| Literature DB >> 23202311 |
Qing Kong1, Cuiping Zhai, Bin Guan, Chunjuan Li, Shihua Shan, Jiujiang Yu.
Abstract
Response surface methodology was employed to optimize the degradation conditions of AFB₁ by Rhodococcus erythropolis in liquid culture. The most important factors that influence the degradation, as identified by a two-level Plackett-Burman design with six variables, were temperature, pH, liquid volume, inoculum size, agitation speed and incubation time. Central composite design (CCD) and response surface analysis were used to further investigate the interactions between these variables and to optimize the degradation efficiency of R. erythropolis based on a second-order model. The results demonstrated that the optimal parameters were: temperature, 23.2 °C; pH, 7.17; liquid volume, 24.6 mL in 100-mL flask; inoculum size, 10%; agitation speed, 180 rpm; and incubation time, 81.9 h. Under these conditions, the degradation efficiency of R. erythropolis could reach 95.8% in liquid culture, which was increased by about three times as compared to non-optimized conditions. The result by mathematic modeling has great potential for aflatoxin removal in industrial fermentation such as in food processing and ethanol production.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23202311 PMCID: PMC3509703 DOI: 10.3390/toxins4111181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Range of values for Plackett-Burman (PB) a.
| Code | Variables (unit) | Levels a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | ||
| X1 | Temperature (°C) | 15 | 25 | 35 |
| X2 | pH | 6.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 |
| X3 | Liquid volume (mL/100-mL) | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| X4 | Inoculum size (%) | 6 | 10 | 14 |
| X5 | Agitation speed (rpm) | 160 | 180 | 200 |
| X6 | Incubation time (h) | 48 | 72 | 96 |
a x1 = (X1 − 25)/10; x2 = (X2 − 7.0)/1; x3 = (X3 − 20)/10; x4 = (X4 − 10)/4; x5 = (X5 − 180)/20; x6 = (X6 − 72)/24.
Experimental designs and the results of the PB design.
| Run | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | y (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 18.1 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 10.6 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 80.9 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 12.6 |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 75.0 |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 13.4 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 26.2 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 11.8 |
| 9 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 51.4 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 10.9 |
| 11 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 27.2 |
| 12 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 11.3 |
| 13 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 49.0 |
| 14 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 9.2 |
| 15 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 90.6 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 34.9 |
| 17 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 26.6 |
| 18 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 15.8 |
| 19 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 14.5 |
| 20 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 12.5 |
| 21 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 22.9 |
| 22 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 22.8 |
| 23 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 85.7 |
| 24 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 21.2 |
| 25 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 12.2 |
| 26 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8.7 |
| 27 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62.8 |
| 28 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 26.7 |
| 29 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 40.3 |
| 30 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 19.8 |
| 31 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 32.3 |
| 32 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 45.2 |
| 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 79.4 |
| 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 81.4 |
| 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 79.8 |
| 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80.9 |
Identifying significant variables for the degradation of AFB1 using Plackett–Burman design.
| Variable | Coefficients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 31.34688 | 10.52 | <0.0001 |
| x1 | −13.38438 | −4.49 | 0.0001 |
| x2 | 5.92813 | 1.99 | 0.0578 |
| x3 | 6.17188 | 2.07 | 0.0489 |
| x4 | 1.93438 | 0.65 | 0.5223 |
| x5 | −1.97187 | −0.66 | 0.5143 |
| x6 | 8.99063 | 3.02 | 0.0058 |
The matrix of the central composite design (CCD) experiment and the corresponding experimental data.
| Runs | x1 | x2 | x3 | x6 | y (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 57.6 |
| 2 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 47.8 |
| 3 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 74.9 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 80.4 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 64.2 |
| 6 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 72.4 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 65.3 |
| 8 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 90.4 |
| 9 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 47.0 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 46.3 |
| 11 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 64.8 |
| 12 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 62.0 |
| 13 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 54.6 |
| 14 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 59.7 |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 60.5 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 65.1 |
| 17 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.1 |
| 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53.7 |
| 19 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 69.1 |
| 20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 92.2 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 68.5 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 95.5 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 60.7 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 95.8 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82.6 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 84.4 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.7 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.9 |
| 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.4 |
| 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82.2 |
| 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 84.0 |
x1 = (X1 − 25)/5; x2 = (X2 − 7.0)/0.5; x3 = (X3 − 20)/5; x6 = (X6 − 72)/12.
Regression coefficients of the response function for the degradation of AFB1.
| Parameter | DF | Estimate | StandardError | Pr > | | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1 | 83.457143 | 3.273286 | 25.50 | <0.0001 |
| x1 | 1 | −5.075000 | 1.767777 | −2.87 | 0.0111 |
| x2 | 1 | 4.066667 | 1.767777 | 2.30 | 0.0352 |
| x3 | 1 | 6.991667 | 1.767777 | 3.96 | 0.0011 |
| x6 | 1 | 4.391667 | 1.767777 | 2.48 | 0.0244 |
| x1 * x1 | 1 | −7.662202 | 1.619505 | −4.73 | 0.0002 |
| x2 * x1 | 1 | −0.737500 | 2.165075 | −0.34 | 0.7378 |
| x2 * x2 | 1 | −2.724702 | 1.619505 | −1.68 | 0.1119 |
| x3 * x1 | 1 | −1.512500 | 2.165075 | −0.70 | 0.4948 |
| x3 * x2 | 1 | −3.312500 | 2.165075 | −1.53 | 0.1456 |
| x3 * x3 | 1 | −2.387202 | 1.619505 | −1.47 | 0.1599 |
| x6 * x1 | 1 | −1.425000 | 2.165075 | −0.66 | 0.5198 |
| x6 * x2 | 1 | 3.175000 | 2.165075 | 1.47 | 0.1619 |
| x6 * x3 | 1 | 1.850000 | 2.165075 | 0.85 | 0.4055 |
| x6 * x6 | 1 | −3.324702 | 1.619505 | −2.05 | 0.0568 |
ANOVA results for central composite design (CCD).
| Regression | DF | Type I Sum of Squares | Pr > | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | 4 | 2651.125000 | 0.4205 | 8.84 | 0.0006 |
| Quadratic | 4 | 1983.513233 | 0.3146 | 6.61 | 0.0024 |
| Crossproduct | 6 | 469.407500 | 0.0745 | 1.04 | 0.4345 |
| Total Model | 14 | 5104.045733 | 0.8096 | 4.86 | 0.0017 |
Figure 1The response surface plot showing the effects of temperature (x1) and pH (x2) on AFB1 degradation.
Figure 2The response surface plot showing the effects of temperature (x1) and liquid volume (x3) on AFB1 degradation.
Figure 3The response surface plot showing the effects of temperature (x1) and incubation time (x6) on AFB1 degradation.
Figure 4The response surface plot showing the effects of pH (x2) and liquid volume (x3) on AFB1 degradation.
Figure 5The response surface plot showing the effects of pH (x2) and incubation time (x6) on AFB1 degradation.
Figure 6The response surface plot showing the effects of liquid volume (x3) and incubation time (x6) on AFB1 degradation.
Inhibition of aflatoxin B1 by R. erythropolis in peanuts.
| Control |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aflatoxin B1 (μg/kg) (mean ± SD) | 195.69 ± 1.92 | 178.38 ± 2.47 | 148.27 ± 3.87 | 140.80 ± 3.59 |