Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
In recovery operations for ultrafiltration systems, there is a trade-off between recovery and product dilution. Generally,
the yield can be improved by increasing chase or flush buffer volumes. However, the bulk drug substance concentration
specification limits the amount of flush volumes that can be used to increase recovery.
Ultrafiltration process yields are affected by the system design and the recovery procedure. To ensure high yields, an
ultrafiltration system hardware design should be consistent with “best practice” principles such as drain ability and
minimum hold-up volume (Table 2). Hold-up is defined
Table 1: A Case for Optimized Recovery for Ultrafiltration/
Diafiltration Systems here as the flooded volume of the feed line from the
Cell culture harvest every 14 days pump, the feed retentate volume of the membranes and
25 batches/year the retentate line to the vessel.
2% recovery increase (93% to 95%)
The recovery procedure should be designed to provide
Additional 1/2 batch of product/year
optimal yield values. A variety of different methods and
flowpaths are used, some with air, buffer or gravity assist.
Table 2: “Best Practice” UF/DF System Design Principles
for Recovery Bench scale recovery studies are useful for assessing
System drain located at a clearly defined low point in the membrane device/process performance. However, they
feed/retentate piping. do not adequately predict product recovery at the
Feed/retentate piping sloped towards the system piping low
point for good drainage. Minimum slope should be at least
process scale. Close resemblance between the small scale
0.12-in. of gradation/ft of pipe run.1 equipment and the process scale installation can result in a
Recovery assist fluids (buffer, compressed gas) are more predictive and relevant study. Our recovery study was
introduced to the system at a clearly defined high point in
the feed/retentate piping. executed at the 20 m2 scale. The 20 m2 scale represents a
Correct sizing of the process piping (5-12 ft/sec) where fully loaded, 1 level high Pellicon® Cassette UF/DF process
possible.
scale holder. Larger systems are configured by adding
Orient system components to take advantage of gravity
drain where possible. (stacking) additional holders in parallel. The 20 m2 system
Minimize the length of piping runs. size represents the best compromise between relevant
Minimize the number of pipe connections (pulls) on the configuration and practical limitations of scale (cost of
feed/retentate recirculation loop. membrane, protein, hardware, etc.).
RO / DI
sprayballs
CIP / Storage CCA
Figure 1: LE
Transfer Pump
UF/DF Recovery Study Equipment Configuration Sight Glass
filtrate out
CWR
System Nomenclature C
C Conductivity
High Point
CWR Chilled Water Return Pr Pf
FE Flow Element TT
HX Heat Exchanger
PF
LE Level Element
M Mass (floor scale) System Pump to sprayballs
Tb Turbidity
TT Temperature Transmitter
UV Ultraviolet Absorbance Meter
M
Flexible
Biocontainer
2
Methods
The overall order of process steps was:
Prepare System: The prepare system step is designed to remove the storage
buffer (0.1 N NaOH) from the system and to equilibrate the system into 0.9%
NaCl buffer. A series of rinses and recirculations were used to achieve this
goal as shown in Table 3.
Load Product: The load product step in an actual UF/DF run consists of a
concentration and diafiltration step. During this step, the membrane
becomes “conditioned” (filtrate flux declines due to the dynamics of the
protein concentration gradient against the membrane wall and non-specific
binding of protein to the membrane. The first effect is hydrodynamic and can
be monitored by observing pressures and the filtrate flow. The second
effect is likely to be both hydrodynamic and kinetic or time based.
However, since non-specific binding to regenerated cellulose membrane
is known to be very low, it was decided that the exposure time parameter
could be minimized. Therefore, 1 minimum working volume of the protein
test solution was added to the system through the vessel sight glass. The test
solution was slowly added to minimize foaming after being sampled. Finally,
the test solution was re-circulated at ~4.4 lpm/M2 in the total recycle mode
with the filtrate open for 30 minutes. This re-circulation rate was sufficient to
reach stable pressures and filtrate flowrates.
Recover Product: The product recovery methods are described in detail below.
3
Store: After cleaning, the system was flushed and normalized water
permeability (NWP) was measured. Next the system was placed in 0.1N NaOH
storage buffer to prevent microbial growth. The storage steps are outlined in Table 5.
After the 30 minute loading step, the system was stopped and the feed vessel sampled.
The system was recirculated at 0.79 lpm/M2 (feed flux) for 10 minutes with the filtrate
closed to de-polarize the membrane.
After the de-polarization step, the test solution was recovered using Method 1 as
described below:
1. Vessel Recovery: The sample tap was purged and the feed vessel was sampled
again to assess the de-polarization effect. The content of the feed vessel was
pumped through the system pump at ~3.6 lpm to the recovery container as
shown in Figure 2.
2. Retentate Line Recovery: Once the vessel recovery was completed, the feed/
retentate line was recovered by pumping 0.9% NaCl buffer back through
the line, feed/retentate side of the membranes and out into a second
recovery container at approximately 10 lpm by using the transfer pump. The
buffer recovery was stopped when the A280 UV signal dropped to 0.2-0.1
absorbance units (AU). The flow path is shown in Figure 2.
3. Retentate Line Stub Recovery: The last two steps of the recovery for Method
1 are shown in Figure 2. The retentate line stub (the portion from the inlet of
the buffer to the discharge of the dip tube in the vessel) working volume was
calculated to be ~ 600 mL. A fixed volume of buffer (~1000 mL or 1.5 x 600
mL) was pumped through this line and recovered into the system vessel. The
retentate diptube stub line recovery volume was then was pumped at ~3.6 lpm
using the system pump to the recovery container.
4
Figure 2:
Method 1- Flowpath for Reverse Plugflow Buffer Flush Recovery
Buffer
RO / DI
sprayballs
CIP / Storage CCA
LE
Transfer Pump
Sight Glass
filtrate out
CWR
High Point
Pr Pf
CWS
TT
PF
CWR
Low Point HX
CWS
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
M
Flexible
Biocontainer
Table 6 is a list of the sample types that were obtained during the Method 1 recovery test runs. Each sample was assigned a unique consecutive sample ID number.
5
Method 2: Air Blowdown from High Point to
Low Point Figure 3:
Method 2 - Air Blowdown from High Point to Low Point
After the 30 minute loading step, the system feed pump
was stopped and the feed vessel sampled. The system was then
recirculated at 0.79 lpm/M2 (feed flux) for 10 minutes with the Buffer
1. Vessel Recovery: The sample tap was purged and the CWR
CWS
2. Retentate Line Air Blowdown: The feedline was
recovered using a clean compressed air blowdown from TT
CWR
was shut off when 2 phase flow was seen. The feedline Low Point HX
was allowed to drain for 1-2 minutes until the sight glass
CWS
at the recovery port was clear.
Step 1
Step 2
3. Retentate Line Stub Air Blowdown: A new Step 3
air supply was set to ~ 5psig. The system was then Vessel Recovery Vessel recovery sample was taken from the recovery pool
obtained from the system vessel.
blown down to the recovery container for 30 sec then Retentate Line Buffer The retentate line buffer displacement sample was taken from
allowed to drain to the recovery container until the Displacement the recovery pool obtained from the reverse plug flow buffer
displacement of the feed line and retentate line.
mass readout from the floor balance was stable.
Mass Balance Buffer The mass balance buffer recirculation sample was taken from
Recirculation 1 and 2 the buffer recirculation done after the recovery to capture any
remaining protein from the system and close mass balance.
6
Results Figure 4: Method 1: Recovery Profiles
Run 1 - Feed Volume: 15.869L Run 2 - Feed Volume: 16.009L Run 3 - Feed Volume: 16.077L
A general trend in the industry is increasing final protein Figure 5: Method 1: % Recovery by Step
concentration. It was desired to attempt a recovery of Tank Drain Retentate Line Buffer Displacement Mass Balance Buffer Recirculation
60%
occur at the interface of the protein and buffer solutions
50%
during recovery? 77.7%
40% 70.6% 68.4% 72.2%
30%
20%
10%
0
1 2 3 Average
Run #
110%
100%
9.2% 8.4% 8.7% 8.8%
90%
13.3% 14.1% 14.1% 13.8%
80%
70%
% Recovery
60%
50%
76.3% 74.8% 75.2% 75.4%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
1 2 3 Average
Run #
7
Figure 7 shows the relationship between concentration Figure 7: Viscosity of BSA @ 25C as a Function of Concentration
and viscosity of Bovine Serum Albumin.2
14.00
Viscosity (centipoise)
that was 10 g/L (1%) and that had a water-like viscosity 10.00 76.3% 74.8% 75.2% 75.4%
(~1cp). It was decided that a viscosity of 10 cp (~280 8.00
60%
without entraining air into the batch. Observation
50%
though the sight glass on the vessel revealed that
77.7% 73.2% 81.6% 72.2%
a 15 L feed volume was entraining air into the 40%
8
• The flexible container and the UV meter
were eliminated from the reverse plug flow
buffer displacement portion of the test. This
portion of the recovery was captured in 1
L aliquots to improve the resolution on the
changing protein concentration of this stream
during the recovery. Analysis of the aliquots
(see right image) was still performed by UV
Spectrophotometer at 280nm. The flexible
container was retained for the tank drain
portion of the recovery.
180
15.5% Retentate Line
27.1%
Figure 9 shows the point concentrations measured 160 Holdup Volume
(approximate)
BSA Concentration [g/L]
120
reverse plug flow buffer push of the retentate line and
100
cassettes. Figure 10 shows the progress of recovery of
77.7% 72.2%
80
protein from the retentate line and devices.
60
40
Figure 11 is a calculation of the effect of reverse
20
plug flow buffer displacement on pool yield and pool
0
dilution factor. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 10: Recovery of the protein remaining in the Figure 11: The effect of reverse plugflow buffer push retentate line
retentate line & cassettes as a function of buffer displacement recovery on batch pool protein recovery & dilution
110 2.2
100%
100
90% 2
90
15.5% 27.1%
% Recovery of BSA in system holdup
80
0 0 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
9
Discussion
Methods 1 and 2 differ in their effectiveness and overall dilution of the recovered product pool. Method 1
achieved a more complete overall recovery (with an average of 99.3%) than Method 2 (with an average of
89.2%). The mass balance buffer recirculation at the end of each method was able to recover the remaining
protein from the system; but is not typically used in a production environment. Despite the fact that Method 1
appeared most effective, it should be noted that the buffer volume used to achieve complete recovery may lead
to a dilution of the final product pool. Given that Method 2 used only air to displace the product in the holdup
volume, the final product pool remained undiluted.
Table 8 shows the impact of final pool volume on dilution during Method 1, with the following assumptions:
Method 2 is more easily applicable to larger pool Method 1 was used to recover the protein for the high
volumes since dilution is not a factor. The challenge concentration batch experiments. The hold-up of the
that must be addressed with Method 2 is foaming cassette devices and retentate line has been calculated
of the product as the air is applied. While the air to be ~4L. The vessel drain step in this protocol recovered
blowdown was performed at low pressure (< 5 psi), >81% of the protein in the system with no dilution.
significant foaming was observed in both the sight Figure 11 shows the trade-off between recovery of
glass on the product recovery port and in the recovery the protein remaining in the retentate line (including
container. This study did not take into account the membranes) and dilution of the final recovery pool.
addition of a sterile filter on the product recovery port 90% recovery is achieved for only a 6% dilution of the
before the recovery vessel, as is sometimes used. It recovery pool. 93% recovery is achieved at the cost of
is possible that increased mixing would occur during 11% dilution of the pool. >95% recovery is achieved
Method 1 with a sterile filter in-line providing some with less than a 20% dilution of the pool. The protein
resistance to flow. Therefore, it is important to ensure concentration of the first four liter aliquots of recovery,
that the filter is appropriately sized for the final pool (equivalent to 1 retenate line volume), average nearly
volume to minimize the resistance and overall buffer 170 g/L. The protein concentration of the fifth liter
use. During Method 2, the sterile filter would help aliquot declined to ~50 g/L. It is expected the protein/
reduce foaming in the recovery vessel. buffer front would reside between the fourth and fifth
liter aliquots for this system. The sharp decline in protein
concentration shown in Figure 9 indicates some mixing
has occurred between the fourth and fifth liter aliquots.
Once again this work was performed on a minimum sized
batch for the system and therefore represents a worst
case for recovery. As the batch size increases, the amount
of protein left in the retentate line becomes a lower
proportion of the overall pool recovery similar to the low
concentration recovery shown in Table 8. Figure 11 can
be used to optimize recovery and dilution.
10
Conclusion
For small pool volumes, Method 2 can be problematic would also help minimize foaming by metering the
since a significant amount of product can be left flow of product during recovery. This study did not
unrecovered – about 9% based on the test run data. take into account the addition of a sterile filter on the
In contrast, Method 1 can provide high recovery product recovery port before the recovery vessel, as is
values for small pool volumes. However, one potential sometimes used. It is possible that increased mixing
limitation is the dilution effects of the required buffer would occur during Method 1 with a sterile filter
displacement volume. The amount of dilution realized in-line providing some resistance to flow. Therefore, it
during a Method 1 recovery procedure is determined is important to ensure that the filter is appropriately
by the plugflow characteristic in the system during the sized for the final pool volume to minimize the
buffer displacement step. The plugflow characteristic resistance and overall buffer use. During Method 2,
is affected by system design and recovery process the sterile filter would help reduce foaming in the
parameters such as displacement flowrate. The recovery vessel.
displacement curves developed for the Method 1
test runs suggest that the buffer displacement steps The high protein concentration work has shown some
had good plugflow characteristics. The potential of the difficulties involved in recovering viscous high
limitation of dilution can be managed by including protein concentration protein products from a UF/DF
an overconcentration step in the process operation system. It has also demonstrated that a reverse plug
prior to the recovery procedure. An overconcentration flow buffer displacement does not show excessive
step is one way to ensure that target final product dilution of the protein product and the protein/
concentration is met. This may not be applicable in buffer interface. It should be possible to optimize
all situations depending on product concentration, the recovery and dilution by careful evaluation of
viscosity and system design. the step. The dilute case work indicates that Method
1 provides better yields than using an air push and
For large pool volumes, the potential limitations of avoids de-naturation conditions such as foaming.
both Method 1 (dilution) and Method 2 (unrecovered Additional high concentration work could be done to
product) approach negligibly small loss in yield values. compare recovery methods to confirm the conclusions
Therefore, either method may be appropriate for a suggested by the dilute case work.
large pool volume process. One special consideration
for Method 2 is the potential of product foaming. The The above recommendations apply for all recovery
last step of recovery method 1 (the retentate diptube methods (gravity drain, air blowdown, plug flow
section recovery) appears not to have been necessary. buffer displacement, and recirculation buffer flush).
This section of line appears to have drained to the However, for Method 2, the system air inlet should
vessel by itself. be placed at the highest system point, usually at the
highest point in the retentate line.
Foaming typically occurs at air-liquid interfaces and
can lead to denaturation of the protein of interest.
In order to help prevent this, product should never
be transferred to an empty system. The addition of a
sterile filter or peristaltic pump on the recovery port
11
References
1. Memo - Peter Campbell, “Engineering Design Standards”, North American Customer Engineered
Products Plant, Millipore Corporation, 7 November 2006
2. Yadav, S., Shire, S., Kalonia, D., Summary of “Viscosity Analysis of High Concentration Bovine Serum
Albumin Aqueous Solutions., Pharm Res. 2011 Aug; 28(8):1973-83. doi: 10.1007/s11095-011-0424-7.
Epub 2011 Apr 14.
12
To Place an Order or Receive
Technical Assistance
In Europe, please call Customer Service:
France: 0825 045 645
Germany: 01805 045 645
Italy: 848 845 645
Spain: 901 516 645 Option 1
Switzerland: 0848 645 645
United Kingdom: 0870 900 4645
For other countries across Europe,
please call: +44 (0) 115 943 0840
Or visit: www.merckmillipore.com/offices
www.merckmillipore.com
Merck Millipore, the M mark, Pellicon, Ultracel, Common Control Platform and CCP are registered trademarks of
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Lit No. TB5882EN00 Ver. 2.0 06/2016
© 2016 EMD Millipore Corporation, Billerica, MA USA. All rights reserved.