1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0376-7388(97)00013-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting limiting flux of skim milk in crossflow microfiltration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
50
0
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
3
50
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Experiments with polymeric and ceramic membranes of pore size 0.54/0.87 and 1.0 m, respectively, were reported by Guerra et al [8]; no protein retention was observed, and a trans-membrane pressure was found above which flux decreased with increasing pressure. Tubular ceramic membranes, of relatively small pore size, were used in studies dealing with the prediction of limiting flux [9] and whey protein cross-flow microfiltration was the subject of recently published work on the effect of critical flux on fouling [10,11]. The reduction of spores and bacteria in milk, utilizing crossflow microfiltration and ceramic membranes has been an early research objective [12,13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Experiments with polymeric and ceramic membranes of pore size 0.54/0.87 and 1.0 m, respectively, were reported by Guerra et al [8]; no protein retention was observed, and a trans-membrane pressure was found above which flux decreased with increasing pressure. Tubular ceramic membranes, of relatively small pore size, were used in studies dealing with the prediction of limiting flux [9] and whey protein cross-flow microfiltration was the subject of recently published work on the effect of critical flux on fouling [10,11]. The reduction of spores and bacteria in milk, utilizing crossflow microfiltration and ceramic membranes has been an early research objective [12,13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding ceramic membranes, there is already evidence in the literature [8] that the main targets (i.e. very high microbial, and very low protein, rejection) can be achieved with nominal pore sizes near 1.0 m, whereas protein retention and fouling tend to be significant [9,10] in the pore size range 0.1-0.2 m, unless one wishes to employ high crossflow velocities, e.g. 5-7 m/s.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Belfort et al (3)(4)(5) have summarized the behavior of suspended particles during microfiltration. Other researchers have studied the behavior of macromolecules during microfiltration (6)(7)(8)(9). Only a few studies have been reported in the literature on modeling the behavior of poly-disperse feeds containing both macromolecules and suspended particles for microfiltration (10,11).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These approaches are based on some models such as mass transfer model (Bhattacharjee and Datta 1997;Lin and Juang 2001), gel-polarization model (Palacios et al 2002), osmotic pressure model (Wijmans et al 1984;Ghose et al 2000), Brownian diffusion model (Samuelsson et al 1997), and shear-induced diffusion model (Kromkamp et al 2002;Vincent Vela et al 2007). The complexity of these mathematical models and their nonuniversality would limit their application.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%