Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117

Membrane emulsification — a literature review

Simon M. Joscelyne, Gun Trägårdh ∗
Food Engineering, Lund University, Box 124, 22100 Lund, Sweden
Received 29 April 1999; received in revised form 22 October 1999; accepted 22 October 1999

Abstract
Membrane emulsification is a simple method that has received increasing attention over the last 10 years, with potential
applications in many fields. Experimental studies which have focused mainly on investigations of process parameters such as,
membrane type, average pore size and porosity, crossflow velocity, transmembrane pressure and emulsifier, are reviewed. By
careful choice of these parameters, emulsions with narrow emulsion droplet size distributions have been produced, with average
droplet sizes ranging between 2 and 10 times the nominal membrane pore diameter. The effects of individual parameters are
reasonably well understood, particularly at a qualitative level. Results can be explained by a direct influence of the membrane
pore size, diameter and distribution. Interfacial tension and the action of wall shear stress are also important.
In comparison with conventional turbulence based methods, such as homogenization and rotor-stator systems, less energy
is needed to produce droplets of a given size using membrane emulsification. However, one of the main limiting factors with
regard to industrial scale-up can be the often low level of dispersed phase flux through the membrane, especially for small
submicron droplets. ©2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Membrane emulsification; Process parameters; Flux; Droplet size; Ceramic membranes

1. Introduction This method involves using a low pressure to force

Emulsions play an important role in the formula-
tion of foods, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. They are
traditionally prepared using colloid mills, rotor-stator
systems and high pressure homogenizers. The choice
is usually dictated by the application of the resulting
emulsion, the apparent viscosity, the amount of me-
chanical energy required and the heat-exchange de-
mands [1]. But, over the last 10 years or so, there has
been an increasing interest in a technique for making
emulsions known as ‘membrane emulsification’ [2].
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-46-222-9821,
fax: +46-46-222-4622.
E-mail address: gun.tragardh@livstek.lth.se (G. Trägårdh).
the dispersed phase to permeate through a membrane
having a uniform pore-size distribution into the con-
tinuous phase. The distinguishing feature is that the
resulting droplet size is controlled primarily by the
choice of membrane and not by the generation of tur-
bulent droplet break-up. The technique is highly at-
tractive given its simplicity, potentially lower energy
demands, need for less surfactant and the resulting nar-
row droplet-size distributions [3]. It is applicable to
both oil-in-water (o/w) and water-in-oil (w/o) emul-
sions.
Work carried out in the field of membrane emul-
sification is reviewed, discussing both theoretical
and practical aspects, as well as indicating present
limitations.

0376-7388/00/$ – see front matter ©2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 6 - 7 3 8 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 3 3 4 - 8
108 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of membrane emulsification process.

2. Process of membrane emulsification —
overview
The process of membrane emulsification is shown
in Fig. 1. The dispersed phase is pressed through the
pores of a microporous membrane, while the continu-
ous phase flows along the membrane surface. Droplets
grow at pore outlets until, on reaching a certain size,
they detach. This is determined by the balance between
the drag force on the droplet from the flowing contin-
uous phase, the buoyancy of the droplet, the interfa-
cial tension forces and the driving pressure [4]. The
droplet at a pore tends to form a spherical shape under
the action of interfacial tension, but some distortion
may occur depending on the flow rate of continuous
phase and the contact angle between the droplet and
membrane surface [5]. The final droplet size and size
distribution are not only determined by the pore size
and size distribution of the membrane but also by the
degree of coalescence, both at the membrane surface
and in the bulk solution.
A schematic picture of a typical small-scale, mem-
brane emulsification apparatus, representative of those
in the literature for making o/w emulsions, is shown in
Fig. 2. The system incorporates a tubular microfiltra-
tion membrane, a pump, a feed vessel, and a pressur-
ized (N2 ) oil container. The oil phase (to be dispersed)
is pumped under gas pressure through the pores of the

Fig. 2. Schematic picture of a simple small scale membrane emulsification system.

 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
membrane into the aqueous continuous phase which
circulates through the middle of the membrane.
Although much of the early work on membrane
emulsification is of a rather empirical nature, more
systematic studies have been done and the important
process controlling parameters and conditions identi-
fied. These are membrane pore size and distribution,
membrane porosity, membrane surface type, emulsi-
fier type and concentration, dispersed phase flux, ve-
locity of the continuous phase and transmembrane
pressure. Transmembrane pressure 1P is defined as:
Pd − (Pc,1 + Pc,2 )
1P = (1)
2
where Pd is the pressure of the dispersed phase out-
side the membrane. Pc,1 and Pc,2 are the pressures
at both ends of the membrane module. The minimum
emulsification pressure, i.e., the pressure at which the
dispersed phase outside the membrane must be at to
just begin to permeate through the membrane, can be
calculated from the equation for capillary pressure:
4 γ cos θ
Pc = (2)
dp
where dp is the pore diameter, γ is the oil/water inter-
facial tension, and θ is the contact angle between the
dispersed phase and the membrane surface. Pc is also
referred to as the critical pressure.
It is generally necessary to find a balance between
all of the above-mentioned parameters to achieve the
desired result, often considered as the formation of an
emulsion with the smallest droplet size and narrowest
size distribution. In reality, this will be dictated by
the demands of the product and the rate of emulsion
production.
3. Process parameters
3.1. Membrane pore-size, distribution, porosity and
surface type
Many of the published investigations have been
made using tubular micro-porous glass (MPG) mem-
branes (Asahi Glass Company, Japan) and Shirasu
porous glass (SPG). These membranes are reputed
as having cylindrical, interconnected, uniform mi-
cropores. They have narrow pore-size distributions
109
often +/−15% [6]. Ceramic ␣-Al2 O3 (e.g., Mem-
braflow, Germany and Membralox, SCT France) or
␣-Al2 O3 coated with titainia oxide or zirconia oxide
have been used. By multicoating, the pore size can
be reduced and the distribution made narrower. All
the above-mentioned membrane types come in many
different nominal pore sizes, typically ranging from
about 0.05–14 ␮m and do not deform or compact
under the applied pressures.
It has been generally observed that the droplet size
(dd ) of an emulsion can be related to the pore size
(dp ) of the membrane by a linear relationship for given
operating conditions:
dd = x dp (3)
where x can range typically from 2–10 [5,7,8].
‘Monodispersed’ emulsions can be produced if the
membrane pore-size distribution is sufficiently nar-
row. The presence of a small number of coarse pores
have been shown to lead to a bimodal distribution [9].
As a rule, the dispersed phase should not wet the
membrane pores. This means that hydrophilic mem-
branes are suited to making o/w emulsions and hy-
drophobic membranes for w/o emulsions. Nakashima
et al. [10] have shown that using a hydrophobized
MPG membrane for making an o/w emulsion leads to
a polydispersed emulsion with a larger average droplet
size than when using a hydrophilic membrane. Sim-
ilar behaviour [10] was found when sodium dodecyl
sulfate (SDS) was used as the emulsifier with a posi-
tively charged membrane surface. The SDS adsorbed
to the membrane surface rendering it hydrophobic.
The w/o emulsions have also been made using hy-
drophilic membranes. However, the resultant droplet
size is less than the pore size and is apparently de-
pendent on the structure of the pore outlets and not
strictly the diameter [11].
Membranes purchased in a hydrophilic form can be
made hydrophobic by chemical surface modification.
This may create problems in certain circumstances
where silane coupling agents are banned, as in the
food industry. It may also be necessary to repeat the
surface treatment after each cleaning cycle. Katoh et
al. [12] came up with the ingenious idea of pre-soaking
a hydrophilic membrane in the oil phase to render
it hydrophobic. Pre-soaking membranes in solutions
of surfactants or emulsifiers has also been shown to
110 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117

improve dispersed phase flux [4]. The decreased

interfacial tension in the pores leads to better filling.
The porosity of a membrane is also important be-
cause it determines the distance between adjacent
pores, this distance increases as the porosity de-
creases. The closer the pores are together (at high
porosities) the greater the likelihood of droplet co-
alescence at the membrane surface before droplets
detach. Schröder et al. [4] found that a ratio of the
droplet size to pore diameter of >1.6, for a membrane
porosity of 0.3, led to a significant degree of coales-
cence. On the other hand, if the porosity is too low
then the dispersed phase flux may be insufficient for
viable emulsion production.
Some investigations have been done on droplet for-
mation from single pores. Kawakatsu et al. [13,14]
have used a silicon microchannel plate and Peng and
Williams [5] glass capillaries, to observe in situ forma-
tion of individual emulsion droplets using microscope
video systems. These investigations allow fundamen-
tal processes of droplet formation and detachment ki-
netics to be studied. The results are in agreement with
the findings using membranes.
3.2. Velocity of continuous phase
Droplets formed at the membrane surface detach
under the influence of the flowing continuous phase.
Typically, the crossflow velocity lies between 0.8
and 8 m s−1 . Its influence is often expressed in terms
of wall shear stress (Pa). The droplet size decreases
sharply as the crossflow velocity increases from rest
and reaches a size where it becomes more or less
independent of the flow velocity [15,16], shown
schematically in Fig. 3. The largest change in droplet
size occurs at small shear stresses. The flow velocity
can therefore be used to control droplet size. For very
small droplets, the sublayer thickness may start to
limit the effect of crossflow velocity.
Schubert and Schröder [15], using ceramic ␣-Al2 O3
membranes to make o/w emulsions, found that the
smaller the nominal membrane pore size the smaller
the minimum droplet size and the smaller the shear
stress required to reach this diameter. A wall shear
stress >2 Pa was needed for the 0.1 and 0.5 ␮m
membranes and >20 Pa for the 0.8 ␮m membrane.
At smaller shear stresses the droplet size increased
Fig. 3. Effect of wall shear stress on droplet size for oil-in-water
emulsions produced using membrane emulsification, shown
schematically.
rapidly and the size distributions became much
broader because of coalescence at the membrane sur-
face. Muschiolik and Dräger [17] and Muschiolik et
al. [18] found that the droplet size was halved on in-
creasing the wall shear stress from 0.3 to 1.5 Pa using
a 0.5 ␮m MPG membrane. Katoh et al. [12] found
that a minimum wall shear stress of at least 0.48 Pa
was needed to produce monodisperse oil droplets,
also using MPG membranes.
The action of shear force may vary depending on
the concentration of dispersed phase in the circulating
solution. If there is a significant change, this could
influence the droplet size. It has been shown [9] that up
to 30% oil in an o/w emulsion can have no observable
influence.
3.3. Emulsifier
Emulsifiers have two main roles to play in the
formation of an emulsion. Firstly, they lower the
interfacial tension between oil and water. This fa-
cilitates droplet disruption and in the case of mem-
branes lowers the minimum emulsification pressure.
Schröder and Schubert [15] have suggested that the
interfacial tension force is one of the essential forces
holding a droplet at a pore. They found that larger
droplets are produced the higher the equilibrium in-
terfacial tension. Secondly, emulsifiers stabilize the
droplets against coalescence and/or aggregation. This
 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
will depend on both the type of emulsifier and the
concentration.
Schröder et al. [4] considered the effects of dynamic
interfacial tension on droplet formation. They found
that the faster emulsifier molecules adsorbed at newly
formed interfaces, the smaller the emulsion droplets.
Comparing fast adsorbing SDS to slow Tween 20, the
difference in droplet size was about a factor of six.
Katoh et al. [19] investigated different emulsifiers,
SDS, sucrose esters (SE), polyglycerol esters and
sodium caseinate in the water phase of corn oil and
kerosene o/w emulsions. Monodispersed emulsions
could be prepared at surfactant concentrations where
the interfacial tension had decreased to a constant
minimum value (0.3% wt for the SE and 1.5% wt
for the sodium caseinate). However, there were dif-
ferences observed between sodium caseinate and the
other emulsifiers. The droplet sizes for the latter re-
mained constant on increasing further the emulsifier
concentration, whereas the droplet size decreased for
the caseinate.
Ban et al. [20] studied the preparation of o/w emul-
sions using poly(oxyethylene) hydrogenated castor oil
(EC-n) as an emulsifier in the aqueous phase and
methylphenylpolysiloxane as the oil. By mixing dif-
ferent EC-n (n = 5 and 50) surfactants different HLB
values were produced from 9.8 to 12.8. The smallest
emulsion droplets were formed for a HLB value of
12.8 at 10% total surfactant concentration. The flux of
oil through the membrane was faster the shorter the
chain length or average chain length for the mixed sur-
factant system, i.e. at lower HLB values, and was also
dependent on the concentration of surfactant. It in-
creased as the surfactant concentration increased from
0.5 to 2% but thereafter decreased at 5 and 10%. Pre-
treatment of the membrane by immersion for 20 h in
the aqueous phase resulted in an increased flux, prob-
ably as a result of better filling of membrane pores
from the lowered interfacial tension.
Nakashima et al. [10] found that monodispersed
emulsions could be produced using SDS at concen-
trations much less than the critical micelle concen-
tration (cmc). At very small levels (0.5 mmol dm−3 )
larger droplets were formed because of coalescence.
The minimum emulsification pressure decreased as the
concentration of SDS was increased up to the cmc.
Similar behaviour was found by Kawakatsu et al. [14]
using SDS as the water phase emulsifier and a sil-
111
icon microchannel to make o/w emulsions. The ad-
dition of surfactant had the effect of broadening the
pressure range over which stable monodispersed emul-
sions could be produced. Similar observations were
made by Katoh et al. [12] who investigated the effects
of added surfactant in both oil and water phases dur-
ing production of o/w emulsions. With 0.3% sucrose
ester in the water phase and 0.5% sorbitan ester in
the oil phase the flux was increased for a given trans-
membrane pressure when compared to the case of no
emulsifier in the oil phase.
Kandori et al. [21] made w/o emulsions using
poly(oxyethylene-oxypropylene) surfactant, PE-64,
and hydrophilic SPG membranes. The droplet size
was smaller than the average membrane pore size and
the droplets were monodispersed. The results were
independent of surfactant concentration which varied
from 2 to 10%. Under these conditions the interfa-
cial tension was nearly zero and it was proposed that
spontaneous emulsification may provide part of the
explanation. For 7.5% added PE-64, the emulsions
showed no indication of creaming or coalescence af-
ter a month, which was attributed to the viscoelastic
adsorbed surfactant film. The importance of interfa-
cial tension was confirmed in further investigations
[11] which were carried out using SPG membranes of
different pore diameters and various copolymer-type
surfactants PE-n (where n = 61, 62 and 64). The size
of the water droplets and their stability was strongly
dependent on the interfacial tension between the wa-
ter and oil phases. Stable, monodispersed emulsions
could only be produced at an interfacial tension of
<1 mN m−1 .
Muschiolik and Dräger [17] and Muschiolik et al.
[18] investigated whey protein concentrate as an emul-
sifier for making o/w emulsions containing 10% soy-
bean oil-in-water. Proteins with different degrees of
denaturation were studied. With the less denatured
protein (i.e., the more surface active) it was possible
to produce a monodisperse emulsion.
3.4. Emulsification pressure and flux of dispersed
phase
The emulsification pressure controls the flux of
dispersed phase through the membrane. Higher pres-
sures are needed for membranes of smaller nominal
112 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
pore size, given that all other parameters are the
same, because of the higher capillary pressures (see
Eq. (2)). Typical values of transmembrane pressure
for emulsification using 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 ␮m pore
size membranes lie between about 20 and 500 kPa
for making o/w emulsions. Increasing transmembrane
pressure increases the flux of dispersed phase through
a membrane in accordance with Darcy’s law [4]. Any
deviations from Darcy’s law that occur at low applied
pressures are because not all pores may open. It is
difficult to predict emulsification pressures. Too high
pressures lead to jets of oil and very large droplets.
Too low pressures make the emulsification time long.
Williams et al. [9] have suggested that between 2
and 10 times the minimum membrane pressure is
probably usable range.
Most of the studies already discussed above have
been limited to conditions suitable for producing
monodispersed emulsions. With such constraints, oil
fluxes for production of o/w emulsions have been
found to range from about 2–20 l m−2 h−1 using hy-
drophilic membranes having an average pore size
from 0.2 ␮m. Fluxes for 0.8 ␮m membranes have been
higher, up to about 40 l m−2 h−1 . In contrast fluxes
of 2300 and 200 l m−2 h−1 [12] have been observed
for making w/o emulsions using 1.0 and 0.5 ␮m hy-
drophilic membranes, respectively. These membranes
were pre-soaked in oil phase to make them hydropho-
bic.
An increase in flux is often at the expense of droplet
size, which may increase. Schröder et al. [4] have
shown that this increase depends on the type of emul-
sifier or rather the adsorption kinetics and in the for-
mation times of the droplets. If the formation time is
long compared to the time of decreasing interfacial
tension, then the interfacial tension dynamics have lit-
tle or no influence on the droplet size and the size
remains unchanged on increasing flux.
3.5. Temperature and viscosity
Temperature can be an important parameter in
emulsification affecting both the viscosity of the dis-
persed and continuous phases and also the nature of
the emulsifier as a consequence of phase inversion
temperature [22] and its solubility. To the authors’
knowledge there have been no systematic studies of
the effects of temperature on membrane emulsifica-
tion. The emulsification temperature will usually be
dictated by the requirements of a product. In cases
[23] making o/w emulsions, where experimental op-
erating conditions have been significantly above room
temperature (65◦ C), the temperature was employed
to make the oil phase more fluid, and to dissolve the
emulsifier. For w/o emulsions, heating the continu-
ous phase so that there is a substantial decrease in
viscosity, would make it easier to circulate.
In studies by Katoh et al. [24], making w/o food
emulsions, it was found that changes in the viscosity
of the continuous phase led to changes in the average
emulsion droplet size. Increasing the viscosity led to
an increase in size. It was noted that the flux was very
low. They [25] also encountered problems of crushing
of the highly viscous emulsions by the shear stress of
pumps and rotors.
3.6. Effect of pH
In general, pH is another parameter which is product
dependent. However, membrane surface properties are
often pH dependent. They may exhibit an iso-electric
point at a given pH, where the surface has no net
charge. Huisman et al. [26] determined the iso-electric
points of a number of ceramic membranes which were
between pH 5.2 and >8. At pHs above and below these
points, the membranes were negatively and positively
charged, respectively. The charge on the membrane
can have a profound influence on which surface ac-
tive agents adsorb. It may be that a hydrophilic mem-
brane is rendered hydrophobic and as already seen
above (see Membrane Pore–Size, Distribution, Poros-
ity and Surface Type). This could have disastrous con-
sequences on the resulting emulsion droplet size.
4. Comparison with other methods
Some comparisons between membrane emulsifica-
tion and so-called ‘conventional’ rotating stirrer meth-
ods and homo-mixers can be found in the literature
[27–33]. But, these tend to focus on the superior sta-
bility and uniform droplet size and possibilities for
producing tailor-made size distributions by mixing
two monodispersed emulsions, rather than analysis
and discussion of production rates and energy require-
 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
ments. More systematic studies should be done ad-
dressing these aspects. Schubert [34] has compared the
performance of different types of continuous emulsi-
fication equipment, namely high pressure homogeniz-
ers, rotor-stator systems and membrane emulsification,
in terms of energy densities Ev (J m−3 ) given the cri-
teria of smallest drop size and narrowest distribution:
P
Ev = (4)
V mogenizers vary from about 100–20 000 l h−1 [37] and
where P is the effective power input and V is the
volume flow rate of emulsion. In all cases higher
energy densities were needed to produce smaller
droplets. Droplet size ranged from about 100 ␮m
down to 0.2 ␮m. For membrane systems the droplet
size increased for a given energy density as the con-
centration of dispersed phase (expressed as volume
fraction) increased from 0.05 to 0.8. Energy densi-
ties for membrane emulsification (between 103 and
106 J m−3 ) were some 100 times less than those de-
manded by high pressure homogenization (between
105 and 108 J m−3 ) and some 10 times less than
rotor-stator methods (range of 105 –107 J m−3 ). At a
similar energy density, membranes produce smaller
droplets, because less energy is lost as heat. However,
if the dispersed phase viscosity and/or volume fraction
is large, emulsification systems based on turbulent
flow are more suitable. Droplet size distributions of
turbulence-based methods tend to be broad given the
nature of turbulence generation, making them more
sensitive to creaming and Ostwald ripening.
The shear stresses calculated for a membrane sys-
tem are much less than in the other methods, Mus-
chiolik and Dräger. [17]. This makes it is possible to
use shear sensitive ingredients. Schubert and Schröder
[35] calculated shear stresses in the pores and found
them comparable with those along the membrane sur-
face.
5. Industrial scale production
Membrane systems are particularly suitable for
large scale production because it is easy to scale-up
and to add more membrane modules. Reproducibility
of membrane systems is good and energy utiliza-
tion is efficient. Williams et al. [9] have shown that
pilot-scale membrane emulsification can be operated
113
successfully in both batch or continuous mode. How-
ever, to date there is only one documented product
produced using membrane emulsification, ‘Yes light’,
a low fat spread [7,12].
A small industrial membrane system such as the
Alfa Laval MFS-38 one has a membrane area of up
to 7.6 m2 [36]. For the oil fluxes reported earlier this
corresponds to throughput capacities of between 15
and 300 l h−1 . The output capacities of industrial ho-
typically lie around 1000 l h−1 [1] in the case of a
Manton–Gaulin commercial homogenizer. Thus pro-
duction of 1000 l of o/w emulsion containing 10%
oil would take typically an hour using an homoge-
nizer compared to between 20 min and 8 h using a
membrane system. For preparation of small submicron
droplets, membranes having a pore size of 0.2 ␮m or
smaller would be needed. The low fluxes through such
membranes could be a limiting factor for large-scale
applications. Any advantages of low energy density
may be lost at the expense of long production times.
In practice, it is important to avoid a significant
tail in the droplet-size distribution function. It is the
presence of particularly large droplets in the fresh
emulsion, and the growth in the number of such
droplets on storage, which generally have the predom-
inant influence on the perceived instability. Thus, a
balance between an acceptably high flux and a degree
of particle coalescence could be found, at the expense
of monodispersity. Joscelyne and Trägårdh [23] used
crossflow velocity to keep oil droplets under 1 ␮m for
an oil flux of 140 kg m−2 h−1 through a 0.1 ␮m pore
size membrane.
6. Other applications
Membrane emulsification has been used to make
monodispersed multiple emulsions, both o/w/o and
w/o/w emulsions. These have applications as drug car-
riers for controlled release [38] and in the food indus-
try for microencapsulation of flavours [39]. Mine et
al. [8] successfully prepared w/o/w emulsions contain-
ing edible soybean oil. First a 30% (v/v) w/o emul-
sion was made having a mean droplet diameter of
0.54 ␮m using a homogenizer. This was then added to
a water phase containing a emulsifier through a hydro-
philic microporous glass membrane. Emulsions with a
114 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117

Table 1
A summary of typical results and conditions for producing emulsions with small droplet sizes and droplet-size distributions obtained from
the literature. An underlined membrane pore size indicates that the value of dispersed phase flux applies to that membrane pore size
Membrane Pore characteristics/ Surface type Experimental w/o or o/w Droplet Ref.
nominal pore size conditions size, dp
(␮m)
SPG micro-porous 0.57, 1.1, 2.3 hydrophilic oil phase: corn oil
glass 1. water phase: water + 0.3% wt SE o/w 5dp [19]
flux: up to 30 l m−2 h−1
2. water phase: water + 2.0% wt sodium caseinate o/w 10dp
crossflow velocity > 0.2 ms−1
SPG micro-porous 0.98, 2.70, 4.70 hydrophilic oil phase: toluene + 2–10% wt
glass PE-64 copolymer w/o <dp [11„21]
Membraflow 0.1, 0.2, 0.8 hydrophilic oil phase: vegetable oil
ceramic
1. water phase: water +2% wt SDS o/w 3–4dp [15]
2. water phase: water + 0.1% wt Tween 20 o/w 8–12dp
flux: 10–40 l m−2 h−1
Membraflow 0.2, 0.8 hydrophilic oil phase: vegetable oil
ceramic
1. water phase: water + 0.7% wt LEO-10 o/w 15dp [4]
2. water phase: water + 0.1% wt lacprodan 60 o/w 50dp
flux: 5 l m−2 h−1
Single glass 5–200 hydrophilic oil phase: mineral oil + 3% wt iso stearic acid o/w 4dp [5]
capillaries water phase: water + 3% wt tri-
ethanolamine + 0.3% wt sodium nipastat
crossflow velocity: 0.5 ms−1
Ceramic 0.2 and 0.5 hydrophilic oil phase: mineral oil
water phase: water + 36.4% wt sorbital o/w 4dp [9]
(70%) + 2.16% wt dobanol 91-8 + 0.04%
wt formalin
flux: 7.4 l m−2 h−1
crossflow velocity: 1 ms−1
MPG microporous 0.2 and 0.5 hydrophilic oil phase: soybean oil
glass water phase: water + 2% milk protein concentrate o/w 8dp [17]
flux: 2.6 l m−2 h−1
crossflow velocity: 0.22 ms−1
SPG microporous 2.56 hydrophobic oil phase: soybean oil + 0.5% wt Span 80 w/o 3dp [2]
glass water phase: water + 1% wt NaCl
flux: 2.6 l m−2 h−1
Microporous glass 0.52 hydrophilic oil phase: kerosene
water phase: water + 0.04% wt SDS o/w 3dp [10]
flux: 0.005 l m−2 h−1
Ceramic 0.1 hydrophilic oil phase: vegetable oil + 8% v/v monoglyceride o/w 3dp [23]
water phase: skim milk
crossflow velocity 9 ms−1
flux: 140 l m−2 h−1
Microporous glass 0.36 and 1.36 hydrophilic oil phase: soybean oil
water phase: water + egg yolk proteins o/w 3dp [8]
1.0 hydrophobic oil phase: soybean oil
water phase: water + egg yolk proteins w/o 3dp
+ polyglycerol esters
flux: 0.005 l m−2 h−1
Silicon 6 ␮m diameter hydrophilic or oil phase: sunflower oil + 0.3% wt o/w and w/o 4dp [13„14]
microchannel channel hydrophobic sorbitan monolaurate
water phase: water + SDS
 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
concentration of water droplets of 30–50% showed
good stability over a period of 6 weeks. Kawashima
et al. [40] produced a multiple w/o/w emulsion with a
smaller droplet size and a better distribution from an
original emulsion which was extruded through a poly-
carbonate membrane, before redispersing it in aqueous
surfactant solution. W/o/w emulsions containing wa-
ter soluble anticancer drugs have been prepared [38].
In this case a w/o emulsion was produced by sonicat-
ing a mixture of oil and saline containing the drug to
form submicron-sized droplets. This was then passed
through a hydrophilic membrane into a glucose solu-
tion to produce the final w/o/w emulsion. Such emul-
sions have applications in the field of general target-
ing chemotherapy. Okochi and Nakano [32] prepared
w/o/w emulsions encapsulating cytarabine, doxoru-
bicine and vancomycin. Release of these drugs was
slower from membrane produced emulsions than from
emulsions made by stirring methods.
The membrane emulsification method has also
been used to produce uniform silica hydrogel [41]
and polymer microspheres [2]. Such polymer spheres
have uses as stationary phases in HPLC [42] oper-
ating in reversed phase mode. They show excellent
column stability and give a relatively low pressure
drop. Porous polymethyl methacrylate and crosslinked
polystyrene spheres made using SPG membranes have
been used as immobilizing carriers of glucoamylase
[43].
7. Conclusions
Membrane emulsification has been shown to be
a relatively simple and reliable process for making
emulsions. The size of the droplets is largely depen-
dent on the size of the membrane pores, which means it
is easy to select the membrane most suitable for the ap-
plication. A summary of typical results and conditions
for producing emulsions with narrow droplet-size dis-
tributions is presented in Table 1.
As a final comment, membrane emulsification may
be more appropriate at the present time for production
of special ‘high technology’ products and applications,
where there is a need for a high degree of droplet
size uniformity as opposed to a general method for
emulsification.
115
8. Symbols
1P Transmembrane pressure (Pa)
Pd Pressure of dispersed phase outside
membrane (Pa)
Pc,1 , Pc,2 Pressure at ends of membrane module
(Pa)
Pc Capillary or critical pressure (Pa)
γ Oil-water interfacial surface tension
(N m−1 )
θ Contact angle between membrane
surface and dispersed phase
dp membrane pore diameter
dd Droplet diameter
Ev Energy density (J m−3 ) (kW m−3 h−1 )
P Effective power input
V Volume flow rate of emulsion
Acknowledgements
This work was financed by Arla FoU AB, Advanced
Technology with Tetra Pak Processing Systems AB
and the Swedish National Board for Industrial and
Technical Development through the Swedish Founda-
tion for Membrane Technology.
References
[1] M.J. Lynch, W.C. Griffin, Food emulsions, in: Emulsions and
Emulsion Technology, Surfactant Science Series, vol. 6(1),
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1974, Chapter 5, pp. 249–289.
[2] K. Kandori, Applications of microporous glass membranes:
membrane emulsification, in: A.G. Gaonkar (Ed.),
Food Processing: Recent Developments, Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam, 1995, pp. 113–142.
[3] E. Dickinson, Emulsions and droplet size control, in: D.J.
Wedlock (Ed.), Controlled Particle, Droplet and Bubble
Formation, Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, 1994, Chapter
7, pp. 189–216.
[4] V. Schröder, O. Behrend, H. Schubert, Effect of dynamic
interfacial tension on the emulsification process using
microporous ceramic membranes, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
202 (1998) 334–340.
[5] S.J. Peng, R.A. Williams, Controlled production of emulsions
using a crossflow membrane, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 15
(1998) 21–25.
[6] Membrane emulsification by microporous glass, MPG Product
Specification Sheet.
[7] R. Katoh, Y. Asano, A. Furuya, K. Sotoyama, M. Tomita,
Preparation of Food Emulsions using Membrane Emulsi-
116 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
fication System, in: Proceedings of the 7th International
Symposium on Synthetic Membranes in Science, Tübingen,
Germany, 1994, 407.
[8] Y. Mine, M. Shimizu, T. Nakashima, Preparation and
stabilization of simple and multiple emulsions using
microporous glass membrane, Colloids Surfaces B:
Biointerfaces 6 (1996) 261–268.
[9] R.A. Williams, S.J. Peng, D.A. Wheeler, N.C. Morley,
D. Taylor, M. Whalley, D.W. Houldsworth, Controlled
production of emulsions using a crossflow membrane Part II.
Industrial scale manufacture, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76 A (8)
(1998) 902–910.
[10] T. Nakashima, M. Shimizu, M. Kukizaki, Membrane
emulsification by microporous glass, Key Engineering Mater.
61/62 (1991) 513–516.
[11] K. Kandori, K. Kishi, T. Ishikawa, Formation mechanisms of
monodispersed W/O emulsions by SPG filter emulsification
method, Colloids and Surfaces 61 (1991) 269–279.
[12] R. Katoh, Y. Asano, A. Furuya, K. Sotoyama, M.
Tomita, Preparation of food emulsions using a membrane
emulsification system, J. Membr. Sci. 113 (1996) 131–135.
[13] T. Kawakatsu, Y. Kikuchi, M. Nakajima, Regular-seized
cell creation in microchannel emulsification by visual
microprocessing method, J. Am. Oil Chemists’ Soc. 74 (3)
(1997) 317–321.
[14] T. Kawakatsu, H. Komori, N. Oda, T. Yonemato, Relation
between the concentration of a surfactant and pressure for
droplet creation and effect on droplet size in microchannel
O/W emulsification Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 24 (2) (1998)
313–317.
[15] V. Schröder, H. Schubert, Emulsification using microporous,
ceramic membranes, in: Proceedings of the First European
Congress on Chemical Engineering (ECCE 1), Florence, Italy,
4–7 May 1997, pp. 2491–2494.
[16] V. Schröder, Z. Wang, H. Schubert, Production of oil-in-water
emulsions by microporous membranes, in: Proceedings of
the Third International Symposium on Progress in Membrane
Science and Technology, Euromembrane 1997, University of
Twente, 1997, 439.
[17] G. Muschiolik, S. Dräger, Emulsionsbildung mittels
mikroporösen Glas, Deutsche Milchwirtschaft 46 (19) (1995)
1041–1048.
[18] G. Muschiolik, S. Dräger, I. Scherze, H.M. Rawel, M. Stang,
Protein-stabilized emulsions prepared by the micro-porous
glass method, in: E. Dickingson (Ed.), Food Colloids:
Proteins, Lipids and Polysaccharides, Royal Society of
Chemistry, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 393–400.
[19] R. Katoh, Y. Asano, A. Furuya, M. Tomita, Conditions
for preparation of O/W food emulsions using a membrane
emulsification system, Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku
Kaishi 42 (1995) 548–555.
[20] S. Ban, M. Kitana, A. Yamasaki, Preparation of O/W
emulsions with poly(oxyethylene) hydrogenated castor oil by
using SPG membrane emulsification, Nippon Kagaku Kaishi
8 (1994) 737–742.
[21] K. Kandori, K. Kishi, T. Ishikawa, Preparation of
monodispersed W/O emulsions by Shirasu-porous-glass filter
emulsification technique, Colloids and Surfaces 55 (1991)
73–78.
[22] D.J. Shaw, Emulsions and Foams, in: Introduction to Colloid
and Surface Chemistry, 3 ed., Butterworths, London, 1980,
Chapter 10, pp. 232–244.
[23] S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh, Food emulsions using
membrane emulsification: conditions for producing small
droplets, J. Food Engineering 39 (1999) 59–64.
[24] R. Katoh, Y. Asano, A. Furuya, K. Sotoyama, M. Tomita, S.
Okonogi, Preparation of food emulsions using a membrane
emulsification system 2. Conditions for preparation of W/O
food emulsions using a membrane emulsification system,
Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kaishi 44 (1997) 44–49.
[25] R. Katoh, Y. Asano, A. Furuya, K. Sotoyama, M. Tomita,
S. Okongi, Preparation of food emulsions using a membrane
emulsification system 3. A method of preventing dispersed
droplets from crushing using a membrane emulsification
system, Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kokaku Kaishi 44 (3)
(1997) 233–237.
[26] I. Huisman, G. Trägårdh, Ch. Trägårdh, A. Pihlajamäki,
Determining the zeta potential of microfiltration membranes
using the electroviscous effect, J. Membr. Sci. 156 (1999)
153–158.
[27] S. Okonogi, R. Kato, Y. Asano, H. Yuguchi, R. Kumazawa,
K. Sotoyama, K. Takahashi, M. Fujomoto, Morinaga
Milk Industry Co Ltd., Methods for producing emulsions,
low-fat spread and oil-in-water-in-oil type spread, US Patent
5,279,847 (1994).
[28] S. Okonogi, R. Kumazawa, M. Kato, Y. Asano, Morinaga
Milk Industry Co. Artificial milk preparation by pressure
emulsification using membrane modules, JP 4-320643 1992.
[29] Y. Asano, R. Kumazawa, R. Kato, H. Yuguchi, K. Sotoyama,
K. Takahashi, M. Fujimoto, Morinaga Milk Industry Co
Inc., Method for producing emulsions, low-fat spread and
oil-in-water-in-oil type spread, Eur. Patent Appl. 91303236.3
(1991).
[30] M. Tomita, S. Kazuyoshi, R. Kato, Y. Asano, K. Takahashi,
Morinaga Milk Industry Co Inc., A spread and a method
for production of said spread, Eur Patent Appl. 92308937.9
(1992).
[31] S. Okonogi, R. Katoh, H. Yuguchi, Y. Asano, Morinaga Milk
Industry Co Inc., Method for producing emulsions, Eur Patent
Appl. 95200750.8 (1991).
[32] H. Okochi, M. Nakano, Comparative study of two preparation
methods of W/O/W emulsion: stirring and membrane
emulsification, Chem. Pharm. Bull. 45 (8) (1997) 1323–1326.
[33] K. Sotoyama, Y. Asano, K. Ihara, K. Takahashi, K. Doi,
Preparation of W/O food product emulsions by the membrane
emulsification method and assessment of stability, Nippon
Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi 45 (4) (1998) 253–260.
[34] H. Schubert, Advances in the production of food emulsions,
in: Proceedings of Engineering and Food at ICEF
7, ICEF-Conference, Academic Press, Brighton, 1997,
AA82–AA87.
[35] H. Schubert, V. Schröder, Mechanical processes with
minimum energy input 1. Emulsions, in: Proceedings of 4th
EFFast- Conference, Köln, Germany, 6–9 November 1996,
in press.
 S.M. Joscelyne, G. Trägårdh / Journal of Membrane Science 169 (2000) 107–117
[36] Alfa-Laval Filtration Systems, Cross-flow microfiltration loop,
Type MFS-38 data sheet.
[37] L.W. Phipps, The High Pressure Dairy Homogenizer,
Technical Bulletin 6, NIRD, Reading, England, 1985.
[38] S. Higashi, M. Shimizu, T. Setoguchi, Preparation of new
Lipiodol emulsion containing water soluble annticancer
agent by membrane emulsification technique, Drug Delivery
Systems 8 (1993) 59–61.
[39] A.G. Gaonkar, Kraft General Foods Inc., Stable
multiple emulsions comprising interfacial gelatinous layer,
flavor-encapsulating multiple emulsions and low/no fat food
products comprising the same, US Patent 5332595 (1994).
[40] Y. Kawashima, T. Hino, H. Takeuchi, T. Niwa, K.
Horibe, Shear-induced phase inversion and size control of
117
water/oil/water emulsion droplets with porous membrane, J.
Colloid Interface Sci. 145 (1991) 512–523.
[41] K. Kandori, K. Kishi, T. Ishikawa, Preparation of uniform
silica hydrogel particles by SPG filter emulsification method,
Colloids Surfaces 26 (1992) 259–262.
[42] K. Hosoya, K. Yoshizako, K. Kimata, N. Tanaka,
Chromatographic properties of uniformly sized macroporous
polymer particles prepared using SPG emulsification,
Chromatography 18 (4) (1997) 226–227.
[43] S. Omi, K. Kaneka, A. Nakayama, K. Katami, T. Taguchi,
M. Iso, M. Nagai, M.G.-H. Ma, Application of porous
microspheres prepared by SPG emulsification as immobilizing
carriers of glucamylase (GLuA), J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 65 (13)
(1997) 2655–2664.