Efficiency of removal of whey protein from sweet whey using polymeric microfiltration membranes

Abstract

Our objective was to measure whey protein removal percentage from separated sweet whey using spiral-wound (SW) polymeric microfiltration (MF) membranes using a 3-stage, 3× process at 50°C and to compare the performance of polymeric membranes with ceramic membranes. Pasteurized, separated Cheddar cheese whey (1,080 kg) was microfiltered using a polymeric 0.3-μm polyvinylidene (PVDF) fluoride SW membrane and a 3×, 3-stage MF process. Cheese making and whey processing were replicated 3 times. There was no detectable level of lactoferrin and no intact α-or β-casein detected in the MF permeate from the 0.3-μm SW PVDF membranes used in this study. We found BSA and IgG in both the retentate and permeate. The β-lactoglobulin (β-LG) and α-lactalbumin (α-LA) partitioned between retentate and permeate, but β-LG passage through the membrane was retarded more than α-LA because the ratio of β-LG to α-LA was higher in the MF retentate than either in the sweet whey feed or the MF permeate. About 69% of the crude protein present in the pasteurized separated sweet whey was removed using a 3×, 3-stage, 0.3-μm SW PVDF MF process at 50°C compared with 0.1-μm ceramic graded permeability MF that removed about 85% of crude protein from sweet whey. The polymeric SW membranes used in this study achieve approximately 20% lower yield of whey protein isolate (WPI) and a 50% higher yield of whey protein phospholipid concentrate (WPPC) under the same MF processing conditions as ceramic MF membranes used in the comparison study. Total gross revenue from the sale of WPI plus WPPC produced with polymeric versus ceramic membranes is influenced by both the absolute market price for each product and the ratio of market price of these 2 products. The combination of the market price of WPPC versus WPI and the influence of difference in yield of WPPC and WPI produced with polymeric versus ceramic membranes yielded a price ratio of WPPC versus WPI of 0.556 as the cross over point that determined which membrane type achieves higher total gross revenue return from production of these 2 products from separated sweet whey. A complete economic engineering study comparison of the WPI and WPPC manufacturing costs for polymeric versus ceramic MF membranes is needed to determine the effect of membrane material selection on long-term processing costs, which will affect net revenue and profit when the same quantity of sweet whey is processed under various market price conditions.

Cold Microfiltration as an Enabler of Sustainable Dairy Protein Ingredient Innovation

“…The authors suggested that the difference observed were, in part, due to the hydrophilic nature of ceramic membranes resulting in lower protein adsorption to the membrane when compared to the hydrophobic polymeric membrane. Similar results have since been reported by Carter et al [13] and Beckman et al [42].…”

“…Besides, the choice of membrane material, the cost associated with purchasing the membrane, cost of installation and operation, and the expected membrane lifetime are often the main factors determining membrane choice. The differences between polymeric and ceramic membranes in terms of milk protein fractionation has received some attention in recent years [10,11], with the efficiency of removal of serum proteins often being higher for ceramic membranes [12,13].…”

State-of-the-Art Organic- and Inorganic-Based Hollow Fiber Membranes in Liquid and Gas Applications: Looking Back and Beyond

“…It is widely utilized to purify or separate macromolecules and suspended particles from a liquid mixture [ 208 ]. MF separation process is often employed for wastewater treatment [ 209 , 210 ] and the purification of process streams for biotechnology purposes [ 211 , 212 , 213 ].…”

Development and physicochemical properties of reformulated, high-protein, untempered sugar-free dark chocolates with addition of whey protein isolate and erythritol

“…Production of high-protein preparations from whey using the novel separation techniques have been and still being developed in a cost-effective manner. As a consequence, membrane techniques require smaller energy consumption giving larger yields (Carter, DiMarzio, Pranata, Barbano, & Drake, 2021;Smithers, 2015). In turn, recent years brought microbial production of polyols from low-cost substrates via the green routes using biotechnological applications.…”