Comparing the Inhibition of Catalase Enzyme by Metal Ion Inhibitors

Personal Engagement

I have been consuming honey regularly every day since I could remember until right
now. I believe honey is a better sweetener than the commonly consumed sugar in Indonesia.
Honey has lower sugar content despite its sweet taste because it is rich in fructose. Therefore,
I often add honey to the beverages I drink, such as on tea, milk, coffee or even hot water. I
also add honey on bread. I always feel very refreshed and healthier after consuming honey.
Besides being a good sweetener, honey is also good for health because of its antibacterial
property. Diseases are spreading around the world and a natural antibacterial like honey is a
great benefit. Meanwhile, in studying biology, H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is well known as a
harmful substance that could be broken down by catalase enzyme. However, H2O2 could
actually be useful to treat infection1. It is also responsible for the antibacterial activity in
honey2. If honey is contaminated with catalase enzyme, it may lose its antibacterial activity
because the H2O2 is broken down. However, metal ions are well known to inhibit catalase
enzyme, maintaining the antibacterial activity of honey. The interaction of this knowledge in
Biology has given me an interest in investigating the inhibition of catalase enzyme by several
metal ions, as it can maintain and maximize the benefits from the honey that I consume
regularly. Fortunately, a study of enzyme and its inhibition are covered in Biology Chapter 2:
Molecular Biology and Chapter 8: Metabolism, Cell Respiration and Photosynthesis, which
help me in this investigation and lead me to choosing this topic.

Background Knowledge

Honey contains several enzymes (biological catalyst made of protein) such as

diastase, invertase and glucose oxidase3. Glucose oxidase catalyzes the oxidation of glucose
producing gluconic acid and H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide).

Fig 1. Hydrogen peroxide formation in a reaction catalyzed by glucose oxidase4

1
Evolution, C., Martino, J., Walia, A., Martino, J., Walia, A., DeNicola, M., & Erickson, A. (2014). 25 Amazing
Benefits & Uses For Hydrogen Peroxide. Collective-Evolution. Retrieved 22 September 2015, from
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/16/25-amazing-benefits-uses-for-hydrogen-peroxide/
2
French, V. (2005). The antibacterial activity of honey against coagulase-negative staphylococci. Journal Of
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 56(1), 228-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dki193
3
Airborne Honey,. Honey Enzymes. Retrieved 13 November 2015, from http://www.airborne.co.nz/enzymes.shtml
4
Santos, A., Soares, D., & Queiroz, A. (2010). Hydrogen Peroxide Formation in a Reaction Catalyzed by Glucose
Oxidase. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392010000100003

1
 H2O2 is a strong oxidizing agent that could kill several pathogenic microorganisms.
However, H2O2 could be decomposed into H2O (water) and O2 (oxygen gas) upon contact
with catalase enzyme. Fortunately, catalase enzyme could be inhibited by several metal ions.

Fig 2. Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide catalyzed by catalase enzyme 5

Metal ions such as Cu2+ (copper (II) ion), Zn2+ (zinc ion) and Pb2+ (lead (II) ion) could
inhibit catalase enzyme and they can respectively come from CuSO4 (copper (II) sulfate),
Zn(NO3)2 (zinc nitrate) and Pb(NO3)2 (lead (II) nitrate), which are commonly found in our
lives. Being a different metal ion, they can have different inhibition activity. Their amount
was suspected to affect the inhibition of catalase enzyme. Therefore, an experiment was
conducted to investigate how the amount of inhibitor affects the inhibition of catalase enzyme
and to compare the inhibition of each substance. The catalase enzyme was obtained from
chicken liver as it is known to be rich in catalase enzyme.

To get the inhibition level, the reaction would be conducted in the presence of an
inhibitor and in the absence of it. The amount of O2 produced would be obtained from the
difference in the O2 level before and after adding catalase. The inhibition level would be
calculated from the ratio of the difference in the amount of O2 produced to the amount of O2
produced when inhibitor is absent.

Research Question
How does the amount (mmol) of each inhibitor (CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2)
affect the inhibition level (%) of catalase enzyme and how do they compare?

Hypothesis

Greater amount of inhibitor will cause greater inhibition level and the greatest
inhibition level will be shown by Pb(NO3)2 that uses greatest amount which could
reach inhibition level around 90% since lead compound is well known to be toxic.

Variables

Independent Variable:
Inhibitor used: CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2.
Amount of inhibitor: 0.100, 0.200, 0.300, 0.400 and 0.500 mmol.

Dependent Variable:
Increase in O2 level after 40 seconds of pouring catalase enzyme.

5
Strong, S. Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide. Retrieved from http://stronglabnotebook.weebly.com/

2
Controlled Variable:

Table 1. Controlled variables in this investigation

Factors How Why
Temperature The experiment would be conducted Higher temperature will provide
of reaction in a laboratory with air conditioner greater kinetic energy on the enzyme,
(23oC 0.5). set at 23oC. causing reaction rate from enzyme to
produce O2 to be different. While
having too high temperature may
denature the enzyme causing no
reaction to occur.
Concentration It was controlled by using 15 g of Different concentration of enzyme
of catalase liquid from squeezed chicken liver will cause different enzymatic activity
enzyme measured using digital balance and and O2 will have its production rate to
(15.00 g liver diluted with 300 ml of distilled be different. Higher concentration
in 300 ml water to provide the catalase tends to give out higher O2 production
distilled enzyme. The same solution was rate.
water). used throughout all trials.
Amount of It was controlled by using 2.0 ml of Different volume of enzyme will
enzyme prepared chicken liver solution cause O2 to be produced at different
(2.0 ml measured using 5.0 measuring rate where more enzyme used will
0.05). cylinder. cause more O2 produced.
Amount of The volume of H2O2 for each trial Amount of substrate should be kept
substrate was kept constant which was 5.0 ml constant for a fair test in the amount
(5.0 ml 0.05 measured using 5.0 ml measuring of O2 gas produced. The H2O2
5%). cylinder while the concentration was concentration should be constant to
kept constant which was 5% taken allow same rate of O2 gas production,
from same container. and therefore the amount of H2O2
should be kept constant with same
volume of it.
Volume of The volume of container where the The O2 sensor measures the
container reaction occurred was kept constant concentration of O2. The volume
(Conical flask by using 250 ml conical flask for should be controlled to be able to get
250 ml). each trial. constant data of amount of O2.
Total volume The total volume of inhibitor added Using different volume of inhibitor
of inhibitor to the enzyme and H2O2 was kept will cause different volume of total
(5.0 ml constant by adding distilled water solution in the conical flask 250 ml,
0.05). until total volume become 5.0 ml therefore may cause the H2O2 or
measured using a 5.0 measuring enzyme concentration to be different.
cylinder.
Period of The time was kept constant which Different period time will cause the
time for the was 40 seconds recorded in the O2 increase in amount of O2 produced to
increase of O2 sensor measured when increase in be different.
level O2 level was detected.
(40 s 1).

3
 Methodology
Table 2. Apparatus used in this investigation Table 3. Materials used in this investigation
No. Apparatus Quantity No. Materials Quantity
1. Digital balance 500.00 (0.01) g 1 1. Chicken liver 100 g
2. Knife 1 2. Hydrogen peroxide 5% 400 ml
3. Cutting board 1 3. CuSO45H2O* 6.24 g
4. Mortar and pestle 1 4. Zn(NO3)2 4.73 g
5. Strainer 1 5. Pb(NO3)2 8.28 g
6. Stirring rod 4 6. Distilled water 1,290 ml
7. Measuring cylinder 100 (0.5) ml 1 *
CuSO45H2O was used instead of CuSO4
8. Measuring cylinder 5.0 (0.05) ml 3 because CuSO4 was not available. Once
9. Beaker 100 ml 3 dissolved, CuSO45H2O would make a CuSO4
10. Beaker 500 ml 1 solution which is the same if made from CuSO4.
11. Volumetric flask 250 (0.15) ml 3 solid.
12. Conical flask 250 ml 80
13. O2 sensor data logger (102 ppm) 1

Safety Precaution and Disposal:

Irritation may occur upon contact on H2O2, CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 or Pb(NO3)2 by skin or
eyes. Safety gloves and googles are recommended. If contact occurs, wash the exposed area
with clean water for 15 minutes. The decomposed solution in conical flask is disposed into
sink only after no more bubble of gas is produced. Glove is used when handling liver for
hygiene purpose. The excess liver is discarded into trash bin.
Procedures:
1. Turn on and set the laboratorys air conditioner at temperature 23 oC while closing all the
doors and windows. Put all the materials and apparatuses in the laboratory to allow the
whole experiment to proceed in temperature 23oC.
2. 250 ml of solution 0.1 M inhibitor was prepared by dissolving the weighed solid (using
digital balance to weigh the mass. Refer to Table 4 for its mass) using 40-60 ml of
distilled water in a 100 ml beaker then stirred using stirring rod, and poured into a 250 ml
volumetric flask. The beaker was filled with distilled water again and poured into the
volumetric flask until the 250 ml line was reached. Then the volumetric flask was shaken.
Table 4. Mass of inhibitor
No Inhibitor Mass (g) 0.01
1. CuSO45H2O 6.24
2. Zn(NO3)2 4.73
3. Pb(NO3)2 8.28

o The value of the required mass in Table 4 is found through the following calculation:
(g) = (M) (L)
o For example, the mass required for CuSO45H2O (Mr = 249.685) is:
= 0.100 M 0.250 L 249.685 = 6.2421 g 6.24 g
o The molecular weight of Zn(NO3)2 is 189.36 and Pb(NO3)2 is 331.2.

4
o The uncertainty in the solution concentration is:

= ( + )

o The uncertainty of 0.1 M CuSO4 solution is:
0.01 0.15
= ( + ) 0.1 = 0.00022 M
6.24 250
o The concentration uncertainty is very small for all solutions and therefore will be negligible.

3. Chicken liver was cut using knife on a cutting board into small pieces and grinded using
mortar and pestle until the liquid was squeezed out. The liquid was separated from the
residue by using strainer. 15.00 g of the liquid was taken (measured using digital balance)
and mixed with 300 ml of distilled water (measured using a 100 ml measuring cylinder,
three times) in a 500 ml beaker, then stirred using stirring rod.
4. 2.0 ml of the chicken liver (prepared in step 3) was measured using a 5.0 ml measuring
cylinder and poured into a 250 ml conical flask.
5. The inhibitor was taken into the 5.0 ml measuring cylinder until it reached the desired
volume and then added by distilled water until 5.0 ml according to Table 3. This was
done to get the different amount of inhibitor, but same volume of total solution.

Table 5. Different amount of inhibitor

Desired Amount Volume of inhibitor 0.1 M Volume of distilled water
No
(mmol) 0.005 (ml) 0.05 (ml 0.05)
1. 0.500 5.0 0
2. 0.400 4.0 1.0
3. 0.300 3.0 2.0
4. 0.200 2.0 3.0
5. 0.100 1.0 4.0

o The value of inhibitor volume in Table 5 is found through the following calculation:
(mmol)
(ml) =
(M)

o For example, the volume of inhibitor solution required to get 0.500 mmol of inhibitor is:
0.500 mmol
= = 5.00 ml
0.100 M

o The uncertainty in the inhibitor amount is found through this formula:

=

o For example, the uncertainty of inhibitor amount of 0.500 mmol is:

0.05
= 0.500 = 0.005 mmol
5.0

o The uncertainty absolute value in each desired amount of inhibitor is found to have same value.

5
6. The inhibitor was added to the 250 ml conical flask
containing the liver solution, and then the flask was
shaken for a while.
7. The initial O2 level in the flask was recorded by
placing the O2 sensor on the opening of the flask and

O2 Sensor
the data collection was started.
8. 5.0 ml of H2O2 5% was taken using a 5.0 ml
measuring cylinder. O2 sensor was removed from the
flask opening; the prepared H2O2 was poured into
the flask. The O2 sensor was immediately returned to
the flask opening. After the increase in O2 level was
detected, the final O2 level after 40 seconds was
recorded. Liver, inhibition
9. Step 4-8 were repeated until 5 trials for each substance and H2O2
concentration, and then repeated by using other
concentrations, and repeated again with other Fig 3. Laboratory set-up to
inhibitors and repeated without using any inhibitor measure the increase of O2 level
but using 5.0 ml of distilled water.

Raw Data

After pouring H2O2 to the solution of liver and inhibitor was present, the increase in
O2 level value was not immediately detected. When there was increase in O2 level, bubble of
gas in conical flask was observed. The data of O2 level will also be rounded to four
significant figures to make the calculation simpler while maintaining the accuracy. The
example of the graph for other samples will be shown in Appendix.

Fig 4. Example of the obtained result in graphical display no inhibitor

trial 1
6
 Below is an example of the data for no inhibitor and CuSO4 0.100 mmol.

Table 6. Example of raw data change in O2 level in no inhibitor and CuSO4 0.100 mmol
Initial (104 ppm) Final (104 ppm) Increase (104 ppm)
Sample Trial
0.01 0.01 0.02
1 19.69 28.91 9.22
2 19.65 32.73 13.08
No inhibitor 3 19.65 32.07 12.42
4 19.71 32.20 12.49
5 19.60 30.41 10.81
1 19.44 26.64 7.20
CuSO4 2 19.60 26.88 7.28
0.100 (0.005) 3 19.65 26.15 6.50
mmol 4 19.38 26.17 6.79
5 19.60 27.88 8.28
*Note: The complete raw data will be shown in Appendix.

The increase in O2 level (later referred as) is calculated through this formula:

2 () = 2 2

In sample with no inhibitor in trial 1, 2 () = 28.91 104 19.69 104 = 9.22 104 ppm

Data Processing

The data processing and the formula will also be applied for other samples, but only CuSO4 is
shown for the example of calculation.
The average increase of O2 level in no inhibitor is calculated with average formula:
=1 9.22 + 13.08 + 12.42 + 12.49 + 10.81
() = () = = 11.60
5

The inhibition of each substance is calculated with this formula:

11.60
= 100% = 100%
11.60

11.607.20
In CuSO4 0.100 mmol trial 1, = 100% = 37.9%
11.60

Table 7. The inhibition in CuSO4 0.100 mmol

O2 increase
Sum of Standard
Sample Trial (104 ppm) Inhibition (%) Average (%)
Square (SS) Deviation (%)
0.02
1 7.20 37.9
2 7.28 37.2
CuSO4
3 6.50 44.0 37.8 135.9 5.2
0.100 mmol
4 6.79 41.5
5 8.28 28.6

() = ( )2
() =
=1

= (37.8 37.9)2 + (37.8 37.2)2 + (37.8 44.0)2 + (37.8 41.5)2 + (37.8 28.6)2 = 135.9

135.9
= = 5.2%
5

To compare the difference between each concentration on an inhibitor, statistical test

Analysis of Variance F-Ratio Test6 will be done using CuSO4 as the example of calculation.

Table 8. F ratio of CuSO4

Amount Sum of SS SS
Average Total Average Total
Sample (mmol) Square Within Between
Inhibition (%) Inhibition (%) SS
0.005 (SS) Group Group
0.100 37.8 135.9
0.200 39.4 51.1
CuSO4 0.300 49.3 174.0 588.1 52.1 5,251.8 4,663.8
0.400 59.6 87.0
0.500 74.6 140.0

o = =1 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 135.9 + 51.1 +
174.0 + 87.0 + 140.0 = 588.1
o Total Sum of Square is found using same formula as Sum of Square, but it uses all
data of CuSO4 0.100 0.500 mmol and using the total average.
o = = 5,251.8 588.1 = 4,663.8

Table 9. F-Ratio of the inhibitors

SS SS Degree of
F- Confidence Critical
Sample Between Within Freedom
Ratio Level Value
Group Group ()
CuSO4 4,663.8 588.1 39.80
Zn(NO3)2 49.0 4 11.7 20 20.89 (4,20) 95% 2.87
Pb(NO3)2 14.1 8.1 8.74

o = 1 = 5 1 = 4

o = = 25 5 = 20

4,663.820
o = In CuSO4, = = 39.80
4588.1

6
Longstreet, D. (2012). How To Calculate and Understand Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) F Test.. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yQb_ZJnFXw

o 8
A chart of the inhibition activity will be made to compare the difference in the inhibition
activity among different concentrations and among different samples. The previously
obtained standard deviation will be used to represent the error bar on the chart.

Chart 1. The comparison of average inhibition of several substances on catalase enzyme

100
97.3 97.5 97.6 98.6 96.3
90 94.1 97.3 97.8 97.8
80 95.2
70
Inhibition (%)

74.6 0.100 mmol

60
50 59.6 0.200 mmol
40 49.3 0.300 mmol
30 39.4
37.8 0.400 mmol
20
0.500 mmol
10
0
Copper (II) Sulfate Zinc Nitrate Lead (II) Nitrate
Inhibitor Samples

Discussion and Review

The small error bar in Chart 1 showed the high precision of the data, indicating the
data to be reliable to get a valid analysis and conclusion. Before H2O2 came into contact with
catalase, no bubble of gas was observed because its decomposition required huge activation
energy. After coming into contact with catalase, bubble of gas was observed, indicating a
reaction was happening and producing O2 (oxygen gas) justified from the increase in O2 level
in the O2 sensor. Catalase enzyme catalyzes the reaction by lowering the activation energy7.
In catalase, there is a site in enzyme whose shape is specific to the shape of the substrate
(H2O2), called active site8. The substrate binds to the active site allowing the enzyme to break
down H2O2 into H2O and O2 (Fig. 2). The products (H2O and O2) will then leave the enzyme
without changing the active site, allowing the used enzyme to catalyze another same
reaction9, making the enzyme to be re-usable. The re-usability of enzyme was justified from
the production of O2 until all H2O2 was broken down whether inhibitor was present or absent.
The increase in O2 level within the presence of the solution of CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 or
Pb(NO3)2 was lower than when they are absent. This justified that those solutions were
inhibitors that inhibited the activity of catalase enzyme. Metal ions are non-competitive
inhibitor of enzymes10. They bind to a place in enzyme which is not the active site but
altering the shape of the active site, causing molecule to no longer fit to the active site,
therefore reducing the enzymatic activity11. In the structure of enzyme, there are several side-
7
Allott, A. (2014). Biology for the IB Diploma (p. 99). Oxford University Press.
8
Allot, A., & Mindorff, D. (2014). Biology Course Companion (pp. 96-97). Oxford University Press.
9
Jones, M., & Jones, G. (2010). IGCSE biology (p. 40). Cambridge University Press.
10
Chemguide.co.uk,. (2009). Enzyme Inhibitors. Retrieved 16 September 2015, from
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/aminoacids/enzymes3.html
11
Weem, M., Talbot, C., & Mayrhofer, A. (2014). International Baccalaureate Biology (4th ed., p. 229). Melton:
IBID Press.

9
chains and polypeptide backbone containing oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur atoms with the
potential to act as ligand to form chelate complex with various metal ions, where metal ions
tend to bind to SH (sulfhydryl functional group) in side chain of cysteine residues,
disturbing the formation of disulfide bridges or replacing them with sulfur-metal-sulfur
fragments12. This causes the enzyme to be denatured; the shape of the active site is changed,
making the substrate to be unable to fit anymore, resulting in the inability of enzyme to
catalyze the reaction. The enzyme bound to inhibitor is referred as enzyme-inhibitor complex.
Sometimes in the presence of the inhibitors, the O2 level did not increase right away
because of the lag phase of enzymes13 where the enzymes needed some time to separate
themselves from the inhibitors after the enzyme-inhibitor complex was formed. This
separation was possible because some non-competitive inhibitors could have a reversible
effect14 because they did not bind very tightly with the enzyme (low enzyme affinity), and
then the enzyme can catalyze the reaction after it is detached from the inhibitor. The presence
of H2O2 as the substrate was the factor that triggered the separation between the enzyme and
inhibitor. Although there was a delay in the O2 increase, the O2 level was measured only
when O2 level started to increase to allow the comparison to be possible or else the O2 level
when inhibitor is present may show no increase and cannot be compared among each other.
From the results of the experiment and tested using F-test analysis of variance, the
difference in the inhibition of a certain sample but using different amounts of inhibitor was
statistically significant because the F ratios of the three samples are considerably greater than
the critical value of confidence level 95% with degrees of freedom at (4,20). This implies that
amount of inhibitor truly played role in the inhibition of enzymatic activity.
The more CuSO4 was present, there was greater inhibition occurring on the enzyme
(positive correlation) although the relationship was not clearly shown from the obtained
results due to the large inhibition level. It was because more inhibitor caused more inhibition
on the enzymes, therefore fewer enzymes could catalyze the reaction. However, this was
slightly different for Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2. In Zn(NO3)2, the inhibition of enzyme was the
same for 0.300 mmol and 0.400 mmol of inhibitor, while the inhibition increased again when
there was 0.500 mmol of Zn(NO3)2. However from the trend of results in Zn(NO3)2, the
inhibition level observed was the same while actually it might increase slightly, but it was
undetected from the O2 sensor. This deduction was made because there had already been
huge inhibition when only 0.100 mmol of Zn(NO3)2 was present, and the increase in
inhibition was not significant when amount of inhibitor was raised. For Pb(NO3)2, it was
similar to Zn(NO3)2 that the inhibition was very large when only 0.100 mmol of it was
present. Peculiarly, there was a decline in the inhibition level when more inhibitor was added
after 0.300 mmol of inhibitor. This could happen because the inhibition had reached
maximum level, or the binding of Pb(NO3)2 on the enzyme had been fully saturated and
unable to bind to the enzyme, causing no increase in the inhibition level. Furthermore, Pb

12
Bylikin, S. (2014). Chemistry 2014. [S.l.]: Oxford University Press.
13
Worthington-biochem.com,. (2015). Enzyme Concentration (Introduction to Enzymes). Retrieved 16 September
2015, from http://www.worthington-biochem.com/introbiochem/enzymeconc.html
14
Chemguide.co.uk,. (2009). Enzyme Inhibitors. Retrieved 16 September 2015, from
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/aminoacids/enzymes3.html

10
(lead) can have several oxidation states15, causing lead compound could also behave as a
chemical catalyst to decompose H2O216 by reducing H2O2 into H2O and O2 in a reduction-
oxidation reaction, where Pb2+ as the reducing agent from Pb(NO3)2 was oxidized into Pb4+.
Since it promoted the O2 production, the calculated inhibition level would decrease.
Among the three tested inhibitors, the inhibition activity from high to low deduced
from Chart 1 was respectively Pb(NO3)2, Zn(NO3)2 and CuSO4 although there was slight
difference between Pb(NO3)2 and Zn(NO3)2, while there was clear difference between CuSO4
and other inhibitors. This showed that Pb(NO3)2 and Zn(NO3)2 had greater enzyme affinity
compared to CuSO4; they could bind stronger to catalase, reducing its enzymatic activity
more significantly. However, the enzyme affinity of Pb(NO3)2 might not differ much from
Zn(NO3)2 since they had a quite similar inhibition level. However, there was a possibility that
the anions, such as sulfate and nitrate ion, might get involved in enzyme inhibition, where
nitrate ion inhibited catalase more than sulfate ion. So, it was possible that the difference in
inhibition was not purely caused by the different metal ions, causing an unfair comparison.
The investigated ions can be taken into the body through several kinds of food to
improve the antibacterial activity of honey. Food rich in copper content are cooked oyster
(5.71mg/100g), raw kale (1.5mg/100g) and cooked shiitake mushroom (0.9mg/100g)17. Food
rich in zinc content are cooked oyster (78.6mg/100g), cooked lean beef short ribs
(12.3mg/100g), and toasted wheat germ (16.7mg/100g)18. There is rarely any food containing
lead because lead itself is a highly toxic metal and a very strong poison commonly found in
art supplies or contaminated dust, capable of causing high blood pressure, kidney disorder
and behavior problem19, therefore it needs to be avoided. Overall, food such as cooked oyster
is the best source of both copper and zinc ion to improve the antibacterial activity of honey.
Conclusion
From the experimental results, it had been verified that CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 and
Pb(NO3)2 are the inhibitors of catalase enzyme in liver. The research question How does
the amount (mmol) of each inhibitor (CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2) affect the inhibition
level (%) of catalase enzyme and how do they compare? can be answered. The hypothesis
Greater amount of inhibitor will cause greater inhibition level and the greatest inhibition
level will be shown by Pb(NO3)2 that uses greatest amount which could reach inhibition level
around 90% since lead compound is well known to be toxic can also be evaluated. The
amount of inhibitor played role on catalase activity, justified using F-test analysis of variance.
The hypothesis is accepted in CuSO4, where more inhibitors caused greater inhibition. The
similar condition also occurred when using Zn(NO3)2 although the inhibition was once same
for different amount, but it increased again, therefore accepting the hypothesis. However, in
15
Clark, J. (2004). Oxidation state trends in Group 4. Chemguide.co.uk. Retrieved 15 March 2016, from
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/group4/oxstates.html
16
Catalytic Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Oxygen.atomistry.com. Retrieved 15 March 2016, from
http://oxygen.atomistry.com/catalytic_decomposition_hydrogen_peroxide.html
17
Whitbread, D., & House, P. Top 10 Foods Highest in Copper. HealthAliciousNess. Retrieved 20 January 2016, from
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/high-copper-foods.php
18
Whitbread, D., & House, P. Top 10 Foods Highest in Zinc. HealthAliciousNess. Retrieved 20 January 2016, from
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/zinc.php
19
Healthline,. Lead Poisoning. Retrieved 20 January 2016, from http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-
poisoning#Symptoms4

11
Pb(NO3)2, the inhibition level initially increased, but it decreased slightly beyond 0.300 mmol
which could be caused by the catalytic activity of Pb(NO3)2 to decompose H2O2, so this
partially fit with the hypothesis. It gave a possibility that each substance might have different
trend in how they inhibit catalase. The inhibition level from low to high was respectively
CuSO4, Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2 where Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2 had similar inhibition level,
while there was significant difference between CuSO4 and other inhibitors. This accepts the
hypothesis where lead compound has the greatest inhibition level, which is 98.6% when in
0.300 mmol. Overall, the hypothesis on the research question can be accepted.
Further Research
This investigation itself could not determine the type of the inhibitor; therefore it is
suggested to determine the type of the inhibitor by finding the Vmax (maximum enzymatic
rate) and Km (substrate concentration when rate of reaction is half of Vmax). In addition, doing
a direct investigation on the effect of the ratio of catalase enzyme to its inhibitors against the
antibacterial activity of honey would also be recommended.
Evaluation and Improvement
I am proud in doing this investigation as I could obtain sufficient data to answer my
research question while reducing the experimental error. The low standard deviation indicates
the high precision during experiment and sufficient amount of trials were conducted to
support its precision. I learnt how to use F-test analysis of variance as a statistical tool to
justify whether the difference in the inhibition level among different amount of inhibitor was
significant or not. The opening of the flask fit with O2 sensor, preventing the escape of O2 gas
and minimalizing the experimental error. I also used O2 sensor to monitor the O2 gas level
which also gave out accurate control in the variable time. However, some experimental errors
might still occur. Those errors and the possible improvements would be shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Experimental errors and their improvements
Limitation Improvement
Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2 powders did not fully Using smaller concentration so powder can
dissolve in the solution despite being stirred and fully dissolve or using the commercially
shaken, so the amount used can slightly deviate. sold Zn(NO3)2 and Pb(NO3)2 solution.
pH of the solution was not controlled and might Using buffer to maintain the pH of the
differ in each trial, affecting the enzymatic solution. Buffer pH 7 is suggested because
activity, resulting in unfair comparison. the optimum pH of catalase is around 7.
This experiment took long time and may decrease Catalase enzyme from liver can be
the freshness of liver solution, causing catalase to replaced by commercially sold or standard
perform poorly and unfair for all trials. catalase solution of known concentration.
Slight amount of O2 gas may escape during the Use flask with longer neck or with two
interval after adding catalase from liver solution necks for O2 sensor and adding the liver
and before covering the flask with the O2 sensor. solution.
The anions (NO3-, SO42-), could contribute to the Using substances containing same type of
enzyme inhibition, and each anion could inhibit anions such as CuSO4, ZnSO4 and PbSO4
differently, resulting in an unfair comparison. to allow fair comparison.
This method of investigation could be ineffective The inhibition will be investigated through
because the increase in O2 level after 40 seconds how long the time taken for the O2 level to
could be very small or insignificant. increase to a certain level.

12
References

Airborne Honey,. Honey Enzymes. Retrieved 13 November 2015, from

http://www.airborne.co.nz/enzymes.shtml

Allott, A. (2014). Biology for the IB Diploma (p. 99). Oxford University Press.

Allot, A., & Mindorff, D. (2014). Biology Course Companion (pp. 96-97). Oxford University
Press.

Bylikin, S. (2014). Chemistry 2014. [S.l.]: Oxford University Press.

Catalytic Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Oxygen.atomistry.com. Retrieved 15 March

2016, from
http://oxygen.atomistry.com/catalytic_decomposition_hydrogen_peroxide.htm

Chemguide.co.uk,. (2009). Enzyme Inhibitors. Retrieved 16 September 2015, from

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/aminoacids/enzymes3.html

Clark, J. (2004). Oxidation state trends in Group 4. Chemguide.co.uk. Retrieved 15 March

2016, from http://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/group4/oxstates.html

Dinov, I. (2015). F-Distribution Tables. Socr.ucla.edu. Retrieved 22 September 2015, from

http://www.socr.ucla.edu/applets.dir/f_table.html

Evolution, C., Martino, J., Walia, A., Martino, J., Walia, A., DeNicola, M., & Erickson, A.
(2014). 25 Amazing Benefits & Uses For Hydrogen Peroxide. Collective-Evolution.
Retrieved 22 September 2015, from http://www.collective-
evolution.com/2014/02/16/25-amazing-benefits-uses-for-hydrogen-peroxide/

French, V. (2005). The antibacterial activity of honey against coagulase-negative

staphylococci. Journal Of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 56(1), 228-231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dki193

Healthline,. Lead Poisoning. Retrieved 20 January 2016, from

http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#Symptoms4

Jones, M., & Jones, G. (2010). IGCSE biology (p. 40). Cambridge University Press.

Longstreet, D. (2012). How To Calculate and Understand Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) F

Test.. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yQb_ZJnFXw

Santos, A., Soares, D., & Queiroz, A. (2010). Hydrogen Peroxide Formation in a Reaction
Catalyzed by Glucose Oxidase. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392010000100003

13
Strong, S. Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide. Retrieved from
http://stronglabnotebook.weebly.com/

Weem, M., Talbot, C., & Mayrhofer, A. (2014). International Baccalaureate Biology (4th
ed., p. 229). Melton: IBID Press.

Whitbread, D., & House, P. Top 10 Foods Highest in Copper. HealthAliciousNess. Retrieved
20 January 2016, from http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/high-copper-
foods.php

Whitbread, D., & House, P. Top 10 Foods Highest in Zinc. HealthAliciousNess. Retrieved 20
January 2016, from http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/zinc.php

Worthington-biochem.com,. (2015). Enzyme Concentration (Introduction to Enzymes).

Retrieved 16 September 2015, from http://www.worthington-
biochem.com/introbiochem/enzymeconc.html

14
Appendix

Here are some documentations of the experiment.

Image 1. Liver solution Image 2. Laboratory set-up to measure O2 level

Below is the complete raw data of the increase in O2 level.

Table 11. Raw Data Increase in O2 level

Amount
Initial (104 ppm) Final (104 ppm) Increase (104 ppm)
Sample (mmol) Trial
0.01 0.01 0.02
0.005
1 19.69 28.91 9.22
2 19.65 32.73 13.08
No inhibitor 3 19.65 32.07 12.42
4 19.71 32.20 12.49
5 19.60 30.41 10.81
1 19.44 26.64 7.20
2 19.60 26.88 7.28
0.100 3 19.65 26.15 6.50
4 19.38 26.17 6.79
5 19.60 27.88 8.28
1 19.57 26.39 6.82
CuSO4
2 19.52 26.72 7.20
0.200 3 19.51 26.85 7.34
4 19.55 25.95 6.40
5 19.38 26.76 7.38
1 19.83 26.81 6.98
0.300
2 19.59 25.79 6.20

15
 3 19.51 24.74 5.23
4 19.37 24.47 5.10
5 19.53 25.40 5.87
1 19.69 24.43 4.74
2 19.44 23.49 4.05
0.400 3 19.43 24.58 5.15
4 19.44 24.71 5.27
5 19.41 23.64 4.23
1 19.72 22.48 2.76
2 19.88 21.72 1.84
0.500 3 19.48 22.66 3.18
4 19.62 23.07 3.45
5 19.55 23.06 3.51
1 19.26 19.89 0.63
2 19.32 20.00 0.68
0.100 3 19.38 20.09 0.71
4 19.10 19.74 0.64
5 19.00 19.75 0.75
1 19.34 19.94 0.60
2 19.34 19.87 0.53
0.200 3 19.17 19.69 0.52
4 19.27 19.89 0.62
5 19.26 19.77 0.51
1 19.10 19.27 0.17
2 19.08 19.37 0.29
Zn(NO3)2 0.300 3 19.09 19.50 0.41
4 19.08 19.39 0.31
5 19.08 19.43 0.35
1 19.08 19.31 0.23
2 19.02 19.22 0.20
0.400 3 19.04 19.35 0.31
4 19.36 19.93 0.57
5 19.09 19.31 0.22
1 19.07 19.42 0.35
2 19.18 19.49 0.31
0.500 3 19.16 19.44 0.28
4 19.18 19.45 0.27
5 17.90 18.10 0.20
1 19.12 19.49 0.37
2 19.17 19.43 0.26
0.100 3 19.25 19.52 0.27
4 19.21 19.46 0.25
5 19.21 19.45 0.24
Pb(NO3)2
1 19.30 19.62 0.32
2 19.37 19.74 0.37
0.200 3 19.25 19.41 0.16
4 19.37 19.57 0.20
5 19.61 19.83 0.22

16
 1 19.34 19.51 0.17
2 19.44 19.64 0.20
0.300 3 19.38 19.52 0.14
4 19.28 19.41 0.13
5 19.50 19.65 0.15
1 19.83 20.05 0.22
2 19.62 19.82 0.20
0.400 3 19.84 20.09 0.25
4 19.17 19.54 0.37
5 19.29 19.53 0.24
1 19.99 20.47 0.48
2 19.98 20.43 0.45
0.500 3 19.39 19.76 0.37
4 20.27 20.83 0.56
5 19.64 19.92 0.28

Here is the average inhibition of the investigated inhibitors that has been calculated.

Table 12. Average inhibition of several inhibitors

Amount Average Sum of Square
Sample Standard Deviation (%)
(mmol) 0.005 Inhibition (%) (SS) (%)
0.100 37.8 136 5.21
0.200 39.4 51.1 3.20
CuSO4 0.300 49.3 174 5.90
0.400 59.6 87.0 4.17
0.500 74.6 140 5.29
0.100 94.1 0.734 0.383
0.200 95.2 0.752 0.388
Zn(NO3)2 0.300 97.3 2.34 0.684
0.400 97.3 6.99 1.18
0.500 97.5 0.912 0.427
0.100 97.6 0.823 0.406
0.200 97.8 2.28 0.675
Pb(NO3)2 0.300 98.6 0.229 0.214
0.400 97.8 1.32 0.513
0.500 96.3 3.41 0.826

17
Here are the examples of the increase of O2 level in graphical display.

Fig 5. Example of the obtained result in graphical display no inhibitor trial 1

Fig 6. Example of the obtained result in graphical display CuSO4 0.100 mol trial 1

18
Fig 7. Example of the obtained result in graphical display Zn(NO3)2 0.100 mol trial 1

Fig 8. Example of the obtained result in graphical display Pb(NO3)2 0.100 mol
trial 1

19