Advertisement

Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 84, Issue 1–9, pp 1079–1086 | Cite as

Sonic wave separation of invertase from a dilute solution to generated droplets

  • Robert D. Tanner
  • Samuel Ko
  • Veara Loha
  • Ales Prokop
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

It has previously been shown that a droplet fractionation process, simulated by shaking a separatory funnel containing a dilute protein solution, can generate droplets richer in protein than present in the original dilute solution. In this article, we describe an alternative method that can increase the amount of protein transferred to the droplets. The new metho uses ultrasonic waves, enhanced by a bubble gas stream to create the droplets. The amount of protein in these droplets increases by about 50%. In this method, the top layer of the dilute protein solution (of the solution-air interface) becomes enriched in protein when air is bubbled into the solution. This concentrating procedure is called bubble fractionation. Once the protein has passed through the initial buildup, this enriched protein layer is transferred into droplets with the aid of a vacuum above the solution at the same time that ultrasonic waves are introduced. The droplets are then carried over to a condenser and coalesced. We found that this new method provides an easier way to remove the protein-enriched top layer of the dilute solution and generates more droplet within a shorter period than the separatory funnel droplet generation method. The added air creates the bubbles and carries the droplets, and the vacuum helps remove the effluent airstream from the condenser. The maximum partition coefficient, the ratio of the protein concentration in the droplets to that in the residual solution (approx 8.5), occurred at pH 5.0.

Index Entries

Sonic waves droplet fractionation invertase hydrophobicity enzymatic activity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Karger, B. L., Snyder, L. R., and Horvath, C. (1973), An Introduction to Separation Science, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 423–436.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ko, S., Loha, V., Du, L., Prokop, A., and Tanner, R. D. (1999), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 77/79, 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kokitkar, P. B. and Tanner, R. D. (1991) Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 28/29, 647–653.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradford, M. M. (1976), Anal. Biochem. 72, 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller, G. L. (1959) Anal. Chem. 31, 426–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wiseman, A. (1979), Topics in Enzyme and Fermentation Biotechnology 3, Ellis Horwood, New York, pp. 267–282.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ko, S., Loha, V., and Prokop, A., and Tanner, R. D. (1998) Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 70/72, 547–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert D. Tanner
    • 1
  • Samuel Ko
    • 1
  • Veara Loha
    • 1
  • Ales Prokop
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentVanderbilt UniversityNashville

Personalised recommendations