Ultrafiltration mechanism

Song L. (1998), Flux decline in cdrossflow microfiltration and ultrafiltration mechanisms and modeling of membrane fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 139, 183-200. 

The mechanism of ultrafiltration is not simply a sieve effect, but depends also upon the electrical conditions of both the membrane and the colloid. 

The seminal discovery that transformed membrane separation from a laboratory to an industrial process was the development, in the early 1960s, of the Loeb-Sourirajan process for making defect-free, high flux, asymmetric reverse osmosis membranes (5). These membranes consist of an ultrathin, selective surface film on a microporous support, which provides the mechanical strength. The flux of the first Loeb-Sourirajan reverse osmosis membrane was 10 times higher than that of any membrane then avaUable and made reverse osmosis practical. The work of Loeb and Sourirajan, and the timely infusion of large sums of research doUars from the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Saline Water (OSW), resulted in the commercialization of reverse osmosis (qv) and was a primary factor in the development of ultrafiltration (qv) and microfiltration. The development of electro dialysis was also aided by OSW funding. 

Ultrafiltration separations range from ca 1 to 100 nm. Above ca 50 nm, the process is often known as microfiltration. Transport through ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes is described by pore-flow models. Below ca 2 nm, interactions between the membrane material and the solute and solvent become significant. That process, called reverse osmosis or hyperfiltration, is best described by solution—diffusion mechanisms. 

A different approach is the use of an ultrafiltration membrane with an immobilized chiral component [31]. The transport mechanism for the separation of d,l-phenylalanine by an enantioselective ultrafiltration membrane is shown schematically in Fig. 5-4a. Depending on the trans-membrane pressure, selectivities were found to be between 1.25 and 4.1, at permeabilities between 10 and 10 m s respectively (Fig. 5-4b). 

S-layer ultrafiltration membranes (SUMs) are isoporous structures with very sharp molecular exclusion limits (see Section III.B). SUMs were manufactured by depositing S-layer-carrying cell wall fragments of B. sphaericus CCM 2120 on commercial microfiltration membranes with a pore size up to 1 pm in a pressure-dependent process [73]. Mechanical and chemical resistance of these composite structures could be improved by introducing inter- and intramolecular covalent linkages between the individual S-layer subunits. The uni-... 

The effect of pH and cation concentration on pectinesterase (PE) activation and permeation on 30 kD MWCO ultrafiltration (UF) membrane was evaluated. In order of increasing effectiveness, PE activity was stimulated by monovalent and divalent cations, poly amines and trivalent cations. A similar trend was observed for permeation on UF membranes. Cation addition and higher pH releases PE from an inactive complex, increases activity, and increases permeation. Higher cation concentration decreases activity and permeation. These results suggest a common mechanism is involved in PE activation and permeation. 

In addition to excess sodium intake, abnormal renal sodium retention may be the primary event in the development of hypertension, and it includes abnormalities in the pressure-natriuresis mechanism. In hypertensive individuals, this theory proposes a shift in the control mechanism preventing the normalization of blood pressure. The mechanisms behind the resetting of the pressure-natriuresis curve may include afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction, decreased glomerular ultrafiltration, or an increase in tubular sodium reabsorption.4 Other theories supporting abnormal renal sodium retention suggest a congenital reduction in the number of nephrons, enhanced renin secretion from nephrons that are ischemic, or an acquired compensatory mechanism for renal sodium retention.9... 

Mechanism-based inactivation results in formation of a covalent adduct between the active inhibitor and the enzyme, or between the active inhibitor and a substrate or cofactor molecule. If the mechanism involves covalent modification of the enzyme, then one should not be able to demonstrate a recovery of enzymatic activity after dialysis, gel filtration, ultrafiltration, or large dilution, as described in Chapters 5 to 7. Additionally, if the inactivation is covalent, denaturation of the enzyme should fail to release the inhibitory molecule into solution. If a radiolabeled version of the inactivator is available, one should be able to demonstrate irreversible association of radioactivity with the enzyme molecule even after denaturation and separation by gel filtration, and so on. In favorable cases one should likewise be able to demonstrate covalent association of the inhibitor with the enzyme by a combination of tryptic digestion and LC/MS methods. 

Figure 6.6 ULtrafiLtration separates molecules based on size and shape, (a) Diagrammatic representation of a typical laboratory-scale ultrafiltration system. The sample (e.g. crude protein solution) is placed in the ultrafiltration chamber, where it sits directly above the ultrafilter membrane. The membrane, in turn, sits on a macroporous support to provide it with mechanical strength. Pressure is then applied (usually in the form of an inert gas), as shown. Molecules larger than the pore diameter (e.g. large proteins) are retained on the upstream side of the ultrafilter membrane. However, smaller molecules (particularly water molecules) are easily forced through the pores, thus effectively concentrating the protein solution (see also (b)). Membranes that display different pore sizes, i.e. have different molecular mass cut-off points, can be manufactured, (c) Photographic representation of an industrial-scale ultrafiltration system (photograph courtesy of Elga Ltd, UK)...

Pressure loss coefficient, 13 261 Pressure measurement, 11 783 20 644-665. See also Vacuum measurement electronic sensors, 20 651-657 mechanical gauges, 20 646-651 smart pressure transmitters, 20 663-665 terms related to, 20 644-646 Pressure measurement devices. See also Pressure meters Pressure sensors location of, 20 682 types of, 20 681-682 Pressure meters, 20 651 Pressure microfiltration/ultrafiltration,... 

Solute adsorption often involves hydrophobic interactions—hydrophobic membranes have a high tendency to foul in water treatments. However, many hydrophobic membranes remain the most useful media for ultrafiltration due to their superior performance in terms of mechanical, chemical and thermal stability. 

Mitrovic and Knezic (1979) also prepared ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membranes by this technique. Their membranes were etched in 5% oxalic acid. The membranes had pores of the order of 100 nm, but only about 1.5 nm in the residual barrier layer (layer AB in Figure 2.15). The pores in the barrier layer were unstable in water and the permeability decreased during the experiments. Complete dehydration of alumina or phase transformation to a-alumina was necessary to stabilize the pore structure. The resulting membranes were found unsuitable for reverse osmosis but suitable for ultrafiltration after removing the barrier layer. Beside reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration measurements, some gas permeability data have also been reported on this type of membranes (Itaya et al. 1984). The water flux through a 50/im thick membrane is about 0.2mL/cm -h with a N2 flow about 6cmVcm -min-bar. The gas transport through the membrane was due to Knudsen diffusion mechanism, which is inversely proportional to the square root of molecular mass. 

Also included are sections on how to analyze mechanisms that affect flux feature models for prediction of micro- and ultrafiltration flux that help you minimize flux decline. Descriptions of cross-flow membrane filtration and common operating configurations clarify tf e influence of important operating parameters on system performance. Parameters irdlucnc irxj solute retention properties during ultrafiltration arc identified and discussed or treated in detail. 

The smallest functional unit of the kidney is the nephron. In the glomerular capillary loops, ultrafiltration of plasma fluid into Bowman s capsule (BC) yields primary urine. In the proximal tubules (pT), approx. 70% of the ultrafiltrate is retrieved by isoosmotic reabsorption of NaCl and water. In the thick portion of the ascending limb of Henle s loop (HL), NaCl is absorbed unaccompanied by water. This is the prerequisite for the hairpin countercurrent mechanism that allows build-up of a very high NaQ concentration in the renal medulla In the distal tubules (dT), NaCl and water are again jointly reabsorbed. At the end of the nephron, this process involves an aldosterone-controlled exchange of Na+ against 1C or H. In the collecting tubule (C), vasopressin (antidiuretic hormone, ADH) increases the epithelial permeability for water, which is drawn into the hyperosmolar milieu of the renal medulla and thus retained in the body. As a result, a concentrated urine enters the renal pelvis. 

---