The effect of surfactant pretreatment on the ultrafiltration of proteins

Fane, Anthony G.; Fell, C.J.D.; Kim, K.J.

doi:10.1016/0011-9164(85)85051-7

Cited by 100 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Total cell counts were measured by absorbance of the suspended cells at 540 nm. A calibration curve related cell number concentration (n,) to adsorbance (A): log n, = 1.212 log A + 8.355 (19) and then to cell weight concentration (C,) by c, = n,/(3.42 x lo9) where n, is in cells/mL and C, is in g/mL. All cell samples were clarified by centrifugation at lOOOg for 15 min.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐flow membrane microfiltration of a bacteriol fermentation broth

Nagata

Herouvis

Dziewulski

et al. 1989

Biotech & Bioengineering

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although cross-flow membrane filtration is a very attractive option for harvesting cells and recovering enzymes from cell homogenates, the process is not without its problems. Foremost of these is the deposit of dissolved and suspended solutes onto the membrane surface during operation. The formation of these dense and sometimes compressive sublayers (often called cakes) offers additional resistance to axial and permeate flows and often affects the retention characteristics of the process. In view of the complex nature of the sublayer formation process and its sensitivity to cross-flow velocity, this investigation was undertaken to determine the main factors responsible for the decline in performance during the harvesting of B. polymyxa broth by membrane microfiltration. System parameters varied include axial flow rate, concentration of cells, proteins and other components in the feed, membrane materials (ceramic, polypropylene, and stainless steel), and cleaning methods. To help explain the observed results, a new mass transport model-the solids flux model-based on the assumptions that back migration of particles from the sublayer or membrane surface is negligible and that particles that reach the solid-solution interface attach (stick) completely, is tested. Using a variety of diagnostic methods, magnesium ammonium phosphate precipitate is formed during steam sterilization of the medium and is implicated as the major foulant in this study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐flow membrane microfiltration of a bacteriol fermentation broth

Nagata

Herouvis

Dziewulski

et al. 1989

Biotech & Bioengineering

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-ionic surfactants of the polyethylene oxide type increased the relative fluxes in UF of a natural brown water. Recovery from a flux decline in UF is also documented for distilled water-detergent systems (Bhattacharyya et al 1979), and flux improvements have been obtained for UF of bovine serum albumin through detergent-pretreated regenerated cellulose, polyacrylic and polyamide membranes (Fane et al 1985).…”

Section: Nom Fractions 171mentioning

confidence: 98%

Effect of NOM characteristics and membrane type on microfiltration performance

Gray

Ritchie²,

Tran

et al. 2007

Water Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to understand and predict the role of different organic fractions in the fouling of low-pressure membranes are presented. Preliminary experiments with an experimental apparatus that incorporates automatic backwashing and filtration over several days has shown that microfiltration of the hydrophilic fractions leads to rapid flux decline and the formation of a cake or gel layer, while the hydrophobic fractions show a steady flux decline and no obvious formation of a gel or cake layer. The addition of calcium to the weakly hydrophobic acid (WHA) fraction led to the formation of a gel layer from associations between components of the WHA. The dominant foulants were found to be the neutral and charged hydrophilic compounds, with hydrophobic and small pore size membranes being the most readily fouled. The findings suggest that surface analyses such as FTIR will preferentially identify hydrophilic compounds as the main foulants, as these components form a gel layer on the surface while the hydrophobic compounds adsorb within the membrane pores.Furthermore, coagulation pre-treatment is also likely to reduce fouling by reducing pore constriction rather than the formation of a gel layer, as coagulants remove the hydrophobic compounds to a large extent and very little of the hydrophilic neutral components.

show abstract

“…Fane et al 3 have reported that pretreatment with nonionic surfactant was effective for improving ultrafiltration of bovine serum albumin. However, little data have been reported on the effectiveness of surfactant pretreatment for reducing membrane fouling for ultrafiltration of fermentation broth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surfactant pretreatment of a polysulfone ultrafilter for reduction of antifoam fouling

Yamagiwa

Kobayashi

Onodera

et al. 1994

Biotech & Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of surfactant precoat treatment of the polysulfone ultrafilter was first investigated for reduction of membrane fouling in ultrafiltration of antifoam. Fifteen different surfactants, including alcohols and synthetic nonionic surfactants, were tested. In general, pretreatment with nonionic surfactant gave a larger flux than that with alcohol did. The flux increase by pretreatment with nonionic surfactant depended on a hydrophile lipophile balance (HLB) value and type of hydrophobic tail. The most effective surfactant for reducing antifoam fouling among the 15 surfactants was Brij-58 which has an HLB value of 16 and a straight alkyl hydrophobic chain. The ultrafiltration flux of the membrane treated with Brij-58 was almost three times larger than that of untreated membrane. The precoat treatment with Brij-58 was the most effective for reducing antifoam fouling in terms of rejection properties.Furthermore, flux was also improved by the surfactant pretreatment in ultrafiltration of model process streams, such as fermentation media, broth, and yeast suspension with or without antifoam. The surfactant Brij-58 was found to be more effective for reducing membrane fouling in ultrafiltration of model stream YG compared with ethanol or Brij-35. The mean flux increase by the pretreatment with Brij-58 was about 80% in ultrafiltration of the model stream without antifoam. When antifoam was added to the model stream, flux was almost doubled by the pretreatment with Brij-58. The effectiveness of surfactant precoat treatment for reducing membrane fouling was also confirmed in terms of rejection properties. (c) 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

show abstract

The effect of surfactant pretreatment on the ultrafiltration of proteins

Cited by 100 publications

References 13 publications

Cross‐flow membrane microfiltration of a bacteriol fermentation broth

Cross‐flow membrane microfiltration of a bacteriol fermentation broth

Effect of NOM characteristics and membrane type on microfiltration performance

Surfactant pretreatment of a polysulfone ultrafilter for reduction of antifoam fouling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About