“Reverse” centrifuge seperations

Back in November we were visited by Tom Berkelman of BioRad to see if he could use our NPN membranes to successfully separate some proprietary nanoparticles from IgG in a solvent with secret ingredients. These particles have an interesting absorbance spectrum as well as strong fluorescence.
During that visit and in subsequent separations in the McGrath lab and at BioRad, we clog the membrane after passing only 20-30 µL. This occurs at concentrations of 0.1 mg/mL and higher, when using the constant pressure setup. Lower concentrations seem to allow greater total volume to pass through the filter, but clogging still occurs. We want to find a way to use our membranes to filter solutions with particles/protein at higher concentrations.
One hope we have of addressing this clogging is a “reverse” centrifuge technique. When Tom originally visited us on 11-20-13, he made mention of the Sartorius Centrisart
(http://www.sartorius.us/us/product-family/product-family-detail/m-centrisart-i/13229———-E/49459/) The basic principle is outlined in the following two images. (sorry about the poor quality, I couldn’t find a better version.) (update- I inserted Karl’s awesome reverse filter .gif)
sartorius centrisart
sartorius centrisart
"reverse" centrifugation
“reverse” centrifugation

 

Karl's Reverse Filter gif
Karl’s Reverse Filter gif

The centrifugal force acts to equilibrate the solution levels inside and outside the inner tube. This drives solution through the filter while also driving larger particulates away from the filter towards the bottom of the centrifuge tube. In this configuration, blocked particles should be less likely to stay at the filter and clog flow.

Jim suggested we try a similar approach using our Gen2 SepCon assemblies. The attached figure below

Gen2 Sepcon placed into 2 mL tube
Gen2 Sepcon placed into 2 mL tube

shows the Gen2 being used with a 2 mL centrifuge tube. We tried Gen2 because it has a narrower profile and allows for more volume (~150 µL) around the side than the Gen3 tubes.

I started by testing a mixture of 500 nm yellow fluorospheres and ~20 nm red fluorospheres in 1X PBS. I diluted each stock 100 to 1 by volume. I believe this corresponds to 3 E9 particles/mL of 500 nm and 5 E13 particles/mL of 20 nm. This mixture has typically blocked flow through a membrane after ~30 µL of flow. I started the centrifuge at 2krpm for a series of 1 and then 5 min runs. There was very little if any flow visible. Maybe 20 µl. I upped the rpms to 3 k for 5 mins, saw a little flow. Then added 5 min at 4 krpm. At this point approximately ~100 µl of filtrate had been collected. Next I increased the rpms to 5k with continued success for 10 minutes. The membrane broke at 6 krpm. Little to no red or yellow particles seemed to have made it through the filter, as seen in the attached fluorescence plots.

Screen Shot 2014-02-16 at 8.42.39 PM

Screen Shot 2014-02-16 at 8.45.07 PM

 

I replicated the above test using two mixtures of materials Tom B. left after his visit. BR1 is combination of 1500 µl PBS/fairy dust + 15 µl 10mg/ml IgG + 150 µl “T24”.
BR2 is 1500 µl PBS/fairy dust + 15 µl “25b”.
“T24” is a particle prep that creates particles with ~32nm diameter at 122 ppm.
25b is “unfractionated IgG conjugation reaction” antibody to particle ratio 2:1. 524 ppm particles, 1.05 mg/ml IgG.
Both had 100 ul or more pass through the membrane to the 20+ 500 nm solution discussed above. I’ve attached the measured absorbance and flourescence data showing little to no particles passing through the membrane while at least some IgG has passed through. No IgG seems to have passed through in the BR2 test. (Or the concentration may simply be too low to measure using the nanoquant plate.)
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.22.51 PM
BR 1 absorbance showing T24 absorbance peaks at ~325 and ~460 nm.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.24.41 PM
BR 1 fluorescence
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.23.13 PM
BR 2 absorbance
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.24.03 PM
BR 2 fluorescence
I think these positive results merit further study. Immediate actions might be to modify the current 2 ml centrifuge tubes so that less total volume is required. Currently we need at least 1.5 ml. If we fill the bottom of the tube with PDMS for example, we might only need 0.5 ml.
We should also repeat these experiments with higher concentrations of IgG and particles.
(In a parallel effort, we recently purchased some Labview microfluidics equipments to drive filtration with a syringe pump while monitoring the pressure building up behind the membrane.)
I have a couple questions: Does anyone know of a stock of open bottom pieces for the Gen2 assemblies? I have many of the closed versions, which are not ideal for this test.
I believe I need to use 100 um gasket material for the Gen2 SepCons. Correct? These are 300 um chips.
Thanks! – Josh

 

Similar Posts

2 Comments

  1. This could be a breakthrough for SepCon applied to biologicals and concentrated nanoparticles.

    The role of the g-force in keeping the membrane clear of particles is interesting. We need to spin high enough pull the cake away. A little counter-intuitive, but spinning harder might be the key to prevent clogging.

  2. Chris recently asked about the relative number of particles in solution and pores in the membrane.
    I calculate a typical 5 slot sepcon has ~ 1 E8 million pores.
    The solution with 20 nm NPs used above has 5 E13 NPs/mL.

    At these concentrations, there are many more particles than pores.

Comments are closed.