| Literature DB >> 25713757 |
Abstract
To support the inefficient limitation of long-term biosystem by well-known simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), electron beam irradiated rice straw (at 80 kGy, 1 MeV, and 0.12 mA) was fermented using fungal-based simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (FBSSF) by saprophytic zygomycetes Mucor indicus. Based on the growth optimization (by response surface methodology), this eco-friendly bioprocess either without metabolic inhibitors (especially furfurals and acetic acids) or byproducts (especially glycerols) significantly increased the biodegradability and fermentability of lignocellulosic rice straw. Specifically, when irradiated straw was simultaneously bioconverted by M. indicus for 48 h, the ethanol yield was 57.2% of the theoretical maximum. This value was on the similar level as the 59.8% (for 144 h) measured from processed straw by well-known SSF. Furthermore, after FBSSF for 144 h based on large-scale mass balance, the ethanol concentration and production yield, and productivity were 34.6 g/L, 72.3% of the theoretical maximum, and 0.24 g/L/h, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Bioethanol; Electron beam irradiation; Fungal-based simultaneous saccharification and fermentation; Lignocellulose; Mucor indicus
Year: 2015 PMID: 25713757 PMCID: PMC4334921 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-0825-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Analysis of multiple variables based on the PBD methodology in FBSSF process by
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 25 | 12.5 | 0.94 | 0.0236 | 3.267 | 2.388 | 29.25 | 17.7339 ± 0.4175 |
| 2 | 25 | 4.17 | 0.94 | 0.0097 | 9.44 | 9.722 | 4.875 | 17.8051 ± 0.1877 |
| 3 | 25 | 4.17 | 3.33 | 0.0097 | 3.267 | 2.388 | 4.875 | 19.4832 ± 0.0711 |
| 4 | 8.33 | 12.5 | 0.94 | 0.0097 | 3.267 | 9.722 | 4.875 | 16.9431 ± 0.3296 |
| 5 | 8.33 | 12.5 | 3.33 | 0.0236 | 9.44 | 2.388 | 4.875 | 18.8097 ± 0.5846 |
| 6 | 8.33 | 4.17 | 3.33 | 0.0236 | 3.267 | 9.722 | 29.25 | 17.8758 ± 0.2263 |
| 7 | 8.33 | 4.17 | 0.94 | 0.0097 | 9.44 | 2.388 | 29.25 | 19.6368 ± 0.1854 |
| 8 | 25 | 12.5 | 3.33 | 0.0097 | 9.44 | 9.722 | 29.25 | 17.3475 ± 0.3142 |
Basic CCD analysis of the predominant target variables in FBSSF by
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 7.5 | 3 | 1.5 | 21.34182 |
| 2 | 7.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 21.72573 |
| 3 | 7.5 | 5 | 1.5 | 21.59873 |
| 4 | 7.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 21.56699 |
| 5 | 12.5 | 3 | 1.5 | 21.17752 |
| 6 | 12.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 21.51739 |
| 7 | 12.5 | 5 | 1.5 | 21.02337 |
| 8 | 12.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 21.55073 |
| 9 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 22.20487 |
| 10 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 21.89420 |
| 11 | 6.79 | 4 | 3 | 21.52302 |
| 12 | 13.21 | 4 | 3 | 21.29000 |
| 13 | 10 | 2.72 | 3 | 21.17752 |
| 14 | 10 | 5.28 | 3 | 22.02482 |
| 15 | 10 | 4 | 1.074 | 21.95437 |
| 16 | 10 | 4 | 4.926 | 21.75289 |
Canonical analysis of response surface points based on coded data in optimized FBSSF biosystem by
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Critical value | - 0.08088 | 9.74036 | 0.14512 | 4.18576 | 0.61716 | 4.18865 |
X1=3.2x1+10; X 2=1.3x2+4; X3=0.3x3+4.
Factorial ANOVA analysis for the optimization of spore population in optimized FBSSF by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1.52199 | 10 | 0.15219 | 5.46 | 0.0374 | 0.9161 |
| Error | 0.13939 | 5 | 0.02787 | |||
| Corrected total | 1.66139 | 15 |
Figure 1Response surface plots of the interaction between three selected variables and the spore productivity of in optimized FBSSF process. (A) Yeast extract and KH2PO4 with a fixed concentration of glucose. (B) KH2PO4 and glucose with a fixed concentration of yeast extract. (C) Yeast extract and glucose with a fixed concentration of KH2PO4. Additional nutrient was 0.001% (w/v) FeSO4 for each of the experiments.
Downstream index for scale-up in advanced FBSSF program
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
| FBSSF | 33.8 g RSc | ≤9.3% (3.0 ± 0.1 g glucose/L) | ≤57.2% (9.3 ± 0.2 g ethanol/L) | ≤72.3% (11.7 ± 0.2 g ethanol/L) |
| SSFa | 33.8 g RSc | ≤8.3% (2.7 ± 0.1 g glucose/L) | ≤47.2% (7.7 ± 0.2 g ethanol/L) | ≤59.8% (9.7 ± 0.2 g ethanol/L) |
| Untreatedb | 34.5 g RS | ≤7.1% (2.3 ± 0.1 g glucose/L) | ≤22.7% (3.7 ± 0.1 g ethanol/L) | ≤25.8% (4.2 ± 0.1 g ethanol/L) |
| Untreatedb | 12.4 g Avicel | ≤11.0% (3.5 ± 0.1 g glucose/L) | ≤74.4% (12.0 ± 0.2 g ethanol/L) | ≤82.4% (13.3 ± 0.2 g ethanol/L) |
aSSF by S. cerevisiae D5A (ATCC 200062); Bak 2014d.
bFBSSF without the EBI.
closs (approximately 2%) of RS substrate by the EBI.
dthe maximum yield of soluble monomeric sugar after 24 h of fermentation.
ethe yield of theoretical maximum ethanol.
Analysis of lignocellulose-based biorefinery byproducts in advanced FBSSF
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| FBSSF | <0.3 | <2.0 | Not detected | Not detected | <0.1 |
| SSFa | <0.2 | <1.8 | Not detected | Not detected | <0.1 |
| Untreatedb (RS) | <0.2 | <0.5 | Not detected | Not detected | <0.04 |
| Untreatedb (Avicel) | <0.4 | <3.0 | Not detected | Not detected | <0.1 |
aSSF by S. cerevisiae D5A (ATCC 200062); Bak 2014c.
bFBSSF without the EBI.
cglucose dimer from the biodegradable substrates after 96 h of fermentation.
ddetermined as and .