Relating the pore size distribution of ultrafiltration membranes to dextran rejection

Abstract The rejection of various molecular weight dextrans for two commercially available regenerated cellulose and one polyethersulfone membrane has been investigated. Experimentally determined rejection curves were compared to calculated rejection curves based on field-emission scanning electron microscopy imaging assuming that the membrane pore size distribution may be described by the log-normal distribution function. Results show relatively good agreement between calculated and experimental curves; however, the calculated curves generally predict a broader rejection curve. At lower rejection values, the actual rejection is less than calculated. Results also indicate that field-emission scanning electron microscopy, a routinely used imaging technique, may be used to estimate the rejection curve for a membrane, thus enabling more informed selection of an appropriate membrane for a given separation. The results of this work are relevant to ultrafiltration, which is used in the biotechnology industry for protein concentration and buffer exchange. The success of a given UF operation depends on efficient passage or rejection of the desired solute species in solution.

[1]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Quantitative microscopic study of surface characteristics of ultrafiltration membranes , 1990 .

[2]  M. Ulbricht,et al.  Dextran fouling of polyethersulfone ultrafilltrationmembranes-Causes, extent and consequences , 2007 .

[3]  S. Mochizuki,et al.  Theoretical analysis of pore size distribution effects on membrane transport , 1993 .

[4]  Andrew L. Zydney,et al.  A Stefan-Maxwell Analysis of Protein Transport in Porous Membranes , 1988 .

[5]  G. Belfort,et al.  Use of the log-normal probability density function to analyze membrane pore size distributions: functional forms and discrepancies , 1994 .

[6]  W. Deen Hindered transport of large molecules in liquid‐filled pores , 1987 .

[7]  K. S. Spiegler,et al.  Thermodynamics of hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis): criteria for efficient membranes , 1966 .

[8]  Bengt Rippe,et al.  Ficoll and dextran vs. globular proteins as probes for testing glomerular permselectivity: effects of molecular size, shape, charge, and deformability. , 2005, American journal of physiology. Renal physiology.

[9]  V. Rodgers,et al.  Sieving variations due to the choice in pore size distribution model , 2002 .

[10]  L. Zeman,et al.  Steric Rejection of Polymeric Solutes by Membranes with Uniform Pore Size Distribution , 1981 .

[11]  Nicholas A. Peppas,et al.  Macromolecular structure and solute diffusion in membranes: An overview of recent theories , 1983 .

[12]  Changsheng Zhao,et al.  Determination of pore size and pore size distribution on the surface of hollow-fiber filtration membranes : a review of methods , 2000 .

[13]  S. Mochizuki,et al.  Dextran transport through asymmetric ultrafiltration membranes: Comparison with hydrodynamic models , 1992 .

[14]  Andrew L. Zydney,et al.  Bioprocess membrane technology , 2007 .

[15]  H. Gregor,et al.  Modelling of the pore size distribution of ultrafiltration membranes , 1985 .

[16]  J. Leypoldt Determining pore size distributions of ultrafiltration membranes by solute sieving - mathematical limitations , 1987 .

[17]  A. R. Cooper,et al.  Characterization of Ultrafiltration Membranes by Polymer Transport Measurements , 1979 .

[18]  J. Calvin Giddings,et al.  Statistical theory for the equilibrium distribution of rigid molecules in inert porous networks. Exclusion chromatography , 1968 .

[19]  Shin-ichi Nakao,et al.  Determination of pore size and pore size distribution: 3. Filtration membranes , 1994 .

[20]  G. Tkacik,et al.  A Rejection Profile Test for Ultrafiltration Membranes & Devices , 1991, Bio/Technology.

[21]  Andrew L. Zydney,et al.  Improving dextran tests for ultrafiltration membranes: Effect of device format , 2007 .

[22]  B. Brenner,et al.  Determination of glomerular size-selectivity in the normal rat with Ficoll. , 1992, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[23]  J. Ferry,et al.  STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF SIEVE CONSTANTS IN ULTRAFILTRATION , 1936, The Journal of general physiology.

[24]  A. Katchalsky,et al.  Thermodynamic analysis of the permeability of biological membranes to non-electrolytes. , 1958, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[25]  M. Meireles,et al.  Effects of protein fouling on the apparent pore size distribution of sieving membranes , 1991 .

[26]  M. Meireles,et al.  A contribution to the translation of retention curves into pore size distributions for sieving membranes , 1990 .

[27]  J. Ferry,et al.  The ultrafiltration of proteins through graded collodion membranes: Haemocyanin (Helix), edestin, and egg albumin. , 1936, The Biochemical journal.