4.

0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The filtration rate was observed to be maximum initially in the graph of VF/t
versus time due to the absence of solid deposition at the very beginning of filtration
process. As the filtration process proceeded further, the thickness of filter cake
increased and therefore exerted more resistance to the filtrate flow, subsequently
slowing down the filtrate flow rate (Doran, 2012). Every graphs of different vacuum
pressure (pressure drop across filter) shows the same trend as shown in Figure Error!
No text of specified style in document..1 till Error! Reference source not found.
below.

VF vs Time
350

300

250 y = 30.758x - 57.667

200
VF

150

100

50

0
5.57 12.05 19.84 28.52 38.88 48.78 58.88 70.55 83.31 95.23
-50
Time at 100 mmHg

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 VF vs. Time at 100 mmHg
pressure drop
 VF vs Time
350

300

250 y = 30.758x - 57.667

200
VF (cm3)

150

100

50

0
4.39 7.99 11.44 16.34 21.29 26.53 31.91 37.42 43.81 51.35
-50
Time (s) at 200 mmHg

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..2 VF vs. Time at 200 mmHg
pressure drop

VF vs Time
350

300

250 y = 30.758x - 57.667

200
VF (cm3)

150

100

50

0
19.42 31.83 38.23 43.22 47.05 50.94 53.89 57.47 61.08 64.65
-50
Time (s) at 300 mmHg

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..3 VF vs. Time at 300 mmHg
pressure drop
 VF vs Time
350

300

250 y = 30.758x - 57.667

200
VF (cm3)

150

100

50

0
9.49 15.97 22.06 26.86 29.99 33.36 36.63 40.11 43.16 46.92
-50
Time (s) at 400 mmHg

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..4 VF vs. Time at 400 mmHg pressure
drop

As shown in the graph, the filtrate flow is the gradient of the graph. Hence, the filtrate
flow at every vacuum pressure is the same at 30.758 cm3/s.

According to the Carmen-Kozeny’s relation, the rate of filtration can be related to the
pressure drop and the resistance arose from the filter cake and filter medium as in equation
below:

𝑑𝑉 𝐴∆𝑃
=
𝑑𝑡 𝑚𝑟[𝑤 (𝑉 ) + 𝐿]
𝐴

where A = filter area

m = viscosity of the fluid

r = specific resistance of filter cake

L = fictitious equivalent thickness of filter cloth and pre-coat

∆𝑃 = pressure drop across filter

 w = fractional solid content per unit volume of filtrate

For constant pressure, constant r and incompressible cake, by inverting the equation
and undergoing the integration, the filtration equation is

𝑡 𝑚𝑟𝑤 𝑚𝑟𝐿
= 2 𝑉+
𝑉 2𝐴 ∆𝑃 𝐴∆𝑃

In this case, the specific resistance of the filter medium, Rm will be equivalent to r*L in
the rightmost term of the equation above. The equation can also be expressed in term of
filtration constant, KP (s/m6) and B (s/m3)

𝑡 𝐾𝑃
= 𝑉+𝐵
𝑉 2

𝑚𝑟𝑤
Where 𝐾𝑃 =
𝐴2 ∆𝑃
𝑚𝑟𝐿 𝑚𝑅𝑚
𝐵= =
𝐴∆𝑃 𝐴∆𝑃

Based on the equation above, a linear graph is to be expected by plotting t/V F versus VF for
every vacuum pressure (∆P). Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..3 till Error!
Reference source not found. shows the best-fitted graph of t/VF versus VF for different
vacuum pressure (∆P) of 100 mmHg till 400 mmHg.

t/VF vs VF
1.2

0.8
t/VF (s/cm3)

0.6

0.4

0.2 y = -0.002x + 0.7914

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
VF (cm3)
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..3 t/VF vs. VF at 100 mmHg pressure
drop

t/VF vs VF
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
t/VF (s/cm3)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
y = -0.0016x + 0.5275
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
VF (cm3)

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..6 t/VF vs. VF at 200 mmHg pressure
drop

t/VF vs VF
4.5
4
3.5
3
t/VF (s/cm3)

2.5
2
1.5
1
y = -0.0085x + 1.9931
0.5
0
-0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-1
VF (cm3)

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..7 t/VF vs. VF at 300 mmHg pressure
drop
 t/VF vs VF
2

1.5
t/VF (s/cm3)

0.5
y = -0.0042x + 1.042

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

-0.5
VF (cm3)

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..8 t/VF vs. VF at 400 mmHg pressure
drop

The KP value can be obtained from the gradient of the graph while the y-intercept of
the graph represented the value of B. Hence, once the values of gradient and y-intercept of the
graphs were determined, the value of the specific resistance of the filter cake, r and the specific
resistance of the filter medium, Rm were calculated using the equation as shown below.

𝐾𝑃
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
2
𝑚𝑟𝑤
𝐾𝑃 = 2 ∗ 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝐴2 ∆𝑃
2𝐴2 ∆𝑃 ∗ 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
∴ specific resistance of filter cake, 𝑟 =
𝑚𝑤
𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 = 𝐵
𝑚𝑅𝑚
𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 =
𝐴∆𝑃
𝐴∆𝑃 ∗ (𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡)
𝑅𝑚 =
𝑚
 However, there are some value of parameters have to be determined prior to the
calculation above. Some raw data for the calculation are tabulated in Error! Reference source
not found..

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1: Raw data for the moisture ratio

Pressure Drop Mass of wet filter Mass of dry filter Moisture ratio,
(mmHg) cake (g) cake (g) mR
100 4.1683 1.29482 3.21921
200 3.5816 1.646 2.175942
300 4.0639 2.4156 1.682356
400 3.7966 2.3885 1.589533
calculation

Where mR = mass of wet cake/ mass of dry cake

Mass of CaCO3 used = 1.25g

At 25 °C, density of water, ρ used is 0.99708 g/mL (997.08 kg/m3) (Geankoplis, 2003).

M = total mass of slurry filtered

= 1.25 g + (75 mL*0.99708 g/mL)
= 76.031 g

s = mass fraction of solid in slurry

= 1.25 g / 76.031 g
= 0.01644

Let w be the fractional solid content per unit volume of filtrate.

𝑠𝜌
𝑤=
1 − 𝑚𝑅 𝑠
 In case of ΔP = 100 mmHg, w =17.3080 kg solid/ m3 of filtrate
In case of ΔP = 200 mmHg, w = 17.0001 kg solid/ m3 of filtrate
In case of ΔP = 300 mmHg, w = 16.85826 kg solid/ m3 of filtrate
In case of ΔP = 400 mmHg, w = 16.83184 kg solid/ m3 of filtrate

In this experiment, the diameter of filter area is 40.2 mm.

A = πD2/4
= 1.2692×10-3 m2

At 25°C, the viscosity of water, m is about 8.937×10-4 kg/m*s (Geankoplis, C. J., 2003).

After getting all the information needed, the calculation have been carried out and the
results were tabulated in Table Error! No text of specified style in document...
 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..2: Summary of calculated results
Specific
Pressure Filtration Constant
Pressure drop, Gradient, y-intercept, resistance of the Rm ×1010
drop, ΔP (Pa
ΔP (mmHg) ×1012 ×106 filter cake, r (1/m)
2
or N/m ) KP×1012 B×106
×1010 (m/kg)

100 13332.237 0.002 0.7914 0.004 0.7914 0.5537 1.4983

200 26664.474 0.0016 0.5275 0.0032 0.5275 0.9047 1.9973

300 39996.711 0.0085 1.9931 0.017 1.9931 7.2699 11.3212

400 53328.947 0.0042 1.042 0.0084 1.042 4.7971 7.8917

 10

Next, in order to investigate the effect of vacuum pressure (i.e. the pressure drop
across the filter) on the specific resistance of the filter cake and the specific resistance
of the filter medium, two graphs of specific resistance of the filter cake versus pressure
drop and specific resistance of the filter medium versus pressure drop were plotted as
shown in Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..4 and Figure Error! No
text of specified style in document..5 respectively.

r vs ΔP
8E+10

7E+10

6E+10

5E+10
r (m/kg)

4E+10

3E+10

2E+10

1E+10

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
ΔP (Pa)

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..4 Specific resistance of the filter
cake versus pressure drop

Rm vs ΔP
1.2E+11

1E+11

8E+10
Rm (1/m)

6E+10

4E+10

2E+10

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
ΔP (Pa)
 11

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..5 Specific resistance of the filter
medium versus pressure drop
 12

As shown in both graphs above, the specific resistance of the filter cake and specific
resistance of the filter medium are independent of the pressure drop where the gradient of both
graphs are fluctuating. There may be experimental error and equipment error when doing this
experiment. Supposedly, pressure drop across the filter have no effect on both of the
parameters.

The independence of specific resistance of the filter cake from the pressure drop is due
to the incompressibility of the calcium carbonate in the slurry. In other words, calcium
carbonate is a rigid incompressible solid in the slurry.

Besides, the filter medium specific resistance was observed to be fluctuating with
increasing pressure drop. Supposedly, there was no penetration of particles into the filter paper
which can avoid the plugging of the pores of filter paper (Doran, 2012). Since the pore sizes of
the filter medium remain unchanged, the specific resistance of filter medium will not vary with
the increasing vacuum pressure.