Maximal pore size in UF membranes

Abstract The ultrafiltration membrane rejection capability is most often characterized by molecular weight cut-off (MWCO). The value is found by rejection of organic solutes and the evaluation of particle retention requires a conversion of either MWCO to pore size or particle diameter to molecular weight. The conversion affects the accuracy of reported values and results in a gap between reported and measured retentions. We suggest a novel, simple and effective pore size test based on synthesis and membrane transfer of rigid nanoparticles. Gold and silver 3–50 nm monodispersions had delivered a comprehensive pore size distribution including d100, a pore diameter for which a membrane has a 100% retention capability. The maximal pore size in UF membrane structure can hardly be detected with other methods although it is much needed for precise separation analysis. The d100 values in tested UF membranes vary between 40 nm and 50 nm depending on the membrane material. The polymer membranes are more flexible than the ceramics and their d100 is usually much higher than MWCO. The d100 increases with high transmembrane pressure or after oxidative chemical cleaning. For some membranes the d100 values can be correlated with d90 but not with d50.

[1]  William J. Koros,et al.  Ceramic membrane characterization via the bubble point technique , 1997 .

[2]  Munir Cheryan,et al.  Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook , 1998 .

[3]  J. Hillier,et al.  A study of the nucleation and growth processes in the synthesis of colloidal gold , 1951 .

[4]  B. Steubing,et al.  Influence of pH and ionic strength on transmission of plasmid DNA through ultrafiltration membranes , 2008 .

[5]  David R. Latulippe,et al.  Elongational flow model for transmission of supercoiled plasmid DNA during membrane ultrafiltration , 2009 .

[6]  Elizabeth Arkhangelsky,et al.  Understanding the oxidative cleaning of UF membranes , 2011 .

[7]  J. Slot,et al.  A new method of preparing gold probes for multiple-labeling cytochemistry. , 1985, European journal of cell biology.

[8]  Kazuo Yamamoto,et al.  Effect of pore structure of membranes and module configuration on virus retention , 1996 .

[9]  Robert M. Clark,et al.  Application of nanoscale probes for the evaluation of the integrity of ultrafiltration membranes , 2006 .

[10]  David R. Latulippe,et al.  Plasmid DNA transmission through charged ultrafiltration membranes , 2009 .

[11]  A. Zydney,et al.  Effect of Membrane Charge on Flow and Protein Transport during Ultrafiltration , 2006, Biotechnology progress.

[12]  P. Prádanos,et al.  Liquid–liquid displacement porometry to estimate the molecular weight cut-off of ultrafiltration membranes , 2011 .

[13]  K. Sakai,et al.  Determination of pore size and pore size distribution: 2. Dialysis membranes , 1994 .

[14]  G. Rothenberg,et al.  Kinetics and mechanism of plasmid DNA penetration through nanopores , 2011 .

[15]  Robert M. Clark,et al.  Nanoscale probes for the evaluation of the integrity of ultrafiltration membranes , 2006 .

[16]  W. Burchard,et al.  Structure properties of dextran. 2. Dilute solution , 2000 .

[17]  P. Prádanos,et al.  Pore size distributions of track-etched membranes; comparison of surface and bulk porosities , 1998 .

[18]  S. Ohgaki,et al.  Effect of pore size distribution of ultrafiltration membranes on virus rejection in crossflow conditions , 1994 .

[19]  A. Zander,et al.  Standardized Membrane Pore Size Characterization by Polyethylene Glycol Rejection , 2002 .

[20]  V. Bondar,et al.  Colloidal stability of modified nanodiamond particles , 2009 .

[21]  S. Kinge,et al.  Matter of age: growing anisotropic gold nanocrystals in organic media. , 2008, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[22]  W. Uhl,et al.  Organic fouling and floc transport in capillaries , 2011 .

[23]  Marcel Mulder,et al.  Basic Principles of Membrane Technology , 1991 .

[24]  Viatcheslav Freger,et al.  Chemical cleaning of UF membranes fouled by BSA , 2005 .

[25]  N. Yamamoto,et al.  Mechanism of Removing Japanese Encephalitis virus (JEV) and Gold Particles Using Cuprammonium Regenerated Cellulose Hollow Fiber (i-BMM or BMM) from Aqueous Solution Containing Protein , 1994 .

[26]  Elizabeth Arkhangelsky,et al.  Effect of transmembrane pressure on rejection of viruses by ultrafiltration membranes , 2008 .

[27]  P. Prádanos,et al.  Liquidliquid displacement porosimetry for the characterization of virus retentive membranes , 2011 .

[28]  J. Otero,et al.  Three independent ways to obtain information on pore size distributions of nanofiltration membranes , 2008 .

[29]  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 .

[30]  K. Kaneko Determination of pore size and pore size distribution1. Adsorbents and catalysts , 1994 .

[31]  M W Phillips,et al.  A validatible porosimetric technique for verifying the integrity of virus-retentive membranes. , 1996, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[32]  A. Zydney,et al.  Role of electrostatic interactions during protein ultrafiltration. , 2010, Advances in colloid and interface science.

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

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

[35]  Sal Giglia,et al.  High sensitivity binary gas integrity test for membrane filters , 2008 .

[36]  B. Freeman,et al.  Polymeric Membranes for Chiral Separation of Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals , 2010 .