226
E. Elfanso et al. / Catalysis Today 155 (2010) 223–226
velocity yo obtained from equation 1 and from the spectroscopic
measurements. Corana’s simulated annealing [13] was chosen as
the global optimizer for present problem, since it has been proven
to be quite robust in obtaining global solutions for highly nonlinear
optimization cases. The major advantage of this optimization
approach over the conservative graphical method is that less
experimental data is generally needed, but the parameters
modeled prove to be quite accurate. Using the experimental
results obtained from 10 different experiment runs, the values of
KmA
, KmB, KsiB, and V were calculated. These values are
2.51E5 ꢁ 4.07E4 M, 1.53Eꢀ2 ꢁ 3.04Eꢀ2 M, 0.13 ꢁ 0.03 M, and
224 ꢁ 111 mol gꢀ1 minꢀ1, respectively. The sum of squared error
between predicted and actual experimental data is circa 7.68Eꢀ9.
Fig. 8. The reciprocal initial velocity of the reaction versus reciprocal ethanol
4. Conclusion
concentration.
In the present study, it has been demonstrated that fiber-optic
Raman spectroscopy can be used to facilitate the kinetic
investigation of immobilized enzymatic reaction in turbid systems.
Although the signal-to-noise ratio of the Raman measurements
were reduced somewhat due to the turbidity, spectral measure-
ments in the range of 1300–1800 cmꢀ1 permitted quantitative
assessment of the carbonyl and ester vibrational bands associated
with oleic acid and ethyl oleate. This information was subse-
quently used to obtain the concentration profiles of ethyl oleate as
a function of time and the values of initial reaction velocity. The
experimental runs conducted at various reaction temperatures
suggested an optimal reaction temperature of 60 8C. The experi-
mental runs with varying substrates ratios suggest that this
reaction undergoes a Ping-Pong Bi-Bi mechanism with an ethanol
exhibiting inhibitory effect. The present analytical approach to
monitor turbid immobilized enzymatic reaction is rather general
and not restricted to the present reaction alone. It appears
applicable to a wide range of enzymatic reactions conducted in
either aqueous or organic solvents.
Fig. 9. The effect of molar ratio (mol ethanol/mol oleic acid) on the initial reaction
velocity (varying amount of oleic acid at fixed amount of ethanol).
with oleic acid to form a lipase-oleic acid complex. The lipase–oleic
acid complex then transforms to a carboxylic-lipase intermediate
releasing water. This is then followed by the binding of carboxylic-
lipase intermediate to ethanol to form another binary complex,
and subsequently yielding ethyl oleate and free lipase. A similar
deduction on this reaction sequence has been suggested by
Chulalaksananukul et al. [10].
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Agency for Science, Technology
and Research (A*STAR), Singapore.
References
Since the present esterification reaction follows a Ping-Pong Bi-
Bi mechanism with the dead-end inhibition by ethanol, the
equation for initial velocity of reaction can be written as follows:
[1] S.H. Krishna, N.G. Karanth, Catal. Rev. 44 (2002) 499.
[2] M. Haberkorn, P. Hinsmann, B. Lendl, Analyst 127 (2002) 109.
[3] A. Kandelbauer, O. Maute, R.W. Kessler, A. Erlacher, G.M. Guebitz, Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 87 (2004) 552.
[4] M.P.A. Ribeiro, T.F. Padua, O.D. Leite, R.L.C. Giordano, R.C. Giordano, Chemom.
Intell. Lab. Syst. 90 (2008) 169.
Vab
yo
¼
(1)
K
mBa þ KmAbð1 þ b=KsiBÞ þ ab
where b refers to the inhibitory substrate (ethanol) concentration,
a refers to oleic acid concentration, V is the maximum possible of
reaction rate when A (oleic acid) and B (ethanol) are both
saturating; yo is the initial reaction velocity; KmA, known as the
limiting Michaelis constant for A, is the concentration of A which
gives 1/2 V when B is saturating; KmB, known as the limiting
Michaelis constant for B, is the concentration of B which gives 1/2 V
when A is saturating; KsiB is the dissociation constant of EB, with E
referring to enzyme. Further details of the ping-pong bi-bi
mechanism can be found in the detailed article by Chulalaksana-
nukul et al. [10], as well as [11,12].
[5] M.E. Amato, G. Ansanelli, S. Fisichella, R. Lamanna, G. Scarlata, A.P. Sobolev, A.
Segre, J. Agric. Food Chem. 52 (2004) 823.
[6] Z.Y. Wang, T. Nozawa, in: J.-N. Barbotin, J.-C. Portais (Eds.), NMR in Microbiology:
Theory and Applications, Horizon Scientific Press, Amiens, 2000, p. 221 (Chapter 10).
[7] E. Horvath, J. Gajari, J. Kristof, A. Redey, L. Kocsis, Anal. Chim. Acta 370 (1998) 191.
[8] M. Lopez-Pastor, A. Dominguez-Vidal, M.J. Ayora-Canada, B. Lendl, M. Valcarcel,
Microchem. J. 87 (2007) 93.
[9] T.I. Williams, T.W. Collette, in: I.R. Lewis, H.G.M. Edwards (Eds.), Handbook of
Raman Spectroscopy: From The Research Laboratory to the Process Line, CRC
Press, New York, 2001, p. 683.
[10] W. Chulalaksananukul, J.S. Condoret, P. Delorme, R.M. Willemot, FEBS Lett. 276
(1990) 181.
[11] A. Marty, W. Chulalaksananukul, R.M. Willemot, J.S. Condoret, Biotechnol. Bioeng.
39 (1992) 273.
[12] I.H. Segel, Enzyme Kinetics. Behavior and Analysis of Rapid Equilibrium and
Steady-State Enzyme Systems, Wiley–Interscience, USA, 1975.
[13] A. Corana, M. Marchesi, C. Martini, S. Ridella, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 13 (1987)
262.
In order to determine the kinetic parameters (KmA, KmB, KsiB, and
V) of the above equation, a global optimization approach was
employed to minimize the differences between the initial reaction