Evaluation of various membranes at different fluxes to enable large‐volume single‐use perfusion bioreactors

Hassan Raza,Tiffany Tang,Baizhen Gao,Chelsea Phuangthong,Chienhung Billy Chen,Nuno D. S. Pinto
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.28722
IF: 3.8
2024-05-06
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
Abstract:This study evaluates perfusion cell culture performance and productivity at various membrane fluxes (1.5–5 LMH), utilizing three different membrane chemistries (polyvinylidene difluoride [PVDF], polyethersulfone [PES], or polysulfone [PS]). The evaluation provides membrane and flux selection criterion to enable large‐volume perfusion bioreactors to generate more biological product. Source: The graphical abstract image is adapted from Chen et al. (2018). The growing demand for biological therapeutics has increased interest in large‐volume perfusion bioreactors, but the operation and scalability of perfusion membranes remain a challenge. This study evaluates perfusion cell culture performance and monoclonal antibody (mAb) productivity at various membrane fluxes (1.5–5 LMH), utilizing polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyethersulfone (PES), or polysulfone (PS) membranes in tangential flow filtration mode. At low flux, culture with PVDF membrane maintained higher cell culture growth, permeate titer (1.06–1.34 g/L) and sieving coefficients (≥83%) but showed lower permeate volumetric throughput and higher transmembrane pressure (TMP) (>1.50 psi) in the later part of the run compared to cultures with PES and PS membrane. However, as permeate flux increased, the total mass of product decreased by around 30% for cultures with PVDF membrane, while it remained consistent with PES and PS membrane, and at the highest flux studied, PES membrane generated 12% more product than PVDF membrane. This highlights that membrane selection for large‐volume perfusion bioreactors depends on the productivity and permeate flux required. Since operating large‐volume perfusion bioreactors at low flux would require several cell retention devices and a complex setup, PVDF membranes are suitable for low‐volume operations at low fluxes whereas PES membranes can be a desirable alternative for large‐volume higher demand products at higher fluxes.
biotechnology & applied microbiology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?