FILTRATION

Filtration
the facts
A survey of systems and methods
In my early
Whitbread days, it
was always Process
and Packaging but
when the bigger
breweries were built
it became part of the
brewing area, mainly
because filtration
problems were often
pushed back upstream in the
brewery. We were
brewing lager and
had to deal with beta
glucans which
gummed up the
works and yeast that
refused to settle to
the bottom of tall
cylindroconical
tanks.

The diverse nature of

kieselguhr as seen under
a microscope.

When I first started in the brewing industry, filtration

was something carried out down in the cellars or
across in the packaging store. Even in France where I
worked in my first brewery, it was dans les caves.
Today, with take-home beer beginning to outstrip onsales, beer with a 12 month shelf life required closer
attention to filtration and stabilisation. With
consolidation of breweries and focus on capacity
utilisation and efficiency of packaging lines, beer
quality and filter problems are no longer acceptable.
Right first time is the requirement.

By Paul Buttrick
Beer Dimensions

have been an examiner for the

IBD Master Brewer examinations
for many years, and questions on
filtration were often poorly
answered and showed a lack of
experience and understanding,
compared to other areas such as
brewhouse and fermentation. This
may have been due to where
responsibilities lie for filtration and
there were debates about whether it
was a brewing or packaging
responsibility. In my early
Whitbread days, it was always
Process and Packaging but when
the bigger breweries were built it
became part of the brewing area
mainly because filtration problems
were often pushed back up-stream in
the brewery. We were brewing lager
and had to deal with beta glucans
which gummed up the works and
yeast that refused to settle to the
bottom of tall cylindroconical tanks.

The basics
Like all things, the laws of science
dictate performance and Darcy from
way back in 1856 still shows the
way. The table below develops his
law and applies it to filtration :
Applying this equation, it is easy to

12

see how filter design affects beer

filtration.
Maximum pressure drop allowed
across a filter
On early 60cm plate and frame
filters, the maximum allowable inlet
pressure was 3 bar, for later versions
and 100cm frames, this went up to 7
bar, so the newer filters gave a large
potential increase in filter run
lengths. It is easy to see how one of
the easiest and most cost effective
ways to increase filtration capacity
in a small brewery was to replace an
old 60cm filter with a more modern
100cm version.
Filter area:
The 100 cm plate and frame filter
gave the possibility of large filtration
areas, so pressure drops were low
and filter runs long. However with a
flow-rates of 2.53.5 hl/m2/h, the
area needed to be large to get a fast
flow-rate compared to vessel filters
designed for 510 hl/m2/h, although

flow on vessel filters tend now to be

nearer the lower rate. On vessel
filters, the filtration area is dictated
by the number of candles or screens.
Flowrates on kieselguhr-free
crossflow filters are slower at 0.5
1.0 hl/m2/h
Filter cake thickness:
This is dependent on the solids
content of the beer and dosing rate
of body-feed powder. Breweries
which install centrifuges reduce the
solids presented to the filter, are able
to make large increases in filtration
performance and capacity. The
sludge capacity, that is the amount
of powder that can be put into a filter
will dictate the filter run length and
reducing the body-feed dosing rate
enables more beer to be filtered. The
frames of the larger plate and frame

Flow rate = Permeability factor Pressure drop Area of filtration surface

Filter bed thickness Liquid viscosity
Pressure Drop = Flow rate Filter bed thickness Liquid viscosity
Permeability factor Area of filtration surface

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

(Photo: Puresep.)

MAIN PICTURE: Four

fully automated 600 hl/h
Filtrox kieselguhr and
PVPP candle filter lines
installed in Becks
brewery Germany in
2002.

frame filters. At Magor, now part of

InBev, long runs of very high quality
filtered beer are achieved using high
area filters run at slow flow rates
with quite low porosity powders.
With these regimes it is possible to
achieve yeast-free filtrate on a
100ml aerobic plating of beer from
the outlet of the filter.

ABOVE: A 100 cm plate

and frame filter, still
used in many UK
breweries.

Choice of powders

filters have comparatively more

capacity than vessel filters. The
standard frame was 40mm deep, and
some companies increased this to
50mm to increase filtration run
lengths

(Schematic: Krones.)

Beer viscosity:
I can remember, over 25 years ago,
spending many hours in the
Samlesbury Brewery brewhouse
doing starch tests on wort with my
fellow brewer the late Bill Barker
we were known as Starchy and
Husk after a well know pair of
American detectives. Better
brewhouse procedures and a malt
specification to reduce beta glucans
in the wort, sometimes with the aid
of added beta glucanase, made sure
we were able to filter plenty of lager
in the hot summers of the late
seventies.

build up than coarser powder. A

compromise was needed because the
finer the powder used, the better and
brighter the filtered beer. It is also
important to remember that vessel
filters which are run at faster flow
rates generally use coarser filter
powders to keep the pressure
differential down.
When all is considered, it is easy
to see why some companies
continue to use 100cm plate and

The choice of filter powders has not

changed much over the years in that
kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) is
still the preferred material. No other
material gives quite the same
filtration performance. Perlites made
from volcanic rock are increasingly
used for a first precoat, but few use it
for second precoat and bodyfeed.
The main driver for brewers moving
away from kieselguhrs is health and
safety, where particularly flux
calcined-white powders (heated in
the presence of caustic soda) contain
high levels of crystalline quartz
(crystoballite) which is known to
cause serious lung diseases.
The white flux calcined powders

Schematic of the
Steinecker TFS filter.
This filter is specifically
designed to give an even
powder coating over the
whole candle.

Permeability:
The pressure differential across a
filter bed is determined by the
permeability of the filter bed, which
is dictated by the size and porosity
of the filter powder. Very fine
powder produces a quicker pressure

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

13

FILTRATION

The Pall Big Bagbulk

handling system, using
0.5 tonne bags of filter
powder at Reissdorf in
Kln.

best not to make them too big (say a

maximum of a days supply)
because continual stirring can
degrade particles which will block
the filter rather than keep the bed
open. Also because it is very
abrasive, slurry pump design and
maintenance is key to operations. It
is also important to make sure that
the stirrer in the tank is either backed
up with a spare or alarmed because
powders settle and set like concrete
if they are not kept in suspension
digging them out is not fun.

Big Bags

The Pall ZHF Primus is equipped

with Durafil
screens of 30micron size that
only requires the
equivalent of a
working precoat.
Other filters
including some
candle filters also
have 30-micron
gaps, although
Filtrox have
remained with a 70
micron gap which
is said to be less
prone to blocking
and has better
cleanability.

have larger particles and are

generally used for the first precoat.
Perlites are now used for this purpose
in many UK breweries. Perlites are
difficult to manufacture in fine
grades and do not have the absorptive
properties of kieselguhrs which give
brilliant beers. There are very few
breweries who use a complete perlite
regime and these use sheet filtration
afterwards to give their beer its final
brilliance. Many filters using
kieselguhr do not use polishing
filters, but go straight to packaging
which includes either flash or tunnel
pasteurisation.
Some filter manufacturers have
designed their filters to work without
a first precoat.
The Pall ZHF Primus is
equipped with Durafil screens of
30- micron size that only requires the
equivalent of a working precoat.
Other filters including some candle
filters also have 30-micron gaps,
although Filtrox have remained with
a 70- micron gap which is said to be
less prone to blocking and has better
cleanability.

With filter powders, being classed

as hazardous materials, companies
have sought to protect their people
from the dust. There have been many
designs for handling 20kg paper
sacks in a special cabinet with bag
splitters and vacuum dust removers.
Some have been more successful
than others and some have been
more dust dispersers than offering
personal protection. The level of
protection tends to go with the
amount of powder used, with
smaller users still putting powder
directly into the dosing tanks, the
operator being protected with a face
mask specific for kieselguhr dust.
Filter powders are only hazardous
in powder form, so it is quite
common to see powder slurries
mixed with water in a separate area
from the filter room and then
transferred to the dosing tank when
needed. Another method is to have a
separate area above the filter room
with powders sent directly into the
dosing tanks below.
A little advice from experience
when designing slurry tanks, it is

The KHS Kometronic

system

FAR RIGHT: A KHS

Kometronic precoat
filter using regenerable
cellulose fibres on trial
with only one chamber
in the stack.

14

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

(Diagramand photo: KHS.)

RIGHT: Diagram of a
KHS Kometronic
precoat filter using
regenerable cellulose
fibres instead of
kieselguhr

Any reasonable size brewery should

be thinking of using bulk powder
supply rather than paper sacks.
Health and safety issues are greatly
reduced and man power in big plants
can be redeployed. With approx 10hl
filtered per kg of filter aid, a brewery
of 500,000 hl will be using 50 tonnes
of powder per year; about 100 halftonne big bags a year. I dont know
of any brewery currently using
tanker delivery and bulk silo storage
of filter powders, the main problem
here is the availability and cost of
bulk powder tankers and the capital
cost of a silo system.
Even for big bag handling, the
number of powders used should be
kept to a minimum, in most cases a
first precoat, second precoat and
body feed should be enough, and
very often the second precoat and
body feed is the same powder. Some
filter aid suppliers recommend
mixing powders, not something I am
too keen on to me it is a bit too
much of a black art or a three of
sand plus one of cement approach.
The cost of supplying kieselguhr
in big bags is similar to that of
paper sacks. Some quite cost
effective powder fluidising and
transfer systems have been installed
and can be justified on health and
safety as well as manpower savings
for sack handling, although civil
costs can be high. A large brewery

(Diagram and photo: Norit.)

using 200 tonnes of filter aid per

year, would be handling 10,000
20kg paper sacks so it must make
sense to reduce this to 400 halftonne big bags. The big bags are
made from woven polypropylene. They are not re-used in
the food industry, but may be
collected free of charge or for a
small fee for use in non-food
applications. Robinsons of
Stockport use big bag supplied by
Flexibulk, and Thwaites are about to
install a big bag powder handling
system to be supplied by Mass
Measuring Ltd.

Disposal
Disposal costs for spent kieselguhr
is an increasing part of the total
filtration costs. With landfill being
carefully controlled, costs will only
increase. Soil injection is used by
many companies in the UK. In parts
of Germany spent kieselguhr is
already considered as a chemical
waste which is extremely expensive
to dispose of and more countries will
follow suit.
KHS are in final stages of
developing a filter system called
Kometronic incorporating a precoat
filter replacing kieselguhr with
regenerable cellulose fibres.
I know that a number of
companies are looking at
manufacturing a replacement
powder but they are not at the
commercial stage yet. I am sure
there will be long queues of
interested brewers when they
eventually come on the market as
long as the economics are sound and
the material can be used on existing
filters.

Regeneration
Pall Food and Beverage has
developed a kieselguhr regeneration
system called Befis which is used in
conjunction with their Primus filter.
This system works on the principle

Norit BMS.
ABOVE: Schematic of a
600 hl/h Norit BMF,
showing from left to
right: cold store tank,
stabilisation dosing,
recirc/retentate tank,
filter, buffer tank,
carbonator, bright beer
tank.
LEFT: A 600 hl/hr (72
module) Norit BMF
installed in a brewery in
Belgium.
of regenerating and cleaning the
spent kieselguhr from a filter with
caustic, acid and an enzyme
preparation. This material is used as
the body feed for subsequent
filtrations. A fresh, new precoat is
needed on each filter run. Overall
kieselguhr savings of 70-80% are
possible.

Which filter is best for me?

In the UK, plate and frame filters
were used extensively until the
1970s. The plates and frames were
mostly 60 cm with flow rates limited
to 100hl/hr. This gave a typical run
length of 1000 hl in ten hours. The
introduction of the Seitz Orion 100
cm2 filters enabled a step change in
throughputs where flow rates over
320 hl/hr were possible. A maximum
67 bar inlet pressure allowed a
differential pressure of 5 Bar (75 psi)
and gave run lengths of over 4000 hl
and with centrifuges and
optimisation runs over 24 hours are
achieved. The large sludge volume
enabled much longer runs and even
some 200 cm2 frame filters were
introduced. The problem was that the
downtime to wash off, clean and
sterilise the filters was 46 hours and
required a lot of manual input.
Although attempts were made to
automate cleaning of plate and frame
filters, they were not successful, so

automated vessel filters were

introduced.
Candle filters and other screen
filters were already in use on the
continent. In the 1980s, candle filters
and horizontal screen filters were
most popular. Candle filters had
comparatively small sludge volumes
which restricted filter run lengths,
they were the answer for breweries
who wanted large volumes filtered in
a short time. Also, because the vessel
volume was large, losses were high
because of the water-beer interfaces
at the start and end of the run. A
problem also associated with the
large plate and frame filters.
The introduction of large
horizontal screen filters was a major
step forward. This enabled long filter
runs at fast flow rate and because the
filter cake sat on a horizontal screen
the filters could be emptied using
carbon dioxide gas through low level
rest elements which were not used
during the main filtration. The
beginning and end of filter runs could
be free of beer-water interfaces, so
losses were greatly reduced.
Because of the horizontal screens,
the filtration could be halted the
bed was stable, whereas the bed on a
candle would slip off. The same was
true during a power interruption. The
main manufacturers with the
exception of Filtrox concentrated on

Disposal costs for

spent kieselguhr is
an increasing part of
the total filtration
costs. With landfill
being carefully
controlled, costs will
only increase. Soil
injection is used by
many companies in
the UK. In parts of
Germany spent
kieselguhr is already
considered as a
chemical waste
which is extremely
expensive to
dispose of and more
countries will follow
suit.

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

15

FILTRATION

(Photo: Pall Corporation 2007.)

Membrane modules
(each of 12m2) on a Pall
Profi filter installed at
Carlsberg in Fredericia
which processes up to
480hl per hour.

horizontal-screen filters. It seemed

that the candle filter was becoming
outclassed. Horizontal-screen filters
had many advantages, but changes to
brewing practice and a need for
simplicity has seen a come back by
the candle filter, with many of the
concerns being answered.
The introduction
of large horizontal
screen filters was a
major step
forward. This
enabled long filter
runs at fast flow
rate and because
the filter cake sat
on a horizontal
screen the filters
could be emptied
using carbon
dioxide gas
through low level
rest elements
which were not
used during the
main filtration.

16

Candle filters make a

comeback
The complexity of moving parts and
seals on the screen filters produced
engineering headaches for some, so
the simplicity and lack of moving
parts in the candle filter again
became attractive. Filtrox (Synox),
KHS (Getra Eco) and Steinecker
(TFS) all looked at the more
negative aspects of candle filters and
came out with innovations, to
improve the efficiency and running
cost. New wedgewire designs
replaced the scalloped ring candle
which are easier to keep clean and
give a more even powder coating.
For example, in the Filtrox Synox
PF candle filter launched at Brau
2004, an optimised version of the
successful Filtrojet filter, the filter
area was increased by introducing a
25 mm instead of a 33mm diameter
candle. The smaller diameter candle
enabled more units to be put into the
housing. The overall effect was to
allow more filtration area and sludge
space and less relative void volume
which contributed to losses in the
form of water-beer interfaces at the
beginning and end of a filter run. The
increased use of high gravity
brewing meant that beer at the
beginning of a filter run could be run
into a tank at very low gravity
(assuming deaerated water is used to
charge and pre-coat the filter) which
could be compensated for by

running in a precalculated volume of

high gravity beer, thereby
eliminating losses at start up.
Similarly, at the end of the run, the
blending water can be shut down
early to compensate for weaker beer
being run at the end of the run
although care should be taken to
ensure proper mixing. The same
system could also be applied to a
large plate and frame filter and some
brewers who installed horizontal
screen filters never use the blow
down facility. It must also be
remembered that when a filter is
blown down with CO2, the filter
cake contains full gravity (often high
gravity) beer, so the losses are not
zero as some have claimed.
Another development by
Steinecker (Krones) is the TFS-Twin
Flow System candle filter introduced
in 2000. This filter is different in that
there is no filtered beer section of the
filter vessel. The rough beer comes
into the vessel, filtered beer comes
out through the candles into a
manifold within the body of the filter
which feeds directly into the filter
outlet pipe. Ten percent of the flow
through the filter is recirculated from
the bright back to the rough side in
order to give an improved
distribution of filter aid particularly
at the top of the candle. The TFS is
also designed to be used without a
first precoat.
So which powder filters are
available and who makes them? The
main filter suppliers have
consolidated over the years, with
only Filtrox remaining independent
and having the same ownership. Pall
bought Seitz-Schenk in 2002, while
Steinecker became part of Krones
and SEN became part of KHS. Table
1 shows the main manufacturers and

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

brand name of various powder

filters.

Kieselguhr-free filtration
The issues associated with powder
handling and disposal of spent filter
powder have led to companies
developing kieselguhr-free systems
based on cross flow technology. This
technology is extensively used for
cider and wine, so what is the
situation with beer? Early attempts
by APV in the 1980s to filter beer
using ceramic membranes were
unsuccessful, but at least three major
players currently have systems in
use in breweries. The 0.7- 1.0 hl/m2
flow rates on cross flow filters are
slow compared with powder filters.
The principal of cross flow filtration
is straight forward with the
unfiltered beer circulating across a
polymeric 0.450.6 micron
membrane. A cross-flow rate of
approx 1.2 m/s has a pressure which
is above the pressure on the filtered
beer side of the membrane (this is
called the trans-membrane
differential pressure).
The pressure difference between
the rough and bright side of the
membrane provides the force to
push the beer through the membrane
and take out any particles. Because
there is a fast flow across the
membrane perpendicular to the flow
through the membrane, there is little
build up of solids. There is no dead
end filter bed to go through as in a
conventional filter, so there is no
static filter bed build up and hence
little pressure build up. There will
be some build up of solid material
on the membrane which will cause a
rise in the trans-membrane pressure,
and the process will continue until a
pressure difference of about 1.5 bar
is reached. The manufacturers of
cross-flow filters all use an interim
pulsing or backwashing
technique to disturb any solid build
up and reduce the trans membrane
pressure. A stage is reached when
the trans membrane pressure will
not reduce, in which case a chemical
clean is carried out.
If we are looking at the physics of
filtration, the same principles apply
crossflow filtration is enhanced by
a large surface area, thin filter bed,
and slow flow rate/m2, so there is
slower pressure build up compared
with conventional filtration.
The three systems presented by Pall,
Norit and Alfa Laval, all use
polyethersulphone membranes put
together in a series of modules.

FILTRATION

(Photos: Alfa Laval.)

Alfa Laval systems.

RIGHT: A 300 hl/h
Alfafine membrane filter
in operation in a
brewery in Western
Europe since 2005
FAR RIGHT: A 0.7m2
Sartoconmembrane
cartridge used on a
Alfabright membrane
filter.

Another
development by
Steinecker (Krones)
is the TFS-Twin Flow
System candle filter
introduced in 2000.
This filter is different
in that there is no
filtered beer section
of the filter vessel.
The rough beer
comes into the
vessel, filtered beer
comes out through
the candles into a
manifold within the
body of the filter
which feeds directly
into the filter outlet
pipe.

Norit and Pall use hollow fibre

modules and Alfa Laval use a series
of cassettes to make up the filter. A
large recirculation pump is used to
provide the fluid flow across the
membrane. Table 2 compares the
systems features (previous page).
Cross-flow membrane filters
produce a yeast free filtrate (due to
0.4-0.65 micron pore size) Suppliers
have also reported improved hazes
in bright beer as well as better
flavour and haze stability due to
reduced oxygen and iron pick up
from filter powders. This is a good
start, but only with longer term use
and experience will these
improvements be substantiated.

The cross-flow players

Norit is a Dutch company which
specialises in purification
technology, including water and
other beverages. The BMF-200 beer
filter was introduced to the market

at Drinktec 2001, and extensive

work has been carried out with
Heineken. A filter with the
capability of up to 200 hl/h has 24
filtration modules of 9.8m2 filtration
area each. The membranes are 0.5
micron PTS (polyethersulphone),
each consisting of 2800 1.5 mm
diameter fibres. In process terms,
the filtration flow rate is 0.8hl/m2/h
and the cross flow rate is 1.2 m/s. A
system pressure of 3 bar gives a
maximum trans membrane pressure
of 1.2 bar. The filters have a typical
average run length of 20 hours
which includes a small number of
backflushes, to reduce the trans
membrane pressure and allow CIP.
The chemical based clean using an
oxidising agent and membrane
cleaner takes 2.5 hrs and is carried
out when the membranes become
partially blinded.
Pall Food and Beverage is a
global company, well known to the

Table 1: Main manufactures and

brand name of their powder filters
Company

Plate and frame

Horizontal screen

Candle

Filtrox
KHS
Pall/Schenk
Krones/Steinecker

Novox
Orion
Niro
-

Filter-o-mat
Cosmos
Primus
Steineker FS 130K

Synox PF
Getra Eco
Ecoflux
Steineker TFS

brewing industry, which specialises

in filtration technology. The Profi
system was developed in
conjunction with GEA Westfalia
Separators and a great deal of
development work has been carried
out with Carlsberg. A filter with the
capability of up to 240 hl/h has 20
filtration modules of 12 m2
filtration area each.
The membranes are 0.65 micron
PTS (polyethersulphone). In
process terms, the filtration flow
rate is up to 1.0 hl/m2/h. The
system is designed in blocks of
modules, which are taken out in
sequence for cleaning, thus
allowing a continuous operation.
Because the beer solids are mostly
removed by the centrifuge, no
retentate buffer tank is required,
and the volume of beer involved in
beer changes is low. Beer changes
and the end of batch operations are
carried out by blowing out the
system with CO2.
Like the Profi system, Alfabright
is based on a combination of a
centrifuge from Alfa Laval and a
membrane system supplied by
German filtration specialist
Sartorious. A typical system

Table 2 Comparing available kieselguhr-free filtration systems

Configuration
Module size
Size/modules etc
Membrane
Pore size
Flow rates
Number in use

18

Norit
Batch or continuous
9.8 m2
Blocks of 24 modules up to max
of 72 (600 hl/h)
Polyethersulphone
0.5 micron
0.8 hl/m2/h
19

Pall Alfa
Continuous
12 m2
Blocks of 20 modules (up to
240 hl/h per block)
Polyethersulphone
0.65 micron
0.5 1hl/m2/h
11

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

Laval
Continuous
0.7 m2 cassette
Up to 432 cassettes
(up to 300 hl/h)
Polyethersulphone
0.6 micron
0.7 hl/m2/h
2

designed for 225 hl/hr based on

302m2 of filtration area (0.75
hl/m2/hr). The membrane filter is
made up of a number of 0.7 m2
Sartocon cassettes with a 0.6
micron PES membrane. This design
is different from Norit and Pall in
that the membrane cassettes have a
very narrow distance between
membranes 120 microns, which
according to Alfa Laval enables the
filter to be run using lower
powered, smaller recirculation
pumps. The compact design of the
cassette is also said to give a more
stable membrane and optimium
cleaning characteristics which have
a positive impact on membrane life.
The filter system works
continuously, with sections taken
out for cleaning every 2-5 hours.

Do you need a centrifuge?

There continues to be a debate about
whether a centrifuge is required to
clean beer before it is filtered on a
crossflow filter. Pall and Alfa Laval

recommend using a centrifuge to

reduce yeast load on the
membranes. Norit argue against the
need for a centrifuge because they
believe a separator does not remove
the small particles (< 0.5 micron)
which are responsible for blocking
pores on the filter. The Norit system
includes a retentate/recirculation
tank where the solids removed from
the beer are collected. In the
Alfabright and Profi systems, the
solids are mostly removed by the
upstream centrifuge.
Centrifuges are very costly to buy
and operate and not having to
include one in a new filtration
scheme gives a big financial
advantage to the Norit system. Like
all new technologies, the debate will
continue and only plant
performance and experience will
dictate whether centrifugation is
necessary.
Another unknown is the
robustness and reliability of the
membranes and until better

Another unknown
is the robustness
and reliability of the
membranes and
until better
guarantees and
replacement costs
are substantiated,
many brewers will
not take the
kieselguhr-free
route.

guarantees and replacement costs

are substantiated, many brewers will
not take the kieselguhr-free route.
However there have been huge
strides in membrane technology and
it is widely used in other industries,
so the time will come when brewers
feel more confident to embrace the
powder-free route. For companies
with a longer term view of capital
investment on strategic items,
overall project lifetime costs may
well be better on cross-flow than
current powder systems, when
everything including energy and
environmental cost is considered. In
the mean time, only continued
development and experience will
confirm whether crossflow is the
future for beer filtration.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank those
companies who supplied information
and images in the preparation of this
article

ADVERTISERS ANNOUNCEMENT

Puresep optimising your filtration performance

Technical Consultation

Puresep offers a range of spare parts, filter

accessories and auxiliary equipment for KG
and sheet filters, enabling our service
engineers to quickly solve your plant issues,
making Puresep the ideal choice for helping
you solve any filtration process or plant
difficulties you may encounter.

Our engineers are experts in the filtration and

separation process. We can provide you with
a dedicated team of specialists according to
your equipment and business needs,

Plant Installation and commissioning

Professional installation, commissioning and
on time start up of equipment is essential if
productivity is to be optimal. Our on-site
flexibility enables us to adapt fully to your site
requirements so that there is minimum
disruption to your production.

Upgrades and refurbishments

New requirements and the need for greater
production capacities mean that the
equipment you previously invested in may not
be running at optimum performance.
Refurbishment and upgrading of the existing
plant is often a practical and cost effective
alternative to extend a systems life.

Service and Maintenance Agreements

Plant Optimisation

A 100 cm plate and frame filter.

Our bespoke service and maintenance

agreements provide security, reliability,
peace of mind and long term value for money
by maintaining your equipment at optimum operating efficiency.
Unplanned stoppages and failures are reduced or eliminated by the routine
inspection of their potential causes.

Spare Parts and Exchange Components

To save you time, expense and frustration, we maintain an emergency
supply of vital and frequently required reconditioned components and
spare parts, pre-assembled, tested and ready for immediate installation.
We can remove the faulty component from the site and give you an
approved overhauled and reconditioned component in exchange.

Repairs
Machine and equipment failure brings processes to a halt, making repairs
a serious matter. When this happens our single priority is to minimise your
downtime. We have a network of local specialist engineers ready to
respond whenever an emergency occurs.

We pride ourselves on working with you to

help you get the most out of your filtration
equipment and put your production, profits
and competitive strength where they should
be at maximum. and compliant with your
industry QA requirements.

Training Programmes
It is vital that your personnel operate your plant in the most efficient and
cost effective way possible. We can work with you to provide a training
program to suit your needs.
For further information on our services or any other enquiry contact us
today:
Puresep Filtration Technologies Ltd
Bromyard Road Trading Estate, Bromyard Road, Ledbury
Herefordshire HR8 1NS
Tel: +44 (0) 1531 636 328
Fax: +44 (0) 1531 634 012
Email: info@puresep.com
www.puresep.com

Puresep Filtration Technologies Ltd is a member of the Puresep Holdings group

The BREWER & DISTILLER INTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Issue 12 December 2007 www.ibd.org.uk

19