AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brown, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Lester, J. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brown, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Lester, J. N.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Brown, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Lester, J. N.

Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1980 August; 40(2): 179-185

Comparison of Bacterial Extracellular Polymer Extraction Methods

Melanie J. Brown and John N. Lester

Public Health Engineering Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7, England

ABSTRACT

Five different bacterial extracellular polymer extraction methods and a combination of two of these methods were compared on cultures of activated sludge, synthetic activated sludge, and Klebsiella aerogenes. High-speed centrifugation was the most effective extraction method for the K. aerogenes culture, based on the comparatively small amount of cell disruption and the relatively high extracellular polymer yield. Steaming treatment was the most effective extraction method for the activated sludges, since it released a significant quantity of extracellular polymers from the flocs and caused less cellular disruption than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and sodium hydroxide treatments. Sodium hydroxide treatment caused extensive disruption in all cultures. Ultrasonication released low concentrations of extracellular polymers from all cultures. However, it caused no significant cell disruption and therefore may be useful as a preliminary treatment in conjunction with another extraction method.

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1980 August; 40(2): 179-185




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1980 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.