Literature DB >> 23058938

Impact of carrier fluid composition on recovery of nanoparticles and proteins in flow field flow fractionation.

Samantha Schachermeyer1, Jonathan Ashby, Minjung Kwon, Wenwan Zhong.   

Abstract

Flow field flow fractionation (F4) is an invaluable separation tool for large analytes, including nanoparticles and biomolecule complexes. However, sample loss due to analyte-channel membrane interaction limits extensive usage of F4 at present, which could be strongly affected by the carrier fluid composition. This work studied the impacts of carrier fluid (CF) composition on nanoparticle (NP) recovery in F4, with focus on high ionic strength conditions. Successful analysis of NPs in a biomolecules-friendly environment could expand the applicability of F4 to the developing field of nanobiotechnology. Recovery of the unfunctionalized polystyrene NPs of 199, 102, and 45 nm in CFs with various pH (6.2, 7.4 and 8.2), increasing ionic strength (0-0.1M), and different types of co- and counter-ions, were investigated. Additionally, elution of the 85 nm carboxylate NPs and two proteins, human serum albumin (HSA) and immunoglobulin (IgG), at high ionic strengths (0-0.15M) was investigated. Our results suggested that (1) electrostatic repulsion between the negatively charged NPs and the regenerated cellulose membrane was the main force to avoid particle adsorption on the membrane; (2) larger particles experienced higher attractive force and thus were influenced more by variation in CF composition; and (3) buffers containing weak anions or NPs with weak anion as the surface functional groups provided higher tolerance to the increase in ionic strength, owing to more anions being trapped inside the NP porous structure. Protein adsorption onto the membrane was also briefly investigated in salted CFs, using HSA and IgG. We believe our findings could help to identify the basic carrier fluid composition for higher sample recovery in F4 analysis of nanoparticles in a protein-friendly environment, which will be useful for applying F4 in bioassays and in nanotoxicology studies.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23058938      PMCID: PMC3482128          DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.09.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chromatogr A        ISSN: 0021-9673            Impact factor:   4.759


  33 in total

Review 1.  Zeta potential of microfluidic substrates: 1. Theory, experimental techniques, and effects on separations.

Authors:  Brian J Kirby; Ernest F Hasselbrink
Journal:  Electrophoresis       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.535

2.  Protein concentration is not an absolute prerequisite for the determination of secondary structure from circular dichroism spectra: a new scaling method.

Authors:  Vincent Raussens; Jean-Marie Ruysschaert; Erik Goormaghtigh
Journal:  Anal Biochem       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 3.365

Review 3.  The use of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation in pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics.

Authors:  Wolfgang Fraunhofer; Gerhard Winter
Journal:  Eur J Pharm Biopharm       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.571

Review 4.  Functional nanoprobes for ultrasensitive detection of biomolecules.

Authors:  Shiping Song; Yu Qin; Yao He; Qing Huang; Chunhai Fan; Hong-Yuan Chen
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 54.564

5.  Estimation of the particle-wall interaction energy in sedimentation field flow fractionation.

Authors:  Nikolaos Lioris; Lambros Farmakis; Athanasia Koliadima; George Karaiskakis
Journal:  J Chromatogr A       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 4.759

6.  Using circular dichroism spectra to estimate protein secondary structure.

Authors:  Norma J Greenfield
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 13.491

7.  Characterizing molar mass distributions and molecule structures of different chitosans using asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation combined with multi-angle light scattering.

Authors:  Christian Augsten; Karsten Mäder
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 5.875

8.  Conformational reorientation of immunoglobulin G during nonspecific interaction with surfaces.

Authors:  Michael Rankl; Thomas Ruckstuhl; Michael Rabe; Georg R J Artus; Andreas Walser; Stefan Seeger
Journal:  Chemphyschem       Date:  2006-04-10       Impact factor: 3.102

9.  A new method for immunoassays using field-flow fractionation with on-line, continuous chemiluminescence detection.

Authors:  D Melucci; M Guardigli; B Roda; A Zattoni; P Reschiglian; A Roda
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  2003-06-13       Impact factor: 6.057

10.  Analysis of drug/plasma protein interactions by means of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation.

Authors:  M Madörin; P van Hoogevest; R Hilfiker; B Langwost; G M Kresbach; M Ehrat; H Leuenberger
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.200

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation as a multifunctional technique for the characterization of polymeric nanocarriers.

Authors:  Federico Quattrini; Germán Berrecoso; José Crecente-Campo; María José Alonso
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2021-01-31       Impact factor: 4.617

2.  An effective solution to simultaneously analyze size, mass and number concentration of polydisperse nanoplastics in a biological matrix: asymmetrical flow field fractionation coupled with a diode array detector and multiangle light scattering.

Authors:  Xing-Ling Luo; Ying-Ting Wu; Ling-Yan Zhang; Ke-Xin Li; Tian-Jiang Jia; Yi Chen; Li-Hong Zhou; Pei-Li Huang
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 3.361

3.  Impact of Ionic Strength of Carrier Liquid on Recovery in Flow Field-Flow Fractionation.

Authors:  Tomasz Kowalkowski; Mateusz Sugajski; Bogusław Buszewski
Journal:  Chromatographia       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 2.044

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.