| Literature DB >> 22496604 |
Yeshitila Asteraye Tsigie1, Chun-Yuan Wang, Novy S Kasim, Quy-Do Diem, Lien-Huong Huynh, Quoc-Phong Ho, Chi-Thanh Truong, Yi-Hsu Ju.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to produce microbial oil from Yarrowia lipolytica Po1g grown in defatted rice bran hydrolysate. After removing oil from rice bran by Soxhlet extraction, the bran is subjected to acid hydrolysis with various sulfuric acid concentrations (1-4% v/v), reaction times (1-8 h), and reaction temperatures (60-120°C). The optimal conditions for maximum total sugar production from the hydrolysate were found to be 3% sulfuric acid at 90°C for 6 h. Glucose was the predominant sugar (43.20 ± 0.28 g/L) followed by xylose (4.93 ± 0.03 g/L) and arabinose (2.09 ± 0.01 g/L). The hydrolysate was subsequently detoxified by neutralization to reduce the amount of inhibitors such as 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and furfural to increase its potential as a medium for culturing Y. lipolytica Po1g. Dry cell mass and lipid content of Y. lipolytica Po1g grown in detoxified defatted rice bran hydrolysate (DRBH) under optimum conditions were 10.75 g/L and 48.02%, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22496604 PMCID: PMC3303617 DOI: 10.1155/2012/378384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol ISSN: 1110-7243
Composition of DRBH with different reaction time and H2SO4 concentration at 90°C.
| H2SO4 (%v/v) | Reaction time (h) | Concentration (g/L) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | Xylose | Arabinose | HMF | Furfural | ||
| 2% | 2 | 13.36 ± 0.89 | 1.88 ± 0.42 | 1.13 ± 0.28 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.004 ± 0.003 |
| 4 | 16.25 ± 0.94 | 2.34 ± 0.28 | 1.46 ± 0.19 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.012 ± 0.002 | |
| 6 | 21.26 ± 0.90 | 3.20 ± 0.28 | 1.97 ± 0.35 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | 0.020 ± 0.003 | |
| 8 | 25.57 ± 0.76 | 3.84 ± 0.11 | 2.41 ± 0.16 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.029 ± 0.020 | |
|
| ||||||
| 3% | 2 | 26.87 ± 0.64 | 4.61 ± 0.11 | 2.82 ± 0.07 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.006 ± 0.002 |
| 4 | 36.67 ± 0.32 | 5.45 ± 0.043 | 2.23 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.015 ± 0.001 | |
| 6 | 43.20 ± 0.28 | 4.93 ± 0.03 | 2.09 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.05 | 0.025 ± 0.003 | |
| 8 | 40.12 ± 0.49 | 3.89 ± 0.05 | 1.46 ± 0.07 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.041 ± 0.003 | |
|
| ||||||
| 4% | 2 | 28.80 ± 0.15 | 4.26 ± 0.02 | 2.83 ± 0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.011 ± 0.002 |
| 4 | 37.98 ± 0.19 | 4.60 ± 0.02 | 2.07 ± 0.81 | 0.40 ± 0.01 | 0.030 ± 0.003 | |
| 6 | 43.64 ± 0.49 | 4.37 ± 0.16 | 1.87 ± 0.12 | 0.60 ± 0.08 | 0.053 ± 0.009 | |
| 8 | 36.75 ± 1.79 | 3.78 ± 0.28 | 1.32 ± 0.21 | 0.88 ± 0.07 | 0.078 ± 0.005 | |
Chemical composition of DRBH before and after detoxification. The hydrolysate used for detoxification was obtained by using 3% H2SO4 at 90°C for 6 h.
| Type of DRBH | Concentration (g/L) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | Xylose | Arabinose | HMF | Furfural | ||
| 2% | Before detoxification | 25.57 ± 0.76 | 3.84 ± 0.11 | 2.41 ± 0.16 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.029 ± 0.020 |
| After detoxification | 25.40 ± 0.87 | 3.53 ± 0.43 | 2.03 ± 0.11 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.023 ± 0.001 | |
|
| ||||||
| 3% | Before detoxification | 43.20 ± 0.28 | 4.93 ± 0.03 | 2.09 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.05 | 0.025 ± 0.003 |
| After detoxification | 42.15 ± 0.39 | 4.71 ± 0.14 | 1.99 ± 0.09 | 0.24 ± 0.04 | 0.019 ± 0.005 | |
|
| ||||||
| 4% | Before detoxification | 43.64 ± 0.49 | 4.37 ± 0.16 | 1.87 ± 0.12 | 0.60 ± 0.08 | 0.053 ± 0.009 |
| After detoxification | 42.99 ± 0.44 | 4.16 ± 0.75 | 1.70 ± 0.33 | 0.47 ± 0.16 | 0.044 ± 0.003 | |
Figure 1Effect of different types of DRBH on the growth of Y. lipolytica Po1g. Culture conditions: growth in Erlenmeyer flasks; initial total sugar concentration: 20 g/L; pH: 6.5; incubation temperature: 26°C; agitation speed = 150 rpm; biomass concentration: (□) 2%, (°) 3%, () 4%; sugar consumption: (■) 2%, (●) 3%, (▲) 4%.
Effects of sugar concentration on microbial oil production by Y. lipolytica Po1g.
| Sugar concentration (g/L) | Maximum biomass (g/L) | Lipid content (%) | Lipid yield (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 8.76 ± 0.13 | 30.13 ± 0.56 | 2.64 ± 0.08 |
| 30 | 10.75 ± 0.19 | 48.02 ± 0.61 | 5.16 ± 0.15 |
| 40 | 9.33 ± 0.16 | 40.97 ± 0.74 | 3.82 ± 0.13 |
Figure 2Effects of nitrogen addition on microbial oil production by Y. lipolytica Po1g grown in DRBH medium. Culture conditions: growth in Erlenmeyer flasks; initial total sugar concentration: 30 g/L; pH: 6.5; incubation temperature: 26°C; agitation speed = 150 rpm.
Figure 3GC chromatograms of neutral lipid before saponification (a) and fatty acid profile after saponification with KOH and ethanol (b).
Lipid contents of different strains of Y. lipolytica grown in different agroindustrial sources.
| Strain | Carbon source | Biomass (g/L) | Lipid content (%) | Lipid yield (g/L) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Industrial derivative of animal fat | 12.5 | 54 | 3.8 | [ |
|
| 8% molasses | NA | 59.9 | NA | [ |
|
|
| 9.3 | 33 | 3.12 | [ |
|
| Glucose | 9.3 | 25 | 2.3 | [ |
|
| Industrial fats | 8.7 | 44.0 | 3.8 | [ |
|
| Commercial glucose | 5.5 | 14 | NA | [ |
|
| Mixtures of stearin, glucose, and glycerol | 11.4 | 30 | 3.4 | [ |
|
| 1% methanol | NA | 4.9 | NA | [ |
|
| Sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate | 11.42 | 58.5 | 6.68 | [ |
|
| Defatted rice bran hydrolysate | 10.75 | 48.02 | 5.16 | This study |