Applied Biochemistry and Biotecnology pp 859-873

Part of the ABAB Symposium book series (ABAB)

The Effects of Engineering Design on Heterogeneous Biocatalysis in Microchannels

  • Frank Jones
  • Robert Bailey
  • Stephanie Wilson
  • James Hiestand


The results of a numerical study of the fundamental interactions of engineering design and micromixing on conversion in packed microchannels are presented. Previously, channel-based microreactors made of molded silicon plastic were designed, fabricated, and experimentally tested. These reactors have enzymes immobilized on the channel walls by various methods including layerby-layer nano self-assembly techniques. They also contain molded packing features to add reactive surface area and to redistribute the fluid. An arbitrary but intuitively sensible packing arrangement was initially chosen and used in experimental studies. The current computer simulation study was undertaken to understand how static laminar mixing affects the conversion efficiency. The reactors previously used experimentally have been simulated using CFD-ACE+ multiphysics software (ESI CFD Inc., Huntsville, AL). It is found that packing significantly increases conversion when compared with empty channels over the entire flow rate range of the study (0.25<Re<62.5). The boost in conversion has an optimal point near Re=20 for the particular geometry examined.

Index Entries

Catalase enzyme micromixing microreactor numerical simulation heterogeneous catalysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ameel, T. A. (1997), Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 24, 1113–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen, N. T. and Wu, Z. (2005), J. Micromech. Microeng. 15, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zheng, A. I., Jones, F., Fang, J., and Cui, T. (2000), in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Microreaction Technology (IMRET IV), pp. 284–292.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, F., Forrest, S., Palmer, J., Lu, Z., Elmore, J., and Elmore, B. (2004), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 113–116, 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wen, J., Elmore, B., and Jones, F. (2007), submitted to Biotechnol Bioeng.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailey, R., Jones, F., Fisher, B., and Elmore, B. (2005), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 121–124, 639–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, H., Iovenitti, P., Harvey, E., and Masood, S. (2002), Smart Mater. Struct. 11, 662–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin, Y., Gerfen, G. J., Rousseau, D. L., and Yeh, S. R. (2003), Anal. Chem. 75, 5381–5386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, H., Iovenitti, P., Harvey, E., and Masood, S. (2003), J. Micromech. Microeng. 13, 801–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jovanovich, G. (2006), Ind. Bioprocessing 28(4), 6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ESI CDF Inc (2006), CFD-ACE+V2006 User Manual, Huntsville, AL.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Doormaal, J. and Raithby, G. (1984), Numer. Heat Transfer 7, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crowe, C., Roberson, J., and Elger, D. (2001), Engineering Fluid Mechanics, 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeTurck, D., Gladney, L., and Pietrovito, A. (1996), The Interactive Textbook of PFP 96,, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, F., Lu, Z., and Elmore, B. (2002), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 98–100, 627–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Jones
    • 1
  • Robert Bailey
    • 2
  • Stephanie Wilson
    • 1
  • James Hiestand
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Tennessee at ChattanoogaChattanooga
  2. 2.Loyola College in MarylandBaltimore

Personalised recommendations