Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Process to Produce Micellar Casein and Milk Protein Concentrates with 80% Crude Protein Content: Partitioning of Various Protein Fractions and Constituents

Abstract

The objective of the study reported in this research paper was to produce micellar casein concentrate (MCC) and milk protein concentrate (MPC) with 80% crude protein relative to total solids (TS) using MF and UF processes respectively. Additionally, capillary gel electrophoresis (CGE) was used to study the protein fractions in retentate and permeate. For MCC production, 227 L of pasteurized SM was subjected to MF using 0.5-micron spiral wound polyvinylidene fluoride membrane. During the process, diafiltration (DF) water was added at six intervals, totaling 100% of the feed volume. For MPC production, 227 L of pasteurized SM from the same lot was subjected to UF using 10 kDa Polyethersulfone membranes. During the process, DF water was added at four different intervals, with a final total addition of 40% of the feed volume. Both processes used a volume reduction of five. There were significant (p < 0.05) differences in all of the compositional parameters, except fat and casein for the MF retentate (MFR) and UF retentate (UFR). UFR had a higher crude protein (CP), TS, lactose, ash and calcium content as compared to MFR and this affected the CP/TS ratio found in both the retentates. The differences in membrane pore sizes, operating pressures and level of DF used all contributed to the differences in final CP/TS ratio obtained. The CGE analysis of individual protein fractions present in the UFR and MFR showed that UFR has a β-lactaglobulin to α-lactalbumin (α-LA) ratio similar to SM, whereas the MFR has a higher ratio, indicating preferential transmission for α-LA by the MF membrane. The results from this study show that MF and UF processes could be used for production of MCC and MPC with similar CP/TS ratio with careful selection of operating parameters, and that CGE can be used for detailed analysis of various protein fractions.

Optimization of Spiral-Wound Microfiltration Process Parameters for the Production of Micellar Casein Concentrate

“…Both TMP and DF used in the study had a significant effect on O flux. This observation is similar to the results reported by Salunke and others [3]. The highest O flux of 23.61 LMH was obtained at the lowest TMP used in the study.…”

“…From the data presented, it is also clear that at higher operating pressures, DF becomes less effective in influencing the process flux rates. The lowest flux rates obtained in control runs at all the three pressures may be because, as higher concentrations of rejected solids build up in the retentate, the polarization of membrane becomes more pronounced and dictates the permeation characteristics of the membrane, making the process operate in a pressure-independent region [3,7]. DF showed a considerable influence on the process flux rates, especially at the lower pressures used in the study.…”

“…Commonly used membrane processes in the dairy industry are microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO). The MF process uses porous membranes with a porosity of 0.1 to 2 µm [2] and is extensively used in the defatting of whey stream in the production of whey protein isolates [3]. The interest in using MF in micellar casein concentrate (MCC) production has increased recently [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Use of micellar casein concentrate and milk protein concentrate treated with transglutaminase in imitation cheese products—Unmelted texture

“…In contrast, MCC is obtained from microfiltration (MF) of skim milk. The MCC produced in an MF-based process has a higher level of intact casein and a reduced level of WP compared with MPC (Carter et al, 2021;Salunke et al, 2021). In earlier work, we observed that PC produced using MCC had a desirable texture and viscosity compared with PC produced using MPC (Metzger, 2007;Salunke andMetzger, 2008, 2022a).…”

“…In the United States, MPC is manufactured with a total protein level (on a DM basis) ranging from 56 to 85% (Marella et al, 2013). The protein in MPC is Use of micellar casein concentrate and milk protein concentrate treated with transglutaminase in imitation cheese products-Unmelted texture a mixture of caseins and whey proteins (WP) in the same ratio as in milk (Carter et al, 2021;Salunke et al, 2021). The use of MPC in PC and IMC formulations can lead to defects such as a weak body and soft texture, low cooked viscosity, and restricted melting properties (Kapoor and Metzger, 2008;Salunke and Metzger, 2022a,b).…”