Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T10:00:05.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The precipitation of proteins by carboxymethyl cellulose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

J. G. Zadow
Affiliation:
Division of Food Research, Dairy Research Laboratory, C.S.I.R.O, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
R. D. Hill
Affiliation:
Division of Food Research, Dairy Research Laboratory, C.S.I.R.O, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Summary

Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) formed insoluble complexes with β-lactoglobulin, bovine serum albumin and Na caseinate. Maximum precipitation of the β-lactoglobulin-CMC complex occurred at pH 3·2, whereas maximum precipitation of the bovine serum albumin-CMC complex and the Na caseinate-CMC complex occurred at pH 2·8. The ratio of CMC to protein for maximum precipitation depended on the protein, being greatest for Na caseinate and least for bovine serum albumin. The percentage of protein precipitated by CMC decreased with increasing ionic strength of the solution, the rate of decrease being least for bovine serum albumin. At a given ionic strength, more protein was precipitated by CMC of high degree of substitution than by CMC of low degree of substitution. The change in pH (ΔpH) occurring on mixing CMC and unbuffered protein solutions, each initially at the same pH, was measured. ΔpH was negative for β-lactoglobulin-CMC mixtures over the pH range 7–2 (minimum at pH 5·5). For bovine serum albumin-CMC and Na caseinate-CMC mixtures, ΔpH was positive between pH 7 and 3·2 (maximum at pH 4·5), zero at pH 3·2 and negative between pH 3·2 and 2·0 (minimum at pH 2·8).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials (1965). ASTM Standard D-1439–65.Google Scholar
Basch, J. J. & Timasheff, S. M. (1967). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 118, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braunitzer, G. & Chen, R. (1972). Hoppe-Seyler's Zeitschrift für Physiologische Chemie 353, 674.Google Scholar
Braunitzer, G., Chen, R., Schrank, B. & Stangl, A. (1972). Hoppe-Seyler's Zeitschift für Physiologische Chemie 353, 832.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. M. T. & Chang, J. C. (1968). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 16, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P. M. T., Hidalgo, J. & Gould, I. A. (1971). Journal of Dairy Science 54, 830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, J. & Hansen, P. M. T. (1969). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 17, 1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, J. & Hansen, P. M. T. (1971). Journal of Dairy Science 54, 1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, R. D. & Zadow, J. G. (1974). Journal of Dairy Research 41, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klug, E. G. & Tinsley, J. G. (1950). U.S. Patent 2, 517, 577.Google Scholar
McKenzie, H. A. (1967). Advances in Protein Chemistry 22, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar