.B.C.M ultrafiltration
Resistance variation with process time is also very important
study to check membrane filtration efficiency during separation.
During batch cell operation HAs molecules adsorbed on membrane
surface resulting in enhanced total resistance. The variation of total
resistance with operating time for batch cell operation has been shown
in Figure 7. As the TMP drop increases, the growth of concentration
boundary layer on the membrane surface is increased rapidly due to
the faster deposition of rejected solutes. Hence the total resistance with
increasing TMP drop also increases continuously. As shown in Figure
7, total resistance increases from 4.87 1013 m-1 to 7.2 1013 m-1 with
increase of TMP drop from 207 to 414 kPa after 2 h operation.
Permeate quality analysis
Initial HAs concentration in the feed was taken as 50, 150 and 250
mg L-1. The COD, pH, ionic conductivity and TDS values are as follows:
165, 450 and 659.2 mg L-1; 6.4, 5.4 and 5.03; 2.74 10-1, 9.4 10-1 and
5.11 10-1 S m-1; 45, 54 and 60 mg L-1, respectively. Table 4 describes the
comparison of permeate qualities for different pressure drops in terms
of final concentrations, observed rejection (%), ionic conductivity,
TDS, pH and final COD values through U.S.B.C.M. It was observed
96
Observed Rejection (Robs) %

experimental and predicted flux decline. When the size of the rejected
95
solutes is greater than the membrane surface pores, complete pore
blocking happens. As a result, solute molecules neither enter into the
94
membrane pores nor arrive to the permeate side.
Figure 6(b) shows the fitting of experimental results to the SPBM. 93
When the size of the solute molecules is lower than of membrane Initial feed
pores, internal blocking occurs due to the solute adsorption onto the concentration (mg L-1):
92 50
membrane pore walls. Figure 6(b) reveals that, solute adsorption was 150
happened partially at low pressure drop. With increasing TMP drop, 250
91
more amount of solute particles block the pore walls and caused 200 250 300 350 400 450
standard blocking. TMP drop (kPa)
The theoretical analyses of the experimental permeate flux to IPBM Figure 4: Variation of observed rejection with TMP drops.
for all parametric conditions have been shown in Figure 6(c). When
the membrane pore size is similar to the solute size, membrane pores
5.0
are blocked just to the entrance of the feed side. When the solutes
are not completely retained by the membrane active surface, these 4.5
molecules can deposit on the others, which were previously deposited. 4.0
This hypothetic phenomenon occurs in an ultrafiltration process. As a
3.5
result, IPBM provides a better agreement than SPBM or CPBM to the
experimental data. 3.0
VRF

When the solute sizes are much greater than the membrane pores, 2.5
Concentration (mg L-1): 50
a cake layer of retained particles occurs on the membrane surface. 2.0 TMPdrop (kPa)
207
This type of phenomena is very common for dead end filtration. With 276
1.5
increasing of TMP drop, more solutes are rejected by the membrane 345
414
pores and create a dense cake layer, causes faster decline of permeate 1.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
flux. Higher cake compression occurs with higher TMP drops. The
thickness of cake layer also depends on increasing of TMP drop and the Time(min)
back transport of molecules towards feed side. Figure 6(d) shows the Figure 5: Variation of VRF with operating time at different TMP drops
during batch cell operation.
best fitting of the cake layer formation. The predicted R2 values are very

J Chem Eng Process Technol

ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252
Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252

Page 6 of 7

4.2 0.32
4.0 (a) lnJp at 207 kPa
0.30 (b)
lnJp at 276 kPa
3.8 lnJp at 345 kPa 0.28
lnJp at 414 kPa
3.6 0.26
lnJp(Lm-2h-1)

3.4 0.24

1/JP1/2 (L-1/2mh1/2)
3.2 0.22
3.0 0.20
1/Jp1/2 at 207 kPa
2.8 0.18
1/Jp1/2 at 276 kPa
2.6
0.16 1/Jp1/2 at 345 kPa
2.4 1/Jp1/2 at 414 kPa
0.14
2.2
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0.12
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Time (S)
Time (S)
0.10
0.009
0.09 (c) (d)
0.008
0.08
0.007
0.07
0.006
1/Jp2 (L-2m4h2)
0.06
1/Jp (L2m-2h)

0.005
0.05 0.004
0.04 1/Jp2 at 207 kPa
1/Jp at 207 kPa 0.003
1/Jp at 276 kPa 1/Jp2 at 276 kPa
0.03 0.002 1/Jp2 at 345 kPa
1/Jp at 345 kPa
0.02 1/Jp at 414 kPa 0.001 1/Jp2 at 414 kPa

0.01 0.000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Time (S) Time (S)

Figure 6: Linearized fitness plots for Hermia Pore block models (CPBM (a); SPBM (b); IPBM (c) and CFM (d)) for 50 kDa Membrane cutoff and 50 mgL-1 initial feed
conditions.

CPBM SPBM IPBM CFM

TMP drop 6
(kPa) kc 10 5
J 0 10 6
k s 10 J 0 10 6
ki 10 6
J 0 10 6
k glHAs 107 J 0 106
R2 R2 R2 R2
(s-1) (ms ) -1
(m-1/2s-1/2) (ms-1) (m ) -1 (ms )-1
(m-2s) (ms-1)
207 4.15 7.45 0.83 5.22 6.18 0.90 2.65 6.27 0.99 3.51 7.37 0.99

276 5.70 8.68 0.91 6.54 8.03 0.95 3.04 7.72 0.98 3.96 9.36 0.99

345 6.71 11.03 0.91 6.51 10.02 0.94 2.55 10.29 0.96 4.20 10.84 0.99

414 8.16 12.56 0.90 7.56 11.56 0.90 2.84 11.72 0.97 4.73 20.99 0.99

Table 3: Summary of the model parameters of all pore blocking models for 50 kDa membrane.

8
Total resistance (Rt 10-13, m-1)

3 TMP drop(kPa):
207
2 276
345
1 414
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Time (min)
Figure 7: Total resistance variation for U.S.B.C.M operation.

J Chem Eng Process Technol

ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252
Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252

Page 7 of 7

50 mgL-1 150 mgL-1 250 mgL-1

Properties P (kPa) P (kPa) P (kPa)
207 276 345 414 207 276 345 414 207 276 345 414
Permeate conc. (mgL-1) 3.93 3.56 3.24 2.90 12.5 10.1 8.9 7.5 21.2 17.16 14.8 12.45
Observed rejection (%) 92.1 92.8 93.5 94.20 91.55 93.33 94.25 95 91.38 93.18 94.48 95.23
pH 7.34 7.31 7.24 7.21 7.15 7.18 7.2 7.25 7.12 7.25 7.28 7.28
Ionic conductivity (Sm-1) 10-2 1.15 1.07 1.03 1.03 1.25 1.20 1.14 1.07 1.28 1.23 1.20 1.18
TDS (mgL-1) 10-3 6.67 6.22 6.01 5.97 7.25 6.96 6.61 6.21 7.42 7.13 6.96 6.84
COD (mgL-1) 24.02 24.02 24.02 24.02 25 25 25 25 28 28 28 28
Table 4: Physiochemical properties of permeates at steady state during batch cell filtration.

from Table 4 that maximum TDS was removed at 414 kPa. Due to
cake layer formation with increased applied pressure, TDS was also
removed. Ionic conductivity was decreased from 2.74 10-1 to 1.15
10-2 Sm-1. With increasing TMP drop, the change in ionic conductivity
was marginal for each case. It was found that pH of permeates were
changed to 7.25 which become invariant with pressure drops.
7. Adani F, Ricca G (2004) The contribution of alkali soluble (humic acid-like)
and unhydrolyzed-alkali soluble (core-humic acid-like) fractions extracted from
maize plant to the formation of soil humic acid. Chemosphere 56: 13-22.
8. Cho KT, Lwin MZ (2012) Study on the Analysis of Nitrohumic Acids from
Two Different Rank Myanmar Coal by Ultraviolet Spectroscopy, International
Conference On Chemical Processes And Environmental Issues (ICCEEI'2012)
Singapore. July 15-16.

Conclusions 9. Ghouas H, Haddou B, Kameche M, Derriche Z, Gourdon C (2012) Extraction of

In this study, humic acids water solution was separated through
unstirred batch cell module. Applied TMP drops and initial feed
concentration were important operating conditions for this system.
TMP drop was an important parameter to analyze transient flux
declination. Due to high cake layer formation, permeate flux decline
was higher at high TMP drop. The nature of the permeate flux was found
decreasing with time due to the active pore blocking mechanism during
separation. Maximum rejection of 94% was observed at high applied
pressure of 414 kPa. With increase in TMP drops, VRF was found to
increase exponentially. Hemia pore blocking model was applied to
analyze the membrane pore blocking mechanisms. According to the
obtained results, it can be determined that the best fits to experimental
values are for the CFM and IPBM, for all the TMP drop conditions.
In consequence, the values of the fitted parameter were greater for
the used polyethersulfone membrane, which indicating a more severe
fouling during the Humic acids ultrafiltration process.
References
1. Radwan A, Willey RJ, Davies G, Fataftah A, Ghabbour EA, et al. (1996)
Supercritical fluid CO2 extraction accelerates isolation of humic acid from live
Pilayella littoralis (Phaeophyta). J Applied Phycology 8: 545-551.
2. Ghabbour EA, Davies G (2001) Humic Substances, Structures, Models and
Functions. RSC Advances.
3. Shao J, Hou J, Song H (2011) Comparison of humic acid rejection and flux
decline during filtration with negatively charged and uncharged ultrafiltration
membranes. Water Research 45: 473-482.
humic acid by coacervate: Investigation of direct and back processes. J Hazard
Mater 205-206: 171-178.
10. Kliaugaite D, Yasadi K, Euverink G, Bijmans MFM, Racys V (2013)
Electrochemical removal and recovery of humic-like substances from
wastewater. Sep Purif Technol 108: 37-44.
11. Ghaly AE, Ananthashankar R, Alhattab M, Ramakrishnan VV (2014) Production,
Characterization and Treatment of Textile Effluents: A Critical Review. J Chem
Eng Process Technol 5: 182.
12. Lone S, Ahmad S A, Kumar V (2015) Modeling and Simulation of a Hybrid
Process (Pervaporation+Distillation) using MATLAB. J Chem Eng Process
Technol 6: 234.
13. Li H, Li Y, Zou S (2014) Extracting humic acids from digested sludge by alkaline
treatment and ultrafiltration. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 16: 93-100.
14. Das C, Patel P, De S, Dasgupta S (2006) Treatment of Tanning effluent using
nanofiltration followed by reverse osmosis. Sep Purif Technol 50: 291-299.
15. Singh V, Das C (2014) Comparison of spiral wound UF membrane performance
between turbulent and laminar flow regimes. Desalination 337: 43-51.
16. Singh V, Jain P K, Das C (2013) Performance of spiral wound ultrafiltration
membrane module for with and without permeate recycle: Experimental and
theoretical consideration. Desalination 322: 94-103.
17. Das A, Paul D, Golder AK, Das C (2015) Separation of Rebaudioside-A from
stevia extract: Membrane selection, assessment of permeate quality and
fouling behavior in laminar flow regime. Sep Purif Technol 144: 8-15.
18. Vela MCV, Blanco SA, Garcia JL, Rodriguez EB (2008) Analysis of membrane
pore blocking models applied to the ultrafiltration of PEG. Sep Purif Technol
62: 789-498.

4. Duarte RMBO, Santos EBH, Duarte AC (2003) Spectroscopic characteristics

of ultrafiltration fractions of fulvic and humic acids isolated from a eucalyptus
bleached Kraft pulp mill effluent. Water Research 37: 4073-4080.

5. Li H, Jin Y, Nie Y (2009) Application of alkaline treatment for sludge decrement

and humic acid recovery. Bioresour Technol 100: 6278-6283.
6. Ramunni AU, Palmieri F (1985) Use of ultrasonic treatment for extraction of
humic acid with inorganic reagents from soil. Org Geochem 8: 241-246.
OMICS International: Publication Benefits & Features
Unique features:
Increased global visibility of articles through worldwide distribution and indexing
Showcasing recent research output in a timely and updated manner
Special issues on the current trends of scientific research
Special features:

700 Open Access Journals

Citation: Saha S, Das C (2015) Analysis of Fouling Characteristics and Flux
Decline during Humic Acids Batch Ultrafiltration. J Chem Eng Process Technol
6: 252. doi:10.4172/2157-7048.1000252
50,000 editorial team
Rapid review process
Quality and quick editorial, review and publication processing
Indexing at PubMed (partial), Scopus, EBSCO, Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc
Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled
Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientific Credits
Better discount for your subsequent articles
Submit your manuscript at: http://www.omicsonline.org/submission/

J Chem Eng Process Technol

ISSN: 2157-7048 JCEPT, an open access journal Volume 6 Issue 5 1000252