Figures Legends:
Figure 1: Flux excursion data presented as permeate flux (J) vs.
TMP by feed flow rate and concentration
Figure 2: Permeate flux versus feed concentration at a TMP of
15psi for three different flow rates, where k =- m and
Cw= x-intercept
Figure 3: Effect of feed flow rate (Q) on the mass transfer
coefficient (k) and wall concentration (Cw) A) k vs Q
fit by the simplified Sherwood number in equation 3.6 and B)
Cw vs Q fit linearly by mQ+b
Figure 4: Predicted output concentration versus feed flux by
stages of equal surface area with overlaid experimental data obtained at
feed fluxes of 68 and 116 LMH
Figure 5: Stagnant film modeling at low flow rates and feed
concentrations A) predicted conversion and concentration versus feed
flux, and B) predicted conversion versus feed flux by feed concentration
Figure 6: Stagnant film modeled parameters with additional flux
excursion data performed at 7.2 and 18.7 LMH A) Permeate flux versus
feed concentration at a TMP of 15 psi for five different feed flow
fluxes, B) k vs Q fit with equation 3.6 for the full range of flux
excursion data (7.2-136 LMH, dashed line) vs only the higher fluxes
(34-126LMH, solid line) and C) Cw vs Q fit with a linear
regression for 34-126LMH (solid line) vs a power regression for 7.2-136
LMH (dashed line)
Figure 7: Experimentally determined vs stagnant film modeled
conversion (A) and output concentration (B) vs feed flux of a one
membrane system with a feed concentration of 5.4 mg/mL
Figure 8: (A) Cw calculated according to equation
4.2 with the experimentally determined permeate flux from the experiment
shown in Fig.7 and k from the slope of the J vs ln(Cb)
graph, (B) k calculated according to equation 4.3 the experimentally
determined J from the experiment shown in Fig.7 and Cwfrom the x-intercept of the J vs ln(Cb) graph
Figure 9: Trend of mAb Viscosity as a function of mAb
concentration