Heterofunctional Supports in Enzyme Immobilization: From Traditional Immobilization Protocols to Opportunities in Tuning Enzyme Properties

A heterofunctional support for enzyme immobilization may be defined as that which possesses several distinct functionalities on its surface able to interact with a protein. We will focus on those supports in which a final covalent attachment between the enzyme and the support is achieved. Heterofunctionality sometimes has been featured in very old immobilization techniques, even though in many instances it has been overlooked, giving rise to some misunderstandings. In this respect, glutaraldehyde-activated supports are the oldest multifunctional supports. Their matrix has primary amino groups, the hydrophobic glutaraldehyde chain, and can covalently react with the primary amino groups of the enzyme. Thus, immobilization may start (first event of the immobilization) via different causes and may involve different positions of the enzyme surface depending on the activation degree and immobilization conditions. Other “classical” heterofunctional supports are epoxy commercial supports consisting of reactive covalent epoxy groups on a hydrophobic matrix. Immobilization is performed at high ionic strength to permit protein adsorption, so that covalent attachment may take place at a later stage. Starting from these old immobilization techniques, tailor-made heterofunctional supports have been designed to permit a stricter control of the enzyme immobilization process. The requirement is to find conditions where the main covalent reactive moieties may have very low reactivity toward the enzyme. In this Review we will discuss the suitable properties of the groups able to give the covalent attachment (intending a multipoint covalent attachment), and the groups able to produce the first enzyme adsorption on the support. Prospects, limitations, and likely pathways for the evolution (e.g., coupling of site-directed mutagenesis and thiol heterofunctional supports of enzyme immobilization on heterofunctional supports) will be discussed in this Review.

Tungsten coil atomic emission spectrometry combined with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction: A synergistic association for chromium determination in water samples

A novel and environment friendly analytical method is reported for total chromium determination and chromium speciation in water samples, whereby tungsten coil atomic emission spectrometry (WCAES) is combined with in situ ionic liquid formation dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (in situ IL-DLLME). A two stage multivariate optimization approach has been developed employing a Plackett–Burman design for screening and selection of the significant factor involved in the in situ IL-DLLME procedure, which was later optimized by means of a circumscribed central composite design. The optimum conditions were complexant concentration: 0.5% (or 0.1%); complexant type: DDTC; IL anion: View the MathML sourcePF6−; [Hmim][Cl] IL amount: 60 mg; ionic strength: 0% NaCl; pH: 5 (or 2); centrifugation time: 10 min; and centrifugation speed: 1000 rpm. Under the optimized experimental conditions the method was evaluated and proper linearity was obtained with a correlation coefficient of 0.991 (5 calibration standards). Limits of detection and quantification for both chromium species were 3 and 10 µg L−1, respectively. This is a 233-fold improvement when compared with chromium determination by WCAES without using preconcentration. The repeatability of the proposed method was evaluated at two different spiking levels (10 and 50 µg L−1) obtaining coefficients of variation of 11.4% and 3.6% (n=3), respectively. A certified reference material (SRM-1643e NIST) was analyzed in order to determine the accuracy of the method for total chromium determination and 112.3% and 2.5 µg L−1 were the recovery (trueness) and standard deviation values, respectively. Tap, bottled mineral and natural mineral water samples were analyzed at 60 µg L−1 spiking level of total Cr content at two Cr(VI)/Cr(III) ratios, and relative recovery values ranged between 88% and 112% showing that the matrix has a negligible effect. To our knowledge, this is the first time that combines in situ IL-DLLME and WCAES.