4.6 Article

Dihydrogen-bonding deep eutectic solvents as reaction media for lipase-catalyzed transesterification

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 34-40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2018.11.010

关键词

Deep eutectic solvents; Hydrogen bond donor; Solvatochromic parameters; Lipase; Stability

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2015R1D1A1A01060206, 2018R1D1A1B07050163]
  2. Technology Development Program to Solve Climate Changes of the NRF - Ministry of Science and ICT [2017M1A2A2087627, 2017M1A2A2087647]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1D1A1B07050163, 2015R1D1A1A01060206] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Choline chloride (ChCl)-based deep eutectic solvents (DESs) were successfully used as reaction media for the Candida antarctica lipase B-catalyzed transesterification. The activity of lipase in the DESs was highly influenced by the water activity of the DESs, with optimal lipase activity at a water activity of 0.1. Seventeen DESs containing one or two hydrogen bond donors (HBDs) were used for lipase-catalyzed transesterification at a selected water activity. The highest lipase activity was obtained in ChCI:urea:formamide (molar ratio of 1:1:1), whereas the highest lipase stability was achieved in ChCl:glycerol:ethylene glycol (1:1:1). In general, higher lipase activity was achieved in DESs containing amide HBDs, whereas higher lipase stability was obtained in DESs containing hydroxyl HBDs. The effects of the DESs on the activity and stability of the lipase were evaluated by determining the solvatochromic parameters. Correlation of the solvent parameters of the DESs with the lipase stability showed that the lipase stability increased with an increase in polarity based on Reichardt's dye and the hydrogen bond acidity of the DESs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据