本研究是探討在不同的操作參數下沉浸式薄膜過濾系統其過濾系統之表現。 其中操作參數包括溶質種類、濃度和組成，薄膜模組之傾斜角，薄膜種類，曝氣量，透膜壓差，與間歇式操作的運用。在固定壓差法下，利用實驗中各參數的變化來獲得濾速對時間的變化。實驗結果顯示：各實驗系統在曝氣為零的情況下濾速衰退的情況非常快且容易達到與壓差無關的臨界濾速，而曝氣不為零的情況下，在溶質為Dextran T500的系統中，在100k MWCO薄膜中少量曝氣即可以達到與大量曝氣同樣減緩濾速快速衰退的情形，而在500k MWCO 薄膜中不同的曝氣量有著較顯著的不同之濾速提升情形。溶質為PMMA顆粒的系統下，在100k MWCO薄膜中曝氣量的多寡對濾速影響並不明顯且其濾速值與純水濾速相近，而在500k MWCO薄膜中濾速有著比在Dextran T500溶質系統中曝氣有著更明顯的影響。在Dextran T500與PMMA顆粒混合溶液中，溶質比例的不論如何變化，即使在提升大顆粒的附著性系統中(PMMA顆粒濃度高達7.5 kg/m3)，其濾速行為仍然與只有Dextran T500溶質系統的濾速行為相近。薄膜傾斜角度的變化(900-1600) 對於在500k MWCO 薄膜下PMMA溶質系統中濾速的改善非常顯著，而在Dextran T500溶質系統中，在1600下少量曝氣即具有在900下大量曝氣同樣的效果。

In the study, the performance of the submerged membrane filtration system was investigated in different experimental parameter. and fixed trans-membrane pressure difference method was used.  The operated condition in the study included the concentration and composition of the solute, the inclination angle of the membrane module, the rejection rate (MWCO) of membrane, aeration rate, and trans-membrane pressure difference. In the system of no aeration, the flux inclination was very serious and reached the critical flux easily.  In the filtration system of Dextran T500, the effect of little aeration rate is equal to the membrane performance of large aeration rate in 100k MWCO membrane, and the different aeration rates had more obvious different  effects in 500k MWCO membrane than in 100k MWCO.   Dextran T500 was also measured in different aeration rates and inclination angles.  The aeration had more effect in the filtration system of PMMA powders than in that of Dextran T500.In the double solute system, Dextran T500 played a major role in the flux behavior of the filtration system even if the concentration of T500 was a quite low concentration. The concentration boundary layer thicknesses calculated by concentration polarization model and boundary layer model were discussed in the study.

CONTENTS
FIGURES	III
TABLES	IX
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	1
1.1	PREFACE	1
1.2	MEMBRANE SEPARATION	1
1.3	THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF ULTRAFILTRATION MEMBRANE	3
1.4	OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY	9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW	11
2.1 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MEMBRANE FILTRATION	11
2.2 THE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM	13
2.3 A NOVEL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM - MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR	15
2.4 THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF MBR EQUIPMENT	20
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL CALCULATION	29
3.1 THE ANALYSIS OF THE FILTRATION RESISTANCE	29
3.2 MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AND CONCENTRATION BOUNDARY LAYER	30
ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LAYER THEORY, WHEN A FLUID FLOWS THROUGH A PLATE, THE THICKNESS OF THE HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY LAYER IS:	30
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND METHOD	35
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS	35
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD	35
4.3 MATERIALS	36
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	40
5.1 THE PURE WATER FLUX OF MEMBRANES	40
5.2 SINGLE SOLUTE SYSTEM	41
5.2.1 0.8 μm PMMA system	42
5.2.2 Dextran T500 system	44
5.3. BISOLUTE SYSTEM	46
5.3.1 System with θ=900	46
5.3.2 System with θ=1600	47
5.4 EFFECT OF PERIODIC OPERATION	48
5.5 STUDY OF THE PHENOMENA ON THE MEMBRANE SURFACE	48
5.6 FILTRATION RESISTANCE	50
5.7 THEORETICAL FLUX OBTAINED FROM CONCENTRATION BOUNDARY LAYER THICKNESS	53
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION	100
NOMENCLATURE	102
REFERENCES	104
APPENDIX	110


 
Figures

Figure 1.1 Schematic representations of dead-end filtration and cross-flow filtration	10
Figure 2.1 The schematic representation of membrane filtration is by crossflow	25
Figure 2.2 Evolution of water reclamation treatment trains	25
Figure 2.3Schematic presentation of a bioreactor	26
Figure 2.4Under fixed flux method, variation of stabilized flux with TMP for different circulation velocities, T= 20oC, Suspended Solids at 10g/l			26
Figure 2.5 Experimental determination of critical flux	27
Figure 2.6 Under fixed TMP method, variations of permeate flux with time under step increments of trans-membrane pressure, u = 4 m/s, T= 20oC, Suspended Solids at 10g/l	27
Figure 2.7 Trans-membrane pressure changes during long-term constant flux in the membrane bioreactor in stabilized biological conditions	28
Figure 4.1 The schematic representation of flat sheet submerged membrane bioreactor	36
Figure 4.2 Schematic representation of flat sheet submerged membrane bioreactor	37
Figure 5.1 Pure water fluxes at different pressures of new membranes (MWCO=100k & 500k)	56
Figure 5.2 SEM photomicrographs of a new 500k membrane at 30KX, 50 KX , 100 KX, 1000 KX were taken from the top surface	56
Figure 5.3 SEM photomicrographs of a new 500k membrane at 10 KX, 20 KX, 30KX, 50 KX, 100 KX were taken from the cross section	57
Figure 5.4 Calibration curves of gas flow meters no.1 and no.2, respectively.	58
Figure 5.5 Fluxes at different trans-membrane pressures and at different aeration amounts (MWCO=100k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3)	58
Figure 5.6 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-20 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3)	59
Figure 5.7 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-40 cmHg,         MWCO=500k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3)	59
Figure 5.8 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-60 cmHg,         MWCO=500k, θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3)	60
Figure 5.9 Flux behavior in a long period (θ= 900, C0.8μm PMMA = 3 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	60
Figure 5.10 Different retention rates at different trans-membrane pressure differences (θ= 900, C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, G = 0L/min)	61
Figure 5.11 Different retention rates at different aeration amounts (ΔP=-30 cmHg, C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, θ= 900)	61
Figure 5.12 Fluxes at different trans-membrane pressures (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, G = 0 L/min, θ= 900)	62
Figure 5.13 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900)	62
Figure 5.14 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900)	63
Figure 5.15 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k & 500k, θ= 900)	63
Figure 5.16 Different retention rates at different inclined angles (ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3)	64
Figure 5.17 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 + C0.8μmPMMA =1 kg/m3 + 0.5 kg/m3 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k , θ= 900)	64
Figure 5.18 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 + C0.8μmPMMA =1 kg/m3 + 0.5 kg/m3 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900)	65
Figure 5.19 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k , θ= 900)	65
Figure 5.20 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k , θ= 900)	66
Figure 5.21 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 , C0.8μmPMMA= 0.75 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900)	66
Figure 5.22 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 , C0.8μmPMMA= 0.75 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900)	67
Figure 5.23 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.5 kg/m3, C0.8μmPMMA= 1 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k, θ= 900)	67
Figure 5.24 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C Dextran T500=0.5 kg/m3, C0.8μmPMMA= 1 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 900)	68
Figure 5.25 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C0.8μmPMMA= 1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 900)  is the flux of pure water of 100k MWCO	68
Figure 5.26 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C0.8μmPMMA= 1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=500k, θ= 1600)	69
Figure 5.27 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (C0.8μmPMMA= 0.75 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 1600)	69
Figure 5.28 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 900)	70
Figure 5.29 Fluxes at different aeration amounts ( C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 1600)	70
Figure 5.30 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	71
Figure 5.31 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	71
Figure 5.32 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	72
Figure 5.33 Fluxes at different aeration amounts (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	72
Figure 5.34 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 , MWCO=100k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	73
Figure 5.35 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	73
Figure 5.36 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μm PMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=100k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	74
Figure 5.37 Fluxes at a periodic suction method (operation: 8 min; pause: 2 min) of different aeration amounts (C0.16μm MMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, MWCO=500k, ΔP= -60 cmHg, θ= 1600)	74
Figure 5.38 Size distribution report by intensity of Dextran water solution CDextran T500=0.75 kg/m3 (by TREKINTAL CORP.)	75
Figure 5.39 Size distribution report by intensity of PMMA water solution C0.8μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 (by TREKINTAL CORP.)	75
Figure 5.40 Size distribution report by intensity of PMMA water solution C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 (by TREKINTAL CORP.)	76
Figure 5.41 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	76
Figure 5.42 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	77
Figure 5.43 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	77
Figure 5.44 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	78
Figure 5.45 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	78
Figure 5.46 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	79
Figure 5.47 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	79
Figure 5.48 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	80
Figure 5.49 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	80
Figure 5.50 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	81
Figure 5.51 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	81
Figure 5.52 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3& C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=4 L/min)	82
Figure 5.53 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	82
Figure 5.54 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	83
Figure 5.55 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	83
Figure 5.56 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	84
Figure 5.57 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	84
Figure 5.58 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the top surface (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	85
Figure 5.59 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 1KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	85
Figure 5.60 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 1KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	86
Figure 5.61 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	86
Figure 5.62 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 30KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	87
Figure 5.63 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	87
Figure 5.64 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 50KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	88
Figure 5.65 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	88
Figure 5.66 SEM photomicrograph of the cake on 500k membrane at 100KX was taken from the cross section (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 1600, C0.16μmPMMA= 7.5 kg/m3 & C Dextran T500=0.75 kg/m3, G=0 L/min)	89
Figure 5.67 Different resistances at different pressure differences (ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 900, C0.8μmPMMA= 3 kg/m3)	89
Figure 5.68 Different resistances at different pressure differences (ΔP=-30 cmHg, θ= 900, G= 0 L/min)	90
Figure 5.69 Different resistances at different inclination angles and aeration rates (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-30 cmHg, C0.8μmPMMA= 1.5 kg/m3)	90
Figure 5.70 Different resistances at different solute compositions and aeration rates (MWCO=500k, ΔP=-60 cmHg, θ= 900)	91
Figure 5.71 Bubble sizes at the gas flow rate of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 L/min	92
Figure 5.72 Different bubble velocities at different aeration rates (the inclination angle of the module is 900)	93
Figure 5.73 The tendency of that boundary layer thickness decreases with the increasing flux (100k MWCO the inclination angle of the module is 900) (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k , θ= 900)	93
Figure 5.74 Different experimental fluxs and theoretical fluxes were at different aeration rates. (μ:Cb, D:Cb) means that the viscosity(μ) and diffusivity(D) are calculated in the calculation of flux all by using the mean concentration (Cb) in the boundary layer; (μ:Ci, D:Cb) means that μ &D are calculated by using the initial feed concentration(Ci) and Cb respectively; (μ:Ci, D:Cm) means that μ &D are calculated by using the Ci and the concentration on the membrane surface (Cm) respectively. (C Dextran T500 =1.5 kg/m3, ΔP=-30 cmHg, MWCO=100k , θ= 900)	94

 
Tables

Table 4.1 The list of the flat sheet membrane characteristics	36
Table 5.1 Pure water fluxes of new membranes at different trans-membrane pressures	89 
Table 5.2Size ave and zetapotential of PMMA water solution ( C0.16μm PMMA = 0.75 kg/m3) and DEXTRAN water solution(C Dextran T500 = 0.75 kg/m3) and PMMA& DEXTRAN combined water solution by Malvern Zatamaster ( an instrument measuring size and zetapotential)		89
Table 5.3 Experimental parameters in the flux-time experiments. (8;2) means operation: 8min, pause 2min.(0-4) means the aeration is 0 L/min in operation and 4L/min in pause	90
Table 5.4 Different Rfp at different membrane MWCOs, aeration amounts and transmembrane pressure differences	91
Table 5.5 Different Rfp at different solute species and concentrations, membrane MWCOs, and transmembrane pressure differences	91
Table 5.6 Different Rfp at different aeration amounts, and inclined angles	92
Table 5.7 Different Rfp at different solute species and concentrations, and aeration amounts	92
Table 5.8 Data of estimating the rise velocity of bubble	93
Table 5.9 Concentration boundary layer thickness obtained from boundary-layer model	93
Table 5.10 Different fluxes obtained from concentration polarization model	93

Cheryan, M. (1998). Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook. Pennslvania: Technomic Inc.
Côté, P., Buisson, H., Pound, C., & Arakaki, G. (1997). Immersed  membrane activated sludge for the reuse of municipal wastewater. Desalination, 113(2-3), 189-196. 
Defrance, L., & JaffrinMember of Institut Universitaire de France.,M.Y. (1999). Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 152(2), 203-210. 
Eikelboom, D. H. (1993). High performance bioreactor, a physiological approach to wastewater treatment with zero sludge production by complete retention. Japan- Netherlands Workshop on Integrated Water Management, 
Fane, A. G., & Cho, B. D. (2002). Fouling transients in nominally sub-critical flux operation of a membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science, 209(2), 391-403. 
Field, R. W., Wu, D., Howell, J. A., & Gupta, B. B. (1995). Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 100(3), 259-272. 
Flemming, H., Schaule, G., Griebe, T., Schmitt, J., & Tamachkiarowa, A. (1997). Biofouling -- the Achilles heel of membrane processes. Desalination, 113(2-3), 215-225. 
Gander, M., Jefferson, B., & Judd, S. (2000). Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment: a review with cost considerations. Separation and Purification Technology, 18(2), 119-130. 
Gui, P., Huang, X., Chen, Y., & Qian, Y. (2003). Effect of operational parameters on sludge accumulation on membrane surfaces in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 151(2), 185-194. 
Kedem, O., & A. Katchalsky. (1961). A physical interpretation of the phenomenological coefficients of membrane permeaility. The Journal of General Physiology, 45, 143.
Krishna, R., Urseanu, M. I., van Baten, J. M., & Ellenberger, J. (1999). Rise velocity of a swarm of large gas bubbles in liquids. Chemical Engineering Science, 54(2), 171-183. 
Kwon, D. Y., Vigneswaran, S., Fane, A. G., & Aim, R. B. (2000). Experimental determination of critical flux in cross-flow microfiltration. Separation and Purification Technology, 19(3), 169. 
Li, L. N. (2002). A Study on Gas-Liquid Two-phase Ultrafiltration in Inclined Flat-Plate Membrane Modules. Taipei: Master thesis of Graduate Institute of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University (in Chinese) 
Lin, C. T. (2001). Membrane Ultrafiltration for Suspension Solutions of Macromolecules. Taipei: Master thesis of Graduate Institute of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University (in Chinese) 
Michaels, A. S. (1968). New separation techique for the chemical process industries. Chemical Engineering Progress, 64, 31-43. 
Nagaoka, H., Ueda, S., & Miya, A. (1996). Influence of bacterial extracellular polymers on the membrane separation activated sludge process. Water Science and Technology, 34(9), 165-172. 
Nakao, S., Nomura, T., & Kimura S. (1979). Characteristics of macrocular gel layer formed on ultrafiltration tubular membrane. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, 25, 615-622. 
Ognier, S., Wisniewski, C., & Grasmick, A. (2004). Membrane bioreactor fouling in sub-critical filtration conditions: a local critical flux concept. Journal of Membrane Science, 229(1-2), 171-177. 
Pan, S. Y. (2003). A study on the Critical Flux of Submerged Membrane Filtration System. Taipei: Master thesis of Graduate Institute of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University (in Chinese). 
Schlichting, H., Gersten, K., Krause, E., & Oertel, H. J. (2000). Boundary-layerTheory. Berlin: Springer.
Schweitzer, P. A. (1997). Handbook of Separation Techniques for Chemical Engineers (Third Edition ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shimizu, Y., Okuno, Y., Uryu, K., Ohtsubo, S., & Watanabe, A. (1996). Filtration characteristics of hollow fiber microfiltration membranes used in membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment. Water Research, 30(10), 2385-2392. 
Sondhi, R., & Bhave, R. (2001). Role of backpulsing in fouling minimization in crossflow filtration with ceramic membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 186(1), 41-52. 
Ueda, T., Hata, K., Kikuoka, Y., & Seino, O. (1997). Effects of aeration on suction pressure in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Water Research, 31(3), 489-494. 
van Dijk, L., & Roncken, G. C. G. (1997). Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: the state of the art and new developments. Water Science and Technology, 35(10), 35-41. 
Wijmans, J. G., Nakao, S., van den Berg,J. W. A., Troelstra, F. R., & Smolders, C. A. (1985). Hydrodynamic Resistance of Concentration Polarization Boundary Layers in Ultrafiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 22, 117.
Wintgens, T., Rosen, J., Melin, T., Brepols, C., Drensla, K., & Engelhardt, N. (2003). Modelling of a membrane bioreactor system for municipal wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 216(1-2), 55-65. 
Yeh, H. M., & Cheng, T. W. (1999). Analysis of the slip effect on the permeate flux in membrane ultrafiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 154(1), 41-51.