Impact of hollow fiber membrane length on the milk protein fractionation

Comparative Assessment of Tubular Ceramic, Spiral Wound, and Hollow Fiber Membrane Microfiltration Module Systems for Milk Protein Fractionation

“…SWM had high frictional effects, due to the module design with spacer geometry on the retentate side [ 26 ]. In contrast, CTM and HFM have free flow channel cross-sections [ 19 ]. For this reason, the pressure drop, ∆ p L , in CTM and HTM is lower than in SWM.…”

“…Figure 1 shows the typical relationship for flux over the ∆ p TM for HFM [ 19 ], SWM [ 11 ], and CTM [ 6 ]. Increasing ∆ p TM leads to a flux increase before the curve starts to level off (critical flux level), then approaching an upper level referred to as limiting flux [ 36 ].…”

“…The milk pH was 6.6 for all experiments. Table 1 shows the viscosity, η , and density, φ , of deionized water, skim milk, and the microfiltration permeate measured according to Schopf et al [ 19 ].…”

“…The deposit formation of retained matter is an issue in all membrane systems, as reported for HFM [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ], CTM [ 1 , 6 , 7 ], and SWM [ 9 , 11 ]; however, at different levels due to the different flow channel configurations. Deposit formation strongly impairs flux and the desired high whey protein mass flow, which is a key aspect in milk protein fractionation [ 7 ].…”

“…In previous studies, we have reported on MF-based milk protein fractionation by HFM [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ], however with another perspective on fundamental aspects of deposit formation; therefore, small lab scale modules have been utilized. We also demonstrated that the length dependency in HFM is equal to that of CTM, and that the length-dependent pressure drop is responsible for inhomogeneous fouling along the HFM [ 19 ]. Data for milk protein fractionation using industrially-sized HFM modules are still lacking.…”