2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2006.03.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison and efficiency of two membranes (modified MF and UF) during enzymatic hydrolysis of haemoglobin in a membrane bioreactor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We have since developed a model to relate the partitioning into permeate and retentate in which we quantify the total liberated a-NH 2 groups based on its reaction chemistry with the TNBS. Although other EMR applicants have used the pH-stat method (Bressollier et al, 1988;Mokrane, Belhocine, & Mameri, 2006) it is doubtful whether the results reflect the actual EMR hydrolysis scenario because we have since demonstrated that the pH-stat exaggerated the DH when compared to the TNBS in our modification (unpublished results). The amount of PA soluble in 10% TCA fitted poorly into the model.…”
Section: Degree Of Hydrolysismentioning
confidence: 88%
“…We have since developed a model to relate the partitioning into permeate and retentate in which we quantify the total liberated a-NH 2 groups based on its reaction chemistry with the TNBS. Although other EMR applicants have used the pH-stat method (Bressollier et al, 1988;Mokrane, Belhocine, & Mameri, 2006) it is doubtful whether the results reflect the actual EMR hydrolysis scenario because we have since demonstrated that the pH-stat exaggerated the DH when compared to the TNBS in our modification (unpublished results). The amount of PA soluble in 10% TCA fitted poorly into the model.…”
Section: Degree Of Hydrolysismentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In, Hee, and Oh (2002) used an osmometric method to determine the DH of only the permeate, while other workers who studied EMR hydrolysis of proteins did not report any determination of the DH at all (Chiang, Shih, & Chu, 1999;D'Alvise, Lesueur-Lambert, Fertin, Dhulster & Guillochon, 2000;Deeslie & Cheryan, 1981;Je, Kim, & Kim, 2005;Mannheim & Cheryan, 1990;Martin-Orue, Henry, & Bouhallab, 1999;Perea & Ugalde, 1996). Meanwhile Bressollier, Petit, and Julien (1988), Lin, Chiang, Cordle, and Thomas (1997) and Mokrane, Belhocine, and Mameri (2006) controversially used the pH-stat method to calculate the DH of EMR hydrolysis processes, which likely led to an exaggeration of the final DH in the EMR, owing to leakage of the alkali used to regulate the pH during hydrolysis in membrane reactors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its operation simulates size exclusion chromatography (Ghosh, 2002;Prazeres, 1997;Reis & Zydney, 2001;Zeng & Ruckenstein, 1999), thus providing a high throughput, not limited by diffusional restrictions. Various proteins have already been hydrolyzed effectively using a variety of enzymes in EMRs, to get desired bioactive peptides (Belhocine et al, 2000;Cheison, Wang, & Xu, 2006Guadix et al 2006;Mokrane, Belhocine, & Mameri, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%