Effect of Protein Denaturation on Void Fraction in Foam Separation Column

  • Robert D. Tanner
  • Tobias Parker
  • Samuel Ko
  • Yuqing Ding
  • Veara Loha
  • Liping Du
  • Ales̆ Prokop
Chapter
Part of the Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology book series (ABAB)

Abstract

Foam fractionation is a cost-effective process that uses air to extract protein from a liquid (in this case “crude” dilute egg-albumin solution). This article deals with how the void fraction (fraction of air in the aerated solution) of foam is affected by heat denaturation of the protein. A 2-mm glass tube was used to sample the foam-liquid interface fluid in a 35-mm-diameter column in order to detect small changes in void fraction and foam production, which are not easily detected directly from the bulk foam. The main control variable in this study was the protein solution preheating time. As the preheating time increased, the initial void fraction in the column decreased. The initial void fraction of the undenatured solution ranged from about 0.73 to 0.80, and the void fraction for significant preheating times of 5 min ranged from approx 0.68 to 0.72. Furthermore, the period of foam production increased from 5 to 7 min for undenatured proteins in solution to as long 15 min for 5-min preheated solutions. Side-port sampling through a small capillary tube has the potential to be used as a rapid and inexpensive way to determine the level of protein denaturation by directly determining the void fraction and then estimating the effect of denaturation from a protein denaturation calibration curve of the void fraction.

Index Entries

Egg albumin protein denaturation foam fractionation hydrophobicity void fraction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arntfield, S. D., Murray, E. D., Ismond, M. A. H., and Bernatsky, A. M. (1989), J. Food Sci. 54(6), 1624–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allewell, N. M. (1993), Trends Biochem. Sci. 18, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loha, V., Prokop, A., Du, L., and Tanner, R. D. (1998), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 77/79, 701–712.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greaves, M. and Kobbacy, K. A. H. (1984), Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 62, 3–12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barigou, M. and Greaves, M. (1991), Meas. Sci. Technol. 2, 318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, Z., Dai, G., and Chen, M. (1989), J. Chem. Eng. Chin. Univ. (Gaoxiao Huagong Xuebao) 3(2), 42–49 (in Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert D. Tanner
    • 1
  • Tobias Parker
    • 1
  • Samuel Ko
    • 1
  • Yuqing Ding
    • 1
  • Veara Loha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liping Du
    • 1
  • Ales̆ Prokop
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.King Mongkut’s Institute of TechnologyThonburiThailand

Personalised recommendations