| Literature DB >> 26991270 |
Luciane Maria Colla1, Andreiza Lazzarotto Primaz2, Silvia Benedetti2, Raquel Aparecida Loss2, Marieli de Lima2, Christian Oliveira Reinehr2, Telma Elita Bertolin2, Jorge Alberto Vieira Costa3.
Abstract
A Plackett-Burman Factorial Design of 16 experiments was conducted to assess the influence of nine factors on the production of lipases by filamentous fungi. The factors investigated were bran type (used as the main carbon source), nitrogen source, nitrogen source concentration, inducer, inducer concentration, fungal strain (Aspergillus niger or Aspergillus flavus were selected as good lipase producers via submerged fermentation), pH and agitation. The concentration of the yeast extract and soybean oil and the pH had a significant effect (p<0.05) on lipase production and were consecutively studied through a Full Factorial Design 2(3), with the concentration of yeast extract and pH being significant (p<0.05). These variables were optimized using a central composite design, obtaining maximum lipolytic activities with the use of 45g/L of yeast extract and pH 7.15. The statistical model showed a 94.12% correlation with the experimental data.Entities:
Keywords: Agricultural residues; Lipase; Optimization; Submerged bioprocess
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26991270 PMCID: PMC4874614 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.01.028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
Real and coded levels of variables used in the Plackett–Burman Design and maximum residual lipolytic activities obtained in experiments carried out in submerged fermentation.
| Exp. | LAMR (U) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 (WB) | −1 (SN) | −1 (OO) | −1 (10) | +1 (30) | +1 (7) | +1 (E-19) | +1 (2) | +1 (160) | 1.74 ± 0.16 |
| 2 | +1 (SB) | −1 (SN) | −1 (OO) | −1 (10) | −1 (10) | −1 (5) | −1 (O-8) | +1 (2) | +1 (160) | 0.31 ± 0.13 |
| 3 | −1 (WB) | +1 (YE) | −1 (OO) | −1 (10) | −1 (10) | +1 (7) | +1 (E-19) | −1 (1) | −1 (120) | 2.03 ± 0.28 |
| 4 | +1 (SB) | +1 (YE) | −1 (OO) | −1 (10) | +1 (30) | −1 (5) | −1 (O-8) | −1 (1) | −1 (120) | 1.50 ± 0.12 |
| 5 | −1 (WB) | −1 (SN) | +1 (SO) | −1 (10) | +1 (30) | −1 (5) | +1 (E-19) | −1 (1) | +1 (160) | 0.19 ± 0.07 |
| 6 | +1 (SB) | −1 (SN) | +1 (SO) | −1 (10) | −1 (10) | +1 (7) | −1 (O-8) | −1 (1) | +1 (160) | 1.21 ± 0.25 |
| 7 | −1 (WB) | +1 (YE) | +1 (SO) | −1 (10) | −1 (10) | −1 (5) | +1 (E-19) | +1 (2) | −1 (120) | 0.84 ± 0.44 |
| 8 | +1 (SB) | +1 (YE) | +1 (SO) | −1 (10) | +1 (30) | +1 (7) | −1 (O-8) | +1 (2) | −1 (120) | 2.93 ± 0.88 |
| 9 | −1 (WB) | −1 (SN) | −1 (OO) | +1 (30) | +1 (30) | +1 (7) | −1 (O-8) | +1 (2) | −1 (120) | 1.62 ± 0.18 |
| 10 | +1 (SB) | −1 (SN) | −1 (OO) | +1 (30) | −1 (10) | −1 (5) | +1 (E-19) | +1 (2) | −1 (120) | 1.36 ± 0.02 |
| 11 | −1 (WB) | +1 (YE) | −1 (OO) | +1 (30) | −1 (10) | +1 (7) | −1 (O-8) | −1 (1) | +1 (160) | 4.08 ± 0.08 |
| 12 | +1 (SB) | +1 (YE) | −1 (OO) | +1 (30) | +1 (30) | −1 (5) | +1 (E-19) | −1 (1) | +1 (160) | 0.86 ± 0.01 |
| 13 | −1 (WB) | −1 (SN) | +1 (SO) | +1 (30) | +1 (30) | −1 (5) | −1 (O-8) | −1 (1) | −1 (120) | 0.37 ± 0.24 |
| 14 | +1 (SB) | −1 (SN) | +1 (SO) | +1 (30) | −1 (10) | +1 (7) | +1 (E-19) | −1 (1) | −1 (120) | 1.39 ± 0.06 |
| 15 | −1 (WB) | +1 (YE) | +1 (SO) | +1 (30) | −1 (10) | −1 (5) | −1 (O-8) | +1 (2) | +1 (160) | 3.51 ± 0.54 |
| 16 | +1 (SB) | +1 (YE) | +1 (SO) | +1 (30) | +1 (30) | +1 (7) | +1 (E-19) | +1 (2) | +1 (160) | 1.68 ± 1.00 |
Exp., experiment; TB, type of bran; NS, nitrogen source; I, inducer; NSC, nitrogen source concentration (g/L); IC, inducer concentration (g/L); ID, inoculum diameter (cm); A, agitation (rpm); WB, wheat bran; SB, soybean bran; SN, sodium nitrate, YE, yeast extract; OO, olive oil; SO, soybean oil; LAMR, maximum residual lipolytic activity.
Mean ± standard deviation.
Coded and real levels of the 23 Full Factorial Design and results of maximum residual lipolytic activity obtained from submerged fermentation.
| Experiment | LAMR (U) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | −1 (10) | −1 (10) | −1 (5.0) | 0.23 ± 0.13 |
| 18 | +1 (30) | −1 (10) | −1 (5.0) | 0.89 ± 0.01 |
| 19 | −1 (10) | +1 (30) | −1 (5.0) | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 20 | +1 (30) | +1 (30) | −1 (5.0) | 0.95 ± 0.14 |
| 21 | −1 (10) | −1 (10) | +1 (7.0) | 0.84 ± 0.01 |
| 22 | +1 (30) | −1 (10) | +1 (7.0) | 2.00 ± 0.48 |
| 23 | −1 (10) | +1 (30) | +1 (7.0) | 0.85 ± 0.08 |
| 24 | +1 (30) | +1 (30) | +1 (7.0) | 0.95 ± 0.06 |
YEC, yeast extract concentration (g/L); SOC, soybean oil concentration (g/L); LAMR, maximum residual lipolytic activity; fixed variables, type of bran (wheat bran), fungus (O-8), inoculum diameter (2 cm) and agitation (120 rpm).
Mean ± standard deviation.
Coded and actual values of pH and yeast extract concentration (YEC) used in the Central Composite Rotational Design (CCRD) for the optimization of lipase production by Aspergillus flavus (O-8) via submerged fermentation.
| Experiment | LAMR (U) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | −1 (6.0) | −1 (20) | 1.87 ± 0.12 |
| 26 | +1 (8.0) | −1 (20) | 2.20 ± 0.10 |
| 27 | −1 (6.0) | +1 (40) | 2.98 ± 0.05 |
| 28 | +1 (8.0) | +1 (40) | 2.92 ± 0.12 |
| 29 | −1414 (5.5) | 0 (30) | 1.67 ± 0.10 |
| 30 | +1414 (8.5) | 0 (30) | 2.11 ± 0.07 |
| 31 | 0 (7.0) | −1414 (15.9) | 1.96 ± 0.02 |
| 32 | 0 (7.0) | +1414 (44.1) | 2.98 ± 0.05 |
| 33 | 0 (7.0) | 0 (30) | 2.75 ± 0.02 |
| 34 | 0 (7.0) | 0 (30) | 2.93 ± 0.10 |
| 35 | 0 (7.0) | 0 (30) | 3.04 ± 0.02 |
Fixed variables, type of bran (wheat), fungus (O-8), soybean oil concentration (1%), inoculum diameter (2 cm), agitation (120 rpm); LAMR, maximum residual lipolytic activity.
Mean ± standard deviation.
Fig. 1Response surface of the maximum residual lipolytic activity (LAMR) as a function of pH and yeast extract concentration (YEC) for lipase production by submerged fermentation according to (A) 23 FFD and (B) CCRD.
Analysis of variance of the maximum residual lipolytic activity results of the CCRD experiments.
| Effect | SS | DF | MS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 5.137 | 4 | 1.284 | 33.077 | 2.965 |
| Error | 0.660 | 17 | 0.039 | ||
| Total | 5.797 | 21 | |||
SS, sum of squares; DF, degrees of freedom; MS, mean square. The effect of interaction, which was not significant, was ignored in the implementation of analysis of variance.
Estimated effects of variables used in the CCRD and significance levels.
| Effect | Estimated effect | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 2.922 | 38.204 | <0.001 |
| 0.225 | 2.404 | 0.035 | |
| −0.867 | −7.775 | <0.001 | |
| 0.838 | 8.947 | <0.001 | |
| −0.278 | −3.002 | 0.029 |
X1, pH; X2, yeast extract concentration; L, linear effect; Q, quadratic effect; p, significance level.