Table 3 Comparison of Modern and Traditional Purification Techniques: Efficiency, Cost, and Industrial Viability [50]
Aspect | Traditional Techniques | Modern Techniques |
|---|---|---|
Efficiency | Precipitation and Filtration: Lower efficiency, longer processing times, lower yields and multiple steps required with Purification Yield 40-60%. Less effective in reaching high enzyme purity, may require multiple steps for purification. Chromatography (Affinity & Gel Filtration): High purity but requires significant time and cost, with Purification Yield 60-90%. | Reverse Micellar Systems (RMS): Higher recovery efficiency (15-fold improvement) with faster processing times.)80% recovery in 45 min; 52% recovery in 30–40 h (traditional method)(, with Purification Yield 80% (15-fold increase). Immunopurification: High specificity, near 99% residual activity, effective for precise enzyme isolation.High purity and quick isolation (efficient). with Purification Yield 92-99% residual activity |
Cost | Lower initial costs, but longer processing times and lower yield increase operational costs | Higher initial cost due to specialized reagents (surfactants, antibodies), but cost-effective in the long run due to higher efficiency and lower processing time. |
Industrial Application | Suitable for smaller-scale or less purity-critical industries, like certain food processing sectors. | Suitable for industries needing high-purity enzymes, such as biofuels, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. |
Overall Viability | More suitable for smaller-scale production, but less viable for large-scale, high-purity enzyme production. | More cost-effective at industrial scale despite initial higher costs, with improved recovery and scalability. |