Lactase Immobilized on Stainless Steel and Other Dense Metal and Metal Oxide Supports

  • M. Charles
  • R. W. Coughlin
  • B. R. Allen
  • E. K. Paruchuri
  • F. X. Hasselberger
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 42)


The past decade has seen the development of a large number of techniques for immobilizing enzymes which have been reviewed and discussed at length elsewhere(1,2,3). For the present purposes we consider those techniques involving the attachment of enzymes to particulate supports by means other than physical entrapment. While a number of methods have been described, (1,2,3), covalent binding seems to have gained the most favor. Catalysts prepared by such techniques have typically been used in packed bed reactors to process what might be referred to as “reagent grade” substrate streams.


Nickel Oxide Slurry Reactor Glutaraldehyde Method Lactase Immobilize Lactose Substrate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Falb, Biotech. and Bioeng. Suppl. 3, 177 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weetall and Messing, The Chemistry of Biosurfaces, Volume 2, Marcel Dekker, New York, 563 (1972).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chibata and Testuya, Ann. Rept. Tanake Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Tech. Part, Vol. 16, 59 (1968).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kunii and Levenspiel, Fluidization Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1969. Chapter 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zenz and Othmer, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, 1960. Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1962, pp. 295–296.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrison, Davidson, and de Kock, Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 39, 202 (1961).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruinzeel, Reman and Van der Laan, Proc. Symp. on The Interaction of Fluids and Particles, London, 1962, pp. 120–126.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grimmett and Brown, Ind. and Eng. Chem., 54, 24 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Selke and Bliss, Chem. Eng. Prog., 47, 529 (1951).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swinton and Weiss, Aust. J. Appl. Sci., 6, 98 (1955).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calderbank and Jones, Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 39, 363 (1961).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Satterfield, Mass Transfer in Heterogeneous Catalysis, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, p. 107.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barker, Emery and Novais, Proc. Biochem., 6, (10), 11 (1971).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emery, Hough, Novais and Lyons, The Chem. Engr., No. 259, 79 (Feb., 1972 ).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haines and Walsh, Enzyme Envelopes on Colloidal Particles, Biochem.Biophys.Res.Commun. 36, 235–242 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Private Communication.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hasselberger, Charles, Coughlin, Allen and Paruchuri, submitted to BBRC.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coughlin, Charles, Allen, Paruchuri and Hasselberger, paper presented at 66th Annual Meeting AIChE, November 15, 1973, Philadelphia, Pa. (to be published).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Charles
    • 1
  • R. W. Coughlin
    • 1
  • B. R. Allen
    • 1
  • E. K. Paruchuri
    • 1
  • F. X. Hasselberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations