VOC removal from water and surfactant solutions by pervaporation: a pilot study

Hitchens, Lynnann; Vane, Leland M.; Alvarez, Franklin R.

doi:10.1016/s1383-5866(00)00214-8

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…region as well as the effect of this partitioning on pervaporation performance [6][7][8]10,11,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. In particular, the partitioning of 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, toluene, and PCE in Alfoterra145 solutions was previously reported by our group [20].…”

Section: Cf1010 Module Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Eq. (4) has been shown to be valid even for the removal of VOCs from surfactant solutions [7]. In simplified terms, k i can be thought of as a concentration normalized flux that is generally independent of concentration.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the impact of the liquid boundary layer, VOC concentrations at the membrane are reduced from those in the bulk. In addition, it has been proposed that the surfactant micelles act as reservoirs for VOC in the boundary layer, releasing VOC as the extramicellar VOC concentration decreases towards the membrane [7,11,23]. As a result, the concentration of available VOC at the membrane surface is greater than would be predicted by simply reducing the nonsurfactant mass transfer coefficient by the factor f ex .…”

Section: Cf1010 Module Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The result of this phenomenon, often referred to as concentration polarization, is that the VOC mass transfer efficiency and VOC/water selectivity are greatly reduced relative to that afforded by the membrane alone. To further complicate matters, when pervaporation has been applied to the removal of VOCs from actual groundwater, fouling of the membrane modules has been observed [6][7][8][9]. While typical membrane fouling involves the blinding of the membrane surface, fouling in pervaporation systems treating groundwater has generally involved the blockage of liquid flow paths in the modules by oils and precipitant particles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The performance of the MTR1 module can be compared to previously reported results obtained with a similar membrane (20 m silicone) in a laboratoryscale VSEP and in spiral wound modules [7,10,24]. Due to permeate collection limitations of available EPA-NRMRL bench-scale pervaporation equipment, the laboratory-scale VSEP (L-series VSEP) was only evaluated at 30 • C. Under the most advantageous conditions evaluated with the L-series VSEP (1.84 lpm, 30 • C, 7/8 in.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Full-scale vibrating pervaporation membrane unit: VOC removal from water and surfactant solutions

Vane

Alvarez

2002

Journal of Membrane Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A commercial-scale vibrating membrane system was evaluated for the separation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from aqueous solutions by pervaporation. Experiments with surrogate solutions of up to five VOCs in the presence and absence of a surfactant were performed to compare performance of the full-scale vibrating system with that previously observed at the laboratory-scale as well as the performance of the same full-scale system during a recent field demonstration project. The primary process variables studied were amplitude of vibration, temperature, liquid flow rate, and permeate pressure. Data were obtained with two types of silicone rubber membranes-a thick (254 m) fiberglass reinforced silicone membrane and a more typical pervaporation membrane consisting of a 10 m silicone layer on a microporous support. The full-scale vibrating system delivered mass transfer coefficients comparable to those observed at the laboratory-scale and, under certain conditions, were comparable to those obtained with spiral wound pervaporation modules.

show abstract