| Literature DB >> 27447701 |
Guillermo Hernández-Cortés1, Juan Octavio Valle-Rodríguez1,2, Enrique J Herrera-López1, Dulce María Díaz-Montaño1, Yolanda González-García3, Héctor B Escalona-Buendía4, Jesús Córdova5.
Abstract
Agave (Agave tequilana Weber var. azul) fermentations are traditionally carried out employing batch systems in the process of tequila manufacturing; nevertheless, continuous cultures could be an attractive technological alternative to increase productivity and efficiency of sugar to ethanol conversion. However, agave juice (used as a culture medium) has nutritional deficiencies that limit the implementation of yeast continuous fermentations, resulting in high residual sugars and low fermentative rates. In this work, fermentations of agave juice using Saccharomyces cerevisiae were put into operation to prove the necessity of supplementing yeast extract, in order to alleviate nutritional deficiencies of agave juice. Furthermore, continuous fermentations were performed at two different aeration flow rates, and feeding sterilized and non-sterilized media. The obtained fermented musts were subsequently distilled to obtain tequila and the preference level was compared against two commercial tequilas, according to a sensorial analysis. The supplementation of agave juice with air and yeast extract augmented the fermentative capacity of S. cerevisiae S1 and the ethanol productivities, compared to those continuous fermentations non supplemented. In fact, aeration improved ethanol production from 37 to 40 g L(-1), reducing sugars consumption from 73 to 88 g L(-1) and ethanol productivity from 3.0 to 3.2 g (Lh)(-1), for non-aerated and aerated (at 0.02 vvm) cultures, respectively. Supplementation of yeast extract allowed an increase in specific growth rate and dilution rates (0.12 h(-1), compared to 0.08 h(-1) of non-supplemented cultures), ethanol production (47 g L(-1)), reducing sugars consumption (93 g L(-1)) and ethanol productivity [5.6 g (Lh)(-1)] were reached. Additionally, the effect of feeding sterilized or non-sterilized medium to the continuous cultures was compared, finding no significant differences between both types of cultures. The overall effect of adding yeast extract and air to the continuous fermentations resulted in 88 % increase in ethanol productivity. For all cultures, pH was not controlled, reaching low pH values (from 2.6 to 3). This feature suggested a reduced probability of contamination for prolonged continuous cultures and explained why no significant differences were found between continuous cultures fed with sterilized or non-sterilized media. Concentrations of volatile compounds quantified in the distillates (tequila) were in the allowed ranges established by the Mexican regulation of tequila (NOM-006-SCFI-2012, Norma Oficial Mexicana: Bebidas alcohólicas-Tequila-specificaciones, 2012). The preference level of the distillates was similar to that of two well-known commercial tequilas. The results suggested the possibility of implementing this innovative technology on an industrial scale, attaining high productivities and using non-sterilized agave juice.Entities:
Keywords: Continuous fermentation; Tequila; Yeast extract
Year: 2016 PMID: 27447701 PMCID: PMC4958086 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-016-0218-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 3Webplot of the free choice qualitative description (as effective test) of the tequila produced in this study and two commercial tequilas (tequila Herradura and tequila 4 Copas). Based on evaluations given by 50 consumers
Concentration of compounds and calculated parameters on the steady state of aerated (at 0.02 vvm) or non-aerated S. cerevisiae continuous cultures, fed with sterilized (SM) or non-sterilized medium (NSM)
| Compound (g L−1) | Aeration and dilution rates ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 vvm and 0.08 h−1 | 0.02 vvm and 0.08 h−1 | |||
| SM | NSM | SM | NSM | |
|
| ||||
| Biomass | 5.90 ± 0.21 | 4.93 ± 0.42 | 7.33 ± 0.29 | 6.83 ± 0.72 |
| Ethanol | 38.25 ± 0.84 | 37.48 ± 1.61 | 41.87 ± 0.62 | 39.97 ± 0.04 |
| R sugars | 14.46 ± 0.52 | 26.52 ± 0.33 | 4.73 ± 0.57 | 12.18 ± 1.63 |
| Fructose | 4.27 ± 1.23 | 26.27 ± 3.35 | 9.56 ± 2.33 | 10.76 ± 1.16 |
| Glucose | 2.17 ± 0.37 | 0.90 ± 0.14 | 2.62 ± 0.10 | 0.39 ± 0.01 |
| Succinic acid | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.08 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.12 ± 0.00 |
| Glycerol | 4.48 ± 0.38 | 3.08 ± 0.23 | 7.00 ± 0.11 | 4.44 ± 0.14 |
| Diacetyl | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| Acetic acid | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| Acetoin | 0.33 ± 0.12 | nd | nd | 0.18 ± 0.03 |
| NH4 + | 1.80 ± 0.22 | 1.55 ± 0.17 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 0.89 ± 0.05 |
| YX/S | 0.069 ± 0.002 | 0.067 ± 0.005 | 0.077 ± 0.003 | 0.078 ± 0.007 |
| YP/S | 0.447 ± 0.007 | 0.510 ± 0.020 | 0.439 ± 0.004 | 0.455 ± 0.008 |
| PP | 3.060 ± 0.067 | 2.998 ± 0.129 | 3.350 ± 0.050 | 3.198 ± 0.003 |
| pH | 3.0 ± 0.1 | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.3 |
Medium contained agave juice (adjusted at 100 g L−1 of R sugars), ammonium sulfate (1 g L−1) and ammonium phosphate monobasic (4 g L−1). YX/S is biomass yield (g g−1). YP/S is ethanol yield (g g−1). PP is ethanol productivity [g (Lh)−1]. Values are the means ± standard deviations (n = 3)
R sugars are Reducing sugars, nd compound not detected under the analysis conditions
aExperiments using media supplemented with yeast extract were performed at higher D, because this supplementation allowed this increase without losing stability in the continuous culture
Concentration of volatile compounds on the steady state of aerated (at 0.02 vvm) and non-aerated S. cerevisiae S1 continuous cultures fed with sterilized (SM) and non-sterilized medium (NSM)
| Volatile compound (mg L−1) | Aeration and dilution rates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 vvm and 0.08 h−1 | 0.02 vvm and 0.08 h−1 | |||
| SM | NSM | SM | NSM | |
|
| ||||
| Acetaldehyde | 50.52 ± 0.39 | 46.26 ± 2.12 | 39.55 ± 0.65 | 46.02 ± 0.32 |
| Methanol | 151.08 ± 6.46 | 128.26 ± 0.04 | 176.54 ± 23.23 | 111.88 ± 0.91 |
| Propanol | 51.16 ± 0.08 | 44.25 ± 0.08 | 92.59 ± 13.99 | 50.22 ± 1.90 |
| Butanol | 1.96 ± 0.00 | 1.03 ± 0.05 | 2.32 ± 0.32 | 0.95 ± 0.09 |
| Isobutanol | 10.15 ± 0.37 | 13.98 ± 0.31 | 18.31 ± 2.63 | 15.50 ± 0.57 |
| Isoamyl Acohol | 29.39 ± 0.63 | 23.71 ± 0.31 | 24.94 ± 6.04 | 17.93 ± 0.68 |
| 2-Phenylethanol | 7.74 ± 0.52 | 8.66 ± 0.67 | 7.79 ± 1.20 | 13.46 ± 0.17 |
| Ethyl acetate | 17.53 ± 3.25 | 12.89 ± 0.25 | 5.89 ± 0.34 | 14.90 ± 0.73 |
| Isoamyl acetate | 0.39 ± 0.29 | 0.24 ± 0.04 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.00 |
| Ethyl hexanoate | 0.18 ± 0.26 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.00 |
| Ethyl octanoate | 0.18 ± 0.11 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.03 ± 0.02 |
| Ethyl decanoate | nd | nd | 0.20 ± 0.07 | nd |
| Phenethyl acetate | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | nd |
| α-terpineol | 0.21 ± 0.17 | 0.11 ± 0.06 | 0.61 ± 0.14 | 0.07 ± 0.09 |
| 2, 3 Butanedione | 0.60 ± 0.13 | 1.94 ± 0.25 | 3.12 ± 0.54 | 0.29 ± 0.03 |
nd Compound not detected under the analysis conditions. Values are the means ± standard deviations (n = 3)
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of principal components (PC) obtained from volatile compounds of aerated (at 0.02 vvm) or non-aerated S. cerevisiae continuous cultures fed with sterilized (SM) or non-sterilized (NSM) agave juice supplemented or not supplemented with yeast extract
| PC-1 | PC-2 | PC-3 | PC-4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained variance (%) | 33.46 | 19.79 | 15.41 | 13.38 |
| Yeast extract ( | 0.0000 | 0.3761 | 0.7171 | 0.1027 |
| Aeration rate ( | 0.4194 | 0.0081 | 0.0740 | 0.7873 |
| Fermentation medium ( | 0.0910 | 0.2911 | 0.0363 | 0.0673 |
Fig. 1Diagram of dispersion of principal components PC-1 and PC-2, obtained from the concentration of aromatic compounds on the steady state of 0.02 vvm aerated (2) and non-aerated (0) S. cerevisiae continuous cultures fed with sterilized (SM) and non-sterilized (NS) media, supplemented (EL) or not (SE) with yeast extract
Concentration of volatile compounds assayed in distillates obtained from fermented musts of aerated (at 0.02 vvm) and non-aerated S. cerevisiae continuous cultures fed with sterilized (SM) and non-sterilized (NSM) agave juice supplemented with yeast extract
| Compound | Dilution and aeration rates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg per 100 mL of | 0.10 h−1 and 0 vvm | 0.12 h−1 and 0.02 vvm | NOMa | ||
| alcohol) | SM | NSM | SM | NSM | |
| Acetaldehyde | 17.42 ± 0.96 | 12.82 ± 0.98 | 11.13 ± 0.91 | 25.57 ± 1.35 | 0–40 |
| Methanol | 180.15 ± 11.33 | 227.43 ± 19.81 | 252.67 ± 23.84 | 200.32 ± 11.94 | 30–300 |
|
| 280.58 ± 16.69 | 258.08 ± 20.67 | 269.91 ± 24.16 | 349.49 ± 19.58 | 20–500 |
| 2-butanol | 137.68 ± 8.09 | 125.69 ± 10.22 | 151.11 ± 13.32 | 173.92 ± 9.68 | |
| 1-propanol | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| Isobutanol | 34.43 ± 1.50 | 27.26 ± 1.46 | 23.89 ± 1.38 | 40.45 ± 1.48 | |
| 1-butanol | 1.87 ± 0.52 | nd | 2.06 ± 0.86 | 2.54 ± 0.67 | |
| Isoamyl and amyl alcohols | 106.61 ± 6.58 | 105.13 ± 8.99 | 92.86 ± 8.60 | 132.58 ± 7.75 | |
|
| 8.66 ± 0.25 | 11.35 ± 0.64 | 5.45 ± 0.23 | 9.71 ± 0.55 | 2–200 |
| Ethyl lactate | nd | nd | 2.14 ± 0.15 | 1.23 ± 0.09 | |
| Ethyl acetate | 8.66 ± 0.25 | 11.35 ± 0.63 | 3.31 ± 0.09 | 8.48 ± 0.46 | |
|
| 2.98 ± 0.21 | nd | nd | nd | 0–4 |
nd Compound not detected under the analysis conditions
Values are the means ± standard deviations (n = 3)
aNOM: official mexican norm of alcoholic beverages-tequila specifications (NOM-006-SCFI-2012 2012). Ranges of minimum and maximum allowed concentrations in tequila
Fig. 2Principal component (PC-1 and PC-2) weights of the concentration of aromatic compounds on the steady state of S. cerevisiae continuous cultures supplemented with yeast extract. AC Acetaldehyde, AE Ethyl acetate, ME Methanol, BA 2,3-butanodione, PR Propanol, IB Isobutanol, AI Isoamyl acetate, BU Butanol, IA Isoamyl alcohol, EH Ethyl hexanoate, EO Ethyl octanoate, ED Ethyl decanoate, AT Alpha-terpineol, AF Phenyl acetate, FE 2-phenylethanol
Preference rankings calculated from the votes of fifty consumers, according to the perceived taste for each tested tequila as “good”, “regular” or “bad”
| Tequila | Qualification given by the consumer | Preference ranking | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | Regular | Bad | ||
| Prepared in this work | 14 | 17 | 19 | 95 |
| Herradura | 15 | 21 | 14 | 101 |
| 4 Copas | 14 | 14 | 22 | 92 |
“Herradura” and “4 copas” are well accepted commercial tequilas. The preference ranking of each tequila was calculated as the sum of triplicating the number of votes from consumers as “good”, duplicating “regular” votes and single “bad” votes with the following equation:Preference ranking = 3 × “good votes” + 2 × “regular votes” + 1 × “bad votes”