Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Macrosolute

Process Description lectrodialysls (ED) is a membrane separation process in which ionic species are separated from water, macrosolutes, and all uncharged solutes. Ions are induced to move by an electrical potential, and separation is facilitated by ion-exchange membranes. Membranes are highly selective, passing either anions or cations andveiy little else. The principle of ED is shown in Fig. 22-56. [Pg.2028]

Autofiltration The retention of any material at the surface of the membrane gives rise to the possibility of a secondaiy or a dynamic membrane being formed. This is a significant problem for fractionation by ultrafiltration because microsolutes are partially retained by almost all retained macrosolutes. The degree of retention is quite case-specific. As a rule of thumb, higher pressure and more polarization resiilts in more autofiltration. Autofiltration is particularly problematic in attempts to fractionate macromolecules. [Pg.2039]

The combination of diafiltration and batch concentration can be used to fractionate two macrosolutes whose retentions differ by as little as 0.2. It is possible in principle to achieve separations that are competitive with chromatography. When tanks and other equipment are considered, as well as the floor space they occupy, the economics of membrane separation of proteins may be attractive [R. van Reis, U.S. Patent 5,256,294 (1993)]. [Pg.2042]

Economic Yield Both in a high-value protein separation and in a low-value commodity concentration, economic yield is vital. Economic yield is defined as the fraction of useful product entering the process that leaves it in salable form. The yield equations used in the industry focus on retention, so they deal only with direct losses through the membrane. These losses result both in direct (product not sold) and indirect costs from a waste stream whose disposal or subsequent use may be more expensive when it is contaminated by macrosolute. There are additional indirec t losses, mainly product left in the equipment, particularly that left adhering to the membrane. Costs of cleaning and disposal or this indirect loss, while hard to measure, are usually higher than the cost of product lost through the membrane. [Pg.2042]

Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) involve contacting the upstream face ofa porous membrane with a feed stream containing particles or macromolecules (B) suspended in a low molecular weight fluid (A). The pores are simply larger in MF membranes than for UF membranes. In either case, a transmembrane pressure difference motivates the suspending fluid (usually water) to pass through physically observable permanent pores in the membrane. The fluid flow drags suspended particles and macrosolutes to the surface of the membrane where they are rejected due to their excessive size relative to the membrane pores. This simple process... [Pg.141]

Diafiltration is a variation of ultrafiltration, in which fresh solvent is added to the feed solution to replenish the volume ultrafiltered, and in the process washes small molecules such as salts away from the retained macromolecules. Using appropriate replenishing solutions, diafiltration is a common procedure to perform buffer exchange of proteins. Alternatively, a dilute solution may be first ultrafiltered to concentrate the feed material, then diafiltered to purify the retentate. It is sometimes possible to fractionate a mixture of macrosolutes by sequential diafiltration with a series of membranes of progressively lower molecular weight cutoff ratings. [Pg.383]

An early study by Bixler and Rappe [88] showed that glass beads (up to 100 p,m size) added to a stirred cell UF of a macrosolute were able to significantly enhance flux. The mechanism was probably eddy formation and thinning of the concentration boundary layer by particle interaction. Similar effects were reported by Fane [89] who noted that enhancement required significantly supramicron particles and that smaller particles could in fact add to the deposit resistance. [Pg.223]

To distinguish UF from two related processes, MF and RO, one can use the following example. Consider a solution of protein, water, and salt. The UF process will separate the protein (macrosolute) from the solution. As the water and salts pass through the membrane, the protein is held back. The protein concentration increases and the salts, whose concentration relative to the solvent is unchanged, are depleted relative to the protein. The result is that the protein is both concentrated and purified by the ultrafiltraion. For... [Pg.208]

Recent developments in LM module design, including rotational, vibrational membrane devices, pulsed-flow fluid management for polarization control, use of low-cost refractory monoliths as membrane supports, and use of electric potentials to minimize macrosolute polarization and fouling, may permit practical and economic application of membrane processes to liquid and gaseous streams which today are untreatable by such methods. [Pg.14]

Fouling (e.g., microbial adhesion, gel layer formation, and solute adhesion) at the membrane surface is a more complex phenomenon involving polarization, irreversible adsorption of macrosolutes or colloid particulates to, and/or gradual buildup of an adherent and coherent layer of solid material on, the membrane surface. It is amenable to mitigation by appropriate selection or surface treatment of the membrane surface (to minimize adsorption) by suitable fluid management or by employment of other forces to transport fouhng solutes. [Pg.65]

Hydrophobic membranes attracted a thicker irreversible adsorption layer than hydrophilic membranes [127, 128]. Hydrophilic membranes display low sorptivity for fouling macrosolutes such as proteins. In some situations, ionically charged membranes are more fouling-resistant than electroneutral membranes. The apparent high fouling-resistance of ceramic (alumina) membranes is worthy of special note, although the explanation of this... [Pg.425]

Retentate Pressure difference Solvent (water) and Macrosolutes and colloids... [Pg.249]

Practical considerations, however, require a compromise between the ideal goals and process economics. One major factor is the lack of reliable information and/or molecular weight distribution of macrosolutes. As a result, application specialists or process engineers typically recommend a pore diameter which is about 75% of the smallest particle size or a MWCO value of about 50-60% lower than the smallest macrosolute. The objective is to maximize flux without sacrificing solute retention below the set minimum requirements. [Pg.306]

In practice, however there could be differences between the observed and estimated flux. The mass transfer coefficient is strongly dependent on diffusion coefficient and boundary layer thickness. Under turbulent flow conditions particle shear effects induce hydrodynamic diffusion of particles. Thus, for microfiltration, shear-induced difflisivity values correlate better with the observed filtration rates compared to Brownian difflisivity calculations.Further, concentration polarization effeets are more reliably predicted for MF than UF due to the fact diat macrosolutes diffusivities in gels are much lower than the Brownian difflisivity of micron-sized particles. As a result, the predicted flux for ultrafiltration is much lower than observed, whereas observed flux for microfilters may be eloser to the predicted value. [Pg.310]

Molecular weight cutoff It refers to be smallest molecular weight of a macrosolute for which the membrane shows at least 90% rejection. This value is typically determined imder a set of well-defined conditions using model compounds (e.g., polyethylene glycols, dextrans and proteins such as BSA) at low concentration. [Pg.336]

Fane et al. (1982) discussed the possibility of UF flux enhancement by particulates. It was found that rigid particles larger than 1 pm could enhance flux. Cohesive and compressible particles, even if large, would cause flux reduction. Milonjic et al. (1996) filtered hematite suspensions and found that increased pressure and stirring lead to a increased flux. Chudacek and Fane (1984) measured deposit layers of several pm on UF membrane by macrosolutes and silica colloids. [Pg.73]


See other pages where Macrosolute is mentioned: [Pg.56]    [Pg.498]    [Pg.124]    [Pg.126]    [Pg.127]    [Pg.128]    [Pg.383]    [Pg.38]    [Pg.341]    [Pg.1803]    [Pg.383]    [Pg.197]    [Pg.429]    [Pg.609]    [Pg.208]    [Pg.2211]    [Pg.402]    [Pg.32]    [Pg.292]    [Pg.301]    [Pg.305]    [Pg.314]    [Pg.838]    [Pg.247]    [Pg.2195]    [Pg.382]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.420 ]




SEARCH



Macrosolute flux

Macrosolute fouling

Ultrafiltration macrosolute

© 2024 chempedia.info