ENZYMATIC PRODUCTION OF β-CYCLODEXTRIN FROM JACKFRUIT SEEDS (<i>Artocarpus intergrifolia</i> L.)

Silva, Benesval L.; Marques, George L.; Reis, Nadabe S.; Maldonado, Rafael R.; Santos, Rodrigo Luis S. R.; Aguiar-Oliveira, Elizama

doi:10.1590/0104-6632.20190364s20180343

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Bioprocess Engineering • Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 36 (4) • Oct-Dec 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-6632.20190364s20180343 copy

ENZYMATIC PRODUCTION OF β-CYCLODEXTRIN FROM JACKFRUIT SEEDS (Artocarpus intergrifolia L.)

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

β-Cyclodextrin (β-CD) is a compound of great application for pharmaceutical and food industries, and is generally produced by starchy substrates by cyclomaltodextrin glucanotransferase (CGTase) action. The objective of this study was to produce β-CD using an alternative source of starch, such as jackfruit seed (Artocarpus intergrifolia L.) bran (JSB) by a commercial CGTase. The highest productivity of β-CD (52.10 µM/h.g) was obtained from 10 g of JSB in 100 mL of citrate buffer (10 mM / pH 6.0), with 17 % (v/v) of ethanol and 1.34 U/g of CGTase, at 59 °C for 4 hours. These same conditions were applied to starches extracted from the JSB (SJSB) and ginger (SG) and also, potato starch (SP). The SJSB and SG performances were similar to SP, and resulted in productivities around 2.7 times higher in relation to JSB. Thus, it is possible to conclude that both JSB and SJSB are promising substrates for β-CD production.

Keywords:
Cyclomaltodextrin glucanotransferase; Factorial design; Ginger; Phenolphthalein; Starch

Matrix
Run	Factors						Response
Run	CG (U/g)		Et (% v/v)		T (ºC)	pH	βCD (mM)
1	-1 (0.45)		-1 (7)		-1 (40)	-1 (5)	0.44
2	+1 (1.34)		-1 (7)		-1 (40)	+1 (7)	0.62
3	-1 (0.45)		+1 (21)		-1 (40)	+1 (7)	0.51
4	+1 (1.34)		+1 (21)		-1 (40)	-1 (5)	0.53
5	-1 (0.45)		-1 (7)		+1 (64)	+1 (7)	1.69
6	+1 (1.34)		-1 (7)		+1 (64)	-1 (5)	1.65
7	-1 (0.45)		+1 (21)		+1 (64)	-1 (5)	2.17
8	+1 (1.34)		+1 (21)		+1 (64)	+1 (7)	2.01
9	0 (0.89)		0 (14)		0 (52)	0 (6)	1.37
10	0 (0.89)		0 (14)		0 (52)	0 (6)	1.59
11	0 (0.89)		0 (14)		0 (52)	0 (6)	1.87
Effect Analysis
Factors		Effect		Stand. Error		t(5)	p-value
Mean/Inter.		1.20		0.08		15.23	<0.01*
Curvat.		0.82		0.30		2.67	0.04*
CG		<0.01		0.16		<0.01	0.99
Et		0.21		0.16		1.31	0.25
T		1.36		0.16		8.58	< 0.01*
pH		0.01		0.16		0.05	0.96

Matrix
Runs	Factors								Response
Runs	CG (U/g)		Et (% v/v)		T (ºC)		pH		βCD (mM)
1	-1 (1.34)		-1 (21)		-1 (55)		-1 (6)		0.98
2	+1 (4.02)		-1 (21)		-1 (55)		+1 (8)		1.19
3	-1 (1.34)		+1 (35)		-1 (55)		+1 (8)		1.17
4	+1 (4.02)		+1 (35)		-1 (55)		-1 (6)		1.26
5	-1 (1.34)		-1 (21)		+1 (65)		+1 (8)		0.24
6	+1 (4.02)		-1 (21)		+1 (65)		-1 (6)		0.74
7	-1 (1.34)		+1 (35)		+1 (65)		-1 (6)		0.60
8	+1 (4.02)		+1 (35)		+1 (65)		+1 (8)		1.20
9	0 (2.68)		0 (28)		0 (60)		0 (7)		1.66
10	0 (2.68)		0 (28)		0 (60)		0 (7)		1.28
11	0 (2.68)		0 (28)		0 (60)		0 (7)		1.38
Effect Analysis
Factors		Effect		Stand. Error		t(5)		p-value
Mean/Inter.		0.92		0.07		13.13		< 0.01*
Curvat.		1.04		0.27		3.86		0.01*
CG		0.35		0.14		2.51		0.05*
Et		0.27		0.14		1.94		0.11*
T		-0.45		0.14		-3.23		0.02*
pH		0.06		0.14		0.40		0.70

Run	Factors			Response
	CG (U/g)	Et (% v/v)	T (ºC)	βCD (mM)
	CG (U/g)	Et (% v/v)	T (ºC)	8 h	12 h	16 h	20 h
1	-1 (1.07)	-1 (15.2)	-1 (52.4)	2.12	2.14	2.09	2.00
2	+1 (1.52)	-1 (15.2)	-1 (52.4)	1.85	2.48	2.26	2.00
3	-1 (1.07)	+1 (18.2)	-1 (52.4)	1.90	2.15	2.19	1.98
4	+1 (1.52)	+1 (18.2)	-1 (52.4)	2.05	2.54	2.02	1.93
5	-1 (1.07)	-1 (15.2)	+1 (58.4)	2.00	2.13	2.35	2.10
6	+1 (1.52)	-1 (15.2)	+1 (58.4)	2.66	2.72	2.05	2.20
7	-1 (1.07)	+1 (18.2)	+1 (58.4)	2.05	2.72	2.14	2.61
8	+1 (1.52)	+1 (18.2)	+1 (58.4)	2.06	2.66	2.30	1.86
9	-1.68 (0.89)	0 (17.0)	0 (56.0)	2.02	2.06	1.57	1.83
10	+1.68 (1.79)	0 (17.0)	0 (56.0)	2.37	2.27	2.11	1.59
11	0 (1.34)	-1.68 (14.0)	0 (56.0)	2.26	2.14	2.13	1.72
12	0 (1.34)	+1.68 (20.0)	0 (56.0)	2.23	2.44	1.72	1.70
13	0 (1.34)	0 (17.0)	-1.68 (50.0)	1.82	1.83	1.89	1.66
14	0 (1.34)	0 (17.0)	+1.68 (62.0)	2.39	2.48	2.53	2.22
15	0 (1.34)	0 (17.0)	0 (56.0)	2.53	2.57	2.44	2.08
16	0 (1.34)	0 (17.0)	0 (56.0)	2.33	2.37	2.29	2.00
17	0 (1.34)	0 (17.0)	0 (56.0)	2.16	2.31	2.23	2.00

βCD 8 h	Effect	Stand. Error	t(7)	p-value	βCD 12 h	Effect	Stand. Error	t(7)	p-value
Mean/Interc.	2.35	0.11	20.92	<0.01*	Mean/Interc.	2.40	0.13	18.58	< 0.01*
(CG)	0.17	0.11	1.58	0.16*	(CG)	0.24	0.12	1.95	0.09*
(CG)²	-0.14	0.12	-1.21	0.26	(CG)²	-0.07	0.13	-0.49	0.64
(Et)	-0.09	0.11	-0.86	0.41	(Et)	0.16	0.12	1.33	0.22
(Et)²	-0.11	0.12	-0.91	0.39	(Et)²	0.02	0.13	0.17	0.87
(T)	0.26	0.11	2.51	0.04*	(T)	0.29	0.12	2.43	0.05*
(T)²	-0.20	0.12	-1.76	0.12*	(T)²	-0.07	0.13	-0.54	0.60
(CG).(Et)	-0.06	0.14	-0.42	0.69	(CG).(Et)	-0.15	0.16	-0.95	0.38
(CG).(T)	0.20	0.14	1.44	0.19*	(CG).(T)	-0.05	0.16	-0.32	0.76
(Et).(CG)	-0.13	0.14	-0.96	0.37	(Et).(CG)	0.12	0.16	0.73	0.49
βCD 16 h	Effect	Stand. Error	t(7)	p-value	βCD 20 h	Effect	Stand. Error	t(7)	p-value
Mean/Interc.	2.31	0.15	15.61	< 0.01 *	Mean/Interc.	2.01	0.14	14.39	< 0.01*
(CG)	0.11	0.14	0.81	0.45	(CG)	-0.16	0.13	-1.23	0.26
(CG)²	-0.25	0.15	-1.63	0.15*	(CG)²	-0.08	0.14	-0.59	0.58
(Et)	-0.12	0.14	-0.83	0.43	(Et)	0.01	0.13	0.05	0.96
(Et)²	-0.19	0.15	-1.24	0.26	(Et)²	-0.08	0.14	-0.59	0.58
(T)	0.20	0.14	1.43	0.20*	(T)	0.26	0.13	2.02	0.08*
(T)2	0.01	0.15	0.09	0.93	(T)2	0.08	0.14	0.54	0.60
(CG).(Et)	0.03	0.18	0.17	0.87	(CG).(Et)	-0.23	0.17	-1.32	0.23
(CG).(T)	-0.04	0.18	-0.19	0.85	(CG).(T)	-0.15	0.17	-0.88	0.41
(Et).(CG)	0.05	0.18	0.25	0.81	(Et).(CG)	0.07	0.17	0.38	0.72

Temperature (°C)	βCD (mM)	Productivity (µM/h.g)
56	2.34 ± 0.19 ^a	29.25
59	2.64 ± 0.18 ^b	32.99
62	2.55 ± 0.05 ^b	31.92

Brazilian Society of Chemical Engineering Rua Líbero Badaró, 152 , 11. and., 01008-903 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 11 3107-8747, Fax.: +55 11 3104-4649, Fax: +55 11 3104-4649 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rgiudici@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: Elizama Aguiar-Oliveira - E-mail: elizamaguiar@yahoo.com.br