Comparison of two experimental methods for the determination of Michaelis–Menten kinetics of an immobilized enzyme

Abstract

For the application of immobilized enzymes, the influence of immobilization on the activity of the enzyme should be Known. This influence can be obtained by determining the intrinsic kinetic parameters of the immobilized enzyme, and by comparing them with the kinetic parameters of the suspended enzyme. This article deals with the determination of the intrinsic kinetic parameters of an agarose-gel bead immobilized oxygen-consuming enzyme: L-lactate 2-monooxygenase. The reaction rate of the enzyme can be described by Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Batch conversion experiments using a biological oxygen monitor, as well as steady-state profile measurements within the biocatalyst particles using an oxygen microsensor, were performed. Two different mathematical methods were used for the batch conversion experiments, both assuming a pseudosteady-state situation with respect to the shape of the profile inside the bead. One of the methods used an approximate relation for the effectiveness factor for Michaelis-Menten kinetics which interpolates between the analytical solutions for zero- and first-order kinetics. The other mathematical method was based on a numerical solution and combined a mass balance over the reactor with a mass balance over the bead. The main difference in the application of the two methods is the computer calculation time; the completely numerical calculation procedure was about 20 times slower than the other calculation procedure.The intrinsic kinetic parameters resulting from both experimental methods were compared to check the reliability of the methods. There was no significant difference in the intrinsic kinetic parameters obtained from the two experimental methods. By comparison of the kinetic parameters for the suspended enzyme with the intrinsic kinetic parameters for the immobilized enzyme, it appeared that immobilization caused a decrease in the value of V(m) by a factor of 2, but there was no significant difference in the values obtained for K(m).