Figures Legends:
Figure 1: Flux excursion data presented as permeate flux (J) vs. TMP by feed flow rate and concentration
Figure 2: Permeate flux versus feed concentration at a TMP of 15psi for three different flow rates, where k =- m and Cw= x-intercept
Figure 3: Effect of feed flow rate (Q) on the mass transfer coefficient (k) and wall concentration (Cw) A) k vs Q fit by the simplified Sherwood number in equation 3.6 and B) Cw vs Q fit linearly by mQ+b
Figure 4: Predicted output concentration versus feed flux by stages of equal surface area with overlaid experimental data obtained at feed fluxes of 68 and 116 LMH
Figure 5: Stagnant film modeling at low flow rates and feed concentrations A) predicted conversion and concentration versus feed flux, and B) predicted conversion versus feed flux by feed concentration
Figure 6: Stagnant film modeled parameters with additional flux excursion data performed at 7.2 and 18.7 LMH A) Permeate flux versus feed concentration at a TMP of 15 psi for five different feed flow fluxes, B) k vs Q fit with equation 3.6 for the full range of flux excursion data (7.2-136 LMH, dashed line) vs only the higher fluxes (34-126LMH, solid line) and C) Cw vs Q fit with a linear regression for 34-126LMH (solid line) vs a power regression for 7.2-136 LMH (dashed line)
Figure 7: Experimentally determined vs stagnant film modeled conversion (A) and output concentration (B) vs feed flux of a one membrane system with a feed concentration of 5.4 mg/mL
Figure 8: (A) Cw calculated according to equation 4.2 with the experimentally determined permeate flux from the experiment shown in Fig.7 and k from the slope of the J vs ln(Cb) graph, (B) k calculated according to equation 4.3 the experimentally determined J from the experiment shown in Fig.7 and Cwfrom the x-intercept of the J vs ln(Cb) graph
Figure 9: Trend of mAb Viscosity as a function of mAb concentration