Literature DB >> 15338420

Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production.

Kelly A Skinner1, Timothy D Leathers.   

Abstract

Bacterial contamination is an ongoing problem for commercial fuel ethanol production facilities. Both chronic and acute infections are of concern, due to the fact that bacteria compete with the ethanol-producing yeast for sugar substrates and micronutrients. Lactic acid levels often rise during bouts of contamination, suggesting that the most common contaminants are lactic acid bacteria. However, quantitative surveys of commercial corn-based fuel ethanol facilities are lacking. For this study, samples were collected from one wet mill and two dry grind fuel ethanol facilities over a 9 month period at strategic time points and locations along the production lines, and bacterial contaminants were isolated and identified. Contamination in the wet mill facility consistently reached 10(6) bacteria/ml. Titers from dry grind facilities were more variable but often reached 10(8)/ml. Antibiotics were not used in the wet mill operation. One dry grind facility added antibiotic to the yeast propagation tank only, while the second facility dosed the fermentation with antibiotic every 4 h. Neither dosing procedure appeared to reliably reduce overall contamination, although the second facility showed less diversity among contaminants. Lactobacillus species were the most abundant isolates from all three plants, averaging 51, 38, and 77% of total isolates from the wet mill and the first and second dry grind facilities, respectively. Although populations varied over time, individual facilities tended to exhibit characteristic bacterial profiles, suggesting the occurrence of persistent endemic infections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15338420     DOI: 10.1007/s10295-004-0159-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol        ISSN: 1367-5435            Impact factor:   3.346


  10 in total

1.  Penicillin and tetracycline as contamination control agents in alcoholic fermentation of sugar cane molasses.

Authors:  E AQUARONE
Journal:  Appl Microbiol       Date:  1960-09

2.  Use of virginiamycin to control the growth of lactic acid bacteria during alcohol fermentation.

Authors:  S H Hynes; D M Kjarsgaard; K C Thomas; W M Ingledew
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.346

3.  Influence of medium buffering capacity on inhibition of Saccharomyces cerevisiae growth by acetic and lactic acids.

Authors:  K C Thomas; S H Hynes; W M Ingledew
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Changes in steady state on introduction of a Lactobacillus contaminant to a continuous culture ethanol fermentation.

Authors:  D Bayrock; W M Ingledew
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.346

5.  Use of sulfite and hydrogen peroxide to control bacterial contamination in ethanol fermentation.

Authors:  I S Chang; B H Kim; P K Shin
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Urea hydrogen peroxide reduces the numbers of lactobacilli, nourishes yeast, and leaves no residues in the ethanol fermentation.

Authors:  N V Narendranath; K C Thomas; W M Ingledew
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Effect of lactobacilli on yeast growth, viability and batch and semi-continuous alcoholic fermentation of corn mash.

Authors:  K C Thomas; S H Hynes; W M Ingledew
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.772

8.  Effects of lactobacilli on yeast-catalyzed ethanol fermentations.

Authors:  N V Narendranath; S H Hynes; K C Thomas; W M Ingledew
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.792

9.  Evaluation of bacterial contamination in a fed-batch alcoholic fermentation process.

Authors:  P de Oliva-Neto; F Yokoya
Journal:  World J Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  By-product inhibition effects on ethanolic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  B Maiorella; H W Blanch; C R Wilke
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 4.530

  10 in total
  45 in total

1.  Use of label-free quantitative proteomics to distinguish the secreted cellulolytic systems of Caldicellulosiruptor bescii and Caldicellulosiruptor obsidiansis.

Authors:  Adriane Lochner; Richard J Giannone; Miguel Rodriguez; Manesh B Shah; Jonathan R Mielenz; Martin Keller; Garabed Antranikian; David E Graham; Robert L Hettich
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Lactobacillus buchneri strain NRRL B-30929 converts a concentrated mixture of xylose and glucose into ethanol and other products.

Authors:  Siqing Liu; Kelly A Skinner-Nemec; Timothy D Leathers
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 3.346

3.  Efficient degradation of lignocellulosic plant biomass, without pretreatment, by the thermophilic anaerobe "Anaerocellum thermophilum" DSM 6725.

Authors:  Sung-Jae Yang; Irina Kataeva; Scott D Hamilton-Brehm; Nancy L Engle; Timothy J Tschaplinski; Crissa Doeppke; Mark Davis; Janet Westpheling; Michael W W Adams
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Microbial diversity in sugarcane ethanol production in a Brazilian distillery using a culture-independent method.

Authors:  Ohana Yonara Assis Costa; Betulia Morais Souto; Daiva Domenech Tupinambá; Jessica Carvalho Bergmann; Cynthia Maria Kyaw; Ricardo Henrique Kruger; Cristine Chaves Barreto; Betania Ferraz Quirino
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.346

5.  Increased ethanol tolerance associated with the pntAB locus of Oenococcus oeni and Lactobacillus buchneri.

Authors:  Siqing Liu; Chris Skory; Xiaojin Liang; David Mills; Nasib Qureshi
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 3.346

6.  Metabolic responses to Lactobacillus plantarum contamination or bacteriophage treatment in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using a GC-MS-based metabolomics approach.

Authors:  Feng-Xia Cui; Rui-Min Zhang; Hua-Qing Liu; Yan-Feng Wang; Hao Li
Journal:  World J Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.312

7.  Bacterial Community Structure and Dynamics During Corn-Based Bioethanol Fermentation.

Authors:  Qing Li; E Patrick Heist; Luke A Moe
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 4.552

8.  The consequences of Lactobacillus vini and Dekkera bruxellensis as contaminants of the sugarcane-based ethanol fermentation.

Authors:  Rafael Barros de Souza; Billy Manoel dos Santos; Raquel de Fátima Rodrigues de Souza; Paula Katharina Nogueira da Silva; Brígida Thais Luckwu Lucena; Marcos Antonio de Morais
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 3.346

9.  Enhancement of acetic acid tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by overexpression of the HAA1 gene, encoding a transcriptional activator.

Authors:  Koichi Tanaka; Yukari Ishii; Jun Ogawa; Jun Shima
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  Effect of pH and lactic or acetic acid on ethanol productivity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in corn mash.

Authors:  Tara Graves; Neelakantam V Narendranath; Karl Dawson; Ronan Power
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2006-02-21       Impact factor: 3.346

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.