Premium
Transient response of encapsulated enzymes in hollow‐fiber reactor
Author(s) -
Trujillo Edward M.
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
biotechnology and bioengineering
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.136
H-Index - 189
eISSN - 1097-0290
pISSN - 0006-3592
DOI - 10.1002/bit.260290418
Subject(s) - michaelis–menten kinetics , chemistry , kinetics , diffusion , reaction rate constant , ultrafiltration (renal) , thermodynamics , reaction rate , partition coefficient , chromatography , membrane , fiber , membrane reactor , batch reactor , immobilized enzyme , enzyme , enzyme assay , biochemistry , organic chemistry , physics , quantum mechanics , catalysis
Abstract A mathematical model for the transient response of encapsulated enzymes is developed showing the effects of the outer boundary layer, the encapsulating membrane, the partition coefficient, and diffusion with reaction within the encapsulating medium. The model incorporates both first‐order kinetics and Michaelis–Menten kinetics for the reaction rate. Using typical hollow‐fiber or microcapsule parameters, the model shows that (a) the partition coefficient affects the overall rate only when the rate‐limiting step is diffusion through the membrane, (b) the transient overall effectiveness factor rises sharply with time and approaches an asymptotic value for most situations, and (c) the first‐order approximation to Michaelis–Menten kinetics is not valid when the initial outside bulk concentration is higher than the Michaelis constant and the overall rate is reaction limited. The model is compared with experimental data using uricase in a hollow‐fiber enzyme reactor configuration. Batch assay and CSTUER (continuous‐stirred ultrafiltration enzyme reactor) studies were conducted on the free enzyme to provide some of the parameters used in the model. The CSTUER data fit the case of substrate inhibition kinetics with the apparent Michaelis constant approaching zero. The hollow‐fiber reactor was conducted with uricase dissolved in both a buffer solution and a concentrated hemoglobin solution. Diffusivities of the solute were measured in both solutions as was the osmotic pressure of the hemoglobin solution. While experimental data for uricase in buffer solution could easily be matched by the model, that in the concentrated hemoglobin solution could not.