4.6 Article

Evaluating the efficiency of enzyme accelerated CO2 capture: chemical kinetics modelling for interpreting measurement results

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2020.1864631

关键词

Gas measurement system; chemical system measurement; carbonic anhydrase; kinetics modelling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper evaluates the efficiency of the carbonic anhydrase (CA) enzyme in accelerating the hydration of CO2 by monitoring the pH value and CO2 concentration of a solution, inducing transients, and analyzing different kinetics involved in the steady-state recovery. The main contribution of this work is interpreting measurement results using dynamical system theory and chemical kinetics modeling to characterize the activity of CA enzymes.
In this paper, the efficiency of the carbonic anhydrase (CA) enzyme in accelerating the hydration of CO2 is evaluated using a measurement system which consists of a vessel in which a gaseous flow of mixtures of nitrogen and CO2 is bubbled into water or water solutions containing a known quantity of CA enzyme. The pH value of the solution and the CO2 concentration at the measurement system gas exhaust are continuously monitored. The measured CO2 level allows for assessing the quantity of CO2, which, subtracted from the gaseous phase, is dissolved into the liquid phase and/or hydrated to bicarbonate. The measurement procedure consists of inducing a transient and observing and modelling the different kinetics involved in the steady-state recovery with and without CA. The main contribution of this work is exploiting dynamical system theory and chemical kinetics modelling for interpreting measurement results for characterising the activity of CA enzymes. The data for model fitting are obtained from a standard bioreactor, in principle equal to standard two-phase bioreactors described in the literature, in which two different techniques can be used to move the process itself away from the steady-state, inducing transients.

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