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

Biotechnology Progress

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 890-897

  Stressmann, Maja ^a   Moresoli, Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

CHO cell; Constant permeate flux; Fouling; Hollow fiber; Microfiltration

Indexed keywords

CELL MEMBRANES; FIBER OPTICS; FILTRATION; FOULING; HARVESTING; MICROFILTRATION; PORE SIZE; POROSITY; POROUS MATERIALS; SCALE (DEPOSITS); SHEAR DEFORMATION; SHEAR FLOW; THERMOMECHANICAL PULPING PROCESS; WASTEWATER TREATMENT;

CHINESE-HAMSTER OVARY; CHO CELL; CONSTANT PERMEATE FLUX; CULTURE SUPERNATANT; FILTRATION TIME; HARVEST TIME; HOLLOW FIBER; HOLLOW FIBERS; MEMBRANE FOULING; MEMBRANE PORE SIZE; PERMEATE FLUXES; SHEAR RATES; TRANS-MEMBRANE PRESSURE;

CELL CULTURE;

ANIMAL; ARTIFICIAL MEMBRANE; CELL SEPARATION; CHO CELL; CONFERENCE PAPER; CRICETULUS; CULTURE TECHNIQUE; FILTRATION; HAMSTER; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MICROPORE FILTER; PERMEABILITY; SHEAR STRENGTH; VISCOSITY;

ANIMALS; CELL CULTURE TECHNIQUES; CELL SEPARATION; CHO CELLS; CRICETINAE; CRICETULUS; FILTRATION; MEMBRANES, ARTIFICIAL; MICROPORE FILTERS; PERMEABILITY; SHEAR STRENGTH; VISCOSITY;

CELLS; FIBER OPTICS; FILTRATION; FOULING; HOLLOW SYNTHETIC FIBERS; PORE SIZE; POROSITY; POROUS MATERIALS; SHEAR FLOW; THERMOMECHANICAL PULPING;

CRICETULUS GRISEUS;

EID: 51849088492     PISSN: 87567938     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/btpr.4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. van Reis R, Zydney A. Bioprocess membrane technology. J Membr Sci. 2007;297:16-50.
2. Kroner KH, Schutte H, Hustedt H, Kula MR. Cross-flow filtration in the downstream processing of enzymes. Process Biochem. 1984;19:67-74.
3. Defrise D, Gekas V. Microfiltration membranes and the problem of microbial adhesion - a literature survey. Process Biochem. 1988;23:105-116.
4. Harscoat C, Jaffrin MY, Bouzerar R, Courtois J. Influence of fermentation conditions and microfiltration processes on membrane fouling during recovery of glucuronane polysaccharides from fermentation broths. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1999;65:500-511.
5. Meireles M, Lavoute E, Bacchin P. Filtration of a bacterial fermentation broth: harvest conditions effects on cake hydraulic resistance. Bioprocess Biosys Eng. 2003,25,309-314.
6. Fletcher M. The effects of culture concentration and age, time, and temperature on bacterial attachment to polystyrene. Can J Microbiol. 1977;23:1-6.
7. Taddei C, Aimar P, Howell JA, Scott JA. Yeast-cell harvesting from cider using microfiltration. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 1990;47:365-376.
8. Güell C, Davis RH. Membrane fouling during microfiltration of protein mixtures. J Membr Sci. 1996;119:269-284.
9. Güell C, Czekaj P, Davis RH. Microfiltration of protein mixtures and the effects of yeast on membrane fouling. J Membr Sci. 1999;155:113-122.
10. Thomassen JK, Faraday DBF, Underwood BO, Cleaver JAS. The effect of varying transmembrane pressure and crossflow velocity on the microfiltration fouling of a model beer. Sep Purif Technol. 2005;41:91-100.
11. Field RW, Wu D, Howell JA, Gupta BB. Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling. J Membr Sci. 1995;100:259-272.
12. Hughes D, Field RW. Crossflow filtration of washed and unwashed yeast suspensions at constant shear under nominally sub-critical conditions. J Membr Sci. 2006;280:89-98.
13. Lojkine MH, Field RW, Howell JA. Crossflow microfiltration of cell suspensions: a review of models with emphasis on particle size effects. Trans Inst Chem Eng. 1992;70:149-164.
14. Marshall AD, Munro PA, Tragardh G. The effect of protein fouling in microfiltration and ultrafiltration on permeate flux, protein retention and selectivity - a literature-review. Desalination. 1993;91:65-108.
15. Defrance L, Jaffrin MY. Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci. 1999;152:203-210.
16. Frenander U, Jonsson AS. Cell harvesting by cross-flow microfiltration using a shear-enhanced module. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1996;52:397-403.
17. Berthold W, Kempken R. Interaction of cell-culture with downstream purification - a case-study. Cytotechnology. 1994;15:229-242.
18. Krstic DM, Markov SL, Tekic MN. Membrane fouling during cross-flow microfiltration of polyporus squamosus fermentation broth. Biochem Eng J. 2001;9:103-109.
19. Tardieu E, Grasmick A, Geaugey V, Manem J. Influence of hydrodynamics on fouling velocity in a recirculated MBR for wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci. 1999;156:131-140.
20. Maiorella B, Dorin G, Carion A, Harano D. Crossflow microfiltration of animal cells. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1991;37:121-126.
21. van Reis R, Leonard LC, Hsu CC, Builder SE. Industrial-scale harvest of proteins from mammalian-cell culture by tangential flow filtration. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1991;38:413-422.
22. Zydney AL, Ho CC. Effect of membrane morphology on system capacity during normal flow microfiltration. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2003;83:537-543.
23. Ho CC, Zydney AL. The effect of membrane morphology on the initial protein of protein fouling during microfiltration. J Membr Sci. 1999;155:261-275.
24. Ho CC, Zydney AL. Transmembrane pressure profiles during constant flux microfiltration of bovine serum albumin. J Membr Sci. 2002;209:363-377.
25. Choi H, Zhang K, Dionysiou DD, Oerther DB, Sorial GA. Influence of cross-flow velocity on membrane performance during filtration of biological suspension. J Membr Sci. 2005;248:189-199.
26. Kelly ST, Opong WS, Zydney AL. The influence of protein aggregates on the fouling of microfiltration membranes during stirred cell filtration. J Membr Sci. 1993;80:175-187.