A Proposed Experimental-Design Framework for Evaluating Aluminium Oxide Nanoparticle Ultrafiltration: Concentration, Transmembrane Pressure and Membrane MWCO

Khairunnisa Yasmin Ayob; Mohammed Saedi Jami; Nik Rashida Nik Abdul Ghani

doi:10.51278/ajse.vi.2958

Authors

Khairunnisa Yasmin Ayob Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mohammed Saedi Jami Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Nik Rashida Nik Abdul Ghani Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51278/ajse.vi.2958

Keywords:

aluminium oxide nanoparticles, crossflow ultrafiltration, molecular weight cut-off, permeate flux, transmembrane pressure, polyethersulfone membrane, membrane fouling, response surface methodology

Abstract

Engineered aluminium oxide (Al₂O₃) nanoparticles provide a model particulate for examining membrane transport, aggregation and fouling in water-treatment systems. This article proposes a methodological framework for evaluating permeate flux during crossflow ultrafiltration with polyethersulfone membranes. The planned factors are Al₂O₃ concentration (20, 30 and 40 mg/L), transmembrane pressure (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 bar), and membrane molecular weight cut-off (MWCO; 1, 5 and 10 kDa). Because the MWCO levels are unequally spaced and represent discrete membrane products, MWCO is treated as a categorical factor rather than as an equally spaced continuous variable. The proposed design comprises 27 unique factor combinations, with additional replication to estimate pure error. The primary response is prespecified as time-averaged permeate flux; aluminium rejection and pre-/post-filtration pure-water flux are recommended secondary measurements. No experimental results, fitted statistical model or optimum operating condition are reported; the article is limited to the design and analysis protocol. The specific methodological contribution is a transparent design and analysis protocol that defines response variables, identifies testable interaction hypotheses, and specifies the measurements required to evaluate flux, rejection and fouling without presenting theoretical expectations as empirical findings.

Author Biographies

Khairunnisa Yasmin Ayob, Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Mohammed Saedi Jami, Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Nik Rashida Nik Abdul Ghani, Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainability, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

References

J. Naskar et al., “Recent advances of nanotechnology in mitigating emerging pollutants in water and wastewater: Status, challenges, and opportunities,” Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, vol. 233, no. 5, Art. no. 156, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11270-022-05611-y.

S. K. Brar, M. Verma, R. D. Tyagi, and R. Y. Surampalli, “Engineered nanoparticles in wastewater and wastewater sludge – Evidence and impacts,” Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 504–520, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.10.012.

Z. He et al., “Alumina double-layered ultrafiltration membranes with enhanced water flux,” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, vol. 587, Art. no. 124324, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2019.124324.

A. G. Fane, C. Y. Tang, and R. Wang, “Membrane technology for water: Microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis,” in Treatise on Water Science, vol. 4. Oxford: Elsevier, 2011, pp. 301–335, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53199-5.00091-9.

A. L. Zydney, “Protein separations using membrane filtration: New opportunities for whey fractionation,” International Dairy Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 243–250, 1998, doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(98)00045-4.

R. W. Field and J. J. Wu, “Permeate flux in ultrafiltration processes—Understandings and misunderstandings,” Membranes, vol. 12, no. 2, Art. no. 187, 2022, doi: 10.3390/membranes12020187.

J. W. Chew, J. Kilduff, and G. Belfort, “The behavior of suspensions and macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration: An update,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 601, Art. no. 117865, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2020.117865.

G. Di Bella and D. Di Trapani, “A brief review on the resistance-in-series model in membrane bioreactors (MBRs),” Membranes, vol. 9, no. 2, Art. no. 24, 2019, doi: 10.3390/membranes9020024.

D. Kamarudin, N. Ali, M. Ismail, and N. Othman, “Fouling evaluation for ultrafiltration of protein-based washwater: A resistance-in-series model approach,” Jurnal Teknologi, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 41–47, 2015, doi: 10.11113/jt.v74.4695.

K. M. Persson and J. L. Nilsson, “Fouling resistance models in MF and UF,” Desalination, vol. 80, no. 2–3, pp. 123–138, 1991, doi: 10.1016/0011-9164(91)85153-L.

R. Sathish Kumar, G. Arthanareeswaran, D. Paul, and J. H. Kweon, “Modification methods of polyethersulfone membranes for minimizing fouling – Review,” Membrane and Water Treatment, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 323–337, 2015, doi: 10.12989/mwt.2015.6.4.323.

A. L. Ahmad, A. A. Abdulkarim, B. S. Ooi, and S. Ismail, “Recent development in additives modifications of polyethersulfone membrane for flux enhancement,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 223, pp. 246–267, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.02.130.

T. A. Otitoju, A. L. Ahmad, and B. S. Ooi, “Recent advances in hydrophilic modification and performance of polyethersulfone (PES) membrane via additive blending,” RSC Advances, vol. 8, no. 40, pp. 22710–22728, 2018, doi: 10.1039/C8RA03296C.

B. Van der Bruggen, “Chemical modification of polyethersulfone nanofiltration membranes: A review,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 630–642, 2009, doi: 10.1002/app.30578.

A. Imbrogno, J. I. Calvo, M. Breida, R. Schwaiger, and A. I. Schäfer, “Molecular weight cut off (MWCO) determination in ultra- and nanofiltration: Review of methods and implications on organic matter removal,” Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 354, Art. no. 128612, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2024.128612.

R. W. Baker, Membrane Technology and Applications, 3rd ed.. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, 2012, doi: 10.1002/9781118359686.

G. Belfort, R. H. Davis, and A. L. Zydney, “The behavior of suspensions and macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 96, no. 1–2, pp. 1–58, 1994, doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(94)00119-7.

T. Madeira, C. Marçal, S. M. Cardoso, L. M. Gando-Ferreira, and R. Costa, “Ultrafiltration of Fucus vesiculosus extracts under different operating conditions,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 4447–4458, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12649-022-01807-9.

H. Aloulou et al., “Statistical simulation, a tool for the process optimization of oily wastewater by crossflow ultrafiltration,” Membranes, vol. 12, no. 7, Art. no. 676, 2022, doi: 10.3390/membranes12070676.

R. A. Ruby Figueroa, A. Cassano, and E. Drioli, “Ultrafiltration of orange press liquor: Optimization for permeate flux and fouling index by response surface methodology,” Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2011.03.030.

M. Sadeghian, M. Sadeghi, M. Hesampour, and A. Moheb, “Application of response surface methodology (RSM) to optimize operating conditions during ultrafiltration of oil-in-water emulsion,” Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 615–623, 2015, doi: 10.1080/19443994.2014.919607.

J. A. Howell, V. Sanchez, and R. W. Field, Eds., Membranes in Bioprocessing: Theory and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1993, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-2156-9.

R. W. Field, D. Wu, J. A. Howell, and B. B. Gupta, “Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 259–272, 1995, doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(94)00265-Z.

P. Bacchin, P. Aimar, and R. W. Field, “Critical and sustainable fluxes: Theory, experiments and applications,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 281, no. 1–2, pp. 42–69, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2006.04.014.

J. Hermia, “Blocking filtration. Application to non-Newtonian fluids,” in Mathematical Models and Design Methods in Solid-Liquid Separation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1985, pp. 83–89, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-5091-7_5.

B. P. Singh, R. Menchavez, C. Takai, M. Fuji, and M. Takahashi, “Stability of dispersions of colloidal alumina particles in aqueous suspensions,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 291, no. 1, pp. 181–186, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.04.091.

Y. Du, B. K. Pramanik, Y. Zhang, and V. Jegatheesan, “Influence of molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) of commercial ultrafiltration substrate on the performance of thin film composite nanofiltration membrane,” Desalination, vol. 541, Art. no. 116020, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2022.116020.

K. C. Ho, Y. H. Teow, W. L. Ang, and A. W. Mohammad, “Novel GO/OMWCNTs mixed-matrix membrane with enhanced antifouling property for palm oil mill effluent treatment,” Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 177, pp. 337–349, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.01.014.

A. L. Ahmad, S. Ismail, and S. Bhatia, “Water recycling from palm oil mill effluent (POME) using membrane technology,” Desalination, vol. 157, no. 1–3, pp. 87–95, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(03)00387-4.