Effect of pH on membrane fouling during alcohol dehydrogenase immobilization in PES membrane
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24191/mjcet.v3i2.11232Keywords:
Enzyme immobilization, Biocatalytic membrane, Enzyme membrane reactor, CO2 reduction, BiocatalysisAbstract
Fouling-induced enzyme immobilization is a technique to immobilize enzyme by positively manipulating the knowledge of membrane fouling. In this study, Alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) (EC 1.1.1.1) was immobilized in the support layer of ultrafiltration PES membrane at different solution pH (acid, neutral and alkaline). ADH catalyses formaldehyde (CHOH) to methanol (CH3OH), and simultaneously oxidised nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) to NAD+. The initial feed amount of enzyme is 3.0 mg. The objective of the study aims at the effect of different pH of feed solution during enzyme immobilization, in terms of permeate flux, observed rejection, enzyme loading and fouling mechanism. The results showed that, pH 5 holds the highest enzyme loading which is 65% while pH 7 holds the lowest at 52% out of 3.0 mg as the initial enzyme feed. The permeate flux for each pH decreased with increasing cumulative permeate volume. The observed rejection is inversely correlated with the pH where increase in pH will cause a lower observed rejection. The fouling model predicted that irreversible fouling occurs during enzyme immobilization at pH 7 with standard blocking mechanism while reversible fouling occurs at pH 5 and 9 with intermediate and complete blocking, respectively.
References
A. I. Schafer, & A. J. C. Semiao (2013). Removal of adsorbing estrogenic micropollutants by nanofiltration membranes. Part A — Experimental evidence. Journal of Membrane Science.431.244–256.
A. Sassolas, L. J. Blum, & B. D. Leca-Bouvier (2012). Immobilization strategies to develop enzymatic biosensors. Biotechnology Advances. 30(3). 489–511.
A. Y. Kirschner, Y. H. Cheng, D. R. Paul, R. W. Field & B. D. Freeman (2019). Fouling mechanisms in constant flux crossflow ultrafiltration. Journal of Membrane Science.65–75.
C. Mateo, J. M. Palomo, G. Fernandez-Lorente, J. M. Guisan, & R. Fernandez-Lafuente (2007). Improvement of enzyme activity, stability and selectivity via immobilization techniques. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 40(6). 1451–1463.
E. M. Van Voorthuizen, N. J. Ashbolt, & A. I. Schäfer (2001). Role of hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions for initial enteric virus retention by MF membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 194, 69–79.
F. H. Ismail, F. Marpani, & N. R. N. Him (2020). Immobilization of Alcohol Dehydrogenase in membrane: Fouling mechanism at different enzyme concentration. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 736(5). 1–8.
F. H. Ismail, F. Marpani, N. H. Othman, & N. R. Nik Him (2019). Simultaneous separation and biocatalytic conversion of formaldehyde to methanol in enzymatic membrane reactor. Chemical Engineering Communications. 0(0). 1–10.
F. Marpani, J. Luo, R. V. Mateiu, A. S. Meyer, & M. Pinelo (2015). In Situ Formation of a Biocatalytic Alginate Membrane by Enhanced Concentration Polarization. ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces. 7(32). 17682–17691.
F. Marpani, M. K. Zulkifli, F. H. Ismail, & S. M. Pauzi (2019). Immobilization of Alcohol Dehydrogenase in Membrane: Fouling Mechanism at Different Transmembrane Pressure. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society. 63(4). 260–265.
H. An, B. Jin, & S. Dai (2015). Fabricating polystyrene fiber-dehydrogenase assemble as a functional biocatalyst. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 68. 15–22.
J. Luo, A. S. Meyer, G. Jonsson, & M. Pinelo (2014b). Enzyme immobilization by fouling in ultrafiltration membranes: Impact of membrane configuration and type on flux behavior and biocatalytic conversion efficacy. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 83. 79–89.
J. Luo, F. Marpani, R. Brites, L. Frederiksen, A. S. Meyer, G. Jonsson, & M. Pinelo (2014a). Directing filtration to optimize enzyme immobilization in reactive membranes. Journal of Membrane Science. 459. 1–11.
K. L. Jones, & C. R. O’Melia (2000). Protein and humic acid adsorption onto hydrophilic membrane surfaces: Effects of pH and ionic strength. Journal of Membrane Science. 165(1). 31–46.
M. Hadidi, & A. L. Zydney (2014). Fouling behavior of zwitterionic membranes: Impact of electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions. Journal of Membrane Science. 452. 97–103.
M. Nyström, & H. Zhu (1997). Characterization of cleaning results using combined flux and streaming potential methods. Journal of Membrane Science. 131(1–2). 195–205.
Q. She, C. Y. Tang, Y. N. Wang, & Z. Zhang (2009). The role of hydrodynamic conditions and solution chemistry on protein fouling during ultrafiltration. Desalination. 249. 1079–1087.
R. Chan & V. Chen (2001). The effects of electrolyte concentration and pH on protein aggregation and deposition: critical flux and constant flux membrane filtration. Journal of Membrane Science. 185(2). 177–192.
S. Mazzuca, L. Giorno, A. Spadafora, R. Mazzei, & E. Drioli (2006). Immunolocalization of β-glucosidase immobilized within polysulphone capillary membrane and evaluation of its activity in situ. Journal of Membrane Science, 285(1–2), 152–158.
W. Guo, H.-H. Ngo, & J. Li (2012). A mini-review on membrane fouling. Bioresource Technology. 122. 27–34.
X. Gao, K. Ni, C. Zhao, Y. Ren, & D. Wei (2014). Enhancement of the activity of enzyme immobilized on polydopamine-coated iron oxide nanoparticles by rational orientation of formate dehydrogenase. Journal of Biotechnology. 188. 36–41.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
