You are on page 1of 24

CEV452 UNIT OPERATIONS LABORATORY

Team: 1

Experiment: Membrane Filtration (Level 3)

Date of 24 September 2018


experiment:
Group members: Student ID:

Planner Nur Ajlaa Binti Abdul Rahim 2016586405

Experimenter Muhammad Luqmanul Haqim bin 2016343627


Eddie Shafri

Analyzer Nurul Husna Binti Modh Sabri 2016577471

Consultant Muhammad Hazry Rafieq Bin 2016321741


Razak Malek

1
ABSTRACT

To begin with, this experiment was conducted in order to achieve the objective which are to
study the effect of different pressures across reverse osmosis (RO) membrane on solute
fluxes and separation. The experiment was conducted for 30 minutes with the initial of feed
solution of sodium chloride with 2 gram per liter concentration. The membrane used was
polyamide film reverse osmosis. The pressure range for this experiment is 5, 10, and 15 barg.
The conductivity for the experiment is measured for every 3 minutes interval up to 30 minutes
by using conductivity meter. The conductivity for both permeate and retentate are taken. For
the results, for pressure 5 barg, it shown the best results as the conductivity of permeate is
decreasing at some point and last 6 minutes also decreasing but for the retentate is
decreasing. The hypothesis when the time is increasing, the conductivity of should be
decreasing and the retentate should be increasing. The value of conductivity of permeate for
pressure 5 barg at 3 minutes is 520.3 𝜇𝑆 and decreasing to 102.0 𝜇𝑆 after 30 minutes. While
for retentate, the conductivity of permeate for pressure 5 barg at 3 minutes is 3.87 mS and
decreasing to 1.623 mS after 30 minutes. From the calculation, the value for flux of NaCl is at
the 30 minutes for 5, 10, and 15 barg were 1.5588 x 10-4, 1.5553 x 10-4, and 1.5587 x 10-4
𝑚2 .𝑠
respectively. The membrane resistance value is −99800.4 𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑙
. It can concluded that the
conductivity of permeate should be decreasing and the retentate should be increasing with
respect to time. For recommendations to improve the results, the conductivity meter should
be placed in water during time interval for the best accuracy of results

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Membrane filtration (MF) can be a very efficient and economical way of separating

components that are suspended or dissolved in a liquid [1]. A membrane is a thin layer of

semi-permeable material that separates substances when a driving force is applied across

the membrane [2]. Membrane process are increasingly used for removal of bacteria,

microorganisms, particulates, and natural organic material, which can impart colour,

tastes, and odours to water and react with disinfectants to form disinfection byproducts [2].

Types of membrane filtration based on membrane pore sizes are described below;

1.1 Types of Membrane Process

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration (UF) is the process of separating extremely small particles and dissolved

molecules from fluids. The primary basis for separation is molecular size, although in all

filtration applications, the permeability of a filter medium can be affected by the chemical,

molecular or electrostatic properties of the sample. Ultrafiltration can only separate

molecules which differ by at least an order of magnitude in size. Molecules of similar size

cannot be separated by ultrafiltration. Materials ranging in size from 1K to 1000K

molecular weight (MW) are retained by certain ultrafiltration membranes, while salts and

water will pass through. Colloidal and particulate matter can also be retained.

Ultrafiltration membranes can be used both to purify material passing through the filter

and also to collect material retained by the filter. Materials significantly smaller than the

pore size rating pass through the filter and can be depyrogenated, clarified and separated

from high molecular weight contaminants. Materials larger than the pore size rating are

retained by the filter and can be concentrated or separated from low molecular weight

contaminants. Ultrafiltration is typically used to separate proteins from buffer components

for buffer exchange, desalting, or concentration. Ultrafilters are also ideal for removal or

exchange of sugars, non-aqueous solvents, the separation of free from protein bound

3
ligands, the removal of materials of low molecular weight, or the rapid change of ionic

and/or pH environment (see Figure 1). Depending on the protein to be retained, the most

frequently used membranes have a nominal molecular weight limit (NMWL) of 3 kDa to

100 kDa. Ultrafiltration is far gentler to solutes than processes such as 1 precipitation. UF

is more efficient because it can simultaneously concentrate and desalt solutes. It does

not require a phase change, which often denatures labile species, and UF can be

performed either at room temperature or in a cold room [1].

Nanofiltration

Nanofiltration membranes have a nominal pore size of approximately 0.001 microns and

a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) of 1,000 to 100,000 daltons. Pushing water through

these smaller membrane pores requires a higher operation pressure than either MF or

UF. Operating pressures are usually near 600 kPa (90psi) and can be as high as 1,000

kPa (150psi). These systems can remove virtually all cysts, bacteria, viruses, and humic

materials. They provide excellent protection from DBP formation if the disinfectant

residual is added after the membrane filtration step. Because NF membranes also remove

alkalinity, the product water can be corrosive, and measures, such as blending raw water

and product water or adding alkalinity, may be needed to reduce corrosivity. NF also

removes hardness from water, which accounts for NF membranes sometimes being

called “softening membranes.” Hard water treated by NF will need pretreatment to avoid

precipitation of hardness ions on the membrane. However, more energy is required for

NF than MF or UF [2].

4
Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis (RO) separates salts and small molecules from low molecular weight

solutes (typically less than 100 daltons) at relatively high pressures using membranes

with NMWLs of 1 kDa or lower. RO membranes are normally rated by their retention of

sodium chloride while ultrafiltration membranes are characterized according to the

molecular weight of retained solutes. Millipore water purification systems employ both

reverse osmosis membranes as well as ultrafiltration membranes. Reverse osmosis

systems are primarily used to purify tap water to purities that exceed distilled water 2

quality. Ultrafiltration systems ensure that ultrapure water is free from endotoxins as well

as nucleases for critical biological research [1].

Figure 1: Types of membrane filtration process based on membrane pore sizes

5
1.2 Configuration of Operating a Filtration Process

In this experiment, the focus is on crossflow membrane separations. With cross-flow

filtration a constant turbulent flow along the membrane surface prevents the accumulation

of matter on the membrane surface. The membranes used in this process are commonly

tubes with a membrane layer on the inside wall of the tube. The feed flow through the

membrane tube has an elevated pressure as driving force for the filtration process and a

high flow speed to create turbulent conditions. The process is referred to as "cross-flow",

because the feed flow and filtration flow direction have a 90 degrees angle. Cross-flow

filtration is an excellent way to filter liquids with a high concentration of filterable matter

[1].

The advantages of cross-flow membrane separations are [3]:

i. Higher overall liquid removal rate is achieved by preventing solid build up on

membrane surface.

ii. The concentrate (retentate) remains in a mobile form suitable for further

processing.

iii. The solute content of the concentrate may be varied over a wide range.

iv. It may be possible to fractionate solute of different sizes.

6
A typical crossflow operation includes recirculation loop which is as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: A tubular (multi-channel) type of membranes

Figure 3: A typical crossflow operation includes recirculation loop

7
2.0 OBJECTIVES

i. To design experimental procedure related to membrane filtration.

ii. To determine the effect of differential pressure across reverse osmosis membrane

on solute fluxes and separation.

3.0 THEORY

Numerous theoretical models for ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis have

been proposed along with the identification of new factors controlling flux or mass transfer

through membranes [3]. The basic operating patterns are best outlined in terms of the

hydrodynamic resistance resulting from the buildup of deposited materials on the

membrane surface.

The flux, J is given by:

1 𝑑𝑉 ∆𝑃 ∆𝑃
𝐽= = = (1)
𝐴𝑚 𝑑𝑡 μ(𝑅𝑚 + 𝑅𝑐 ) 𝜇[𝑅 + (𝛼𝑉𝐶𝑏 )]
𝑚 𝐴𝑚

For most biological materials, α is a variable depending on the applied pressure and time

(the compressible deposit), so that the expression requires a numerical solution.

A useful method for the effects of cross-flow removal of depositing materials is to write:

∆𝑃
𝐽= (2)
μ(𝑅𝑚 + 𝑅𝑐 − 𝑅𝑟 )

Removal of solute by cross-flow is sometimes assumed constant, and equal to the

convective particle transport at steady state (JssCb), which can be obtained experimentally

or from an appropriate model. In many situations however, steady state of filtration is

seldom achieved. In such cases, it is possible to describe the time dependence of filtration

by introducing an efficiency factor 𝛽, representing the fraction of filtered material remaining

deposit rather than being swept along by the bulk flow. This gives:

(3)
8
𝛽𝛼𝑉𝐶𝑏
𝑅𝑐 = , 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 0 < 𝛽 < 1
𝐴𝑚

Although deposition also occurs during ultrafiltration, an equally important factor

controlling flux is concentration polarization (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Concentration polerization at a membrane surface. Cw is the solute

concentration at the membrane surface and Cb is the bulk-solute concentration

Typical operating patterns of ultrafiltration are shown in Figure 5c.

Figure 5: Typical dependence of membrane flux. (a) Applied pressure difference, (b)

Solute concentration, (c) Cross-flow velocity

9
Solution containing macromolecular gel-forming solute will form a gel on the surface of the

membrane. The gel formation will contribute to formation of dynamic membranes. The

mechanism is as follows:

Due to convective flux through the membrane a concentration of the solution at the surface

Cw increases and eventually reaches a gel formation concentration Cg (Figure 3b). The

flux, J through the membrane depends on a concentration according to the relationship:

𝐶𝑤
𝐽 = 𝑘. 𝑙𝑛 (4)
𝐶𝑏

Combining Equations (1) and (4),

𝐶𝑤 ∆𝑃
𝑙𝑛 = (5)
𝐶𝑏 𝜇(𝑅𝑚 + 𝑅𝑝 )𝑘

As long as concentration Cw is less than Cg, Cw, will increase with pressure, but the moment

Cw, equals Cg, an increase in ∆P brings about an increase of the layer resistance Rp, and

the flux will no longer vary with pressure (Figure 3a).

Assuming no fouling effect, the membrane resistance, Rm can be calculated from the flux

equation below:

∆𝑃
𝐽= (6)
𝜇. 𝑅𝑚

1
The slope obtained from the plot of flux, J versus ∆P is equal to 𝜇.𝑅 where µ is the dynamic
𝑚

viscosity of the permeate (Pa.s).

10
The retention of any solute can be expressed by the rejection coefficient, R.

𝐶𝑓
ln (𝐶 )
0 (7)
𝑅=
𝑉
𝑙𝑛 (𝑉0 )
𝑓

Where,

Cf = final macrosolute concentration in the retentate

C0 = initial macrosolute concentration

V0 = initial volume

Vf = final retentate volume

This expression assumes complete mixing of retentate seldom accomplished due to

concentration polerization. The apparent rejection coefficient depends on factors affecting

polarization including UF rate and mixing. For material entirely rejected, the rejection

coefficient is 1 (100% rejection); for freely permeable material it is zero.

Rejection is a function of molecular size and shape. Nominal cut off levels, defined with

model solute, are convenient indicators.

Fractional rejection by membranes with low MW cut-off spans a narrower range of

molecular size then by more open membranes. For maximum retention of a solute, select

a membrane with nominal cut-off well below the MW of the species.

Many biological macromolecules tend to aggregate so that effective size may be much

larger that the “native” molecule, causing increased rejection. Degree of hydration, counter

ions and steric effects can cause molecules with similar molecular weights to exhibit very

different retention behaviour.

11
4.0 APPARATUS

5
1

1. Control System

2. Feed Tank, T1

3. Pump

4. Heating or Cooling Tank, T3

5. Membrane

Figure 6: Unit assembly of membrane filtration unit

12
5.0 PROCEDURE

A. START-UP PROCEDURE

1. The 2 g/L salt solution is prepared by dissolving 40 g of salt into 20 L of water.

2. Valve V4 is closed and the solution is filled into the feed tank, T1.

3. The water inside the heating or cooling tank is ensured to be above the heating

element.

4. Valve V5 and V16 are initially closed.

5. The control panel and pump P1 is switched on.

6. The pressure regulator PR1 is opened using a wrench until the desired

maximum pressure is achieved which is 35 barg for RO membrane.

7. Valve V5 and V16 are re-opened.

8. The liquid level inside the heating or cooling tank is made sure to always be

above the heating element.

9. Pump P2 is switched on to allow the cooling water to circulate.

B. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

1. Opened valve: V3, V5, V7, V14, V15, V16

Closed valve: V1, V2, V4, V6, V8, V9, V10, V12

Always opened: V11, V12

2. Valve V7 is adjusted to achieve the desired inlet pressure starting with the lowest

pressure at 5 barg.

3. At every interval of 3 minutes within 30 minutes, the retentate and permeate

sample are withdrawn through valve V8 and V9 respectively.

4. The conductivity of both samples is tested using conductivity metre.

5. Steps 2 until 4 are repeated using pressure at 10 barg and 15 barg.

13
C. SHUT DOWN PROCEDURE

1. The leftover liquid must be completely drained after the experiment is finished.

2. The liquid must be drainage points (V1, V4, V6, V8, V9 and V10).

6.0 RESULTS

Initial conductivity of NaCl water =31.7 mS

Table 1: Conductivity of Permeate and Retentate

Pressure (barg)

Flowrate,Q
(LPM) 5 barg 10 barg 15 barg

Time (min) Permeate Retentate Permeate Retentate Permeate Retentate


(𝜇𝑆) (mS) (𝜇𝑆) (mS) (𝜇𝑆) (mS)

Conductivity
3 520.3 3.87 202.8 1.67 131.5 4.04

6 39.14 3.83 171.3 3.93 92.16 3.50

9 69.40 3.89 146.6 1.643 107.8 4.02

12 123.80 3.90 131.7 3.94 104.7 1.66

15 73.96 3.87 137.7 3.95 116.4 4.04

18 126.2 1.613 191.3 3.90 87.15 1.65

21 85.75 1.649 169.7 3.95 116.0 4.10

24 44.97 1.641 125.5 2.37 107.7 4.18

27 109.6 1.664 243.8 3.96 170.6 4.12

30 102.0 1.623 173.6 3.99 103.5 4.14

14
Initial Concentration of NaCl of water = 0.357 M

Table 2: Concentration of permeate and retentate

Pressure (barg)

Flowrate,Q (5 barg) (10 barg) (15 barg)


(LPM)
Time (min) Permeate Retentate Permeate Retentate Permeate Retentate

Concentration
(M)
3 5.698x10-3 0.0424 2.221x10-3 0.0182 1.440x10-3 0.0442

6 0.429x10-3 0.0419 1.876x10-3 0.0430 1.010x10-3 0.0383

9 0.760x10-3 0.0426 1.605x10-3 0.0180 1.181x10-3 0.0440

12 1.356x10-3 0.0427 1.442x10-3 0.0431 1.147x10-3 0.0182

15 0.810x10-3 0.0424 1.510x10-3 0.0433 1.275x10-3 0.0442

18 1.382x10-3 0.0177 2.095x10-3 0.0427 9.544x10-3 0.0181

21 0.939x10-3 0.0181 1.858x10-3 0.0433 1.270x10-3 0.0450

24 0.492x10-3 0.0180 1.374x10-3 0.0260 1.179x10-3 0.0458

27 1.200x10-3 0.0182 2.670x10-3 0.0434 1.868x10-3 0.0451

30 1.117x10-3 0.0178 1.901x10-3 0.0437 1.133x10-3 0.0453

15
Table 3: Flux at interval 3 min at different pressure

Pressure (barg)
5 10 15

Time (min)
3 1.5387 × 10−4 1.5539 × 10−4 1.5574 × 10−4

6 1.5618 × 10−4 1.5554 × 10−4 1.5592 × 10−4

9 1.5603 × 10−4 1.5566 × 10−4 1.5585 × 10−4

12 1.5577 × 10−4 1.5573 × 10−4 1.5586 × 10−4

15 1.5601 × 10−4 1.5570 × 10−4 1.5581 × 10−4

18 1.5576 × 10−4 1.5545 × 10−4 1.5219 × 10−4

21 1.5595 x 10-4 1.5555 x 10-4 1.5581 x 10-4

24 1.5615 x 10-4 1.5576 x 10-4 1.5585 x 10-4

27 1.5584 x 10-4 1.5520 x 10-4 1.5555 x 10-4

30 1.5588 x 10-4 1.5553 x 10-4 1.5587 x 10-4

For pressure = 5 barg

Flux versus time


1.565

1.56
Flux (x10-4 mol/m2s)

1.555 y = 0.0003x + 1.5519

1.55

1.545

1.54

1.535
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)

Figure 7: Graph of flux versus time at 5 barg

16
For pressure = 10 barg

Flux versus time


1.558

1.557
Flux (x10-4 mol/m2s)

y = -3E-05x + 1.556
1.556

1.555

1.554

1.553

1.552

1.551
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)

Figure 8: Graph of flux versus time at 10 barg

For pressure = 15 barg

Flux versus time


1.8

1.6

1.4 y = -0.0001x + 1.5562


Flux (x10-4 mol/m2s)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)

Figure 9: Graph of flux versus time at 15 barg

17
Flux versus pressure
1.559
1.5585
Flux (x10-4 mol/m2s)

1.558
y = -1E-05x + 1.5577
1.5575
1.557
1.5565
1.556
1.5555
1.555
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pressure (barg)

𝑚2 .𝑠
Membrane Resitance = −99800.4
𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑙

Figure 10: Graph of flux at 30 min versus pressure

7.0 SAMPLE CALCULATION

For pressure at 5 barg, at 30 min:

1. Convert the conductivity to concentration

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑚𝑆) × 0.64


𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 (𝑀) =
𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑎𝐶𝑙

0.102 𝑚𝑆 × 0.64
=
58.44 𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙

= 1.117 × 10−3

18
2. Calculating the flux of NaCl:

𝐽 = 𝐴𝑠 (𝑐1 − 𝑐2 )

𝐴𝑠 = 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡

𝑐1 = 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑐2 = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝐿
𝐽 = (4.38 × 10−7 𝑚/𝑠)(0.357 𝑀 − 1.117 × 10−3 𝑀) (1000 )
𝑚3

= 1.5588 × 10−4 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑚−2 𝑠 −1

3. Calculating membrane resistance,𝑅𝑚 :

1
𝑅𝑚 =
𝜇. 𝑚

𝜇 = 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 20℃

𝑚 = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥 𝑣𝑠. 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒)

1 𝑚2 . 𝑠
𝑅𝑚 = = −99800.4
1.002 × 10−3 × 103 × (−1 × 10−5 ) 𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑙

19
8.0 DISCUSSION

The experiment was carried out to determine the effect of differential pressure

across reverse osmosis membrane on solute fluxes and separation. Reverses osmosis is

a process by which a pressure in excess of the osmotic pressure of the saline water feed

solution is applied to the solution separated from purified water by a semipermeable

membrane [4]. Pure water is thereby caused to diffuse through the membrane, while the

salt molecules or other impurities are retained by the membrane. The experiment was

conducted for 30 minutes with the initial feed solution of sodium chloride with 2 gram per

litre concentration. The membrane used was polyamide film reverse osmosis. Reverses

osmosis membrane comprise two layers a porous polysulfone support layer and a semi-

permeable layer of amine and carboxylic acid chloride functional groups [5]. The

polyamide active layer is the thinnest of all layers and sits upon the porous polysulfone

layer. There is concern that the active layer might tear that the membrane has been

subjected to deficiencies such as compaction and chemical or biological degradation,

resulting in too short of useful life, and too low flux or salt rejection, resulting in inefficient

operation [4].

For 30 minutes at 3 minutes interval, the conductivity reading was taken for

permeate and retentate sample. As the time passes by, the expected conductivity of

permeate should be decreasing and the retentate should be increasing. For pressure at

5 barg, the conductivity of permeate seems to be uneven, while the reading conductivity

of retentate seems to be decreasing, which is opposite of what it expected to be. This is

because the reading of conductivity are not stable yet or the conductivity probe are not

swirl completely in sample. For pressure 10 barg, the conductivity reading of permeate

seems to be following the hypothesis at first, but then it inclined for the last 6 minutes,

while the retentate followed the hypothesis but with slight increase in the reading. For

pressure at 15 barg, the permeate conductivity reading becomes unstable but shows a

20
decrease reading pattern at some moment. The retentate reading did increase but in small

amount.

By calculating all the flux at each interval time at different pressure, three graphs

are plotted to look at the pattern of flux at different pressure. The pattern for 5 barg shows

an overall increase in slope, while for barg 10 is the opposite. For 15 barg, the pattern

show just slightly decrease in slope. The flux at the 30 minutes for 5, 10, and 15 barg

were 1.5588 x 10-4, 1.5553 x 10-4 and 1.5587 x 10-4 respectively. The optimum flux was

found to be at 5 barg pressure which is 1.5588 x 10-4.

Apart from that the membrane resistance can be calculated from plotting the flux

at 30 minutes against pressure. The membrane resistance was calculated from the

gradient of linear equation of the graph. The value of membrane resistance of polyamide

𝑚2 .𝑠
film used was −99800.4 𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑙
.

The value was quite large in negative because of the small value of negative

gradient from the graph plotted. This could show that the membrane has already surpass

its lifespan on working lifetime. Some mistakes also must be occurred that lead to the

inaccurate reading of conductivity of sample.

9.0 CONCLUSION

After completing the experiment, the result yield that at low pressure (5 barg), the

flux of NaCl is at optimum value. The flux value for 10 barg and 15 barg is lower than 5

barg. For pressure at 5 barg, the conductivity of permeate seems to be uneven, while the

reading conductivity of retentate seems to be decreasing, which is opposite of what it

expected to be. For pressure 10 barg, the conductivity reading of permeate seems to be

following the hypothesis at first, but then it inclined for the last 6 minutes, while the

retentate followed the hypothesis but with slight increase in the reading. For pressure at

21
15 barg, the permeate conductivity reading becomes unstable but shows a decrease

reading pattern at some moment. The retentate reading did increase but in small amount.

The value of membrane resistance is negatively large because of the small negative value

of gradient from the graph plotted. This experiment finalized that pressure at 5 barg was

better for operation of reverse osmosis membrane instead of 10 and 15 barg of working

pressure.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations for this experiment are:

1. Keep monitoring and adjusting valve V7 as the pressure keep fluctuating from the

desired pressure that has been set.

2. Always put the conductivity meter probe in clean deionized water every time after usage

to avoid the error of the actual reading, since the probe is very sensitive.

3. The desire pressure should not exceed the maximum pressure of the RO membrane

to avoid damaging the membrane.

4. The membrane should be in good condition to ensure the experiment runs without any

problem.

22
11.0 REFERENCE

[1] Ahsan Munir. (2006). Dead End Membrane Filtration. Page 1-4.

[2] Membrane Filtration. (n.d.). Page 1-3.

[3] Zubir, N. A., Chang, S. H., Jalil, M. J., Osman, M. S., and Abd Jalil, S. N. (2017). Unit

Operations Laboratory Manual. UiTMPP, Pulau Pinang.

[4] John E. Cadotte. (1977). United States Patent. REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE.

Page 2

[5] Reverse Osmosis, Chapter 7. Page 417

23
12.0 APPENDIX

24