Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:42:03.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Filtrate Flux and Sieving Characteristics of Virus Filtration Membranes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2011

Andrew L. Zydney  and
David M. Bohonak
Andrew L. Zydney
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802
David M. Bohonak
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802
Get access

Abstract

Virus filtration is increasingly used in the biopharmaceutical industry, but capacity and fouling remain problematic. Experimental studies were conducted in dead-end, stirred filtration cells with Viresolve 180 polyvinylidene fluoride membranes using the protein bovine serum albumin. Data were obtained for membranes in two different flow orientations, with the selective “skin” layer oriented on either the upstream surface or downstream relative to the fluid flow. Compaction of the substructure occurs when the skin layer is downstream, leading to a significant increase in membrane resistance. Concentration polarization in the bulk solution or membrane substructure caused a substantial increase in the protein sieving coefficient, with this effect being greatest when the flow entered through the substructure. Fouling is primarily due to the deposition of large protein aggregates. The effect of this fouling on the flux was reduced when the skin layer was oriented downstream since the substructure acted as a prefilter. These results demonstrate that the membrane morphology and orientation play a critical role in determining the overall performance of virus filtration membranes.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 752: Symposium AA – Membranes–Preparation, Properties and Applications , 2002 , AA14.4
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kedda, M., Kew, M., Cohn, R., Field, S., Schwyzer, R., Song, E., and Fernades-Costa, F., Hepatology 22, 1363–1367 (1995).Google Scholar
2. Johnson, Z., Thornton, L., Tobin, A., Lawlor, E., Power, J., Hillary, I., and Temperley, I., International Journal of Epidemiology 24, 821–828 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Mannucci, P., Gdorin, S., Gringeri, A., Colombo, M., Mele, A., Schinaia, N., Ciavarella, N., Emerson, S., and Purcell, R., Annals of Internal Medicine 120, 1–7 (1994).Google Scholar
4. Vermylen, J. and Peerlinck, K., Vox Sanguinis 67, 24–26 (1994).Google Scholar
5. Burckhardt, J., Biologicals 27, 337–341 (1999).Google Scholar
6. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 43, 505–509 (1994).Google Scholar
7. Berger, A., Doerr, H., Scharrer, I., and Weber, B., Journal of Medical Virology 53, 25–30 (1997).Google Scholar
8. Levy, R., Phillips, M., and Lutz, H., “Filtration and the removal of viruses from biopharmaceuticals,” Filtration in the Biopharmaceutical Industry, ed. Meltzer, T. and Jornitz, M., (Marcel Dekker, 1998), pp. 619–646.Google Scholar
9. DiLeo, A., Vacante, D., and Deane, E., Biologicals 21, 275–286 (1993).Google Scholar
10. Kelly, S. and Zydney, A., Biotechnology and Bioengineering 44, 972–982 (1994).Google Scholar
11. Kelly, S. and Zydney, A., Journal of Membrane Science 107, 115–127 (1995).Google Scholar
12. Ohya, H., Desalination 26, 163–174 (1978).Google Scholar
13. Tarnawski, V. and Jelen, P., Journal of Food Engineering 5, 75–90 (1986).Google Scholar