Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:21:13.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How Clean is Ultrafiltration Cleaning of Bone Collagen?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Matthias C Hüls*
Affiliation:
Leibniz Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research, Christian Albrecht University, Kiel, Germany
Pieter M Grootes
Affiliation:
Leibniz Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research, Christian Albrecht University, Kiel, Germany
Marie-Josée Nadeau
Affiliation:
Leibniz Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research, Christian Albrecht University, Kiel, Germany
*
Corresponding author. Email: mhuels@leibniz.uni-kiel.de
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.

As part of our bone dating development, we have tested the ultrafiltration of bone gelatin using 2 different filters—Vivaspin 20™ (VS20), a polyethersulfone, and Vivaspin 15R™ (VS15R), a cellulose, both with a 30,000 molecular weight cutoff—and bone collagen from dated samples ranging in age from 1.5 to >50 kyr BP. A direct accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurement yielded radiocarbon concentrations of ∼0.5 pMC (∼42 kyr) for the polyethersulfone, ∼14.4–17.5 pMC (∼15.6–14 kyr) for the cellulose, and ∼107.4 pMC for the glycerin. The filters were cleaned before use similar to the Oxford protocol (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004), and a series of freeze-dried archaeological bone gelatin samples and a modern pig-skin gelatin were passed through VS20 and VS15R filters (Vivascience™). We recovered both the eluent (<30-kD fraction) and the liquid that stayed above the filter (>30 kD) in order to obtain a carbon mass and isotope balance. While the >30-kD collagen fraction that is usually selected for AMS analysis does not appear to be significantly contaminated, measurements show significant age differences between the eluent <30 kD and the unfiltered bone collagen, indicating that, despite cleaning, both glycerin and filter still give off contaminants in the eluent. Ultrafiltration with young collagen from pig skin generally confirms these results for the <30-kD fraction but also shows the possibility of small contaminations in the >30-kD fraction. Until a contamination with filter carbon of the >30-kD collagen fraction can be excluded, we would recommend caution in the use of ultrafiltration for cleaning bone collagen with VS20 or VS15R ultrafilters.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 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 , these proceedings.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.Google Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171–7.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 223–224:5561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, R. 1970. Extraction du collagène des os fossiles pour leur datation par la méthode du carbone 14 [PhD dissertation]. Lyon: Université de Lyon. In French.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.Google Scholar