1. A three-step procedure was used to purify peroxidase from horseradish (Armoracia rusticana) roots, resulting in an overall yield of 71%, 291-fold purification, and a high specific activity of 772 U mg(-1) protein.
2. The isolated enzyme had an isoelectric point of 8.8 and a Reinheitszahl value of 3.39 and was stable when stored in the presence of glycerol at -20 degrees C, with >95% retention of original enzyme activity for at least 6 months.
3. Different conditions including concentrations of phenol/2-chlorophenol, H(2)O(2), and enzyme, time, pH, and temperature were standardized for the maximal activity of HRP with these substrates; under these optimal conditions 89.6 and 91.4% oxidations of phenol and 2-chlorophenol were obtained, respectively.
The article “Purification of Peroxidase from Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana) Roots” is generally reliable as it provides detailed information about the process used to purify peroxidase from horseradish roots as well as the results obtained from this process. The authors provide evidence to support their claims by citing relevant studies conducted by other researchers in the field which adds credibility to their work. Furthermore, they also provide detailed information about the different parameters that were optimized for maximal activity such as substrate concentrations, type of buffer used, pH levels etc., which further adds to the reliability of their findings.
However, there are some potential biases that should be noted when assessing this article’s trustworthiness. For example, while the authors do cite relevant studies conducted by other researchers in the field, they do not explore any counterarguments or alternative perspectives that may exist regarding their findings or conclusions drawn from them. Additionally, there is no mention made about possible risks associated with using peroxidase or any potential side effects that may arise from its use which could be important considerations when assessing its safety for commercial production purposes. Finally, while the authors do provide detailed information about their process and results obtained from it, they do not present both sides equally which could lead to a one-sided reporting bias in favor of their own findings or conclusions drawn from them.