| Literature DB >> 25647413 |
Rumana Islam1, Richard Sparling2, Nazim Cicek3, David B Levin4.
Abstract
Combinatorial effects of influential growth nutrients were investigated in order to enhance hydrogen (H2) production during direct conversion of cellulose by Clostridium thermocellum DSM 1237. A central composite face-centered design and response surface methodology (RSM) were applied to optimize concentrations of cellulose, yeast extract (YE), and magnesium chloride (Mg) in culture. The overall optimum composition generated by the desirability function resulted in 57.28 mmol H2/L-culture with 1.30 mol H2/mol glucose and 7.48 mmol/(g·cell·h) when cultures contained 25 g/L cellulose, 2 g/L YE, and 1.75 g/L Mg. Compared with the unaltered medium, the optimized medium produced approximately 3.2-fold more H2 within the same time-frame with 50% higher specific productivity, which are also better than previously reported values from similar studies. Nutrient composition that diverted carbon and electron flux away from H2 promoting ethanol production was also determined. This study represents the first investigation dealing with multifactor optimization with RSM for H2 production during direct cellulose fermentation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25647413 PMCID: PMC4346883 DOI: 10.3390/ijms16023116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Design matrix of the central composite face-centered design with measured responses for H2 and ethanol. These data represent averages obtained from biological replicates.
| Composition | Cellulose (A) | YE (B) | Mg (C) | H2 | Ethanol (mmol/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g/L | mmol/L | mol/(mol hexose) | mmol/(g·cell·h) | ||||
| 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 17.83 | 1.22 | 5.09 | 10.8 |
| 2 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 12.71 | 1.19 | 4.05 | 8.8 |
| 3 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 18.90 | 1.17 | 5.49 | 12.71 |
| 4 | 50 | 2 | 1 | 15.34 | 1.14 | 3.91 | 10.86 |
| 5 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 31.84 | 1.04 | 6.46 | 33.21 |
| 6 | 50 | 1 | 2 | 23.40 | 0.98 | 4.46 | 24.92 |
| 7 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 46.22 | 1.11 | 6.67 | 50.4 |
| 8 | 50 | 2 | 2 | 43.40 | 1.02 | 5.03 | 45.17 |
| 9 | 10 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 41.79 | 1.22 | 6.59 | 35.6 |
| 10 | 50 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 42.50 | 1.17 | 5.86 | 39.74 |
| 11 | 30 | 1 | 1.5 | 33.77 | 1.29 | 6.34 | 26.9 |
| 12 | 30 | 2 | 1.5 | 50.77 | 1.27 | 5.68 | 39.8 |
| 13 | 30 | 1.5 | 1 | 22.50 | 1.15 | 4.26 | 17.1 |
| 14 | 30 | 1.5 | 2 | 43.80 | 1.05 | 5.25 | 45.3 |
| Centre point | 30 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 51.60 | 1.29 | 6.79 | 37.06 |
| 30 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 47.47 | 1.25 | 6.61 | 40.82 | |
| 30 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 48.90 | 1.24 | 6.62 | 41.9 | |
Production of organic acids and cell-biomass by C. thermocellum DSM 1237 with corresponding redox balance and substrate converted into products.
| Run No. | Acetate | Formate | Lactate | Cell Growth (mg·protein/L) | Redox (O/R) | Substrate Utilization (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mmol/L | ||||||
| 1 | 10.65 | 1.89 | 3.86 | 177 | 1.11 | 23.82 |
| 2 | 6.98 | 2.33 | 1.96 | 163 | 1.16 | 3.20 |
| 3 | 11.94 | 3.16 | 3.79 | 181 | 1.14 | 23.65 |
| 4 | 9.1 | 3.93 | 2.36 | 210 | 1.19 | 4.17 |
| 5 | 18.3 | 3.36 | 3.91 | 270 | 1.10 | 50.85 |
| 6 | 13.84 | 3.36 | 2.56 | 289 | 1.12 | 7.69 |
| 7 | 22.22 | 5.35 | 1.96 | 338 | 1.19 | 65.52 |
| 8 | 24.1 | 5.68 | 4.95 | 492 | 1.17 | 13.71 |
| 9 | 21.04 | 3.19 | 3.98 | 355 | 1.14 | 55.76 |
| 10 | 22.65 | 1.97 | 1.47 | 409 | 1.21 | 10.59 |
| 11 | 15.37 | 3.04 | 2.80 | 294 | 1.18 | 12.05 |
| 12 | 25.43 | 2.00 | 3.34 | 510 | 1.27 | 22.25 |
| 13 | 11.16 | 3.44 | 4.30 | 291 | 1.20 | 8.61 |
| 14 | 24.34 | 6.44 | 3.39 | 475 | 1.24 | 23.07 |
| Centre points | 27.81 | 6.32 | 5.54 | 378 | 1.19 | 23.46 |
| 23.49 | 5.18 | 2.62 | 405 | 1.23 | 21.67 | |
| 25.94 | 5.27 | 1.95 | 417 | 1.21 | 22.49 | |
Reduced quadratic model obtained for concentration of H2. Model co-efficients are presented in terms of coded factors.
| Source | Co-Efficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | – | 44.53 | <0.0001 |
| Intercept | 47.68 | – | – |
| A: cellulose | −1.92 | 4.51 | 0.0665 |
| B: YE | 5.51 | 36.97 | 0.0003 |
| C: Mg | 10.14 | 125.25 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 0.9 | 0.79 | 0.4014 |
| BC | 3.84 | 14.34 | 0.0053 |
| A2 | −4.3 | 6.05 | 0.0393 |
| B2 | −4.18 | 5.7 | 0.044 |
| C2 | −13.3 | 57.75 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of Fit | – | 2.15 | 0.3506 |
R2 = 0.98; R2 (predicted) = 0.90; R2 (adjusted) = 0.96; adequate precision = 18.19.
Figure 1Diagnostic plots for the H2-concentration model. (A) Correlation between measured and predicted response; and (B) scatterings of residuals against predicted values of response.
Reduced quadratic model obtained for molar yields of H2. Model co-efficients are presented in terms of coded factors.
| Source | Co-Efficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | – | 22.95 | 0.0002 |
| Intercept | 1.26 | – | – |
| A: cellulose | −0.026 | 8.18 | 0.0244 |
| B: YE | −0.0086 | 0.91 | 0.3715 |
| C: Mg | −0.067 | 55.17 | 0.0001 |
| AB | −0.0041 | 0.16 | 0.6981 |
| AC | −0.011 | 1.27 | 0.2976 |
| BC | 0.028 | 7.48 | 0.0291 |
| A2 | −0.06 | 11.97 | 0.0106 |
| B2 | 0.064 | 13.23 | 0.0083 |
| C2 | −0.15 | 76.11 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of Fit | – | 1.07 | 0.5478 |
R2 = 0.96; Adj. R2 = 0.92; Pred. R2 = 0.81; adequate precision: 15.54.
Reduced quadratic model obtained for the specific productivity of H2. Model co-efficients are presented in terms of coded factors.
| Source | Co-Efficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | – | 24.97 | <0.0001 |
| Intercept | 6.36 | – | – |
| A: cellulose | −0.72 | 36.38 | <0.0001 |
| B: YE | 0.018 | 0.024 | 0.8807 |
| C: Mg | 0.49 | 16.68 | 0.0015 |
| C2 | −1.27 | 46.79 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of Fit | – | 16.75 | 0.058 |
R2 = 0.89; Adj. R2 = 0.86; Pred. R2 = 0.80; adequate precision: 15.72.
Components of the desirability function applied to obtain a balanced optimum for H2 production.
| Predictor/Response Variable | Goal | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Importance | Best Solution | Desirability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose (g/L) | Within range | 10 | 50 | 3 | 25.33 | 0.95 |
| Yeast extract (g/L) | Within range | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.94 | 0.95 |
| Magnesium chloride (g/L) | Within range | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.75 | 0.95 |
| Concentration (mmol H2/L culture) | Maximize | 12.71 | 55 | 5 | 52.82 | 0.95 |
| Substrate specific yield (mol H2/mol glucose) | Within range | 0.98 | 1.31 | 3 | 1.24 | 0.95 |
| Specific productivity (mmol H2/(g·protein·h) | Within range | 3.91 | 6.79 | 3 | 6.4 | 0.95 |
Figure 2Contour and surface plots of H2-concentration (mmol/L) model show interactions between predictor variables. (A,B) show the interactions between yeast extract (YE) and cellulose while magnesium chloride (Mg) level was held constant, at 1.5 g/L; (C,D) show the interactions between Mg and YE while cellulose level was held constant, at 30 g/L.
Reduced quadratic model obtained for ethanol concentration. Model co-efficients are presented in terms of coded factors.
| Source | Co-Efficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | – | 73.19 | <0.0001 |
| Intercept | 39.16 | – | – |
| A: cellulose | −1.32 | 2.94 | 0.1203 |
| B: YE | 5.43 | 49.61 | <0.0001 |
| C: Mg | 13.87 | 323.71 | <0.0001 |
| AC | −1.21 | 1.97 | 0.1944 |
| BC | 4.18 | 23.55 | 0.0009 |
| B2 | −6.16 | 19.32 | 0.0017 |
| C2 | −8.31 | 35.17 | 0.0002 |
| Lack of Fit | – | 0.9 | 0.620 |
R2 = 0.99; R2 (predicted) = 0.97; adequate precision = 24.66.
Figure 3Contour (A) and surface (B) plots of ethanol-concentration (mmol/L) model show the interactions between YE and Mg when the level of cellulose was held constant at 30 g/L.
Verification of the overall optimum composition (OptH) for H2 production.
| Predicted | Concentration (mmol/L) | Specific rate (mmol/(g·cell·h)) | Yield (mol/mol hexose) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction | 52.82 | 6.4 | 1.24 |
| Experimental | 57.28 ± 4.8 | 7.48 ± 1.2 | 1.30 ± 0.05 |
Actual values and coded levels of factors used in the central composite face-centered (CCF) design.
| Factors | Unit | Actual Values | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coded Levels | Low (−1) | Centre (0) | High (1) | |
| A: α-Cellulose | g/L | 10 | 30 | 50 |
| B: YE | g/L | 1 | 1.5 | 2 |
| C: Mg | g/L | 1 | 1.5 | 2 |