Optimizing the rotor design for controlled‐shear affinity filtration using computational fluid dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled shear affinity filtration (CSAF) is a novel integrated processing technology that positions a rotor directly above an affinity membrane chromatography column to permit protein capture and purification directly from cell culture. The conical rotor is intended to provide a uniform and tunable shear stress at the membrane surface that inhibits membrane fouling and cell cake formation by providing a hydrodynamic force away from and a drag force parallel to the membrane surface. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are used to show that the rotor in the original CSAF device (Vogel et al., 2002) does not provide uniform shear stress at the membrane surface. This results in the need to operate the system at unnecessarily high rotor speeds to reach a required shear stress of at least 0.17 Pa at every radial position of the membrane surface, compromising the scale-up of the technology. Results from CFD simulations are compared with particle image velocimetry (PIV) experiments and a numerical solution for low Reynolds number conditions to confirm that our CFD model accurately describes the hydrodynamics in the rotor chamber of the CSAF device over a range of rotor velocities, filtrate fluxes, and (both laminar and turbulent) retentate flows. CFD simulations were then carried out in combination with a root-finding method to optimize the shape of the CSAF rotor. The optimized rotor geometry produces a nearly constant shear stress of 0.17 Pa at a rotational velocity of 250 rpm, 60% lower than the original CSAF design. This permits the optimized CSAF device to be scaled up to a maximum rotor diameter 2.5 times larger than is permissible in the original device, thereby providing more than a sixfold increase in volumetric throughput.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".