4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Effect of pore size, shear rate, and harvest time during the constant permeate flux microfiltration of CHO cell culture supernatant

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 890-897

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/btpr.4

关键词

microfiltration; fouling; CHO cell; hollow fiber; constant permeate flux

资金

  1. Emerging Frontiers & Multidisciplinary Activities
  2. Directorate For Engineering [1042881] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of the shear rate, the membrane pore size, and the age of the culture at time of harvest on transmembrane pressure (TMP) increase and membrane fouling during the microfiltration of a Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell culture supernatant was investigated. A hollow fiber microfiltration system operated at constant permeate flux was used. The highest TMP increase with filtration time was observed for the small membrane pore Size (0.20 mu m) operated at the higher shear rate (8.000 s(-1)). Furthermore, the high overall fouling observed with the small membrane pore size was also associated with the highest irreversible fouling and the most significant decrease of predicted open pore area. The predicted reduction in open pore area obtained with the combined pore blockage and cake formation mechanism could explain the observed TMP profiles. Based on the overall membrane fouling, the long-term irreversible fouling and the initial fouling rate, derived from oil empirical curve fitting, no effect of the time of harvest was observed but a dependence of the initial fouling rate on the shear rate was identified. Treatment of the fouled membrane with water showed the presence of a more significant reversible fouling at high shear rates and increased irreversible fouling with smaller membrane pore Size. It is recommended to use the large membrane pore Size (0.45 mu m) and the low shear rate (4,000 s(-1)) to minimize fouling associated with the soluble components of serum-free CHO cell culture supernatant.

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

4.3
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