4.5 Article

Quick and Cheap Colorimetric Quantification of Proteins Using 96-Well-Plate Images

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 1778-1787

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00756

关键词

Second-Year Undergraduate; Analytical Chemistry; Computer-Based Learning; Instrumental Methods; UV-vis Spectroscopy; Hands-On Learning; Manipulatives; Food Science; Calibration

资金

  1. FAPESC (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Santa Catarina)
  2. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico) [399402226/2016-0]
  3. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Students measured the protein content in beer, milk, powdered milk, and whey protein using the Bradford assay. They determined the effect of protein type on the assay and assessed figures of merit. Interference tests were also conducted. The simplified method allows students to determine protein content in food samples.
Students quantified the protein content in beer, milk, powdered milk, and whey protein using the Bradford assay. The assay was carried out using absorbance measured at 595 nm (standard method) and 96-well-plate images (proposed method). They built analytical curves using bovine serum albumin (BSA) and casein and determined that protein type affected the Bradford assay. They also determinedfigures of merit such as the limit of detection (LOD), the limit of quantification (LOQ), linear working range,sensitivity, precision (standard deviation, F-test), and accuracy (percent error,ttest). In addition, an interference test was carried outusing nitrogen-rich compounds, organic bases, and amino acids, and it was shown that the Bradford assay was not affected by thesecompounds. Student learning outcomes were assessed by afinal test using Microsoft Forms. As a learning model, students candetermine the protein content in various food samples using just sample dilution, without the need for intricate sample preparation procedures

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