4.7 Article

Fouling in microfiltration of wine: The influence of the membrane polymer on adsorption of polyphenols and polysaccharides

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 335-342

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2009.06.004

关键词

Adsorption; Fouling; Polyphenol; Filtration performance; Wine filtration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microfiltration (MF) is a frequently used to clarify wine, but the fouling of the membranes is the main limiting factor for the overall process capacity. In this work, data from MF clarification of a white wine are presented which show that membranes made from polypropylene (PP) yield significantly higher fluxes and through-put than membranes made from polyarylsulfone, both having the same cut-off pore size (0.2 mu m). The aim of this study was then to pursue the hypothesis that different membranes (based on PP or polyethersulfone, PES) exhibit different levels of adsorption of typical foulants in wine such as polyphenols and polysaccharides, to link the level of adsorption to polymer characteristics and to correlate membrane fluxes with these findings. A model solution for wine (synthetic red wine) has been established by using a commercial red grape marc extract (from grapes after fermentation). It was found that polyphenols and polysaccharides are only marginally adsorbed by PP but strongly adsorbed by PES membranes. Comparison between data for individual model substances for polyphenol or polysaccharide and their mixtures with data for synthetic red wine support the hypothesis that aggregates of polyphenols and polysaccharides present in red wine have a strong contribution to adsorptive fouling, and that the interaction between polyphenols and the membrane surface is the main driving force. In consequence, the low adsorption tendency of wine ingredients to PP membranes results in higher fluxes and longer service life of the respective filtration modules in wine clarification. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据