Surface energetics to assess influence of biomass-type and biomass–adsorbent interactions in expanded beds

Abstract

In integrated bioprocessing applications, expanded bed adsorption (EBA) chromatography presents an opportunity to harvest biomolecules directly from the crude feedstock. However, unfavorable biomass interactions with adsorbent usually leads to fouling, which reduces its protein binding capacity as it alters column hydrodynamics and binding site availability. In this work, a detailed study on biomass adhesion behavior of four different industrially relevant microorganisms on 26 different, most commonly occurring adsorbent surfaces with varying degrees of surface energy and surface charge has been conducted. The results showed the derivation of a relative “stickiness” factor for every microorganism, which further classifies each organism based on their general degree of adhesion to surfaces with respect to one another. The obtained results can help to better understand the effect of biomass homogenization on biomass–adsorbent interactions in EBA. The data of surface energy and charge for the surfaces investigated in this work can be used to calculate the stickiness factor of other microorganisms of interest and may assist in the development of novel adsorbent materials for EBA chromatography.

Keywords

Biofouling / Cell adhesion / Surface properties / XDLVO theory

References

[1] Aasim M, . The role of ligands on protein retention in adsorption chromatography: a surface energetics approach. J Sep Sci, 2014, 37(6): 618-624.

[2] Absolom DR, . Surface thermodynamics of bacterial adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1983, 46(1): 90-97.

[3] Anand H, . The effect of chemical pretreatment combined with mechanical disruption on the extent of disruption and release of intracellular protein from E. coli. Biochem Eng J, 2007, 35(2): 166-173.

[4] Balasundaram B, Harrison STL. Influence of the extent of disruption of E. coli on the adsorption of beta-galactosidase in expanded bed adsorption chromatography. J Biotechnol, 2005, 118: S54-S55.

[5] Balasundaram B, Harrison STL. Influence of the extent of disruption of Bakers' yeast on protein adsorption in expanded beds. J Biotechnol, 2008, 133(3): 360-369.

[6] Balasundaram B, . A study of the influence of yeast cell debris on protein and alpha-glucosidase adsorption at various zones within the expanded bed using in-bed sampling. Biotechnol Bioeng, 2008, 99(3): 614-624.

[7] Bayoudh S, . Assessing bacterial adhesion using DLVO and XDLVO theories and the jet impingement technique. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2009, 73(1): 1-9.

[8] Callow ME, Callow JA. Marine biofouling: a sticky problem. Biologist, 2002, 49(1): 1-5.

[9] Carré A. Polar interactions at liquid/polymer interfaces. J Adhes Sci Technol, 2007, 21(10): 961-981.

[10] Chen Y, . Statistical analysis of long- and short-range forces involved in bacterial adhesion to substratum surfaces as measured using atomic force microscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2011, 77(15): 5065-5070.

[11] Comelles J, . The role of surface energy of technical polymers in serum protein adsorption and MG-63 cells adhesion. Nanomedicine, 2010, 6(1): 44-51.

[12] Costerton JW. Introduction to biofilm. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 1999, 11(3–4): 217-221.

[13] Costerton JW, . Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Annu Rev Microbiol, 1987, 41(1): 435-464.

[14] Derjaguin BV, Landau L. Theory of the stability of strongly charged lyophobic sols and of the adhesion of strongly charged particles in solutions of electrolytes. Acta Phys Chim URSS, 1941, 14: 633-662.

[15] Fernández Lahore M, . Expanded bed chromatography, surface energetics of biomass deposition, in encyclopedia of industrial biotechnology, 2009, New York: Wiley.

[16] Flemming HC, Meier M, Schild T. Mini-review: microbial problems in paper production. Biofouling, 2013, 29(6): 683-696.

[17] Fletcher M. Bacterial adhesion: molecular and ecological diversity, 1996, New York: Wiley.

[18] Fu KB, . Comparison of adhesion of A. ferrooxidans on different copper sulfides: Surface thermodynamics and extended DLVO theory. Miner Metallurg Process, 2015, 32(2): 121-128.

[19] Hedberg Y, . Surface-protein interactions on different stainless steel grades: effects of protein adsorption, surface changes and metal release. J Mater Sci, 2013, 24(4): 1015-1033.

[20] Helm CA, Knoll W, Israelachvili JN. Measurement of ligand receptor interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1991, 88(18): 8169-8173.

[21] Helms G. Probing biomass-chromatographic bead interactions by AFM force spectroscopy. 2012.

[22] Hermansson M. The DLVO theory in microbial adhesion. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 1999, 14(1–4): 105-119.

[23] Kakarla PB. Radical optimization of expanded bed chromatography by the implementation of an interaction energy predictive framework. 2016.

[24] Kakarla PB, . Interactions of Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell cultures with second generation expanded bed adsorbents. Sep Purif Technol, 2015, 144: 23-30.

[25] Kirby BJ, Hasselbrink EF Jr. Zeta potential of microfluidic substrates: 1. Theory, experimental techniques, and effects on separations. Electrophoresis, 2004, 25(2): 187-202.

[26] Kujundzic E, . Biofouling potential of industrial fermentation broth components during microfiltration. J Membr Sci, 2010, 349(1–2): 44-55.

[27] Lappin-Scott HM, Costerton JW. Bacterial biofilms and surface fouling. Biofouling, 1989, 1(4): 323-342.

[28] Li B, Logan BE. Bacterial adhesion to glass and metal-oxide surfaces. Colloids Surf, B, 2004, 36(2): 81-90.

[29] Lin DQ, . Biomass/Adsorbent electrostatic interactions in expanded bed adsorption: a zeta potential study. Biotechnol Bioeng, 2003, 83(2): 149-157.

[30] Lin D-Q, Zhong L-N, Yao S-J. Zeta potential as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the biomass electrostatic adhesion during ion-exchange expanded bed application. Biotechnol Bioeng, 2006, 95(1): 185-191.

[31] Meinders JM, vander Mei HC, Busscher HJ.. Deposition efficiency and reversibility of bacterial adhesion under flow. J Coll Interface Sci, 1995, 176(2): 329-341.

[32] Melo LF, Bott TR. Biofouling in water systems. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci, 1997, 14(4): 375-381.

[33] Mikelonis AM, Youn S, Lawler DF. DLVO approximation methods for predicting the attachment of silver nanoparticles to ceramic membranes. Langmuir, 2016, 32(7): 1723-1731.

[34] Naz N, . Growth-dependent surface characteristics of Hansenula Polymorpha: implications for expanded bed adsorption chromatography. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng, 2015, 20(3): 576-584.

[35] Nguyen V, . Physicochemical analysis of initial adhesion and biofilm formation of Methanosarcina barkeri on polymer support material. Colloids Surf B, 2016, 143: 518-525.

[36] Petrova OE, Sauer K. A novel signaling network essential for regulating Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development. PLoS Pathog, 2009, 5(11): e1000668.

[37] Saini R, Saini S, Sharma S. Biofilm: a dental microbial infection. J Nat Sci Biol Med, 2011, 2(1): 71-75.

[38] Sanders PF, Sturman PJ. Biofouling in the oil industry. Petrol Microbiol, 2005, 465: 171-198.

[39] Sharma PK, Hanumantha RK. Analysis of different approaches for evaluation of surface energy of microbial cells by contact angle goniometry. Adv Coll Interf Sci, 2002, 98(3): 341-463.

[40] Simões M, Simões LC, Vieira MJ. A review of current and emergent biofilm control strategies. LWT Food Sci Technol, 2010, 43(4): 573-583.

[41] Svensäter G, Bergenholtz G. Biofilms in endodontic infections. Endod Top, 2004, 9(1): 27-36.

[42] Thommes J, . The influence of cell adsorbent interactions on protein adsorption in fluidised beds. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc, 1998, 216: U246-U246.

[43] Truesdail SE, . Analysis of bacterial deposition on metal (hydr)oxide-coated sand filter media. J Colloid Interface Sci, 1998, 203(2): 369-378.

[44] Van Oss CJ, Good RJ, Chaudhury MK. The role of van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds in “hydrophobic interactions” between biopolymers and low energy surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci, 1986, 111(2): 378-390.

[45] Van Oss CJ, Chaudhury MK, Good RJ. Interfacial Lifshitz-van der Waals and polar interactions in macroscopic systems. Chem Rev, 1988, 88(6): 927-941.

[46] van Oss CJ. Hydrophobicity of biosurfaces — Origin, quantitative determination and interaction energies. Colloids Surf B, 1995, 5(3–4): 91-110.

[47] van Oss CJ. Interfacial Forces in Aqueous Media, 2006, 2, Boca Raton: CRC Press.

[48] Vanoss CJ. Acid-base interfacial interactions in aqueous-media. Coll Surf, 1993, 78: 1-49.

[49] Vennapusa RR. Surface energetics of adsorbent-biomass interactions during expanded bed chromatography: implications for process performance. 2008.

[50] Vennapusa RR, Fernandez-Lahore M. Effect of chemical additives on biomass deposition onto beaded adsorbents. J Biosci Bioeng, 2010, 110(5): 564-571.

[51] Vennapusa R, . Assessing adsorbent–biomass interactions during expanded bed adsorption onto ion exchangers utilizing surface energetics. J Chromatogr A, 2008, 1181(1–2): 9-20.

[52] Vennapusa RR, . Surface energetics to assess microbial adhesion onto fluidized chromatography adsorbents. Eng Life Sci, 2008, 8(5): 530-539.

[53] Verran J. Biofouling in food processing: biofilm or biotransfer potential?. Food Bioprod Process, 2002, 80(4): 292-298.

[54] Verwey EJW, Overbeek JTG. Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids, 1948, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[55] Vilinska A, Rao KH. Surface thermodynamics and extended DLVO theory of Leptospirillum ferrooxidans cells' adhesion on sulfide minerals. Miner Metall Process, 2011, 28(3): 151-158.

[56] Washburn EW. The dynamics of capillary flow. Phys Rev, 1921, 17(3): 273-283.

Funding

H2020 European Institute of Innovation and Technology

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung