A guide to making your own membrane skid for not very much money

I truly think I offer the best membrane skids on the market currently, in terms of hardware quality, engineering, energy use, automation, etc.

However, not everyone needs a fancy peer reviewed skid. Some people operate DIY everything. I’ve been there many times in my life. Many times I had to come up with a solution without a lot of money, and I didn’t care about peer reviews. So for everyone in the DIY mode, here is a guide to making a simplified membrane system without a lot of money, featuring detailed analysis of one such system I actually made and used myself for r&d.

Though I may even be cutting into my own business by posting this info, my hope is it will pay off because the more people doing their own membrane R&D, better and better membrane solutions will be identified, and that benefits everyone in the end, as long as it’s being open-sourced!

Here is a picture of the overall system:

So you can see, the order goes as follows. First, the feed pump draws solution out of a drum. Then the feed pump outputs that through a pressure gauge and flow meter into a housing. The housing has two outputs, the retentate and the permeate. The permeate goes into a new drum. The retentate then goes to an adjustable pressure relief valve, which controls the system pressure. Then the de-pressurized retentate goes through a heat exchanger to remove waste heat, and finally, it goes back into the source drum.

The pump I use here is the Hydracell D10, which can go up to about 9 gpm and 1500 psi (not that i’m running it that high). I like it a lot, the flow is pretty pulseless and the manufacturer unambiguously certifies it for solvent use. I got this for ~4k. Ethos and KOTK both use CAT pumps, I think they maybe a little cheaper but not by much. When I wrote to CAT pumps they wouldn’t declare it safe for solvents. Probably, it is fine. Another pump I’ve been interested in but haven’t tried is Danfoss.

I got this housing from China, and the quality is really good. The end caps clamp easily and it holds up to 1000 psi no problem at all. The O-rings it came with were silicone but I replace them with Viton. This cost about $400 and I can source them for people if they want. Tri-Clamp and Swagelok are both available, as well as bare tube if you want to do something different.

I’m running one housing here, but you can daisy-chain them for fairly linear growth in rates. Up to 4, probably up to 8 without appreciable problems, at least when running high pressure solvent recovery. I run winterization at a lower pressure and there you might run into problems stretching it so far. You lose about 15 psi per housing from start to finish.

I got this PRV from McMaster-Carr, and it is limited to 700 psi so that’s the hard limit on this particular system. They made a 1200 psi one which I wish I had got instead, but most of the membranes I use are rated to 600 psi so it didn’t really matter. You can see the flow meter, also from McMaster-Carr on there.

A heat exchanger is necessary, one because the pump generates waste heat, and also because the temperature of the fluid controls features of the permeation and this can be intentionally manipulated. I got this heat exchanger off amazon for $100. It’s only rated to 450 psi, so I put it after the PRV – what i’d really like to do is run it directly after the pump before the membrane. StandardXchange makes quite affordable 1000 psi heat exchangers. That’s what I use on my X-Spirals and you can get one for less than $1000 certainly.

So then we get to the membranes myself. In the old days nobody wanted to touch this application besides Evonik and they were expensive AF. That is no longer the case. Here is a very incomplete list of some much cheaper vendors who sell ethanol compatible membranes:

Synder (I use these most of the time)
Dupont (Ethos uses these)
Alfa Laval (come in wonky sizes slightly too large for standard housings)
Microdyne-Nadir
Koch
Permionics

There’s a lot more out there and there’s no reason for us to be hiding our selections at this point. Some companies made a killing by identifying cheap membranes, refusing to tell their clients what they were, taking the labels off and reselling for 10x the price. If you buy a skid and the person won’t tell you what brand of membranes you’re getting, it’s a sure sign they are pulling this maneuver! All of these are under $1000 per 2540, and most are under $500.

When you want to try a membrane, read the membrane data sheet – it should identify a maximum pressure and a recommended crossflow. Make sure you can deliver the recommended crossflow and preferably a little more on top, because we are running some very gunky materials here compared to the typical desalination application.

88 Likes

Ooooo

5 Likes

Hell yeah

Let’s test some mf-ing membranes

9 Likes

You’re the FUCKING MAN!!! Definitely getting a MOM mention from me for next month! I bet some asses are going to be chapped at this!

33 Likes

The part of this that I could use some guidance on is selecting the membrane size by application; what’s appropriate for dewaxing in alkane, what’s appropriate for solvent removal, what about terpene isolation? Since you’re handing out spoons lol

13 Likes

I don’t claim to have perfect solutions, but I know the following vendors work in alkanes:

Evonik
Borsig
Solsep
Inopor

I am working with another company hopefully deploying some new ones but I don’t want to mention them because they haven’t done their internal vetting yet.

10 Likes

I agree on this point.

The dual pump system that your system runs is the proper way to run one of these, I think. That feature is definitely cost prohibitive to DIY though.

6 Likes

Yeah, as well this DIY setup can only really be run batch style, and generates significant heat from the pump. In the picture, you see an aquarium pump I used with bags of ice, but it couldn’t keep up – you definitely need active cooling.

3 Likes

Yeah I remember the D10 on that Sterlitech skid definitely dumped a ton of heat into the process.

[Fuck Sterlitech, BTW, in case I haven’t said that today.]

Believe we ran a lil’janky air conditioner chiller loop on it, but it couldn’t keep up.

6 Likes

I didn’t really answer this question directly now that I think about it.

The issue with pore sizes is that the companies cannot actually measure these pores. Instead, they run reference material and test the rejection, and based on this data they report a “pore size range”. Now, that pore size range is only relevant when you’re running something chemically similar to what they did those tests on – and in our industry, that’s never!

So for instance Evonik will say it’s Duramem 200 has a pore size of 200 Da. Should reject cannabinoids and chlorophyll just fine, right? Well no not really. In fact it permeates impurities like crazy in ethanol. Well if you drill in you’ll see what they actually mean is it rejects 200 Da polystyrene dissolved in acetone – they couldn’t tell you what it would do with ethanol.

Contrariwise Synder NFX rates itself as “150-300” (by which they actually mean it rejects electrolytes of that size, dissolved in water) – you would think that wouldn’t do a great job of rejecting cannabinoids, but it actually not only rejects all the cannabinoids, but almost all of the terpenes – functions tighter rejecting organics in ethanol than it did rejecting ions in water.

So the unfortunate thing is that these pores can only be used as a relative measure, within a single brand, and a single chemistry within that brand. A lot of experimental testing is required.

16 Likes

From an energy consumption standpoint this isn’t the most efficient way to do it

2 pumps will always be more energy then 1

Also, pneumatic pressure jumps effect permeation rates by a ton from what I’ve seen

This is what I was figuring would be the answer, although I do sincerely appreciate the insight on how exactly the rating is performed.

On the pressure spiking issue, that’s what they make accumulators and dampeners. I would imagine an undampened DSF would not make for happy membranes.

2 Likes

Actually its the opposite

Cat pumps are more expensive

Hydracells also have oil directly behind the diaphragms so if a seal gives out youll get oil in your solution

Cat pumps have a void between the oil section and the pump so if the oil seals give out it doesn’t go into your solution

This is why we use Cat pumps over Hydracell

4 Likes

Not necessarily pumps can be ran in series and parallel. It’s actually more common than most think.

You obviously haven’t seen the skids we build…

If you’re using a feed pump to feed your high pressure pump it will always be more energy then if you’re just using the high pressure pump to push

2 Likes

Gravity fed?

2 Likes

Oh, look, a spreadsheet!

Let’s compare:

  • One pump pushing 7 GPM at 1000 PSI into a process loop to replace the ethanol you’ve desolvated
  • Which has a second pump generating a flow of 100 GPM, and which only has to generate 100 PSI to make up the membrane pressure drop (you could actually probably even have it be a 0 PSI dP pump and have the primary one do all of the pressure work but that’s beyond the scope of this post)

image

VS:

  • One pump pumping 100 GPM from 0-1000 PSI

image

These aren’t the exact pumps I’d use, mostly because the Hydra-Cells can’t handle the high inlet pressure.

But the basic math checks out no matter the pump manufacturer.

8 Likes

I don’t need too. You already said the pump is oversized. Have you done a simulation with your system through CAD? PUMP OVER SIZING: CAUSES, EFFECTS, DETECTION AND REMEDIES - EnergyzedWorld

3 Likes

The pump isn’t over sized the motor is to accommodate for higher flow with more surface area, each size membrane has a specific max flow it can take before the membrane can become unstable

1 Like

Except the 100 gpm 1000 psi pump isn’t going to be pushing 100 gpm, it’ll be pushing a little over 8.5 gpm to make up for the lost permeate and the crude that comes out of the end of the system

So 68.5 x (100/8.5) which would be wayy under your power requirements

Youre also forgetting about the inefficiency of the motor, 2 motors = 2x the inefficiency

It takes 68.5 hp to make 100 gpm at 1000 psi, if you wanted your 7 gpm pump to inject solution into this loop you’d need it to generate a higher pressure then the system loop (regardless of the pressure differential) you can’t push 7 gpm into a system at 1000 psi with 100 psi, you need more then what the systems at which is why it’ll always be more inefficient especially once you get into large centrifugal that slip when they create high pressures (more inefficiencies)

At 7 gpm and 1050 psi you’d need 5 hp to push that 7 gpm into the system on top of the 68.5 hp you already need

3 Likes