Talk:Ultrafiltration

Comments

I am told the acronyms ECUM and NMECUM are used in the latter field. Anyone know what the NMECUM stands for? User:andycjp 4/5/2005

I've added the first two intro paragraphs and plan to go into a little more detail on the various factors affecting permeate flux, as well as a few examples of ultrafiltration units and membranes. @andycjp: sorry, not a clue. --MYTom 22:51:41, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Use in desalination and RO

Perhaps additions to this article detailing the use of UF in RO and desalination processes could be done in the future.

General tips

1. Go into discussion on which types of ultrafiltration can be used at specific sizes, maybe going into discussion of batch versus continuous processes.

2. Talk about industrial applications for the different kinds of ultrafiltrations.

3. Go into the math of performance metrics and flow, and calculation of optimal TMPs.

4. Problems with the technique. --Revwar98 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah's comments

Hey, overall nice job on your article! The only changes I would suggest are to fix the "membrane filtration" link because that page doesn't exist so the link doesn't go anywhere. And to maybe add some inline citations if you can. Good job and have a good break. Srah27 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

I'm trying to understand the differences between microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and RO. Unfortunately, there are two sentences in MF and UF articles that seem to contradict each other:

• Microfiltration: "Microfiltration is fundamentally different from reverse osmosis and nanofiltration because those systems use pressure as a means of forcing water to go from low pressure to high pressure"
• Ultrafiltration: "Ultrafiltration is not fundamentally different from microfiltration, nanofiltration or gas separation, except in terms of the size of the molecules it retains".

The first sentence says "MF != NF", the second sentence says "UF = MF = NF". This seems to be a contradiction.

Also, I suspect the the first sentence should read "those systems use pressure ... to go from the high-pressure side to the low-pressure side" (not the other way around). Mgwalker (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

the author of the first sentence was basically trying to say that all RO and NF need very high pressures, whereas MF does not. He did not explicitly state it, but he was implying that MF performance filtration can be achieved utilizing some type of filtration geometry without the hundreds or thousands of PSI required for RO and NF (at high flux). In reality, MF, NF, UF, and RO CAN all be manufactured by phase inversion thin-film membrane casting in a spiral wound configuration. I used to work at a small specialty membrane company and we even sold our CA RO and NF membranes through Koch MS, to the extent that we actually drop shipped them ourselves and Koch only involved themselves through sales and marketing. We also cast PVDF MF and UF membranes, PS and PES UF and NF, and specialty CA that would produce UF performance characteristics, not to mention a host of proprietary chemistry and/or processes through small 3rd parties that would contract our capacity. I say all of this because I watched 100s of miles of visually indistinguishable micron-thick film deposited via this extremely standardized (and no-longer patent protected) process, with the result that "UF or MF?" was almost always determined by testing.... 9,000 feet might produce NF performance, and 3,000 might provide RO performance. that differentiation was handled by a much further downstream part of the manufacturing process.184.189.220.114 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

lots of fundamental misunderstanding in the comments

It seems like there is a consistent, and common, subtle/implicit assumption that UF and RO (if not MF and NF as well) are somehow comparable as though UF was like a cheap low performance version of RO. Some of the posts here draw, or presume, similiarities between UF and RO that simply don't exist in reality. Some of the posts here seem to assume that UF and RO somehow connect to one another through an evolution of technology and science, and/or that UF and RO are either interchangable or else that UF is otherwise like a "sibling technology" of RO......

Nothing, nor anything similar, is accurate or true. RO and UF exist as distinct, though related, subsets of filtration PERFORMANCE regimes. RO, simply put, refers to chemistry and/or process design capable of rejecting almost all or all divalent inorganic salts, and most monovalent salts. UF, on the other hand, refers to rejection of macromolecules, biomolecules, and/or aggregates of a particular size and weight range. They are not interchangable. RO is not an alternative for UF because you can afford to use the filters184.189.220.114 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ultrafiltration (industrial) in Ultrafiltration

Somebody has done a huge addit at the article Ultrafiltration. The article Ultrafiltration (industrial) is compared to that not relevant any more. Even the former articles had no need to be split from my pov. I have added the 3 or 4 little things that been missing in Ultrafiltation. --Peter in s (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Redirected back (as nothing on that page more can be returned (no references and relevant information already here). Klbrain (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)