Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of colloidal fouling and gas sparging on microfiltration of yeast suspension

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cross-flow microfiltration is an important step in separating Baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) from aqueous suspension in many processes. However the permeate flux often declines rapidly due to colloidal fouling of membranes and concentration polarisation. The present work explores the possibility of maintaining acceptable permeate flux by co-current sparging of gas along with the feed, which would scour away colloidal deposits and reduce concentration polarisation of membranes. In this work, both washed and unwashed yeast were used to study the effect of washing to reduce protein fouling of membranes. It was found that permeate flux increased by 45% for liquid throughput of 75 kg/h for a feed concentration of 2.0 kg/m3 of washed yeast as compared with unwashed yeast suspension without gas sparging. For washed yeast suspension, the increase in gas flow rate from 0.5 lpm to 1.5 lpm (30 l/h to 90 l/h) had beneficial effect on permeate flux. It is concluded that in the present case, the gas flow rate should be less than or equal to the liquid flow rate for enhancement of permeates flux.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cui ZF, Wright KIT (1994) Gas-liquid two-phase cross-flow ultrafiltration of BSA and dextran solutions. J Membrane Sci 90:183–189

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cui ZF, Wright KIT (1996) Flux enhancements with gas sparging in downwards crossflow ultrafiltration: performance and mechanism. J Membrane Sci 117:109–116

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bellara SR, Cui ZF, Pepper DS (1996) Gas sparging to enhance flux in ultrafiltration using hollow fibre membranes. J Membrane Sci 121:175–184

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cui ZF, Bellara SR, Homewood P (1997) Airlift crossflow membrane filtration - a feasibility study with dextran ultrafiltration. J Membrane Sci 128:83–91

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cabassud C, Laborie S, Laine JM (1997) How slug flow can improve ultrafiltration flux in organic hollow fibres. J Membrane Sci 128:93–101

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mercier M, Fonade C, Lafforgue-Delorme C (1997) How slug flow can enhance the ultrafiltration flux in mineral tubular membranes. J Membrane Sci 128:103–113

    Google Scholar 

  7. Finnigan SM, Howell JA (1989) The effects of pulsatile flow on ultrafiltration fluxes in a baffled tubular membrane system. Chem Eng Res Des 67: 278–282

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bellhouse BJ, Sobey IJ (1994) Enhanced filtartion using flat membranes and standing vortex waves. Bioseparation 4:127–138

    Google Scholar 

  9. Racz IG, Wassink JG, Klassen R (1986) Mass transfer, fluid flow and membrane properties in flat and corrugated plate hyperfiltration modules. Desalination 60:213–222

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chen V, Fane AG, Fell CJD (1992) The use of anionic surfactants for reducing fouling of ultrafiltration membranes- their effects and optimisation. J Membrane Science 67:249–261

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cui ZF (1993) Experimental investigation on enhancement of crossflow ultrafiltration with air sparging. In: Patterson R (ed) Effective membrane process- New Perspectives. Mech Eng, London, pp 237–245

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wright KIT, Cui ZF (1994) Identification of enzyme activity loss caused by gas bubbles. In: Pyle DL (ed) Separation for Biotechnology 3, Royal Society for Chemistry, pp 579–585

  13. Marshall AD, Munro PA, Tragardh G (1993) The effect of protein fouling in microfiltration and ultrafiltration on permeate flux, protein retention and selectivity: A literature review 91:65–108

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fane AG, Fell CJD, McDonogh RM, Suki A, Waters AG (1983) in Proceedings of the eleventh Australian Conference on Chemical Engineering (Chemeca 83), Brisbane, 4–7 September, pp 729–737

  15. Li QY, Ghosh R, Bellara SR, Cui ZF, Pepper DS (1998) Enhancement of ultrafiltration by gas sparging with flat sheet membrane modules. Separation and Purification Technology 14:79–83

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bachhin P, Aimar P, Sanchez V (1995) Model for Colloidal Fouling of membranes. AIChE J 41:368–376

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hashim MA, Sen Gupta B (1997) A study on the effect of operating parameters on the cross-flow microfiltration of yeasts. Bioseparation 7:17–23

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sen Gupta B, Hashim MA, Ramachandran KB, Sen Gupta I, Cui ZF (2005) The effect of gas sparging in cross-flow microfiltration of 2,3-Butanediol broth, Eng. In Lfe Sciences 5:54–58

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chemical Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, BT9 5AG, Northern Ireland, UK

    B. Sen. Gupta

  2. Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia,  

    S. Hasan

  3. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    M. A. Hashim

  4. Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, OX1 3PJ, Oxford, UK

    Z. F. Cui

Authors
  1. B. Sen. Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Hasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Hashim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Z. F. Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Sen. Gupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gupta, B.S., Hasan, S., Hashim, M.A. et al. Effects of colloidal fouling and gas sparging on microfiltration of yeast suspension. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 27, 407–413 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-005-0012-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-005-0012-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation