| Literature DB >> 25908991 |
Shahla Rezaei1, Hamed Tahmasbi1, Mehdi Mogharabi2, Alieh Ameri3, Hamid Forootanfar4, Mohammad Reza Khoshayand5, Mohammad Ali Faramarzi2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, enzymatic-assisted removal of hazardous dyes has been considered as an alternative and eco-friendly method compared to those of physicochemical techniques. The present study was designed in order to obtain the optimal condition for laccase-mediated (purified from the ascomycete Paraconiothyrium variabile) decolorization of Acid Blue 92; a monoazo dye, using response surface methodology (RSM). So, a D-optimal design with three variables, including pH, enzyme activity, and dye concentration, was applied to optimize the decolorization process. In addition, the kinetic and energetic parameters of the above mentioned enzymatic removal of Acid Blue 92 was investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Bioremediation; Decolorization; Enzyme Biocatalysis; Laccase; Optimization; Waste Treatment
Year: 2015 PMID: 25908991 PMCID: PMC4407540 DOI: 10.1186/s40201-015-0183-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Health Sci Eng
Figure 1Chemical structure of Acid Blue 92.
Level of independent variables in fractional factorial design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | A | - | 3 | 8 |
| Temperature | B | °C | 30 | 70 |
| Enzyme | C | U/mL | 1 | 2.5 |
| Dye | D | mg/L | 100 | 200 |
| Incubation time | E | min | 30 | 90 |
Fractional factorial design matrix and their observed responses for laccase-assisted decolorization of Acid Blue 92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.5 | 50 | 1.00 | 100 | 60 | 13.62 |
| 2 | 5.5 | 50 | 1.00 | 100 | 60 | 16.60 |
| 3 | 8.0 | 30 | 2.50 | 50 | 90 | 16.28 |
| 4 | 8.0 | 70 | 2.50 | 200 | 90 | 4.64 |
| 5 | 8.0 | 30 | 0.25 | 200 | 90 | 6.94 |
| 6 | 3.0 | 70 | 2.50 | 200 | 30 | 10.55 |
| 7 | 3.0 | 30 | 2.50 | 200 | 90 | 6.65 |
| 8 | 3.0 | 30 | 2.50 | 50 | 30 | 92.66 |
| 9 | 8.0 | 30 | 2.50 | 200 | 30 | 5.27 |
| 10 | 3.0 | 70 | 0.25 | 50 | 30 | 22.90 |
| 11 | 8.0 | 30 | 0.25 | 50 | 30 | 13.31 |
| 12 | 3.0 | 70 | 2.50 | 50 | 90 | 92.45 |
| 13 | 3.0 | 30 | 0.25 | 50 | 90 | 14.57 |
| 14 | 3.0 | 70 | 0.25 | 200 | 90 | 5.89 |
| 15 | 3.0 | 30 | 0.25 | 200 | 30 | 7.87 |
| 16 | 8.0 | 70 | 0.25 | 50 | 90 | 3.81 |
| 17 | 8.0 | 70 | 2.50 | 50 | 30 | 32.40 |
| 18 | 8.0 | 70 | 0.25 | 200 | 30 | 3.65 |
| 19 | 5.5 | 50 | 1.00 | 100 | 60 | 22.25 |
Figure 2Half-normal probability plot for statistical analysis of fractional factorial design. A: pH; C: Enzyme; D: Dye.
D-optimal design matrix containing various conditions and related responses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.00 | 0.75 | 75.00 | 4.4 |
| 2 | 1.30 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 2.1 |
| 3 | 5.50 | 3.10 | 137.50 | 99.3 |
| 4 | 3.00 | 0.75 | 200.00 | 5.3 |
| 5 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 19.2 |
| 6 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 14.4 |
| 7 | 3.00 | 0.75 | 75.00 | 11.8 |
| 8 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 15.5 |
| 9 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 200.00 | 10.3 |
| 10 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 75.00 | 42.2 |
| 11 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 32.39 | 58.1 |
| 12 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 16.3 |
| 13 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 17.3 |
| 14 | 8.00 | 2.50 | 200.00 | 14.4 |
| 15 | 9.70 | 3.25 | 137.50 | 6.1 |
| 16 | 8.00 | 2.50 | 75.00 | 92.1 |
| 17 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 242.61 | 4.3 |
| 18 | 5.50 | 1.63 | 137.50 | 18.7 |
| 19 | 8.00 | 0.75 | 200.00 | 0.8 |
| 20 | 5.50 | 0.15 | 137.50 | 4.4 |
Sequential model sum of squares for D-optimal design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean vs Total | 10503.78 | 1 | 10503.78 | - | - |
| Linear vs Mean | 9046.07 | 3 | 3015.36 | 8.54 | 0.0013 |
| 2FI vs Linear | 2028.02 | 3 | 676.01 | 2.43 | 0.1121 |
| Quadratic vs 2FI | 2671.26 | 3 | 890.42 | 9.38 | 0.003 |
| Cubic vs Quadratic | 820.89 | 4 | 205.22 | 9.57 | 0.0089 |
| Residual | 128.66 | 6 | 21.44 | - | - |
| Total | 25198.68 | 20 | 1259.93 | - | - |
Analysis of variance for D-optimal design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 13745.35 | 9 | 1527.26 | 16.08 | <0.0001 |
| A-A | 217.65 | 1 | 217.65 | 2.29 | 0.1610 |
| C-C | 6340.77 | 1 | 6340.77 | 66.78 | <0.0001 |
| D-D | 2487.64 | 1 | 2487.64 | 26.20 | 0.0005 |
| AC | 590.82 | 1 | 590.82 | 6.22 | 0.0317 |
| AD | 213.31 | 1 | 213.31 | 2.25 | 0.1648 |
| CD | 1223.89 | 1 | 1223.89 | 12.89 | 0.0049 |
| A2 | 548.32 | 1 | 548.32 | 5.77 | 0.0371 |
| C2 | 1878.05 | 1 | 1878.05 | 19.78 | 0.0012 |
| D2 | 34.93 | 1 | 34.93 | 0.37 | 0.5577 |
| Residual | 949.55 | 10 | 94.95 | - | - |
| Lack of fit | 883.05 | 5 | 176.61 | 13.28 | 0.0065 |
| Pure error | 66.5 | 5 | 13.3 | - | - |
| Cor total | 14694.9 | 19 | - | - | - |
Figure 3Response surface plot indicating the effects of interactions between a) pH and the enzyme activity, b) pH and the dye concentration, c) the enzyme activity and the dye concentration.
Figure 4Kinetic study. a) Michaelis-Menten plot, b) Lineweaver-Burk plot.
Figure 5Energetic Study. a) dependence of decolorization rate on temperature (10–50°C), b) Arrhenius plot, c) van’t Hoff plot and, d) Gibbs free energy changes plot.