214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9792752)
1. Kinetics of Permeate Flux Decline in Crossflow Membrane Filtration of Colloidal Suspensions.
Hong S; Faibish RS; Elimelech M
J Colloid Interface Sci; 1997 Dec; 196(2):267-277. PubMed ID: 9792752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of Interparticle Electrostatic Double Layer Interactions on Permeate Flux Decline in Crossflow Membrane Filtration of Colloidal Suspensions: An Experimental Investigation.
Faibish RS; Elimelech M; Cohen Y
J Colloid Interface Sci; 1998 Aug; 204(1):77-86. PubMed ID: 9665769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Crossflow microfiltration of yeast suspensions in tubular filters.
Redkar SG; Davis RH
Biotechnol Prog; 1993; 9(6):625-34. PubMed ID: 7764351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Factors affecting the performance of crossflow filtration of yeast cell suspension.
Tanaka T; Kamimura R; Itoh K; Nakanishi K; Matsuno R
Biotechnol Bioeng; 1993 Mar; 41(6):617-24. PubMed ID: 18609597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Modeling of the Permeate Flux during Microfiltration of BSA-Adsorbed Microspheres in a Stirred Cell.
Choi SW; Yoon JY; Haam S; Jung JK; Kim JH; Kim WS
J Colloid Interface Sci; 2000 Aug; 228(2):270-278. PubMed ID: 10926466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of MFI-UF constant pressure, MFI-UF constant flux and Crossflow Sampler-Modified Fouling Index Ultrafiltration (CFS-MFI UF).
Sim LN; Ye Y; Chen V; Fane AG
Water Res; 2011 Feb; 45(4):1639-50. PubMed ID: 21194721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predicting membrane flux decline from complex mixtures using flow-field flow fractionation measurements and semi-empirical theory.
Pellegrino J; Wright S; Ranvill J; Amy G
Water Sci Technol; 2005; 51(6-7):85-92. PubMed ID: 16003965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Crossflow filtration of yeast broth cultivated in molasses.
Tanaka T; Kamimura R; Fujiwara R; Nakanishi K
Biotechnol Bioeng; 1994 May; 43(11):1094-101. PubMed ID: 18615521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of cake properties in traditional and turbulence promoter assisted microfiltration of particulate suspensions.
Liu Y; He G; Li B; Hu Z; Ju J
Water Res; 2012 May; 46(8):2535-44. PubMed ID: 22386328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Permeate Flux in Crossflow Ultrafiltration under Intermediate Pressures.
Song L
J Colloid Interface Sci; 1999 Jun; 214(2):251-263. PubMed ID: 10339366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impact of organic nutrient load on biomass accumulation, feed channel pressure drop increase and permeate flux decline in membrane systems.
Bucs SS; Valladares Linares R; van Loosdrecht MC; Kruithof JC; Vrouwenvelder JS
Water Res; 2014 Dec; 67():227-42. PubMed ID: 25282091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A crossflow filtration system for constant permeate flux membrane fouling characterization.
Miller DJ; Paul DR; Freeman BD
Rev Sci Instrum; 2013 Mar; 84(3):035003. PubMed ID: 23556842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes by dairy industry effluents.
Turan M; Ates A; Inanc B
Water Sci Technol; 2002; 45(12):355-60. PubMed ID: 12201123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Concentration Polarization of Interacting Solute Particles in Cross-Flow Membrane Filtration.
Bhattacharjee S; Kim AS; Elimelech M
J Colloid Interface Sci; 1999 Apr; 212(1):81-99. PubMed ID: 10072278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A model for high-pressure ultrafiltration of blood.
Moussy Y
Biotechnol Bioeng; 2000 Jul; 69(1):21-30. PubMed ID: 10820327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Transient and stationary operating conditions on performance of lactic acid bacteria crossflow microfiltration.
Boyaval P; Lavenant C; Gésan G; Daufin G
Biotechnol Bioeng; 1996 Jan; 49(1):78-86. PubMed ID: 18623556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of pore size, shear rate, and harvest time during the constant permeate flux microfiltration of CHO cell culture supernatant.
Stressmann M; Moresoli C
Biotechnol Prog; 2008; 24(4):890-7. PubMed ID: 19194898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Factors influencing flux decline during nanofiltration of solutions containing dyes and salts.
Koyuncu I; Topacik D; Wiesner MR
Water Res; 2004 Jan; 38(2):432-40. PubMed ID: 14675655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The use of ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes for the purification of cork processing wastewater.
Benítez FJ; Acero JL; Leal AI; González M
J Hazard Mater; 2009 Mar; 162(2-3):1438-45. PubMed ID: 18650003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of mass retention of dissolved organic matter and membrane pore size on membrane fouling and flux decline.
Lin CF; Yu-Chen Lin A; Sri Chandana P; Tsai CY
Water Res; 2009 Feb; 43(2):389-94. PubMed ID: 19013630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
