Mesofluidic separation versus dead-end filtration

Abstract

Here we compare dead-end filtration to mesofluidic separation, which produces filtrate depleted of particles larger than a desired cutoff size. Dead-end filtration is well-established across a broad range of industries but rapidly loses throughput with even modestly concentrated slurries due to significant depth and cake fouling. Periodic back pulsing reduces but does not eliminate fouling. In contrast, mesofluidic separation is an emerging technique that uses periodic arrays of posts (here 500 μm in diameter 800 μm apart) instead of membranes or porous media to achieve separation with continuous inlet and outlet flows. Large internal void volumes reduce or eliminate cake and depth fouling, permitting operation at significant flowrates. Mesofluidic separators are similar to microfluidic separators but operate at higher flowrates (e.g., ~1 L/min and higher versus ~10 mL/h) and have larger dimensions (e.g., millimeters versus microns). Yet, mesofluidic separation has not been compared directly to dead-end filtration. Here we compare and contrast these two approaches on two key performance metrics: pressure drop and flowrate over time. We find that mesofluidic separation maintains high throughput and low pressure drop orders of magnitude longer than dead-end filtration. Head-to-head comparison with “sticky” slurries finds mesofluidic separators lose <6% of flow in contrast to dead-end filters that lose >55% both over 7 h. Logarithmic projection supported by the data projects <20% loss of flow over three years under high bay conditions.