| Literature DB >> 23118512 |
Panchali Chakraborty1, Kasiviswanathan Muthukumarappan, William R Gibbons.
Abstract
The research described in this present study was part of a larger effort focused on developing a dual substrate, dual fermentation process to produceEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23118512 PMCID: PMC3481605 DOI: 10.1155/2012/506153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol ISSN: 1110-7243
CCS composition from a dry mill ethanol plant.
| Components | CCS |
|---|---|
| Dry matter % | 34.9 |
| Crude protein % | 13.7 |
| Crude fat (ether extract) % | 16.2 |
| Ash % | 9.5 |
| Crude fiber % | 0.8 |
| Copper ppm | 8.3 |
| Sodium ppm | 5,620 |
| Calcium ppm | 487 |
| Magnesium ppm | 6,850 |
| Zinc ppm | 49 |
| Phosphorus ppm | 15,400 |
| Potassium ppm | 22,900 |
Composition is on dry matter basis.
Figure 1Average growth rate and organic acid utilization during the initial 48 h incubation in the CCS medium. The values for average cell count (■), acetic acid utilization (∆), butyric acid utilization (◊), lactic acid utilization (□) propionic acid utilization, (▲) and succinic acid utilization (×) are indicated. Values are the means of two replications with standard deviation showed by error bars.
Average growth and nutrient utilization rates of R. eutropha in CCS medium through 48 h in biorector.
| Maximum cell population (cfu mL−1) | Maximum growth rate (h−1) | Ammonia utilization rate | Phosphate utilization rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.3 × 1010 | 0.20 | 2.3 | 0.023 | |
|
| ||||
| SCFA utilization rate (g L−1 h−1) | ||||
| Acetic | Butyric | Lactic | Propionic | Succinic |
|
| ||||
| 0.051 | 0.026 | 0.046 | 0.023 | 0.027 |
|
| ||||
| SCFA FE (%) | ||||
| Acetic | Butyric | Lactic | Propionic | Succinic |
|
| ||||
| 100 | 100 | 81.25 | 65.5 | 71.2 |
Average growth and nutrient utilization rates of R. eutropha in CCS medium through 48 h in shake flasks.
|
Maximum cell population (cfu mL−1) | Maximum growth rate (h−1) | Ammonia utilization rate | Phosphate utilization rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.6 × 109 | 0.13 | 1.7 | 0.022 | |
|
| ||||
| SCFA utilization rate (g L−1 h−1) | ||||
| Acetic | Butyric | Lactic | Propionic | Succinic |
|
| ||||
| 0.033 | 0.026 | 0.054 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
|
| ||||
| SCFA FE (%) | ||||
| Acetic | Butyric | Lactic | Propionic | Succinic |
|
| ||||
| 77.6 | 76.2 | 94.2 | 35.6 | 62.7 |
Figure 2Acid utilization and growth of Ralstonia eutropha with 24 h interval additions of ARF. The values for cell count (■), acetic acid utilization (∆), butyric acid utilization (◊), lactic acid utilization (□), propionic acid utilization (▲), succinic acid utilization (×), and PHA concentration (O) are indicated. Values are the means of two replications with standard deviation showed by error bars.
Figure 3Acid utilization and growth of Ralstonia eutropha with 3 h interval additions of ARF. The values for cell count (■), acetic acid utilization (∆), butyric acid utilization (◊), lactic acid utilization (□), propionic acid utilization (▲), succinic acid utilization (×), and PHA concentration (O) are indicated. Values are the means of two replications with standard deviation showed by error bars.
Figure 4Acid utilization and growth of Ralstonia eutropha with continuous ARF addition. The values for cell count (■), acetic acid utilization (∆), butyric acid utilization (◊), lactic acid utilization (□), propionic acid utilization (▲), succinic acid utilization (×), and PHA concentration (O) are indicated. Values are the means of two replications with standard deviation shown by error bars.
Comparison of all the key parameters under different ARF feeding strategies.
| Key parameters | Feeding strategies | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 h addition | 3 h addition | Continuous addition | |
| Cell population at 48 h (CFU−1 mL) | 4.28 × 1010a | 1.70 × 1010b | 1.01 × 1010b |
| Maximum cell population (CFU−1 mL) | 5.03 × 1010a | 5.68 × 1010a | 5.47 × 1010a |
| Ammonia utilization rate (g−1 L−1 h) | 1.2a | 1.0a | 1.1a |
| Phosphate utilization rate (g−1 L−1 h) | 0.010a | 0.013a | 0.011a |
| Acid utilization (g−1 L−1 h) | |||
| Acetic | 0.029a | 0.052b | 0.047b |
| Butyric | 0.009a | 0.010a | 0.014a |
| Lactic | 0.074a | 0.080a | 0.078a |
| Propionic | 0.077a | 0.083a | 0.080a |
| Combined | 0.20a | 0.25b | 0.24b |
| Fermentation efficiency (%) | |||
| Acetic | 58.8a | 100b | 98.7b |
| Butyric | 94.7a | 100b | 100b |
| Lactic | 100a | 100a | 100a |
| Propionic | 95.7a | 100b | 95a |
| Combined | 82.7a | 100b | 97.8b |
| PHA production | |||
| Cell dry weight (g−1 L) | 17.6a | 21.13a | 17.3a |
| PHA concentration | 6.42a | 8.37a | 6.67a |
| PHA productivity (g−1 L−1 h) | 0.0537a | 0.0697b | 0.056a |
| PHA content (%) | 36.23a | 39.52a | 37.78a |
a,b,cMeans within column not sharing common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Comparison of combined short fatty acid feeding of Ralstonia eutropha in shake flasks.
| Parameters | Volatile fatty acid | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetic | Butyric (5 g L−1) | Lactic | Propionic (5 g L−1) | |
| Maximum cell population (cfu mL−1) | 5.70 × 109a | 6.17 × 109ab | 5.32 × 109a | 6.67 × 109b |
| Fermentation efficiency (%) | 70.6a | 95.6b | 70.7a | 68.6a |
| Acid utilization rate (g L−1 h−1) | 0.048a | 0.041a | 0.080b | 0.046a |
| PHA concentration (g L−1) | 2.9ab | 4.6a | 2.4b | 4.3a |
| Cell dry weight (g L−1) | 9.9ab | 14.5b | 6.0a | 14.7b |
| PHA productivity (g L−1 h−1) | 0.024ab | 0.037a | 0.020b | 0.036a |
| PHA content (%) | 29.2a | 31.9a | 30.7a | 29.3a |
a,bMeans within column not sharing common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05).