arXiv:1511.06477v1 [] 20 Nov 2015

On Cooperative Behavior of Open Homogeneous
Chemical Reaction Systems in the Extent
Domain
Nirav Bhatt1 ,∗ Sriniketh Srinivasan2
1
Systems & Control Group,
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras,
Chennai - 600036, India
2
Laboratoire d’Automatique,
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
February 24, 2018

Abstract
Material balance equations describe the dynamics of the species in
open reaction systems and contain information regarding reaction topology, kinetics and operation mode. For reaction systems, the state variables
(the numbers of moles, or concentrations) have recently been transformed
into decoupled reaction variants (extents of reaction), and reaction invariants (extents of flow) (Amrhein et al., AIChE Journal, 2010). This paper
analyses the conditions under which an open homogeneous reaction system is cooperative in the extents domain. Further, it is shown that the
dynamics of the extents of flow exhibit cooperative behavior. Further, we
provide the conditions under which the dynamics of the extents of reaction
exhibit cooperative behavior. Our results provide physical insights into
cooperative and competitive nature of the underlying reaction system in
the presence of material exchange with surrounding (i.e., inlet and outlet
flows). The results of the article are demonstrated via examples.

Keywords: Extent of reaction, Extents of flow, Open reaction systems, Cooperative Systems, Competitive Systems
∗ Corresponding

author. E-mail: niravbhatt@iitm.ac.in

1

1

Introduction

Chemical reaction systems are present in various spheres of our lives. They
occur in fields such as in basic sciences, chemistry and biology, and in applied
sciences, chemical engineering and biotechnology. A quantitative and qualitative
analysis provides a better understanding of the underlying reaction system. In
process industries, such analysis is useful for smooth operation of these systems
via model-based monitoring, control and optimization. On the other hand,
in systems biology, it helps to understand functionalities of different biological
networks under various conditions 1 . In this paper, we investigate cooperative
property of open homogeneous reaction systems.
For a single-phase homogeneous reaction system, the states (concentrations or
the numbers of moles) that evolve with reaction progress, labeled reaction variants, and the states that do not, labeled reaction invariants. However, the
reaction variants and invariants in the literature are merely mathematical quantities that do not have a direct physical meaning due to the couplings that exist
between them 10 . Recently, a linear transformation to obtain decoupled and
physical meaningful reaction and flow variants, called the extents of reaction
and flow, respectively, has been proposed 3 . The decoupling of variants in the
extents domain has been exploited in various implications such as identification
of reaction systems, state reconstruction/estimation, and minimal state representations 2,7 .
The study of cooperative/competitive properties is an active area of research
in monotonous dynamical system theory. A system is referred to be cooperative/competitive systems, if the solutions of system preserve monotonous order
(increasing or decreasing). A rigorous definition of monotonous systems can be
found in Smith, H. 4 . Further, monotonous system theory can provide insight
into dynamic behaviors of the underlying system based on the topology 4 . The
dynamics of chemical reaction systems can be modeled as the combination of
topology (stoichiometric) and the interacting functions (reaction rates). Hence,
the monotonous system theory has been applied to understand qualitative behaviour of these complex systems under various conditions in systems biology 9 .
On the other hand, these concepts are useful in developing interval estimators
in process control 8 .
In this paper, we investigate cooperative nature of the system in the extents
domain for open reaction systems. The main objective of the work is to investigate conditions for the underlying open reaction system being a cooperative
one which can be easily verified from physical meaningful quantities in contrast
to other authors in the literature 1 . It will be shown that the extents of flow
always exhibit cooperative behavior. Further, we will identify the condition under which the extents of reaction (the embedded reactions) exhibit cooperative
or competitive behavior. Moreover, it is shown that the extents of reaction can
behave in cooperative manner under certain experimental conditions. Further,
the effect of operation mode on the embedded reactions will be investigated.
2

The paper is organized as follows. Some preliminaries on the linear transformation and basic definitions are given in Section 2. Section 3 provides main results
of this paper. In this section, conditions under which the underlying reaction
system being a cooperative system in the extents domain are given. Section 4
demonstrates various concepts via two examples. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2
2.1

Preliminaries
Model of homogeneous reaction systems

In this section we write material balance equations for an open non-isothermal
homogeneous reaction system.
Mole Balance Equations
Consider a homogeneous reaction system with S species living in a set of species
S with |S|=S. The reaction system consists of R reactions, p inlet streams, and
one outlet stream. Then, the mole balance equations for the reaction system
can be written as follows:
ṅ(t) = NT rv (t) + Win uin (t) − ω(t)n(t), n(0) = n0 ,

(1)

where n(t) is the S-dimensional vector of numbers of moles, rv (t) := V (t) r c(t)
with V (t) the volume and r c(t) the R-dimensional reaction rate vector, uin (t) ≥
0p the p-dimensional inlet mass flowrate vector, ω(t) := uout (t)/m(t) ≥ 0
the inverse of the reactor residence time with m(t) the mass of the reaction
mixture and uout (t) the outlet mass flowrate, Win = M−1
w W̌in the S × p
inlet-composition matrix, Mw the S-dimensional diagonal matrix of molecup
j
1
· · · w̌in
] with w̌in
being the S-dimensional vector of
lar weights, W̌in = [w̌in
weight fractions of the jth inlet flow, and n0 the S-dimensional vector of initial
numbers of moles. N the R × S stoichiometric matrix is constructed with the
stoichiometric coefficients νij , where i = 1 . . . R and j = 1 . . . S with νij > 0 for
products and νij < 0 for reactants. Eq. (1) is an example of positive dynamic
systems.
The species involved in a reaction can further be classified into reactant or
product set based on the following definitions:
Definition 1 (Reactant Set)
For a given reaction i, the reaction set SiR is a subset of S containing species
taking part in the reaction i with strictly negative stoichiometric coefficients.
(i.e.) SiR ⊂ S

s.t νij < 0.

|SiR | = Sr,i
3

Definition 2 (Product Set)
For a given reaction i, the product set SiP is a subset of S containing species
taking part in the reaction i with strictly positive stoichiometric coefficients.
(i.e.) SiP ⊂ S

s.t νij > 0.

|SiP | = Sp,i

Assumption A1: Here, it is assumed that a species cannot be both a reactant
and a product in the same reaction, i.e. the reaction system is not autocatalytic.
When Assumption A1 holds, we have, SiR ∩SiP = φ with φ denotes an empty set.
The flowrates uin (t) and uout (t) are considered as independent (input) variables
in Eq. (1). The continuity equation (or total mass balance) is given by:
ṁ(t) = 1Tp uin (t) − uout (t),

m(0) = m0 ,

(2)

where 1p is the p-dimensional vector filled with ones and m0 the initial mass.
Note that the mass m(t) can also be computed from the numbers of moles as
m(t) = 1TS Mw n(t).

(3)

The volume V (t) can be inferred from the mass, V (t) = m(t)/ρ c(t), T (t) ,
with the density ρ being a function of concentrations and temperature. The
following three scenarios, chemical reactions can exhibit (1) linearly-dependent
stoichiometries, (2) linearly dependent reaction rates on a given time interval,
and/or (3) time-varying stoichiometries. Without loss of generality, it is assumed that the R reactions and the p inlets are independent according to the
definitions given next:
Definition 3 (Independent reactions)
The R reactions are said to be independent if (i) the rows of N (stoichiometries)
are linearly independent, i.e. rank (N) = R, and (ii) there exists some finite
time interval t ∈ [t0 , t1 ] for which the reaction rate profiles r(t) are linearly
independent, i.e. βT r(t) = 0 ⇔ β = 0R .
Definition 4 (Independent inlets)
The p inlet streams are said to be independent if (i) the columns of Win are
linearly independent, i.e. rank (Win ) = p, and (ii) there exists some finite time
interval t ∈ [t0 , t1 ] for which the inlet mass flowrate profiles uin (t) are linearly
independent, i.e. βT uin (t) = 0 ⇔ β = 0p .
The examples of independent reactions and inlets can be found in Amrhein 10 .

4

2.2

Transformation to extents

Consider the homogeneous reaction system described by Eq. (1). If rank ([NT Win n0 ]) =
n
R + p + 1, then T : [ m
] → [ x ] such that,

xr (t)
xin (t)


 λ(t)  = T n(t).
xiv (t)


(4)

Then, the dynamic model given in Eq. (1) becomes
ẋr (t) = rv (t) − ω(t) xr (t),

xr (0) = 0R ,

(5)

ẋin (t) = uin (t) − ω(t) xin (t),

xin (0) = 0p ,

(6)

λ(0) = 1,

(7)

λ̇(t) = −ω(t) λ(t),
ẋiv (t) = −ω(t) xiv (t),

xiv (0) = 0S−σ ,

(8)

where xr (t) corresponds to the extent of reaction, xin (t) corresponds to the
extent of inlet, λ(t) is a discounting variable for the initial conditions and xiv (t)
is the extent of invariants that stays constant during the course of
h the ireaction
n(t)
with σ = S − R − p − 1. The back transformation T −1 : [ x(t) ] → m(t) can be
given by:
n(t) = NT xr (t) + Win xin (t) + n0 λ(t),
(9)
m(t) = 1Tp xin (t) + m0 λ(t).
Remark If rank ([NT Win n0 ]) = S < R+p+1, then the forward transformation
does not hold, however, the back transformation in Eq. (9) holds. Hence, the
dynamic model in the extent domain can be used. Further, the details of the
linear transformation in Eq. (4) can be found in Amrhein et al 3 and Srinivasan
et al 2 .

2.3

Cooperative dynamical systems

Consider the following nonnegative dynamical system,
ẋ = f (x, u),

x(0) = x0

(10)

where x is an n-dimensional vector of states, f (x, u) the n-dimensional vector
fields, and u the p-dimensional vector of inputs. It will be assumed that f (x) :
Rn≥0 → Rn≥0 is locally Lipschitz with respect to x.
If the dynamic system described by Eq. (10) is a cooperative system, then for
the given sets of k initial conditions such that x1 (0) ≤ x2 (0) . . . ≤ xk (0), the
solution of this system will also follow the inequalities x1 (t) ≤ x2 (t) . . . ≤ xk (t).
5

The operator ≥ or ≤ applied to matrices or vectors can be understood as a
collection of inequalities applied to their elements. The following lemma will
give the conditions for the dynamical system in Eq. (10) to be a cooperative
system 4 :
Lemma 1
A given dynamical system in Eq. (10) is a cooperative system, if
∂fj
≥0
∂xi

∀i 6= j,

∀t ≥ 0

Lemma 1 states that the non-diagonal elements of the Jacobian matrix of the
system in Eq. (10) have to be nonnegative for the system to be cooperative. In
other words, the given system is said to be cooperative system, if the Jacobian
matrix is a Metzler matrix 6 . In the next section, we will derive conditions under
which the system in the extents domain is cooperative system.

3

Conditions for reaction systems to be cooperative system in extents domain

Consider the system given in Eq. (8). Let us represent the system as:
ẋr (t) = fr ,

xr (0) = 0R ,

(11)

ẋin (t) = fin ,

xin (0) = 0p ,

(12)

λ̇(t) = fλ ,

λ(0) = 1,

(13)

ẋiv = fiv ,

xiv (0) = 0S−σ .

(14)

We can then write the (S × S)-dimensional the Jacobian matrix Jx as follows:


∂fr
∂xr

 0p×R
Jx = 
 0T
R
0S−σ×R

∂fr
∂xin
∂fin
∂xin
∂fλ
∂xin

∂fr
∂λ
∂fin
∂λ
∂fλ
∂λ

0S−σ×p

0S−σ

6


0R×S−σ
0p×S−σ 
,
0TS−σ 
0S−σ×S−σ

(15)

where



∂fr
∂xr



=

uout
∂rv
−
IR
∂xr
m



=

uout
∂rv
+ 2 xr 1Tp
∂xin
m

R×R

∂fr
∂xin R×p


∂fr
∂λ R×1


∂fin
∂xin p×p


∂fin
∂λ p×1


∂fλ
∂xin 1×p


∂fλ
∂λ

=
=
=
=
=

∂rv
uout
+ 2 m0 xr
∂λ
m


1
T
x
1
−
I
/m
uout
in p
p
m2
uout m0 , xin
1p
m2
uout λ T
1
m2 p


1
m0 λ
−uout
.
−
m
m2

According to Lemma 1, we need to investigate the non-diagonal elements of Jx
for a reaction system to be cooperative.
The extents of flow are decoupled from the embedded reactions, and, hence,
their cooperative nature can be studied independent of the extents of reaction.
The following proposition shows that the reaction invariants are cooperative in
the extent domain.
Proposition 1
The extents of flow (a subsystem defined by Eqs. (12)-(13)) exhibit cooperative
behavior.
Proof: The proof is divided into two parts. First, we show that xin and λ are
strictly nonnegative functions . Then, we show that this non-negativity ensures
that the extent of flow are always cooperative and satisfy the conditions in
Lemma reflemma:coop. Consider the dynamic equations of xin and λ (Eqs. (12)–
(13)):
uout (t)
z
z(0) ≥ 0
(16)
ż(t) = Q(t) −
m(t)




xin
uin
where, z =
and Q =
. For constant m, the solution to this set
λ
0
of ODEs can be written as:
z(t)v(t) = v(0)z(0) +

Zt
0

7

v(t)Q(t)dt,

(17)

where v(t) is a positive function. Since z(0) ≥ 0 and Q(t) ≥ 0, the RHS is
nonnegative in the interval [0, t], and hence, z(t) ≥ 0.
Notice that since the mass of the reaction mixture m > 0, the off-diagonal
∂fin
∂fλ
elements of the matrices ( ∂x
), ( ∂f∂λin ) and ( ∂x
) will always be non-negative
in
in
for t ≥ 0, making the extents of flow cooperative.
Proposition 1 establishes that the subsystem defined by the external material
exchange (inlet and outlet flowrates) in the extent domain is always cooperative
system. Next, the cooperative nature of the subsystem defined by the embedded
∂fr
∂fr
r
reactions is studied. The elements of ∂x
, ∂x
, and ∂f
∂λ of Jx need to be
r
in
examined for the cooperative behavior of the subsystem defined by the extents
of reaction. The following conditions must be satisfied for the extents of reaction
to be a cooperative system:
∂(V ri )
∂xr,j

≥

0,

(18)

∂(V ri ) uout
+ 2 xr,i
∂xin,l
m

≥

0,

(19)

∂(V ri ) uout
+ 2 m0 xr,i
∂λ
m

≥

0

(20)

∀i, j = 1, . . . , R, l = 1, . . . , p, i 6= j
From Eqs. (18)–(20), it can be seen that the derivatives are functions of the
reaction rates. The rate of ith reaction is a function of concentrations, and it
can be expressed by the following generic function:
kf,i
ri

=

SQ
r,i

mi,e

ce

e=1
SQ
r,i

− kb,i

SQ
p,i

k=1

(ai,e + ce

n

ck i,k
,

(21)

)di,e

e=1

where kf,i , kb,i and ai,e are nonnegative rate-constant parameters. Eq. (21) is
assumed to be C 1 smooth function. Note that the mass-action or Michaelis–
Menten kinetics can be expressed with Eq. (21). The denominator in Eq. (21)
d
can alternatively expressed as (ai,e + ce i,e ) without loss of any generality. The
concentrations can be written as a function of the extents by using Eq. (9) and
volume of the reactor,
c(t) =

NT xr (t) + Win xin (t) + n0 λ(t)
.
V (t)

(22)

For the constant volume system, Eqs. (18)–(20) can be simplified to the following

8

equations using Eq. (22):
∂ri T
N
∂c j
∂ri
Win,l
∂c
∂ri
n0
∂c

≥

0, ∀i, j = 1, . . . , R, i 6= j,

(23)

≥

0, ∀l = 1, . . . , p,

(24)

≥

0.

(25)

The above conditions can be understood as follows: Eq. (23) is the condition
to be satisfied for the system to be cooperative with respect to the embedded reactions, while Eqs. (24)–(25) are related to the operation modes of the
reaction system, for example, batch, semi-batch or continuous reactors (CSTR).
∂ri
∂ri
, ∀k = 1, . . . , Sp,i satisfy the fol, ∀e=1, . . . , Sr,i and ∂c
Assumption A2: ∂c
e
k
lowing conditions for the reactants and products, respectively:

∂ri
≥ 0,
∂ce

if mi,e ≥ 0, ni,k ≥ 0

& di,e = 0

∂ri
< 0,
∂ck

if mi,e ≥ 0, ni,k > 0

& di,e = 0

(26)

∂ri
> 0,
if
mi,e > di,e > 0 & ni,k ≥ 0.
∂ce
We will next analyze in more detail the different scenarios for which the extents
of reaction (a subsystem described by Eq. (11)) are cooperative in nature.
Proposition 2
Consider a system consisting R reactions satisfying Assumptions A1 and A2.
For all the ith and jth reactions (i 6= j), if they have the same reactant set, i.e.
SiR = SjR and produce different products in each reaction, i.e. SiP 6= SjP , such
that SiP ∩ SjP = φ, these reactions are competitive in the extent domain.
Proof: Eq. (23) can be written as follows:
S

X ∂ri
∂ri
=
νk,j
∂xr,j
∂ck

(27)

k=1

Since SiR = SjR and SiP ∩ SjP = φ, Eq. (27) reduces to:
Sr,i

X ∂ri
∂ri
=
νe,j
∂xr,j
∂ce
e=1
From Assumption A2,

∂ri
∂ce

> 0 and νe,j < 0 for the reactants,
∂rj
∂xr,i

(28)
∂ri
∂xr,j

is strictly

negative. Similarly, we can prove that
is strictly negative. Hence, it is
proven that the reactions are competitive in the extent domain.
9

Illustrative example: Consider the following reaction system.
R1 : A + B ⇋ C + D

r1 = k1 cA cB − k2 cC cD

R2 : A + B ⇋

r2 = k3 cA cB − k4 cE cF

E+F

(29)

Computing the derivative of R1 with respect to R2, we have
∂r1
= −(k1 cB + k1 cA )
∂xr,2

≤0

∂r2
= −(k3 cB + k3 cA )
∂xr,1

≤0

We can see that the system is competitive. Proposition 2 can also be applied
to reach the same conclusion. The above system can be made cooperative by a
linear transformation. By rewriting R2 as follows:
E+F ⇋ A+B

r2 = k4 cE cF − k3 cA cB

(30)

Then, the reaction system is cooperative as shown below:
∂r1
= k1 cB + k1 cA
∂xr,2

≥ 0,

∂r2
= k3 cB + k3 cA
∂xr,1

≥ 0.

Next, the conditions under which the reaction set will be cooperative, are given.
Proposition 3
If the reactant sets of the reactions i and j are disjoint, (i.e). SiR ∩ SjR = φ, and
Assumptions A1 and A2 hold, then the two reactions are cooperative.
Proof: The derivatives of the reaction rates with respect to the extents follows
the same structure as Eq. (27) and Eq. (28). Since the reactant sets are disjoint,
νk,j and νe,i are nonnegative. Hence, the gradients are strictly non-negative, and
the reactions are cooperative.
In practice, there are reaction systems the each set of reactant produces different
products. This type of reactions are called series reactions.
Corollary 1
If Assumptions A1 and A2 hold, series reactions are always cooperative in the
extent domain.

10

Proof: Consider the reactions i and j in a system of series reactions. Without
loss of generality, it is assumed that the reaction j is followed by the reaction i.
Then, SjR = SiP , and hence, SiR ∩ SjR = SiR ∩ SiP = φ. Then from Proposition 3,
the ith and jth reactions are cooperative in the extent domain.
Illustrative example: Consider the following series reaction system.
R1 : A + B ⇋

C

r1 = k1 cA cB − k2 cC

R2 : C ⇋ D

r2 = k3 cC − k4 cD

(31)

Writing the derivatives,
∂r1
= −k2 (−1) ≥ 0
∂xr,2
∂r2
= k3
∂xr,1

≥0

The positive derivatives shows that the system is cooperative.
Often, the reactants and products of one reaction react to produce new products
via a new reaction. We will show that these kinds of reactions are cooperative
provided they satisfy certain conditions. We define these kinds of system conditionally cooperative as described in the following proposition.
Proposition 4
Consider the ith and jth reactions (i 6= j) of the reaction system. If a subset of
the reactants of the ith reaction react with a subset of the products of the ith
reaction in the reaction j, and Assumptions A1 and A2 hold, then the reactions
are conditionally cooperative.
Proof: In this kind of systems, SjR is a combination of reactants and products
from the reaction i, (i.e.) SjR ⊂ (SiR ∪SiP ) such that SjR ∩SiR 6= φ and SjR ∩SiP 6=
φ. Therefore, Eq. (23) can be written as:
SR

SP

k=1

h=1

i
i
X
X
∂ri
∂ri
∂ri
=
νk,j −
νh,j
∂xr,j
∂ck
∂ch

(32)

Here νk,j and νh,j are negative, leading rise to the following condition:
SP

SR

h=1

k=1

i
i
X
X
∂ri
∂ri
∂ri
=
|νh,j | −
|νk,j | ≥ 0
∂xr,j
∂ch
∂ck

(33)

Similarly, for the reaction j w.r.t the reaction i, we get the following condition:
SjP

SjR

X ∂ri
X ∂ri
∂rj
=
|νh,i | −
|νk,i | ≥ 0
∂xr,i
∂ch
∂ck
h=1

k=1

11

(34)

Eqs. (33)–(34) have to be satisfied for the dynamics of the i and j reactions to
be cooperative. Hence, the system is conditionally cooperative. The violation
of these conditions makes the system competitive.
Illustrative example: Consider the following reaction system.
R1 : A + B ⇋ C + D

r1 = k1 cA cB − k2 cC cD

R2 : A + C ⇋

r2 = k3 cA cC − k4 cE

E

(35)

The off-diagonal elements are computed as follows.
∂r1
= k1 cB (−1) + k2 cD
∂xr,2
∂r2
= k3 cC (−1) + k3 cA .
∂xr,1
Here, SiR = {A, B}, SiP = {C, D}, and SjR = {A, C}. Since SjR ⊂ SiR ∪ SiP , the
system is a conditionally cooperative system in the extent domain according to
Proposition 4. The conditions are as follows: k2 cD ≥ k1 cB and k3 cA ≥ k3 cC .
So far, we have investigated conditions under which the embedded reactions are
cooperative or competitive in the extent domain. Next, we will investigate how
the operation modes such as the inlet compositions and the initial conditions
affect with the embedded reactions in the extent domain. The next propositions
discuss the influence of the inlet compositions and the initial conditions on the
cooperative behavior of the embedded reactions with the extents of flow.
Proposition 5 (Inlet Compositions)
If the jth inlet stream feeds only the reactants of the ith reaction, then, term
∂fr,i
∂xin,j is always positive.
Proof: Assume that the jth stream feeds only the reactants. Since the elements of Win,j contains weight fractions (win,j ), they are either zero or positive.
Now, we can write
Sr,i

X ∂ri
∂fr,i
=
win,j
∂xin,j
∂cj
j=1

(36)

∂ri
∂cj

is positive by Eq. (26). This

Since, the inlet contains only the reactants,
makes Eq. (36) always greater than zero.
Note: We can also show that:

• If the jth inlet stream feeds only products of the ith reaction, the term
∂fr,i
∂xin,j is always negative.
12

• If the jth inlet stream feeds both reactants and products of the ith reac∂fr,i
tion, the term ∂xin,j
could be either nonnegative or negative.
• In batch mode of operation,

∂fr,i
∂xin,j

= 0.

Proposition 6 (Initial Conditions)
If the reaction mixture contains the reactants of the ith reaction initially, then
∂fr,i
the term ∂λ
is always positive.
Proof: We know that the initial conditions n0 are either positive or zero. We
∂fr,i
can write ∂λ
as:
Sr,i

∂fr,i X ∂ri
n0,j
=
∂λ
∂cj
j=1
Since

∂ri
∂cj

(37)

is always positive for the reactants, we have a strictly positive function.

Note: Similar to the conditions for the inlet compositions, we can also show
that:
• If the reaction mixture contains the products of the reaction i initially,
∂fr,i
the term ∂λ
is always negative.
• The presence of both reactants and products of a reaction i, makes the
∂fr,i
term ∂λ
either nonnegative or negative.
• In batch or semi-batch modes of operation,

4

∂fr,i
∂λ

= 0.

Examples

Two examples are considered in this section to demonstrate various results. The
first example is from field of control of bio-reactors 11, and the second example
is from systems biology 1 .
Example 1: Consider a reaction in which the substrate S forms a biomass X
in a stirred tank fed batch reactor as follows 11 : k1 S → X. The mass balance
equations in terms of concentrations can be written as follows:
1
Ṡ(t) = − µ(S)X + DSin − DS,
k
Ẋ(t) = µ(S)X − DX,

S(0) = S0 ,

(38)

X(0) = 0.

where k is the yield coefficient, µ(S) = µmax KsS+S the specific growth rate,
D is the dilution rate, Sin is the inlet substrate concentration. Rapaport and
13

Dochain 11 have showed that the system is competitive in the concentration
domain. We can show that it is cooperative in the extent domain as follows.
The model equations in terms of extents can be written as follows:
ẋr = µ(S)X − D xr
ẋin = D − Dxin

(39)

λ̇ = −Dλ
The concentrations can be written as a function of the extents:
S=

−1
xr + Sin xin + S0 λ
k

(40)

X = xr + X0 λ
According to Proposition 1, the extents of flow are cooperative. Hence, in
order to check the system being cooperative, we need to make sure that the
∂xr
r
and ∂x
off-diagonal elements ∂x
∂λ are non-negative. Since we feed only the
in
∂xr
is positive (Proposition 5). Since the initial concentrareactant, the term ∂x
in
r
tion of biomass X0 is zero, the term ∂x
∂λ will also be positive (Proposition 6).
Hence, the system is cooperative in the extent domain.
Example 2: Consider a reaction system with the substrate S1 which is converted into a product S2 in the presence of an enzyme E 1 . Then the species
S2 produces the substrate S1 due to the presence of another enzyme F . The
embedded reactions are as follows:
R1 : S1 + E

⇋ ES1

R2 : ES1

→ S2 + E

R3 : S2 + F

⇌ F S2

R4 : F S2

→ S1 + F

(41)

Here, S1R = {S1 , E}, S2R = {ES1 }, S3R = {S2 , F }, and S4R = {F S2 }. Since
SiR ∩ SjR = φ, ∀i, j = 1, 2, 3, 4, i 6= j, according to Proposition 3, the embedded
reactions are cooperative. Further, since the operation mode is batch in the
∂fr,i
nature, ∂λ
= 0. Hence, the reaction system is cooperative system.

5

Conclusions

The paper has studied the cooperative behavior of open homogeneous reaction
systems in the extent domain. It has been shown that for open reaction systems,
the cooperative conditions can be classified into two parts. The first part deals
with the embedded reactions and the second part deals with the operation mode.
It has been shown that the extents of flow (the dynamics of operation mode)
14

exhibit cooperative behavior in the extent domain. Further, it has clearly come
out that the embedded reactions are necessary condition for be cooperative behavior of open reaction systems. Various conditions under which the embedded
reactions exhibit cooperative or competitive behavior have been derived. Further, the effect of operation mode on the cooperative behavior of the embedded
reactions have been studied. This paper proposes a set of simple to check and
physical meaningful conditions for cooperative or competitive behavior of open
reaction systems in the extent domain. The results have been demonstrated
via two examples from the fields of process control (Example 1), and systems
biology (Example 2).

Acknowledgment
The financial support to NB from Department of Science & Technology, India
through INSPIRE Faculty Fellowship is acknowledged.

References
[1] D. Angeli, P. De Leenheer, and E. Sontag, “Graph-theoretic characterizations
of monotonicity of chemical networks in reaction coordinates", J. Math. Biol.
Vol. 61, pp. 581–616, 2010.
[2] S. Srinivasan, J. Billeter, and D. Bonvin, “Variant and Invariant states for
reaction systems", IFAC Proceedings of Workshop on Thermodynamic Foundations of Mathematical Systems Theory (TFMST), France, Vol. 1, pp. 102–
107, 2013.
[3] M. Amrhein, N. Bhatt, B. Srinivasan, and D. Bonvin. “Extents of reaction
and flow for homogeneous reaction systems with inlet and outlet streams",
AIChE J., Vol. 56, pp. 2873, 2010.
[4] H. L. Smith, “Monotone Dynamical Systems: an introduction to the theory
of competitive and cooperative systems", AMS Mathematical surveys and
monographs, Vol. 41, 1995.
[5] M. Banaji, “Monotonicity in chemical reaction systems”, Dynamical Systems,
Vol. 24, pp. 1–30, 2009.
[6] D. G. Luenberger. “Introduction to Dynamic Systems: Theory, Models and
Applications". John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1979.
[7] N. Bhatt, M. Amrhein, B. Srinivasan, Ph. Mullhaupt, and D. Bonvin. “Minimal state representation for open fluid-fluid reaction systems". In American
Control Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2012.

15

[8] J. L. Gouzé, A. Rapaport, and M. Z. Hadj-Sadok,“Interval observers for
uncertain biological systems", Ecological modeling, Vol. 133, pp. 45-56, 2000.
[9] E. D. Sontag, “Monotone and near-monotone biochemical networks", System
and Synthetic Biology, Vol. 1, pp. 59-87, 2007.
[10] M. Amrhein. “Reaction and Flow Variants/Invariants for the Analysis of
Chemical Reaction Data", Doctoral thesis no. 1861, EPF Lausanne, Switzerland, 1998.
[11] A. Rapaport, and D. Dochain, “Interval observers for biochemical processes
with uncertain kinetics and inputs", Mathematical Biosciences, Vol. 193,
pp. 235-253, 2005.

16

