Antonio L Medina-Castillo1,2, Lucija Ruzic1,3,4, Bernd Nidetzky4,5, Juan M Bolivar3. 1. Nanomateriales y Polimeros S.L. (NanoMyP®), Spin-Off Company of the University of Granada, BIC Building, Avd. Innovacion 1, E-18016 Granada, Spain. 2. Department of Analytical Chemistry, University of Granada, Avd. Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain. 3. FQPIMA Group, Chemical and Materials Engineering Department, Faculty of Chemical Sciences, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain. 4. Institute of Biotechnology and Biochemical Engineering, Graz University of Technology, NAWI Graz, Petersgasse 12, A-8010 Graz, Austria. 5. Austrian Centre of Industrial Biotechnology, Krenngasse 37, A-8010 Graz, Austria.
Abstract
The high porosity, interconnected pore structure, and high surface area-to-volume ratio make the hydrophilic nonwoven nanofiber membranes (NV-NF-Ms) promising nanostructured supports for enzyme immobilization in different biotechnological applications. In this work, NV-NF-Ms with excellent mechanical and chemical properties were designed and fabricated by electrospinning in one step without using additives or complicated crosslinking processes after electrospinning. To do so, two types of ultrahigh-molecular-weight linear copolymers with very different mechanical properties were used. Methyl methacrylate-co-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (p(MMA)-co-p(HEMA)) and methyl acrylate-co-hydroxyethyl acrylate (p(MA)-co-p(HEA)) were designed and synthesized by reverse atom transfer radical polymerization (reverse-ATRP) and copper-mediated living radical polymerization (Cu0-MC-LRP), respectively. The copolymers were characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) spectroscopy and by triple detection gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The polarity, topology, and molecular weight of the copolymers were perfectly adjusted. The polymeric blend formed by (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 (M w = 230,855 ± 7418 Da; M n = 115,748 ± 35,567 Da; PDI = 2.00) and (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (M w = 1.972 × 106 ± 33,729 Da; M n = 1.395 × 106 ± 35,019 Da; PDI = 1.41) was used to manufacture (without additives or chemical crosslinking processes) hydroxylated nonwoven nanofiber membranes (NV-NF-Ms-OH; 300 nm in fiber diameter) with excellent mechanical and chemical properties. The morphology of NV-NF-Ms-OH was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The suitability for enzyme binding was proven by designing a palette of different surface functionalization to enable both reversible and irreversible enzyme immobilization. NV-NF-Ms-OH were successfully functionalized with vinyl sulfone (281 ± 20 μmol/g), carboxyl (560 ± 50 μmol/g), and amine groups (281 ± 20 μmol/g) and applied for the immobilization of two enzymes of biotechnological interest. Galactose oxidase was immobilized on vinyl sulfone-activated materials and carboxyl-activated materials, while laccase was immobilized onto amine-activated materials. These preliminary results are a promising basis for the application of nonwoven membranes in enzyme technology.
The high porosity, interconnected pore structure, and high surface area-to-volume ratio make the hydrophilic nonwoven nanofiber membranes (NV-NF-Ms) promising nanostructured supports for enzyme immobilization in different biotechnological applications. In this work, NV-NF-Ms with excellent mechanical and chemical properties were designed and fabricated by electrospinning in one step without using additives or complicated crosslinking processes after electrospinning. To do so, two types of ultrahigh-molecular-weight linear copolymers with very different mechanical properties were used. Methyl methacrylate-co-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (p(MMA)-co-p(HEMA)) and methyl acrylate-co-hydroxyethyl acrylate (p(MA)-co-p(HEA)) were designed and synthesized by reverse atom transfer radical polymerization (reverse-ATRP) and copper-mediated living radical polymerization (Cu0-MC-LRP), respectively. The copolymers were characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) spectroscopy and by triple detection gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The polarity, topology, and molecular weight of the copolymers were perfectly adjusted. The polymeric blend formed by (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 (M w = 230,855 ± 7418 Da; M n = 115,748 ± 35,567 Da; PDI = 2.00) and (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (M w = 1.972 × 106 ± 33,729 Da; M n = 1.395 × 106 ± 35,019 Da; PDI = 1.41) was used to manufacture (without additives or chemical crosslinking processes) hydroxylated nonwoven nanofiber membranes (NV-NF-Ms-OH; 300 nm in fiber diameter) with excellent mechanical and chemical properties. The morphology of NV-NF-Ms-OH was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The suitability for enzyme binding was proven by designing a palette of different surface functionalization to enable both reversible and irreversible enzyme immobilization. NV-NF-Ms-OH were successfully functionalized with vinyl sulfone (281 ± 20 μmol/g), carboxyl (560 ± 50 μmol/g), and amine groups (281 ± 20 μmol/g) and applied for the immobilization of two enzymes of biotechnological interest. Galactose oxidase was immobilized on vinyl sulfone-activated materials and carboxyl-activated materials, while laccase was immobilized onto amine-activated materials. These preliminary results are a promising basis for the application of nonwoven membranes in enzyme technology.
Electrospinning is a relatively
simple and versatile technique
for preparing continuous fibers with diameters ranging from tens of
nanometers to several micrometers.[1,2] The resulting
membranes feature interconnected pores and usually possess higher
porosities, higher surface roughness, and larger effective surface
areas than conventional polymeric and ceramic membranes.[3,4] These advantages make electrospun membranes very useful in filtration
processes and tissue engineering and as carrier support in the preparation
of immobilized enzymes.[5−8]Immobilized enzymes show application in different sectors
of biotechnology,
biosensing, and catalysis in chemical production.[5−8] The enzyme immobilization approach
involves the incorporation of the enzyme into a prefabricated solid
material, the in situ enzyme encapsulation/entrapment,
or the immobilization into ex novo solid supports
(CLEAs, nanoflowers, etc.).[9−11] The primary function of enzyme
immobilization is simplifying enzyme handling and enabling the reuse
or continuous use of the enzyme. Besides these technical advantages,
enzyme immobilization is usually associated with the possibility of
modulating enzyme properties such as activity, stability, selectivity,
etc.; in that way, the science of enzyme immobilization can provide
a powerful toolbox to suit enzyme biocatalysts to application requirements.
The design of an enzyme-immobilized biocatalyst with practical use
and suitable functional properties involves a multiparameter process.[9−11]One key aspect of the enzyme immobilization preparation is
the
selection of material and the physicochemical principles of enzyme
incorporation, which dictates the suitability of the use and the properties
of the biotechnological asset.[9−12] The material features have a critical influence on
the choice of the reactor, conditions of application, and also functional
properties of the immobilized enzyme such as activity and stability.[9−13] It is therefore not surprising that the enzyme technology field
has been adopting trends in material engineering,[14−17] where the new generation of materials
has brought advances regarding new structural features and functionalities,
carrying the applicability of enzymes beyond traditional formats of
use.[18−20] In this sense, inorganic and organic polymeric membranes
have been receiving considerable attention.[21−23]Among
new materials, nonwoven nanofiber membranes (NV-NF-Ms) have
shown to be one of the most desirable nanostructured supports for
enzyme immobilization due to their physicochemical properties.[23−26] Surface features (hydrophobic/hydrophilic properties) and surface
functionalization to control enzyme binding are important design aspects
to achieve practical, active, and stable catalysts. The suitable balance
of hydrophobic/hydrophilic character should be normally suited to
specific requirements of enzyme and reaction features. While hydrophobic
membranes are easily obtained and available, hydrophilic NV-NF-Ms
are normally hindered by poor mechanical properties such as abrasion
resistance, tensile strength, elongation at break, and temperature
resistance, among others, attributed to their high porosity, intrinsically
low, random fiber orientations, and weak interactions between fiber
junctions.[3,4,27−30]To achieve hydrophilic NV-NF-Ms with suitable mechanical properties,
different design alternatives are possible. Although the polarity
and topology of electrospinnable polymers are normally considered
parameters that affect the mechanical properties of NV-NF-Ms, the
molecular weight (Mw) is indeed one of
the most important factors in the tensile strength and elongation
at break of NV-NF-Ms. The positive relationship between Mw and mechanical properties of NV-NF-Ms can be ascribed
to an increase in the length of the polymer chains.[31−34] However, the difficulty of synthesizing
well-controlled electrospinnable hydrophilic polymers means that,
in most cases, hydrophilic NV-NF-Ms are hindered by poor mechanical
strength.[35,36] Today, most of the efforts aimed at improving
the mechanical properties of hydrophilic NV-NF-Ms are focused on the
use of additives during the electrospinning process and chemical crosslinking
processes after electrospinning.[3,4,27−30] Less effort is devoted to designing electrospinnable polymers capable
of producing hydrophilic NV-NF-Ms with enhanced mechanical properties
without the need for additives or chemical crosslinking processes.[37−40]In this work, methacrylate and acrylate electrospinnable,
ultrahigh-molecular-weight
copolymers have been designed and synthesized by reverse-ATRP and
Cu0-MC-LRP,[40−46] respectively. Reverse-ATRP is a kind of copper-mediated living radical
polymerization. By and large, the main differences between reverse-ATRP
and Cu0-MC-LRP are that, in reverse-ATPR, a conventional
radical initiator, usually a thermal initiator such as 2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionitrile),
is used to start the polymerization and, in Cu0-MC-LRP,
a radical initiator is not used; further, a catalytic amount of Cu0 is used as a reducing agent to keep the concentration of
Cu+ constant throughout the polymerization. Methacrylate
and acrylate copolymers are chemically similar (totally miscible to
each other in polar solvents) but with very different mechanical properties.
Methacrylate copolymers are very hard with null elasticity, and acrylate
copolymers are soft and gummy with high elasticity. All the copolymers
were characterized by 1H-NMR and by triple detection gel
permeation chromatography (GPC). The polarity, topology, and molecular
weight of the copolymers have been carefully adjusted to maintain
their complete insolubility in aqueous media and high solubility in
the most common polar organic solvents used in electrospinning (dimethyl
sulfoxide, dimethylformamide, N-methyl pyrrolidone,
etc.). Then, we show that the polymeric blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (50/50, w/w) is an ideal candidate
for the fabrication by electrospinning (without additives or chemical
crosslinking processes) of hydroxylated nonwoven nanofiber membranes
NV-NF-Ms-OH with excellent mechanical and chemical properties.Besides mechanical properties, the feasibility to generate different
surface binding functional groups is key for the practical application
of material immobilization supports. To validate the usefulness of
the membranes for enzyme immobilization, NV-NF-Ms-OH were functionalized
with vinyl sulfone, amine, and carboxyl groups. The palette of selected
functional groups covers both irreversible (covalent) and ion exchange
(reversible) immobilization.[11,47,48] For covalent irreversible immobilization, a procedure of functionalization
of NV-NF-Ms-OH with vinyl sulfone groups (RSOOCH2CH2) was established. The reaction of divinyl sulfone with the
primary hydroxyl groups localized on NV-NF-Ms-OH allows the introduction
of vinyl sulfone function on the surface of the fibers. Then, RNH2 or RSH groups of enzymes can react in mild conditions (pH
= 7; compatible with the biological nature of the enzymes) with the
vinyl sulfone groups, providing covalent coupling of enzymes by a
Michael-type reaction.[46] Vinyl sulfone
is a powerful versatile binding group that is able to quickly react
with multiple nucleophilic residues from the protein surface.[49−53] Amine and carboxyl groups are driving groups for ionic adsorption
based on anion and cation exchange, respectively.[11,47,48] Amine groups also enable the generation
of heterofunctional supports by previous modification with glutaraldehyde,
which is useful in achieving covalent immobilization.[54] Finally, post-immobilization treatments, e.g., covering
with ionic polymers, are a useful strategy for further stabilization
of immobilized enzymes previously immobilized.[55,56] This toolbox was applied for the immobilization of two enzymes of
biotechnological interest as galactose oxidase and laccase.[57−64] Laccases have attracted proven interest in biosensing and bioremediation,
and they receive increasing attention in biocatalytic synthesis.[57,59,60,62−64] Galactose oxidase finds application in biosensing,
production of carbohydrate-based reactive aldehydes, and valorization
of hydroxymethylfurfural.[58,64] These preliminary results
are a promising basis for the application of nonwoven membranes in
enzyme technology.
Materials and Methods
Chemicals
Methyl acrylate (MA), 2-hydroxyethyl
acrylate (HEA), methyl methacrylate (MMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate
(HEMA), 2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionitrile) (AIBN),
methyl 2-bromopropionate (MBP), N,N,N′,N′,N″-pentamethyldiethylenetriamine (PMDETA), tris(2-dimethylaminoethyl)amine
(M6-TREN), CuBr2, Cu0, m-xylene (m-Xi), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dimethylformamide
(DMF), divinyl sulfone (DVS), ethylene diamine (EDA), dansyl cadaverine
(DC), glutaraldehyde solution (50 wt % in H2O), 10% poly(ethyleneimine)
solution (PEI; average Mn ∼ 60,000
by GPC, average Mw ∼ 750,000 by
LS), potassium phosphate, sodium carbonate, 1% PEI (average Mw ∼ 25,000 by LS, average Mn ∼ 10,000 by GPC), glycine (GLY), galactose, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic
acid) (ABTS), galactose oxidase from Dactylium dendroides, laccase from Trametes versicolor, and horseradish peroxidase (HRP) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Synthesis of Well-Controlled Copolymers by
Control Living Radical Polymerization (CLRP) Techniques
Synthesis of Acrylate Copolymers by Cu0-MC-LRP
Acrylate copolymers p(MA)-co-p(HEA) with statistical topology, controlled polarity (concentration
of hydroxyl groups), and ultrahigh molecular weight were synthesized
by Cu0-MC-LRP. The Cu0-MC-LRP catalytic system
used was as follows: methyl 2-bromopropionate as an initiator, tris(2-dimethylaminoethyl)
amine as a ligand, copper/copper(II) as transition metals (MBP/M6-TREN/Cu0/CuBr2), and dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO) as a solvent.Cu0-MC-LRP is very sensitive
to any trace of impurities. On the other hand, the traces of ethylene
glycol diacrylate (EDMA; crosslinker) formed by the condensation of
the HEA molecules during storage must also be eliminated prior to
polymerization to avoid the crosslinking. Thus, the monomers HEA and
MA were previously purified.
HEA Purification Protocol
HEA
was passed through a basic alumina column to eliminate the inhibitor.
To remove traces of the hydrophobic EDMA, 70 mL of HEA (previously
passed through a basic alumina column) was dissolved in 210 mL of
distilled water, and EDMA was extracted by 11 liquid–liquid
extractions with 210 mL of hexane. Subsequently, 58 g of NaCl was
dissolved in the monomer aqueous solution, and HEA was extracted by
5 liquid–liquid extractions with 200 mL of diethyl ether. Then,
traces of water in the diethyl ether solution were removed by adding
300 g of anhydrous sodium sulfate; the solutions were stirred for
a few minutes and filtered. Diethyl ether was completely evaporated
in a rotavapor, and the purified HEA was stored at −20 °C.
MA Purification Protocol
The
monomer MA was passed through a column of basic alumina to eliminate
the inhibitor and stored at −20 °C.As shown in Table S1, six copolymers with different feed
molar ratios (%HEA/%MA), 10/90, 15/85, 25/75, 34/66, 45/55, and 55/45,
were synthesized by Cu0-MC-LRP.
Cu0-MC-LRP Protocol
The total mass of the monomers remained constant in all cases (MA
+ HEA = 59.2700 g). Monomers were added into 50 mL Schlenk flasks,
and then in the following order, 59.2700 g of DMSO, 0.0020 g of Cu0, 0.0160 g of tris[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]amine (M6-TREN), 0.0012 g of CuBr2, and 0.0060 g of methyl 2-bromopropionate
(MBP) were added into the flasks. The flasks were closed with a septum,
the oxygen was removed by bubbling nitrogen for a few minutes, and
then four freeze–pump–thaw cycles were carried out (after
the last freeze–pump–thaw cycle, the flasks were filled
with nitrogen). Subsequently, the sealed flasks were placed in a thermostatic
oil bath at 25 °C for 24 h with stirring. Then, the copolymers
were purified by dissolving in acetone and precipitating them in distilled
water (two times). After purification, the copolymers were dried in
a vacuum at 80 °C to a constant weight.
Synthesis of Methacrylate Copolymers by
Reverse-ATRP
The reverse-ATRP catalytic system used was as
follows: 2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionitrile) (AIBN) as an initiator, N,N,N′,N″,N″-pentamethyldiethylenetriamine
(PMDETA) as a ligand, copper(II) as a transition metal, and a mixture
of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)/m-Xi as a solvent. The
monomers HEMA and MMA were purified following the same protocols as
those used for HEA and MA.
Reverse-ATRP Protocol
In a 500
mL two-necked flask equipped with reflux and a magnetic stirrer were
added 95.00 mL of DMSO, 0.14 g of CuBr2, 0.24 g of N,N,N′,N″,N″-pentamethyldiethylenetriamine (PMDETA), 90.08 g of MMA, 40.12 g of HEMA, and 0.23 g of 2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionitrile) (AIBN) dissolved in 60.02 g of xylene.
The mixture was stirred at 250 rpm; when all the components were completely
dissolved, the reaction mixture was cooled at 0 °C and purged
with highly pure nitrogen for 20 min. Then, the reaction was carried
out at 80 °C in an oil bath for 6 h. After polymerization, the
copolymers were purified by dissolving acetone and precipitating them
in distilled water three times. Then, they were dried in a vacuum
at 80 °C to a constant weight.
Electrospinning of Highly Hydroxylated Nonwoven
Membranes NV-NF-Ms-OH
The w/w ratios of polymeric blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 selected to be processed
by electrospinning were 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 100/0. Copolymers
were dissolved in DMF, loaded into 20 cm3 Teflon syringes
(Becton & Dickinson), and extruded through a 10-needle (stainless-steel
capillary tube with outer and inner diameters of 1.5 and 1.1 mm, respectively)
head coupled to a mechanical axis with axial movement. The flow rates
and voltages were selected to allow dry fibers in nonwoven mats, and
the fibers were collected on a rotary drum collector. Figure S1 shows the setup and the electrospinning
processing parameters.
Functionalization of NV-NF-Ms-OH
The hydroxyl and ester groups of NV-NF-Ms-OH were used for their
subsequent functionalization.
Functionalization of NV-NF-Ms-OH with Vinyl
Sulfone Groups, NV-NF-Ms-VS
A piece of the membrane (16 ×
11cm) was introduced into 70 mL of a solution of DVS (0.33 M) in sodium
carbonate buffer (333 mM) at pH = 12.50 for 2 h. Subsequently, the
membranes were washed three times with distilled water for 15 min
and dried at 50 °C in a vacuum oven.
Functionalization of NV-NF-Ms-OH with Carboxyl
Groups, NV-NF-Ms-COOH
Basic hydrolysis of ester groups (R-COOCH3 and RCOOCH2CH2OH) present on the surface
of the fibers was carried out by introducing a piece of the membrane
(16 × 11 cm) into 70 mL of a solution of sodium carbonate (333
mM) at pH = 12.50 during 30 min. Then, the membranes were washed three
times with distilled water and dried at 50 °C in a vacuum oven.
Functionalization of NV-NF-Ms-VS with Amine
Groups, NV-NF-Ms-NH2
Vinyl sulfone groups can
react easily with amine groups in mild conditions by a Michael-type
reaction. Thus, to functionalize the membranes with amine groups,
a piece of NV-NF-Ms-VS (16 × 11 cm) was introduced into 70 mL
of a solution of ethylene diamine (0.33 M) in phosphate buffer (100
mM) at pH = 8 for 4 h. Subsequently, the membranes were washed three
times with distilled water and dried at 50 °C in a vacuum oven.
Measurement of Enzyme Activity
The
activity was measured by monitoring the initial oxygen consumption
rates. Oxygen concentration was quantified by using a robust oxygen
micro optical oxygen meter FireStingO2. The final reaction volume
was 5 mL. In the case of galactose oxidase, a reported procedure was
followed.[64] The reaction mixture consisted
of 250 mM galactose, 0.02 mg/mL HRP, 0.00028 mg/mL galactose oxidase,
and 25 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7) at 25 °C. One unit
(U) of enzymatic activity was determined as 1 μmol of oxygen
consumed per minute. As reference for immobilization reporting, unit
and mg pro protein were used. For enzyme preparation, the commercial
enzyme powder was resuspended in 25 mM sodium phosphate at pH 7.0.As an alternative approach, colorimetric assays were performed.
For galactose oxidase, the immobilized enzyme was measured with an
offline spectrophotometric method that includes coupled reaction with
horseradish peroxidase (HRP) as well as the use of a mediator 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic
acid) (ABTS). The activity was determined by measuring the increase
in absorbance at 420 nm produced by the formation of ABTS radicals
and characterized as the amount of enzyme necessary to produce 2 μmol
of ABTS+ per min. The reaction was performed in a plastic
Petri dish (85 mm in diameter). A total of 35 cm2 (approx.
30 mg) of the biocatalyst (enzyme immobilized on the nanomembrane)
was immersed in the 40 mL reaction mixture and stirred on a roller
mixer at 40 rpm. One milliliter of sample was taken every minute,
and absorbance was measured at 420 nm. The reaction mixture consisted
of 250 mM galactose, 0.02 mg/mL HRP, 1 mM ABTS, immobilized enzyme,
and 25 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7) at 25 °C. For laccase,
the activities of the soluble and immobilized enzymes were determined
by measuring the increase in absorbance at 420 nm and were characterized
as the amount of enzyme required to oxidize 1 μmol of ABTS in
1 min. The reaction with the immobilized enzyme was performed as an
offline method in a plastic Petri dish (85 mm in diameter). A total
of 23 cm2 (approx. 20 mg) of the biocatalyst (enzyme immobilized
on the nanomembrane) was immersed in the 40 mL reaction mixture and
stirred on a roller mixer at 40 rpm. One milliliter of sample was
taken every minute, and absorbance was measured at 420 nm. The reaction
mixture consisted of 0.5 mM ABTS, 0.005 mg/mL laccase, and 25 mM potassium
phosphate buffer (pH 6) at 25 °C. Commercial preparation of galactose
oxidase displayed an activity of 0.54 U/mg powder and 1.5% of protein
purity. As reference for immobilization reporting, unit and mg pro
protein were used. Commercial preparation of laccase displayed an
activity of 2.5 U/mg powder and 2.5% of protein purity.
Enzyme Immobilization
Covalent Immobilization of Galactose Oxidase
on NV-NF-Ms-NH2 Preactivated with Glutaraldehyde
For the covalent immobilization of the commercial preparation of
galactose oxidase onto these membranes, it is necessary to preactivate
them with glutaraldehyde. For that purpose, the membrane was divided
into ∼30 mg pieces. Each piece was then activated with 10%
glutaraldehyde solution (30 mg of the membrane immersed in 100 mL
of glutaraldehyde solution, with gentle stirring for 18 h at 25 °C).
After preactivation, the support was washed five times with 25 mM
potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), followed by one wash step with
distilled water. Then, the membranes were immersed in the solution
containing different amounts of galactose oxidase (7620, 1162, 94,
and 21 U/g) dissolved in 25 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7) and
gently stirred for 3 h. After 3 h, the supernatant was separated,
membranes were washed three times with buffer, and the activities
of both the supernatant and membrane were tested.
Electrostatic Immobilization of Laccase
on NV-NF-Ms-NH2
Twenty milligrams of the membrane
was immersed in 15 mL of 5 mM potassium phosphate at pH 6.0 containing
20 U/g of the enzyme. The mixture was gently stirred for 3 h at 25
°C. After the end of immobilization, the membrane was washed
three times with buffer, and the activities of both the supernatant
and membrane were tested.
Electrostatic Immobilization of Galactose
Oxidase on NV-NF-Ms-COOH
An amount of ∼30 mg of the
membrane was immersed in 15 mL of 5 mM potassium phosphate buffer
at pH 7.0 containing different amounts of enzyme (19–62 U/g).
The mixture was gently stirred for 3 h at 25 °C. After the end
of immobilization, membranes were washed three times with buffer and
the activity in the supernatant was tested. For preventing enzyme
leaking, the biocatalyst was treated with 10 and 1% poly(ethyleneimine)
solution (PEI; average Mn ∼ 60,000
by GPC, average Mw ∼ 750,000 by
LS, 50 wt % in H2O) and 1% PEI (average Mw ∼ 25,000 by LS, average Mn ∼ 10,000 by GPC). The mixture was kept under gentle
stirring for ∼18 h at 25 °C, after which membranes were
washed five times with 5 mM potassium phosphate buffer and five times
with distilled water. The activity was tested.
Covalent Immobilization of Galactose Oxidase
on NV-NF-Ms-VS
An amount of ∼30 mg of the membrane
was immersed in 15 mL of 25 mM potassium phosphate buffer at pH 7.0
containing different amounts of enzyme (350, 51, and 33 U/g). The
mixture was gently stirred for 3 h at 25 °C. After the end of
immobilization, membranes were washed three times with buffer and
the activity in the supernatant was tested. Obtained biocatalysts
were incubated in 10 mL of 100 mM sodium carbonate at pH 10 and 25
°C for 6 h to promote the enzyme-support multipoint covalent
reaction. Biocatalysts were firmly washed with buffer and distilled
water, after which the activity was tested.
Results and Discussion
Characterization of Acrylate and Methacrylate
Copolymers: Formulation and Study of Their Blends
Unlike
methacrylate polymers, which are extremely hard polymers that exhibit
very low elongation at break,[65] the acrylate
copolymers usually behave as rubber with high flexibility and elongation
at break. This can be explained because the absence of methyl groups
in the main carbon chain of acrylates allows greater freedom of movement
between chains; in the methacrylates, the methyl groups of the main
carbon chain can behave as small branches that hinder the movement/fluidity
between polymer chains. This small structural difference results in
a large difference in their mechanical properties. In this work, we
have exploited this structural difference to tune the mechanical properties
of highly hydroxylated nonwoven nanofiber membranes NV-NF-Ms-OH. Keeping
in mind that molecular weight (Mw) is
also a very important factor in the tensile strength and elongation
at break of NV-NF-Ms-OH,[31−34] acrylate and methacrylate copolymers with ultrahigh
molecular weight and similar chemical composition were designed, synthesized,
and characterized.Cu0-MC-LRP has been extensively
studied, and several propositions have been made about the mechanism
in which Cu0 mediates controlled radical polymerization.[40,41] This technique has proven to be a powerful tool for ultrafast polymerization
of the hydrophobic monomers methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate,
and vinyl chloride, but it should be noted that, only in the case
of methyl acrylate, ultrahigh molecular weights (greater than 500,000
Da) were achieved.[40,41] To investigate the applications
of Cu0-MC-LRP further, it was used in the copolymerization
of the monomers methyl acrylate (MA) and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA).
First, a theoretical analysis of the copolymerization of MA and HEA
was done by using the terminal model.[66] The terminal model assumes that radical reactivity only depends
on the terminal unit of the growing chain such that the molar fraction
of monomer a in the copolymer (Fa) depends
only on monomer mole fractions (fa and fb, with fa+ fb = 1) and copolymerization reactivity ratios
and is given by:where ra and rb are the copolymerization
reactivity ratios of monomers a and b, respectively. The reactivity
ratios used for MA and HEA were ra = 0.94
and rb = 0.90, respectively;[67] since amphiphilic monomers like HEA exhibit
different polymerization behavior in different solvents, inconsistencies
exist between the different reported reactivity ratios for the same
monomer pairs depending upon the reaction media and other conditions
such as the preferential solvation of monomers around the active polymer
radical.[68−70] As summarized in Figure S2, the system runs through almost azeotropic copolymerization to any
initial molar fraction of MA (f0an; n = 1, ..., 4), suggesting that copolymerization of MA and
HAE provides polymeric chains with a homogeneous monomeric concentration.The copolymers synthesized with the mixtures in Table S1 were characterized by triple detection gel permeation
chromatography (GPC; Viscotek 270 Max of Malvern) and by 1H-NMR (Bruker Avance 400 MHz spectrometer). Figure S3 shows the GPC chromatographic profiles, and Table shows the molecular weights
(Mw and Mn), yields, and polydispersities (PDIs). For the feed molar percentages
of HEA of 45 and 55% (see Table S1), the
yields were below 20%, and these copolymers were discarded. It is
well known that spontaneous radical termination increases as the polarity
of the monomers increases.[71,72] Therefore, the high
concentration of the polar monomer HEA in 45 and 55% cases could dramatically
increase spontaneous radical terminations, reducing the lifetime of
radical chains and thus the concurrent growth of all polymer chains.
However, as shown in Table , for molar percentages of HEA between 10 and 34%, all the
copolymers showed a dramatically high molecular weight and yields.
Table 1
Molecular Weights of Acrylate Copolymers
p(MA)-co-p(HEA)
HEA feed molar %
Mw (Da)
Mn (Da)
yield (%)
M̅w (Da)
M̅n (Da)
PDI
10
1.162 × 106
716,449
93
(11.56 ± 0.40847) × 105
777,591 ± 53,003
1.49
1.137 × 106
805,809
95
1.168 × 106
810,516
90
15
6.039 × 106
2.155 × 106
89
(5.746 ± 0.653911) × 106
(1.878 ± 0.395400) × 106
3.08
5.671 × 106
1.721
× 106
95
5.529
× 106
1.759 × 106
91
25
3.167
× 106
1.815 × 106
98
(31.88 ± 0.88220) ×
105
(1.714 ± 0.220000)
× 106
1.86
3.168 × 106
1.714 × 106
93
3.229 × 106
1.614 × 106
95
34
1.980 × 106
1.413 × 106
90
(19.72 ± 0.33729) × 105
(13.95 ± 0.35019) × 105
1.41
1.981 × 106
1.418 × 106
96
1.957 × 106
1.355
× 106
93
Figure S4 shows the 1H-NMR
spectra of the copolymers, and Table S2 summarizes the chemical composition of each copolymer calculated
by the intensity ratio between signals a (CH3 of MA) and b (CH2–CH2 of
HEA) of the 1H-NMR spectra. The high PDI and Mw in the case of the copolymer synthesized with an HEA
feed molar percentage of 15% may be because, in this case, the removal
of EDMA (crosslinker) during the purification of the HEA monomer (see Section ) was not
100%: the presence of traces of EDMA during the polymerization can
produce branching in the copolymers, giving place to the increase
in both molecular weight and PDI.As shown in Table S2, in all copolymers,
the concentration of HEA is practically the same as the feed concentration,
which agrees with the theoretical predictions of Figure S2. Acrylate copolymers in Table presented water insolubility and a high-flexibility
rubbery texture. On the other hand, they showed high solubility in
dimethylformamide (DMF), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), 1,4-dioxane, and
NMP; above 6 wt %, the viscosity of the solutions was dramatically
high due to their ultrahigh molecular weights. The lower viscosities
were achieved in DMF, indicating that DMF is the best solvent for
these copolymers (see Figure S5).Methacrylate polymers with high molecular weights cannot be synthesized
by Cu0-MC-LRP; the polymerization of methyl methacrylate
by Cu0-MC-LRP results in molecular weights lower than 40,000
Da.[40,41] We showed in a previous work[45] that copolymerization of MMA and HEMA by reverse-ATRP
leads to high-molecular-weight copolymers (150,000 Da). Thus, to synthesize
a high-molecular-weight methacrylate copolymer miscible with (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (with the same
chemical composition; see Table S2), the
copolymerization of MMA and HEMA was carried out by reverse-ATRP.
The theoretical modeling of MMA and HEMA in Figure S6 suggests that this pair of monomers also provides polymeric
chains with a homogeneous monomeric concentration.Figure S7 shows the chromatographic
profile and 1H-NMR spectrum of the methacrylic copolymer.
The concentration of HEMA in the copolymer calculated by the intensity
ratio between signals a (CH3 of MMA; 1.73)
and b (CH2–CH2 of HEMA;
1.72) of 1H-NMR was 50%; in (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002, the molecular weights by GPC were Mw = 230,855 ± 7418 Da and Mn = 115,748 ± 35,567 Da (PDI = 2.02), and the yield
was 70%. The copolymer (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 was water-insoluble with a hard and brittle texture. The
solubility of (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 was also tested in dimethylformamide (DMF), dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO), 1,4-dioxane, and NMP, showing high solubility in all the solvents;
above 38 wt %, the viscosity of the solutions was extremely high.
Like in the case of acrylate copolymers, the lower viscosity was achieved
in DMF, indicating that DMF is also the best solvent for (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002.To formulate
electrospinnable polymeric blend (acrylate/methacrylate)
solutions, the solubility between both copolymers (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 and (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 was studied in DMF. The
(MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 w/w ratios tested
were 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10, and the [(MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 + (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806]/solvent w/w ratio was
6/94. As shown in Figure S8, due to their
similar chemical composition, both copolymers showed miscibility to
each other in all ratios.
Electrospinning of the Polymeric Blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806: Morphological Characterization
and Physicochemical Properties of Nonwoven Nanofiber Membranes
Methacrylate ((MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002) and acrylate ((MA)11709-co-(HA)7806) copolymers were selected and used to manufacture
highly hydroxylated nonwoven nanofiber membranes. The w/w ratios of
selected blends (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 to be processed by electrospinning were 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25,
and 100/0, and the blend/solvent (DMF) w/w ratio was 6/94. The morphological
characterization was carried out by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
As shown in Figure , the copolymer (MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 provided elastic gummy membranes, in which the fibers
are 100% fused together, forming a nonporous polymeric film.
Figure 1
Electrospun
copolymer (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806.
Electrospun
copolymer (MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806.Figure shows the
membranes obtained with the copolymer (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)11,002 (Figure A) and with the 25:75 blend (Figure B). The membrane manufactured
with the copolymer (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 did not have any fusion point between fibers; they were
completely loose, which provided membranes with a null abrasion resistance
(hardly manipulatable materials, like a piece of nonprocessed cotton).
The fusion between fibers in the membrane obtained with the blend
(MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (25:75) was
no longer as high as in the case of the membrane manufactured with
the copolymer (MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (see Figure ). But
the fusion between fibers was still too high (see black circles in Figure B), providing very
elastic membranes with a non-interconnected pore structure and thus
with a low surface area-to-volume ratio.
Figure 2
Electrospun copolymer
(MMA)1002-co-(HMEA)1002 (A)
and blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (25:75).
Electrospun copolymer
(MMA)1002-co-(HMEA)1002 (A)
and blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (25:75).As shown in Figure , the blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (75:25)
provided a compact nonwoven membrane with better abrasion resistance
than the membrane obtained with the copolymer (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 (see Figure A), but the membrane was still
very brittle and showed low abrasion resistance.
Electrospun
blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (75:25).The blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (50/50,
w/w) provided an optimal concentration of junction points between
fibers and thus a compact membrane with an interconnected pore structure
(see Figure ) and
excellent mechanical properties such as high abrasion resistance,
high flexibility and elasticity, and high elongation at break, and
it is easily manipulated: it can be cut, bent, twisted, etc.
Electrospun
blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HEA)7806 (50/50).Figure S9 shows a qualitative
comparison
of the elongation at break and abrasion resistance of membranes processed
with blends (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (75/25,
w/w) (Figure S9B,D) and (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (50/50, w/w) (Figure S9A,C).Just after electrospinning, the hydroxylated
membrane fabricated
with the blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (50/50, w/w) was hydrophobic (see Figure E). It is well known that copolymers formed
by hydrophilic and hydrophobic monomeric units can organize in hydrophobic
and hydrophilic domains in the presence of water due to hydrophobic
interactions.[73−75] Thus, to reorient the hydrophilic domains and introduce
amphiphilic properties in the membrane, a thermal treatment (TT) was
carried out. After electrospinning, the membrane (30 × 60 cm; Figure A) was cut in pieces
of 11 × 16 cm and they were fixed on frames to avoid wrinkles
and deformations during TT (Figure B). Then, they were placed in a thermostatized bath
at 40 °C for 5 h (Figure C). Subsequently, the membranes were dried in a vacuum oven
at 50 °C; during TT, the reorientation of hydrophilic domains
toward water molecules is produced, inducing amphiphilic properties
in the membrane (see Figure D).
Figure 5
Membrane (30 × 60 cm) after 4 h of electrospinning (A), pieces
of 11 × 16 cm fixed on frames (B), TT at 40 °C for 5 h (C),
high degree of wetting after TT (Q = 2.06) (D), large
contact angle before TT (Q = 0.00) (E), and morphology
of the fibers after (d) and before (e) TT.
Membrane (30 × 60 cm) after 4 h of electrospinning (A), pieces
of 11 × 16 cm fixed on frames (B), TT at 40 °C for 5 h (C),
high degree of wetting after TT (Q = 2.06) (D), large
contact angle before TT (Q = 0.00) (E), and morphology
of the fibers after (d) and before (e) TT.After TT, the water adsorption capacity (Q) of
the membrane was calculated by Q = absorbed mass
of water/mass of dry membrane. To do so, six samples of different
masses were dried in a vacuum oven at 50 °C for 2 h. Then, they
were incubated in distilled water for 3 h at room temperature. Subsequently,
the water retained on the surface of the samples was removed using
a cellulose paper, the samples were weighed, and the value of Q was 2.06 ± 0.15. In addition, as shown in Figure d,e, TT does not
cause any change in the morphology of the fibers. On the other hand, Figure shows the irreversible
amphiphilic character of the membrane after TT. Oil can penetrate
and completely fill the interconnected pore structure of the membrane,
displacing the air trapped in the pores. This produces isotropy in
the optical properties (refraction index) of the membrane that becomes
completely transparent (see Figure A), indicating that vegetable oil and polymeric fibers
have practically the same refraction index. After the removal of oil
with hexane, the membrane becomes opaque again (see Figure B) and maintains its hydrophilic
properties (Q = 2; see Figure C). In summary, extreme changes in the polarity
of the medium (oil ↔ water) do not modify the amphiphilic properties
of the membrane or change its morphology (see Figure D,E).
Figure 6
Membrane behavior in vegetable oil (sunflower
oil) (A), oil removal
by washing with hexane (B), and adsorption of water (Q = 2) immediately after oil removal (C). Membrane morphology before
(D) and after (E) oil immersion and hexane washing.
Membrane behavior in vegetable oil (sunflower
oil) (A), oil removal
by washing with hexane (B), and adsorption of water (Q = 2) immediately after oil removal (C). Membrane morphology before
(D) and after (E) oil immersion and hexane washing.The thermal resistance of the membrane was studied
by immersing
it in water at 100 °C for 24 h. The morphology of the fibers
(see Figure S10) and the mass of the membrane
(200 mg) were the same before and after heating at 100 °C for
24 h, indicating great robustness for applications where high temperatures
are required.In addition, to analyze the properties of the
membranes for filtration
processes, a vacuum filtration test using a series of aqueous suspensions
of monodisperse hydrophilic particles with sizes ranging from 200
to 3000 nm in diameter was performed; monodisperse hydrophilic particles
used for the test were synthesized according to our previous work.[76] The membrane allowed the passage of particles
with diameters of less than 2500 nm.
Characterization of Galactose Oxidase and
Laccase Immobilized on Nanofiber Membranes
The usefulness
of the nonwoven nanofiber membranes in enzyme immobilization was validated
by studying different immobilization strategies for enzymes laccase
and galactose oxidase (see Figure ).
Figure 7
Different immobilization techniques used.
Different immobilization techniques used.Evaluation of the immobilization followed standardized
principles
of enzyme catalysis.[12] Results are shown
in Table .
Table 2
Immobilization Parametersa for the Immobilization of Laccase and Galactose
Oxidase on Nonwoven Nanofiber Membranes with Different Surface Functionalization
surface functionalization
enzyme
immobilization strategy
surface activation
activity
offered (U/g)
load (mg/g membrane)
yield (%)
activity observed (U/g)
DVS
gal ox
covalent attachment
353
6
66
46
carboxyl groups
gal ox
ionic adsorption
treated with PEI
after immobilization
10%, average Mn ∼ 60,000
19
0.3
58
0.11
1%, average Mn ∼ 60,000
35
0.5
52
0.36
1%, average Mn ∼ 10,000
62
1.1
72
0.9
amino
groups
gal ox
covalent attachment
preactivation with
GA
21
0.3
66
0.3
94
0.9
39
1.8
1162
12.2
42
9.8
7620
74.3
39
1.5
laccase
ionic adsorption
21
10
85
12.5
For more details, see Experimental S2.
For more details, see Experimental S2.Immobilization yield informs about the quantity of
the immobilization
based on the amount of enzyme quantified as activity balance (see
the Supporting Information), while the
measured activity informs about the functionality of the immobilized
enzyme. Measurable activity quantifies the reaction rate of the heterogeneously
catalyzed reaction by the membrane-immobilized enzyme (see Section and the Supporting Information for more details). For
covalent irreversible immobilization, a procedure of functionalization
of NV-NF-Ms-OH with vinyl sulfone groups (RSOOCH2CH2) was established. After functionalization, the number of
accessible vinyl sulfone groups was 281 ± 20 μmol/g; it
was calculated by a luminescence assay with the fluorescent probe
dansyl cadaverine. It is well known that vinyl sulfone groups can
react easily with amine groups in mild conditions by a Michael-type
reaction.[31,32,77] Thus, the
number of accessible vinyl sulfone groups of NV-NF-Ms-VS was calculated
by a fluorescence assay. The assay includes the incubation of NV-NF-Ms-VS
with the fluorescent probe dansyl cadaverine (DC) and subsequent quantification
of DC in the supernatant via UV–Vis spectrometry. As a control,
we use a membrane in which vinyl sulfone groups were previously blocked
with ethanolamine. Controls were prepared by incubating NV-NF-Ms-VS
in a 0.25 M solution of ethanolamine (NH2CH2CH2OH) in phosphate buffer at pH = 8 for 4 h. Then, samples
and controls were incubated in a solution of 295 mg/L DC in phosphate
buffer at pH = 8 for 4 h (see Figure S11). After incubation, the concentration of DC in the supernatant was
quantified via UV–Vis spectrometry. The number of accessible
vinyl sulfone groups in NV-NF-Ms-VS was calculated by subtracting
the initial concentration of DC (C0 =
295 mg/L) and the concentration found in the supernatant (Cs). Table shows the results of the characterization. Table also shows how the
immobilization of DC in the controls was practically negligible, indicating
an efficient blockade of the vinyl sulfone groups by ethanolamine.
Table 3
Characterization of the Number of
Accessible Vinyl Sulfone Groups of NV-NF-Ms-VS
ref
supernatant absorbance (a.u.)
Cs (mg/L)
(C0 – Cs) (mg/L)
membrane mass (mg)
mg DC/mg membrane
μmol DC/g membrane
sample-1
1.201
88.693
205.854
7.9
0.091
271.755
sample-2
1.274
94.021
200.525
7.5
0.094
278.839
sample-3
1.054
77.963
216.583
7.7
0.098
293.346
control-1
1.927
283.372
11.175
7.3
0.005
15.965
control-2
1.898
279.138
15.408
7.7
0.007
20.870
control-3
1.928
283.518
11.029
7.0
0.006
16.432
Figure S12 shows samples
and controls
under a UV lamp (350 nm) after incubation with DC at different times:
10, 20, 45, and 240 min. Once surface activation was achieved, immobilization
of galactose oxidase was assessed following reported procedures.[49,50] Results are shown in Table . A 66% immobilization yield of galactose oxidase (gal ox)
was achieved (6 mg/g, 233 U/g) even when high loadings of enzyme were
used. The recovered activity yielded 20%, which represents a significant
value given the difficulties of active surface binding of gal ox and
the scarce examples found in the literature.[12,78] Further enhancement of the enzyme activity would require consideration
of surface or microenvironment effects on the enzyme, especially the
implementation and optimization of the surface blocking to erase the
reactivity of remaining vinyl sulfone surface groups.[49] Immobilization of laccase on vinyl sulfone-activated membranes
did not give quantitative success; this is not surprising given the
difficulty with the covalent attachment of laccase based on binding
procedures that aim at nucleophilic surface residues, and the high
glycosylation degree of laccase of T. versicolor could explain it.[79,80]To study immobilization
based on ionic adsorption driven by ion
exchange, two strategies of surface functionalization were implemented.
The membrane was functionalized with carboxyl and primary amine groups
(see Sections and 2.4.3). The concentration of accessible
COOH groups was 560 ± 50 μmol/g; it was calculated by the
toluidine blue O adsorption assay (TBO method).[81] The TBO assay includes the incubation of carboxylate matrixes
with toluidine blue O in alkaline buffer with subsequent washing,
followed by elution and quantification of eluted TBO via UV–Vis
spectrometry. Since reactivity between vinyl sulfone groups and amine
groups is extremely efficient,[77,82,83] the number of accessible amino groups was considered equal to the
number of vinyl sulfone groups. The choice between carboxyl-activated
(cation exchanger) and amine-activated (anion exchanger) membranes
depends on the surface charges of the selected enzymes, which represent
different exemplary cases. Whereas laccase displays a low pI (surface richer in anionic residues),[84] galactose oxidase displays a high pI (surface
richer in cationic residues).[85] Therefore,
different functionalization of the surface was necessary (see Figure ). The activity offered,
immobilization yield, and measured activity, known as immobilization
parameters, are shown in Table . Different approaches are briefly discussed as follows.Immobilization of galactose on the carboxyl-activated membrane
was studied. Although the immobilization yield was higher than 50%,
low binding stability was detected, and enzyme leaking was noticed
(results not shown). To prevent this phenomenon, the immobilized biocatalyst
was treated with different percentages and types of poly(ethyleneimine)
(PEI) after the immobilization step. Results are shown in Table . Even though the
immobilization yield is high, the final activity of the immobilized
enzyme is far from the maximum. Tuning of the post-immobilization
step (polymer coating) and/or fine surface features (density of functional
groups), together with suitable regeneration of the enzyme through
the catalytic cycles, are hypothesized as critical parameters.[86] In the case of laccase, immobilization on amine-activated
membranes was studied. As expected, immobilization proceeds with a
high yield and great recovery of the catalytic activity (see Table ). In that way, an
easy and practical procedure of laccase adsorption leading to high
recovered activity was found and was competitive with previous examples
in other material formats.[57,59−63]Finally, given the good results of the covalent attachment
of galactose
oxidase, another strategy of covalent immobilization of galactose
oxidase was assessed. Table shows that galactose oxidase was immobilized on membranes
with functional amino groups, which were preactivated with glutaraldehyde.
The enzyme was successfully bound into the membranes, allowing unprecedented
high loads of the enzyme. The immobilization yield depends on the
activity offered, decreasing with increasing amount of enzyme as expected.[12] The effect of binding on the enzyme structure
or surface effects due to the rich cationic character of the activated
membranes could be responsible for the activity loss. Tuning of immobilization
conditions (temperature and time) and fine surface features (density
of functional groups) are hypothesized as critical parameters.The enhancement of the results obtained and the further application
of the membranes would be benefitted by the conjoint fine-tuning of
the membrane structure and immobilization chemistry to achieve control
on the enzyme structure and mass transfer phenomena through the mmebranes.[18,87−89]
Conclusions
In this work, we have exploited
the mechanical properties of acrylate
and methacrylate copolymers to manufacture (without additives or chemical
crosslinking processes) an innovative generation of hydroxylated nonwoven
nanofiber membranes NV-NF-Ms by electrospinning. To do so, ultrahigh-molecular-weight
methacrylate and acrylate copolymers with the same chemical composition,
(MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002 (Mw = 230,855 ± 7418 Da; Mn = 115,748 ± 35,567 Da; PDI = 2.00) and (MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (Mw = 1.972 × 106 ± 33,729 Da; Mn = 1.395 × 106 ± 35,019
Da; PDI = 1.41), were designed, synthesized, and characterized by 1H-NMR and GPC. Then, we have shown that the polymeric blend
(MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (50/50, w/w)
is an excellent candidate to manufacture (without additives or chemical
crosslinking processes) hydroxylated nonwoven nanofiber membranes
(NV-NF-Ms-OH; 300 nm in fiber diameter) with enhanced mechanical and
chemical properties such as high abrasion resistance, high flexibility
and elasticity, high elongation at break, resistance to high temperatures,
and easy manipulation: it can be cut, bent, twisted, etc.; this polymeric
blend allows amphiphilic membranes with a high concentration of primary
hydroxyl groups.On the more fundamental side, we have also
demonstrated that copper-mediated
living radical polymerization (Cu0-MC-LRP) is also an excellent
tool to design polar acrylate copolymers with ultrahigh molecular
weight and perfectly adjusted polarity (concentration of hydroxyl
groups). The primary hydroxyl groups present in the membranes can
be easily activated with a battery of functional groups to provide
different versatile enzyme immobilization chemistries from covalent
immobilization to ionic adsorption based on ion exchange. In this
way, vinyl sulfone-, amine-, and carboxyl-activated membranes were
activated and suitability for immobilization was proven for two enzymes
of biotechnological interest. Galactose oxidase and laccase immobilized
on membranes were prepared with high enzyme loading and high recovered
activity, demonstrating the practical application.Last, we
would like to remark that the membranes manufactured by
electrospinning with the blend (MMA)1002-co-(HEMA)1002/(MA)11709-co-(HA)7806 (50/50, w/w) could be used for several applications such
as water filtration and purification, oil/water separation, sensing
and biosensing, and immobilization of metal catalysts, among others.
Authors: Teresa Ramon-Marquez; Antonio L Medina-Castillo; Alberto Fernandez-Gutierrez; Jorge F Fernandez-Sanchez Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: Bruna B Pinheiro; Nathalia S Rios; Elena Rodríguez Aguado; Roberto Fernandez-Lafuente; Tiago M Freire; Pierre B A Fechine; José C S Dos Santos; Luciana R B Gonçalves Journal: Int J Biol Macromol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Daniel Andrés-Sanz; Eleftheria Diamanti; Desirè Di Silvo; Jonas Gurauskis; Fernando López-Gallego Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Jose J Virgen-Ortíz; José C S Dos Santos; Ángel Berenguer-Murcia; Oveimar Barbosa; Rafael C Rodrigues; Roberto Fernandez-Lafuente Journal: J Mater Chem B Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 6.331