Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:11:38.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The use of ultrafiltration and dialysis in isolating the aqueous phase of milk and in determining the partition of milk constituents between the aqueous and disperse phases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

D. T. Davies
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
J. C. D. White
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr

Summary

A description is given of various methods for the ultrafiltration and dialysis of milk and of the composition of the sera obtained. Ultrafiltrate prepared by the procedure recommended is reasonably representative of the aqueous phase of milk, but its content of lactose and citric acid, and consequently also of calcium, is determined to a slight degree by the sieving phenomenon known to occur often in ultrafiltration. The composition of diffusate obtained from milk at 20°C is not thought to be controlled to any significant extent by a Donnan effect and is regarded as identical with that of the aqueous phase of milk. The lactose content of diffusate suggests that about 2% of the water in milk is bound to protein, and allowance should be made for this when calculating the concentrations of the soluble constituents in milk from the composition of diffusate. Diffusate prepared from milk at 3°C contains slightly more total calcium, ionized calcium and phosphorus than diffusate prepared at 20°C. These differences are attributed to a change in the partition of calcium and phosphorus between the disperse and aqueous phases at the lower temperature, an explanation that is supported by the reversibility of the change. The composition of diffusate prepared by the procedure recommended indicates that about 5% of the sodium and about 6% of the potassium and citric acid in milk are in the disperse phase.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Clark, L. C. (1951). J. Lab. clin. Med. 37, 481.Google Scholar
de Kadt, G. S. & van Minnen, G. (1943). Rec. Trav. chim. Pays-Bas, 62, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferry, J. D. (1936). Chem. Rev. 18, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, A. (1958). Dtsch. Molkereiztg, 79, 1553.Google Scholar
Lampitt, L. H. & Bushill, J. H. (1933). Biochem. J. 27, 711.Google Scholar
McBain, J. W. & Stuewer, R. F. (1936). J. phys. Chem. 40, 1157.Google Scholar
Overbeek, J. T. G. (1956). Progress in Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry, vol. 6, p. 57, ed. Butler, J. A. V.London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Pyne, G. T. (1940). J. Dairy Res. 11, 292.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. & Mumm, H. (1948). Molkereiztg, Hildesh. 2, 79.Google Scholar
Seymour, W. B. (1940). J. biol. Chem. 134, 701.Google Scholar
van der Have, A. J. & Mulder, H. (1957). Ned. melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 11, 128.Google Scholar
von Hippel, P. H. & Waugh, D. F. (1955). J. Amer. chem. Soc. 77, 4311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. C. D. & Davies, D. T. (1958). J. Dairy Res. 25, 236.Google Scholar