| Literature DB >> 31698840 |
Francisca Mora1, Karla Pérez2, Carolina Quezada2, Carla Herrera2, Alfredo Cassano3, René Ruby-Figueroa2.
Abstract
The influence of membrane pore size on the permeate flux, fouling mechanism, and rejection of soluble and suspended solids, as well as of phenolics and anthocyanins, in the clarification of grape marc extract by microfiltration (MF) was studied. MF was operated by using three monotubular ceramic membranes with a pore size of 0.14, 0.2, and 0.8 µm, respectively, according to a batch concentration configuration in selected operating conditions (2.25 bar as operating pressure, 4.93 L/min as feed flow rate, and 25 °C as operating temperature). No significant differences in the permeate flux values were appreciated despite the difference in pore size. The mathematical analyses of the flux behavior revealed that intermediate pore blocking is the predominant mechanism for 0.14 and 0.2 µm membranes, whereas complete pore blocking prevails for the 0.8 µm membrane. Differences in the fouling mechanism were associated with differences in the total phenols rejection: the highest rejection was observed for the 0.8 µm membrane followed by 0.2 and 0.14 µm membranes. All selected membranes showed low rejection of sugars, with values lower than 10%, and no retention towards anthocyanins. All the clarified extracts showed a turbidity lower than 4.87 NTU. Based on the experimental results, the 0.14 µm membrane appeared as the best option for the clarification of grape marc extract.Entities:
Keywords: clarification; fouling analysis; grape marc; microfiltration
Year: 2019 PMID: 31698840 PMCID: PMC6918468 DOI: 10.3390/membranes9110146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up for ultrasound-assisted extraction.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of Microfiltration experimental set-up.
Summary of characteristic equations for constant pressure filtration laws.
| Function | n Value | Model | Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete pore blocking | n = 2 |
| (4) |
| Standard pore blocking | n = 1.5 |
| (5) |
| Intermediate pore blocking | n = 1 |
| (6) |
| Cake formation | n = 0 |
| (7) |
Figure 3Chromatograms of the characterization of grape marc extracts obtained from an ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE). (a) HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS analysis; (b) ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) analysis.
Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry LC-MS data of phenolic compounds from the extract obtained by UAE.
| Peak | Compound | tR (min) | λ (nm) | [M-H]+ | Product Ions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Petunidin-3-glucoside | 16.11 | 280, 523 | 479 | 317, 302, 274 |
| 2 | Peonidin-3-glucoside | 18.62 | 280, 327, 520 | 463 | 301, 286 |
| 3 | Malvidin-3-O-glucoside ** | 20.15 | 280, 350, 528 | 493 | 331, 315, 287 |
| 4 | Quercetin-3-glucuronide *** | 21.94 | 250, 353 | 479 | 303 |
| 5 | Quercetin 3-glucoside *** | 22.75 | 250, 351 | 465 | 303 |
| 6 | Petunidin 3-(acetyl)-glucoside | 24.55 | 280, 530 | 521 | 317, 302 |
| 7 | Petunidin 3-(caffeoyl)-glucoside | 25.83 | 280, 530 | 641 | 317, 302, 274 |
| 8 | Delphinidin 3-rutinoside | 26.20 | 280, 320, 529 | 611 | 303 |
| 9 | n.i. * | 26.63 | 276, 500 | 559 | 355, 339, 311 |
| 10 | Peonidin 3-(acetyl)-glucoside | 27.70 | 280, 312,520 | 505 | 301, 286 |
| 11 | Malvidin 3-(acetyl)-glucoside | 28.90 | 276, 529 | 535 | 331, 315, 287 |
| 12 | Malvidin 3-(caffeoyl)-glucoside | 29.71 | 281, 327, 530 | 655 | 331, 315, 287 |
| 13 | Petunidin 3-(coumaroyl)-glucoside | 30.30 | 281, 532 | 625 | 317, 302 |
| 14 | Malvidin-3-rutinoside | 32.40 | 280, 530 | 639 | 331, 315, 287 |
| 15 | Peonidin 3-(coumaroyl)-glucoside | 33.85 | 283, 310, 523 | 609 | 301, 286 |
| 16 | Malvidin 3-(coumaroyl)-glucoside | 34.40 | 282, 532 | 639 | 331, 315, 287 |
* n.i., not identified. ** signal dissociation, presents identical mass spectrometry data corresponding to the same compound. *** Flavonols.
Figure 4Time course of permeate flux for the investigated membranes. Operating conditions: TMP, 2.25 bar; Qf, 4.93 L/min; T, 25 °C.
Fitted parameters for fouling models according to the modified Hermia’s models for cross-flow filtration, unified model of flux decline, and statistical model analysis for the studied membranes. S-W: Shapiro–Wilks test; K-S: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; RMSE: root mean square error.
| Fouling Model | Membrane Pore Size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.14 µm | 0.2 µm | 0.8 µm | |||
| Hermia’s models adapted for cross-flow microfiltration [ | Complete pore blocking | Kc | 32.535 | 26.001 | 95.9345 |
| R2 | 95.2028 | 96.3153 | 91.6064 | ||
| RMSE | 0.0049 | 0.0017 | 0.0038 | ||
| S-W test ( | 7.83 × 10−10 | 0.2746 | 4.3 × 10−6 | ||
| K-S test ( | 0.000657 | 0.6340 | 0.0846100 | ||
| Standard pore blocking | Ki | 0.656384 | 0.73382 | 0,67193 | |
| R2 | 67.13958 | 55.6330 | 89.655 | ||
| RMSE | 0.0042 | 0.0013 | 0.0028 | ||
| S-W test ( | 1.43 × 10−3 | 0.0157 | 2.89 × 10−9 | ||
| K-S test ( | 0.022328 | 0.4564 | 0.006085 | ||
| Intermediate pore blocking | Ks | 36.9425 | 47.5505 | 129.562 | |
| R2 | 95.2028 | 97.8559 | 90.5891 | ||
| RMSE | 0.0035 | 0.0008 | 0.0023 | ||
| S-W test ( | 9.49 × 10−10 | 0.0003 | 5.95 × 10−9 | ||
| K-S test ( | 0.000516 | 0.2808 | 0.037512 | ||
| Cake formation | Kg | 5,800,344 | 8,642,697 | 11,030,594 | |
| R2 | 88.53165 | 97.5383 | 82.30814 | ||
| RMSE | 0.0031 | 0.0013 | 0.0015 | ||
| S-W test ( | 2.89 × 10−8 | 3.76 × 10−6 | 3.74 × 10−11 | ||
| K-S test ( | 0.004099 | 0.33078 | 0.0104003 | ||
| Unified model for flux decline Yee et al. [ | K1 | 0.000292 | 0.00054 | 4.55 × 10−4 | |
| b1 | −10.9087 | −10.734 | −10,9964 | ||
| K2 | 0.0000811 | 0.00013 | 1.291 × 10−5 | ||
| b2 | −11.7368 | −11.3531 | −12.1731 | ||
| K3 | 5.05 × 10−5 | 4.7 × 10−5 | 1.115× 10−5 | ||
| b3 | −11.9331 | −12.0056 | −12.3943 | ||
| R2 | 90.594 | 97.35 | 80.576 | ||
| RMSE | 3.3 × 10−3 | 0.5 × 10−3 | 1.6 × 10−2 | ||
| S-W test ( | 5.86 × 10−10 | 0.61 | 1.13 × 10−6 | ||
| K-S test ( | 9.41 × 10−5 | 0.7652 | 0.04760 | ||
Figure 5Experimental results and predicted values by the Yee model for the studied membranes.
Figure 6Suspended solids content in the grape marc extract (feed) and the permeate stream of investigated membranes.
Figure 7Rejection of MF membranes towards total phenols.
Figure 8Rejection of MF membranes towards soluble solids content.
Anthocyanins content in the feed and permeate stream of investigated membranes.
| Compound | Sample | Membrane Pore Size | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.14 µm | 0.2 µm | 0.8 µm | ||
| Malvidin-3-O-glucoside (mg/L) | Feed | 43.77 ± 0.58 | 43.29 ± 2.1 | 40.62 ± 1.8 |
| Permeate * | 42.95 ± 0.71 | 42.72 ± 1.26 | 39.44 ± 0.22 | |
| Malvidin 3-(acetyl)-glucoside (mg/L) ** | Feed | 18.81 ± 4.8 | 19.13 ± 1.3 | 17.49 ± 2.6 |
| Permeate * | 18.01 ± 0.39 | 18.08 ± 0.30 | 16.76 ± 0.12 | |
| Malvidin 3-(coumaroyl)-glucoside ** | Feed | 79.46 ± 4.7 | 79.72 ± 5.1 | 76.10 ± 3.2 |
| Permeate * | 75.71 ± 2.18 | 74.91 ± 1.60 | 68.65 ± 12.85 | |
* The value reported is the mean ± SD for the samples taken during 180 min of filtration (9 samples taken every 20 min). ** malvidin 3-(acetyl)-glucoside and malvidin 3-(coumaroyl)-glucoside were expressed as malvidin-3-glucoside equivalents.