JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 69 No. 6 1498-1509
© 1986 by American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spangler, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Amundson, C. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Spangler, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Amundson, C. H.

Concentration of Milk and Whey Using Composite, Spiral Wound, Reverse Osmosis Membranes

P. L. Spangler1 and C. H. Amundson2

University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706

ABSTRACT

Two types of spiral wound, composite, reverse osmosis membranes, referred to as Phase I and Phase II, were studied in the concentration of milk and whey. The membranes can tolerate a pH range of 2 to 13, 50 ppm available Cl, 100 ppm H2O2, and temperatures up to 52°C.

Two phase II membranes, Part A and Part B, sanitized using 50 ppm available Cl and 100 ppm H2O2, respectively, had average water fluxes of 71 an 69 L/m2h, respectively, at standard operating conditions. Phase II, Part A and Part B membranes had average NaCl rejections of 96.7 and 97.8%, respectively. Phase I modules had significantly lower permeate fluxes and salt rejections and significantly higher flux decline parameters than the Phase II membranes.

The Phase II, Part B membranes had average permeate fluxes at a concentration factor of 2 for sweet whey, acid whey, and skim milk of 29, 36, and 14 L/m2h at standard operating conditions. The Phase II, Part B membranes had significantly higher average permeate fluxes than Phase II, Part A and Phase I membranes.

Phase II membranes exhibited comparable or better performance than cellulose acetate membranes and can be used more easily in the dairy industry.


FOOTNOTES

1 Department of Food Science.

2 Departments of Food Science and Agricultural Engineering.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.