Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 2771–2790 | Cite as

Bioscouring of cotton fabrics by multienzyme combinations: application of Box–Behnken design and desirability function

  • Styliani Kalantzi
  • Dimitris Kekos
  • Diomi MammaEmail author
Original Research
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Enzymes are the alternative to traditional scouring of cotton fabrics due to their eco-friendly character. The present study focuses on the improvement of bioscouring through the synergistic action of four hydrolytic enzymes at low loadings, thus contributing to the economy of the process. A four factor three level Box–Behnken experimental design was used to investigate the combined effect of pectate lyase (10–60 Units/g fabric), lipase (10–40 Units/g fabric), protease (5–15 Units/g fabric) and xylanase (50–200 Units/g fabric) on the physicochemical properties of desized cotton fabrics. Structural features of cotton’s cellulose, degree of polymerization and crystallinity index, were not severely affected by enzymatic treatment, while compositional analysis revealed that considerable amounts of non-cellulosic impurities were removed in all treatments. Wetting time (WT), whiteness index (WI) and dye ability (K/S) were the responses selected for simultaneous optimization, with the aid of Derringer’s desirability function. The optimum levels of the independent variables pectate lyase, lipase, protease and xylanase were found 60, 10, 11.667 and 140 Units/g fabric, respectively. This factor level combination predicted wetting time, whiteness index and dye ability equal to 0.1 s, 45.55 Berger degree and 4.79 respectively, which was confirmed through validation experiments.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Cotton fabric Multienzyme Bioscouring Box–Behnken design Desirability function 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Novozymes, Denmark for supplying the enzymes for the study.

Supplementary material

10570_2019_2272_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (99 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 98 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 110 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 110 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 108 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 108 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 109 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (107 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 106 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 107 kb)
10570_2019_2272_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (90 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 89 kb)

References

  1. AATCC Technical Manual (1980) AATCC: test method 39-1980, vol 55, p 286Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal PB, Nierstrasz VA, Bouwhuis GH, Warmoeskerken MMCG (2008) Cutinase and pectinase in cotton bioscouring: an innovative and fast bioscouring process. Biocatal Biotransform 26:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anupam K, Deepika SwaroopaV, Lal PS (2018) Antagonistic, synergistic and interaction effects of process parameters during oxygen delignification of Melia dubia kraft pulp. J Clean Prod 199:420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aravantinos-Zafiris G, Oreopoulou V, Tzia C, Thomopoulos CD (1994) Fibre fraction from orange peel residues after pectin extraction. Lebensm Wiss U Technol 27:468–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990) Official methods of analysis of the association of official analytical chemists, 15th edn. AOAC Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Benli H, Bahtiyari MI (2014) Use of ultrasound in biopreparation and natural dyeing of cotton fabric in a single bath. Cellulose 22:867–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Box GEP, Wilson KB (1951) On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J R Stat Soc B 13:1–45Google Scholar
  8. British Standards Handbook 11 (1974) Methods of test for textiles. Determination of oils, fats and waxes in cotton, 3477:1962Google Scholar
  9. Brown W, Wikstrom R (1965) A viscosity–molecular weight relationship for cellulose in cadoxen and a hydrodynamic interpretation. Eur Polym J 1:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkinshaw SM, Salihu G (2019) The role of auxiliaries in the immersion dyeing of textile fibres: part 7 theoretical models to describe the mechanism by which inorganic electrolytes promote reactive dye uptake on cellulosic fibres. Dyes Pigments 161:605–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calafell M, Garriga P (2004) Effect of some process parameters in the enzymatic scouring of cotton using an acid pectinase. Enzyme Microb Technol 34:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Candioti LV, De Zan MM, Cámara MS, Goicoechea HC (2014) Experimental design and multiple response optimization. Using the desirability function in analytical methods development. Talanta 124:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csizár E, Losonczi A, Szakács G, Rusznák I, Bezúr L, Reicher J (2001) Enzymes and chelating agent in cotton pre-treatment. J Biotechnol 89:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira SLC, Bruns RE, Ferreira HS, Matos GD, David JM, Brandão GC, da Silva EGP, Portugal LA, dos Reis PS, Souza AS, dos Santos WNL (2007) Box–Behnken design: an alternative for the optimization of analytical methods. Anal Chim Acta 597:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2013). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
  17. Gassan J, Bledzki AK (1999) Alkali treatment of jute fibers: relationship between structure and mechanical properties. J Appl Polym Sci 71:623–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardin IR (2010) Enzymatic treatment versus conventional chemical processing of cotton. In: Nierstrasz VA, Cavaco-Paulo A (eds) Advances in textile biotechnology. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Sawston, pp 132–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holkar CR, Jadhav AJ, Pinjari DV, Mahamuni NM, Pandit AB (2016) A critical review on textile wastewater treatments: possible approaches. J Environ Manag 182:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalantzi S, Mamma D, Christakopoulos P, Kekos D (2008) Effect of pectate lyase bioscouring on physical, chemical and low-stress mechanical properties of cotton fabrics. Bioresour Technol 99:8185–8192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalantzi S, Mamma D, Kalogeris E, Kekos D (2009) Properties of cotton fabrics treated by protease and its multi-enzyme combinations. J Appl Polym Sci 114:1567–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalantzi S, Mamma D, Kalogeris E, Kekos D (2010) Improved properties of cotton fabrics treated with lipase and its combination with pectinase. Fibres Text East Eur 18:86–92Google Scholar
  23. Karapinar E, Sariisik MO (2004) Scouring of cotton with cellulases, pectinases and proteases. Fibres Text East Eur 12:79–82Google Scholar
  24. Kubelka P, Munk F (1931) Ein Beitrag zur Optik der Farbanstriche. Zeitschrift für Technische Physik (Leipzig) 12:593–601Google Scholar
  25. Lawther JM, Sun R, Banks WB (1995) Extraction, fractionation, and characterization of structural polysaccharides from wheat straw. J Agric Food Chem 43:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenting HBM, Warmoeskerken MMCG (2004) A fast, continuous operating enzyme-based pre-treatment process concept for cotton containing textiles. Biocatal Biotransform 22:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Y, Hardin IR (1998) Enzymatic scouring of cotton: surfactants, agitation, and selection of enzymes. Text Chem Color Am D 30:23–29Google Scholar
  28. Lin CH, Hsieh YL (2001) Direct scouring of greige cotton fabrics with proteases. Text Res J 71:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitro-salicylic as reagent for the determination of reducing sugars. Anal Chem 31:426–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nerurkar M, Joshi M, Adivarekar R (2015) Bioscouring of cotton using lipase from marine bacteria Bacillus sonorensis. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 175:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niladevi KN, Sukumaran RK, Jacob N, Anisha GS, Prema P (2009) Optimization of laccase production from a novel strain Streptomyces psammoticus using response surface methodology. Microbiol Res 164:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Öner E, Sahinbaskan BY (2011) A new process of combined pretreatment and dyeing: REST. J Clean Prod 19:1668–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perincek S, Duran K (2016) Optimization of enzymatic & ultrasonic bio-scouring of linen fabrics by aid of Box–Behnken experimental design. J Clean Prod 135:1179–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phatak L, Chang KC, Brown G (1988) Isolation and characterization of pectin in sugar-beet pulp. J Food Sci 53:830–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pušić T, Tarbuk A, Dekanić T (2015) Bio-innovation in cotton fabric scouring-acid and neutral pectinases. Fibres Text East Eur 23:98–103Google Scholar
  36. Rehman A, Raza ZA, Masood R, Hussain MT, Ahmad N (2015) Multi-response optimization in enzymatic desizing of cotton fabric under various chemo-physical conditions using a Taguchi approach. Cellulose 22:2107–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reis CZ, Fogolari O, Oliveira D, de Souza SMAGU, de Souza UAA (2017) Bioscouring and bleaching of knitted cotton fabrics in one-step process using enzymatically generated hydrogen peroxide. Can J Chem Eng 95:2048–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sae-be P, Sangwatanaroj U, Punnapayak H (2007) Analysis of the products from enzymatic scouring of cotton. Biotechnol J 2:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sangwatanaroj U, Choonukulpong K, Ueda M (2003) Cotton scouring with pectinase and lipase/protease/cellulase. AATCC Rev 3:17–20Google Scholar
  40. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimation the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shahid M, Mohammad F, Chen G, Tanga R-C, Xinga T (2016) Enzymatic processing of natural fibres: white biotechnology for sustainable development. Green Chem 18:2256–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shanthi R, Krishnabai G (2013) Process optimization for bioscouring of cotton and lycra cotton weft knits by Box and Behnken design. Carbohyd Polym 96:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Toprak T, Anis P (2017) Combined one-bath desizing-scouring-depilling enzymatic process and effect of some process parameters. Cellulose 24:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang Q, Fan XR, Hua ZZ, Chen J (2007a) Optimizing bioscouring condition of cotton knitted fabrics with an alkaline pectinase from Bacillus subtilis WSHB04-02 by using response surface methodology. Biochem Eng J 34:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang Q, Fan XR, Hua ZZ, Gao WD, Chen J (2007b) Influence of combined enzymatic treatment on one-bath scouring of cotton knitted fabrics. Biocatal Biotransform 25:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weissberg SG, Simha R, Rothman S (1951) Viscosity of dilute and moderately concentrated polymer solutions. J Res Natl Bur Stand 47:298–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhu B, Liu J, Gao W (2017) Effects of snailase treatment on wettability of raw cotton yarns in pre-wetting process of foam sizing. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 182:1065–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biotechnology Laboratory, School of Chemical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations