| Literature DB >> 22925149 |
Simon Rittmann1, Christoph Herwig.
Abstract
Biohydrogen production (BHP) can be achieved by direct or indirect biophotolysis, photo-fermentation and dark fermentation, whereof only the latter does not require the input of light energy. Our motivation to compile this review was to quantify and comprehensively report strains and process performance of dark fermentative BHP. This review summarizes the work done on pure and defined co-culture dark fermentative BHP since the year 1901. Qualitative growth characteristics and quantitative normalized results of H2 production for more than 2000 conditions are presented in a normalized and therefore comparable format to the scientific community.Statistically based evidence shows that thermophilic strains comprise high substrate conversion efficiency, but mesophilic strains achieve high volumetric productivity. Moreover, microbes of Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III) have to be preferred when aiming to achieve high substrate conversion efficiency in comparison to the families Clostridiaceae and Enterobacteriaceae. The limited number of results available on dark fermentative BHP from fed-batch cultivations indicates the yet underestimated potential of this bioprocessing application. A Design of Experiments strategy should be preferred for efficient bioprocess development and optimization of BHP aiming at improving medium, cultivation conditions and revealing inhibitory effects. This will enable comparing and optimizing strains and processes independent of initial conditions and scale.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22925149 PMCID: PMC3443015 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-11-115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Overview of dark fermentative BHP in respect to the cultivation technique
| Y(H2/S) | 441 | 425 | 253 | 5 |
| HER | 329 | 333 | 171 | 0 |
| qH2 | 68 | 78 | 99 | 0 |
Results of the statistical analysis for,and(Family III)
| [mol mol-1] | | | |
| Median | 1.785 | 0.82 | 2.9 |
| Mean | 1.87 ± 1.10* | 1.15 ± 1.34* | 2.92 ± 1.18* |
| [mmol L-1 h-1] | | | |
| Median | 8.67 | 4.915 | 9.6 |
| Mean | 9.75 ± 8.41 | 11.37 ± 17.71 | 8.98 ± 3.40 |
| [mmol g-1 h-1] | | | |
| Median | 10.05 | 3.75 | 16.615 |
| Mean | 14.49 ± 11.24 | 12.90 ± 26.02 | 18.61 ± 7.14 |
Figure 1 A graphical overview is shown irrespective of the utilization of the carbon substrate, medium composition and cultivation conditions of the HER of(A),(B) and(Family III) (C) plotted against the Y. The qHof(D),(E) and(Family III) (F) is shown in relation to the Y. It is indicated that Clostridiaceae and Enterobacteriaceae perform better than Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III) in respect to the volumetric productivity. The qH2 for Clostridiaceae and Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III) is shown to be higher than for Enterobacteriaceae. Regarding the substrate conversion efficiency (Y(H2/S)) the following ranking is indicated: Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III) > Clostridiaceae > Enterobacteriaceae.
Figure 2 A graphical overview of the utilization of glucose is presented. HER of(A),(B) and(Family III) (C) is shown in relation to the Y. The qHof(D),(E) and(Family III) (F) in relation to the Yis also presented. These results are depicted irrespective of the medium composition, cultivation conditions or genetic modification. These graphs offer an indication that Clostridiaceae and Enterobacteriaceae show a higher volumetric productivity than Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III). In respect to the qH2Clostridiaceae and Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III) show higher productivity than Enterobacteriaceae. Based on the Y(H2/S) following ranking is presented: Thermoanaerobacterales (Family III) > Clostridiaceae > Enterobacteriaceae.
Statistical analysis of mesophilic and thermophilc dark fermentative BHP
| [mol mol-1] | (n = 695) | (n = 244) |
| Median | 1.22 | 2.30 |
| Mean | 1.46 ± 1.18* | 2.20 ± 1.42* |
| [mmol L-1 h-1] | (n = 587) | (n = 128) |
| Median | 6.29 | 3.89 |
| Mean | 9.92 ± 13.27* | 5.62 ± 5.45* |
| [mmol g-1 h-1] | (n = 147) | (n = 50) |
| Median | 7.65 | 9.70 |
| Mean | 11.53 ± 16.00 | 12.51 ± 10.79 |