ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Dairy Journal 18 (2008) 735 740

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Dairy Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/idairyj

Review

Membrane processes in dairy technologyFrom a simple idea to worldwide panacea

Yves Pouliot
STELA Dairy Research Center, Institute of Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods (INAF), Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Universite Laval, Qc, Canada G1K 7P4

abstract

Membrane technology has been applied in the dairy industry since the early 1970s. The applications of membrane processes are used as alternative to some unit operations, in the solving of separation issues and in the development of new dairy products. The contemporary pressure-driven membrane units include microltration (MF), ultraltration (UF), nanoltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) and the main applications are related to dairy-based protein ingredients, pre-concentration of milk before cheese manufacture and alternative technology for extending shelf life of milk. The development of value-added products from minor milk compounds represents one of the most promising applications of membranes in dairy. Important challenges worldwide face membrane technologies in the near future. & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 Membranes and dairy technology: four decades of innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 Membrane processes at the turn of the new millenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 3.1. Manufacture of dairy-based protein ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 3.2. Pre-concentration of milk before cheese manufacture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 3.3. An alternative technology for extending shelf life of milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 The future of membrane processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 4.1. Tools for new value-added products from milk and whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 4.2. Technological challenges worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740

4.

5.

1. Introduction The idea of using a membrane as a tool for separation probably dates back to the 18th century when, for example in 1748, Abbe Nolet rst used the word osmosis to describe the permeation of water through a diaphragm made of a pigs bladder (Baker, 2004). Triggered by the needs to study laboratory phenomena such as osmotic pressure, membranes have later been used by vant Hoff, who developed the limits law in 1887. The rst membranes developed for separation purposes and having graded pore size were made of nitrocellulose (collodion) and their commercialization began in the 1930s. Unsuccessful attempts to

Tel.: +1 418 656 5988; fax: +1 418 656 3353.

E-mail address: Yves.Pouliot@inaf.ulaval.ca 0958-6946/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2008.03.005

produce pure drinking water using these membranes were reported during World War II in Germany, Europe and also in the United States. The growing concerns about the drinking water supply in Southern California stimulated the establishment of research programs on water desalination at the University of California in Los-Angeles (UCLA), where the rst defect-free, high-ux anisotropic reverse osmosis (RO) membrane was developed in the early 1960s. Two UCLA graduate students, Sidney Loeb and Srinivasa Sourirajan (who later became a researcher at the National Research Council of Canada), discovered an effective way to make RO membranes (Loeb & Sourirajan, 1963). Their lab-scale desalination unit, the so-called big dripper, was producing modest amounts of fresh water but it gave birth to a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry. The discovery of asymmetric membranes by Loeb and Sourirajan is often referred to as the starting point of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
736 Y. Pouliot / International Dairy Journal 18 (2008) 735740

Table 1 Milestones in the development of membrane technology and its applications in dairy processes since 1960s Advances in membrane technology Applications of membranes in dairy processing

1960s

  

Development of reproducible membranes by manufacturers Materials with improved chemical resistance (from cellulose acetate to polysulfone) First designs of sanitary modules

1970s

  

Design of whey pre-treatments to prevent membrane fouling Development of processes for the UF of acid whey Development of the rst UF-based cheese manufacture processes Using UF or RO membranes to concentrate milk on farm Defatting of whey (WPI membranes, recovery of minor compounds) Separation of b-lactoglobulin & a-lactalbumin Desalting whey with loose-RO (NF) membranes Removing spores from cheese milk and whey Defatting whey Separating casein micelles from milk (ideal whey) Extending milks shelf life (ESL milk) Fractionating hydrolysates using UF/NF membranes

1980s

 

Improvement of membrane system hardware (module designs, spacers, anti-telescoping devices) Development of commercial inorganic (ceramic) membranes

   

1990s

   

Improvement of hydrodynamics of MF membranes (UTP) Porosity gradient membranes Control of particles deposition (vibration, rotating disk, Deans vortices, static mixer) Functionalized membranes (ion exchange)

    

modern membrane science and is viewed as the cornerstone of industrial membrane processing. Processing of milk and dairy products has greatly beneted from this technological development as a number of unit operations involve either water removal, solidliquid or liquidliquid separations. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the main technological advances that were made possible through membrane processing and to highlight some promising applications of membranes for future developments. This overview will focus on pressure-driven membrane process since, apart from electrodialysis, which has been used extensively in the demineralization of cheese whey for infant formulas, the other electrically assisted technologies are still under development at laboratory or pilot scale.

2. Membranes and dairy technology: four decades of innovations The number of successful applications of membranes developed for the processing of milk and dairy products since the 1970s are important and ever increasing. The development of these new applications was often a direct result of evolution of membrane science. In a number of instances, some key technological issues needed to be resolved before membranes could be applied in dairy processing. Table 1 summarizes the most important milestones since the rst years of industrial membrane technology, along with some signicant developments that occurred in dairy processing. The 1960s correspond to the early days of industrial membrane manufacture. Reproducibility and resistance (chemical and mechanical) of membrane materials were the two main obstacles

for the development of industrial application of membranes. Cellulose acetate (CA) anisotropic membranes were the rst to reach industrial scale but their limited sensitivity to extreme pH conditions was shortening their lifetime. Ultraltration (UF) was proposed as a potential technique to concentrate milk solids, mainly proteins. However, dairy applications required sanitary module designs, which were still difcult to achieve in the late 1960s. Sanitary tubular (T) and plate and frame (PF) UF modules were developed for industrial applications in the 1970s. Polyamide (PA) membranes became available for RO. Polysulfonic (PS) membrane materials, having better chemical stability than CA, were introduced in a new hollow ber (HF) conguration. The 1970s have seen the rise of UF as a technique to pre-concentrate milk before cheese making and to recover proteins from whey. The decade was marked by the rst attempts to produce industrial cheeses from UF retentates (or liquid pre-cheese), following the MMV procedure patented by Maubois, Mocquot, and Vassal (1969). The MMV process was rst applied in France to manufacture Camembert cheese. The SiroCurd process, another UF-based approach using lower concentration factors and more suitable for hard and semi-hard cheeses, was developed in Australia. These innovations triggered the development of a large number of UF-based cheese manufacturing approaches in the following two decades (see Section 3.2). The preparation of whey protein concentrates (WPC) reached industrial scale, while signicant research effort was devoted to the development of process conditions for the separation and concentration of proteins from cheese whey by UF. The market for WPCs was in its infancy, and hence, much effort was devoted to develop applications of these ingredients in food systems until the early 1980s. From the technological standpoint, the main challenge was to design pre-treatments to prevent fouling during UF of whey. A number of these pre-treatments are still used in whey-processing plants (Pouliot & Jelen, 1995). Some attention was also given to the use of nanoltration (NF) for conversion of acid whey into sweet whey by means of pH adjustments and dialtration. The 1980s have seen the rise of commercial NF (or loose RO) membranes, mainly as a result of efcient manufacturing processes for thin-lm composite (TFC) membrane materials using known polymers (PA, PS, CA) but membrane reproducibility was still a challenge. The initial enthusiasm for new process development based on UF concentration of milk for cheese manufacture was somewhat affected by mitigated economic data on cheese yields. In addition, the use of UF pre-concentrated milk was often found to have negative consequences for cheese ripening (Horton, 1997a). On-farm RO and UF concentration of milk was also evaluated in various parts of the world. The WPC industry was propelled by new applications for whey proteins as functional ingredient in food systems. The development of whey defatting approaches (thermocalcic aggregation, acid precipitation) also opened the way to the production of whey protein isolates (WPI) using UF membranes (Pearce, 1992). While NF reached industrial scale and was used worldwide by the dairy industry to desalt whey, mother liquors and brines, microltration (MF) has also marked the 1990s (Horton, 1997b, 1997c). Commercial ceramic membranes and the uniform transmembrane pressure (UTP) concept (Sandblom, 1974) for the control of hydrodynamics and fouling during MF of dairy uids were introduced. This innovation led to the solving of technological problems such as late blowing Emmental cheeses, removal of spores from whey, efcient defatting of milk and whey, and separation of casein micelles from milk. New concepts of extended shelf life (ESL) milks were elaborated using MF for the removal of bacteria from milk. MF in combination with physicochemical modication was also applied to separate b-lactoglobulin (b-LG)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Pouliot / International Dairy Journal 18 (2008) 735740 737

from a-lactalbumin (a-LA). The separation of b-casein from milk has been achieved at industrial scale by MF under a combination of physicochemical conditions (cooling, pH adjustment, salt addi tions) as proposed by Terre, Maubois, Brule, and Pierre (1987). Other MF membrane concepts such as the Membralox GPs (Societe des Ceramiques et Techniques, France) and the Isouxs (Tami, France) were later developed to minimize membrane fouling resulting from excessive pressure drop. Other approaches such as backpulsing, air slugs, rotating or vibrating modules were developed to minimize fouling or particle deposition during MF (Brans, Schroen, van der Sman, & Broomr, 2004) but very few made it to the industrial scale. Functionalized membrane materials such as ion-exchange membranes emerged in the 1990s. The technique combines the selectivity of ion-exchange chromatography and the productivity of membrane separations. However, their low binding capacity (per unit of membrane area) and their limited lifetime are still limitative and so the technique has been used mainly at laboratory scale. The commercial availability of new NF materials allowed the development of approaches to separate milk and whey peptides from enzymatic hydrolysates (Gauthier & Pouliot, 1995). Although milk and whey protein hydrolysates had been known and manufactured since the 1980s for nutritional and clinical applications, the demonstration of some biological activities (antihypertensive, calcium-binding, immunomodulatory) in milk and whey peptide sequences triggered the development of these approaches for peptide separation.

3. Membrane processes at the turn of the new millenium Membrane separations are nowadays well integrated in the dairy industry. Timmer and Van der Horst (1998) estimated the total area of UF and RO membranes installed worldwide to be around 210,000 and 60,000 m2, respectively. Over 75% of these total areas for UF and RO are dedicated to whey processing, while milk processing accounts for 25% of UF membranes. The applications of membrane processes in dairy processing can be classied into three main areas (Fig. 1), namely: (1) alternatives to some unit operations such as centrifugation, evaporation, debacterization and demineralization, (2) means to

resolve separation issues such as defatting of whey, protein recovery and separation, milk fat globule fractionation (Goudedranche, Fauquant, & Maubois, 2000), or recycling of solutions and spores removal, and (3) tools to create new dairy products such as UF cheeses (Ras, Pave dAfnois, Domiati, etc.), ESL milk, whey-based beverages and textured milk products. This simple classication highlights the versatility the membrane processes have acquired over the years and their wide range of applications in the dairy industry. Two other important applications of membrane processes that could not be classied in Fig. 1 are the standardization of milk products using milk UF permeate (Puhan, 1991) and on-farm UF for the reduction of milk transportation costs (Zall, 1987a, 1987b). The addition of UF permeate to milk enables its standardization in protein, fat and non-fat solids of milk and dairy products. Moreover, it was found that this practice had no measurable impact on the organoleptic properties of skim milk (Rattray & Jelen, 1996). On-farm UF for the reduction of milk transportation costs has been evaluated in Australia, USA, Canada and other parts of the world. Technological feasibility has been demonstrated but the economic viability of that process is variable and strongly dependent on the costs for the disposal of the UF permeate generated on farm (Renner & Abd El Salam, 1991). The contemporary use of membranes in dairy processing has been reviewed in International Dairy Federation special issues published in 1991 and 2004, and by some other authors (Moresi & Lo Presti, 2003; Rosenberg, 1995). However, we must acknowledge that three applications have brought signicant changes in the dairy industry worldwide, namely manufacture of milk and whey protein ingredients, pre-concentration milk before cheese making, and bacteria and spores removal for ESL milks.

3.1. Manufacture of dairy-based protein ingredients Membrane processes have been widely used to develop and manufacture dairy-based proteins ingredients from milk or whey. Table 2 summarizes the well-known ltration spectrum of membrane processes applied to milk constituents. MF, UF, NF and RO membranes are characterized by pore sizes ranging from 40.1 mm to o0.1 nm and by operating pressures from 0.01 to 5 MPa. The highest operating pressures are observed with NF and RO membranes, where membrane pore sizes and porosity are smallest and where applied pressures must be higher than the osmotic pressure osmotic pressure of the feed to allow permeation. Polymeric and inorganic membrane materials are available for the entire range but UF offers the widest variety of module congurations, including HFs, in addition to T, PF and spiral wound (SW). Separations using RO, NF, UF and MF cover the entire separation domain of milk constituents, from casein micelles to monovalent ions. Most of these processes achieve the separation of milk constiuents by molecular sieving or size separation. The surface morphology and internal structure of UF and NF membranes, as affected by pH and ionic strength, can also introduce steric effects. In addition, some UF membranes and mostly NF membranes are electrically charged and phenomena such as electrostatic interactions and Donnan effects can predominate their separation mechanisms. Numerous technological options for concentrating and purifying milk or whey proteins using membranes have been extensively described elsewhere (Hobman, 1992; Maubois & Ollivier, 1991; Mehra & Kelly, 2004; Rosenberg, 1995; Zydney, 1998). Table 2 also lists the main commercial ingredients originating from milk. Total milk proteins (TMP) are obtained by UF, whereas micellar caseins (MC) or phosphocaseinate are obtained by MF separation of milk. UF is also used in the manufacture of

Water removal (evaporation) Centrifugal separation (Skimming) Removing spores from skimmilk and whey Defatting whey Removing casein micelles from milk

Control over bacteria (heating) Demineralization (electrodialysis)

Alternatives to unit operations UF-cheeses

Resolving separation issues

Creating new products

Extended shelf life milk (ESL) Beverages (UF-permeate)

Extracting whey Proteins (WPCs) Separating proteins/peptides Recycling brine & cleaning solutions

Fermented milks Textured milk products

Fig. 1. Membrane processes in the dairy industry: a look at the applications.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
738 Y. Pouliot / International Dairy Journal 18 (2008) 735740

Table 2 Filtration spectrum available for the separation of milk constituents Pore sizea Separation mechanism Sieving Operating pressure Membrane (MPa) materialsb 0.01 0.2 Inorganic polymeric Inorganic polymeric Inorganic polymeric Polymeric Module congurationc T, MC Separation domain Membrane-based commercial dairy ingredientd

MF 40.1 mm

UF 1 500 nm Sieving & charge NF 0.11 nm RO o0.1 nm Sieving & charge Sieving, diffusion

0.1 1.0 1.53.0 3.05.0

T, HF, SW, PF T, HF, SW, PF SW, PF

Somatic cells, bacteria, spores Fat globules Casein micelles Soluble proteins Caseinomacropeptide Indigenous peptides Salts (divalent cations) Salts (monovalent cations) Lactose

Micellar casein, Native whey proteins WPC, WPI, MPC, b-LG, a-La, Bioactive Milk & whey protein hydrolysates, Glycomacropeptide Whey permeate Delactosed, deproteinized whey

Data in columns 26 were collected from reference books on membrane separations (Mulder, 1996; Cheryan, 1998). Polymeric: cellulosic, polysulfone, polyamide; inorganic: ceramic, carbon-supported zirconium oxide, stainless. c T, tubular; MC, multichannel; HF, hollow ber; SW, spiral wound; PF, plate and frame. d WPC, whey protein concentrate; WPI, whey protein isolate; MPC, milk protein concentrate.
b

Table 3 Approaches to integrate membrane processes in cheese-making practicea,b

Approaches UF retentate (VCR: 1.2-2X)1 UF retentate (VCR: 2-6X)1 Liquid pre-cheese1

Type of cheese Cheddar, Cottage, Mozzarella, SaintPaulin, Brick, Colby, Edam, Quarg Cheddar, Feta, Havarti, Gouda, Blue cheese Camembert, Quarg, Saint-Maure, Ricotta, Cream cheese, Mascarpone, Feta, Mozzarella, Saint-Paulin Cheddar, cottage Mozzarella Parmesan Cheddar

MF-treated milk (low VCR and DF with milk permeate)2 MF retentate (VCR: 5-8X)3 Adding UF retentate to cheese milk4 Adding PC, MPC or UF retentate to standardize cheese milk5

a The table content was extracted from: 1Rosenberg (1995); 2Nelson and Barbano (2005); 3Madsen and Qvist (1998), Brandsma and Rizvi (2001); 4 Govindasamy-Lucey, Jaeggi, Bostley, Johnson, and Lucey (2004); 5Guinee, OKennedy, and Kelly (2006). b VCR, volumic concentration ratio; DF, dialtration; PC, phosphocaseinate; MPC, milk protein concentrate.

adaptable to continuous operations and uniformity of the curd. Higher viscosity and buffering capacity of the UF retentate, compared to cheese milk, necessitates adjustments in the cheese-making process. The MMV process was best suited for fresh and soft-ripened cheeses. It has also been successful with Feta cheese despite the fact that the process induces changes in cheese texture and impairs its meltability by incorporating more whey proteins in the curd. Table 3 reports some of the recent approaches that have been developed since the pioneer MMV process. The list from Table 3 is not exhaustive since the process for producing a much wider variety of hard, semi-hard, soft and fresh cheeses have been adapted using UF or MF pre-concentration of cheese milk. To summarize, three levels of UF-pre-concentration of milk have been used: low-retentate concentration (VCF: 1.2-2X) often referred to as LCR, medium retentate concentration (VCF: 2-6X) and liquid pre-cheese (FCV: 6-8X). The use of MF to preconcentrate milk enables not only the standardization of protein content of milk but also the casein to total protein ratio (Johnson & Lucey, 2006). More recent practices have however been to add UF retentates, milk protein concentrates (MPC) and even phosphocaseinate to cheese milk in order to increase productivity of cheese plants.

whey-protein-based ingredients such as WPCs, isolates (WPI) and some concentrated fractions of b-LG and a-LA or glycomacropeptide (GMP). NF has been used for desalting milk, whey and other dairy uids (Horton, 1998; Kelly, Horton, & Burling, 1991; Van der Horst, Timmer, Robbertson, & Leenders, 1995) and thus it is used in the preparation of whey delactosed and deproteinized whey. Finally, RO is nowadays widely used to increase the total solids (TS) content of liquid fractions resulting from membrane separations of dairy components before spray drying.

3.3. An alternative technology for extending shelf life of milk The development of the UTP concept by Tetra-Laval (Sandblom, 1974) has allowed the introduction MF at industrial scale. The UTP concept is dened by a membrane cartridge in which the permeate is recirculated in a co-current direction along the retentate, ensuring a minimal (Ptmo0.05 MPa) and constant pressure drop along the membrane axis, and therefore minimizing fouling. The membranes are made of alumina or ceramic, which also offer distinctive advantages related to chemical resistance to heat and chemicals and better control over membrane pore size distribution. MF multichannel membrane elements with 1.4 mm pore size were shown to decrease the mesophilic counts, salmonella and Listeria by a 23 decimal factor in milk (Madec, Mejean, & Maubois, 1992). It was also shown that MF was not inducing signicant changes in overall milk composition (Bindith, Cordier, & Jost, 1996). The UTP device was introduced in the BactocatchTM process in order to produce ESL milks. It is for example possible to produce uid milks having o30 cfu mL1 mesophillic counts (compared with 9003000 mL for conventional pasteurized milk; Saboya & Maubois, 2000). This translates into shelf life extension from 12 to 45 days at 4 1C (Goff & Grifths, 2006).

3.2. Pre-concentration of milk before cheese manufacture The possibility of using UF to pre-concentrate milk before cheese making was very attractive and so it has been extensively exploited for a wide variety of cheeses in many different technological variations (Henning, Baer, Hassan, & Dave, 2006). The MMV process (Maubois et al., 1969) constitutes the rst example of UF-based cheese process, where a 5-7X volumic concentration factor is applied to milk before cheese making. The MMV process generates less whey and increases yields by a 1520% margin as a result of whey protein retention in curd and higher humidity. The advantages are increased capacity of cheese vats, decreased costs in rennet per kg of cheese, potentially

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Pouliot / International Dairy Journal 18 (2008) 735740 739

A tangible example of this application is Pure lters, a uid milk issued from the Bacto-catchTM technology and currently commercialized by Parmalat Canada.

4. The future of membrane processes 4.1. Tools for new value-added products from milk and whey Utilization of the minor components from cheese whey still represents a challenge for whey ingredient manufacturers (Horton, 1995; Huffman & Harper, 1999). Membrane processes are now viewed as efcient tools for the development of new value-added products by separating minor compounds such as bioactive peptides, growth factors and oligosaccharides from milk, whey or fermented dairy-based media. The concept of bioactive peptides derived from food proteins has been developed in the 1980s and since then, a worldwide interest for bioactive peptide is growing in the scientic community. It is now established that pressure-driven membrane-based processes, such as UF and NF, can be used to fractionate peptide mixtures and amino acids (Groleau, Lapointe, Gauthier, & Pouliot, 2004). NF separations are especially attractive since they can achieve peptide separations based both on their size and charge. A signicant advantage of membrane processes such as UF or NF is that membranes can be added to the production process of bioactive peptides (by hydrolysis or fermentation), and the product can be separated continuously in the so-called bioreactors (Pouliot, Gauthier, & Groleau, 2005). Growth factors such as transforming growth factor b (TGF-b) and insulin-like growth factor I and II (IGF-I and II) have been typically separated from whey by means of cation-exchange chromatography (Smithers, 2004). However, some recent developments of membrane applications have enabled the recovery of growth factors from whey (Gauthier, Pouliot, & Maubois, 2006; Pouliot & Gauthier, 2006). Cheese whey has been privileged for the extraction of milk-derived growth factors, mainly because of the availability of the substrate. However, since bovine colostrum typically contains 1015 times the amount of milk in terms of growth factors, it has recently garnered some attention, and techniques based on MF/UF separations have been proposed for the extraction of immunoglobulins and growth factors to produce health ingredients (Piot, Fauquant, Madec, & Maubois, 2004). Provided some solid scientic evidences on their bioactivity in humans are developed, a sustainable market can be expected for
Table 4 Future challenges for membrane separationsa Problem Management of water supply & uses Separation issues

these new bioactive milk fractions (Regester, Belford, West, & Goddard, 2003). Other minor compounds such as oligosaccharides or MFGM proteins (Spitsberg, 2005) may in the near future offer some opportunities for new bioactives; but in the meantime, supporting data on the physiological effects of growth factors are still needed. It appears that membrane technologies have still not been fully exploited in the dairy industry for the development of milk-based ingredients. This is mainly due to commercial constraints such as low or immature market demand for value-added ingredients, occurrence of alternative technologies or introduction of nondairy equivalents of dairy ingredients. 4.2. Technological challenges worldwide Although a wide variety of fascinating new applications of membrane technology in dairy processes are expected in the next decade, the eld of membrane science is facing important challenges worldwide such as shortage of drinking water supplies, global warming and potential global energy crisis. A recent review by Noble and Agrawal (2005) covering all separation technologies pointed out some issues related to membrane processes (Table 4). The development of units and process designs that minimizes the use of water is becoming critical. The cost-effectiveness of membrane processes will become increasingly important since other separation techniques are becoming available. Selecting membrane separation often means compromising between selectivity and productivity. New membrane chemistries, bioafnity membranes or new materials emerging from nanotechnologies are likely to revolutionize the eld of membrane science in the next decade. With the costs of fossil fuels constantly on the rise, it is imperative that control of energy consumption will be a key factor in the development and growth of membranebased processes in the future. Control of fouling will undoubtedly remain as a high-priority research domain, whereas development of new module designs using renewable energies might offer interesting alternatives. Finally, environmental pollution and other threats such as bioterrorism are among the growing phenomena that will typically require self-powered, small and mobile RO units to produce in situ drinking water in many parts of the world.

5. Conclusion The development of membrane processes and their integration in dairy technology has occurred in many steps along with the development of membrane science itself. Membrane separations have revolutionized the eld of dairy processing in many aspects. It has been part of profound changes in the dairy industry worldwide. Bovine milks entity is now challenged since many separation processes are available and many of its constituents can be removed. Although this view can be considered as threatening for the image of milk as natures gift, perhaps we should remember how centrifugal separations, almost a century ago, have in their way revolutionized the early days of uid milk processing.

         

Re-use water Minimize dilution Produce drinking water Cost-effective processes Selectivity Reproducibility Control of fouling Alternative/renewable energy sources Decontamination (pathogens) Prevention/intervention bioterrorism

Separation/purication of high-value minor compounds

Control on the energy consumption

Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Fonds Quebecois de Recherche Nature and Technologies (FQRNT) and Novalait Inc. for their nancial support to his research projects on membranes in dairy processing.

Sanitary/biosecurity

From Noble and Agrawal (2005).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
740 Y. Pouliot / International Dairy Journal 18 (2008) 735740

References
Baker, R. W. (2004). Overview of membrane science and technology. In Membrane technology and applications (pp. 118). NY, USA: Wiley, New York. Bindith, O., Cordier, J. L., & Jost, R. (1996). Cross-ow microltration of skim milk: Germ reduction and effect on alkaline phosphatase and serum proteins. In Heat treatments and alternative methods: Bulletin 9602 (pp. 222231). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Brandsma, R. L., & Rizvi, S. S. H. (2001). Manufacture of Mozzarella cheese from highly concentrated skim milk microltration retentate depleted of whey proteins. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 36, 611624. Brans, G., Schroen, C. G. P. H., van der Sman, R. G. M., & Broomr, R. M. (2004). Membrane fractionation of milk: State of the art and challenges. Journal of Membrane Science, 243, 263272. Cheryan, M. (1998). Ultraltration and microltration handbook. Urbana, IL, USA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Gauthier, S. F., & Pouliot, Y. (1995). Use of ultraltration for the preparation of enzymatic hydrolysates from milk proteins. In Advances in membrane technology for better dairy products: Bulletin no. 311 (pp. 3132). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Gauthier, S. F., Pouliot, Y., & Maubois, J. L. (2006). Growth factors from bovine milk and colostrum: composition, extraction and biological activities. Lait, 86, 99125. Goff, H. D., & Grifths, M. W. (2006). Major advances in fresh milk and milk products: Fluid milk products and dairy desserts. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 11631173. Goudedranche, H., Fauquant, J. J., & Maubois, J. L. (2000). Fractionation of globular milk fat by membrane microltration. Lait, 80, 9398. Govindasamy-Lucey, S., Jaeggi, J. J., Bostley, A. L., Johnson, M. E., & Lucey, J. A. (2004). Standardization of milk using cold ultraltration retentates for the manufacture of parmesan cheese. Journal of Dairy Science, 87, 27892799. Groleau, P. E., Lapointe, J. F., Gauthier, S. F., & Pouliot, Y. (2004). Fractionation of whey protein hydrolysates using nanoltration membranes. In Advances in fractionation and separation: Processes for novel dairy applications: Bulletin 389 (pp. 8591). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Guinee, T. P., OKennedy, B. T., & Kelly, P. M. (2006). Effect of milk protein standardization using different methods on the composition and yields of Cheddar cheese. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 468482. Hobman, P. G. (1992). Ultraltration and manufacture of whey protein concentrates. In J. G. Zadow (Ed.), Whey and lactose processing (pp. 195230). New York, NY, USA: Elsevier. Henning, D. R., Baer, R. J., Hassan, A. N., & Dave, R. (2006). Major advances in concentrated and dry milk products, cheese and milk fat-based concepts. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 11791188. Huffman, L. M., & Harper, W. J. (1999). Maximizing the value of milk through separation technologies. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 22382244. Horton, B. S. (1995). Commercial utilization of minor milk components in the health and food industry. Journal of Dairy Science, 78, 25842589. Horton, B. S. (1997a). Whatever happened to the ultraltration of milk? The Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 52, 4749. Horton, B. S. (1997b). Water, chemical and brine recycle or reuseApplying membrane processes. The Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 52, 6870. Horton, B. S. (1997c). MicroltrationWhere is it headed? The Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 52, 5859. Horton, B. S. (1998). The whey processing industryInto the 21st century. In Whey: Bulletin 9804 (pp. 1225). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Johnson, M. E., & Lucey, J. A. (2006). Major technological advances and trends in cheese. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 11741178. Kelly, P. M., Horton, B. S., & Burling, H. (1991). Partial demineralization of whey by nanoltration. In New applications of membrane processes: Bulletin 9201 (pp. 130140). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Loeb, S., & Sourirajan, S. (1963). Sea water demineralization by means of an osmotic membrane. In Saline water conversionII, Advances in Chemistry Series no. 28 (pp. 117132). Washington, DC, USA: American Chemical Society. Madec, M. N., Mejean, S., & Maubois, J. L. (1992). Retention of Listeria and Salmonella cells contaminating skim milk by tangential membrane microltration (Bactocatch process). Lait, 72, 327332. Madsen, J. S., & Qvist, K. B. (1998). Mozzarella made by ultraltration. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 53, 112. Maubois, J. L., Mocquot, G., & Vassal, L. (1969). A method for processing milk and dairy products. French Patent, FR 2 052 121.

Maubois, J. L., & Ollivier, G. (1991). Milk protein fractionation. In New applications of membrane processes: Bulletin 9201 (pp. 1522). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Mehra, R., & Kelly, P. M. (2004). Whey protein fractionation using cascade membrane ltration. In Processes for novel dairy applications, Advances in Fractionation and Separation: Bulletin 389 (pp. 4044). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Moresi, M., & Lo Presti, S. (2003). Present and potential applications of membrane processing in the food industry. Italian Journal of Food Science, 15, 334. Mulder, M. (1996). Basic principles of membrane technology. Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nelson, B. K., & Barbano, D. M. (2005). A microltration process to maximize removal of serum proteins from skim milk before cheese making. Journal of Dairy Science, 88, 18911900. Noble, R. D., & Agrawal, R. (2005). Separation research needs for the 21st century. Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Research, 44, 28872892. Pearce, R. J. (1992). Whey protein recovery and whey protein fractionation. In J. G. Zadow (Ed.), Whey and lactose processing (pp. 317360). New York, NY, USA: Elsevier. Piot, M., Fauquant, J., Madec, M. N., & Maubois, J. L. (2004). Preparation of serocolostrum by membrane ltration. Lait, 84, 333341. Pouliot, Y., & Gauthier, S. F. (2006). Milk growth factors as health products: Some technological aspects. International Dairy Journal, 16, 14151420. Pouliot, Y., Gauthier, S. F., & Groleau, P. E. (2005). Fractionation strategies for bioactive peptides. In Nutraceutical proteins and peptides in health and disease (pp. 639658). New York, NY, USA: Marcel Dekker Inc. Pouliot, Y., & Jelen, P. (1995). Pretreatments of dairy uids to minimize long-term membrane fouling. In Fouling and cleaning in pressure driven membrane processes (pp. 8092). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation (Special issue 9504). Puhan, Z. (1991). Standardization of milk protein content by membrane processes for product manufacture. In New applications of membrane processes: Bulletin 9201 (pp. 2332). Brussels: International Dairy Federation. Rattray, W., & Jelen, P. (1996). Freezing point and sensory quality of skim milk as affected by addition of ultraltration permeates for protein standardization. International Dairy Journal, 6, 569579. Regester, G. O., Belford, D. A., West, R. J., & Goddard, C. (2003). Development of minor dairy components as therapeutic agentsWhey growth factor extract, a case study. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 58, 104106. Renner, E., & Abd El Salam, M. H. (1991). On farm ultraltration of milk. In Applications of ultraltration in the dairy industry (pp. 344350). London, UK: Elsevier. Rosenberg, M. (1995). Current and future applications for membrane processes in the dairy industry. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 6, 1219. Saboya, L. V., & Maubois, J. L. (2000). Current developments of microltration technology in the dairy industry. Lait, 80, 541553. Sandblom, R. M. (1974). Filtering process. SW Patent no. 74.16.257. Smithers, G. W. (2004). Isolation of growth factors from whey and their application in food and biotechnology industriesA brief review. In Advances in fractionation and separation processes for novel dairy applications (pp. 1619). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Spitsberg, V. L. (2005). Invited review: Bovine milk fat globule membrane as a potential nutraceutical. Journal of Dairy Science, 88, 22892294. Terre, E., Maubois, J. L., Brule, G., Pierre, A. (1987). Procede dobtention dune ` matiere enrichie en caseine beta, appareillage pour la mise en oeuvre de ce procede et application des produits obtenus par ce procede comme aliments, complementaires ou additifs en industrie alimentaire et pharmaceutique ou ` dans la preparation de peptides a activite physiologique. French Patent no. 2 595 769 A1. Timmer, J. M. K., & Van der Horst, H. C. (1998). Whey processing and separation technology: State-of-the-art and new developments. In Whey: Bulletin 9804 (pp. 4065). Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation. Van der Horst, H. C., Timmer, J. M. K., Robbertson, T., & Leenders, J. (1995). Use of nanoltration for concentration and demineralization in the dairy industry: Model for mass transport. Journal of Membrane Science, 104, 205218. Zall, R. R. (1987a). Accumulation and quantication of on-farm ultraltered milk: The California experience. Milchwissenschaft, 42, 98100. Zall, R. R. (1987b). On-farm ultraltration of milk: The California experience. Milchwissenschaft, 42, 37. Zydney, A. L. (1998). Protein separations using membrane ltration: New opportunities for whey fractionation. International Dairy Journal, 8, 243250.