Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T08:59:56.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ultrafiltration: Boon or Bane?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

C M Hüls,
P M Grootes and
M-J Nadeau
C M Hüls
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany
P M Grootes
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany
M-J Nadeau
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Ultrafiltration of bone collagen, dissolved as gelatin (M ~100,000 D), has received considerable attention as a means to remove small contaminants and thus produce more reliable dates (Brown et al. 1988; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Higham et al. 2006; Mellars 2006). However, comparative dating studies have raised the question whether this cleaning step itself may introduce contamination with carbon from the filters used (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Brock et al. 2007; Hüls et al. 2007).

Here, we present results of further ultrafiltration experiments with modern and fossil collagen samples using Vivaspin 20™ and Vivaspin 15R™ ultrafilters. Evidently, the Vivaspin 20 (VS 20) ultrafilter with a polyethersulfone (PES) membrane retains more material in the >30 kD fraction than the Vivaspin 15R (VS 15R) filter with a regenerated cellulose membrane (Hydrosat), which may be related to increased retention of proteins due to suboptimal electrostatic conditions during ultrafiltration with the PES membrane. In addition, this filter type shows clear evidence for contamination with fossil carbon, presumably from membrane fibers, in the <30 kD fraction. Radiocarbon measurements on ultrafiltrated fossil collagen seem to indicate small contributions of modern carbon via glycerin left on and within the filter membranes of both types. Although SEM pictures show film remnants on the fibrous filter structure of cleaned filter membranes, EDX analysis on the VS 20 membrane to not support the assumption this may be glycerin. Our observations indicate the risks and benefits of the use of ultrafiltration in cleaning collagen samples for 14C dating need to be further quantified, especially for the cleaning of fossil bone collagen of good quality samples.

Information

Type
How Good Are 14C Ages of Bones? Problems and Methods Applied
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , 2009, pp. 613 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Brock, F, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–92.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171–7.Google Scholar
Burns, DB, Zydney, AL. 1999. Effect of solution pH on protein transport through ultrafiltration membranes. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 64(1):27–37.Google Scholar
Gosh, R. 2003. Protein Bioseparation Using Ultrafiltration: Theory, Applications and New Developments. London: Imperial College Press. 166 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J, Rieck, A. 2004. 14C-AMS at the Leibniz-Labor: radiometric dating and isotope research. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:55–61.Google Scholar
Higham, T, Bronk Ramsey, C, Karavanić, I, Smith, FH, Trinkaus, E. 2006. Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 103(3):553–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hüls, CM, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J. 2007. How clean is ultra filtration cleaning of bone collagen? Radiocarbon 49(2):193–200.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B. 2004. The tropospheric 14CO2 level in mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (1959–2003). Radiocarbon 46(3):1261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, R. 1970. Extraction du collagène des os fossiles pour leur datation par la méthode du carbone 14 [PhD dissertation]. Université de Lyon.Google Scholar
Mellars, P. 2006. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia. Nature 439(7079):931–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadeau, M-J, Schleicher, M., Grootes, PM, Erlenkeuser, H, Gottdang, A, Mous, DJW, Sarnthein, JM, Willkomm, H. 1997. The Leibniz-Labor AMS facility at the Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1–4):22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, M-J, Grootes, PM, Schleicher, M, Hasselberg, P, Rieck, A, Bitterling, M. 1998. Sample throughput and data quality at the Leibniz-Labor AMS Facility. Radiocarbon 40(1):239–45.Google Scholar
van Klinken, GJ, Hedges, REM. 1995. Experiments on collagen-humic interactions: speed of humic uptake, and effects of diverse chemical treatments. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(2):263–70.Google Scholar
van Klinken, GJ, Mook, WG. 1990. Preparative high-performance liquid chromatographic separation of individual amino acids derived from fossil bone collagen. Radiocarbon 32(2):155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y, Rodgers, VGJ. 2005. The effect of electrostatic properties in binary protein ultrafiltration. In: The American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2005 Annual Meeting, Topical 8 Bioseparations, Abstract #465. Membrane-Based Bioseparations.Google Scholar