| Literature DB >> 27251222 |
Zhen Fang1,2,3, Siew-Xian Chin2,4, Xiao-Fei Tian2,5, Tong-Chao Su1,2.
Abstract
Biohydrogen production has received widespread attention from researchers in industry and academic fields. Response surface methodology (RSM) was applied to evaluate the effects of several key variables in anaerobic fermentation of glucose with Clostridium butyrium, and achieved the highest production rate and yield of hydrogen. Highest H2 yield of 2.02 mol H2/mol-glucose was achieved from 24 h bottle fermentation of glucose at 35 °C, while the composition of medium was (g/L): 15.66 glucose, 6.04 yeast extract, 4 tryptone, 3 K2HPO4, 3 KH2PO4, 0.05 L-cysteine, 0.05 MgSO4·7H2O, 0.1 MnSO4·H2O and 0.3 FeSO4·7H2O, which was very different from that for cell growth. Sugarcane bagasse and Jatropha hulls were selected as typical tropical biomass wastes to produce sugars via a two-step acid hydrolysis for hydrogen production. Under the optimized fermentation conditions, H2 yield (mol H2/mol-total reducing sugar) was 2.15 for glucose, 2.06 for bagasse hydrolysate and 1.95 for Jatropha hull hydrolysate in a 3L fermenter for 24 h at 35 °C, with H2 purity of 49.7-64.34%. The results provide useful information and basic data for practical use of tropical plant wastes to produce hydrogen.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27251222 PMCID: PMC4890049 DOI: 10.1038/srep27205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Variables and their levels employed in Plackett-Burman design.
| Factor (g/L) | Variables | Levelsa | |
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 1 | ||
| Glucose | X1 | 15 | 25 |
| Yeast extract | X2 | 3.5 | 6.5 |
| Tryptone | X3 | 3 | 5 |
| K2HPO4 | X4 | 2 | 4 |
| KH2PO4 | X5 | 2 | 4 |
| L-Cysteine | X6 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
| MgSO4·7H2O | X7 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| FeSO4·7H2O | X8 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
ax1 = (X1 − 20)/5; x2 = (X2 − 5)/1.5; x3 = (X3 − 4)/1; x4 = (X4 − 3)/1; x5 = (X5 − 3)/1; x6 = (X6 − 0.1)/0.05; x7 = (X7 − 0.05)/0.05; x8 = (X8 − 0.3)/0.1.
Plackett-Burman design variables (in code levels) with H2 yield as response for 24 h bottle fermentation at 35 °C with 130 rpm shaking.
| Run | Variable level | H2 yield (mol/mol) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | ||
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1.39 ± 0.08 |
| 2 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1.50 ± 0.02 |
| 3 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.41 ± 0.07 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1.36 ± 0.05 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1.44 ± 0.03 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1.30 ± 0.09 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1.41 ± 0.05 |
| 8 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1.28 ± 0.05 |
| 9 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1.32 ± 0.05 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.35 ± 0.01 |
| 11 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.23 ± 0.04 |
| 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1.34 ± 0.05 |
aValues were given by mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Effects and statistical analysis of variablesa.
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.3644 | 0.0054 | 251.54 | <0.0001b |
| X1 | −0.0611 | 0.0054 | −11.27 | 0.0015b |
| X2 | 0.0256 | 0.0054 | 4.71 | 0.0181b |
| X3 | 0.0078 | 0.0053 | 1.45 | 0.2439 |
| X4 | −0.0161 | 0.0053 | −3.00 | 0.0579 |
| X5 | 0.0167 | 0.0056 | 2.96 | 0.0593 |
| X6 | −0.0122 | 0.0053 | −2.27 | 0.1077 |
| X7 | 0.0067 | 0.0055 | 1.22 | 0.3112 |
| X8 | 0.0083 | 0.0055 | 1.52 | 0.2260 |
aR2 = 0.9858, R2 (Adj) = 0.9478. bStatistical signification at 95% of confidence level (p < 0.05).
Experimental results along the path of the steepest ascent for 24 h bottle fermentation at 35 oC with 130 rpm shaking.
| Test | Glucose (g/L) | Yeast extract (g/L) | H2 yield (mol/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | 5.0 | 1.62 ± 0.12 |
| 2 | 18 | 5.5 | 1.63 ± 0.03 |
| 3 | 16 | 6.0 | 1.78 ± 0.02 |
| 4 | 14 | 6.5 | 1.51 ± 0.03 |
| 5 | 12 | 7.0 | 1.33 ± 0.02 |
| 6 | 10 | 7.5 | 1.31 ± 0.28 |
| 7 | 8 | 8.0 | 1.20 ± 0.01 |
aValues were given by mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Levels of the factors, experimental design and the results of the central composite design.
| Run | Coded variable level | Real variable level | H2 yield (mol/mol-TRS) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X1 | X2 | Observed | Predicted | |
| 1 | 1 | −1 | 17 | 5.5 | 1.62 ± 0.03 | 1.61 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 6.0 | 2.02 ± 0.05 | 2.00 |
| 3 | −1.41 | 0 | 14.59 | 6.0 | 1.84 ± 0.01 | 1.86 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | 15 | 5.5 | 1.79 ± 0.08 | 1.78 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 6.0 | 1.99 ± 0.02 | 2.00 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 6.0 | 1.98 ± 0.01 | 2.00 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 6.0 | 2.01 ± 0.02 | 2.00 |
| 8 | 0 | −1.41 | 16 | 5.29 | 1.64 ± 0.03 | 1.66 |
| 9 | 0 | 1.41 | 16 | 6.71 | 1.71 ± 0.07 | 1.72 |
| 10 | −1 | 1 | 15 | 6.5 | 1.85 ± 0.09 | 1.83 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 6.0 | 2.01 ± 0.02 | 2.00 |
| 12 | 1.41 | 0 | 17.41 | 6.0 | 1.61 ± 0.02 | 1.61 |
| 13 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 6.5 | 1.63 ± 0.04 | 1.63 |
aValues were given by mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Significance test of regression coefficienta.
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.002 | 0.0088 | 227.04 | <0.0001b |
| X1 | −0.0894 | 0.0070 | −12.83 | <0.0001b |
| X2 | 0.0211 | 0.0070 | 3.03 | 0.0191b |
| X1X2 | −0.0125 | 0.0098 | −1.27 | 0.2454 |
| X1X1 | −0.1329 | 0.0075 | −17.77 | <0.0001b |
| X2X2 | −0.1579 | 0.0075 | −21.12 | <0.0001b |
aR2 = 0.9918, R2 (Adj) = 0.986. bStatistical signification at 95% of confidence level (p < 0.05).
Figure 1(a) Response surface plot and (b) corresponding contour of the mutual effects of glucose and yeast extract on H2 yield (24 h bottle fermentation at 35 °C with 130 rpm shaking).
Analysis of variance and canonical analysis for the parameters of RSM.
| Source | Degree of freedom | Sum of square | Mean square | Probability > | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 5 | 0.330755 | 0.066151 | 170.1574 | <0.0001 |
| Error | 7 | 0.002722 | 0.000389 | ||
| C. total | 12 | 0.333477 | |||
| Lack of fit | 3 | 0.001641 | 0.000547 | 2.0264 | 0.2528 |
| Pure error | 4 | 0.001088 | 0.000270 | ||
| Canonical analysis | |||||
| X1 | X2 | Predicted H2 yield: 2.02 (mol/mol) | |||
| Eigen value | −0.3402 | 0.0804 | |||
| Actual value | 15.6598 | 6.0402 | |||
Figure 2H2 and by-products production versus time in bottle fermentation of bagasse hydrolysates under the optimized medium at 35 °C with 130 rpm shaking (a) liquid products (b) gas products.
Figure 3H2 and by-products production versus time in bottle fermentation of Jatropha hulls hydrolysates under the optimized medium at 35 °C with 130 rpm shaking (a) liquid products (b) gas products.
Structural carbohydrates and lignin in bagasse and Jatropha hullsa.
| Biomass | Glucan (%) | Xylan (%) | Galactan (%) | Arabinan (%) | Mannan (%) | Lignin (%) | Ash (%) | Extractives (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagasse | 42.05 ± 0.62 | 19.79 ± 2.81 | 2.47 ± 0.29 | 1.79 ± 0.02 | 1.12 ± 0.05 | 20.82 ± 0.12 | 1.98 ± 0.25 | 9.29 ± 0.01 |
| 36.95 ± 1.35 | 9.78 ± 1.35 | 0.82 ± 0.03 | 0.30 ± 0.00 | 2.47 ± 0.53 | 27.9 ± 0.1 | 1.19 ± 0.19 | 18.61 ± 0.03 |
aAll data were given by mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Comparisons of product yields from glucose, hydrolysates of bagasse and Jatropha hulls for H2 production for 24 h fermentation at 35 °C with 130 rpm stirring/shaking in both reactorsa.
| Substrate | Reactor | H2 yield (mol/mol) | Acetic acid (AC) (g/L) | Butyric acid (BC) (g/L) | 2-propanol (g/L) | AC/BC Ratio | Gas volume (mL) | Composition (%): H2 | CO2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | Fermenter | 2.15 ± 0.03 | 3.87 ± 0.12 | 3.35 ± 0.09 | 0.84 ± 0.01 | 1.15 | 8120 ± 37.98 | 64.34 ± 0.47 | 35.66 ± 0.40 |
| Bottle | 2.03 ± 0.02 | 3.14 ± 0.06 | 2.87 ± 0.04 | 1.27 ± 0.02 | 1.09 | 233 ± 3.79 | 52.69 ± 0.14 | 47.31 ± 0.81 | |
| Bagasse hydrolysate | Fermenter | 2.06 ± 0.02 | 3.46 ± 0.09 | 3.34 ± 0.07 | 1.36 ± 0.03 | 1.03 | 8532 ± 33.51 | 53.92 ± 0.61 | 46.08 ± 0.09 |
| Bottle | 1.99 ± 0.03 | 2.28 ± 0.03 | 2.47 ± 0.02 | 1.24 ± 0.03 | 0.9 | 230 ± 5.69 | 50.16 ± 0.09 | 49.84 ± 0.04 | |
| Fermenter | 1.95 ± 0.06 | 2.37 ± 0.01 | 3.54 ± 0.03 | 1.15 ± 0.01 | 0.67 | 8767 ± 88.77 | 49.70 ± 0.49 | 50.29 ± 0.20 | |
| Bottle | 1.89 ± 0.02 | 1.97 ± 0.01 | 3.43 ± 0.03 | 1.20 ± 0.01 | 0.57 | 195 ± 1.49 | 56.62 ± 1.30 | 43.38 ± 0.24 |
aAll data were given by mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Comparison of biohydrogen yield in this study with reported data.
| Raw biomass | Carbon resource | Microorganism | Reducing Sugar (g/L) | H2 yield (mol/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagasse | Glucose Xylose | 20 | 1.73 | |
| Bagasse | Glucose Xylose | 10 | 0.8 | |
| Starch | Hexose | 5 | 2.0 | |
| Glucose | Glucose | 3 | 1.8 | |
| Glucose | Glucose | 2.5 | 1.4–2.3 | |
| Glucose | Glucose | 20 | 0.85 | |
| Glucose | Glucose | 15.64 | 2.15 | |
| Bagasse | Glucose Xylose | 15.64 | 2.06 | |
| Glucose Xylose | 15.64 | 1.95 |
aData in this study in 3L fermenter.