Impacts of automated bioprocess systems on modern biological research

  • B. Sonnleitner
  • A. Fiechter
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology book series (ABE, volume 46)

Abstract

Bioprocess automation is mandatory to boost biotechnology from an empirical discipline to a natural science. Bioprocesses can be made more reproducible and predictable than generally expected by exploitation of modern high-tech biotechnology hard- and software.

Consequently, biological effects can be distinguished from technical ones, physiological states can be automatically detected and differentiated. Entire populations can even be forced into a certain, desired physiological state. Mathematical models help to resolve analytical insufficiencies and are most helpful in validating mechanistic hypotheses. With all the valuable information from hard- and software sensors available nowadays, the way is paved for the routine implementation of high performance process operation, for instance of integrated processes.

Keywords

Dilution Rate Volumetric Productivity Open Loop Control Pattern Recognition Algorithm Mechanistic Hypothesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schügerl K (1990) ECB5, Copenhagen, Proc 2: 1010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scheper T (1991) Bioanalytik. Vieweg, Braunschweig, DGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Locher G, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1992) J Biotechnol (in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schügerl K, Lübbert A, Scheper T (1987) Chem-Ing-Tech 59: 701Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sonnleitner B (1991) Ant v Leeuwenhoek 60: 133Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Locher G, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1991) J Biotechnol 19: 127; 19: 173Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Locher G, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1990) Bioproc Eng 5: 181Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dors M, Behrendt J, Kreibaum U, Havlik I, Wingelsdorf R, Lübbert A (1991) Biotech Forum Europe 8: 612Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sonnleitner B (1989) Habilitationsschrift, ETH ZürichGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sonnleitner B (1991) Bioproc Eng 6: 187Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Axelsson JP, Andersen MY, Jörgensen SB (1992) J Biotechnol (in preparation)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sonnleitner B, Käppeli O (1986) Biotechnol Bioeng 28: 927Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Käppeli O, Lorencez Gonzales I, Kühne A, Sonnleitner B (1988) 8th Int Biotechnol Symp, Paris, Proc 1: 467Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strässle C, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1988) J Biotechnol 7: 299Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strässle C, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1989) J Biotechnol 9: 191Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer C, Beyeler W (1984) Biotechnol Bioeng 26: 916Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Münch T, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1992) J Biotechnol 22: 329Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rohner M, Münch T, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1990) Biocatalysis 3: 37Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rohner M, Sonnleitner B, Fiechter A (1991) J Biotechnol 22: 129Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gruber M (1991) PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Sonnleitner
    • 1
  • A. Fiechter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for BiotechnologyETH Zürich HönggerbergZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations