EPA-600/2-77-118
June 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
MEMBRANE PROCESSING OF COTTAGE
CHEESE WHEY
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
ULS, Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-H8
June 1977
MEMBRANE PROCESSING OP
COTTAGE CHEESE WHEY
By
Robert R. Zall
Department of Pood Science
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
Project No. 12060 DXP
Project Officers
Max W. Cochrane
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
Larry Dempsey
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted,
processed, converted, and used, the related pollutional
impacts on our environment and even on our health often
require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory—Cincinnati (IERL-CI) assists in
developing and demonstrating new and improved methodologies
that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.
''Membrane Processing of Cottage Cheese Whey" was a part
of the Industrial Pollution Control Division's program to
develop and demonstrate new technology for the treatment of
industrial wastes. A full-scale whey processing plant using
membranes was constructed to process 300,000 pounds per day
of cottage cheese whey. The two-step system uses
ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO) according to a
design previously demonstrated in the Phase I portion of
this project. Though the operation of the plant is both
easy and straight-forward, the system is industrially
difficult to clean and sterilize with the specific enzyme
cleaners and sanitizers used in this project.
For further information, contact the Food and Wood
Products Branch of the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory — Cincinnati .
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
1X1
-------
ABSTRACT
A full-scale whey processing plant using membranes was
constructed to process 300,000 pounds per day of cottage
cheese whey. The two-step system uses ultrafiltration (UF)
and reverse osmosis (RO) according to a design previously
demonstrated in the Phase I portion of this project and
reported in Water Pollution Control Series 12060 DXF 07/71.
Proteins and lactose can be separated from whey with
semipermeable cellulose acetate membranes as molecular
sieves and a driving force supplied by centrifugal or
positive displacement pumps.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of cottage cheese whey can
be reduced from about 40,000 rag/1 to approximately 2,000
rag/1 in liquids discharged from the system. The RO permeate
water can be used to clean the whey plant, providing
biological contaminants are controlled in the UF-RO plant by
improved RO hardware and chemical sanitizers.
Though the operation of the plant is both easy and
straight-forward, the system is industrially difficult to
clean and sterilize with the specific enzyme cleaners and
sanitizers used in this project.
Preliminary economic data for 5 months of operations suggest
that the overall operating costs will approximate the Phase
I projects of $220,000 per year, with some wide differences
in cost categories such as cleaning expenses. Subsequent
data with cost figures of a year's operations in a 1973.74
period showed that cost excesses over original estimates
were cleaners at $26,000 per year rather than $3,200 and
membrane replacement at $78,600 rather than $39,000. Future
annual reports will indicate better the real impact of
operating costs on whey processing when the system achieves
prolonged stability.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant number
12060 DXF by Crowley Foods, Inc. under the sponsorship of
the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers
a period from June 21, 1972 to December 1974, and work was
complete as of April 10, 1975-
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgments x
Sections
I Introduction 1
II Conclusions 5
III Recommendations 6
IV Phase I: Pilot Plant 7
V Phase II: 300,000-Pound-Per-Day Whey Plant 13
VI Plant Design 2M
VII Plant Operation 30
VIII Process Economics 58
IX Membrane Replacement of UF Tubes 64
X Pertinent Publications 67
XI Glossary 68
XII Appendices 71
-------
FIGURES
Number Pag.il
1 Osmosis and Reverse Osmosis 8
2 Mechanism of Membrane Separation 10
3 Membrane Process for Whey Treatment-Flow
Schematic 11
4 Whey Plant Simplified Flow Plan 14
5 Overall View of 300,000 Pound-Per-Day UF-RO
Whey Processing Plant During Installation.
Crowley Foods, Inc., LaFargeville, New York.
April 1972. 16
6 Views of Ultrafiltration Section and Complete
Control Panel for 300,000 Pound-Per-Day UF-RO
Whey Processing Plant. Crowley Foods, Inc.,
LaFargeville, New York. April 1972. 17
7 End View of Sanitary Whey Ultrafiltration
Cabinet and Feed Circulation Pump. Crowley
Foods, Inc., Largeville, New York.
April 1972. 19
8 View of Reverse Osmosis Section of 300,000
Pound-Per-Day UF-RO Whey Processing Plant.
Crowley Foods, Inc., LaFargeville, New York.
April 1972. 21
, 9 View of Reverse Osmosis Pump and Interstage \
Tank of 300,000 Pound-Per-Day UF-RO Whey
Processing Plant. Crowley Foods, Inc.,
LaFargeville, New York. April 1972. 22
10 Simplified Flow Diagram of Ultrafiltration
System 26
11 Simplified Flow Diagram of Reverse Osmosis
System 28
12 Front View of Cultured Products Plant (Whey
Building Located at Lower Extreme Left).
Crowley Foods, Inc., LaFargeville, New York. 31
vi
-------
lumber Page
13 Rear View of Cultured Products Plant (Whey
Building Located at Lower Right). Crowley
Foods, Inc., LaFargeville, New York. 32
14 Ultrafiltration-Reverse Osmosis Building.
Crowley Foods, Inc., LaFargeville, New York. 33
15 Typical pH Values of Whey Supplied to the
UF-RO Plant: High, Average, and Low Values 34
16 Typical Acidity of Whey Supplies to the UF-RO
Plant: High, Average, and Low Values 35
17 Typical Total Solids Concentration in Whey
Supplied to the UF-RO Plant: High, Average,
and Low Values 36
18 Ultrafiltration—Permeate Flux During 1972:
High, Average, and Low Values for Month
Periods 43
19 Ultrafiltration—Permeate Flux During 1973:
High, Average, and Low Values for Month
Periods 44
20 View of Whey Feed Silos and Interstage Tanks
with Portion of Two Reverse Osmosis Cabinets
and RO Booster Pump Showing. Crowley Foods,
Inc., LaFargeville, New York. April 1972. 46
21 Reverse Osmosis—Permeate Flux During 1972:
High, Average, and Low Values for Month
Periods 51
22 Reverse Osmosis—Permeate Flux During 1973:
High, Average, and Low Values for Month
Periods ' - 52
23 RO Permeate Quality During 1972 as Measured by
6005: High, Average, and Low Values for
Ten-Day Periods 53
24 RO Permeate Quality During 1973 as Measured by
Total Solids Where \% Approximates 7000 MG/L
6005: High Average, and Low Values for
Ten-Day Periods 54
VI1
-------
Number
25 Characteristics of a Single Re-Membraned RO
Cabinet During Fall 1974: High, Average, and
Low Values for Ten-Day Periods 57
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Approximate Gross Average Composition of Whey
Products 2
2 Selected Microbiological Data of Products
Processed in the Ultrafiltration Section 39
3 Typical Microbiological Data of Products
Processed in the Reverse Osmosis Section 48
4 Selected Data to Illustrate Bacteriological
Results in RO Concentrate and Permeate 55
5 Dollar Costs for Setting Up a 300,000 Ib/day
Whey Plant 58
6 Five Months Projected and Actual Operating
Costs for 300,000 Ib/day Whey Plant 59
7 Whey Plant Cleaning Supplies Usage 60
*
8 Operating Costs during May 1973-April 1974 62
9 Product Flow Summary of UF-RO Operation,
May 1973 to April 1974 63
10 Cleaning Supplies for the UF-RO Plant,
May 1973 to April 1974 63
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of the project by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the help of H.G. Keeler, and Max W.
Cochrane and Larry Dempsey (the Federal Project Officers),
R. J. Burm, and Allyn Richardson is acknowledged with
sincere thanks .
Dr. David J. Goldstein (Abcor) was in large part responsible
for the design and construction of the plant. He labored
long and hard in carrying out his assignment.
Dr. William Eykamp, J. Tom Selldorf, and Tom Ammerlaan
(Abcor) were very helpful and solved many pressing problems.
James Bender, Research Director for Crowley Foods, Inc.,
deserves special thanks for his devoted labors to the
project. Mr. Patrick Crowley was in charge of plant
operations since its pilot plant stage.' Mr. J. Elmer
Crowley, more than anyone, has carried the load and has kept
the project moving forward. Much support to the project was
given by Mr. William Burtis, Crowley's project finance
officer, and Mr. Charles Carlson, their onsite division
manager .
Dr. Robert R. Zall, Cornell University, served as project
director and prepared this report with the aid of data
extracted from the Phase I document.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This document report Phase II of the two-part acid whey
treatment demonstration grant to abate pollution from cheese
making. The offer and acceptance of the Federal grant for
research and development began in September 1969. Phase I,
covering a sizable pilot-plant operation lasting 13 months,
was described in the Water Control Research Series 12060 DXF
07/71 entitled ''Membrane Processing of Cottage Cheese Whey
for Pollution Abatement."
Much of the introduction that appeared in the first document
is repeated in this section because the scope and purpose of
the project remains the same.
Phase II was dependent upon the success of Phase I work and
mutual agreement between the grantee and EPA (then the
FWPCA) to proceed to build the 300,000-pound-per-day whey
treatment plant at LaFargeville. New York.
The pollution problems that existed before 1969 have not
diminished but in fact are even more critical nationwide.
Because whey production is a function of cheese making, more
whey is now being generated because of demands of increased
cheese production .
The status of the pollution problem resulting from the
disposal of acid cheese whey is such that new methods must
be used to deal with it effectively. This section of the
report presents a summary of the size and nature of the
waste problem and provides a general description of the
membrane, separation process under demonstration..
-------
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR PROJECT
The manufacture of cheese from either whole or skim milk
produces, in addition to the cheese itself, a
greenish-yellow fluid known as whey. Whole milk is used to
produce natural and processed cheese such as Cheddar, and
the resulting fluid byproduct is called sweet whey, with a
pH in the range of 5 to 7. Skim milk is the starting
material for cottage cheese and gives a fluid byproduct
called acid whey, with a pH in range of 4 to 5- The lower
pH is a result of the acid developed during or employed for
coagulation .
Each pound of cheese produced results in 5 to 10 pounds of
raw fluid whey. The high organic content of whey leads to a
severe disposal problem. Over 10% of the nutrients from
skim milk show up in acid whey, including protein and
lactose. These materials, if properly recovered, could
provide useful products. Table 1 shows typical compositions
of whey and dried whey solids.
Table 1. APPROXIMATE GROSS AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF WHEY PRODUCTS
IN PERCENTAGES BY WEIGHT
Product
Nitrogenous
Water matter
Fat
Lactose
Acid
Ash
Raw cheese
whey
Condensed
whey
Dried whey
93.914 0.7-0.9
50-60 7-0-8.0
2-6 12.0--14.0
0.05-0.6 4.5-5.0 0.2-0.6 0.5-0.6
1.0-2.0 28 1.0-3.0 5.0-6.0
0.3-5.0 65.0-70.0 2.0-8.0 8.0-12.0
Source: Proceedings of Whey Utilization Conference,
June 2-3, 1970. University of Maryland.
-------
£c.oductign_gf _Cottage_Cheese_Whey.
Some statistical information on the production of cottage
cheese (acid) whey is summarized here to provide a basis for
identifying the needs for acid whey treatment. In
categorizing industries in the United States, cottage cheese
is considered to be part of fluid milk rather than cheese
production. Thus, statistics on acid whey are somewhat more
difficult to obtain than those for cheddar and other sweet
wheys. However, the general trends in the fluid milk
industry are the sameas those for the natural cheese
industry; i.e., the industry is growing, but the number of
plants is decreasing. These trends will probably still
continue toward exceptionally large regional plants with
distribution over wide areas (4,6).
By 1972, overall production of cottage cheese curd and
creamed cottage cheese had risen to an adjusted value of 1.4
billion pounds. The acid whey output accompanying this
value was set at 7 billion pounds, based on 5 pounds whey
per pound of cottage cheese. A present output of at least 7
billion pounds of acid whey per year is considered to be a
conservative value, based on the current rate of growth of
cottage cheese production and on the fact that statistics
for other related acid cheese wheys (bakers, farmers, cream)
are not included.
The_Cgttage_Cheese_Whey__Disp_gsal_Prgblem
The organic nutrients of whey, which go unused, place a
costly burden on sewage systems and waterways. The BOD of
whey ranges from 32,000 to 60,000 ppm. About 90% of this
BOD is due to the lactose. Specific BOD values for cottage
cheese wheys are between 30,000 and 45,000 rag/1, depending
primarily on the specific cheese making process used.
Every 1,000 gallons per day of raw whey discharged into a
s.e_wage treatment. £lant can impose a load equal to that from
1,800 people. This is partially passed into streams in most
cases because BOD removal is not complete. Every 1,000
gallons of raw whey discharged into a stream requires for
its oxidation the dissolved oxygen in over 4.5 million
gallons of unpolluted water.
-------
Recent statistics give BOD's of about 0.2 pounds per pound
of cottage cheese curd. Combining this with the production
statistics given above, a total BOD removal of over 280
million pounds is required for complete waste treatment.
Considering that at the very best only half of the cottage
cheese whey produced is currently put to good purpose and
that curd wash water can contain 3% solids, the disposal
problem is severe.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
Membrane processing of cottage cheese whey can be used on an
industrial scale to capture proteins and lactose fractions.
The BOD of the raw whey can be reduced by this method as
much as 95£ from about 40,000 rag/1 to approximately 2,000
rag/1 .
Ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membrane plants are
physically easy to operate.
Whey must be produced, handled, and treated much like
pasteurized dairy products with methods that avoid microbial
contamination. No pretreatment is necessary.
RO and UF membrane technology need improvement in both
operability and durability.
Membranes fail faster when overly exposed to or stored in
sanitizing solutions. Chlorinated sanitizers appear more
harsh to membranes than quaternary ammonium compounds.
The life expectancy of UF membranes in Phase II appears to
be about half the time that was projected in Phase I of this
project. Membranes are durable for approximately 1 year
rather than 2 years.
The life expectancy of RO membranes is not clear at this
time. Data still suggest they can last 2 years, as was
projected from the Phase I pilot study.
-------
SE.CTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
Crowley Foods, Inc. recommends that this process be further
improved for industry use as follows:
1. Future installations should have single-task plumping
with small hydraulic loadings to simplify both running
and clean-up functions.
2. Reverse osmosis hardware should be further simplified,
and the ultrafiltration system should possess more
strength and durability than experienced in the
Phase II plant .
3. Cleaning costs are believed to be too expensive.
Additional research is needed to develop both methods
and improved substances for cleaning and sanitizing
membranes .
4. More emphasis should be placed on water treatment
equipment for plants using membrane technology
because not all water supplies are compatible with
membrane systems.
-------
SECTION IV
PHASE I: PILOT PLANT
A two-step membrane separation process was developed for the
treatment of cottage cheese whey. Although the
demonstration has been for acid whey treatment, the
technology is applicable to sweet wheys. In this process,
whey is simultaneously fractionated and concentrated to give
protein and lactose byproducts. The final effluent has a
BOD approximating 2000 mg/1, mostly lactic acid, and can be
reused within the cottage cheese plant. One application,
for example, is in curd washing, another to serve as wash
water. If the effluent is discharged, a final treatment for
residual BOD removal may be required, depending on local and
state regulations.
The two-step whey treatment process is based on the
application of ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis
(RO). Reverse osmosis has been extensively studied during
the past ten years under funding from the Office of Saline
Water; the bulk of this work focusing on desalination of
brackish and sea waters. Additional publicity has been
given to its application to whey concentration by the United
States Department of Agriculture. Ultrafiltration is a
variation of this membrane separation technique.
Figure 1 shows the basic concept involved. A semipermeable
membrane separates water and a solution. In the absence of
a hydrostatic pressure differential, water will permeate the
membrane so as to dilute the solution. A counter pressure
can be applied to the solution side to reverse water
transport. The amount of pressure required to achieve a
static equilibrium is termed the osmotic pressure. Reverse
osmosis is simply the application of a pressure greater than
the osmotic pressure which drives water from the solution
side of the membrane to the water side and permits
concentration of the solution.
The membrane plays the most critical role in the process.
By varying the properties of the membrane, one can control
the retention or passage of selected solutes. When the
solute molecules are large; e.g., whey proteins, the osmotic
pressure is quite low and a membrane with relatively large
pores can be used at low operating pressures; e.g., 10-50
psi .
-------
00
OSMOSIS
I aim I
I otm.
WATER
•SOLUTION
T
£ -U- DILUTED
5 -i-*. SOLUTION
T*"
OSMOTIC
'PRESSURE
I I arm.
WATER PASSES THROUGH MEMBRANE TO
CAUSE DILUTION OF SOLUTION UNTIL OSMOTIC
EQUILIBRATION IS ACHIEVED
REVERSE OSMOSIS OR UlTRAFilTRATiON
I atm
WATER
PRESSURE
>OSMOTIC
PRESSURE Of
SOLUTION
PRESSURE IS USED TO DRIVE WATER FROM
SOLUTION
IN MANY CASES SELECTED SOLUTES ARE
ALSO DRIVEN FROM THE SOLUTION
FIGURE 1, OSMOSIS AND REVERSE OSMOSIS
-------
This is termed ultrafiltration. Referring to Figure 2, the
membrane may be called "louse"; i.e., lower molecular weight
solutes will pass through the membrane and will not be
retained in the concentrate.
In reverse osmosis, solutions of small molecules with
moderate to high osmotic pressures are retained and the
required driving force is considerably higher, ranging from
a few hundred psi to 800 psi, maximum in this system.
Higher operating pressures are required because of the
substantial osmotic pressure of salt and sugar solutions and
also because of the greater resistance to water transport of
RO membranes. Again referring to Figure 2, a "tight"
membrane is employed.
Figure 3 shows a simplified flow sheet for the two-step whey
treatment process. Cottage cheese whey, without filtration
for fines removal, is introduced into a low pressure UF unit
(step 1)'. In this operation, whey is concentrated 12-fold
by volume. Ultrafiltration membranes are used which retain
only the whey proteins. Thus, it is possible to obtain a
protein concentrate with a higher proportion of proteins in
the disolved solids since lactose, non-protein nitrogen,
lactic acid, and minerals pass through the membrane.
Operation is typically in the pressure range of 15-50 psi,
and at temperatures of 120-125°F. As was demonstrated, the
protein content of raw whey is increased from an initial
value of about 0.6% up to levels approaching 8% in this
step. (In isolated cases protein content can be increased
to about 20$ but flux rates are so low as to become
impractical for this plant.)
The permeate (ultrafiltrate) from the UF unit is introduced
into a second membrane step. In an RO operation, this
stream is concentrated from approximately 6% solids to
20-25$ solids. Typical operation would be in the pressure
range, 500 to 800 psi, and at a temperature of 90°F. The
membrane in the RO section is chosen so as to retain as
great a proportion of the organic solutes as possible,
resulting in the permeate having a lower BOD from 40,000
mg/1 to about 2000 mg/1.
The protein concentrate can either be used directly by
incorporation into food products or it can be dried.
Protein drying may be preceded by further concentration of
the retentate through conventional vacuum evaporation
equipment. The lactose concentrate can be further
concentrated to about 50% solids by evaporation, and the
lactose can be recovered in a crystallization operation.
-------
H~*" *LOOSE*
SKIN
~.3,
>20A'PORES
POROUS
SUPPORT
SKIN
~.3MTHICK
~4A- PORES
POROUS
SUPPORT
FIGURE 2, MECHANISM OF MEMBRANE SEPARATI
ON
-------
PROTEIN
CONCENTRATE
WHEY
STEP 1
UF
10-50 PSIG
LACTOSE
H20, LACTOSE
NON-PROTEIN N,
LACTIC ACID
SALTS
CONCENTRATE
STEP 2
RO
500-800 PSIG
LOW BOD
WATER
FIGURE 3, MEMBRANE PROCESS FOR WHEY TREATMENT—FLOW SCHEMATIC
-------
Extensive prototype experiments were performed prior to the
design, installation, and operation of the pilot plant.
These were conducted at Abcor, Inc. from November 1969
through June 1970, under subcontract to Crowley Foods, Inc,
In the course of these experiments, a variety of membranes
and membrane equipment were examined for both UF and RO.
Significant experimental results were presented and
discussed in the Phase I document, Water Pollution Control
Research Series 12060 DXF 07/71.
12
-------
SECTION V
PHASE II: 300,000-POUND-PER-DAY WHEY PLANT
Figure 4 describes the industrial plant that is now
operational in LaFargeville. In the membrane separation
processes for whey, the membranes used are thin films or
organic materials.
Because membranes are thin and have little strength, they
are always supported. In our plant the membranes are inside
porous tubes which are held against supports by pressure. A
porous tube with its membrane is referred to as a membrane
tube. Two types of filters are used in the whey processing
plant - ultrafiltration membrane tubes and reverse osmosis
membrane 'tubes .
Ultrafiltration membrane tubes in this plant operate at a
maximum of 50 pounds per square inch gage (psig). They are
connected together with plastic piping, and require no
additional fittings. Reverse osmosis membrane tubes have
smaller pore size and operate at 800 psig. These films are
inserted firmly into stainless steel castings. Twenty
reverse osmosis membrane tubes are assembled as a group in
stainless steel connectors, and the nest is referred to as a
membrane unit. Blocks of membranes have been combined in
sections to form building units.
An Abcor UF-480S module (an ultrafiltration module with 480
square feet of membranes) is a stainless steel cabinet
containing 216 ultrafiltration membrane tubes with all the
necessary piping and cleaning sprays. The RO-850S (a
reverse osmosis module with 850 square feet of membranes) is
a stainless steel cabinet containing 63 reverse osmosis
units together with all the necessary piping and cleaning
sprays. In this plant there are six UF-480S modules and six
RO-850S modules .
Ultrafiltration membranes are designed to retain.only large
molecules and to permit water and small molecules to pass
through them. The solution which does not pass through the
membrane is referred to as concentrate. During a batch run
of 150,000 pounds of whey, 137,500 pounds (11/12ths of the
whey) will pass through the ultrafiltration membrane.
Protein is accumulated in the concentrate and at the end of
the run will be present at about 1.2 percent. Lactose,
lactic acid, and salts pass through the membrane.
13
-------
UF
(SYSTEM CONTENTS - 6,500 LBS)
RO
r£
-H.
CIRCULATION
1,450 GPM
FEED
180 GPM
(7) _
/±1
CONCENTRATE
12,500 LB
AFTER 10 HRS
RETURN - 130-160 GPM
SILO
150,000 LB INITIAL
6,000 LB FINAL
- ^
PERMEATE
50-20 GPM
137,500 LB/HR
INTERSTAGE
STORE
CONCENTRATE
6,9 GPM
3,MO LB/HR
PERMEATE
20.7 GPM
10,310 LB/HR
FEED
27.6 GPM
13,750 LB/HR
FIGURE 4. WHEY PLANT SIMPLIFIED FLOW PLAN
-------
Thus, at the end of the run they are present in both the
concentrate and in the permeate at approximately their
original concentration in the whey. Figure 5 shows a broad
view of the UF-RO plant, and Figure 6 shows two views of the
UF modules.
Ultrafiltration permeate feeds the reverse osmosis section.
Reverse osmosis membranes are supposed to retain all
molecules and to pass only water. In fact they retain more
than 97% of the salts and about 95% of the lactose and
lactic acid molecules. In this section of the plant
three-quarters of the feed will permeate. The concentrate
leaving the plant will contain about H% salts and between 16
to 2Q% lactose and lactic acid. The permeate discharge
contains about 0.07? salt with small amounts of lactose and
lactic acid which shows up as a positive BOD in a 1500-2500
mg/1 range. The quantities of dissolved solids in the
permeate is a fixed fraction of the dissolved solids in the
concentrate. Thus the more concentrated the lactose stream,
the higher will solids appear in the permeate.
The rate at which solution permeates membranes is called the
flux or flux rate. Flux is usually reported in gallons per
square foot per 24-hour day (gfd). (To use these units in
the ultrafiltration section, remember that each module
contains 480 square feet so that a flux of 1 gfd is
equivalent to a permeate flow of 0.333 gallon per minute
(gpm). In a reverse osmosis module, which contains 850
square feet, a flux of 1 gfd produces a permeate flow of
0.591 gpm).
THE ULTRAFILTRATION (UF) PROCESS
QEerating_Cgnditions
In order to obtain the best continuous flux rate, certain
conditions are desirable. Operating temperature should be
as high as possible without degrading or hurting the
membranes, which in ultrafiltration is between 120 and
125°F. UF pressure should be held at about 50 psig. Whey
should be pumped with Reynolds numbers of 8 - 12,000 inside
the membrane tubes to avoid film deposits. Because flux
rate decreases when the concentration increases, the protein
concentration is kept as low as possible for the longest
possible period of time in a batch run.
UF whey is kept moving by two large circulation pumps in the
plant; one for standby and one for operation. These pumps
delive between 1,200 and 1,450 gpm. The rapid flow of whey
through the membrane tubes demands a large drop in pressure.
15
-------
-
Figure 5. Overai: view of 300,000 pound-per-day UF/RO Whey Processing Plant during
installation at Crowley Foods, Inc., La Fargeville, New York April 1972.
-------
Figure 6. Views of Ultrafiltration Section and Complete Control Panel for
300,000 pound-per-day Whey 1JF/RO Plant at Crowley Foods, Inc.
LaFargeville, New York June 1972
',
17
-------
Therefore , to maintain flux, pressure in this case is set
nut to go below 15 psig. To protect the membrane tubes, the
pressure is regulated so as not to exceed 50 psig. An
allowable pressure drop approximates 35 psig and is obtained
when whey flows through 18 membrane tubes in series via
manifolds through 12 parallel sets. (Note FigXire 7-)
Contrul_uf_Concentration
In urder to achieve maximum flux rates over the system, one
needs to maintain the protein concentration as low as
possible in the circulating loop inside the membrane tubes.
As liquid permeates, more liquid is supplied to the
circulating loop in order to maintain the pressure. There
are two feed pumps in the plant, but only one is normally
used at a time, while the other is being cleared or is
available for standby operation. The pump feeds whey from
the storage silo into the circulating loop to make up for
the permeation. However, the total permeation rate of whey
from this part of the plant is between 20 and 50 gpm, and
the feed pump is designed to supply 180 gpm. The surplus
liquid from the feed pump leaves the circulating loop
through a valve and is returned to the storage silo. The
minimum pressure in the circulating loop (15 psig) is
maintained by the pressure drop of the liquid through a
valve and is controlled by throttling this valve. The high
rate of flow back to the storage silo insures that both the
contents of the silo and the contents of the circulating
loop become concentrated at the same time. If some liquid
was not returned to the storage silo, the concentration in
the circulating loop would rapidly become high and for the
remainder of the run we would be permeating from a high
concentration. By mixing back into the silo, we delay until
the end of the run, the time when the concentration reaches
its maximum. The operation of the ultrafiltration section
is a batch operation. The silo is filled with 150,000
pounds of whey, the circulating loop is filled, and
circulation is started. As permeation proceeds, the
concentration in both the silo and in the circulating loop
increases and the level of liquid in the silo falls. The
plant is designed so that at the end of ten hours 137,500
pounds of liquid will have permeated and 12,500 pounds of
concentrate will remain inside the circulating loop and in
the silo. The level in the silo will be between one and two
feet and contain about 6,000 pounds of concentrate at the
end of the run. The run is continued until the
concentration in the concentrate is as required; i.e., until
the level in the silo drops to the predetermined point.
When the run is over, the concentrate must be recovered both
18
-------
Figure 7. End view of Sanitary Whey Ultrafiltration Cabinet
and Feed Circulation Pump April 1972
-------
from the silo and from inside the membranes and piping and
pumped to concentrate storage. When the first run is over,
the inside of the membranes will be quickly cleaned, and a
second run will begin. When the concentrate from the second
run is recovered, the plant should be thoroughly cleaned and
sanitized before starting again. The plant is able to
concentrate two batches, each having 150,000 pounds of whey,
in 20 hours, leaving four hours for cleaning up.
THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PROCESS (RO) (See Figure 8)
Like the ultrafiltration, this section of the whey plant
contains six modules so arranged that the feed solution,
which is the UF permeate, is fed to the modules in parallel.
Unlike a batch operation, the solution passes once through
the modules and its concentrate discharges continuously.
Each module contains 63 RO units, each having 13-5 square
feet, building the module to 850 square feet. The 63 units
are arranged in 21 sets of three units through which liquid
flows in series. Manifolds distribute the feed solution so
that the flow path is: 9 parallel sets, followed by 5
parallel sets, followed by 4 parallel sets, followed by 3
parallel sets. As solution permeates out, the number of
parallel flow paths is decreased so that the linear velocity
of the concentrate inside the membrane tubes is maintained.
The RO membranes in this plant are supposed to hold back all
solute molecules and to pass only water. The lactose
concentrate exhibits high osmotic pressure (approaching 400
psi for the exit); thus pressures this high must be used
inside the membrane tubes, both to overcome membrane
resistance. Permeation rate is used approximately linearly
as the primary flow control in this section. However,
during operation the pressure must not drop below the
osmotic pressure. Pressure above 800 psi is avoided because
of possible damage to these membranes.
The high pressures needed for RO processing is provided by
sanitary homogenizer pumps. There are two, but one is for
standby. The plant is designed to process 13,750 pounds per
hour of feed (27.6 gpm), of which three-fourths permeates
(20.7 gpm) and one-fourth leaves as concentrate (6.9 gpm).
(Refer to Figure 9 - note the flow meters.)
Controlling_the_Flow_Rate
The fixed flow capacity of the pumps is 36 gpm. This is
more than the design feed rate, so a small flow of solution
is at all times bypassed around the pump through a
20
-------
Figure 8. View of Reverse Osmosis Section of 300,000 pound-per-day (140,000 liter-per-day)
UF/RO Whey Processing Plant at Crowley Foods, Inc., LaFargeville, NY April 1972
-------
Figure 9. View of Reverse
Osmosis Pump and Interstate
Tank of 300,000 pound-per-'
d:Hv nlVRO Whey Processing
Plant April "]
-------
throttling valve. RO feed rate is visible and can be read
on a flowmeter mounted on a panel next to the pumps; the
feed rate is valve controlled. If one of the modules is not
in use, then the adjusting valve can be opened to lower the
feed rate to the system. Concentrate flow rate can be read
on its own flowmeter. To obtain the design concentration,
the pressure is adjusted so that the concentra-te flow rate
is one-quarter of the feed flow rate. The pressure is
controlled by letting the concentrate leaving the system
flow through a spring-loaded back-pressure Regulator. This
regulator must be adjusted to obtain the design
concentration, provided only that the pressure is not
allowed to exceed the limits already mentioned. Solution
flow through the RO units shows a pressure drop of about 200
psi so the inlet and outlet pressures are not the same.
23
-------
SECTION VI
PLANT DESIGN
DESIGN BASIS FOR ULTRAFILTRATION SECTION
The following design bases have been used for the UF
section:
1. Twelve-fold volumetric concentration .
2. Twenty hours operation per day in 2 batches; four
hours for cleanup and sanitizing.
3. Operating conditions:
20 gpm per tube (1 inch id)
120-125°F
50 psi inlet and 15 psi outlet pressure to modules
4. Average flux from pilot data was 13.8; published in
Phase I Report 12060 DXF 07/71.
5. Membrane area used: 300,000 Ibs./day:
[Ibs [fractional
iQQiQQQ_day.l x 24_£hrs/day.l x H/12_H2Q_remgval= 2810ft2
8.5 [Ibs 20 [operating 1.38 [gal
gal] hrs/day] day-ft2]
24
-------
A flow schematic for the ultrafiltration section is shown in
Figure 10. The system contains 6 Abcor 480 ft2 modules,
providing a total membrane area of 2880 ft2, slightly
exceeding the required 2810 ft2. The six modules are
connected in a parallel flow arrangement. The overall flow
design is analogous to that used in the pilot plant.
Operation is on a batch basis. Whey is fed to a circulation
loop from a storage reservoir—insuring mixing between the
membrane loop and the storage reservoir. This maximizes
both system capacity and protein yield. At the end of a
batch operation, most of the protein concentrate is in the
silo, and tube content residual is recovered from the system
by plug-flow flushing with water. Ultrafiltration permeate
is withdrawn continuously and transferred to an interstage
tank prior to treatment by RO.
Raw whey is fed to the circulation loop with a 180 gpm feed
pump. A second (spare) feed pump is included in the system
on continuous standby. A high circulation rate through the
modules is maintained by a 60 HP centrifugal pump. A second
(spare) circulation pump is included in the system, also on
continuous standby.
The ultrafiltration system contains a heat exchanger which
allows for either heating or cooling of the raw whey. This
permits control over operating temperature in the system,
Additional instrumentation includes:
- high/low pressure shutdown switch.
- conductivity guards on pumps.
- sight glass on each module to indicate flow.
- temperature recorder/probe, to measure,
control, and record temperature.
- pressure gauges to measure inlet and outlet
operating pressures (transmitted to control
panel) .
25
-------
PERMEATE & CIP LINES
NOT SHOWN
i
I
1
J PIS
r^-fl .. .. •>_ DTTIIDM 1 T MP
CONCENTRATE
OUTLET -
LEGEND
TRC - TEMPERATURE RECORDER CONTROLLER
V - VENT VALVE
HE - HEAT EXCHANGER
PIS - PRESSURE INDICATOR SWITCH
ONE PUMP IS
STANDBY
SYSTEM
INLET
HE
(COTTAGE
CHEESE WHEY)
FIGURE 10, SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM OF ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM
-------
- process valves, including two to each module
(on/off valves), controlled from operating
panel.
Each module is fitted with CIP sprays and piping,- and the
system includes a 250 gpm spray pump, piping, and valves.
DESIGN BASIS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS SECTION
1. Four-fold volumetric concentration of UF permeate to
2\% solids.
2. Twenty hours of operation per day on a continuous once-
through basis. This is followed by a four-hour cleanup
and sanitizing.
3. Operating conditions: 90°F, 800 psi.
4. Average flux of 5.85 gfd from pilot data.
5. Membrane area requirements for 300,000 Ibs of whey per
day are :
x_.CH/121_x_L0^15_l x 2i x (__i_) = 5100 ft 2
(8.5) 20 5.85
DESCRIPTION - REVERSE OSMOSIS SECTION
A flow schematic of the RO section is shown in Figure 11.
The system has 6 parallel passes, each containing 63 Abcor
RO 13-5 modules. These modules have tubulence promoters and
AS-197 membranes. Each parallel pass contains 850 ft 2
membrane area, corresponding to a total plant area of 5100
ft2. The design for each pass is a once-through operation
with modules in a "Christmas-tree" arrangement. Several
modules are connected in parallel at the beginning of each
pass, decreasing to a few modules at the end of each pass.
Each pass has its own valving arrangement so that it can be
shut down to replace any module which fails. This piping
allows personnel to replace membranes with a shutdown of the
entire plant. However, isolation of any single section of
the plant will lead to a temporary reduction of capacity of
M%. Each pass has its source of filtered line water fed to
the pass through check valves permitting storage under line
water pressure.
27
-------
N>
00
LEfifttfi
CS - CONDUCTIVITY SWITCH
HE - HEAT EXCHANGER
TRC - TEMPERATURE RECORDER CONTROLLER
ACCUM - ACCUMULATOR
PI - PRESSURE INDICATOR
SRV - SAFETY RELIEF VALVE
FI - FLOW INDICATOR
PS - PRESSURE SWITCH
BPR - BACK PRESSURE REGULATOR
6000
GAL
TANK
UF
PERMEATE FI
LACTOSE
CONCENTRATE
PUMP
(STANDBY)
FILTERED
WATER
PERMEATE FOR REUSE
OR TO DRAIN
FIGURE 11. SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM OF REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM
-------
The membrane modules are fed by a 30 hp positive
displacement sanitary pump. A s'-econd pump acts as a spare
in order to avoid plant shutdown in case of pump repairs.
Ultrafiltration permeate is collected in a 6,000 gallon
interstage tank (shown in Fig. 9) and pumped through the
membrane modules on a once-through basis. Its temperature
is controlled from the UF operating temperature to that of
the RO section by passage through a heat exchanger (HE).
Permeate from the high pressure modules is manifolded and
discharged by gravity. The plant provided a reservoir for
this permeate with hope of reusing it for cheese processing
or cleaning. However, it has not been possible to
consistently control microbial growth on the outside of the
RO membranes. Because of this, the microbial condition of
the permeate has not been suitable for re-use. It has been
discharged to the sewer except for a period of several
weeks, in which it was treated with 8-10 ppm chlorine and
used for cleaning make-up water.
29
-------
SECTION VII
PLANT OPERATION
The physical plant that was constructed to house the
equipment was able to receive machinery in early February
1972. By April 15, most of the membranes were in place and
in various stages of erection. Whey storage silos,
electrical connections, and interstage piping still needed
substantial amounts of connecting in this period. Shortly
after this point in time the plant suddently seemed to take
on the appearance of a finished chemo-food processing
installation. A "shake down" or hydraulic testing period
began in mid May and the formal opening ceremonies were held
un June 21, 1972. A program of the occasion appears in the
Appendix.' Figures 12, 13, and 14 show the whey plant
attachment to the main cheese operations.
During the period May 16 to January 30, 1973, the whey plant
was operated about 125 days. The other time periods of
about 130 days were occupied in developing procedures for
correcting the plant operational problems.
Remarkable as it may seem we must note that the starting up
of the installation was straightforward and few serious
place-on-line problems occurred; especially significant it
seems for a plant so large and complex. Of course, we
experienced the usual contractor delays that were
distressing as were problems with some stainless steel bolts
used on the RO module caps.
Initially the ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis portions
of the plant were able to process whey at rates above design
standards.
Data presented in Figures 15, 16, and 17 show that the plant
was supplied with whey that was relatively uniform in pH,
acidity, and total solids. The cheese fines were not
removed. In about two weeks, however, the membrane system
slowed in its capacity and its operation was unable to
permeate flux rates according to plant design.
We had not, as yet, recognized a biological problem caused
by improper clean-up in early June 1972 as evidenced by the
Project Director's remarks made before the Whey Institute
meeting in Chicago in that same month. A progress report
30
-------
J
FIGURE 12, FRONT VIEW OF CULTURED PRODUCTS PLAINT (WHEY BUILDING LOCATED AT LOWER EXTREME
LEFT), CROWLEY FOODS, INC,, UFARGEVILLE, NEW YORK,
-------
....
' i
FIGURE 13, REAR VIEW OF CULTURED PRODUCTS PLANT (WHEY BUILDING LOCATED AT LOWER RIGHT), CROWLEY FOODS,
INC,, LAFARGEVILLE, NEW YORK
-------
•*«»
FIGURE 14. ULTRAFILTRATION-REVERSE OSMOSIS BUILDING, CROWLEY FOODS, INC,, I^ARGEVIIJLE, NEW YORK
-------
4,5
LLJ
SEPT
NA 15
X 4.57
SD 0.05
4.5
4.0
n
»
1
OCT
1972
12
4.52
0.09
JUNE
N 22
X 4.45
SD 0.05
AREFER TO GLOSSARY
JULY
1973
17
4.45
0.06
NOV
11
4.60
0.18
AUG
21
4.41
0.06
FIGURE 15. TYPICAL pH VALUES OF WHEY SUPPLIED TO THE
UF-RO PLANT: HIGH, AVERAGE. AND Low VALUES
34
-------
-> CD
>- 0
1 rH
ca x
§ 2 50
LU <
OQ <_>
1 — i —
CJ>
>- O
1 — •— 1
a x
§ 2 50
UJ <
II 1
CQ U
1 — t-
<3T O
ry D 2.74
n,
"*^
* . *
OCT
1972
12
51.1
1.73
\
i '•;>
•)
j
JULY
1973
17
49.0
2.09
n
i ;^
'•^m
'
.
NOV
11
50,3
2.28
H
' i
''r1!
AUG
22
49.0
1,69
FIGURE 16. TYPICAL ACIDITY OF WHEY SUPPLIES TO THE
UF-RO PLANT: HIGH, AVERAGE, AND Low VALUES
35
-------
O
c/o
6,00
5,00
SEPT
N 12
X 6.04
SD 0.21
O
CO
6.00
5.00
X
SD
JUNE
22
6.13
0.36
OCT
1972
12
6.24
0,16
_Lgj
JULY
1973
17
6.16
0.20
NOV
11
6.06
0.22
AUG
22
6.04
0.20
FIGURE 17, TYPICAL TOTAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN WHEY
SUPPLIED TO THE UF-RO PLANT: HIGH, AVERAGE,
AND Low VALUES
36
-------
about the Crowley-EPA Industrial Grant was prepared for the
Whey Products Conference and is included in their
proceedings.
Unlike the 1970 Phase I pilot plant work in Binghamton, New
York, the scaled-up whey processing plant presented some
special cleaning problems in the form of 8 inch tubing used
to collect module permeate that had been underestimated. In
addition, cleaning problems were further complicated early
in the plant's start-up when operations required in feed
whey lines from both the new and old systems. New lines
were physically connected to old nonsanitary whey collection
piping. This cross connection hook-up allowed lactobacillae
bacteria and others to contaminate the whey supply diverted
into the new installation. Both the 120°F temperature and
the pH of fresh cottage cheese whey produced from cottage
cheese manufacture provided an ideal environment for the
propagation of lactobacillae organisms.
Inadvertently in the same period, to save time, we prepared
wash-up enzyme-cleaning solutions several hours before their
use needs. This time lag acted to dissipate cleaning power
of the enzyme system and thereby substantially reduced the
washing efficiency of the plant's CIP procedures as
established for the whey plant.
We soon discovered that 6 and 8-inch gravity permeate
collection drain lines from the stainless steel modules into
surge tanks were not being cleaned properly. Where the
6-inch diameter piping was used in pressure operations, we
found these areas were properly cleansed. In the gravity
situations the lines were not filled completely with whey or
cleaning solutions and still needed an alternate CIP spray
system or required manual cleaning operations. In addition,
it must be admitted that the dual equipment piping, which
was planned to provide processing flexibility, makes
clean-up even more difficult. Standby pumps with their
connecting lines provide difficult areas to clean unless
appropriate cross connections are properly sanitized and
cleaned with other cleaning sections of the installation in
the wash-up cycle.
ULTRAFILTRATION SECTION
Generally, the UF section of the whey plant was found to be
mostly mechanically troublefree from June to December 1972.
Fifty tubes, about H% of the system's total tubing, were
replaced in the first 6 months of operation. This kind of
experience did not continue much beyond January 19fj ana
will be explained later in the text. Table 2 shows the
37
-------
early biological problems and correction by late August
1972. These improved cleaning results show as restored flux
rates in Figures 18 and 19- These data suggest that the
system is, indeed, cleanable and manageable when operated
and cleaned correctly.
Storing_Membranes
Because of bacteriological problems, it became necessary to
store the membrane banks of the large plant differently from
the Phase I project by continually circulating 5-10 ppm
chlorine sanitizing solution at 180 gpm when the plant was
idle. The membrane modules were further exposed to an
exterior sanitizing spray while being sanitized internally
with circulating chlorine solution in its interior. This
method was implemented by using the CIP circulating pump.
Additional sodium hypochlorite material was periodically
added at about three-hour intervals to the closed loop
circulation storage system to maintain a 6 ppm chlorine
residual. In July when we apparently had not cleaned the
plant well, we found that chlorine dissipated, and it was
thought that its usage was a function of organic materials
left in the system after cleaning. Later when we learned to
clean properly, it was shown that very little sanitizer had
to be added to the system when it was in the storage state.
In light of our early problems, cleaning cycles were changed
a number of times for trial periods in these first few
months. Actually in the end, there was no real difference
in the final cleaning procedures for membranes or its
hardware beyond the original concept. What was necessary,
however, was a need to develop more detailed directions for
operators undertactual operating conditions. These specific
instructions given the operators are based upon the Abcor
Cleaning and Sanitizing Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis
Systems, which is contained in the Appendix of this report.
The Crowley cleanup and storage procedure differs from the
Abcor recommended procedure in that pH 8.2-8.8 rather than
7-7-8.7 is used to maintain enzyme activity and that the
Quaternary Ammonium compound, Roccal, at 200 ppm is used to
store the UF unit rather than Zephiran recommended .
Tub_e_Rup_tures
Little experience had been obtained in the pilot plant on
how best to handle or replace malfunctioning UF tubes
because none had occurred in Binghamton in the Phase I part
of the project and only a few when the plant was moved to
LaFargeville for onsite use. The actual time needed to
change a UF tube is small; less than 10 minutes, but the
38
-------
Table 2. SELECTED MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA OF PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN THE ULTRAFILTRATION SECTION
1972-73
Raw whey
Date
1972
5/16
6/2
6/7
6/23
6/28
7/4
7/5
7/19
7/28
8/1-8/30
9/1
9/11
9/15
9/18
9/19
10/14
10/18
10/23
10/31
SPCa Colib Yeast
_c _
-
Mold
-
Deproteinized whey
SPC Coli
500 <1
- <100 <1
100 10
9,000 10
1,000 10
<1,000 <10
<100 <10
<1,000 <10
<100 <10
- Modifications
<1,000 <10
600 <10
<1,000 <10
3,000 <10
7,000 <10
6,000 <10
320,000 <10
2,000 <10
1,000 <10
*
-
-
*
*
*
-
*
-
-
*
*
*
-
in cleaning
*
*
10
-
-
>100
>100
520
30
*
*
*
-
-
*
*
140
*
180,
840,
51,
3,
8,
800,
600 10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
Yeast
*d
*
10
6
-
>100
>100
30
-
Mold
*
*
*
>100
-
>100
>100
*
-
UF
SPC
80,000
1
54
19
29
29
186
2
,600
100
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
concentrate
Coli Yeast
*^1 ^
<1 20
<10 *
<10 40
10 18
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10
Mold
*
70
*
*
*
>100
>100
*
-
methods
1,
4,
4,
4,
36,
5,
17,
1,
ooo <:LO
400 <10
ooo <:io
000 <10
900 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000
000 <10
*
960
640
-
-
>100
>100
-
60
*
*
48
-
-
100
100
-
*
<1
120
12
37
31
98
130
16
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
_
,000
<10 *
<10 >100
<10 210
<10
<10
<10 80
<10 100
_ _
<10
*
>100
*
_
-
*
*
_
*
d Standard Plate Count
k Coliform
c No information
^No count
-------
Table 2. (cont.)
SELECTED MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA OF PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN THE DLTRAFILTRATIOK
SECTION - 1972-73
4s.
O
Raw whey
Date
11/5
11/11
11/18
11/27
12/9
12/16
12/20
12/23
1973
1/10
1/19
1/22
1/30
Feb - No
3/7
3/14
3/21
3/28
4/4
4/11
4/18
4/25
5/2
5/9
SPC Coli Yeast
6,000 <10
3,000 <10
1,000 <10
9,600 <10
65,000 <10
9,000 <10
14,000 <10
6,000 <10
9,000 <10
30,000 <10
14,000 <10
2,000 <10
data generate -
2,000
1,000 <10
21,000 10
<1,000
-
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
2,000
40
*
*
*
100
*
10
*
90
>100
70
80
plant
*
*
70
60
-
*
*
10
*
*
Mold
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
100
*
*
under
*
*
*
*
-
*
*
*
*
*
Deproteinized whey
SPC Coli
1,
6,
4,
3,
2,
1,
7,
1,
3,
3,
1,
000 <10
000 40
000 <10
300 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 >10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
repairs and not
<1,
<1>
6,
22,
372,
312,
1,300,
114,
44,
18,
000
000 <10
000 <10
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Yeast
30
100
>100
>100
20
60
90
*
*
30
20
80
Mold
60
>100
*
*
*
80
*
90
*
*
*
*
UF
SPC
4,000
42,000
30,000
26,000
75,000
96,000
700,000
13,000
216,000
66,000
600,000
48,000
concentrate
Coli
<10
<10
<10
>100
<10
<10
<10
40
<10
<10
<10
<10
Yeast
*
100
*
100
30
>100
>100
30
30
>100
>100
>100
Mold
*
*
>100
90
60
30
*
*
40
>100
*
*
operating
*
*
60
*
*
70
390
60
580
20
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
510
*
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000
3,000
<1,000
516,000
1,000
11,000
6,000
-
<10
<10
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
*
*
*
*
*
4,000
60
180
10
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
Table 2. (cont.)
SELECTED MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA OF PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN THE ULTRAFILTRATION
SECTION - 1972-73
Raw whey
Date
5/16
5/23
5/30
6/6
6/13
6/20
6/27
7/4
7/11
7/18
7/25
8/1
8/8
8/15
8/22
8/29
9/5
9/12
9/19
9/26
10/3
10/10
10/17
10/24
10/31
SPC Coli
<1,000
1,000
<1,000
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
8,000 <10
<1,000 <10
1,000 <10
3,000 <10
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
1,000 <10
2,000 <10
1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
<1,000
<1,000
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
<1,000
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
Yeast Mold
*
*
*
140
*
*
*
190
30
300
*
30
40
1,400
*
20
560
*
10
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10
*
*
10
*
20
*
300
*
*
*
90
*
*
*
A
A
*
*
Deproteinized whey
SPC Coli
62,
116,
96,
168,
113,
288,
132,
1,
310,
288,
840,
7,
700,
300,
370,
1,500,
43,
390,
9,
31,
156,
7,
<1,
168,
<1,
000
000
000
000 <10
000 180
000 80
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000 <10
800
000
000
000
000
000
000
000 <10
000
000
000
000
000
000 <10
Yeast
30
10
10
180
190
604
60
10
20
30
360
20
*
760
1,840
3,100
1,880
980
*
280
4,300
1,180
*
720
*
Mold
*
*
*
A
10
*
10
*
10
*
20
*
A
*
A
*
*
*
*
20
300
*
A
*
*
UF concentrate
SPC Coli
2,000
1,000
9,000
1,100,000 <10
Yeast
90
10
50
50
Mold
60
A
10
50
48,000 <10 * *
6,000 <10
2,
4,
120,
2,
540,
264,
540,
504,
39,
570,
7,
1,000,
174,
960,
450,
82,
46,
300 <10
000 <10
000 <10
000
000 10
000
000
000
000
000
— _
000
000 <10
000
000
000
000
000
000 <10
46
60
30
20
290
50
380
960
400
620
110
_
120
20
30
A
20
A
*
A
20
A
A
4.0
A
*
A
$0
A
A
_
A
A
A
A
A
A
10
A
-------
Table 2. (cont.)
SELECTED MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA OF PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN THE ULTRAFILTRATION
SECTION - 1972-73
Raw whey
Date
11/7
11/14
11/21
11/28
12/5
12/12
12/19
SPC Coll
2
2
<1
<1
<1
<1
,000 <10
,000 <10
,000 <10
-
,000 <10
,000 <10
,000
Yeast
30
*
*
-
*
*
40
Mold
*
*
*
-
*
*
10
Deprotelnized whey
SPC
560,
330,
14,
6,
3,
1,
000
000
000
-
000
000
000
UF concentrate
Coll Yeast Mold SPC Coli Yeast Mold
4,000
2,500
<10 *
-
<10 50
<10 *
<10 *
90 500,
* 390,
* 18,
-
* 11,
* 340,
* 29,
000
000
000
-
000 <10
000
000
30
20
10
-
40
*
*
*
10
*
-
*
*
*
-------
PLANT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
X
a:
20
15
co
_i
; 10
X
± 10
SEPT
X=17.34
SD=3.33
OCT NOV DEC
—DESIGN FLUX
FIGURE 18. ULTRAFILTRATION — PERMEATE FLUX DURING 1972:
HIGH, AVERAGE, AND Low VALUES FOR MONTH PERIODS
43
-------
I-A
CD
X
cc
20
15
_i
x 10
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
I
CD
X
o:
20
15 15
_l
>^ 10
SEPT
OCT NOV DEC
---- DESIGN FLUX
FIGURE 19. ULTRAFILTRATION — PERMEATE FLUX DURING 1973:
HIGH, AVERAGE/ AND Low VALUES FOR MONTH PERIODS
44
-------
effects of leaks and ruptures are more insidious. Two major
problems occur when whey protein concentrate leaks into the
exterior system of UF membrane banks. These materials
contaminate the deproteinized liquids which feed the RO
portion of the whey plant. It was previously reported that
whole whey with proteins as a feed solution for RO systems
makes them difficult to clean. Normally bacteria cannot
pass through the UF membranes when they are whole but they
can contaminate RO feed when they escape from their closed
system. In RO feed they are troublesome. Likewise it is
economically important that the loss of proteins represents
a loss of approximately one dollar per pound of solids.
These losses can be high if concentrated protein streams are
lost near the end of the batch run. Obviously the time lost
to the operation, besides the membrane replacement costs,
downgrade the economics of using the system.
A positive system would be desirable to divert permeate from
UF modules back to the storage silos automatically when
problems occur; turbidity meters might be placed in line to
monitor UF permeate which is clear light green liquid when
proteins are removed. This kind of technology spin-off can
be normally expected in equipment evolution modifications.
REVERSE OSMOSIS SECTION
This part of the plant was installed first. Testing the RO
system for leaks and pressure began onsite in mid-March
1972. A closed loop arrangement was connected by pumping
liquid from the interstage silo to the banks of membranes
and then back to the silo. Initially, the shipper's storing
solution was used for the wet loop. Once committed to
moistening the system with solution, the plant then had to
use makeshift arrangements to keep the membranes
continuously wet to prevent film drying out which would
spoil when dry. Figure 20 shows the interstage silo and
others during this construction period.
Almost at once the RO membranes experienced malfunctions in
the stainless steel bolts holding the units stainless caps
in bundles. This condition allowed the membrane's shipping
fluids to seep through their fiberglass supports holding the
cellulose acetate membranes. The contractor exchanged the
bolts for others with a different type of steel-nickel alloy
of the same size but these failed too. The fact that the RO
banks contain more than 5000 bolts in the system does point
out how over several hundred hours of work were expended in
changing different kinds of materials in an attempt to
correct this problem; this problem was a serious condition
until all the headers were drilled and tapped to use 5/16
45
-------
Figure 20. View of Whey Feed Silos and Interstage Tanks (with Portion of
Two Reverse Osmosis Cabinets and RO Booster Pump Showing) at
Whey Processing Plant, Crowley Foods, Inc., LaFargeville,
New York April 1972.
46
-------
inch bolts rather than the 1/4 inch originally supplied
The bolt problem was not corrected until mid-September 1972
By this time we had been running whey products through the
RO system for more than 3 months. Because the-RO membranes
were subjected to leaking top and bottom caps by bolt
shearing which allowed whey to spray onto the exterior
portions of the modules, yeast and mold pro'blems were
encountered as shown in Table 3.
The exterior CIP system was not designed to compensate for
gross product contaminating conditions caused by bolt
breakage and therefore was inadequate to clean the outsides
of the RO membranes supports in a satisfactory manner. The
CIP system appears to need more big volume spray nozzles
that can operate at elevated cleaning pressure.
The plant personnel spent many man-hours of daily difficult
manual work in the attempt to clean the individual membrane
exteriors so they could be free of molds and yeast. The
situation was worsened by air contaminatants because the RO
modules were run without top covers during this period as
there was the need to check the membranes frequently for
leakage due to the bolt problems. The double trouble to the
plant was that both sections caused problems simultaneously
and this situation made the entire project less than
satisfactory to manage. We would have probably been better
able to resolve the RO difficulties sooner had the UF
portion not caused problems during this period.
Qoncep_t ^Differences
The RO membranes are arranged in a pyramid of
"Christmas-tree" flow pattern. Our previous experience with
Phase I in the pilot plant was rather in a three section
circulating loop RO plant. Each section in the small model
had its own pump forming a circulation loop that maintained
fluids in a continuous turbulent-like condition. To obtain
this same turbulence, turbulence promoters were used in the
membranes in the full scale plant. These are plastic beads
7/16 inches in diameter. Approximately 145 are placed
inside each tube. The membranes for the big plant are
somewhat different in membrane numbers per individual module
as well as being -secured by a newer type seal with a plastic
collar versus epoxy glue in our previous work. Turbulence
promoters were used in the full scale plant compared to no
turbulence promoters in the earlier model. These
differences may account for some additional difficulWes^n
keeping the system as clean as the Phase I pilot plant with
its simple circulation technique.
47
-------
Table 3. TYPICAL MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA OF PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN THE REVERSE OSMOSIS SECTION
1972-73
oo
Deproteinized whey
Date
1972
5/16
6/3
6/6
6/7
7/5
8/2
9/1
9/11
9/19
10/16
10/18
10/23
10/31
11/6
11/20
11/25
11/27
TSa
5.46
6.03
-g
5.74
5.63
6.16
-
5.90
5.41
5.58
5.47
5.32
5.35
5.22
5.88
5.56
5.67
SPCb
500
<400
2,500
400
3,000
30,000
9,000
76,000
900
19,000
5,000
17,000
<1,000
3,000
10,200
1,000
300
Colic Yd
<1 *f
<1 *
20 <10
<10 >100
<40 >100
<10 40
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10 *
<10 60
<10 >100
<10 100
<10 80
<10 110
Me
*
*
<10
<10
>100
*
>100
>100
-
>100
100
*
*
A
50
*
*
TS
13.61
16.98
19.97
18.71
17.9
18.54
19.38
19.28
18.97
19.72
18.86
18.76
16.37
17.13
19.34
16.70
19.49
RO concentrate
SPC Coli
2,600 <1
3,600 <1
318,000 40
500,000 100
tntc 61
40
700,000 <10
>1, 000, 000 30
600,000 <10
4,000 <10
500,000 <10
59,000 <10
16,000 <10
19,000 <10
24,000 <10
5,000 <10
7,700 <10
Y
*
*
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
-
>100
>100
>100
100
A
>100
>100
>100
M
*
A
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
-
*
A
A
A
*
10
100
*
RO
SPC
200
800
-
-
490,000
30,000
39,000
41,000
620,000
128,000
<1,000
51,000
3,000
13,000
300
2,000
3,500
permeate
Coli Y
100
<10
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10
10 100
<10 *
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10
<10 >100
<10 >100
<10 >100
M
A
A
-
-
>100
-
>100
>100
-
100
A
>100
A
-
<10
>100
*
, Total solids in percent
Standard Plate Count
. Coliform
Yeast
iMold
t No count
' No information
-------
Table 3. (cont)
TYPICAL MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA OF PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN THE REVERSE OSMOSIS
SECTION - 1972-73
vo
Deproteinized whey
Date
12/2
12/6
12/16
12/20
12/27
1973
1/3
1/8
1/10
1/19
1/20
1/22
1/29
1/30
TS
5.41
5.18
5.55
-
5.60
5.43
5.4
5.51
5.40
5.69
4.73
5.58
5.59
SPC Coli
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
2,000 <10
1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
1,200 70
<1,000 <10
<1,000 <10
3,000 <10
2,000 <10
3,000 <10
5,000 <10
1,000 <10
Y
30
100
60
90
100
40
50
*
30
*
20
MOO
90
M
40
*
80
*
*
*
*
*
*
10
*
*
*
TS
19.22
15.69
18.40
17.84
17.99
16.14
12.95
14.09
16.17
15.64
16.32
17.53
18.55
3.0 concentrate
SPC
73,000
13,000
29,000
8,000
27 , 000
6,700
16,000
19,000
24,000
18,000
34,000
32,000
44,000
Coli
<10
60
70
<10
100
MOO
<10
<10
20
<10
<10
50
<10
Y M
_ _
MOO MOO
MOO MOO
60 100
MOO MOO
100 100
100 *
100 100
100 100
100 *
100 90
100 *
100 90
RO permeate
SPC
28,000
21,000
6,000
89,000
27,000
„
-
384,000
336,000
18,000
79,000
26,000
19,500
Coli Y
<10 70
<10 MOO
<10 MOO
<10 MOO
<10 MOO
_ _
- -
<10 MOO
10 MOO
<10 MOO
<10 MOO
<10 MOO
<10 MOO
M
>50
MOO
MOO
20
MOO
_
-
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
20
60
-------
Two RO operational problems are apparent in the Phase II
operations. One situation is that product runs require one
set of flow rate values and these basically are now being
met. The other area is that cleaning flow rates and volume
needs are different than those required in the product flow
configurations. Opinions of the project's engineers
differed in how best to resolve the problem. During
November and December 1972 much data were collected to
pinpoint the problems. Corrective measures were taken to
install bypass CIP valving and plumbing that allow improved
cleaning in membrane tubes with a method that increases
volume, velocity, and turbulence. A diagram showing these
changes is in the Appendix of this report.
In Phase I we were able to keep the pilot plant equipment in
a desirable state of cleanliness with only water. We fully
anticipated that we should have been able to repeat the
Phase I experience with the manufacturer's new
modifications. In order to improve cleaning and rule out
water quality problems in this location which has hard and
high solids water, we installed water softening equipment to
improve cleanability water characteristics. Information
about the softening equipment is supplied in the Appendix
with selected water analysis data.
FLUX RATES
Initially the RO section performed in excess of design
specifications. Each of the 6 modules contained 63 RO
units. The unit composed of tubes having a total capacity
of 13-5 ft^ area. Quite early in June, in order to balance
the pressure drops and maintain the flow rates, 3 RO units
were removed from each module. From that time in June until
January 1973, the total RO section did not run at its
specified capacity as shown in Figures 21 & 22. Because
membrane fouling seemed obvious, a number of methods were
employed to clean the membranes. Enzyme cleaners, as well
as chlorinated materials, were pumped into the system and
these did help to keep the system clean. Chemical cleaning
improved bacteriological results but this condition lasts
briefly and failed to bring the RO plant capacity back to
its start-up flux rates.
In January 1973, Abcor engineers finally recognized that
there was indeed a special kind of cleaning problem in the
RO section caused by a design or chemical problem. Their
tests indicated to them that higher flow rate cleaning
cycles would improve cleaning operations. By making flow
path changes in piping, the flow rate would be increased
during the CIP cleaning process. Plumbing changes were made
50
-------
PLANT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
JAN
FEE
MAR
APR
x
21
17
13
o-
MAY
JUNE
JULY
o-
AUG
<
o
21
17
13
SEPT
N=82
X=16.49
OCT NOV
DEC
DESIGN FLUX
FIGURE 21. REVERSE OSMOSIS - PERMEATE FLUX DURING 1972:
HIGH, AVERAGE, AND Low VALUES FOR MONTH PERIODS
51
-------
23
•a.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
SD=2.61
DESIGN FLUX
FIGURE 22, REVERSE OSMOSIS — PERMEATE FLUX DURING 1973:
HIGH, AVERAGE, AND Low VALUES FOR MONTH PERIODS
52
-------
PLANT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
JAN
FEE
MAR
APR
I
CD
3.0
X
O
s:
CD
PQ
2.0
ce oo
MAY
JUNE
(=) UJ
CD
-------
3.0
CD
C/D
2,0
1,0
JAN
H o ,
FEB
MAR
APR
CX)
C=3
3.0
2,0
1.0
MAY
(=)
CD — I
2Z CD
O
o
O
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
N=188
1=1.21
SD=0.66
FIGURE 24, RO PERMEATE QUALITY DURING 1973 AS MEASURED BY TOTAL
SOLIDS WHERE 1% APPROXIMATES 7000 MG/L BOD5:
HIGH, AVERAGE, AND Low VALUES FOR 10-DAY PERIODS
54
-------
in flow paths to modify the cleaning procedures RO flux
rates improved in January by replacing the first 9 RO units
in each module. Abcor reported that the first few RO units
in each module had lost some flux capacity by their
examination for unknown reasons. It was suspected that
cleaners and sanitizing chemicals used to clean-previous
fouling conditions caused changes in membrane structure
When these few units are replaced, the change should
correct the RO plant and bring the total units back to
capacity. Figures 23 & 24 show typical BOD results in the
permeate generated from the systems, and Table 4 shows
selected microbial problems in concentrate and permeate.
Table 4. SELECTED DATA TO ILLUSTRATE BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS IN RO
CONCENTRATE AND PERMEATE
Concentrate
Date
19^2
10/17
10/24
10/31
11/7
11/14
11/21
12/5
12/12
12/19
SPC Coli
1,500,000 -a
624,000 -
2,280,000 -
380,000 -
486,000 -
1,140,000 -
Spt
142,000 -
73,000 -
16,000 -
Yeast
28,000
3,600
>3,000
>3,000
>3,000
>3,000
Mold
10
120
>3,600
1,200
740
2,400
jcial Cleaning Qhemi
64,000
3,100
480
130
10
*
Permeate
SPC Coli
2,340,000 -
2,000,000 -
3,600,000 -
430,000 -
300,000 -
156,000 -
^als
25,000 -
12,000 -
726,000 -
Yeast
>3,ooo
>3,ooo
>3,000
7,200
2,400
>300
520
*
14,000
Mold
>3,ooo
>3,ooo
20
60
20
20
*b
*
90
a No information
b No count
Reverse Osmosis Unit Replacement
Eight units in total were replaced in the RO section because
of rupture or leaking during the first 8 months that they
were in operation. Eighteen units were removed in June 1972
to correct a pressure drop in the system. One might look
upon this as a credit but this is not a valid appraisal.
The present situation seems to suggest that we need to
provide 9 units for 6 modules, or a total of 54 units are
needed to make the system perform at design specification.
If we expressed these as a percentage figure applied to
membrane replacement, this would confuse the situation as we
view the RO section at this time.
55
-------
Mechanical_Prgblems
Work was still underway, as of March 1973, to correct the
mechanical problems that remain in the RO section of the
plant. Some maladjustments still remain in flow rates and
potential plugging as well as the detection methods to find
leaks when they occur.
Bacterial numbers in RO concentrate and permeate increased
substantially between January-October 1973- Crowley
personnel elected to resolve UF operational problems before
altering conditions that troubled the RO portion of the
plant.
Standard Plate Counts (SPC) in both fractions generally ran
in the 500,000 to 2 million/ml of product during the
aforementioned period. Yeast and mold counts combined
fluctuated about in a one million range.
RO concentrate was wasted to land disposal areas, and RO
permeate was discharged as wastewater to the site's sewage
disposal plant.
Microbial counts were controlled in material used for
product by simply pasteurizing the liquids as they left the
RO system.
The RO portion of the plant was operated in this manner
until mid 197^ when the Crowley firm decided to re-membrane
the RO modules by stages. Figure 25 shows data obtained
from the first cabinet reworked with new membranes. Flux
an-d BOD levels performed according to design standards.
Because of the RO mechanical difficulties and sanitation
problems, continued efforts for correction are necessary by
Crowley and Abcor personnel. These efforts and results will
be covered in future annual reports.
S6
-------
IW
X=20.71
SD=1.93
cc
X
-------
SECTION VIII
PROCESS ECONOMICS
Preliminary economic data should be viewed with caution
because they reflect high start-up cost, very low product
yield over time, and too many hours of executive labor.
Table 5 summarizes the capital cost .
Table 5. DOLLAR COSTS FOR SETTING UP A 300,000 LB/DAY
WHEY PLANT
______________________ Cost __________________________ Amount
Construction contracts $613,655-76
Equipment installation 59,108.67
Contingency equipment and contracts 18,421.83
Firm's expenditures in salaries and 67,912.27
overhead for project
In addition to the above capital cost, $186,220.54, was
spent on operation and maintenance during the start-up
period. This expense was caused by the need to correct
technical problems, which should have been covered in the
research development phase.
Time spent in the as yet non-profitable whey operations have
detracted executive time substantially from their other
activities that might have enhanced the profitability of
Crowley's. Subsequent costs are in Appendix.
Personnel on site other than whey plant people were also
involved in day-to-day problems of ordering supplies or
monitoring contractors, etc. to get the plant operating and
then provide support actions to keep it operational. Much
of these costs are not reflected in the data that follow.
On the other hand, it seems unrealistic to charge expenses
against the whey plant that are "one-shot type cost" items.
Many of the expenditures are neither capital nor variable
expenses but better designated as some new technology charge
for marrying new processes into existing operations.
58
-------
The general format of reporting plant expenses will follow
the method used in our Phase I report. This method allows
one to compare the Phase I cost projections with actual
experience .
The expense of operating the whey plant at LaFargeville,
which is a 6-day, 24-hour per day operation, has been
computed for 5 months. We selected the period of August
through December because in this period we achieved
industrial plant-like operations. The Phase I report
figures are repeated along with the Phase II dollars but in
5/12th amounts to account for 5 months operation of the
pilot works annual projections as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6. FIVE MONTHS PROJECTED3 AND ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS
FOR 300,000 LB/DAY WHEY PLANT
Difference
Costs Projection Actual Actual-Projection
Labor and overhead
Supervisory $ 2,000 $12,242 $10,242
General utility 9,500 7,921 1,079
Laboratory 800 1,403 603
Maintenance 535 607 132
Fringe benefits 5,150 8,870 3,720
and overhead
(40$ of wages) ,
Membrane replacement 16,625 1,022b 15,603°
Power 2,100 3,941 1,841
Water 1,650 nac na
Steam 1,250 1,560 319
Cleaning suppliesd 800 5,996 5,196
Professional services 4,165 4,165 0
Depreciation 36,790 20,255 6,545
aBased on Phase I data ^, ^ u 107-3
bDoes not include membrane failures of February 1973
cNo available
dTable 7 describes cleaning chemicals
59
-------
Table 7. WHEY PLANT CLEANING SUPPLIES USAGE
August
Cleaning
product
Ultra-Clean
Enbiozyme
Antibac B
Caustic
soda
102 Liquid
chlorine
Alcozyme
Rhozyme
Salt beads
Total Cost
Amount
used
1080 Ibs
12 gals
350 Ibs
315 Ibs
60 gals
300 Ibs
50 Ibs
-
Cost
$ 810.
54.
232.
22.
30.
195.
41.
-
$1385.
September
Amount
used Cost
00 1400 Ibs $1050.00
00 37 gals 166.50
50 350 Ibs 232.50
84 300 Ibs 21.75
00 60 gals 30.00
00 200 Ibs 130.00
00
-
34 $1630.75
October November December
TOTAL
Amount Amount Amount
used Cost used Cost used Cost
817 Ibs $ 612.75 803 Ibs $602.25 600 Ibs $450
37 gals 166.50 24 gals 108.00 24 gals 108
350 Ibs 232.50 350 Ibs 232.50 350 Ibs 232
315 Ibs 22.84 180 Ibs 13.05 96 Ibs 7
60 gals 30.00 60 gals 30.00 20 gals 10
100 Ibs 65.00
_
3300 Ibs 57
$1129.59 $985.80 $964
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
-
-
.42
.88
Amount
used
4700
134
1750
1206
260
600
50
3300
Ibs
gals
Ibs
Ibs
gals
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
Cost
$3525.00
603.
1162.
87.
130.
390.
41.
57.
$5996,
00
50
44
.00
.00
.00
.42
.36
-------
These data fail to indicate how much product was made nor
does it reflect by-product flow rates in unit costs. Plant
expenses, for the most part, would not have been overly
different if more whey rather than water was pumped through
the membrane system.
Realistic actual unit processing costs are not possible in
this period because the installation had not as yet
exploited its full whey handling volume potential. Future
annual reports will indicate better the real impact of
operating costs on whey processing when the system achieves
prolonged stability.
Dep_reciatign_and_Interest
Interest costs have been calculated at 8$. This amount may
well be understated with present inflation and high rate
borrowing. The total cost, less the EPA reimbursement of
$360,000, is used as Crowley's base cost for depreciation
and other pertinent calculations.
More recent data than these generated at start up are listed
in Tables 8, 9, and 10, which summarize operational costs of
one year between May 1973-April 1974. Membrane replacement
costs do reflect conservative projections in view of initial
experiments with membrane failures.
61
-------
TABLE 8. OPERATING COST DURING MAY 1973 - APRIL 1974 a
Supervisor's salary $ 10,500
Plant salaries and fring benefits 47,972
Membranes 78,600
Cleaning supplies 27,679
Electricity 9,084
Fuel. 2,355
Repair and maintenance 15,345
Property taxes, insurance, etc. 19,512
Administration 6,000
Laboratory 4,500
Total , $ 221,547
aDoes not include building and equipment depreciation
membrane life - 8 months
RO membrane life - 12 months
csee Table 9
During the 12-month period, May 1973 - April 1974,
52,608,000 pounds of whey, containing 3,226,532 pounds of
solids, were produced.
62
-------
Table 9- PRODUCT FLOW SUMMARY OF UF-RO OPERATION
MAY 1973 TO APRIL 1974
Product
Pounds
Recovered
Protein in form of concentrate
Other solids in the UF concentrate3
Other solids condensed to 15-20$ in RO
Total whey solids
Not_Recovered
Solids in RO effluent
Unaccounted for solids
200,751
200,751
1^89.8.138
2,299,640
564,415
362,477
aProtein concentrate is estimated to average 50$ protein on
dry basis.
Table 10. CLEANING SUPPLIES FOR THE UF-RO PLANT,
MAY 1973 TO APRIL 197^
Cleaning Product3
Ultra-Clean
Erabiozyme
Antibac B
Caustic soda
Liquid chlorine
Bonewitz C-4
Glow acid
Phos-acid
Roccal
Salt beads
Unit cost
$ 116.00/cwt
5.50/gal
68.40/cwt
12. 12/cwt
.65/gal
23-57/cwt
51 .31/cwt
22.71/cwt
4.22/gal
3. 12/cwt
Usage/day
42
4
3
6.25
4
25
10
1
1
100
Ib
gal
Ib
Ib
gal
Ib
Ib
gal
T
gal
Ib
63
-------
SECTION IX
MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT OF UF TUBES
UF membrane failures occurred abnormally high in January
1973. A total of 18 tubes had to be replaced in 15 runs.
Five tubes needed replacement on January 20, 1973 which
until this episode was an all-time high for the number of
tube failures in one day.
On February 2, 1973 the plant operator detected additional
membrane failures and replaced 10 UF tubes. Still, the UF
permeate remained somewhat turbid, suggesting that protein
seepage into UF permeate was occurring. The boil testing of
whey failed to clean the solution which is an excellent
method to determine if whey proteins are escaping from their
membrane system.
By February 8, 1973, the situation was declared critical
enough to warrant action to disassemble and inspect each
tube in cabinet number one Forty-four tubes of the total 216
in the module were found to be defective. The plant
personnel found that defective tube conditions varied from
slight membrane bubbles to loose films and even some with
shredded membranes.
The tube failure situation occurred after a slowdown in UF
flux rates. Plant personnel attempted to correct the system
for lack of capacity by using a sponge ball cleaning method
(see Appendix) that has been successful to correct low flux
in the past. Many faulty tubes were discovered during this
procedure. A decision was made that each of the 1296 UF
tubes be examined for outward defects. All tubes were
removed from the cabinets and returned to Abcor, Boston,
Massachusetts, for examination. A chronological order of
failures leading to this decision appear in Appendix E.
TYPES OF FAILURE
1. Some tubes had ruptured membranes.
2. Many membranes appeared to have lost their elasticity or
were found to be poorly elastic.
3. Membranes in many cases lost their adhesive bond to
their membrane carrier tube.
64
-------
4. Many tubes had lost their opaque color.
Later in this investigation it was found that about 30% of
the tubes considered having failed were able to be brought
back to a normal state in Abcor's Boston Laboratory by
special cleaning. However, generally, it was felt that
about 70$ of the total UF tubes were unusable.
REASONS FOR FAILURE
Paramount to the bad experience of having a massive tube
failure throughout the UF section of the plant was the need
to determine why the trouble occurred. If one were to
assume that the life of the membranes had simply been
exhausted, the economic effect upon the process is obvious.
Other operations in and out of continental USA have shown
that membranes have been operating more than 2 years without
a mass failure. Table 6 does not reflect this event for it
may not be typical in this time frame.
Both Crowley scientists and the Abcor team reviewed in depth
the events preceding the membrane failures. In our opinion
the following combined situations created conditions that
caused UF membrane failures.
1 . Circulations of interior and exterior UF membranes in a
6-10 ppm chlorine solution reduced the life expectancy
of UF cellulose acetate membranes by de-acetylation .
2. The hours of sanitizing storage was disproportionate by
many fold the hours of whey operation through the period
of July to February, storing time was more than running
time .
3. Caustic is added to enzyme cleaners to maintain a
8.2-8.8 pH, this range hastens hydrolysis of delicate
membranes. Some cleaning chemicals may have not
dissolved or failed to be uniformly mixed into cleaning
solutions thereby it seems reasonable that some washing
solutions were used at higher concentration than our
records show. This failure could occur in a "slug
type" fluid feed situation.
4 SoonKe balling membranes to remove fouling conditions
the membrane bonding to its backing more
than we realize.
5. Manufacturing quality control tolerances of these
membranes and their supports may have to be st.ll
65
-------
further improved. Abcor has been producing new
generations of more durable membranes with fiberglass
backings. As yet, experimental data are not available
to predict the characteristics of these new materials.
Appendix E lists UF and RO membrane defects as to date,
location, and type of failure. Little correlation appears
visible by these records to explain when or where failures
occur .
66
-------
SECTION X
PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS
1. Goldsmith, R. L., D. J. Goldstein, B. S. Horton,
S. Houssain, and R. R. Zall. Ultrafiltration for
Control of Pollution Caused by Cottage Cheese Whey.
Industrie Aliment. Pinerolo, Italy. October 1971.
2. Zall, R. R. Membrane Processing of 300,000 Pounds Per
Day Cottage Cheese Whey for Pollution Abatement -
Phase II. AlChe 64th Annual Meeting. San Francisco,
California. November 1971.
3. Horton, B. S., R. L. Goldsmith, and R. R. Zall.
Membrane Processing of Cheese Whey Reaches Commercial
Scale. Food Tech. 26:30-32, 34-35. February 1972.
4. Horton, B. S., R. L. Goldsmith, and R. R. Zall.
Traitment sur Membrane du Serum de Fromage au Stade
Industrie!. Rev. Lait. Francaise. 298:367-379.
May 1972.
5. Zall, R. R. and D. J. Goldstein. Membrane Processing
of Cottage Cheese Whey. Proceedings of the Whey
Institute Conference. Chicago, Illinois. June 1972.
6. Selitzer, R. Crowley Begins Membrane Processing of
Cottage Cheese Whey. Dairy and Ice Cream Field
155:34-41. June 1972.
67
-------
SECTION XI
GLOSSARY
Angstromi.._A^ - 10^ centimeter.
Bactericide - Any material capable of inhibiting or
destroying bacteria.
BOD - BOD5 always in this report. Biochemical oxygen
demand, an indirect measure of the concentration of
biologically degradable material.
Brackish - Somewhat salty, but substantially less so than
seawater .
CejLlulgse_acet.ate - A water insoluble polymer formed by the
reaction of certain acids on
cellulose.
Chlgrinatign - The addition of small amounts of free
chlorine, usually to water, for the purpose
of killing harmful organisms in the water
and rendering it safe for drinking.
COD - Chemical oxygen demand, an indirect measure of the
concentration of organic matter oxidized by a
boiling acid digestion system. COD values can be
correlated with BOD values from the same wastes.
Effluent - The residual output stream, usually the waste.
Filtrate - That which has passed through the membrane,
usually the solvent.
Flux - The membrane throughput, usually expressed as some
volume per unit time. See: gfd, gpd.
Fouling - The act depositing on the membrane surface some-
thing which will impede it proper functioning,
sometimes also termed "blinding",
gfd - Gallons per square foot per day - gal/ft^/day.
68
-------
d - Gallons per day.
Membrane - The thin anisotropic polymer film, a substance
with different properties in different
direction, which is the active separation
mechanism in osmosis, reverse osmosis, and
ultraf iltration .
Module - The combination of a membrane element and its
pressure container .
N - Number of observations .
Osmosis - Self-diffusion through a semipermeable membrane of
a solvent due to the differential pressure
between two solutions of differing
concentrations .
Permeable - Capable of allowing some material to pass
through essentially unimpeded.
Permeate - That which passes through.
p_H - The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion
concentration, scaled 0-14, with 0-7 representing
relative acidity, 7 being neutral, and 7 through
14 relative alkalinity.
Pore - An imagined opening in a membrane which allows
certain components, but not others, to pass
through .
Porous - Having physical strength and appearing solid but
capable of allowing certain materials to pass
through virtually unimpeded.
psU Pressure - (1) "Pounds per square inch." (2) The
normalized units of force.
Rejection - The amount of material not allowed to pass
through a membrane .
sufficient reverse pressure to cause the
solvent to flow in its unnatural
direction .
SD - Standard deviation
69
-------
Semi - Technically means "half" but more usually used to
mean "partially."
Ultrafiltratign - An ultrafine filtering action generally
applied to solutes with a molecular
weight above several hundred and capable
of being strained by pores in the region
of a few hundred Angstroms and smaller.
X - Average.
70
-------
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM- -GRAND OPENING
CROULEV FOOVS, INC.
PROGRAM
9:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
11:45 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
1:15 pm
, Hew Vo/tfe
GRANV OPENING CEREMONIES
et/ Pnoc.eAi.inQ facitittu
* * * WEPNESPAV, JUNE 21, 1972
RECEPTION - Plant
WELCOME REMARKS -
fnancAA E. Cio(ule.y,
C>WMle.y food!,, Inc..
BRIEF- GENERAL HISTORY ANV FUNCTIONS Of
THE LAFARGCl/HLE PLANT -
Cnanlu CoAt&on, Vi.vi44.on Manage*.
Vi.viAi.on
DESCRIPTION OF WHEV PROCESS -
Vn. RobeAt R. lall, Consultant
PLANT TOUR - including the. new U/net/
facility
SAMPLING Of POTENTIAL SPECIAL PROVUCTS -
whe.y deAi.vati.vu
to Ale.x.andfii.a Bay, Wew Voik
LUNCHEON - EVGEWOOV RESORT
Aie.xand>ua. Bat/, Hew Votik
REMARKS -
Won. Robert C. McEwen
Hou&e. 0(! R&pieAe.ntatlv&!>, 3Ut
Environmental Piottction Agency
Itlcuklngton, V.C.
I • French
Onion Dip
> Yogurt
71
-------
APPENDIX B. SAFE OPERATING CONDITIONS
ULTRAFILTRATION SECTION
Do not exceed 130°F
Do not freeze
Do not exceed 55 psig
Do not permit a vacuum or sudden increase in pressure
Keep the membranes wet at all times
Keep pH between 2.5 and 8.8
REVERSE OSMOSIS SECTION
Do not exceed 90°F
Do not freeze
Do not exceed 900 psig
Do not permit a vacuum or sudden increase in pressure
Keep the membranes wet at all times
Keep pH between 2.5 and 8.8
Limit concentrations of chlorine when sanitizing to
6-10 ppm of free chlorine
USUAL OPERATING CONDITIONS
ULTRAFILTRATION SECTION
Temperature: 120-125°F
Pressure: 50 psig at the highest point
15 psig at the lowest point
REVERSE OSMOSIS SECTION
Temperature: 80-85°F
Pressure: 800 psig at the inlet to the modules
72
-------
APPENDIX C. CLEANING AND SANITIZING SOLUTIONS
ULTRAFILTRATION
Cleaning
Ultra-Clean*: Part "Au is powder which is dissolved in warm
water (110-112°F) as indicated on the label. The pH is
adjusted to 7-7-8.5 with caustic or phosphoric acid as
required. Part "B!l is added after the "A" material is
dissolved. Rate of additions are "A" at 42 lbs/1,200 gals.
and "B1- at 6 lbs/1,200 gals.,
or
Alcgzy_ne**: Use at one ounce per 2 gals, of water at
110-120°F (37-1/2 lbs/1,200 gals.). pH is adjusted between
8.0-8.7 with phosphoric acid or sodium hydroxide. The
Alcozyne powder is added to preheated water just prior to
use .
Cleaning solutions are used in the concentrations resulting
from the mixtures stated above.
Sanitizing
The UF solution consists of one ounce of Antibac B+ per 12
gals of water at room temperature, which provides 100 ppm
free chlorine (6-1/4 Ibs in 1,200 gals). The solution is
pumped through the system just prior to whey operation and
is not used for storage purposes or a
RoccaJL"1"1" solution is circulated through the system at 200
ppm concentration. This mixture is made up at the rate of
1 oz/4 gals or 1,000 gals required 250 oz of materials. In
addition; phosphoric acid is added to adjust pH to 4.5-5.0
at the rate of 1.5 mis/gal of solution. The 1,000 gals of
sanitizing solution requires 1,500 mis. Acid addition
increased the biocidal efficiency of this sanitizer.
REVERSE OSMOSIS
Cleaning
Emb_iozy_me_RQS-j/- at the rate of 10 cc/gal of water (6 lit
or 1-1/2 gals in 600 gals of water). Solutions must be used
at once and not stored. -The use temperature of the cleaner
is at 85-90°F.
73
-------
Sanitizing
One ounce of Antibac B per 120-200 gals of water at room
temperature and a pH of 5.5-6.5. This mixture provides a
solution that will contain between 6-10 ppm of free chlorine
and is pumped through the system just prior to its use for
processing of permeate.
* Abcor, Inc., 3^1 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02139
**Alconox, Inc., 215 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10003
+ Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., J.B. Ford Division, Wyandotte,
Michigan 48192
/ Midwest Biochemical, 1500 West North Avenue, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53205
74
-------
APPENDIX D. ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE WATER SAMPLES
Table 1-D. ANAYLSIS OF COMPOSITE WATER SAMPLES
CROWLEY'S LAFARGEVILLE PLANT
September 29, 1971
Sample
no.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Alka-
Hard- lin-
Location pH Bess ityb
UF and RO 8.1 340 326
units
(after
filters)
Upstairs 8.3 336 288
culture
room
Tower well g. 1 356 286
Boiler 8.2 364 291
room well
UF and RO 8.3 354 315
units
(before
filters)
Drinking 8.1 342 286
fountain
(bulk cheese
room)
Solids
(%) Cz Zn Fe 504 Si02
422 58 <.01 0.40 42 4.40
363 60 <.01 0.08 62 3.25
364 65 C.01 <.04 66 3.00
358 65 <. 01 <.04 62 3.35
337 55 <.01 .32 41 4.05
443 65 0.22 .04 72 4.70
Analysis performed by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Boston, Mass.
mg/1 as CaCO
75
-------
LABORATORY REPORT
CLIENT
METCALF ft EDDY, HNCINEEn?
0
i
n
E.
"-
v;ater
SAf/.I'Lt COLLECTED nY C
DATE RFrn\.'pp -^ — p — / .1 ANAI YilS
ATLCOLLF.Cn tO
Hy iJiJ tJ
C AM
Ub. No.
Sample
Constituant
r-?&76
0
52677
1
5?fi?8
2
!
3
Physical Examination
Color (Phiinum Eurdirdj
Ociot - Co!d
Turbidity
Chemical Examination Milligrams per liter
pH Value
Free Ccrhon Dioxide as CO2
Alltclinitv - Total as CaC03
Tote! t Isrdntss is C;C03
Chl'.-rids S3 Cl
8.1
326
3 '1C
iron as Fe 1 0.^0
Mar(o3ne'..e r-s Mn
Crth.irihosut'atc 35 K
I Comolex Phosphafd as P
lolai t'Mosntiaie as F
8.3
288
336
0.08 .
|
8.1
286
356
<0 0*i
8.2 1
?Q1
1
^6i| i
<0.0^ J
1
.J
i
1 i
1 1
Sulfatc as S04 1)2.0 i62.0 ! on 0 r>? & \
Hiuitf Kitronen as N J
Nilralc Nitroocn as N
Ammonia Nitrogen BS N'
Organic, i^itro^en RS W
Biocs.emicol Oxyaen Demand
Che-mica: Oxyqen Der.iand
Suspended Solids
Volatile
Total SoMds
Volal.le
Calcium an Ca
Zinc an 7n
Silica as S102
i
1]22
'"-R
-'0.01
36?
60
cO. 01
^.25
7 6 'l
•J^ft
-so o^ to.oi ,
3.00
3.35 !
1 ! 1
i
I
I
Bact'.ria! Ej:cmin:tion
Bactrria per ml on As:: "ir. hr.-3D°C
Bacc.-ti.T p™ ml on Anrr <"li :v.-?0°C
Coli-ccico^ocs orojp
1 ml
C. 1 ml
Confirmed 7i-l (l:G)
Wc-S 1'iobiSlc ,'Nliirnbcr ;;w lO.'i m!
{.o'lfnni.v'IOQml. MF
i r '" \ j s
I
i
i
j
•Nl/I.UfcaT.'ETSrOI.iTIVS /TOTAL IK'^CLR TLSTS ^ . , , /t-'i'"
« IIT:I irp pv {^V.- lv».v 'Y^J A- r Jr'/ »ivr 10')^ ~"? '
76
-------
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY REPORT
CLItNT.
ANALYSIS nr water
SAMPLE COLLECTED BY.
DATE RECEIVED
DATECOLLtCTCD.
10-5-71
___ ANALYSIS Bv
J C
m
c
u
5
z
m
O
D
•B
u.
J
<
r - Cold
Turbidity
Chemical Examination Milligrams per liter
pH Value
Free Carbon DioxWe as CO?
Alkalinity - Total es CcCO3
Total Hardness as OCO3
Chloride n Cl
Iron as Fe
f/.anqanese as Mn
Orthophosphate as P
Complex Phoiphate as P
Toial rhoipnate as r
Suli'ateasSO4
Nitrite Nitrogen as N
Nitrate Nitrrwjert as N
Ammonia Nitrogen as N
Cfnanic Kilrccen as N
Biochernical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxypen Demand
Suspended Solids
Volatile
Total Solids
Volatile
Calcium as Ca
Zinc as Zn
Silica as S102
8.3
315
354
0.32
41.0
337
rjr;
:0. m
4. OS
8.1
286
342
0.04
72.0
443
6^
0 ??
4. 70
Bacterial Examination
Bacteria per ml or. Aqar ?!
Conli.mtd Test (BG)
Most Prot'sbii- humbcr per 1UO m!
Cotiiorms/ICX) ml. Ml-
1
O f'J
'
•KUMBfiB TESTS POSITIVE /TOTAL NuWPtn T£STS
crntiFi
re DY _Q^i^L^.t J-'&Vl JI>_lfilJj
77
-------
APPENDIX E. TUBE FAILURES
Table 1-E.
TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A 1972-74
PERIOD PRESENTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Location
by cabinet
Failure
Date
19.12
6/1
6/6
6/15
6/26
6/28
6/29
6/30
7/28
8/1
8/8
8/10
8/18
8/22
9/1
9/11
9/18
9/20
9/23
10/2
10/6
10/7
10/10
10/13
10/17
10/20
10/20
10/21
number
1
2
1
1
1
1
1-3
5
1
1
4
5
3
3
1
4
5
1
2
2
1
4
1
5
6
4
4
ty_p_e -
leaker
rupture (2)b
broken end
broken end
rupture
broken end ( 2)
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
broken end
weld break
weld break
broken module
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
broken end
weld break
rupture
aDescription of various failure types listed at end of data
^Number of failures, if more than one
78
-------
Table 1-E (Cunt.)
TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date
10/27
10/31
11/4
11/8
11/3
11/11
11/13
11/15
11/20
1 1/22
11/27
1 1/29
11/29
12/2
12/2
12/4
12/13
12/13
12/13
12/16
12/18
1273
1/8
1/13
1/17
1/22
1/22
1/27
1/29
1/30
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/3
2/3
2/5
2/6
Location
by cabinet
number
2
4
6
3
2-3
1
1
6
2
5
3
2
6
3
2
2
2
3
4
5
3
6
2
4
1
4
6
1
2
1
5
4
6
4
1
3
1
1
Failure
type
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture (3)
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
split (3)
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture
79
-------
Table 1-E (Cont.
TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Location
by cabinet
Date number
•2/6
2/6
2/7
2/16
Feb. - Plant shut down
3/16
3/19
3/26
3/27
3/31
4/3
4/10
4/11
4/13
4/17
4/20
4/20
4/23
4/24
5/2
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/5
5/5
5/7
5/8
5/9
5/12
5/15
3
2
4
1-2
for retubing
2
4
6
3
4
3
6
4
2
6
5 ,
3
1
4
3
1
1
2
1
1
6
4
6
6
3
Failure
type
rupture (2)
rupture
bad end
numerous off
line leakers
rupture
weld break
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
rupture
weld break
rupture
weld break
weld break
weld break
rupture
rupture
weld break
rupture
rupture
rupture
Replaced 36 UF modules from rows 1 & 2
with 36 new type fibergalss-backing.
5/18
5/21
5/21
1
1
5
.n Cabinet #1 unit
rupture
leaker
leaker
80
-------
Table 1-E (Cont.)
TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date_
5/22
5/23
5/26
5/28
5/29
5/30
6/1
6/2
6/5
6/12
6/13
6/18
6/18
6/19
6/19
6/20
6/23
6/29
6/29
6/30
7/3
7/3
7/6
7/7
7/9
7/10
7/10
7/16
7/17
7/18
7/21
7/21
7/23
7/23
7/24
7/24
7/24
7/24
7/25
Location
by cabinet
_number
1
6
2
4
4
3
3
2
5
6
4
3
4
4
2
2
1
1
4-
4
6
2
5
3
5
1
3
6
4
6
4
3
4
5
4
3
3
6
1
Failure
ty;p_e
rupture
rupture
weld break
rupture
rupture
weld break
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
weld break
weld break
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break (2)
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
weld break
weld break
weld break
weld break
weld break
rupture
rupture
weld break (4)
rupture
weld break
weld break
81
-------
Table 1-A (Cont.) TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date
7/25
7/27
8/1
8/3
8/4
8/4
8/7
8/7
8/7
8/7
8/7
8/11
8/11
8/13
8/13
8/13
8/14
8/15
8/17
8/20
8/20
8/20
8/21
8/22
8/24
8/24
8/25
8/27
8/27
8/28
8/28
8/29
8/30
8/30
8/31
8/31
8/31
9/3
9/3
Locat ion
by cabinet
number
5
2
5
4
6
3
5
3
6
6
2
5
2
4
5
2
4
4
5
2
2
5
6
S
5
4
4
5
2
5
1
6
4
5
4
4
3
6
1
Fai lure
type
rupture
weld break ( 2 )
weld break
rupture
weld break (2)
weld break
rupture § weld break
weld break (2)
rupture
weld break (2)
rupture
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
rupture
weld break
weld break
weld break
rupture
weld break
rupture
weld break
weld break
rupture
weld break
weld break
rupture
weld break
rupture
rupture'
weld break
rupture (2)
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
weld break (2)
rupture
82
-------
Table 1-E (Cunt.) TUBE FAILURES' IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date
9/4
9/5
9/5
9/6
9/7
9/7-
9/10
9/10
9/10
9/10
9/10
9/10
9/11
9/11
9/1 1
9/12
9/12
9/12
9/13
9/13
9/14
9/17
9/18
9/19
9/20
9/24
9/25
9/25
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/1
10/2
Location
by cabinet
number
1
2
3
6
4
6
6
4
3
4
4
1
4
4
4
1
3
1
2
1
5
4
1
2
3
1
6
5
4
5
5
4
3
5
Failure
ty;p_e
rupture
leaker
rupture
weld break
rupture
weld break
rupture
membrane
separation
weld break
rupture
weld break
rupture
rupture
nipples split
on the end
rupture
membrane
separation
weld break
membrane
separation
rupture
membrane
separation (7)
rupture
rupture
membrane
separation
rupture
membrane
separation (2)
membrane
separation
weld break (2)
rupture
weld break (2)
weld break (2)
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
83
-------
Table 1-E (Cont.) TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date
10/5
10/6
10/8
10/8
10/9
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/12
10/12
10/12
10/12
10/12
10/12
New Fiberglass
New Fiberglass
10/13
10/15
10/15
10/15
10/16
10/20
10/20
10/20
10/22
10/23
10/26
10/27
10/29
10/29
10/30
11/2
1 1/2
11/3
11/3
11/3
11/3
11/3
Location
by cabinet
number
6
4
3
2
4
3
5
2
6
2
3
5
4
5
modules Cabinet
modules Cabinet
6
6
6
2
4
4
5
2
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
6
3
4
6
6
3
4
Failure
tj[p_e
rupture
weld break
weld break
membrane separation
rupture
membrane separation
membrane separation
membrane separation
(8)
weld break
membrane separation
(2)
membrane separation
membrane separation
rupture
rupture
#1 UF units
#2 UF units
weld break
rupture
weld break
leaker
rupture
rupture
weld break
weld break
weld break
rupture
rupture
rupture (2)
rupture
membrane separation
weld break
membrane separation
rupture
weld break
rupture
membrane separation
membrane separation
membrane separation
(18)
11/7
weld break (2)
84
-------
Table 1-E (Cont.)
TUBE FAILURES IN UF CABINETS DURING A
1972-74 PERIOD PRESENTED IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date
11/7
11/7
11/8
11/8
11/9
11/9
11/9
11/12
11/12
11/12
Replaced
11/12
11/13
Replaced
11/14
11/14
11/16
11/16
11/16
11/16
11/20
1 1/20
11/26
11/26
12/12
12/13
Replaced
12/21
We took
12/22
~1/T8
Put
2/13
3/12
3/13
Location
by cabinet Failure
number type
3
4
4
4
6
5
3
3
6
4
with new type
6
4
F row with new
4
1
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
membrane separation
weld break
weld break (11)
membrane separation
weld break
membrane separation
membrane separation
weld break
weld break
membrane separation
fiberglass modules
membrane separation
membrane separation
type fiberglass modules
membrane separation
weld break
rupture
membrane separation
membrane separation
weld break
weld break
membrane separation
rupture (2)
membrane separation
weld break
71 modules with fiberglass in rows H, I,
3
out all of the
1
6
new fiberglass
1
2
1
modules in unit #3 = 216
fiberglass rupture
membrane separation
membrane separation
membrane separation
(3)
(7)
(16)
(18)
(14)
(8)
(5)
(18)
(4)
J, K
85
-------
Table 2-E. TUBE FAILURES IN RO CABINETS DURING A 1972-73
PERIOD PRESENTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Date
19.72
6/7
8/1
6/2
8/7
8/9
8/10
9/6
9/.13
12/2
12/1 1
12/27
12/27
1273
1/3
1/3
1/10
1/15
1/17
1/20
1/20
4/13
7/28
8/25
Location
by cabinet
number
4
2
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
1
2
6
2
4
4
1
2
6
3
2
1
6
Failure
ty&e3-
broken module
broken tube
rupture
broken tube
broken module
broken membrane
borken module
pin hold in module
rupture
rupture
rupture
tube came unglued
loose screw
loose screw
rupture
rupture
rupture
rupture
broken screw
rupture
rupture
rupture
Description of various failure types listed at end of
data.
86
-------
Table 3-E. Failures in Ultrafiltration Tubes
Types Descript ion
Broken end Membrane or its porous support separates
from the tube's plastic threaded tip
end .
Broken module,
.A cabinet containing 216
off the flow stream line
problem.
tubes is taken
for operating
Leaker
Membrane separation
Rupture
Split
Weld break
Permeate clarify becomes cloudy as the
membrane fails to retain pore size and
allows protein seepage to occur.
Membrane loosens from backing like
bubbles in the tube interiors which
tend to rupture over time. Occasionally
a membrane section separates enough to
appear as a thin tube within a tube.
,A weakened site on the membrane support
structure breaks like a tire blowout.
.Support tube splits along its length.
,The ten-feet UF tube was made by join-
ing two five-feet porous supports
together by heat welding and then cast-
ing a membrane on the ten-feet length.
Periodically these tubes come apart at
the weld site spoiling both tube and
membrane.
87
-------
Table 3-E (Cont.) Failures in Reverse Osmosis Tubes
Type
Broken module Herein refers to a faulty unit which
contains 20 5-ft long tubes into which
the RO membrane is inserted. The unit
fails, not a single tube or membrane,
most usually when the screws in its
metal cap break.
Broken tube Tube splits, usually along its entire
length which allows RO liquid to gush
from the tubal fracture.
Loose screw Product seeps slowly from either top
of module bottom. The defect is
noticed by a permeate color change from
water clear to pale yellow.
Rupture Membrane support ruptures at a weakened
spot and allows RO liquid to spurt
from a ragged hole usually about an
eighth inch in diameter. The failure
is violent as the system iss under about
600 psi.
APPENDIX F. LOG AND NOTE FOR THE OPERATOR
The operator will probably best be satisfied if he keeps a
journal in which he religiously records everything he
notices including the time and date on which he notices it.
In this case, a column for "Comments" on the log sheet can
be used to cross reference events to a formal journal.
Crowley's elected to set up separate log forms for selected
activities. These are RO, UF, and analytical services.
Examples of important reports to monitor the plant in actual
operation are attached.
88
-------
The following information is logged daily:
Date
Time
Comments
System inlet pressure
System outlet temperature
Feed Temperature
Feed flow rate UF
Feed flow rate RO
Outlet (concentrate) flow
Permeate conductivity for RO
Permeate color clarity for UF
Concentrate total solids
Whey volume as silo level
The compositional and bacterial information logged are
Raw Whey
UF Permeate
Concentrate Whey
RO Concentrate
RO Permeate
RO Permeate (Compositional Sample)
Protein Concentrate
89
-------
UNIT PROCESSING FACILITIES
LAFARGEVILLE, NEW YORK
UF LOG
Time of Day
Elapsed Time
P (High) PSI
P (Low) PSI
Temp, (in loop) °F
Silo Level (in gal.)
Balance Tank Process
Sample No.
Silo Temp.
pH Whey
2300
00
c
•H
N
•H
^J
•H
C
ffi
t/1
2400
0
40
8.5
113
4500
127
4.5
0100
1
43
11.5
115
3800
128
-
0200
2
44
11.5
115
_
-
0300
3
44
11.5
116
3000
130
4.5
0400
4
45.5
12.5
114
~T4
2000
4
130
-
0500
5
46
13
112
#4
2000
9
134
4.5
0600
6
46
13
114
i?4
2000
9
134
-
0700
7
45
12.5
114
2400
9
4.5
0800
f.
3
,_i
o
p C
Is it
O 0)
•0 rH
4J
3 T)
c/3 nj
0900
1000
RO LOG
P ( IN)
P (OUT)
Temperature
Flow (IN)
Flow (OUT)
Total Cond.
Conductivity #1
Conductivity #2
Conductivity #3
Conductivity #4
Conductivity #5
Conductivity #6
Sample Material
Ml
«H
N
4-1
•H
to
C/3
770
440
86
27.5
7
Spray
790
480
88
26.5
6.6
i-ng
790
540
L- 88J
24.0
6
790
540
88
23.0
5.8
8.6
790
570
85
22.0
5.4
9.4
790
_560_
86
22.0
5.6
790
u 56°
92
22.0
5.6
9.6
790 i 800
800
580j 600 [ 600
90
21.5
5.1
10.0
89
21.5
5.1
_
89
21.5
5.1
800
600
90
21.5
5.1
NOTES:
90
-------
Crowley Foods, Inc.
Whey Processing Facilities
Request for Analytical Services
LaFargeville, New York
Date sampled_
Date processed_
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4
5A
5B
6
Description
Raw Whey
UF Permeate
Concentrate
Whey
RO Concentrate
RO Permeate
Call Sample
RO Permeate
Protein
Concentrate
Time of
Sample
2230
0200
0230
0230
0230
0230
0430
0530
Tests Required
Solids
5.95
5.43
6.64
16.14
.62
8.16
Acid
.50
.45
.55
1.18
.10
.65
pH
4.5
4.45
4.5
4.55
4.2
4.45
Bacteria
Coli
70
-20
370
20
-10
Yeast
120
40
610
730
Cove
620
Mold
NC
NC
310
860
red
NC
SPC
24000
12000
16000
67000
756000
19000
-------
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
o
o
o
oo
7
6
5
4
3
2
12345678
ELAPSED TIME, HRS
Figure 1-F. ULTRAFILTRATION RUN
June 15, 1973
10 11
92
-------
o RUPTURE
* MEMBRANE
* END
5 10
20
15
10
5
-
-
-
* *\ t i
123
1
2
3
•4
c
-
-
-
A ~
-
/
C
u
TOP OUT
o
o
o
T
X
O
0 Q
0> °
2
Figure 2-F
O
o
00
O
O
O
D
3 4 5
. UF VIEWING THE NON-MANIFOLD SIDE
O
O
:
«
~
IS
10
5
6 BOTTOM
IN
o RUPTURE
* MEMBRANE
A END
Figure 3-F. RO VIEWING FROM INLET SIDE
93
-------
341 VASSAR STREET
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. OZI39
TELEPHONE (617) 401-6640
TWX 7IO32OO446
CAULL ADDRrS-..
ABCOK. CAMBRIDGE. MASS.
APPENDIX G. CLEANING AMD SANITIZING
ULTRAFILTRATION&REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS
One of the most important determinants of long-term cleanliness
of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration membranes is the quality
of the water used to clean and flush them. It must be free of
colloidal matter, especially colloidal iron. Fine rust particles
will deposit on and adhere to membranes so tenaciously that their
removal is extremely difficult. Other colloidal material normally
found in water will deposit readily on membranes, especially on
high flux ultrafiltration membranes.
For these reasons, Abcor strongly recommends that all water
used to flush or clean membranes be filtered to remove colloidal
material, and be chemically treated to remove iron if that is
necessary.
I. ULTRAFILTRATION
General Instructions. The unit should be maintained at the
running temperature during the flushing and cleaning cycle.
Do not allow the unit to cool down at any time between the
run and the end of the cleaning cycle.
A. Product Removal. The product must be pushed out with
water that is at the run temperature. Any instructions
to the contrary should be amended to agree with this
instruction.
B. Cleaning.
1. Flushing. Before cleaning the system with cleaning
solution, it should be thoroughly flushed with fresh
water which should pass once through the system and
out to drain. Use a modest flow rate (5-15 gpm per
parallel pass) and lowest possible outlet pressure.
If the system has a circulating loop and separate
feed pump, then only the feed pump is turned on while
PIB 210
Rev. 8/23/73
94
-------
flushing. The valvincj should be arranged so that
the water par: see oncti through tho system and does not
circulate iiround the loop.
Flush a volume of water which is between 1.5 and 3
times the internal volume of the system, an.d is at
the temperature of tho run. At the conclusion of the
flush, the cleaning solution concentrate is pumped
directly into the flushwater left in the system.
^ S_oluJ-J .on • To clean ultraf iltration systems,
the cleaning solution should contain a proteolvtic
enzyme. These enzyrr.es lose their activity quite
rapidly once they have been dissolved in warm water.
Cleaning solutions should be prepared just before use
and should not be held. Two different solutions are
.available :
ABCOR ULTKACLKAN . U] traclean is shipped in two parts,
Part A which is the detergent and Part B which is the
enzyme. Dissolve Part A at the rate indicated on the
package, or at a rate of 0.42 lbs/100 Ibs of final
cleaning solution in the system. The volume of the
water remaining in the system from the rinsing step
must be included in the calculation of the total water.
Use water at least as warm as the run to dissolve
Part A. Do not exceed 55°C (130°F). Make sure that
Part A is completely dissolved.
Add Part 13 at the last possible moment before this
mixture is pumped into the system. It is hot absolutely
necessary that Part Js be completely dissolved before
added to the system (but it ir, necessary that Part A
be totally dissolved) . Part B can be added after the
detergent solution is pumped into the system, but the
delay should not exceed five minutes.
After thorough mixing with the water already in the
system, monitor the system pH. It should be in the
range of 7.7 to 8.7. If the pH is outside this range,
add phosphoric acid or sodium hydroxide as indicated
to the concentrate before starting the next cleaning
cycle. You should quickly discover how much of acid or
alkali is needed to maintain the proper cleaning pH.
ALC02YHE.* Dissolve Alcozyme at a rate of .37 lbs/100 Ibs
'of water in the final cleaning solution making a con-
centrate as above. The solution must be used immediately,
as the enzyme cannot be separated from the detergent
in this preparation.
Monitor the pH as indicated above with Ultraclean, and
nntc that it will generally be necessary tc add
phosphoric acid to maintain a pit below 8.7.
95
-------
If your system has a circulating loop and separate
feed pump connect the cleaning solution tank to the
suction side of the feed pump just as you would
connect the whey tank to the suction side of the
feed pump when running whey. Connect the return
line to the cleaning tank instead of to the whey tank.
Cleaning Procedure. Start the system very much the
way you would start a whey run. Start the feed pumps,
then start the circulating pumps and establish full
running circulation in the system. Open the return
valve all the way, circulating with the lowest possible
pressure in the system. It is important that the
velocity through the tubes during cleaning be at least
as high as the velocity through the tubes during
running, and that the pressure at the outlet of the
unit be lower.
Monitor the flux from the unit. This is of critical
importance. The flux will rapidly climb, then plateau,
then drop. The plateau may be very brief, and it is
important to locate it. As soon as the plateau is
reached, dump the cleaning solution and immediately
rinse the unit with water.
Rinsing. As soon as the system is cleaned it should
be thoroughly rinsed by pumping a volume of water
equal to 3 to S times the internal volume of the
system, once through the cysLera, and out to drain.
This water may be at any temperature below 50°C.
During this rinsing step, check the water flux, cor-
recting for pressure and temperature. Compare it with
a recorded running average of water fluxes. If the
water flux in the unit is not up to the running average,
immediately reclean the system with warm water, and
10% of the cleaning agent level indicated for normal
cleaning. Water fluxes may be run with water or saniti-
zing solution, but not with any other agent present.
Modifications. This cleaning procedure is designed to
give very fast cleanups. Frequently, the actual detergent
washing cycle is 10 minutes or less. It is very important
that tliis step be cut off r.t the flux plateau; overcleaning
results in lower fluxes than optimal cleaning.
Once good cleaning has become routine, one may attempt
to reduce these detergent quantities somewhat. Levels
have been reduced to 0.7 gm/square foot of membrane
area in some well run plants. That level should be
approached with caution.
96
-------
C. Sanitizing
Sanitizing Solution. ANTIBAC B***. Dissolve
Antibac B at the rate of 0.03 lbs/100 Ibs of water
at betv;een 60° and 90°F — 15°-35°C, and adjust the
pH as may be required to be between 5.5 and 6.5.
This solution has 50 ppm free chlorine. Check the
free chlorine content as the sanitizing is being
completed. If this is not above about 20 ppm,
then you have been sanitizing an unclean system.
Sanitizing Procedure. Fill the system with sanitizing
solution, being sure to displace all the water that
was inside the system. Circulate gently using feed
or circulation pumps for between 10 and 15 minutes.
Be careful of the timing. Do not exceed 15 minutes.
Do not sanitize for Ions jthan 10 minutes. Be sure
that every pump is started and that every valve is
opened and closed for a thorough sanitizing of the
system. Adjust the pressure so that about half the
volume of sanitizing solution being pumped into the
apparatus' leaves it as permeate, if possible. This
will sanitize the porous backings of the membranes.
The minimum amount of permeated sanitizing solution
is 1 gallon for every 10 ft2 of membrane area. Routinely
check the free chlorine concentration in the permeate.
It should be close to the membrane side concentration
at the end of the sanitizing run. If it is significantly
lower, the porous backings are probably dirty, and this
js the first warning you will sec. Discard permeated
sanitizing solution.
Filling the System. Do not leave sanitizing solution
in contact with the membranes for longer than 15 minutes.
As soon as sanitizing is complete, displace the
sanitizing solution with either water or whey . It is
customary to sanitize just before starting up and to
displace the sanitizing solution with whey. This is
satisfactory if the shut-down period between runs is
not longer than 6 hours. If the system is to be idle
longer than 6 hours, you should sanitize when you shut
down and again when you start up.
Cleaning Membrane Exterior . The outside of the membranes
may be sprayed with water and cleaning solution the
same as used inside the membranes. The outside only_ of
the membranes may be sanitized with sanitizing solution
up to 200 ppm chlorine. However, be very careful that
this sanitizing solution does not get inside the syctem.
Do not leave the outsides soaking in this strong
solution.
97
-------
D. Storage.
If the time between operating usage is hours or up to
3 days, as in normal plant cycles, execute the cleaning
procedure, sanitize and then fill the membrane system
with filtered water at room temperature. Sanitize again
before start-up. If the standby time is as much as a
week, clean and sanitize, and allow a trickle of water
to continuously flow through the system. For extended
periods, the system should be continuously purged with
filtered water and cleaned and sanitised weekly. A
residue of "Zcphiran"'1"1" sufficient to inhibit
microbiological activity is recommended.
II. REVERSE OSMOSIS
A. Interior of the Membranes
All cleaning of reverse osmosis systems should' be done
at the lowest possible pressure. This usually means
physically disconnecting bucv. pressure regulators. Also,
in many reverse osmosis systems the residence time of
a liquid being pumped through the system is longer than
the normally permitted contact time between cleaning
solution or sanitizing solution and the membranes. This
means that we will be changing the solution at the feed
end of the system before this solution is seen to be
leaving the system at the exit. Cleaning is done by
time, not by examining the solution leaving the system.
1. Flushing^. Before using cleaning solution, flush the
system by pumping through clean, filtered water.
Pump a volume of water which is equal to 3 to 5
times the internal volume of the system.
2- Cleaning Solution. EMBIOZYME ROS-1**. This is an
enzyme cleaner. The enzyme will deteriorate quite
rapidly when the cleaner is diluted with water, so
prepare the cleaning solution just before it is to
be used. Dissolve Embiozyme ROS-1 at the rate of
10 ml/gallon water at 85°F (30°C) and use immediately.
98
-------
_____. cleaning solution through
the system for 30-minutes. Watch the liquid, leaving
the system. When this liquid is cleaning solution
and not water, then it may be returned to the
cleaning solution tank and be re-circulate^.
Rinsing. Aftcf cleaning, pump fresh', filtered
water once through the system and out ,to drain.
Pump a-volume of water equal to between 3 and 5 times
the internal volume of the system. It is most important
to rinse out all the cleaning solution, because this
will react with sanitizing solution and lower the
activity of the sanitizing solution.
Sanitizing Solution. ANT1BAC B***. Dissolve one
ounce of Antibac B in 150 gallons of water at room
temperature. Check the pll which should be between
5.5 and 6.5. If the pll is high, add phosphoric
acid. If the pll is low, add caustic soda.
Sani ti zing Procedure. Pump sanitizing solution
once through the system and out to drain. Pump for
exactly 10 minutes. Dp_ii°_t exceed J 0 minutes. Dp
not use stronger solution than specified. Sanitizing
solution should have between 6 and 10 ppm free
chlorine, not more. As soon as 10 minutes have
passed, switch the suction of the pump to fresh/
filtered water or to whey, and pump until the solu-
tion leaving the system has less than 1 ppif. free
chlorine. Never leave sanitizing solution sitting
inside the system.
B. Membrane Exteriors
When rinsing, cleaning or sanitizing the outside of
RO membranes, there must be a pressure inside the
membranes of not less than 10 psi. This iu necessary
to prevent the chemicals used on the outside of the
membrar.es from getting at the inner surface of the
membranes. If, however, the inside pressure is too
high, then the permeation rate will be such that
the chemicals will not make adequate contact with
the outside of the membranes. To insure that there
is a correct pressure inside the system, it is only
necessary to insure that liquid is, in fact, flowing
into and"out of the system. In small systems, direct
connection to city water will be adequate. In larger
systems, the booster pump is usually kept running.
99
-------
No solution which has contacted the outside of the
system should over be permitted contact to the inside
of the system. There are two reasons for this. It
is most important that micro-organisms that may grow
on the outside not be introduced inside the system.
It is also desirable to use harsher chemicals to sanitize
the outside than are ever permitted inside the membranes.
1. Flush i_ng. Before cleaning, flush the outside of the
membranes with water for a few minutes. Inspect the
membranes. If growth is seen on the membranes, remove
it with a jet from a cleaning hose.
2- Cleaning. Clean the outside of the membranes by spraying
15 to 20 minutes with the same solution that has been
used to clean the inside of the membranes. The solution
may have already been used to clean the inside of the
membrane. However, once this solution is used to clean
the outside of the membranes, it must be discarded. Do
not permit it to go inside the membranes.
3 Sanitize. Sanitize with any available sanitizing solution
(for example, hypochlorito or Antibac B), using a solution
of about 100 ppm chlorine. Spray the outside of the
membranes for about 30 minutes. If growth has been
observed on the outside of the tubes, use 200 ppm chlorine
solution several times each week. Tank cleaner may also
be used on the outsides if the precautions listed above
are scrupulously followed.
C. Storage
Same application as ultrafiltration.
100
-------
+Ultraclean, Abcor, Inc. 341 Vassar St., Cambridge, Mass.
ULTRACLEAN is a proprietary sanitary cleaner for use with
Abcor membranes used for dairy and other sanitary applications.
Usage
1. Determine water hardness and iron content. Note: If
iron content is higher than 0.2 ppm, the water must be
pretreated to lower the iron content.
2. Determine amount of Part A of ULTRACLEAN to use per
100 gallons from the table below:
Calcixim Carbonate Quantity per 100
Water Hardnesn Gallons Vtfater
Parts per Million Part A Part B
up to 350 38 Ibs. 3 Ibs.
For hardness ab_oy_c 350, increase Part A in proportion
to hardness. For hardness below 350, use-as above.
For very large quantities, contact ABCOR for possible
cost savings by reformulation.
Add Part B just prior to use.
Keep operating temperature between 45° and 50°C.
*AJ.conox, Inc., 215 Park Avenue So., New York, New York 10003
**Midwest Bio-Cheinical, 1500 W. North Ave., Milwaukee, Wise. 53205
***Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., J.B. Ford Division, Wyandotte, Mich. 48192
+'hZephiran, Winthrop Laboratory, 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016
101
-------
APPENDIX H. FLOW PATTERN IN REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
cv
DV
CV
CV
CV I
CV '
DV DV
CV i
1 •*
CV 1
cv I
J—
CV .
CV
:
1
: i
DV
ORIGINAL FLOW CONCENTRATION AND
CLEANING
MODIFIED WITH CONTROL VALVES, REVERSE
FLUSH CLEANING.
MODIFIED WITH CONTROL VALVES, FORWARD
FLUSH CLEANING.
CV - CONTROL VALVE, DV - DRAIN VALVE
-------
APPENDIX I. METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
Because the Crowley LaFargeville plant used English units
for all purchases, sales, and process measurements, these
are the units used in this report.
The chart below is applicable conversion.
1 Gallon = 3-784 Liters
1 Pound = .454 Kilograms
1 Foot = .305 Meters
Degrees F= 9/5C + 32
103
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-118
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Membrane Processing of Cottage Cheese Whey
5, REPORT DATE
June 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Robert R. Zall
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Food Science
N.Y. State College of Agriculture and Life Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12060 DXF
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab--Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ,
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A full-scale whey processing plant using membranes was constructed to
process 300,000 pounds per day of cottage cheese whey. The two-step system
uses ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO) according to a design
previously demonstrated in the Phase I portion of this project and
reported in Water Pollution Control Series 12060 DXF 07/71. This report
was submitted in fulfillment of Grant number 12060 DXF by Crowley Foods, Inc.
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
report covers the period from June 21, 1972 to December 1974, and work was
complete as of April 10, 1975.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Osmosis
Chlorination
Membranes
Permeate
Reverse Osmosis
Membrane Processing
Ultrafiltration
COSATI Field/Group
13/B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
114
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
•-U.S- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19"T-"57-056/6461
104
------- |