Application of organic solvent nanofiltration for microalgae extract concentration

Abstract

Microalgae lipids hold significant potential as a biofuel feedstock. The high‐lipid content found in some species of microalgae is a major superiority over other sources. Furthermore, they have a high production rate record per area and survive in areas not already used for food production. This study considered the use of an integrated membrane process for oil extraction from microalgae. Different technologies were explored for laboratory‐scale microalgae oil extraction, including the use of organic solvents, but they would require a further purification. Organic solvent nanofiltration (ONF) was employed for separation of solvent from oil: the solvent passed through the dense polymeric membrane while oil molecules were rejected by the membrane. Since different organic solvents were used in literature for oil extraction from microalgae, this study examined different oil‐solvent mixtures and their separation by commercial hydrophobic and hydrophilic membranes. Experimental results showed that the new generation of ONF membranes has a superior performance compared to the previously used membranes. Based on rejection tests of oil in ethanol, isopropanol, and acetone, the applicability of the new commercial membranes for solvent recovery was demonstrated. Hydrophobic membranes had superior performances when oil was extracted using n‐hexane as the solvent, whereas methanol miscella had the highest flux and rejection in hydrophilic membranes. Finally, the conventional and hybrid approach were simulated in Aspen. The approach including nanofiltration saves around 97% of the energy requirements for the separation. In terms of economic costs, the conventional alternative is slightly more convenient in a short‐term situation. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Membrane Fractionation of Liquors from Lignin‐First Biorefining

“…[43] GMT NC-1 membrane itself shows permeanceso f8 .6 and 11.5 Lm À2 h À1 bar À1 with acetonea nd n-hexane, respectively. [44] However,i nt his case, such an improvement is likely to be impossible without modifying the process solvent.…”

Membrane technology for vegetable oil processing—Current status and future prospects

“…Some of these membranes have been evaluated by academic researchers. For instance, SRNF membranes from Borsig (Werth, Kaupenjohann, Knierbein, et al., 2017) and Yueyang (Li, Cai et al., 2017) exhibited very high selectivity as well as productivity in hexane, while Puramem 280 membrane from Evonik in acetone (Shi et al., 2019) and ethanol (Lopresto et al., 2017) systems. However, the durability of these potential membranes has not been yet demonstrated for process adoption.…”

“…Studies on extraction advocated that solvent selection should be specific for each type of oilseed while membrane desolventizing revealed that performance could vary vastly with the type of miscella system (Lopresto et al., 2017; Darvishmanesh et al., 2011) as it is strongly influenced by the interaction between the membrane and the feed containing solvent and solutes. For instance, processing microalgae oil, GMT‐oNF‐3 membrane exhibited 97% oil rejection in hexane system (121.5 L/m 2 /h at 2 MPa) while it was merely 10% in ethanol system (30.4 L/m 2 /h) (Lopresto et al., 2017). In contrast, in an earlier study with cooking oil and Solsep 030306 membrane, oil rejection was only 38% in hexane system (0.6 L/m 2 /h at 2 MPa) compared to higher oil rejection (78%) in ethanol (4.9 L/m 2 /h) and acetone (16.6 L/m 2 /h) systems (Darvishmanesh et al., 2011).…”

“…Studies on extraction advocated that solvent selection should be specific for each type of oilseed while membrane desolventizing revealed that performance could vary vastly with the type of miscella system (Lopresto et al., 2017; Darvishmanesh et al., 2011) as it is strongly influenced by the interaction between the membrane and the feed containing solvent and solutes. For instance, processing microalgae oil, GMT‐oNF‐3 membrane exhibited 97% oil rejection in hexane system (121.5 L/m 2 /h at 2 MPa) while it was merely 10% in ethanol system (30.4 L/m 2 /h) (Lopresto et al., 2017).…”

Development of a microwave‐assisted solvent extraction process for the extraction of high‐value carotenoids from Chlorella biomass

“…Quantification of the extracted total carotenoids was carried out on the basis of the absorption coefficients determined for β-carotene in the solvents at λ max 450 nm. 24,25 Statistical analysis of adopted experimental design Regression analysis and P-values were calculated in order to investigate the accuracy of the models using Design-Expert statistical software version 12 procured from Stat Ease, Minneapolis, MN, USA for carotenoid extraction. P-values at less than 0.05 were considered to be significant.…”