Membrane filtration for use in wine filtration 1

[marketingcatalyst]

I look for membranes manufactures and modules for filtration, separation, concentration and purification processes in the wine making.
Does anyone know who has the best knowledge in this field?
Thanks.

 

[aspearin1]

"Best" knowledge is relative. I do know of companies who have specialty products for food and beverages such as beer and wine. I know for sure CUNO, Inc. has these products. I imagine Pall and Millipore also have some of the products. because wine requires keeping its taste and color, you wouldn't want anything like an UF or RO system. You'll want some sort of diatomaceous earth pre-filtration and a sterilizing grade final filter. Of the companies I mentioned, CUNO has the better diatomaceous earth filter.... All of the companies have their own version of a sterilizing or bioburden reduction filter.

http://www.cuno.com;

http://www.pall.com;

http://www.millipore.com

for more information.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[marketingcatalyst]

ChemE, M.E. EIT, thank you.
The membrane filtration step is used for clarification of the wine.
I certainly will have a closer look at the links you provided.
I look for crossflow capillary microfiltration membranes.
High hydrophilicity of the membranes ensures an extremely low fouling tendency.

 

[aspearin1]

I suggest nylon membrane cartridges. Very hydrophilic. Can get down to 0.2 microns. Fouling will depend on how dirty your system is. To extend the life of your final filter, you may look into pre-filtration. Each of the companies I listed have Applications Engineers or Scientists who would be able to come out to your site, perform tests, and recommend the most effective products for your application.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[marketingcatalyst]

My idea was to look into Hydrophilic polyethersulfone membrane with very good anti-fouling behavior but the suggested nylon membrane cartridges is interesting.
Objective is trying to lower costs and provide the perfect quality at minimum expense.
Thank you for the debate.

 

[aspearin1]

PES is popular in the Healthcare industry. I'm not sure about Food and Beverage. I believe nylon is a cheaper purchase. PES usually has a longer life, but it's because it lets a lot of intracellular material pass through. Nylon tends to bond intracellular proteins from lysed cells, and thus fouls sooner. Like I said, it all depends on your batch variation, batch cleanliness and batch size. An applications specialist will usually make the best recommendation based on bench scale testing.

If you can get a nylon membrane to process all of one batch and have it be near exhaustion at the end of the batch, it may be more cost effective than a PES filter that has not been exhausted but still needs to be thrown away because the batch is finished. Storage of partially exhausted filters is not recommended. Bacteria will certainly grow on the filter. If you prefer PES, then I would suggest Pall or Millipore. I believe Sartorius also has a PES filter. From rumor, I believe Millipore has the best PES cartridge, but I cannot say for sure. CUNO does not yet market a PES membrane filter.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[marketingcatalyst]

Thank you, ChemE, M.E. EIT.
I was looking at this one:

http://www.x-flow.com/import/assetmanager/3/3183/CAPF-15-MF02M2-0250.pdf

Appreciating your comments.
Thanks.

 

[aspearin1]

Looks interesting. I'm less familiar with this technology. I see you're looking at a more permanent installation, rather than disposable cartridges. The cartridges I'm most familiar with are disposable pleated membrane. They are cross-flow, but unlike the x-flow, the bulk velocity profile is perpendicular to the membrane surface, rather than parallel. I am biassed to disposable systems, since that is what I work with. I believe that disposable products is the trend of the Food and Beverage and Healthcare market. Companies are realizing that the costs can be higher by maintaining chemical cleaners, anti-foulants and biocides, the time it takes to sterilize large "cleanable" systems, and the space it all takes up. As a wine producer, I would be suspicious of how soaking my filters in biocide will effect my product.

I see they suggest increasing flux to overcome fouling. While this may work, increasing the flux also can decrease the efficiency, and can let unwanted debris through. This, to me, sounds like a procedural recommendation to compensate for a pitfall in the design.

-aspearin1

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[marketingcatalyst]

Remarkable and an astonishing reply, now where can I obtain information about your disposable cartridges for comparison at my suggested/proposed filtration?
BTW.
The cleaning agent cost is as you can see is nearly nothing and can be obtained everywhere. For disinfection, a 1% sodium metabisulfite solution can be used or alcohols, no need for” soaking my filters in biocide”

 

[marketingcatalyst]

I would like to add this in our debate:

http://www.x-flow.com/import/bestanden/pdf/X-Flow_10_reasons.pdf

“Companies are realizing that the costs can be higher by maintaining chemical cleaners, anti-foulants and biocides, the time it takes to sterilize large "cleanable" systems, and the space it all takes up. As a wine producer, I would be suspicious of how soaking my filters in biocide will effect my product.”

The 10 reasons is taking that away I would say.

 

[aspearin1]

I still stand by my argument. The "10 reasons" focussed on UF (ultra-filtration), which is borderline nano-scale. UF is classified not necessarily on a pore size rating, but a nonminal molecular weight cutoff (NMWC I believe). For wine, you will not only remove yeast and bacteria, but you will also remove tannins and pigments and some of the flavor will probably ride out on those as well. For wine, you want MF (micro filtration). The "10 reasons" seemed to focuse on potable water. In the industries I'm used to, reducing a backwash cycle down to ONLY 16-hours with a "CEB" technology is not enough of an improvement. That's a lot of time down the drain. Here in the U.S. it costs money to bring that water in the building and also to send that water into the sewer. I couldn't imagine leaving my own faucet running for 16 hours straight... and that's just 3 gpm.

Also consider the hold-up volume of the system. This represents potential loss of product. If you are performing a 16 hour backwash, you have a water-saturated system. You then probably need 3x that volume of wine to flush out the excess water, unless you can live with a diluted product.

I'm also not familiar with submersible UF. I presume it's just like this housed UF (x-flow) but it's open into a large sump.

The products I my company produces are disposable pleated cartridges. They are plumbed in sanitary stainless steel housing with all sanitary fittings. Most housings are flexible enough to increase capacity as necessary. Cartridges are not backwashed, but are discarded. The cartridge business is so diverse that every competitor can retrofit each other's housings. If you bought housings from my company and decided you didn't like the filters, you could easily switch to my one of my competitor's products.

The x-flow will no doubt outlast any single cartridge. What you would need to balance is capital expediture and long-term operating costs over the predicted life of one x-flow filter. (Backwash schedules, batch sizes, change out frequency, labor, consumables, lost product...) Lots to consider.

I'd be curious to know if your x-flow technical rep suggests some sort of pre-filter. If you want a tech rep from my company, you can follow the contact instructions on the

http://www.cuno.com

web page. The same would also be true with Pall or Millipore.

Good Luck.
-aspearin1



ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[brennanpe]

Wine clarification can and is done via microfiltration membranes.

Check this link:

http://www.kochmembrane.com/mktapp_winef.html

 

[hprorelis]

In France, ceramic membranes are used for wine filtration
Trade mark : Kerasep 0,1 µ
same ceramic membranes are used for spring water filtration after oxydation step using air (iron and maganese removal)

 

[JimAftek]

Let me step back, I know this is a older thread but:

Membrane filtration in wines is a absolute filtration method normally reserved for final filtration before bottling.

Most to all wineries involved in membrane filtration use either Depth filter sheet or DE filtration. The Depth filter sheet involve a plate and frame set up with disposable filter sheets of various grades to handle the rough/medium/fine filtration needs. DE involves a series of screens that are loaded with DE and then used for gross filtration.

The last option not noted here is using a DE filter/Pad filter to a Centrifuge before final filtration for what the call a one pass filtration.

Membrane filtration as noted above comes in many styles, cross flow does have a large upfront cost and upkeep but lower year to year cost and is normally reserved or installed at larger volume wineries.

Another membrane style not noted above is a Cellulose acetate membrane, is one of the nicest I have come across with its ability to be hot water cleaned/sterilized (can't use caustics on this one) and stored in a alcohol solution between uses. It has the highest naturally occuring hydrophillic action and lowest binding available.

Normally in the CA (cellulose acetate) this should provide at least 9 gal/min (30" at 1-2psi) for bottling and even in some of the largest lines I have seen provide enough flow. There is multi-round housings that will allow using multiple single membranes in one housing for even larger flows.

For what ever option you use make sure:

Understand the quality levels of the membranes used, ask for individual testing of your membrane, not lot testing. This will insure each membrane is tested for greater quality, lot testing can allow a few bad membranes to slip through.

Use a chemical cleaned membrane involves handling of caustic products and special mixing etc.

Get familiar with the membrane quality checks, using either bubble point or check hold to verify your membrane as you use it.

Protect your membrane from high loadings (jamming it) and try to use the lowest pressures you can, in other words protect your membrane and it will protect you.

Hope it helps,

Jim Russell
AFTEK filtration