Ultrafiltration of protein based solution: Study of membrane - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
6 th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management NAXOS 2018 Ultrafiltration of protein based solution: Study of membrane fouling Simona M.Miron, Patrick Dutourni, Arnaud Ponche Institut de Science des Matriaux de
Simona M.Miron, Patrick Dutournié, Arnaud Ponche
21/06/2018 1 Institut de Science des Matériaux de Mulhouse (IS2M), UMR 7361 CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, Université de Haute Alsace, 3 bis rue A. Werner, 68098 Mulhouse Cedex, France
NAXOS 2018
2
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
3
Water and wastewater treatment
Ultrafiltration
Membrane process Food and diary industry
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Separate, concentrate, rectify and purify Biopharmaceutical industry
4
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Ribbon diagram of HEWL
5
Hen egg white lysozyme ‐ enzyme with 129 amino acids ‐ antimicrobial activity against Gram‐positive bacteria
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Amino acid L-tyrosine Elementary constituent of Lysozyme Neutral solution Vitamin B12 Used for membrane performances investigation (Mean pore radius calculation using Nernst-Plank model)
6
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Membrane Membrane Permeate Retentate Feed Membrane characteristics: ‐ ultrafiltration membrane ‐ bilayer membrane of TiO2 ‐ asymmetrical pore structure ‐ cut‐off 1 kDa Membrane performances:
rejection rate (R)
permeability (Lp)
N° Test Solution R max (%) Calculated Pore radius (nm) Lp (10‐14m3.m‐2
memb)
Pure water after conditioning step 6.2 1 L‐tyrosine 5 4.7 2 VB12 57 1.61 4.1 3 Lysozyme 85 3.6 4 Lysozyme 93 3.3 5 VB12 75 1.27 3.2 6 Lysozyme 98 3.1 7 VB12 86 1.09 2.4 8 L‐tyrosine 6.5 2.3
7
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Decrease in lysozyme transmission and in hydraulic permeability adsorption ? Pore clogging ?
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0,0E+00 2,0E‐05 4,0E‐05 6,0E‐05 8,0E‐05
Rejection rate (%) Permeation flux (m3.m‐2 .s‐1 )
test 3 test 6 test 10
rp = 1.61 nm rp = 1.27 nm rp = 1.09 nm
Membrane selectivity increases, hydraulic performances decreases calculated pore radius decreases
8
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Test 2 Test 5 Test 7
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Adsorption of protein pore clogging
Adsorption
lysozyme in pores increases selectivity and decreases hydraulic performances. Conclusions from filtration tests
9
No modification of the lysozyme molecule (no time/ shear stress effect)
10
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 40 60 80 100
9.81 Response[mAU]
Retention time (min)
Lysozyme reference sample Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 4 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 6 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 8 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 10 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 12 bar
HPLC analysis of lysozyme Retentate
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
10.22 9.81
Normalized response Retention time (min)
Lysozyme reference sample Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 4 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 6 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 8 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 10 bar Lysozyme II Membrane M2 pressure 12 bar
11
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
HPLC analysis of lysozyme Permeate Modification
the lysozyme molecule after permeation (denaturated)
12
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
HPLC analysis of lysozyme
13
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
Lysozyme Micrococcus lysodeikticus
Retentate shows slightly higher activity than permeate
14
Sample Unit/mg Loss of activity Native 83 926 ‐ Retentate 85 528 ‐ Permeate 68 929 20 %
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
100 200 300 400 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Abs (450nm) Time [s]
Retentate Native Permeate
15
Introduction Materials and methods Results and discussion Conclusions and future work
W
16
Simona M.Miron, Patrick Dutournié, Arnaud Ponche
21/06/2018 17 Institut de Science des Matériaux de Mulhouse (IS2M), UMR 7361 CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, Université de Haute Alsace, 3 bis rue A. Werner, 68098 Mulhouse Cedex, France
NAXOS 2018