Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An enzyme-immobilised magnetised multi-walled carbon nanotube composite (E-mMWCNT) was fabricated by acid oxidation of pristine MWCNT, Fe₃O₄ deposition, AEAPTMS silanisation, glutaraldehyde activation, and covalent immobilisation of the NS22257 enzyme cocktail (Novozymes A/S).Raman, FTIR, FESEM and VSM analyses supported stepwise assembly.Saturation magnetisation increased from 6.95 emu g⁻¹ for pristine MWCNT to 46.7 emu g⁻¹ for E-mMWCNT, with a remanence of 2.02 emu g⁻¹ and coercivity of 2.07 G, indicating soft-magnetic behaviour suitable for rapid magnetic separation.The immobilised system performed best at pH 4.0, 55 °C and 200 rpm using carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), a soluble model substrate for endoglucanase activity.The immobilisation yield was 80 %, the activity recovery was 39 %, and the activity yield was 48 %, giving a preparation of 1000 U g⁻¹. E-mMWCNT showed saturation kinetics, with apparent Michaelis-Menten parameters of K m = 17.2 g L⁻¹ and V max = 0.36 g L⁻¹ min⁻¹, against 12.9 g L⁻¹ and 2.22 g L⁻¹ min⁻¹, respectively, for the free enzyme, corresponding to an 8.2-fold increase in K m /V max attributed to external and internal transport limitations.A resistances-in-series treatment of the double-reciprocal plots separated intrinsic kinetics from external transport limitation, giving an effective liquid-solid volumetric mass-transfer coefficient of 0.016 min⁻¹.Over twelve consecutive reaction cycles with magnetic recovery, the preparation retained 91 % of its first-cycle yield at the fifth cycle and 55 % at the eighth cycle, giving 8.0 first-cycle batch equivalents from a single enzyme charge.The trade-off is therefore between single-pass rate and cumulative output per enzyme charge, and on this evidence, the latter favoured immobilisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Low et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: