On the Use of Ultrafiltration or Microfiltration Polymeric Spiral-Wound Membranes for Cheesemilk Standardization: Impact on Process Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF) are widely-used technologies to standardize the protein content of cheesemilk. Our previous work demonstrated that protein retention of a 0.1-µm MF spiral-wound membrane (SWM) was lower, but close to that of a 10 kDa UF one. Considering that the permeability of MF membranes is expected to be higher than that of UF ones, it was hypothesized that the former could improve the efficiency of the cheesemaking process. Consequently, the objectives of this work were to compare 0.1-µm MF and 10 kDa UF spiral-wound membranes in terms of (1) hydraulic and separation performance, (2) energy consumption and fouling behavior, (3) cheesemaking efficiency of retentates enriched with cream, and (4) economic performance in virtual cheesemaking plants. This study confirmed the benefits of using MF spiral-wound membranes to reduce the specific energy consumption of the filtration process (lower hydraulic resistance and higher membrane permeability) and to enhance the technological performance of the cheesemaking process (higher vat yield, and protein and fat recoveries). However, considering the higher serum protein retention of the UF membrane and the low price of electricity in Canada, the UF scenario remained more profitable. It only becomes more efficient to substitute the 10 kDa UF SWM by the 0.1-μm MF when energy costs are substantially higher.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".