Wow, it has been more than 1 month of my absence updating this blog. I am now busy to submit my paper. The paper is concentration to discuss the advantage and the plus of my ceramic membrane. So first step I want to compose for my paper is to define the benefit of using the ceramic membrane instead of organic membrane. The benefit that I would like to propose is in terms of flux. My experiments had shown that the flux decline of my ceramic membrane is less than the organic membrane. The other thing I would like to display is the process of photocatalysis, by attaching the TiO2 in the surface of the membrane. This is often called immobilization.
Flux decline between ceramic membrane and organic membrane
First step is I want to know other investigations that had been conducted by other authors regarding the comparison between ceramic membrane and organic membrane. Is it true that ceramic membrane is able to give better mitigation of fouling. I will display here my own result. I have 1 kD, 15 kD and 50 kD of ceramic membrane, the organic (Ultrasonic) has 10, 30 and 100 kD, and another one (Magnetic application) has 10 and 100 kD. I think I will try to compare :
Picture I
– ceramic naked membrane, 15 kD
– ceramic TiO2-UV membrane, 15 kD
– organic (Ultrasound), 10 kD
– organic (magnetic), 10 kD
and Picture II
– ceramic naked membrane, 50 kD
– ceramic TiO2-UV membrane, 50 kD
– organic (ultrasound), 10 kD
– organic (magnetic), 10 kD
First picture is aimed to know the flux decline between naked membrane and organic membrane. Indeed the MWCO is different, but I think from the result later, it can be concluded that if the flux decline of 15 kD is less, then higher chance that for the same 10 kD less flux decline compared to organic membrane. The analogue can be applied for picture II. Another reason is that, my research employs 15 kD membrane, I did not order 10 kD as my research was actually continouing previous work under the same project.
So here is the result, (to be continued)