| Literature DB >> 30224733 |
Na Li1,2,3, Qiuyang Xia3, Meihong Niu1, Qingwei Ping1, Huining Xiao4.
Abstract
Biochars produced from two different wood species over a microwave assisted pyrolysis process were used as novel and green-based supports for immobilizing enzyme, laccase in particular. The results obtained from FT-IR, SEM and BET measurements indicated that Maple biochar with honeycomb structure has higher surface area and pore volume than Spruce biochar; and there exist O-H, C-H, C=O and C=C groups in biochars for potential chemical modification. The best laccase immobilization conditions identified from an orthogonal experiment were pH = 3, laccase concentration 16 g/L and contact time 8 h. Under such conditions, the high immobilization yield (64.2%) and amount (11.14 mg/g) of laccase on Maple biochar were achieved, leading to the significantly improved thermal stability of laccase. Moreover, the immobilized laccase is reusable and enhanced the enzymatic degradation of 4-hydroxy-3,5-dichlorobiphenyl (71.4% yield), thus creating a promising and novel type of adsorbent in the removal of polychlorinated biphenyls from wastewater.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30224733 PMCID: PMC6141527 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-32013-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1FT-IR of biochar.
Figure 2SEM image of biochar, left is Maple sample (A1,A2) and right is Spruce sample (B1,B2).
L16 (43) orthogonal array design for laccase immobilization on different biochars.
| Run | pH | Laccase solution concentration (g/L) | Contact time (h) | Immobilization yield* on Mba (%) | Immobilization yield* on Sba (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.00 | 4.00 | 4.0 | 55.41 | 23.29 |
| 2 | 4.00 | 8.00 | 2.0 | 45.50 | 28.22 |
| 3 | 5.00 | 16.00 | 4.0 | 38.18 | 31.10 |
| 4 | 3.00 | 8.00 | 4.0 | 54.84 | 28.87 |
| 5 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 1.0 | 38.10 | 30.56 |
| 6 | 6.00 | 16.00 | 2.0 | 24.43 | 24.06 |
| 7 | 3.00 | 16.00 | 8.0 | 63.71 | 38.74 |
| 8 | 5.00 | 32.00 | 1.0 | 48.02 | 28.39 |
| 9 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 2.0 | 36.62 | 29.57 |
| 10 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 1.0 | 57.48 | 23.51 |
| 11 | 6.00 | 8.00 | 1.0 | 26.27 | 29.37 |
| 12 | 4.00 | 32.00 | 4.0 | 30.90 | 22.40 |
| 13 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 8.0 | 55.85 | 33.01 |
| 14 | 3.00 | 32.00 | 2.0 | 46.30 | 27.13 |
| 15 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 8.0 | 42.26 | 24.86 |
| 16 | 6.00 | 32.00 | 8.0 | 33.86 | 22.83 |
*Results are mean of ± SD of triplicates.
Figure 3EDS analysis of Mba, Mba-laccase, Sba and Sba-laccase.
Immobilization performances of Mba and Sba under the same experiment conditions.
| Support | Immobilization yield (%) | Immobilization amount (mg/g) | Recovered activity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mba | 64.23 | 11.14 | 66.50 |
| Sba | 37.62 | 7.58 | 63.06 |
Figure 4Thermal and operational stability of laccase immobilized on MCCBs by absorption at pH 4.0, 16 g/L initial lacasse concentration and 3 hours contact time.
Figure 5Lineweaver-Burk plots of free and immobilized laccase.
Figure 6Removal yield of HO-DiCB by Mba-laccase and Control at pH 3.0 room.