XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1167
the image force and the Born effect (Szymczyk and Fievet
2005). Although all species were included in transport
modeling and speciation calculations, simulation quality
was estimated by comparing experimental and theoretical
rejection results of three elements: nickel, magnesium, and
iron. The results of the simulation are shown in Table 2.
Steric hindrance depends on the size of the average
pores of the membrane. It was considered for any ionic
strength.
Pore swelling has been observed for an ionic strength of
3.2 mol/kg by a significant variation in boric acid rejection,
but not for the other ones. The average pore size in this
condition was updated to 1.1 nm.
Experiments showed that ionic strength greatly influ-
enced the rejection rate. However, it can be observed that
this rejection rates presented very small variation when
the same effects were considered. It can therefore be
deduced that different effects occur, with varying degrees
Figure 1. Input and output parameters for the nanofiltration model
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Jv (10–6m/s)
3.2 mol/kg
1.6 mol/kg
0.7 mol/kg
0.37 mol/kg
0.3 mol/kg
0.15 mol/kg
Figure 2. Effect of ionic strength on Ni rejection rate as a function of volume flow per membrane surface (Jv)
Rejection
Rate
the image force and the Born effect (Szymczyk and Fievet
2005). Although all species were included in transport
modeling and speciation calculations, simulation quality
was estimated by comparing experimental and theoretical
rejection results of three elements: nickel, magnesium, and
iron. The results of the simulation are shown in Table 2.
Steric hindrance depends on the size of the average
pores of the membrane. It was considered for any ionic
strength.
Pore swelling has been observed for an ionic strength of
3.2 mol/kg by a significant variation in boric acid rejection,
but not for the other ones. The average pore size in this
condition was updated to 1.1 nm.
Experiments showed that ionic strength greatly influ-
enced the rejection rate. However, it can be observed that
this rejection rates presented very small variation when
the same effects were considered. It can therefore be
deduced that different effects occur, with varying degrees
Figure 1. Input and output parameters for the nanofiltration model
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Jv (10–6m/s)
3.2 mol/kg
1.6 mol/kg
0.7 mol/kg
0.37 mol/kg
0.3 mol/kg
0.15 mol/kg
Figure 2. Effect of ionic strength on Ni rejection rate as a function of volume flow per membrane surface (Jv)
Rejection
Rate