4.5 Article

Coagulant proteins identified in Mustard: a potential water treatment agent

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13762-013-0282-4

关键词

Brassica; Napin; Moringa coagulant protein; Peptide sequence; Thermo-tolerant

资金

  1. Erasmus Mundus India4EU scholarship program [Lot 13]
  2. Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) [SWE-2007-401]
  3. Vaibhav Srivastava, School of Biotechnology, KTH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of natural coagulant protein in drinking water treatment has been discussed for a long time, though the method is still not in practice, probably due to limited knowledge and availability of material. In the present work, different Mustard varieties were tested for the presence of coagulant protein compared with Moringa seed extract and their potential application in water treatment. The coagulation activity of the protein extract was measured using synthetic clay solution as well as water from pond. The protein content was determined by Bradford method, molecular mass determined by Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and peptide sequence was analyzed by Mass spectrometry. Extract of Mustard (large) and Moringa seed showed coagulation activity of a parts per thousand...70 and a parts per thousand...85 % after 90 min, respectively. Interestingly, seed extracts from other Mustard varieties had coagulation activity after heat activation at 95 A degrees C for 5 h. However, the coagulation activity of Mustard seed extract against turbid pond water was higher (a parts per thousand...60 %) compared to Moringa seed extract (a parts per thousand...50 %). The peptide sequence analysis of 6.5 and 9 kDa proteins was found to be homologous to Moringa coagulant protein and napin3, respectively. To our knowledge, this could be the first report on Mustard seed having coagulant protein. The coagulation activity of Mustard (large) against highly turbid pond water suggested that it could be a potential natural coagulant for water treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据