ArticleJournal of chromatography. A2010
Effect of bioparticle size on dispersion and retention in monolithic and perfusive beds.
Article in Journal of chromatography. A, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling of dispersion in a polymeric chromatographic monolith.Journal of chromatography. A · 2012Article
- Downstream Processing Technologies/Capturing and Final Purification : Opportunities for Innovation, Change, and Improvement. A Review of Downstream Processing Developments in Protein Purification.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single-component pulse response studies were used to compare the retention and transport behavior of small molecules, proteins, and a virus on commercially available monolithic and perfusive ion-exchangers. Temporal distortion and extra-column effects were corrected for using a simple algorithm based on the method of moments. It was found that temporal distortion is inversely related to the number of theoretical plates. With increasing bioparticle size, retention increased and the transition from a non-eluting to a non-adsorbing state with increasing ionic strength became more abrupt. Both of these observations are qualitatively explained by calculations of particle-surface electrostatic attractive energy. Calculations also suggest that, for sufficiently large bioparticles, such as viruses or cells, hydrodynamic drag can promote elution. Under non-adsorbing conditions, plate height increased only weakly with flow rate and the skew remained unchanged. With increasing retention, plate height increased dramatically for proteins. Plate height was scaled by permeability rather than bead diameter to enable comparison among different stationary phases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.