Ultrafiltration of SDS solutions using polymeric membranes

Majewska-Nowak, Katarzyna; Kowalska, Izabela; Kabsch-Korbutowicz, M.

doi:10.1016/j.desal.2005.02.057

Cited by 73 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Undoubtedly, this retentate concentration range is substantially below the level, which would cause a considerable flux decline. Other studies also reported [21,22] that the flux decline due to the increase in SDS surfactant concentration is enhanced for membranes with higher cut-off values and more hydrophobic properties. In this study, the interaction between NMWL and C SDS was not significant.…”

Section: The Effects Of Factors On the Permeate Fluxmentioning

confidence: 91%

Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for the removal of cadmium and zinc: Use of response surface methodology to improve understanding of process performance and optimisation

Landaburu-Aguirre

Pongrácz

Perämäki

et al. 2010

Journal of Hazardous Materials

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Effects Of Factors On the Permeate Fluxmentioning

confidence: 91%

Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for the removal of cadmium and zinc: Use of response surface methodology to improve understanding of process performance and optimisation

Landaburu-Aguirre

Pongrácz

Perämäki

et al. 2010

Journal of Hazardous Materials

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, a higher concentration of LAS in the medium implies a higher number of monomers which could pass to the permeate side. As a result, LAS retention decreases (Majewska-Nowak et al 2005). Upon reaching the CMC (S/M >13.4), micelles begin to form, thus decreasing the number of free monomers in the solution so that LAS is now more easily retained.…”

Section: Variation Of Surfactant Concentration Around Its Cmcmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Majewska-Nowak et al (2005) studied sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) ultrafiltration by analyzing the effect of membrane material, pressure, molecular weight cut-off, and SDS concentration on permeate flux. Urbanski et al (2002) studied the ultrafiltration of surfactant solutions by analyzing the effects produced in the resistances in series model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of Nickel by Means of Micellar-Enhanced Ultrafiltration (MEUF) Using Two Anionic Surfactants

Samper

Rodrı́guez

Sentana

et al. 2009

Water Air Soil Pollut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) is an effective separation technique for removing metal ions from aqueous environments. The critical micellar concentration (CMC) of two anionic surfactants, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), was determined by means of conductometry. The effects of pH, conductivity, and surfactant concentration on the permeate flow, retention of surfactants and nickel by MEUF, was studied. Results showed that for surfactant concentrations beyond the CMC, Ni(II) retention with SDS was slightly higher than with LAS (S/M=45: Ni(II) retention was 70% and 55% for SDS and LAS, respectively). LAS surfactant was always retained in higher quantities than SDS. An increase in conductivity produced large reduction in Ni(II) retention and slightly increased surfactant retention. pH values between 4 and 8 did not affect nickel retention but enhanced the SDS and LAS surfactant retentions.

show abstract

“…The removal of the anionic surfactant SDS from water solutions by UF organic membranes with a MWCO of 5000 Da was evaluated by Majewska-Nowak et al [31]. These authors evaluated the permeate flux for different feed concentrations and membrane materials.…”

Section: Surfactant Solutions Processed With Membrane Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%