Cargando…

Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations

In this study, we compared the GR51PP (hydrophobic/polysulfone) membrane with a series of hydrophilic (regenerated cellulose) membranes with the aim of increasing the retention of products and decreasing membrane fouling. The raw material used was a sodium-based spent sulfite liquor from the sulfite...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al-Rudainy, Basel, Galbe, Mats, Lipnizki, Frank, Wallberg, Ola
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6723451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31405130
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes9080099
_version_ 1783448771065020416
author Al-Rudainy, Basel
Galbe, Mats
Lipnizki, Frank
Wallberg, Ola
author_facet Al-Rudainy, Basel
Galbe, Mats
Lipnizki, Frank
Wallberg, Ola
author_sort Al-Rudainy, Basel
collection PubMed
description In this study, we compared the GR51PP (hydrophobic/polysulfone) membrane with a series of hydrophilic (regenerated cellulose) membranes with the aim of increasing the retention of products and decreasing membrane fouling. The raw material used was a sodium-based spent sulfite liquor from the sulfite pulping process of spruce and pine. The results show that the hydrophilic membranes were superior to the hydrophobic membranes in terms of higher fluxes (up to twice the magnitude), higher product retentions and less fouling (up to five times lower fouling). The fouling was probably caused by pore blocking as observed in earlier studies. However, the hydrophilic membranes had a lower affinity for lignin, which was indicated by the lower retention and fouling. This also resulted in a separation degree, which was higher compared with the hydrophobic membrane, thus yielding a higher galactoglucomannan (GGM) purity. 2D HSQC NMR results show that no major structural differences were present in the hydrophilic and hydrophobic retentates. A techno-economical evaluation resulted in the RC70PP being chosen as the most cost-efficient membrane in terms of flux and product recovery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6723451
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67234512019-09-10 Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations Al-Rudainy, Basel Galbe, Mats Lipnizki, Frank Wallberg, Ola Membranes (Basel) Article In this study, we compared the GR51PP (hydrophobic/polysulfone) membrane with a series of hydrophilic (regenerated cellulose) membranes with the aim of increasing the retention of products and decreasing membrane fouling. The raw material used was a sodium-based spent sulfite liquor from the sulfite pulping process of spruce and pine. The results show that the hydrophilic membranes were superior to the hydrophobic membranes in terms of higher fluxes (up to twice the magnitude), higher product retentions and less fouling (up to five times lower fouling). The fouling was probably caused by pore blocking as observed in earlier studies. However, the hydrophilic membranes had a lower affinity for lignin, which was indicated by the lower retention and fouling. This also resulted in a separation degree, which was higher compared with the hydrophobic membrane, thus yielding a higher galactoglucomannan (GGM) purity. 2D HSQC NMR results show that no major structural differences were present in the hydrophilic and hydrophobic retentates. A techno-economical evaluation resulted in the RC70PP being chosen as the most cost-efficient membrane in terms of flux and product recovery. MDPI 2019-08-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6723451/ /pubmed/31405130 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes9080099 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Al-Rudainy, Basel
Galbe, Mats
Lipnizki, Frank
Wallberg, Ola
Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations
title Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations
title_full Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations
title_fullStr Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations
title_full_unstemmed Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations
title_short Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations
title_sort galactoglucomannan recovery with hydrophilic and hydrophobic membranes: process performance and cost estimations
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6723451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31405130
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes9080099
work_keys_str_mv AT alrudainybasel galactoglucomannanrecoverywithhydrophilicandhydrophobicmembranesprocessperformanceandcostestimations
AT galbemats galactoglucomannanrecoverywithhydrophilicandhydrophobicmembranesprocessperformanceandcostestimations
AT lipnizkifrank galactoglucomannanrecoverywithhydrophilicandhydrophobicmembranesprocessperformanceandcostestimations
AT wallbergola galactoglucomannanrecoverywithhydrophilicandhydrophobicmembranesprocessperformanceandcostestimations