Lipase Immobilized on the Hydrophobic Polytetrafluoroethene Membrane with Nonwoven Fabric and Its Application in Intensifying Synthesis of Butyl Oleate
- 176 Downloads
The synthesis of butyl oleate was studied in this paper with immobilized lipase. Five types of membrane were used as support to immobilize Rhizopus arrhizus lipase by following a procedure combining filtration and protein cross-linking. Results showed that hydrophobic polytetrafluoroethene membrane with nonwoven fabric (HO-PTFE-NF) was the favorite choice in terms of higher protein loading, activity, and specific activity of immobilized lipase. The factors including solvent polarity, lipase dosage, concentration, and molar ratio of substrate and temperature were found to have significant influence on conversion. Results showed that hexane (logP = 3.53) was a favorable solvent for the biosynthesis of butyl oleate in our studies. The optimal conditions were experimentally determined of 50 U immobilized lipase, molar ratio of oleic acid to butanol of 1.0, substrate concentration of 0.12 mol/L, temperature of 37 °C, and reaction time of 2 h. The conversion was beyond 91% and decreased slightly after 18 cycles. Lipase immobilization can improve the conversion and the repeated use of immobilized lipase relative to free lipase.
KeywordsLipase immobilization Butyl oleate Conversion
The authors are grateful to the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863) (NO.2007AA06Z310) and the Foundation of Beijing University of Chemical Technology for financial support.
- 1.Kohashi, H. (1990). in: Proceedings of the world conference on oleochemicals: into the 21st Century. Amer Oil Chemists Society, pp 243–250.Google Scholar
- 2.Linko, Y. Y., Rantanen, O., Yu, H. C., Linko, P., Tramper, J., & Vermüe, M. H. (1992). in: Biocatalysis in non-conventional media, progress in biotechnology (pp. 601–608). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 8.Vafiadi, C., Topakas, E., Alissandratos, A., Faulds, C. B., & Christakopoulos, P. (2008). Journal of Biotechnology, 133, 497–504.Google Scholar