See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5482421

Mechanical/Physical Methods of Cell Disruption and Tissue Homogenization

Article  in  Methods in Molecular Biology · January 2008

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-064-9_1 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

37 7,838

1 author:

Stanley Goldberg
GLEN MILS INC.
3 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Equipment for processing biological cells (1) disruption and (2) growing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stanley Goldberg on 06 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 1

Mechanical/Physical Methods of Cell Distribution

and Tissue Homogenization
Stanley Goldberg

Abstract
This chapter covers the various methods of Mechanical Cell Disruption and Tissue Homogenization that
are currently commercially available for processing minute samples (<1 mL) to larger production quantities.
These mechanical methods of lysing do not introduce chemicals or enzymes to the system. However,
the energies needed when using these “harsh” methods can be high and destroy the very proteins
being sought.
The destruction of cell membranes and walls by these “harsh” methods is effected by subjecting the
cells (1) to shearing by liquid flow, (2) to exploding by pressure differences between inside and outside of
cell, (3) to collision forces by impact of beads or paddles, or (4) a combination of these forces. Practical
suggestions to optimize each method, where to acquire such equipment, and links to reference sources
are included.

Key words Cell disruption, Bead mills, BioNeb cell disruption, Cell disruption vessel, Douce tissue
grinder, Dyno-Mill, French Press G-M, Gaulin high-pressure homogenizer, High-pressure homoge-
nizers, Megatron, Microfluidics, Mixer-Mill, Mortar, Pestle, Nitrogen Parr vessel, Opposed jet
homogenization, Parr nitrogen vessel, Polytron, Potter-Elvehjem tissue grinders, Pressure vessel,
Sonicator, Sonitube, Tissue grinders, Tissue homogenization, Ultrasonic processor, Electro Water
Separation

1 Introduction

The need to release cell components without introducing encumbering

chemicals or enzymes suggests the use of mechanical methods of
lysing. The destruction of cell membranes and walls by these
“harsh” methods is effected by subjecting the cells (1) to shearing
by liquid flow, (2) to exploding by pressure differences between
inside and outside of cell, (3) to collision forces by impact of beads
or paddles, or (4) a combination of these forces.
Generally speaking, any of the techniques described here can,
to some degree, disrupt any cells or tissues. For more difficult
materials, just the increase of motivation force or time of exposure
will improve breakage. However, the use of excessive force is

Anton Posch (ed.), Proteomic Profiling: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1295,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2550-6_1, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

1
2 Stanley Goldberg

limited due to the generation of detrimental heat and/or shear

that can ruin the desired proteins. In addition, excess force will
accelerate wear and ultimately damage the equipment.
By judicious use of the equipment one can select from a gentle
nicking of the cell to release intact organelle up to a vigorous action
to release membrane bound proteins. Some methods are suitable
to handle tissues only, others for free cells only, and some are suitable
for both. Some techniques are capable of processing only small
quantities of material while others are limited to handling larger
amounts.
Tissues that are difficult to break down include heart muscle,
lung, intestine, and skin. On the other hand, some fragile mammalian
cells can be broken by just a moderate shaking of the suspended
cells. Free cells that are difficult to process include those that are
extremely small size (below 0.25 μm) bacteria, and the tough
yeasts and spores. Plant materials and seeds will need higher energy
inputs for proper maceration. Table 1 provides an overview of the

Table 1
Methods overview, trade names, websites

Technique Trade name(s) Websites

Bead Impact—shaking vessel Mixer Mill [1] www.RETSCH.de
Mini Bead Beater™ [2] www.BIOSPEC.com
Bead Impact—agitator shaft DYNO®-MILL [3] www.WAB.ch
www.GLENMILLS.com
Rotor/stator—shear Polytron® [4] www.KINEMATICA.ch
by spinning shaft
Mortar/pestle—shear by Potter-Elvehjem tissue www.WHEATON.com
mechanical pressure grinders [5]
High-pressure batch—liquid French Press G-M® [6] www.GLENMILLS.com
expansion
High-pressure batch—gas Parr® vessel [7] www.PARRINST.com
expansion
High-pressure flow—high APV® Gaulin [8] www.SPX.com
velocity liquid shear
High-pressure—opposed Microfluidizer® [9] www.MICROFLUIDICSCORP.com
liquid streams
Droplet—low pressure BioNeb® [10] www.GLASCOL.com
flow droplet nebulizing
Ultrasonic—shear by Sonicator® [11] www.SONICATOR.com
collapsing bubbles Sonitube® www.GLENMILLS.com
Electromotive force Electro Water www.ORIGINOIL.com
Separation™ [12]
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 3

Table 2
Suitable subjects and capacity for each method

Yeast,
Algae,
Fungus,
Type of biomaterial to be lysed→ Bacteria Spores Seeds Plants Tissues Capacity
Technique ↓
Bead impact – shaking vessel Y Y Y Y Y S/M
Bead impact – agitator shaft Y Y ? Y Y M/L
Rotor/stator – shear by spinning shaft N N Y Y Y S/M/L
Mortar/pestle – shear Y Y Y Y Y S/M
by mechanical pressure
High-pressure batch – liquid expansion Y Y ? ? ? S/M
High-pressure batch – gas expansion Y N N Y Y S/M
High-pressure flow – high velocity shear Y Y N N N S/M/L
High-pressure flow – opposed Y Y N N N S/M/L
liquid streams
Droplet – low pressure droplet Y Y N N N S/M
nebulizing
Ultrasonic – shear collapsing bubbles Y Y N Y Y S/M/L
Electro water separation N Y N N N M/L
Suitability: Y—general good practice; N—not recommended; ?—not known or marginal success
Quantities: S = small 0.1–25 mL; M = medium 10–500 mL; L = 250 mL to many liters

mechanical methods with at least one example of commercial

equipment and related websites while Table 2 describes suitable
subjects and capacity for each method.

2 Bead Impact Methods: Shaking Vessel

2.1 Theory All bead devices open the cells or homogenize tissues by throwing
the beads (also called “grinding media”) against the cells/tissue.
Also the accelerated beads generate strong shear in the liquid buf-
fer surrounding the cells/tissues, which also pulls then apart. Two
methods to accelerate the grinding media (beads) are (1) by shak-
ing the entire container or (2) by a spinning agitator within a
container (see next section). The shaking container method is
usable for tissues as well as free cells. For extremely small samples
of 0.2 mL to somewhat larger quantities of 50 mL, the shaking of
the vessel is the method of choice. The motion can be of differing
geometries depending upon what equipment is selected. Shaking
can only be done in batch operation thus limiting the amount of
4 Stanley Goldberg

Fig. 1 Bead impact—shaken vessel—Mini Bead Beater-1 equipment

Fig. 2 Bead impact—shaken vessel—inside view—beads moving in jar

materials than can be processed. The equipment is very low cost,

durable, and simple to operate requiring minimal training.
Materials needed to operate any of these shaking include the
cells/tissue, grinding media (beads), liquid phase such as buffer,
the container, and the equipment. Variables include the bead
selection (density, diameter, and quantity), speed of agitation, cell
concentration, and duration of run (Figs. 1 and 2).

2.2 Practical ● Denaturing of proteins due to high temperature or excessive

Aspects shear is to be considered in all mechanical disruption/homog-
enization equipments. Also, the wear of the grinding media
and container into the samples needs to be evaluated.
● Hints for successful temperature control include: (1) Pre-
chilling of samples and containers; (2) Runs of short duration
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 5

with rest time to allow for re-chilling samples on ice; (3) Use
of fewer beads and/or extra buffer to act a heat sink; (4)
Reduced degree of shaking vigor.
● Detrimental contamination of the batch due to the wear of
either the grinding media or container walls is usually rare due
to the insignificant amounts involved. A hint to mitigate any
contamination problem is to use inert materials of construc-
tion such as using beads and containers of zirconium oxide
stabilized with yttria (95 %/5 %; specific gravity 6.0).
● Beads size: For small diameter cells (e.g. bacteria) use beads of
0.10–0.5 mm diameter. For larger cells (e.g. yeast, algae,
hyphae) use beads of 0.5–1.25 mm. Glass (sp. gr. 2.5) is a
good starting material due to low cost. For homogenizing
plant or animal tissues that have been previously chopped with
a razor, beads of 1.0–5.0 mm diameter are used.
● Bead density: If additional energy is needed to improve break-
age/homogenization of tough cells, then use higher density
materials. These material types include ceramic (zirconium
oxide family) with specific gravities from 3.8 to 6.0, stainless
steel of sp. gr. 7.0+, and tungsten carbide of sp. gr. 14.2+.
Also, the use of larger diameter beads from 2 to 20 mm can
improve breakage. Recently, success has been reported with
SiC grit with its sharp edges, and with stainless steel ballcones
that have a wedged edge at the equator.
● Time savings can be achieved by ganging several samples into
96-well titer plates rather then running one sample at a time.
The larger models can accommodate these plates.
● A simple way to evaluate the suitability of bead shaking can be
done as follows. In a test tube place some glass beads and buff-
ered cells/tissues. Hold the tube against a vortex shaker for
1–3 min. If breakage/homogenization is realized, then bead
shaking has promise. Switching to suitable equipment as
described above will reduce repetitive strain to the technician
holding the test tubes.

3 Bead Impact Methods: Stirred Agitated Beads

3.1 Theory For modest sample quantities of 50 mL and scaling up to indus-

trial amounts of several thousand liters, the agitation of the beads
by a turning agitator within the vessel is the method of choice. In
this class of agitated bead mills, the beads and the cell suspension
are loaded into a chamber. Into the mix is placed one or more
spinning discs that accelerate the beads. The beads striking the
cells combined with the shearing by the moving liquid phase will
disrupt the cells.
6 Stanley Goldberg

Fig. 3 Bead impact—agitated beads—Dyno-Mill with 600 mL chamber

equipment

These units are normally used for disruption of free microor-

ganism cells (bacteria, yeasts, hyphae, mycelia) and not for tissue
samples. For lesser quantities, see previous section on shaking con-
tainer method. Materials needed to operate the agitated bead mills
include the cells/tissue, grinding media (beads), liquid phase such
as buffer, cooling ice or jacket fluids, and the mill equipment.
Variables include the bead selection (density, diameter, and quan-
tity), speed of agitation, cell concentration, and duration of run
(Figs. 3 and 4).

3.2 Practical ● Denaturing of proteins due to high temperature or excessive

Aspects shear is to be considered in all mechanical disruption/homog-
enization equipments. Also, the wear of the grinding media
and container into the samples needs to be evaluated.
● Hints for successful temperature control include: (1) Pre-chilling
of samples to below 5 °C. (2) Reduce residence time by
increased feed rates and then do a second pass with inter-stage
cooling. (3) Slower tip speed of Agitator discs to 6 m/s. (4)
Lower the concentration of cells if viscosity increases contribute
to excessive heating.
● Detrimental contamination of the batch due to the wear of
either the grinding media or container walls is usually rare due
to the insignificant amounts involved. A hint to mitigate any
contamination problem is to use inert materials of construc-
tion. For example, when iron would be harmful, do not use
steel beads, switch to glass or ceramics. The least wear is reportedly
seen when using ceramic beads and containers that are fabri-
cated from zirconium oxide stabilized with yttrium (95 %/5 %;
specific gravity 6.0).
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 7

Fig. 4 Bead impact—agitated stirred beads—inside view—spinning agitators

moving beads against suspended cells. (1) Input, (2) Output, (3) Agitator discs, (4)
Beads, (5) Cooling jacket, (6) Bead screen

● For small diameter cells (e.g. E. coli of 0.25–1.0 μm) use beads
of 0.10–0.5 mm diameter. For larger cells (e.g. yeast, algae,
hyphae) use beads of 0.5–1.25 mm. Glass (sp. gr. 2.5) is a
good starting material due to low cost. If addition energy is
needed to improve breakage/homogenization, then switch to
ceramic (zirconium oxide family) with specific gravities from
3.8 to 6.0.
● A quick preliminary test can be run with standard lab equip-
ment. Load a beaker with the buffered cells/tissue along with
some beads. Place on a magnetic stirrer (or use an overhead
stirrer) and spin the beads. If some breakage is seen then the
bead mill is a good candidate for processing the cells in
question.

4 Rotor–Stator Homogenizer

4.1 Theory Rotor/Stator homogenizers consist of a rapidly spinning paddle

contained within an open-ended tube with slots near the working
end. The turning paddle pushes liquid out the slots, creating a low-
pressure region that draws fresh suspension up from the open end.
As the tissue is pulled up, there is a stretching action. Then, as the
8 Stanley Goldberg

Fig. 5 Rotor–stator—Shear by spinning shaft—Polytron equipment

material is forced between the narrow gaps, there is a cutting

action. The working part of the equipment that contacts the
samples is called the generator.
The Rotor/Stator design consists of two or more coaxial inter-
locking rows of teeth. The internal rotor(s) is driven with a motor
running at speeds between 3,000 rpm for the larger industrial units
to 27,000 rpm for the smaller lab units. The size of the motor is
chosen based on the size of the equipment and application. Rotor
tip speeds of up to 50 m/s can be achieved. Usually the gap
between rotor and stator is around 300–500 μm (Figs. 5 and 6).

4.2 Practical ● Choice of the rotor/stator geometry depending upon the

Aspects application. Some examples of specialized generators include
extended knives to cut into a larger tissue sample, low-foaming
generators, and easy-cleaning units that may be autoclaved.
● Next choose the correct size generator for the sample volume
to be homogenized. Factory tables provide the volume ranges
suitable for each generator thus selecting the correct parts is
quite easy. For example, a sample of size from 0.5 mL to 5 mL
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 9

Fig. 6 Rotor–stator—shear by spinning shaft—inside view

would be best processed with a generator of 5 mm diameter.

As the quantity of material to be processed at one time
increases, larger sizes of generators and motors are needed.
● Interchangeable generators are designed to fit onto only cer-
tain motors. Therefore, one must decide which motor is the
most suitable for the particular range of applications and then
be sure to select only those generators designed to fit onto
that motor.
● The homogenizers currently available can process sample vol-
umes anywhere from less than 0.5 mL up to 150,000 L. Batch
equipment (e.g. Polytron®) is used for small sample quantities
from less than 0.5 mL though larger units can handle several
hundred liters. For larger industrial in-line system for either
continuous or re-circulation flow, there are single-, double-, or
even triple-stage rotor/stator configurations (Megatron®).

5 Mortar and Pestle Tissue Grinders: Shear by Mechanical Pressure

This class of simple devices disrupts cells and homogenizes tissues

by the pressure and friction generated when a moving pestle
pinches the samples against the wall of the mortar. Though usually
manual, there are electrically driven units available. The previous
equipment class of Rotor/Stator equipment is an alternative design
of this technique. Selection of proper mortar depends upon sam-
ples to be processed. Materials of construction are of glass, stainless
steel, Teflon, and plastics. Some units available include: Wheaton
Potter-Elvehjem Tissue Grinders 2 mL samples and larger.
One practical aspect to use these devices for bacteria is to freeze
the sample with liquid nitrogen.
10 Stanley Goldberg

6 High-Pressure Batch: Expanding Fluids

6.1 Theory There are two widely used cell disruption methods that employ
rapidly expanding fluids from within the cell to explode the cell
membranes. The French Press G-M® uses liquid under pressure,
and the Parr cell disruption vessel uses compressed gases. Since
these are bath operations, they are only suitable for small quantities
of less than about a liter.

6.1.1 The French The French Press G-M design consists of a stainless steel cylinder
Press G-M® (called Pressure Cell) fitted with an exit valve at one end and a
piston/plunger at the other end. Up to 35 mL of suspend-free
cells in buffer are loaded into the pressure cell. With the exit valve
closed the piston is pressed against the liquid by a hydraulic press,
called the French Press G-M. Once a suitable pressure (up to
40 kpsi) is achieved throughout the liquid and within the cell body,
then the outlet valve is opened to allow the cell suspension to drip
out at a slow rate of about 1 mL/min (9–20 drops/min). This
exposure to atmospheric pressure, being much lower than the
pressure that was forced within the microorganism’s body causes
the liquid to rush out, and thereby rupturing the cell membrane.
Normally, bacteria (at 40 kpsi) and yeast (at 20 kpsi) are handled in
the French Press G-M, not tissues, plants, nor seeds (Fig. 7).

6.1.2 The Parr Cell The Parr cell disruption vessel is a pressure vessel into which the
Disruption Vessel sample to be disrupted is placed along with a dip tube fitted with
an exit valve. Suitable gas such as nitrogen at 2 kpsi is forced into
the vessel and dissolved into the cells. When the exit valve is opened
the gas pressure is suddenly released causing the nitrogen to come
out of the solution within the cells as expanding bubbles. This
action stretches the membranes of each cell until they rupture and
releases the contents of the cell. Although sometimes referred to as
“explosive decompression,” nitrogen decompression is actually a
gentle method.
This method is suited for treating mammalian and other
membrane-bound cells, for treating plant cells, for releasing virus
from fertilized eggs, and for treating fragile bacteria. It is not rec-
ommended for untreated bacterial cells, unless using various
pretreatment procedures to weaken the cell wall. Yeast, fungus,
spores, and other materials with tough walls do not respond well
to this method (Figs. 8 and 9).

6.2 Practical ● Keeping the samples cold is achieved by pre-chilling of the

Aspects pressure cell. After the cells exit the valve, immediately cool by
keeping the collection beaker on ice. There are no provisions
6.2.1 French Press G-M®
to chill during the disruption process.
● Removal of air prior to closing the exit valve will minimize the
amount of oxygen degradation of the released proteins.
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 11

Fig. 7 High-pressure batch—Liquid expansion French Press G-M and pressure

cells (35 mL and 3.7 mL) equipment

Fig. 8 High-pressure batch—gas expansion—Parr vessel equipment

12 Stanley Goldberg

Fig. 9 High-pressure batch—gas expansion—inside view

● During the paced release of materials, the pressure in the

Pressure Cell will drop. This needs to be balanced by periodi-
cally re-pressurizing the system by running the hydraulic press.

6.2.2 Parr Cell ● Individual cells such as lymphocytes, leukocytes, tissue culture
Disruption Vessel cells, or very fragile bacterial cells will not require pretreat-
ment. Tissues must usually be pre-minced to ensure that they
not plug the exit dip tube and discharge valve.
● The intended use of a homogenate generally determines the
composition of the suspending medium. Isotonic solutions are
commonly used. Solutions with higher concentrations will
tend to stabilize the nucleus and organelles. Conversely, very
dilute solutions will pre-stretch the cells by osmotic pressure
and will render them more susceptible to disruption by the
Vessel method.
● Very small quantities of calcium chloride, magnesium acetate,
or magnesium chloride added to the suspending medium will
stabilize the nuclei when differential rupture is desired. Ratios
of approximately 10 mL of suspending medium to 1 g of wet
cells are commonly used to prepare the cell suspension.
● Small sample quantities can be held inside of a smaller test tube or
beaker placed in the vessel. The inner container should be
approximately twice the volume of the suspension to be treated,
and the dip tube adjusted to reach the bottom of the container.
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 13

● To cool a small inner vessel, it can be floated on ice water

within the vessel. The dip tube will hold it in place. Alternatively,
the entire external unit may be chilled.
● Degree of disruption can be controlled by the amount of gas
pressure introduced. The greater the pressure, the more
homogenization. The use of moderate pressures will reduce
the disruptive forces and thus leave nuclei, active mitochon-
dria, and other organelles intact.

7 High-Pressure Flow: Shear Through a Valve or Tube

7.1 Theory In high-pressure homogenizers, the liquid stream of suspended

cells is forced at high pressure down a narrow channel or across the
small gap of a valve. This accelerates its speed, thereby stretching
and shearing cells. In some designs, the moving stream is subse-
quently and abruptly impacted against an obstacle to further dam-
age the cells’ membrane. Two versions of impact are (1) where the
stream is directed to slam against an impingement wall (trade name
Gaulin®), and (2) where the stream is split into two legs of a “Y”,
and these lines are then directed at one another in an interaction
chamber where they collide, further disrupting the cells (trade
name Microfluidics®). These devices are used for suspended-free
cells, not for tissue samples.

7.1.1 High-Pressure The construction of the high-pressure homogenizer consists of a

Valve with Impingement positive displacement pump, a homogenizing valve, and sometimes
Wall: Gaulin an impingement wall or ring. Though pumps may consist of one,
two, three, or five plungers, most smaller laboratory homogenizers
and those for cell breakage have only one plunger.
Attached to the pump is a homogenizing valve assembly that
may consist of one or two stages. For cell disruption a single-stage
valve is needed, typically consisting of three parts: a seat (bottom
part), a valve (top part), and an impact (wear) wall or ring.
By adjusting the gap or clearance between the valve and seat,
the flow area in the homogenizing valve is controlled. When the
flow area is reduced, pressure within the pump discharge manifold
increases. When the flow area is increased, the pressure is reduced.
The high pressure generated by the pump is converted to fluid
velocity and heat as the fluid is discharged from the restricted area
in the homogenizing valve. For cell disruption, the microorgan-
isms are disrupted due to various mechanisms associated with the
fluid velocity. At 100 MPa, the fluid velocity can be as high as
450 m/s (Figs. 10 and 11).

7.1.2 High-Pressure These processors disrupt cells by applying a combination of shear

Flow Narrow Tubes and impact forces onto the cells. The media that contains the cells
or Opposed Jets: is forced through the narrow channels of the proprietary interac-
Microfluidics tion chamber of the processor. Inside these channels, with typical
14 Stanley Goldberg

Fig. 10 High-pressure flow—liquid shear—SPX equipment

Fig. 11 High-pressure flow—liquid shear—inside view

dimensions of 75–300 μm, the fluid achieves velocities up to

400 m/s. High pressures (up to 275 MPa) are required to gener-
ate the high velocities inside the interaction chamber. The result-
ing shear rates can be up to 10,000,000/s and are the highest
commercially available. An alternative configuration splits the
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 15

Fig. 12 High-pressure flow-opposed liquid streams—Microfluidizer inside view

stream of pressurized cell suspension fluid into two legs. These are
then directed at one another in an interaction chamber where they
collide, disrupting the cells.
This equipment is suitable for a variety of free cells (bacteria,
yeasts, mammalian cells), but not seeds, tissue samples, nor plant
materials. The design of identical fluid channels in both laboratory-
scale and large-scale units allows for direct scale-up from the small-
est laboratory unit (14 mL batch) directly to large production
units (tens of L/min) (Fig. 12).

7.1.3 Practical Aspects ● To process a small sample size, first a liquid compatible with the
Using High-Pressure Valve continuous phase of the slurry is added to the feed hopper of
with Impingement Wall: the homogenizer. The machine is started and the pressure is set.
Gaulin When the liquid level reaches the very bottom of the feed hop-
per, the cell slurry can be added quickly. The cell slurry will
push the liquid ahead of it. When the slurry is observed in the
discharge, a sample can be taken. In this way, limited sample is
not lost while waiting for pressure to rise to operational levels.
● If the product is very sensitive to heat, then it may be necessary
to cool the equipment prior to introducing cell suspension and
to cool the suspension immediately after it discharges from the
homogenizer. A cooling coil is connected to the discharge
tube of the homogenizer and is immersed in an ice water bath.
Since the homogenizer is a positive displacement pump, there
must be no valves or restrictions in this discharge line that
could potentially shut off flow. Rapid chilling will minimize
16 Stanley Goldberg

losses due to the temperature rise of 2.5 °C per 10 MPa of

pressure generated during the nearly adiabatic heating during
pressurization.
● To improve breakage, higher pressures are used up to the
pump’s limits. High pressure can shorten valve life.

7.1.4 Practical Aspects: ● The material should be fully thawed before processing; ice may
High-Pressure Narrow plug the chambers.
Tubes/Opposed Jets ● Multiple passes decrease the particle artifacts’ size. Purification
methods to be used after cell disruption may determine the
desired particle size.
● Optimization with respect to process pressure and number of
passes may be needed to increase the yield and facilitate subse-
quent purification steps.
● Most models are autoclavable and air driven, though some are
electric-hydraulic systems. In many circumstances, especially when
samples are processed multiple times, the Microfluidizer® proces-
sors require sample cooling before and/or after processing.

8 Low Pressure: Shear by Droplet’s Impingement

Invented at Indiana University, the BioNeb® disruption system dis-

rupts cells by a low-pressure droplet method. In the process of
droplet formation, large molecules or cells suspended in the liquid
being nebulized are forcefully distributed from the liquid into the
forming secondary droplet. This creates a transient laminar flow in
the microcapillary “nebulization” channel formed between the
surface of the liquid and the forming secondary droplet. The lami-
nar flow in the capillary channel exerts sufficient shearing forces to
break cells. The shearing force created depends on the gas pressure
applied (10–250 psi), the type of gas (nitrogen, argon, etc.) and
the viscosity of the liquid. By varying these parameters, it is possi-
ble to precisely regulate the magnitude of the force applied during
nebulization (Fig. 13).

9 Ultrasonic Processors: Shear by Collapsing Bubbles

9.1 Theory The use of sound waves in fluids can disrupt cells. The operation
starts with normal electrical current (50 Hz or 60 Hz) being trans-
formed to 20,000 Hz. This electrical signal is fed to a piezo-electric
crystal causing it to oscillation at this high frequency. The vibra-
tions move a titanium metal HORN about 5–15 μm. The shape of
the horn amplifies this motion to 100–150 μm/cycle. By placing
the horn’s end—the tip—into fluid, the tip moves the liquid
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 17

Fig. 13 Droplet low pressure nebulizer—BioNeb equipment

forward (away) and then retracts (back) quicker than the liquid can
return. During the return stroke, the pressure in the system drops
below the vapor pressure of the liquid so boiling occurs (“cavita-
tion”). As the liquid flows back, the bubbles collapse. This bubble
collapsing imparts the energy needed to disrupt the cells (Fig. 14).

9.2 Practical ● Denaturing of proteins due to high temperature or excessive

Aspects shear is often noted. The equipment has ON–OFF–ON cycle
adjustments available. During the OFF periods, the samples can
cool. Lowered amplitude settings may reduce protein damage.
● Hint to improve bubble formation is to keep the system as cold
as possible.
● Time savings can be achieved by ganging several samples into
96-well titer plates rather then running one sample at a time.
Multi models can accommodate these plates. Also, some mod-
els have several tips fitted on a single horn that can handle
several samples simultaneously.
● Larger quantities up to 100 L/h flow rates can be processed in
the Sonitube. Here the entire pipe for 15 in. (35 cm) oscillates
and ultrasonically processes all fluids pumped through.
18 Stanley Goldberg

Fig. 14 Ultrasonic—shear by collapsing bubbles—Sonicator equipment

10 Extraction Across an Electromotive Field

10.1 Theory Extracting non-polar lipids from microalgae are achieved using a
lipid extraction device having an anode and a cathode that forms a
channel and defines a fluid flow path through which an aqueous
slurry is passed. An electromotive force is applied across the chan-
nel at a gap distance in a range from 0.5 mm to 200 mm to cause
the non-polar lipids to be released from the algae cells (Fig. 15).

10.2 Practical ● The non-polar lipids can be extracted at a high-throughput

Applications rate and with low concentrations of polar lipids such as
phospholipids and chlorophyll.
● Used to concentrate algae and other microorganisms from
aqueous systems for harvesting and concentrating cell masses.
● Still experimental for cell lysing or product extracting.
● Clearing water streams.

Acknowledgements

Superb assistance was rendered by the following people who are

most conversant in their noted equipment areas. Bead Milling
by Tim Hopkins (Biospec Products) and Harald Frommherz
 Mechanical/Physical Cell Disruption Methods 19

Electro Water SeparationTM

The OriginOil Two-Stage Process

Electro-Flotation

Concentrate

Electrical Pulses

Contaminated Clear
Water Water

Electro-Coagulation
Electrical Pulses

Fig. 15 Electro Water Separation

(W. A. Bachofen AG); Rotor-Stator by Roger Munsinger

(Kinematica USA/AG); High pressure flowing liquid by Toni
Parker (SPX) and Steven Mesite (Microfluidics/IDEX); High
pressure batch liquid by Robert Borgon (University of Central
Florida); High pressure batch gas by Kay Frere and Lisa Randolph
(Parr Instruments); Low pressure flowing gas by James Jacso
(Glas-Col); and Ultrasonic processors by Andrea Coppola and
Marc Lusting (QSonica); Electro Water Separation by Devin
Angus and Jean-Louis Kindle (Origin Oil).
My book editor Dr. Anthon Posch has been exceptionally sup-
portive in both technical as well as motivational matters. My wife
Robin and sons Evan and Adam are the sparkle of my life.

References

1. Reinkemeier M, Rocken W, Leitzmann C 4. Lizotte E, Tremblay A, Allen BG, Fiset C

(1996) A rapid mechanical lysing procedure
for routine analysis of plasmids from lactoba-
cilli, isolated from sourdoughs. Int J Food
Microbiol 29:93–104
2. Rezwan M, Laneelle MA, Sander P, Daffe M
(2007) Breaking down the wall: fractionation
of mycobacteria. J Microbiol Methods 68(1):
32–39
3. Jung J, Xing X, Matsumoto K (2001) Kinetic
analysis of disruption of excess activated sludge
by Dyno Mill and characteristics of protein
release for recovery of useful materials.
Biochem Eng J 8:1–7
(2005) Isolation and characterization of sub-
cellular protein fractions from mouse heart.
Anal Biochem 345:47–54
5. Lindeskog P, Haaparanta T, Norgard M,
Glaumann H, Hansson T, Gustafsson JA
(1986) Isolation of rat intestinal microsomes:
partial characterization of mucosal cytochrome
P-450. Arch Biochem Biophys 244:492–501
6. Borgon RA, Verity N (2012) Quantitative bio-
logical methods. Pearson Learning Solutions,
Boston, MA
7. Autuori F, Brunk U, Peterson E, Dallner G
(1982) Fractionation of isolated liver cells after
20 Stanley Goldberg
disruption with a nitrogen vessel and sonica-
tion. J Cell Sci 57:1–13
8. Kelly WJ, Muske KR (2004) Optimal opera-
tion of high-pressure homogenization for
intracellular product recovery. Bioprocess
Biosyst Eng 27:25–37
9. Mehlhorn I, Groth D, Stockel J, Moffat B,
Reilly D, Yansura D, Willett WS, Baldwin M,
Fletterick R, Cohen FE, Vandlen R, Henner
D, Prusiner SB (1996) High-level expression
and characterization of a purified 142-residue
polypeptide of the prion protein. Biochemistry
35:5528–5537
View publication stats
10. Vinatier J, Herzog E, Plamont MA, Wojcik
SM, Schmidt A, Brose N, Daviet L, El
Mestikawy S, Giros B (2006) Interaction
between the vesicular glutamate transporter
type 1 and endophilin A1, a protein essential
for endocytosis. J Neurochem 97:1111–1125
11. Jaki BU, Franzblau SG, Cho SH, Pauli GF
(2006) Development of an extraction method
for mycobacterial metabolome analysis. J Pharm
Biomed Anal 41:196–200
12. Eckelberry N (2013) US patent application
publication, US 2013/0211113 A1, 15 Aug
2013