Fig. 1 depicts the evolution of flux (JBSA) during BSA ultrafiltration
as a function of time at constant transmembrane pressure of
2 bar. The trend of flux for both tested membranes was similar
and the steady flux was reached after about the first 36 min.
The mechanisms for BSA fouling have been studied for many
years ago. Thus, (Kelly and Zydney, 1995) reported that protein
fouling is produced by two different mechanisms: deposition of
BSA aggregates on the membrane surface and chemical attachment
to the previously deposited proteins.
UP005 membrane showed lower fouling degree since the fluxdecline
profile was less prominent than membrane UH030. This
fact is mostly related with three parameters that could control
its fouling (Vatanpour et al., 2014): hydrophilicity (evaluated from
contact angle), surface charge and surface roughness. Besides, the
different pore size of the two membranes can affect the membrane
fouling in spite of the high molecular weight of BSA.
In addition, there were two reasons to corroborate that UH030
was more prone to fouling than UP005 membrane. On one hand,
permeate flux during BSA ultrafiltration decreased at a higher
extent for UH030 membrane (11 l/m2 h) than for UP005 membrane
(5 l/m2 h). On the other hand, taking into account the normalized
values (JBSA/Jwater before fouling), UH030 membrane had higher flux
decline than UP005 membrane. These two reasons corroborate that
UH030 was more prone to fouling than UP005 membrane.
According to Table 2, UP005 showed lower contact angle than
UH030. In agreement with Rahimpour and Madaeni, 2010, the
higher the hydrophilicity of the membrane surface is, the better
the antifouling properties are. Besides, UP005 has a lower roughness
than UH030 as it was showed in a previous work (LujánFacundo
et al., 2013). This low roughness value implies low trapping
of the BSA on the peak and valleys of the membrane surface
(Vatanpour et al., 2014). All of these characteristics explain the
lower flux diminution for UP005 in comparison with UH030
membrane
Fig. 1 depicts the evolution of flux (JBSA) during BSA ultrafiltrationas a function of time at constant transmembrane pressure of2 bar. The trend of flux for both tested membranes was similarand the steady flux was reached after about the first 36 min.The mechanisms for BSA fouling have been studied for manyyears ago. Thus, (Kelly and Zydney, 1995) reported that proteinfouling is produced by two different mechanisms: deposition ofBSA aggregates on the membrane surface and chemical attachmentto the previously deposited proteins.UP005 membrane showed lower fouling degree since the fluxdeclineprofile was less prominent than membrane UH030. Thisfact is mostly related with three parameters that could controlits fouling (Vatanpour et al., 2014): hydrophilicity (evaluated fromcontact angle), surface charge and surface roughness. Besides, thedifferent pore size of the two membranes can affect the membranefouling in spite of the high molecular weight of BSA.In addition, there were two reasons to corroborate that UH030was more prone to fouling than UP005 membrane. On one hand,permeate flux during BSA ultrafiltration decreased at a higherextent for UH030 membrane (11 l/m2 h) than for UP005 membrane(5 l/m2 h). On the other hand, taking into account the normalizedvalues (JBSA/Jwater before fouling), UH030 membrane had higher fluxdecline than UP005 membrane. These two reasons corroborate thatUH030 was more prone to fouling than UP005 membrane.According to Table 2, UP005 showed lower contact angle thanUH030. In agreement with Rahimpour and Madaeni, 2010, thehigher the hydrophilicity of the membrane surface is, the betterthe antifouling properties are. Besides, UP005 has a lower roughnessthan UH030 as it was showed in a previous work (LujánFacundoet al., 2013). This low roughness value implies low trappingof the BSA on the peak and valleys of the membrane surface(Vatanpour et al., 2014). All of these characteristics explain thelower flux diminution for UP005 in comparison with UH030membrane
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
