RE: Stainless steel systems (fwd)

Klein, Mike L. (mklein@amgen.com)
Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0700

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement below, based on experience
with one of the proteins for which I'm responsible. However, even if
the tubing does not eat up as much of the protein as the frits, it still
makes sense to switch to non-SS tubing, especially when the instrument
will be used for numerous analyses of the same protein. This might be
important when validating chromatographic analyses of such proteins by
eliminating carryover and/or sample losses.

Mike Klein
Amgen, Inc.

> ----------
> From: Ombudsman account for AECOM[SMTP:ombudsmn@aecom.yu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 6:37 AM
> To: Recipients of ABRF List
> Subject: Stainless steel systems (fwd)
>
>
> I worked at a chromatography company earlier in my career. We tested
> stainless steel for proteins and peptides and found that the tubing
> made
> very little difference. However, we found that the column frits made
> a
> lot of difference. In retrospect that makes sense. There is a lot
> more
> surface area exposed in the frit than by the tubing. What was even
> more
> interesting was that passivated stainless steel (washed with nitric
> acid) performed more poorly (i.e., absorbed more protein) than "dirty"
> stainless. We also found that the amount of protein absorption was
> strongly dependent upon the protein.
>