ArticleMembranes2022
Electrospun Hydrophobic Interaction Chromatography (HIC) Membranes for Protein Purification.
Article in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Responsive membranes for hydrophobic interaction chromatography have been fabricated by functionalizing poly(N-vinylcaprolactam) (PVCL) ligands on the substrate of electrospun regenerated cellulose nanofibers. Both static and dynamic binding capacities and product recovery were investigated using bovine serum albumin (BSA) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) as model proteins. The effects of ligand chain length and chain density on static binding capacity were also studied. A static binding capacity of ~25 mg/mL of membrane volume (MV) can be achieved in optimal ligand grafting conditions. For dynamic binding studies, protein binding capacity increased with protein concentration from 0.1 to 1.0 g/L. Dynamic binding capacity increased from ~8 mg/mL MV at 0.1 g/L BSA to over 30 mg/mL at 1.0 g/L BSA. However, BSA recovery decreased as protein concentration increased from ~98% at 0.1 g/L BSA to 51% at 1 g/L BSA loading concentration. There is a clear trade-off between binding capacity and recovery rate. The electrospun substrate with thicker fibers and more open pore structures is superior to thinner fibrous membrane substrates.
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.