Advertisement

Biosurfactants pp 102-120 | Cite as

Biomimetic Amphiphiles: Properties and Potential Use

  • S. K. Mehta
  • Shweta Sharma
  • Neena Mehta
  • Swaranjit Singh Cameotra
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 672)

Abstract

Surfactants are the amphiphilic molecules that tend to alter the interfacial and surface tension. The fundamental property related to the structure of surfactant molecules is their self-aggregation resulting in the formation of association colloids. Apart from the packing of these molecules into closed structures, the structural network also results in formation of extended bilayers, which are thermodynamically stable and lead to existence of biological membranes and vesicles. From biological point of view the development of new knowledge and techniques in the area of vesicles, bilayers and multiplayer membranes and their polymerizable analogue provide new opportunities for research in the respective area. ‘Green Surfactants’ or the biologically compatible surfactants are in demand to replace some of the existing surfactants and thereby reduce the environmental impact, in general caused by classic surfactants. In this context, the term ‘natural surfactants or biosurfactants’ is often used to indicate the natural origin of the surfactant molecules. Most important aspect of biosurfactants is their environmental acceptability, because they are readily biodegradable and have low toxicity than synthetic surfactants. Some of the major applications of biosurfactants in pollution and environmental control are microbial enhanced oil recovery, hydrocarbon degradation, hexa-chloro cyclohexane (HCH) degradation and heavy-metal removal from contaminated soil. In this chapter, we tried to make a hierarchy from vital surfactant molecules toward understanding their behavioral aspects and application potential thereby ending into the higher class of broad spectrum ‘biosurfactants’. Pertaining to the budding promise offered by these molecules, the selection of the type and size of each structural moiety enables a delicate balance between surface activity and biological function and this represents the most effective approach of harnessing the power of molecular self-assembly.

Keywords

Cationic Surfactant Zwitterionic Surfactant Microbial Surfactant Association Colloid Sponge Phase 
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.
    Atwood D, Florence AT. Surfactant Systems; Their Chemistry, Pharmacy and Biology. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen MJ. Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomenon. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tanford C. The Hydrophobic Effect. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmberg K, Jonsson B et al. Surfactants and polymers in solution. 2nd ed. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holmes MC. Intermediate phases of surfactant-water mixtures. Current Opinion in Colloid Interface Sci 1998; 3:485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan A. Phase science of surfactants. Current Opinion in Colloid Interface Sci 1996; 1:614–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosen MJ, Solash J. Factors affecting initial foam height in the Ross-Miles foam test. J Am Oil Chemists Soc 1969; 46(8):399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wyn-Jones E, Gormally J. Aggregation process in Solutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schick MJ. ed. Non-ionic surfactants, New York, M. Dekker, 1967.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jungermann E. ed. Cationic surfactants, New York, M. Dekker, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linfield WM. ed. Anionic surfactants, New York, M. Dekker, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Somasundaran P, Kunjappu JT. In situ investigation of adsorbed surfactants and polymers on solids in solution. Colloids Surfaces 1989; 37:245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Griffith JC, Alexander AE. Equilibrium adsorption isotherms for wool/detergent systems: I. The adsorption of sodium dodecyl sulfate by wool. J Colloid Interface Sci 1967; 25:311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giles GH. Surfactant Adsorption at Solid/Liquid Interface, in Anionic Surfactants; Physical Chemistry of Action, Surfactant Science Series, Vol. II, New York: M. Dekker, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mukerjee P, Mysels KJ. Critical micelle concentration of aqueous surfactant systems, NSRDS-NBS 36, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 1971.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McBain JW. Colloids and their viscosity. Trans Faraday Soc 1913; 9:99.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartley GS. Aqueous solutions of paraffin chain salt. Peris: Harmann, 1936.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harkins WD. A cylindrical model for the small soap micelle. J Chem Phys 1948; 16:156–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Debye P, Anacker EW. Micelle shape from dissymmetry measurements. J Phys Colloid Chem 1951; 55:644–655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reich I. Factors responsible for the stability of detergent micelles. J Phys Chem 1956; 60:257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moroi Y. Micelles: Theoretical and Applied Aspects. New York: Plenum Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith AL. Theory and Practice of Emulsion Technology. New York: Academic, 1976.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greek BF. Sales of detergents growing despite recession. Chem Eng News 1991; 69:25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Volkering F, Breure AM et al. Microbiological aspects of surfactant use for biological soil remediation Biodegradation 1998; 8:401–417.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karanath NGK, Deo PG et al. Microbial production of biosurfactants and their importance. Curr Sci 1999; 77:116.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desai JD, Banat IM. Microbial production of surfactants and their commercial potential. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1997; 61:47–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banat IM, Makkar RS et al. Potential commercial applications of microbial surfactants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2000; 53(5):495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Desai AJ, Patel KM et al. Emulsifier production by Pseudomonas fluorescents during the growth on hydrocarbons. Curr Sci 1988; 57:500–501.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenberg E. Microbial surfactants. Crit Rev Biotechnol 1986; 3:109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenberg E, Ron EZ. High-and low-molecular-mass microbial surfactants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1999; 52(2):154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gautam KK, Tyagi VK. Microbial surfactants: a review. J Oleo Sci 2006; 55:155–166.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jarvis FG, Johnson MJA. A glycolipid produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1949; 71:4124–4126.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li ZY, Lang S et al. Formation and identification of interfacial-active glycolipids from resting microbial cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 1984; 48:610–617.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yakimov MM, Timmis KN et al. Characterization of a new lipopeptide surfactant produced by thermotolerant and halotolerant subsurface Bacillus licheniformis BAS50. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:1706–1713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kappeli O, Finnerty WR. Partition of alkane by an extracellular vesicle derived from hexadecane-grown Acinetobacter. J Bacteriol 1979; 140:707–712.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cooper DG, MacDonald CR et al. Enhanced production of surfactin from Bacillus subtilis by continuous product removal and metal cation additions. Appl Environ Microbiol 1981; 42:408–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hisatsuka K, Nakahara T et al. Formation of rhamnolipid by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and its function in hydrocarbon fermentation. Agric Biol Chem 1971; 35:686–692.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mclnerney MJ, Javaheri M et al. Properties of biosurfactants produced by Bacillus liqueniformis strain JF-2 I. J Microbiol Biotechnol 1990; 5:95–102.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Poremba K, Gunkel W et al. Toxicity testing of synthetic and biogenic surfactants on marine microorganisms. Environ Toxicol Water Qual 1991; 6:157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh A, Van Hamme JD et al. Surfactants in microbiology and biotechnology: Part 2. Application aspects. Biotechnol Adv 2007; 25:99–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Post FJ, Al-Harjan FA. Surface activity of halobacteria and potentail use in microbial enhanced oil recovery System. Appl Microbiol 1988; 11:97–101.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Voigt B, Mueller H et al. Antiphytovirale Aktivität von lipophilen Fraktionen aus der Hefe Lodderomyces elongisporus IMET H 128. Acta Biotechnol 1985; 5:313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lindley ND, Heydemann MT. The uptake of n-alkanes from alkane mixtures during growth of the hydrocarbon-utilizing fungus Cladosporium resinae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1986; 23(5):384–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Foght JM, Gutnick DL et al. Effect of Emulsan on Biodegradation of Crude Oil by Pure and Mixed Bacterial Cultures. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55:36–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Atlas RM. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental. Microbiol Rev 1981; 45(1):180–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Doris MS, Ramesha N et al. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Advances in Seed Science and Technology, University of Mysore, Mysore, India, 1990, p. 368.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Therisod M, Klibanov AM. Facile enzymatic preparation of monoacylated sugars in pyridine. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1986; 108:5638–5640.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Imura T, Yanagishita H et al. Coacervate formation from natural glycolipid: one acetyl group on the headgroup triggers coacervate-to-vesicle transition. J Am Chem Soc 2004; 126:10804–10805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Imura T, Yanagishita H et al. Thermodynamically stable vesicle formation from glycolipid biosurfactant sponge phase. Colloids Surfaces B 2005; 43:115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sanchez M, Aranda FJ et al. Aggregation behaviour of a dirhamnolipid biosurfactant secreted by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in aqueous media. J Colloid Interface Sci 2007; 307:246–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rosen MJ, Li F et al. The relationship between the interfacial properties of surfactants and their toxicity to aquatic organisms. Environ Sci Technol 2001; 35:954–959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Mehta
    • 1
  • Shweta Sharma
    • 2
  • Neena Mehta
    • 1
  • Swaranjit Singh Cameotra
    • 3
  1. 1.S.D.D. Dental CollegeGolpura BarwalaIndia
  2. 2.Center of Advanced Studies in Chemistry Department of ChemistryPanjab UniversityIndia
  3. 3.Institute of Microbial Technology and Microbial Type Culture Collection and Gene BankInternational Development AssociationChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations