Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 90, Issue 3 , Pages 1094-1101 , March 2007

Comparison of the Behavior of Two Nanofiltration Membranes for Sweet Whey Demineralization

Received 17 July 2006 ,Accepted 6 November 2006.

References 

  1. Afonso MD, de Pinho MN. Transport of MgSO4, MgCl2 and Na2SO4 across an amphoteric nanofiltration membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2000;179:137–154
  2. Alkhatim HS, Alcaina MI, Soriano E, Lora J, Arnal J. Treatment of whey effluents from dairy industries by nanofiltration membranes. Desalination. 1998;119:177–184
  3. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation. In:  Clesceri LS,  Greenberg AE,  Trussell RR,  Franson MAH editor. Standard methods: For the examination of water and wastewater. New York, NY: APHA; 1989;
  4. Atra R, Vatai G, Bekassy-Molnar E, Balint A. Investigation of ultra- and nanofiltration for utilization of whey protein and lactose. J. Food Eng. 2005;67:325–332
  5. Bargeman G, Vollenbroek JM, Straatsma J, Schroën CGPH, Boom RM. Nanofiltration of multi-component feeds. Interactions between neutral and charged components and their effect on retention. J. Memb. Sci. 2005;247:11–20
  6. Bellona C, Drewes JE. The role of membrane surface charge and solute physicochemical properties in the rejection of organic acids by NF membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2005;249:227–234
  7. Childress AE. Effect of solution chemistry on the surface charge of polymeric reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 1996;119:253–268
  8. Cuartas B, Alcaina MI, Soriano E. Separation of mineral salts and lactose solutions through nanofiltration membranes. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2004;10:255–262
  9. Cuartas-Uribe B, Vicent-Vela MC, Álvarez-Blanco S, Alcaina-Miranda MI, Soriano E. Prediction of solute rejection in nanofiltration processes using different mathematical models. Desalination. 2006;200:144–145
  10. Deshmukh SS, Childress AE. Zeta potential of commercial RO membranes: Influence of source water type and chemistry. Desalination. 2001;140:87–95
  11. Freger V, Arnot TC, Howell JA. Separation of concentrated organic/ionorganic salt mixtures by nanofiltration. J. Memb. Sci. 2000;178:185–193
  12. Her NG, Amy G, Jarusutthirak C. Seasonal variations of nanofiltration (NF) foulants: Identification and control. Desalination. 2000;132:143–160
  13. Gilron J, Gara N, Kedem O. Experimental analysis of negative salt rejection in nanofiltration membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2001;185:223–236
  14. Jeantet R, Schuck P, Famelart MH, Maubois JL. Intérêt de la nanofiltration dans la production de poundres de lactosérum déminéralisées. Lait. 1996;76:283–301
  15. Labbez C, Fievet P, Szymczyk A, Thomas F, Vidonne A, Pagetti J, et al. A comparison of membrane charge of a low nanofiltration ceramic membrane determined from ionic retention and tangential streaming potential measurements. Desalination. 2002;147:223–229
  16. Labbez C, Fievet P, Szymczyk A, Vidonne A, Foissy A, Pagetti J. Retention of mineral salts by a polyamide nanofiltration membrane. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2003;30:47–55
  17. Marcus Y. Ion solvation. New York, NY: Wiley; 1985;
  18. Mohammad AW, Takriff MS. Predicting flux and rejection of multicomponent salts mixture in nanofiltration membranes. Desalination. 2003;157:105–111
  19. Mucchetti G, Zardi G, Orlandini F, Gostoli C. The pre-concentration of milk bynanofiltration in the production of Quarg-type fresh cheeses. Lait. 2000;80:43–50
  20. Nyström M, Butylina S, Platt S. NF retention and critical flux of small hydrophilic/hydrophobic molecules. Memb. Technol. 2004;10:5–8
  21. Qin JJ, Oo MH, Lee H, Coniglio B. Effect of feed pH on permeate pH and ion rejection under conditions in NF process. J. Memb. Sci. 2004;231:153–159
  22. Räsänen E, Nyström M, Sahlstein J, Tossavainen O. Comparison of commercial membranes in nanofiltration of sweet whey. Lait. 2002;82:343–356
  23. Rektor A, Vatai G. Membrane filtration of Mozzarella whey. Desalination. 2004;162:279–286
  24. Shim Y, Lee HG, Lee S, Moon SH, Cho J. Effects of NOM and ionic species on membrane surface charge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002;36:3864–3871
  25. Szoke S, Patzay G, Weiser L. Characteristics of thin-film nanofiltration membranas at various pH-values. Desalination. 2002;151:123–129
  26. Tanninen J, Nyström M. Separation of ions in acidic conditions using NF. Desalination. 2002;147:295–299
  27. Tay JH, Liu J, Sun DD. Effect of solution physico-chemistry on the charge property of nanofiltration membranes. Water Res. 2002;36:585–598
  28. Teixeira MR, Rosa MJ, Nyström M. The role of membrane charge on nanofiltration performance. J. Memb. Sci. 2005;265:160–166
  29. Van der Horst HC, Timmer JMK, Robbertsen T, Leenders J. Use of nanofiltration for concentration and demineralization in the dairy industry: Model for mass transport. J. Memb. Sci. 1995;104:205–218
  30. Vourch MB, Balannec B, Chaufer B, Dorange G. Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis of model process waters from the dairy industry to produce water for reuse. Desalination. 2005;172:245–256
  31. Xu X, Spencer HG. Transport of electrolytes through a weak acid nanofiltration membrane: Effects of flux and crossflow velocity interpreted using a fine-porous membrane model. Desalination. 1997;113:85–93

PII: S0022-0302(07)71596-5

doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71596-5

Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 90, Issue 3 , Pages 1094-1101 , March 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution