Separation optimisation

For any chromatographic separation each different technique will offer different performance with respect to recovery, resolution, speed and capacity. A technique can be optimised to focus on one of these parameters, for example resolution, or to achieve the best balance between two parameters, such as speed and capacity. A separation optimised for one of these parameters will produce results quite different in appearance from those produced using the same technique, but focussed on an alternative parameter. See, for example, the results shown on page 49 where ion exchange is used for a capture and for a polishing step. 

Assembly the final flowsheet from the partial separations. Optimise the design. 

Therefore, low-level mapping involves four interdependent problems as mentioned below. They are handled in separate optimisation tasks for reasons of tractability. These tasks are executed in the given order, except for some interactively steered iterations. 

An example of an application of CAO is its use in optimising the distribution of gas in a gas lift system (Fig. 11.3). Each well will have a particular optimum gas-liquid ratio (GLR), which would maximise the oil production from that well. A CAO system may be used to determine the optimum distribution of a fixed amount of compressed gas between the gas lifted wells, with the objective of maximising the overall oil production from the field. Measurement of the production rate of each well and its producing GOR (using the test separator) provides a CAO system with the information to calculate the optimum gas lift gas required by each well, and then distributes the available gas lift gas (a limited resource) between the producing wells. 

Most processing is thermal. Reaction systems and separation systems are typically dominated by the associated heat exchange. Optimisation of this heat exchange has tremendous leverage on the ultimate process efficiency (see HeaT-EXCHANGETECHNOLOGy). 

Post-column on-line derivatisation is carried out in a special reactor situated between the column and detector. A feature of this technique is that the derivatisation reaction need not go to completion provided it can be made reproducible. The reaction, however, needs to be fairly rapid at moderate temperatures and there should be no detector response to any excess reagent present. Clearly an advantage of post-column derivatisation is that ideally the separation and detection processes can be optimised separately. A problem which may arise, however, is that the most suitable eluant for the chromatographic separation rarely provides an ideal reaction medium for derivatisation this is particularly true for electrochemical detectors which operate correctly only within a limited range of pH, ionic strength and aqueous solvent composition. 

In this description we have made a clear distinction between growth and secondary product synthesis. You should, however, realise that the distinction is not quite so sharp in practice. Thus we might expect some, albeit a small amount, of secondary product formation in file trophophase and some growth of new cells replacing dead ones in the idiophase. Nevertheless, the separation of the process into two phases enables the optimisation of conditions for growth in one phase and the imposition of conditions which maximise production of antibiotic in the other. 

In a classical neural pathway, such as that depicted in Fig. 1.3, neuron A must excite neuron B and at the same time inhibit neuron C in order to optimise the excitation of B. It could achieve this with one NT able to activate receptors linked to different events on B and C. Of course, neuron C would have other inputs, some of which would be excitatory and if the same NT was used it could activate the inhibitory mechanism on C as well. Also, the NT released from A might be able to stimulate as well as inhibit neuron C (Fig. 1.3(a)). Even the provision of separate receptors linked to excitation and inhibition would not overcome these problems since both would be accessible to the NT. One possible solution, used in the CNS, is to restrict the NT to the synapse at which it is released by structural barriers or rapid degradation. Also the inputs and receptors linked to excitation could be separated anatomically from those linked to inhibition and, in fact, there is electrophysiological and morphological evidence that excitatory synapses are mainly on dendrites and inhibitory ones on the soma of large neurons (Fig. 1.3(b)). Nevertheless, the problem of overlap would be eased if two NTs were released, one to activate only those receptors linked to excitation and another to evoke just inhibition, i.e. place the determinant of function partly back on the NT (Fig. 1.3(c)). This raises a different problem which has received much consideration. Can a neuron release more than one NT ... 

Various extraction methods for phenolic compounds in plant material have been published (Ayres and Loike, 1990 Arts and Hollman, 1998 Andreasen et ah, 2000 Fernandez et al., 2000). In this case phenolic compounds were an important part of the plant material and all the published methods were optimised to remove those analytes from the matrix. Our interest was to find the solvents to modily the taste, but not to extract the phenolic compounds of interest. In each test the technical treatment of the sample was similar. Extraction was carried out at room temperature (approximately 23 °C) for 30 minutes in a horizontal shaker with 200 rpm. Samples were weighed into extraction vials and solvent was added. The vials were closed with caps to minimise the evaporation of the extraction solvent. After 30 minutes the samples were filtered to separate the solvent from the solid. Filter papers were placed on aluminium foil and, after the solvent evaporahon, were removed. Extracted samples were dried at 100°C for 30 minutes to evaporate all the solvent traces. The solvents tested were chloroform, ethanol, diethylether, butanol, ethylacetate, heptane, n-hexane and cyclohexane and they were tested with different solvent/solid ratios. Methanol (MeOH) and acetonitrile (ACN) were not considered because of the high solubility of catechins and lignans to MeOH and ACN. The extracted phloem samples were tasted in the same way as the heated ones. Detailed results from each extraction experiment are presented in Table 14.2. 

Feed B into each tank separately, keeping the total molar flow rate as in Exercise 1. Run for the case nBi < hb2 and optimise the selectivity. 

For selection of alternative solvents (non-ozone depleting) for separation processes (extraction and HPLC mobile phase optimisation) references [24,25] are very useful. 

---