Crystallization of Oxytetracycline from Fermentation Waste Liquor: Influence of Biopolymer Impurities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Sedimentation and Clarification Sedimentation Is the Next Step in Conventional Filtration Plants
Sedimentation and Clarification Sedimentation is the next step in conventional filtration plants. (Direct filtration plants omit this step.) The purpose of sedimentation is to enhance the filtration process by removing particulates. Sedimentation is the process by which suspended particles are removed from the water by means of gravity or separation. In the sedimentation process, the water passes through a relatively quiet and still basin. In these conditions, the floc particles settle to the bottom of the basin, while “clear” water passes out of the basin over an effluent baffle or weir. Figure 7-5 illustrates a typical rectangular sedimentation basin. The solids collect on the basin bottom and are removed by a mechanical “sludge collection” device. As shown in Figure 7-6, the sludge collection device scrapes the solids (sludge) to a collection point within the basin from which it is pumped to disposal or to a sludge treatment process. Sedimentation involves one or more basins, called “clarifiers.” Clarifiers are relatively large open tanks that are either circular or rectangular in shape. In properly designed clarifiers, the velocity of the water is reduced so that gravity is the predominant force acting on the water/solids suspension. The key factor in this process is speed. The rate at which a floc particle drops out of the water has to be faster than the rate at which the water flows from the tank’s inlet or slow mix end to its outlet or filtration end. The difference in specific gravity between the water and the particles causes the particles to settle to the bottom of the basin. -
Review and Cost Analysis of Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration
Review and cost analysis of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration A Senior Project presented to Dr. Bruce Golden of Dairy Science California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Dairy Science by Jared De Groot March, 2013 © 2013 Abstract The aim in this study was to determine whether implementing an on farm ultrafiltration system was profitable. Ultrafiltration was researched to reduce the amount of milk hauled from producer to processor. An ultrafiltration system involved milk that flowed through a semi-permeable membrane. Through this process water and small amounts of calcium and ash were pressured through the semi-permeable membrane. This permeate would then be able to feed heifers. The protein, fat, solids nonfat, and small amounts of calcium and ash were retained by the membrane. Through the process of ultrafiltration, raw milk was concentrated to three times its original concentration. With the use of ultrafiltration, the dairyman would need to one load of ultrafiltration milk instead of three loads of raw milk. The reduction in the cost of milk hauled and the feed presented to the heifers were the advantages in ultrafiltration. With the saved money on hauling and feeding of heifers, the initial costs of the system and the annual maintenance cost of the system exceed the benefits if implemented on De Groot Dairies. For the on farm ultrafiltration system to break even in ten years, the producer would need to be paid an additional $1.05 /cwt of retentate. This price included the reduced hauling cost and the money saved on the heifer ration. -
Sartorius Ultrafiltration and Protein Purification Products Brochure
Ultrafiltration & Protein Purification Products Fisher Scientific Contents General Information General Information Protein Purification Major Uses for Ultrafiltration 4 Vivapure® Ion Exchange Protein Purification Products 52 Process Alternatives 5 Vivawell Vac Vacuum Manifold Membrane Characteristics 6 Systems 55 Membrane Selection 7 Vivawell Vac 8-strip plate 57 Protein Concentration Vivapure® mini & maxiprep Purification Kits 59 Centrifugal Filtration Protein Concentration Vivapure® mini|maxiprep Protein Vivaspin 500 8 A & G Spin Columns 60 24-Well Ultrafiltration Frame 10 Vivapure® mini|maxiprep MC Spin Vivaspin 2 12 Columns 62 Centrisart I 15 Vivaspin 4 18 Vivapure Anti-HSA/IgG Kits 64 Vivaspin 6 20 Vivapure C18 65 Vivaspin 15 22 Vivaspin 15R 24 Virus Purification and Concentration Vivaspin 20 26 Vivaclear 29 Vivapure® Virus Purification and Concentration Kits 66 Pressure-Fugation DNA Concentration Vivacell 70 30 Adenovirus Purification with Vivacell 100 33 AdenoPACK Kits 67 Vivapure® AdenoPACK 20 68 Gas Pressure Filtration Vivapure® AdenoPACK 100 69 Vivacell 250 36 Vivapure® AdenoPACK 500 71 Tangential Flow Filtration Lentivirus Purification with Vivaflow 50 38 LentiSELECT Kit 73 Vivaflow 200 40 Vivapure® LentiSELECT 40 74 Solvent Adsorption Vivapore 2, 5, 10|20 43 Vivapure® LentiSELECT 500 75 Protein Purification Ultrafiltration Membrane Discs 45 Vivapure® LentiSELECT 1000 76 DNA Concentration Application Notes 77 Vivacon® 500 47 1. Desalting and Buffer Exchange with Vivaspin Centrifugal Concentrators 79 Vivacon® 250 2. Treatment -
State-Of-The-Art Water Treatment in Czech Power Sector
membranes Article State-of-the-Art Water Treatment in Czech Power Sector: Industry-Proven Case Studies Showing Economic and Technical Benefits of Membrane and Other Novel Technologies for Each Particular Water Cycle Jaromír Marek Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Humanities and Education, Technical University of Liberec, Studentská 1402/2, 461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic; [email protected]; Tel.: +420-732-277-183 Abstract: The article first summarizes case studies on the three basic types of treated water used in power plants and heating stations. Its main focus is Czechia as the representative of Eastern European countries. Water as the working medium in the power industry presents the three most common cycles—the first is make-up water for boilers, the second is cooling water and the third is represented by a specific type of water (e.g., liquid waste mixtures, primary and secondary circuits in nuclear power plants, turbine condensate, etc.). The water treatment technologies can be summarized into four main groups—(1) filtration (coagulation) and dosing chemicals, (2) ion exchange technology, (3) membrane processes and (4) a combination of the last two. The article shows the ideal industry-proven technology for each water cycle. Case studies revealed the economic, technical and environmental advantages/disadvantages of each technology. The percentage of Citation: Marek, J. State-of-the-Art technologies operated in energetics in Eastern Europe is briefly described. Although the work is Water Treatment in Czech Power conceived as an overview of water treatment in real operation, its novelty lies in a technological model Sector: Industry-Proven Case Studies of the treatment of turbine condensate, recycling of the cooling tower blowdown plus other liquid Showing Economic and Technical waste mixtures, and the rejection of colloidal substances from the secondary circuit in nuclear power Benefits of Membrane and Other plants. -
Coagulation-Flocculation As a Submerged Biological Filter Pre-Treatment with Landfill Leachate
Coagulation-flocculation as a submerged biological filter pre-treatment with landfill leachate A. Gálvez Perez1,2, A. Ramos1,2,3, B. Moreno1,2,3 & M. Zamorano Toro1,2 1Department of Civil Engineering, Granada University, Spain 2MITA Research Group 3Institute of Water Research Abstract Landfill leachate may cause environmental problems if it is not properly managed and treated. An appropriate treatment process of landfill leachate often involves a combination of physical, chemical and biological methods to obtain satisfactory results. In this study, coagulation-flocculation was proposed as a pre- treatment stage of partially stabilized landfill leachate prior to submerged biological filters. Several coagulants (ferric, aluminium or organic) and flocculants (cationic, anionic or non-ionic) were assayed in jar-test experiments in order to determine optimum conditions for the removal of COD and total solids. Among the cationic flocculants, that of highest molecular weight and cationicity (CV/850) showed highest removal efficiencies (15% COD and 8% TS). Organic and aluminium coagulants showed better results than ferric coagulants. Coagulant removal efficiencies were between 9% and 17% for COD and between 10% and 15% for TS. Doses of 1 ml/l of coagulant were preferred. Some combinations of coagulant and flocculant enhanced the process. The best combinations obtained were FeCl3+A30.L, Ferriclar+A20.L, SAL8.2+A30.L and PAX-18+A30.L, which presented COD removal efficiencies between 24% and 37% with doses between 10 and 18 ml/l. Keywords: landfill leachate, coagulation-flocculation, submerged biological filter pre-treatment. Waste Management and the Environment II, V. Popov, H. Itoh, C.A. Brebbia & S. -
Integration of Aqueous Two-Phase Extraction As Cell Harvest and Capture Operation in the Manufacturing Process of Monoclonal Antibodies
antibodies Article Integration of Aqueous Two-Phase Extraction as Cell Harvest and Capture Operation in the Manufacturing Process of Monoclonal Antibodies Axel Schmidt 1, Michael Richter 2, Frederik Rudolph 2 and Jochen Strube 1,* 1 Institute for Separation and Process Technology, Clausthal University of Technology, Leibnizstraße 15, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany; [email protected] 2 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Bioprocess + Pharma. Dev. Biologicals, Birkendorfer Strasse 65, 88397 Biberach an der Riss, Germany; [email protected] (M.R.); [email protected] (F.R.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-5323-72-2200 Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 20 November 2017; Published: 1 December 2017 Abstract: Substantial improvements have been made to cell culturing processes (e.g., higher product titer) in recent years by raising cell densities and optimizing cultivation time. However, this has been accompanied by an increase in product-related impurities and therefore greater challenges in subsequent clarification and capture operations. Considering the paradigm shift towards the design of continuously operating dedicated plants at smaller scales—with or without disposable technology—for treating smaller patient populations due to new indications or personalized medicine approaches, the rising need for new, innovative strategies for both clarification and capture technology becomes evident. Aqueous two-phase extraction (ATPE) is now considered to be a feasible unit operation, e.g., for the capture of monoclonal antibodies or recombinant proteins. However, most of the published work so far investigates the applicability of ATPE in antibody-manufacturing processes at the lab-scale and for the most part, only during the capture step. -
S-Layer Ultrafiltration Membranes
membranes Review S-Layer Ultrafiltration Membranes Bernhard Schuster * and Uwe B. Sleytr * Institute for Synthetic Bioarchitectures, Department of NanoBiotechnology, BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Muthgasse 11, 1190 Vienna, Austria * Correspondence: [email protected] (B.S.); [email protected] (U.B.S.) Abstract: Monomolecular arrays of protein subunits forming surface layers (S-layers) are the most common outermost cell envelope components of prokaryotic organisms (bacteria and archaea). Since S-layers are periodic structures, they exhibit identical physicochemical properties for each constituent molecular unit down to the sub-nanometer level. Pores passing through S-layers show identical size and morphology and are in the range of ultrafiltration membranes. The functional groups on the surface and in the pores of the S-layer protein lattice are accessible for chemical modifications and for binding functional molecules in very precise fashion. S-layer ultrafiltration membranes (SUMs) can be produced by depositing S-layer fragments as a coherent (multi)layer on microfiltration membranes. After inter- and intramolecular crosslinking of the composite structure, the chemical and thermal resistance of these membranes was shown to be comparable to polyamide membranes. Chemical modification and/or specific binding of differently sized molecules allow the tuning of the surface properties and molecular sieving characteristics of SUMs. SUMs can be utilized as matrices for the controlled immobilization of functional biomolecules (e.g., ligands, enzymes, antibodies, and antigens) as required for many applications (e.g., biosensors, diagnostics, enzyme- and affinity- membranes). Finally, SUM represent unique supporting structures for stabilizing functional lipid membranes at meso- and macroscopic scale. -
Membrane Filtration
Membrane Filtration A membrane is a thin layer of semi-permeable material that separates substances when a driving force is applied across the membrane. Membrane processes are increasingly used for removal of bacteria, microorganisms, particulates, and natural organic material, which can impart color, tastes, and odors to water and react with disinfectants to form disinfection byproducts. As advancements are made in membrane production and module design, capital and operating costs continue to decline. The membrane processes discussed here are microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO). MICROFILTRATION Microfiltration is loosely defined as a membrane separation process using membranes with a pore size of approximately 0.03 to 10 micronas (1 micron = 0.0001 millimeter), a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) of greater than 1000,000 daltons and a relatively low feed water operating pressure of approximately 100 to 400 kPa (15 to 60psi) Materials removed by MF include sand, silt, clays, Giardia lamblia and Crypotosporidium cysts, algae, and some bacterial species. MF is not an absolute barrier to viruses. However, when used in combination with disinfection, MF appears to control these microorganisms in water. There is a growing emphasis on limiting the concentrations and number of chemicals that are applied during water treatment. By physically removing the pathogens, membrane filtration can significantly reduce chemical addition, such as chlorination. Another application for the technology is for removal of natural synthetic organic matter to reduce fouling potential. In its normal operation, MF removes little or no organic matter; however, when pretreatment is applied, increased removal of organic material can occur. -
Ultrafiltration 1 Basic Ideas
Ultrafiltration 1 Basic Ideas Ultrafiltration is a effective separation method for proteins Protein have two characteristics which are important for these separation Large molecules Conformation change with pH Osmotic Pressure Macromolecule is uncharged Macromolecule can not pass through the membrane Solvent flows from right to left, diluting the macromolecular sol’n As the dilution takes place, the sol’n vol. increases and the level in the capillary rises Figure 1. Osmosis pressure across a membrane. Solvent can diffuse across the membrane shown, but solute cannot. Ideal state μ = μ μ 0 : chemical potential in STP 2 ( pure) 2 (solution) 2 V : partial molar volume of solvent μ 0 + 0 = μ 0 + + 2 2 p V2 2 pV2 RT ln x2 x2 : mole fraction RT ΔΠ = − = − ΔΠ p p0 ln x2 : osmotic pressure V2 If the macromolecular sol’n is dilute, then we can expand the logarithm in term of x1 Dilute sol’n ΔΠ = − = − RT = − RT − p p0 ln x2 ~ ln(1 x1 ) V2 V2 RT ≅ − − − ≅ : Van’t Hoff’s Law ~ ( x1 ....) RTc1 V2 Side chain of Proteins Carboxylic acid ( - COOH ) : glutamic acid in basic sol’n to form carboxylate ( - COO- ) groups Amine ( - NH2 ) : lysine in acid sol’n to form ammonium ( - NH3+ ) groups A function of the pH of the sol’n : the relative amount of these positive and negative charges + - - Low pH : more -NH3 and -COOH, High pH : more -NH2 and -COO Figure 2. Charges on a protein. At low pH, amine side chains are protonated to give a positive charge ; at high pH, carboxylic side chain ionizeto give a negative charge. -
Lecture 10. Membrane Separation – Materials and Modules
Lecture 10. Membrane Separation – Materials and Modules • Membrane Separation • Types of Membrane • Membrane Separation Operations - Microporous membrane - Dense membrane • Membrane Materials • Asymmetric Polymer Membrane • Membrane Modules Membrane Separation • Separation by means of a semipermeable barrier (membrane) through which one or more species move faster than another or other species; rate-controlled separation • Characteristics - The two products are usually miscible - The separating agent is a semipermeable barrier - A sharp separation is often difficult to achieve History of Membrane Separation • Large-scale applications have only appeared in the past 60 years 235 238 - 1940s: separation of UF6 from UF6 (porous fluorocarbons) - 1960s: reverse osmosis for seawater desalinization (cellulose acetate), commercial ultrafiltration membranes - 1979: hollow-fiber membrane for gas separation (polysulfone) - 1980s: commercialization of alcohol dehydration by pervaporation • Replacement of more-common separations with membrane - Potential: save large amounts of energy - Requirements § production of high-mass-transfer-flux, defect-free, long-life membranes on a large scale § fabrication of the membrane into compact, economical modules of high surface area Characteristics of Membrane Separation • Distillation vs. gas permeation : energy of separation for distillation is usually heat, but for gas permeation is the shaft work of gas compression • Emerging (new) unit operation : important progress is still being made for efficient membrane -
Pretreatment Process Optimization and Reverse Osmosis Performances of a Brackish Surface Water Demineralization Plant, Morocco
Desalination and Water Treatment 206 (2020) 189–201 www.deswater.com December doi: 10.5004/dwt.2020.26297 Pretreatment process optimization and reverse osmosis performances of a brackish surface water demineralization plant, Morocco Hicham Boulahfaa,*, Sakina Belhamidia, Fatima Elhannounia, Mohamed Takya, Mahmoud Hafsib, Azzedine Elmidaouia aLaboratory of Separation Processes, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, P.O. Box: 1246, Kenitra 14000, Morocco, emails: [email protected] (H. Boulahfa), [email protected] (S. Belhamidi), [email protected] (F. Elhannouni), [email protected] (M. Taky), [email protected] (A. Elmidaoui) bInternational Institute for Water and Sanitation, National Office of Electricity and Potable water (ONEE-IEA), Rabat, Morocco, email: [email protected] (M. Hafsi) Received 6 January 2020; Accepted 29 June 2020 abstract In surface water reverse osmosis (RO) demineralization processes, pretreatment is a key step in achieving high performances and avoiding frequent membrane fouling. The plant studied includes conventional pretreatment and RO process. The aim of this study is the optimization of the coagulation–flocculation and the assessment of its effect on pretreated water quality upstream of the RO unit. The monitored parameters were turbidity, residual aluminum, and silt density index (SDI). Moreover, this paper presents the RO membrane performance in terms of feed pressure, pressure drop, permeate flow, and permeate conductivity after nearly 1 y of operation. The results obtained illustrate that the pretreatment optimization substantially reduces the residual alu- minum concentration and the SDI after the 5 μm cartridge filters. Likewise, the RO membranes exhibited high and steady performance. -
Ultrafiltration and Nanofiltration Multilayer Membranes Based on Cellulose
Ultrafiltration and Nanofiltration Multilayer Membranes Based on Cellulose Dissertation by Sara Livazovic In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia June 2016 2 EXAMINATION COMMITTEE APPROVALS FORM The dissertation of Sara Livazovic is approved by the examination committee. Committee Chairperson: Prof. Dr. Suzana P. Nunes Committee Co-Chair: Prof. Dr. Suzana P. Nunes Committee Members: Prof. Dr. Klaus-Viktor Peinemann, Prof. Dr. Peiying Hong, Prof. Dr. Sacide Alsoy Altkinkaya 3 COPYRIGHT PAGE © June 2016 Sara Livazovic All Rights Reserved 4 ABSTRACT Ultrafiltration and Nanofiltration Multilayer Membranes Based on Cellulose Sara Livazovic Membrane processes are considered energy-efficient for water desalination and treatment. However most membranes are based on polymers prepared from fossil petrochemical sources. The development of multilayer membranes for nanofiltration and ultrafiltration, with thin selective layers of naturally available cellulose, has been hampered by the availability of non-aggressive solvents. We propose the manufacture of cellulose membranes based on two approaches: (i) silylation, coating from solutions in tetrahydrofuran, followed by solvent evaporation and cellulose regeneration by acid treatment; (ii) casting from solution in 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolum acetate ([C2mim]OAc), an ionic liquid, followed by phase inversion in water. In the search for less harsh, greener membrane manufacture, the combination of cellulose and ionic liquid is of high interest. Due to the abundance of OH groups and hydrophilicity, cellulose-based membranes have high permeability and low fouling tendency. Membrane fouling is one of the biggest challenges in membrane industry and technology. Accumulation and deposition of foulants onto the surface reduce membrane efficiency and requires harsh chemical cleaning, therefore increasing the cost of maintenance and replacement.