1993
DOI: 10.1007/bf00182798
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An error estimation of Michaelis-Menten (Monod)-type kinetics

Abstract: Due to research on biochemistry and genetic engineering, mathematical models of microbial growth have become more complicated but Michaelis-Menten or Monod type expressions have still been used for conversion rates, uptake rates, etc. It is worth examining the error that can be caused by these quasi-steady-state hypotheses. This paper presents a simple but very effective rationale function that describes the error of the quasisteady-state hypothesis in enzyme kinetics. A simplified fermentation kinetic model w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1995
1995
1995
1995

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
(19 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the more precise investigations of enzyme systems pose the question of assessing the quality of information obtained using Michaelis -Menten kinetic approach. This is the aim of many 59 publications dedicated to error estimation ( 1,2,3,4,5,6), influence of the violation of steady-state assumptions (9), analysis of the informative value of the equations (15), sensitivity of the integration procedures (8) etc. (7,10,11,12,13,14,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the more precise investigations of enzyme systems pose the question of assessing the quality of information obtained using Michaelis -Menten kinetic approach. This is the aim of many 59 publications dedicated to error estimation ( 1,2,3,4,5,6), influence of the violation of steady-state assumptions (9), analysis of the informative value of the equations (15), sensitivity of the integration procedures (8) etc. (7,10,11,12,13,14,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%