PubMed HealthSearch

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “tangential filtration”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Lipoproteins removed from serum and plasma by membrane filtration.

Tangential (crossflow) filtration of a plasma/serum mixture through 0.2 micrometer-poresize polycarbonate track-etch membrane filters (PC) at pressures less than 10 psi removes low density lipoproteins (LDL) and very low density lipoproteins (VLDL) but not high density lipoproteins (HDL) from the filtrate. At pressures greater than 10 psi all lipoproteins pass through the PC. Once the filters have been intruded with LDL and VLDL those lipoproteins continue to pass the filters despite subsequent reduction in differential pressure below 10 psi.

Animals

Tangential flow filtration of Bordetella pertussis submerse cultures.

A procedure is reported for the large scale separation of Bordetella pertussis microorganisms from liquid culture media by tangential flow filtration (cross flow filtration) using anisotropic membranes with a cut-off limit of 1 x 10(6) daltons, and microporous membranes with a pore size of 0.22 micrometer.

Bordetella pertussis

Rapid delipidation of and particulate removal from human serum by membrane filtration in a tangential flow system.

Approximately 50% of the total lipids and virtually all of the colloids and particulates which impart turbidity to human serum are removed by filtration through 0.1 micrometer-poresize membrane filters in a high-volume tangential flow device. The advantages of the method over solvent extraction are: (a) no organic solvent(s) is added to the serum at any time, (b) filtrations can be performed rapidly at room temperature, (c) unstable lipoproteins and particulates are removed in 1 step, (d) scaleup from hundreds of ml to hundreds of liters is readily achievable, and(e) process time is markedly reduced.

Blood Chemical Analysis

Microfiltration (MF) and Ultrafiltration (UF) for Sewage and Surface Water Concentration for SARS-CoV-2 and Other Enveloped Viruses' Detection in Wastewater-Based Epidemiology (WBE).

This study objective was to evaluate hollow fiber membranes for concentration of enveloped enteric viruses in sewage and surface water samples. Microfiltration (MF, 0.2&#x2009;&#xb5;m nominal pore size) and ultrafiltration (UF, 100&#x2009;kDa molecular weight cut-off) hollow fiber membranes were compared for the concentration of the bovine respiratory syncytial virus, and the influence of initial sample volumes (1, 1.5, and 2&#x2009;L), permeate recovery rates (60%, 70% and 80% of the initial volume collected as permeate, equivalent to volumetric concentration factors of 2.5, 3.3 and 5), and backwashing was assessed. Polyethylene glycol precipitation followed by centrifugation (PEG-C) was evaluated both as a stand-alone method and as a secondary step applied to the membrane concentrate. MF and UF membranes had a similar capacity to retain pollutants and to concentrate organic matter in most parameters and conditions (p&#x2009;>&#x2009;0.05). In sewage, increasing the initial volume from 1 to 2&#x2009;L raised recovery from 20.7&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;0.1% to 30.0&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;0.1% with MF and from 20.8&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;0.1% to 25.3&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;0.1% with UF (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.05), whereas changes in the permeate recovery rate produced no significant differences (p&#x2009;>&#x2009;0.05). In surface water recovery did not exceed 5.5%, and every increment in the permeate recovery rate produced a significant increase (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.05). Backwashing had a stronger effect on RNA recovery than pore size or the remaining operational parameters, reaching 29.3&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;9.3% with MF and 33.8&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;13.7% with UF in sewage and nearly doubling recovery in surface water. In sewage, PEG-C alone (14.1%) was statistically similar to membrane filtration alone (12.1% to 12.3%, p&#x2009;>&#x2009;0.05), while combining both techniques raised recovery to 23.0% to 25.5%. In surface water, membranes alone recovered 0.8% against 2.4% for PEG-C (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.05), and the combination of UF with PEG-C reached 5.7%, making it a valid alternative, albeit more time consuming and requiring additional equipment. Recoveries are expressed as the ratio between the genome copy concentration in the concentrate and in the spiked sample; on a total genome copy basis they correspond to 4% to 9% in sewage and to about 1% in surface water.

tangential filtration