4.3 Article

In Vitro Studies on the Degradation of Poly(cis-1,4-Isoprene)

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 890-899

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/btpr.2631

关键词

cell-free bioprocess; enzymatic reactor; latex clearing protein; oligo(cis-1,4-isoprene); rubber particles biodegradation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cleavage of the backbone of poly(cis-1,4-isoprene) (IR) in solid rubber material was accomplished by the addition of partially purified latex clearing protein (Lcp1(VH2)) using a 200-mL enzyme reactor. Two strategies for the addition of Lcp1(VH2) were studied revealing that the daily addition of 50 mu g mL(-1) of Lcp1(VH2) for 5 days was clearly a more efficient regime in comparison to a one-time addition of 250 mu g of Lcp1(VH2) at the beginning. Soluble oligo(cis-1,4-isoprene) molecules occurred as degradation products and were identified by ESI-MS and GPC. Oxygenase activity of Lcp1(VH2) with solid IR particles as substrate was shown for the first time by measuring the oxygen consumption in the reaction medium. A strong decrease of the dissolved oxygen concentration was detected at the end of the assay, which indicates an increase in the number of cleavage reactions. The oligo(cis-1,4-isoprene) molecules comprised 1 to 11 isoprene units and exhibited an average molecular weight (M-n) of 885 g mol(-1). Isolation of the oligo(cis-1,4-isoprene) molecules was achieved by using silica gel column chromatography. The relative quantification of the isolated products was performed by HPLC-MS after derivatization with 2,4-dinitrophenilhydrazyne yielding a concentration of total degradation products of 1.62 g L-1. Analysis of the polymer surface in samples incubated for 3 days with Lcp1(VH2) via ATR-FTIR indicated the presence of carbonyl groups, which occurred upon the cleavage reaction. This study presents a cell-free bioprocess as an alternative rubber treatment that can be applied for the partial degradation of the polymer. (C) 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

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

4.3
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