Ultrafiltration: Boon or Bane?

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.

[1]  Paul Mellars,et al.  A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia , 2006, Nature.

[2]  C. Ramsey,et al.  Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  P. Grootes,et al.  14C-AMS at the Leibniz-Labor: radiometric dating and isotope research , 2004 .

[4]  A. Zydney,et al.  Effect of solution pH on protein transport through ultrafiltration membranes , 1999, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[5]  P. Grootes,et al.  The Leibniz-Labor AMS facility at the Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany , 1997 .

[6]  R. Hedges,et al.  Experiments on Collagen-Humic Interactions: Speed of Humic Uptake, and Effects of Diverse Chemical Treatments , 1995 .

[7]  P. Grootes,et al.  How Clean is Ultrafiltration Cleaning of Bone Collagen? , 2007, Radiocarbon.

[8]  C. Ramsey,et al.  Quality Assurance of Ultrafiltered Bone Dating , 2007, Radiocarbon.

[9]  C. Bronk Ramsey,et al.  Improvements to the Pretreatment of Bone at Oxford , 2004, Radiocarbon.

[10]  Bernd Kromer,et al.  The Tropospheric 14CO2 Level in Mid-Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (1959–2003) , 2004, Radiocarbon.

[11]  P. Grootes,et al.  Sample Throughput and Data Quality at the Leibniz-Labor AMS Facility , 1997, Radiocarbon.

[12]  W. Mook,et al.  Preparative High-Performance Liquid Chromatographic Separation of Individual Amino Acids Derived from Fossil Bone Collagen , 1990, Radiocarbon.

[13]  J. Southon,et al.  Improved Collagen Extraction by Modified Longin Method , 1988, Radiocarbon.