Protein Adsorption and Deposition onto Microfiltration Membranes: The Role of Solute–Solid Interactions

Martínez, Fernando; Martin, A. R.; Prádanos, Pedro; Calvo, José Ignacio Madalena; Palacio, Laura; Hernández, Antonio

doi:10.1006/jcis.1999.6575

Cited by 44 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…UF of PPW at pH 6.74 hence is desirable because it avoids protein coagulation or agglomeration that could result in severe adverse effects on membrane performance (Lo et al, 2005). Similar observations were reported with low concentration γ-globulin and the membrane surfaces were found relevant for the first layer of protein adsorption (Martinez et al, 2000).…”

Section: Flux Behavior During Ultrafiltrationmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Further, when the wastewater was acidified with hydrochloric acid from its regular pH 6.6 to pH 3.0, it became less colloidal and, at this low pH, the membrane flux significantly increased to 490-570 L m − 2 day − 1 , compared to 330-390 L m − 2 day − 1 at pH 6.6 (Shih & Kozink, 1980). It is well recognized that the pH value of a solution is highly influential on the conformation of protein molecules, as the electrical properties of protein molecules play an important role in determining their interactions with the membrane surface (Martinez et al, 2000). Therefore to assess the effect of pH on the UF flux, the isoelectric point (pI) of the protein recovered from PPW was determined.…”

Section: Flux Behavior During Ultrafiltrationmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In situations where flux reduction is reversible, the reduction of flux far below the theoretical capacity of the membrane could be attributed to a small portion of pure adsorption on the inner pore or external membrane surfaces and to the convection-induced deposition of proteins on the membrane (Boyd & Zydney, 1998). Although there remains disagreement regarding the location of protein fouling (adsorption into the internal structure of the pores versus surface deposition of a heavy cake of protein aggregates) (Martinez et al, 2000), the importance of the solute properties is well recognized (Nielsen, 1989). Moreover, with the presence of either acid or alkaline in the solution, qualitative differences exist in protein fouling between low and high concentrations.…”

Section: Flux Reduction and Restorationmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recycling of poultry process wastewater by ultrafiltration

Avula

Nelson

Singh

2009

Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Flux Behavior During Ultrafiltrationmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Flux Behavior During Ultrafiltrationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Flux Reduction and Restorationmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recycling of poultry process wastewater by ultrafiltration

Avula

Nelson

Singh

2009

Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Surface deposition has been probed using techniques such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Kim et al, 1992;Lee and Merson, 1975), AFM (Gesan et al, 1993;Makardij et al, 1999;Martinez et al, 2000), SEM coupled with Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) Spectroscopy (Rabiller-Baudry et al, 2002), UV microspectrophotometry (Reisterer et al, 1993), and confocal microscopy (Reichert et al, 2002). Pore and internal fouling by proteins has been examined by using standard infrared and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) (Labbe et al, 1990), radiolabeling (Robertson and Zydney, 1990), streaming potential measurements (Nystrom et al, 1994), transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Kim et al, 1994;Sheldon et al, 1991), electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPRS) (Oppenheim et al, 1994), attenuated total reflection Fourier-Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) (Pihlajamaki et al, 1998) and small angle neutron scattering (SANS) (Su et al, 1998).…”

Section: The Causes and Characterization Of Protein Fouling On Membranesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative analysis of membrane fouling by protein mixtures using MALDI‐MS

Chan¹,

Chen²,

Bucknall³

2003

Biotech & Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binary aqueous solutions of bovine serum albumin (BSA) and beta-lactoglobulin (bLG) were subject to flux-stepping and constant flux ultrafiltration to identify the apparent critical flux and to study the mechanisms and factors affecting fouling when the membrane is permeable to one protein component. Membranes from these filtration experiments were analyzed using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS) to locate and quantify levels of fouling below and above the apparent critical flux. Hydrophilic (PLTK) regenerated cellulose and hydrophobic (PBTK) polysulfone asymmetric membranes were used, both of 30 kDa nominal molecular weight cut-off. For the hydrophilic PLTK membrane, protein deposition was shown to depend on electrostatic forces, exhibiting little or no fouling when the proteins had the same charge sign as that of the membrane. This was found to apply for both dilute equal mass-per-unit-volume and equimolar binary mixtures. For the PBTK membrane, hydrophobic protein-membrane attractive forces were sufficiently strong to cause deposition of bLG even in the presence of repulsive electrostatic forces. For the PBTK membrane deposition exceeded monolayer coverage below and above apparent critical flux conditions but for the PLTK membrane this generally occurred when the apparent critical flux was exceeded. MALDI-MS was shown to be a facile direct analytical technique for individually quantifying adsorbed proteins on membrane surfaces at levels as low as 50 fmol/mm(2). The high levels of compound specificity inherent to mass spectrometry make this approach especially suited to the quantification of individual components in mixed deposits. In this study, MALDI-MS was found to be successful in identifying and quantifying the protein species responsible for fouling.

show abstract

“…All these models assume the same energy adsorption sites on the surface of the adsorbent, the linear form is expressed by the equation [6] .…”

Section: Langmuir Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative of Isotherms Adsorption Methyl Orange and Phenolphthalein by Multi-wall Carbon Nanotube and Activated Carbon with Models Freundlich, Temkin and Langmuir

Vadi¹,

Namavar²

2013

Orientjchem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon nanotubes(CNT) are different form of carbon with a cylindrical nano-structure . Nanotube with the length-to-diameter ratio to 132,000,000:1 is made very larger than any other ORIENTAL JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY ABSTRACTAdsorption of methyl orange and phenolphthalein by multi-wall Carbon Nanotube and activated carbon is very important, because methyl orange is used widely in acid-basic indicators and phenolphthalein as an indicator sodium or potassium alkoxide or titration of carboxylic acids hydroxide. Adsorbed compounds depend on sample concentration. Isotherms adsorption methyl orange and phenolphthalein with very models are studied. The purpose of this study was to investigate adsorption isotherms of methyl orange and phenolphthalein by multi-wall Carbon Nanotube (MWCNT s ) and activated carbon (AC) with models Freundlich ,Temkin , Langmuir . By maximum wavelength is obtained by spectrophotometer (uv / vis) model (JENWEY) and different concentrations are obtained from made solution and their adsorptions, and relative diagram was drawn. Study of experiments result was matched with these three models and different parameters of these models were obtained. Obtained results show the effect of concentration on covering the surface by model Langmuir for active carbon by methyl orange with 95.3% and model Freundlich for active carbon by phenolphthalein with 98.7% and model Freundlich for Carbon Nanotube by methyl orange with 96.3% and model Langmuir for Carbon Nanotube by phenolphthalein with 95.5% . Results of this study show that Priority of model of models for adsorption of methyl orange by Carbon Nanotube is : 1) Freundlich , 2) Temkin , 3) Langmuir and for adsorption phenolphthalein by Carbon Nanotube is : 1) Langmuir , 2) Freundlich , 3) Temkin and for adsorption of methyl orange by active carbon : 1) Langmuir , 2) Temkin , 3) Freundlich and for adsorption of phenolphthalein by active carbon : 1) Freundlich , 2) Temkin , 3) Langmuir .

show abstract

Protein Adsorption and Deposition onto Microfiltration Membranes: The Role of Solute–Solid Interactions

Cited by 44 publications

References 21 publications

Recycling of poultry process wastewater by ultrafiltration

Recycling of poultry process wastewater by ultrafiltration

Quantitative analysis of membrane fouling by protein mixtures using MALDI‐MS

Comparative of Isotherms Adsorption Methyl Orange and Phenolphthalein by Multi-wall Carbon Nanotube and Activated Carbon with Models Freundlich, Temkin and Langmuir

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About