&lt;b&gt;Cake formation and the decreased performance of whey ultrafiltration

Brião, Vandré Barbosa; Seguenka, Bruna; Zanon, Caroline Dalcin; Milani, Adriana Rosa

doi:10.4025/actascitechnol.v39i5.27585

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The C20F membrane had a sharp decrease in the beginning that transitioned into a pseudo steady state mode and ended with a profile that followed the RC70PP and C5F. The sharp decrease in the beginning was probably caused by the formation of a cake on the surface as seen and explained by Brião et al [28] and Hwang et al [29]. The C30F had a larger MWCO than the C20F: thus, it was expected to have an overall higher flux based on this and the higher PWF seen in Figure 5.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we compared the GR51PP (hydrophobic/polysulfone) membrane with a series of hydrophilic (regenerated cellulose) membranes with the aim of increasing the retention of products and decreasing membrane fouling. The raw material used was a sodium-based spent sulfite liquor from the sulfite pulping process of spruce and pine. The results show that the hydrophilic membranes were superior to the hydrophobic membranes in terms of higher fluxes (up to twice the magnitude), higher product retentions and less fouling (up to five times lower fouling). The fouling was probably caused by pore blocking as observed in earlier studies. However, the hydrophilic membranes had a lower affinity for lignin, which was indicated by the lower retention and fouling. This also resulted in a separation degree, which was higher compared with the hydrophobic membrane, thus yielding a higher galactoglucomannan (GGM) purity. 2D HSQC NMR results show that no major structural differences were present in the hydrophilic and hydrophobic retentates. A techno-economical evaluation resulted in the RC70PP being chosen as the most cost-efficient membrane in terms of flux and product recovery.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pressures of 1.5 and 2.5 bar present different flux development, and consequently different forms of fouling. At the lowest pressure (1.5 bar), pore blockage occurs simultaneously with cake formation and at the highest pressure (2.5 bar) (Figure 3), pore blockage occurs at the first moment, causing a drastic reduction in permeate flux within initial minutes of UF, and after that a slow drop, by cake formation as the solutes are deposited on the membrane (Brião et al, 2017). The Ho and Zydney (2000) model (Equation ( 6)) fit experimental data better for 1.5 bar with R 2 = .9876 compared with 2.5 bar where R 2 = .9208.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of ultrafiltration in the separation of hydrolysates from mechanically separated chicken meat and evaluation of antioxidant activity

Sbeghen

Lira

Fernandes

et al. 2022

J Food Process Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hydrolysate from mechanically separated chicken meat (MSCM) was separated by an ultrafiltration (UF) membrane and the total protein and antioxidant activity of the resulting fractions were evaluated. The enzymatic hydrolysis was carried out at 58°C, pH 8.5, and 4.62% enzyme (w/w), with 3 h reaction time. For the separation, a flat membrane (4 kDa) of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) was used, operating tangentially, at pressures of 1.5 and 2.5 bar at 45°C. The retentate and permeate from the UF were analyzed in relation to total protein and antioxidant activity. The permeate flux was evaluated and experimental data fitted by Ho and Zydney's mathematical model to study the fouling phenomenon. The pressure of 2.5 bar resulted in high total protein content and low inhibitory concentration (IC50) value when compared with 1.5 bar. The UF pressures showed different permeate and fouling flux behavior. At 1.5 bar there was a flux reduction by simultaneous cake formation and pore blocking, while at 2.0 bar, there was pore blocking followed by cake formation during the process. The Ho and Zydney model showed the best fit at 1.5 bar with R2 of .9876. According to the results obtained, the hydrolysate showed antioxidant properties with potential for application in foods. Practical applications The poultry industry has stood out in recent decades mainly due to technological advances, making poultry price very competitive, leading to a high consumption of this meat by the population. However, the preference for more noble cuts of chicken meat, such as breast, and thigh, means that in the processing carried out by the industries there is a large production of mechanically separated meat (MSM). MSM is usually used in the production of mortadella, sausages, and others. In addition, it is possible to use MSM to produce protein hydrolysates in order to obtain bioactive peptides, which have functional properties such as antioxidants. Bioactive peptides may have different characteristics due to their molecular size. Thus, the use of membranes can be interesting since they make it possible to separate hydrolysates from MSM to obtain peptides of different sizes which may have different properties, thus being able to add value to this by‐product.

show abstract

“…In state of the art, the use of UF membranes concerning their pore size and surface charge for the fractionation of the dairy components is accepted as a promising process especially in the valorisation of whey protein. However, due to the presence of a large number of proteins such as bovine serum albumin, ᾰ- and ß-lactoglobulin in the dairy wastewater can limit the use of the UF membrane, which contributes towards the severe membrane fouling (Barukčić et al 2015 ; Brião et al 2017 ). In a recent study (Damar et al 2020 ), the whey protein recovery was investigated using different commercially available UF membranes with different characteristics.…”

Section: Protein Recovery By Membrane Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Protein recovery as a resource from waste specifically via membrane technology—from waste to wonder

Shahid

Srivastava

2021

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic growth and the rapid increase in the world population has led to a greater need for natural resources, which in turn, has put pressure on said resources along with the environment. Water, food, and energy, among other resources, pose a huge challenge. Numerous essential resources, including organic substances and valuable nutrients, can be found in wastewater, and these could be recovered with efficient technologies. Protein recovery from waste streams can provide an alternative resource that could be utilized as animal feed. Membrane separation, adsorption, and microbe-assisted protein recovery have been proposed as technologies that could be used for the aforementioned protein recovery. This present study focuses on the applicability of different technologies for protein recovery from different wastewaters. Membrane technology has been proven to be efficient for the effective concentration of proteins from waste sources. The main emphasis of the present short communication is to explore the possible strategies that could be utilized to recover or restore proteins from different wastewater sources. The presented study emphasizes the applicability of the recovery of proteins from various waste sources using membranes and the combination of the membrane process. Future research should focus on novel technologies that can help in the efficient extraction of these high-value compounds from wastes. Lastly, this short communication will evaluate the possibility of integrating membrane technology. This study will discuss the important proteins present in different industrial waste streams, such as those of potatoes, poultry, dairy, seafood and alfalfa, and the possible state of the art technologies for the recovery of these valuable proteins from the wastewater. Graphical abstract

show abstract

<b>Cake formation and the decreased performance of whey ultrafiltration

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations

Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations

Use of ultrafiltration in the separation of hydrolysates from mechanically separated chicken meat and evaluation of antioxidant activity

Protein recovery as a resource from waste specifically via membrane technology—from waste to wonder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About