| Literature DB >> 26388844 |
Richa Arora1, Shuvashish Behera2, Nilesh K Sharma1, Sachin Kumar2.
Abstract
The progressive rise in energy crisis followed by green house gas (GHG) emissions is serving as the driving force for bioethanol production from renewable resources. Current bioethanol research focuses on lignocellulosic feedstocks as these are abundantly available, renewable, sustainable and exhibit no competition between the crops for food and fuel. However, the technologies in use have some drawbacks including incapability of pentose fermentation, reduced tolerance to products formed, costly processes, etc. Therefore, the present study was carried out with the objective of isolating hexose and pentose fermenting thermophilic/thermotolerant ethanologens with acceptable product yield. Two thermotolerant isolates, NIRE-K1 and NIRE-K3 were screened for fermenting both glucose and xylose and identified as Kluyveromyces marxianus NIRE-K1 and K. marxianus NIRE-K3. After optimization using Face-centered Central Composite Design (FCCD), the growth parameters like temperature and pH were found to be 45.17°C and 5.49, respectively for K. marxianus NIRE-K1 and 45.41°C and 5.24, respectively for K. marxianus NIRE-K3. Further, batch fermentations were carried out under optimized conditions, where K. marxianus NIRE-K3 was found to be superior over K. marxianus NIRE-K1. Ethanol yield (Y x∕s ), sugar to ethanol conversion rate (%), microbial biomass concentration (X) and volumetric product productivity (Q p ) obtained by K. marxianus NIRE-K3 were found to be 9.3, 9.55, 14.63, and 31.94% higher than that of K. marxianus NIRE-K1, respectively. This study revealed the promising potential of both the screened thermotolerant isolates for bioethanol production.Entities:
Keywords: bioethanol production; face-centered central composite design; glucose; optimization; thermotolerant yeast; xylose
Year: 2015 PMID: 26388844 PMCID: PMC4555967 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00889
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Microorganisms isolated from various sites for bioethanol production.
| Manure soil from Ibban village, Kapurthala (31.3800°N, 75.3800°E) | 9th Jul, 201212:00 noon–2:00 pm | 11 | – | – |
| Sugarcane juice sample from local retailer, Kapurthala (31.3800°N, 75.3800°E) | 14th Jul, 201210:00 am–12:00 pm | 14 | – | – |
| Mahua slurry from pilot plant, Odisha (20.1500°N, 85.5000°E) | 23rd Aug, 201211:00 am–2:30 pm | 7 | 2 | – |
| Soil samples from different sites in a sugarmill in Phagwara (31.2200°N, 75.7700°E) | 10th Sep, 201311:00 am–12:30 pm | 5 | 2 | – |
| Soil samples from different sites in a sugarmill in Karnal (26.6900°N, 76.9800°E) | 16th Sep, 201310:00 am–11:30 am | 7 | 2 | 2 |
| Kitchen waste samples, NIRE campus, Kapurthala (31.3800°N, 75.3800°E) | 16th Oct, 201310:30 am-11:30 am | 28 | 4 | – |
| Soil samples from decaying wood in different areas in Jalandhar (31.3260°N, 75.5760°E) | 20th Oct, 201310:00 am–1:00 pm | 10 | – | – |
| Rotten fruits from NIRE campus, Kapurthala (31.3800°N, 75.3800°E) | 22nd Jun, 20149:00 am–9:30 am | 5 | – | – |
| Insects from tree trunks, Kapurthala (31.3800°N, 75.3800°E) | 24th Oct, 20149:00 am–10:00 am | 4 | 1 | – |
| Dumpyard, Kapurthala (31.3800°N, 75.3800°E) | 28th Oct, 20141:00 pm–2:00 pm | 12 | 3 | - |
Coded values for each variable of FCCD for growth.
| Temperature | °C | 37 | 43.5 | 50 |
| pH | – | 3.5 | 5.5 | 7.5 |
Figure 1Growth of .
Figure 2Growth of .
Figure 3Growth of .
Figure 4Phylogenetic tree drawn through BLAST showing genetic relationship between .
Figure 5Phylogenetic tree drawn through BLAST showing genetic relationship between .
Experimental data and results of FCCD for the growth of .
| 1 | 37.00 | 3.50 | 0.400 | 0.395 | 0.140 | 0.140 |
| 2 | 50.00 | 3.50 | 0.000 | −0.016 | 0.000 | −0.007 |
| 3 | 37.00 | 7.50 | 0.380 | 0.380 | 0.110 | 0.110 |
| 4 | 50.00 | 7.50 | 0.000 | −0.008 | 0.000 | −0.009 |
| 5 | 37.00 | 5.50 | 0.420 | 0.420 | 0.160 | 0.157 |
| 6 | 50.00 | 5.50 | 0.000 | 0.024 | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| 7 | 43.50 | 3.50 | 0.440 | 0.460 | 0.230 | 0.230 |
| 8 | 43.50 | 7.50 | 0.450 | 0.460 | 0.210 | 0.220 |
| 9 | 43.50 | 5.50 | 0.490 | 0.500 | 0.250 | 0.250 |
| 10 | 43.50 | 5.50 | 0.520 | 0.500 | 0.240 | 0.250 |
| 11 | 43.50 | 5.50 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.260 | 0.250 |
| 12 | 43.50 | 5.50 | 0.510 | 0.500 | 0.247 | 0.250 |
| 13 | 43.50 | 5.50 | 0.490 | 0.500 | 0.251 | 0.250 |
ANOVA for the experimental results of the FCCD for .
| Model | 0.51 | 5 | 0.10 | 305.00 | < 0.0001 | Significant |
| A-Temperature | 0.24 | 1 | 0.24 | 721.07 | < 0.0001 | |
| B-pH | 0.00001667 | 1 | 0.00001667 | 0.050 | 0.8293 | |
| AB | 0.0001 | 1 | 0.0001 | 0.30 | 0.6006 | |
| A2 | 0.20 | 1 | 0.20 | 612.67 | < 0.0001 | |
| B2 | 0.003725 | 1 | 0.003725 | 11.19 | 0.0123 | |
| Residual | 0.00233 | 7 | 0.0003328 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 0.00165 | 3 | 0.0005500 | 3.24 | 0.1432 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 0.00068 | 4 | 0.00017 | |||
| Cor Total | 0.51 | 12 |
df, Degrees of freedom; F, Fisher's variance ratio; P, probability value; Cor Total, Totals corrected for the mean; P < 0.05- significant at 5% level; R2 = 0.9954; Adjusted R2 = 0,9922; Predicted R2 = 0.9731; Adequate precision = 41.292; PRESS = 0.014; CV = 5.16%.
ANOVA for the experimental results of the FCCD for .
| Model | 0.13 | 5 | 0.025 | 244.04 | < 0.0001 | Significant |
| A-Temperature | 0.028 | 1 | 0.028 | 269.82 | < 0.0001 | |
| B-pH | 0.0004167 | 1 | 0.0004167 | 4.01 | 0.0852 | |
| AB | 0.000225 | 1 | 0.000225 | 2.17 | 0.1845 | |
| A2 | 0.074 | 1 | 0.074 | 713.31 | < 0.0001 | |
| B2 | 0.001559 | 1 | 0.001559 | 15.01 | 0.0061 | |
| Residual | 0.0007268 | 7 | 0.0001038 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 0.0005176 | 3 | 0.0001725 | 3.30 | 0.1395 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 0.0002092 | 4 | 0.0000523 | |||
| Cor Total | 0.13 | 12 |
df, Degrees of freedom; F, Fisher's variance ratio; P, probability value; Cor Total, Totals corrected for the mean; P < 0.05–significant at 5% level; R2 = 0.9943; Adjusted R2 = 0.9902; Predicted R2 = 0.9589; Adequate precision = 37.079; PRESS = 0.005236; CV = 6.31%.
Figure 6Diagnostic plot of the distribution of observed and predicted values of maximum specific growth rate (A) .
Figure 7Contour plot of maximum specific growth rate as a function of temperature and pH (A) .
Figure 83-D plot of maximum specific growth rate as a function of temperature and pH (A) .
Figure 9Fermentation profile of (A) .
Growth and fermentation kinetics of .
| Initial sugar concentration ( | 100.00 ± 0.03 | 100.00 ± 0.02 |
| Final ethanol ( | 39.12 ± 0.34 | 43.25 ± 0.36 |
| Final biomass concentration ( | 3.5 ± 0.19 | 4.1 ± 0.22 |
| Specific growth rate (μ, h−1) | 0.026 ± 0.03 | 0.024 ± 0.04 |
| Cell yield ( | 0.035 ± 0.02 | 0.041 ± 0.02 |
| Ethanol yield ( | 0.39 ± 0.37 | 0.43 ± 0.05 |
| Volumetric substrate uptake ( | 6.25 ± 0.028 | 8.33 ± 0.07 |
| Volumetric product productivity ( | 2.45 ± 0.06 | 3.6 ± 0.11 |
| Specific sugar consumption rate ( | 2.17 ± 0.19 | 1.85 ± 0.09 |
| Specific product formation rate ( | 0.848 ± 0.058 | 0.798 ± 0.06 |
| Conversion rate (%) into ethanol | 78.24 ± 0.57 | 86.5 ± 0.34 |
| μ | Specific growth rate (h−1) |
| μmax | Maximum specific growth rate (h−1) |
| Rate limiting substrate concentration (g l−1) | |
| Saturation constant or half velocity constant or substrate utilization constant (g l−1) | |
| Final ethanol concentration (g l−1) | |
| Final biomass concentration (g l−1) | |
| Cell yield (g g−1) | |
| Ethanol yield (g g−1) | |
| Volumetric substrate uptake (g l−1h−1) | |
| Volumetric product productivity (g l−1h−1) | |
| Specific sugar consumption rate (g g−1 h−1) | |
| Specific product formation rate (g g−1 h−1) |