确定槐脂类生物表面活性剂常用分析技术的准确性和适用性。

IF 3.2 4区 生物学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1093/jimb/kuae021
Benjamin Ingham, Rehana Sung, Phil Kay, Katherine Hollywood, Phavit Wongsirichot, Alistair Veitch, James Winterburn
{"title":"确定槐脂类生物表面活性剂常用分析技术的准确性和适用性。","authors":"Benjamin Ingham, Rehana Sung, Phil Kay, Katherine Hollywood, Phavit Wongsirichot, Alistair Veitch, James Winterburn","doi":"10.1093/jimb/kuae021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To determine the performance of a sophorolipid biosurfactant production process, it is important to have accurate and specific analytical techniques in place. Among the most popular are the anthrone assay, gravimetric quantification (hexane:ethyl acetate extraction), and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The choice of analytical tool varies depending on cost, availability, and ease of use; however, these techniques have never been compared directly against one another. In this work, 75 fermentation broths with varying product/substrate concentrations were comprehensively tested with the 3 techniques and compared. HPLC-ultraviolet detection (198 nm) was capable of quantifying C18:1 subterminal hydroxyl diacetylated lactonic sophorolipid down to a lower limit of 0.3 g/L with low variability (<3.21%). Gravimetric quantification of the broths following liquid:liquid extraction with hexane and ethyl acetate showed some linearity (R2 = .658) when compared to HPLC but could not quantify lower than 11.06 g/L, even when no sophorolipids were detected in the sample, highlighting the non-specificity of the method to co-extract non-sophorolipid components in the final gravimetric measure. The anthrone assay showed no linearity (R2 = .129) and was found to cross-react with media components (rapeseed oil, corn steep liquor, glucose), leading to consistent overestimation of sophorolipid concentration. The appearance of poor biomass separation during sample preparation with centrifugation was noted and resolved with a novel sample preparation method with pure ethanol. Extensive analysis and comparisons of the most common sophorolipid quantification techniques are explored and the limitations/advantages are highlighted. The findings provide a guide for scientists to make an informed decision on the suitable quantification tool that meets their needs, exploring all aspects of the analysis process from harvest, sample preparation, and analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":16092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11223654/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining the accuracy and suitability of common analytical techniques for sophorolipid biosurfactants.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Ingham, Rehana Sung, Phil Kay, Katherine Hollywood, Phavit Wongsirichot, Alistair Veitch, James Winterburn\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jimb/kuae021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To determine the performance of a sophorolipid biosurfactant production process, it is important to have accurate and specific analytical techniques in place. Among the most popular are the anthrone assay, gravimetric quantification (hexane:ethyl acetate extraction), and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The choice of analytical tool varies depending on cost, availability, and ease of use; however, these techniques have never been compared directly against one another. In this work, 75 fermentation broths with varying product/substrate concentrations were comprehensively tested with the 3 techniques and compared. HPLC-ultraviolet detection (198 nm) was capable of quantifying C18:1 subterminal hydroxyl diacetylated lactonic sophorolipid down to a lower limit of 0.3 g/L with low variability (<3.21%). Gravimetric quantification of the broths following liquid:liquid extraction with hexane and ethyl acetate showed some linearity (R2 = .658) when compared to HPLC but could not quantify lower than 11.06 g/L, even when no sophorolipids were detected in the sample, highlighting the non-specificity of the method to co-extract non-sophorolipid components in the final gravimetric measure. The anthrone assay showed no linearity (R2 = .129) and was found to cross-react with media components (rapeseed oil, corn steep liquor, glucose), leading to consistent overestimation of sophorolipid concentration. The appearance of poor biomass separation during sample preparation with centrifugation was noted and resolved with a novel sample preparation method with pure ethanol. Extensive analysis and comparisons of the most common sophorolipid quantification techniques are explored and the limitations/advantages are highlighted. The findings provide a guide for scientists to make an informed decision on the suitable quantification tool that meets their needs, exploring all aspects of the analysis process from harvest, sample preparation, and analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11223654/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuae021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuae021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

要确定槐脂类生物表面活性剂生产工艺的性能,必须要有准确而具体的分析技术。其中最常用的是蒽酮测定法、重量法(正己烷:乙酸乙酯萃取)和高效液相色谱法(HPLC)。分析工具的选择因成本、可用性和易用性而异,但这些技术之间从未进行过直接比较。在这项工作中,使用这三种技术对 75 种不同产品/底物浓度的发酵液进行了全面检测和比较。高效液相色谱-紫外检测法(198 nm)能够定量检测 C18:1 亚端羟基二乙酰化乳酸槐脂,其下限为 0.3 g/L,且变异性小 (
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Determining the accuracy and suitability of common analytical techniques for sophorolipid biosurfactants.

To determine the performance of a sophorolipid biosurfactant production process, it is important to have accurate and specific analytical techniques in place. Among the most popular are the anthrone assay, gravimetric quantification (hexane:ethyl acetate extraction), and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The choice of analytical tool varies depending on cost, availability, and ease of use; however, these techniques have never been compared directly against one another. In this work, 75 fermentation broths with varying product/substrate concentrations were comprehensively tested with the 3 techniques and compared. HPLC-ultraviolet detection (198 nm) was capable of quantifying C18:1 subterminal hydroxyl diacetylated lactonic sophorolipid down to a lower limit of 0.3 g/L with low variability (<3.21%). Gravimetric quantification of the broths following liquid:liquid extraction with hexane and ethyl acetate showed some linearity (R2 = .658) when compared to HPLC but could not quantify lower than 11.06 g/L, even when no sophorolipids were detected in the sample, highlighting the non-specificity of the method to co-extract non-sophorolipid components in the final gravimetric measure. The anthrone assay showed no linearity (R2 = .129) and was found to cross-react with media components (rapeseed oil, corn steep liquor, glucose), leading to consistent overestimation of sophorolipid concentration. The appearance of poor biomass separation during sample preparation with centrifugation was noted and resolved with a novel sample preparation method with pure ethanol. Extensive analysis and comparisons of the most common sophorolipid quantification techniques are explored and the limitations/advantages are highlighted. The findings provide a guide for scientists to make an informed decision on the suitable quantification tool that meets their needs, exploring all aspects of the analysis process from harvest, sample preparation, and analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology is an international journal which publishes papers describing original research, short communications, and critical reviews in the fields of biotechnology, fermentation and cell culture, biocatalysis, environmental microbiology, natural products discovery and biosynthesis, marine natural products, metabolic engineering, genomics, bioinformatics, food microbiology, and other areas of applied microbiology
期刊最新文献
Automated yeast cultivation control using a biosensor and flow cytometry. Evolution and Screening of Trichoderma reesei Mutants for Secreted Protein Production at Elevated Temperature. Characterization of pectinase producing Saccharomyces cerevisiae UCDFST 09-448 and its effects on cull peach fermentations. Improving the alcohol respiratory chain and energy metabolism by enhancing PQQ synthesis in Acetobacter pasteurianus. Development of Modular Expression Across Phylogenetically Distinct Diazotrophs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1