| Literature DB >> 23109878 |
Chia-Hung Kuo1, Hsin-Hung Chen2, Jiann-Hwa Chen3, Yung-Chuan Liu4, Chwen-Jen Shieh1.
Abstract
Wax esters are long-chain esters that have been widely applied in premium lubricants, parting agents, antifoaming agents and cosmetics. In this study, the biocatalytic preparation of a specific wax ester, cetyl octanoate, is performed in n-hexane using two commercial immobilized lipases, i.e., Lipozyme(®) RMIM (Rhizomucor miehei) and Novozym(®) 435 (Candida antarctica). Response surface methodology (RSM) and 5-level-4-factor central composite rotatable design (CCRD) are employed to evaluate the effects of reaction time (1-5 h), reaction temperature (45-65 °C), substrate molar ratio (1-3:1), and enzyme amount (10%-50%) on the yield of cetyl octanoate. Using RSM to optimize the reaction, the maximum yields reached 94% and 98% using Lipozyme(®) RMIM and Novozym(®) 435, respectively. The optimum conditions for synthesis of cetyl octanoate by both lipases are established and compared. Novozym(®) 435 proves to be a more efficient biocatalyst than Lipozyme(®) RMIM.Entities:
Keywords: Candida antarctica; Rhizomucor miehei; esterification; lipase; optimization; wax esters
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23109878 PMCID: PMC3472770 DOI: 10.3390/ijms130911694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
CCRD and experimental data for 5-level-4-factor response surface analysis.
| Treatment No. | Factor | Lipozyme® RMIM yield | Novozym® 435 yield | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Time | Temp | Molar ratio | Enzyme Amount | |||
| 1 | 1(4) | −1(50) | 1(2.5) | −1(20) | 81.32 ± 0.76 | 92.96 ± 0.21 |
| 2 | 1(4) | −1(50) | −1(1.5) | −1(20) | 79.45 ± 4.25 | 84.93 ± 2.02 |
| 3 | 0(3) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | 2(50) | 90.49 ± 1.06 | 96.07 ± 0.10 |
| 4 | 1(4) | −1(50) | −1(1.5) | 1(40) | 88.01 ± 1.89 | 93.90 ± 1.26 |
| 5 | 0(3) | 2(65) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 80.22 ± 3.72 | 94.09 ± 2.40 |
| 6 | −1(2) | −1(50) | −1(1.5) | 1(40) | 68.40 ± 0.69 | 86.83 ± 2.80 |
| 7 | 1(4) | 1(60) | 1(2.5) | 1(40) | 94.86 ± 1.90 | 97.39 ± 0.57 |
| 8 | −1(2) | −1(50) | 1(2.5) | 1(40) | 76.47 ± 2.02 | 92.18 ± 0.83 |
| 9 | 0(3) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 81.71 ± 2.60 | 92.41 ± 0.66 |
| 10 | −1(2) | −1(50) | −1(1.5) | −1(20) | 67.05 ± 2.26 | 64.16 ± 0.39 |
| 11 | 2(5) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 92.11 ± 0.29 | 95.78 ± 0.09 |
| 12 | −1(2) | 1(60) | −1(1.5) | −1(20) | 60.25 ± 1.86 | 79.20 ± 0.89 |
| 13 | −2(1) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 44.62 ± 1.93 | 70.75 ± 0.47 |
| 14 | −1(2) | 1(60) | 1(2.5) | −1(20) | 70.44 ± 0.98 | 85.29 ± 3.01 |
| 15 | 0(3) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | −2(10) | 72.50 ± 0.46 | 66.83 ± 1.36 |
| 16 | 1(4) | 1(60) | 1(2.5) | −1(20) | 86.90 ± 1.34 | 97.22 ± 1.74 |
| 17 | 0(3) | 0(55) | −2(1.0) | 0(30) | 73.67 ± 3.62 | 78.23 ± 2.24 |
| 18 | −1(2) | −1(50) | 1(2.5) | −1(20) | 60.22 ± 0.85 | 76.64 ± 1.93 |
| 19 | 0(3) | 0(55) | 2(3.0) | 0(30) | 70.65 ± 2.68 | 94.28 ± 0.86 |
| 20 | 0(3) | −2(45) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 75.49 ± 0.89 | 88.77 ± 0.41 |
| 21 | 1(4) | 1(60) | −1(1.5) | −1(20) | 89.75 ± 0.93 | 91.62 ± 0.29 |
| 22 | 1(4) | 1(60) | −1(1.5) | 1(40) | 90.58 ± 1.54 | 95.76 ± 0.63 |
| 23 | −1(2) | 1(60) | −1(1.5) | 1(40) | 78.56 ± 0.64 | 88.85 ± 2.20 |
| 24 | −1(2) | 1(60) | 1(2.5) | 1(40) | 76.58 ± 2.86 | 97.15 ± 0.97 |
| 25 | 0(3) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 80.65 ± 1.05 | 92.40 ± 2.06 |
| 26 | 1(4) | −1(50) | 1(2.5) | 1(40) | 91.91 ± 1.28 | 97.95 ± 0.11 |
| 27 | 0(3) | 0(55) | 0(2.0) | 0(30) | 80.08 ± 1.63 | 93.14 ± 1.47 |
The treatments were run in random order;
(Ac:Al) was the molar ratio of octanoic acid:cetyl alcohol;
The enzyme amount is the weight percentage of cetyl alcohol. (Lipozyme® RMIM or Novozym® 435/cetyl alcohol, w/w)
Figure 1The relationship between predicted and experimental yield of cetyl octanoate for the two lipases tested: (a) Lipozyme® RMIM and (b) Novozym® 435.
ANOVA for synthetic variables pertaining to the response of percent yield.
| Source | Lipozyme® RMIM | Novozym® 435 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Sum of squares | Sum of squares | |||
| Linear | 2951.08 | <0.0001 | 1907.39 | <0.0001 |
| Quadratic | 233.75 | 0.0887 | 177.31 | 0.0222 |
| Crossproduct | 26.51 | 0.9713 | 197.06 | 0.0422 |
| Total Model | 3211.35 | 0.0001 | 2281.77 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of Fit | 267.29 | 0.0252 | 124.00 | 0.0144 |
| Pure Error | 1.36 | 0.36 | ||
| Total Error | 268.65 | 124.36 | ||
Very Significant at p-value less than 0.0001;
Significant at p-value less than 0.05;
Insignificant at p-value more than 0.05.
Analysis of variance for joint test.
| Factor | Lipozyme® RMIM | Novozym® 435 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Sum of squares | Sum of squares | |||
| Time ( | 2542.85 | <0.0001 | 928.55 | <0.0001 |
| Temperature ( | 87.83 | 0.5800 | 189.73 | 0.0304 |
| Molar ratio ( | 63.90 | 0.7214 | 340.11 | 0.0037 |
| Enzyme amount ( | 503.89 | 0.0153 | 1045.50 | <0.0001 |
Significant at p-value less than 0.05.
Figure 2Response surface plots showing the relationships between cetyl octanoate yield and reaction parameters for Lipozyme® RMIM: (a) reaction time and enzyme amount; (b) reaction time and temperature; (c) temperature and substrate molar ratio.
Figure 3Response surface plots showing the relationships between cetyl octanoate yield and reaction parameters for Novozym® 435: (a) reaction time and enzyme amount; (b) reaction time and temperature; (c) reaction time and substrate molar ratio.
Experimental and predicted values of optimization conditions for cetyl octanoate synthesis.
| Item | X1 (h) | X2 (°C) | X3 (Ac:Al) | X4 (%) | Predicted yield (%) | Experimental yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipozyme® RMIM | 4.00 | 57.51 | 2.12 | 46.41 | 97.56 ± 3.61 | 94.21 ± 1.56 |
| Novozym® 435 | 3.65 | 57.84 | 2.35 | 34.38 | 98.39 ± 1.61 | 98.24 ± 0.11 |
(Ac:Al) was the molar ratio of octanoic acid:cetyl alcohol.