| Literature DB >> 27568226 |
Xin-Ge Liu1, Xiao-Jing Ma1, Ri-Sheng Yao2, Chun-Yu Pan1, Hua-Bing He3.
Abstract
A novel lignocellulose material,Entities:
Keywords: Broth pH; Correlation; Lac SL/tot SL; RSHH; Sophorolipid
Year: 2016 PMID: 27568226 PMCID: PMC5002273 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-016-0227-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Chemical composition analysis of rice straw and holocellulose after pretreatment
| Water (%) | Holocellulose (%) | Lignin (%) | Ash (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose | Hemicellulose | ||||
| Rice straw | 11.19 ± 0.74 | 30.46 ± 0.62 | 25.56 ± 0.83 | 14.00 ± 0.75 | 9.76 ± 0.44 |
| Holocellulose | 6.60 ± 0.55 | 59.78 ± 0.77 | 26.39 ± 0.99 | 5.77 ± 0.68 | 1.38 ± 0.57 |
Elemental composition analysis of rice straw and holocellulose after pretreatment
| C (%) | H (%) | N (%) | O (%) | S (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice straw | 37.80 | 5.27 | 1.18 | 43.78 | 0.11 |
| Holocellulose | 41.18 | 6.13 | 0.83 | 50.04 | 0.06 |
Fig. 1SEM images comparison of rice straw before and after pretreatment. A Rice straw ×200; B holocellulose ×200; C rice straw ×1000; D holocellulose ×1000
Effects of inoculum dose on final broth pH, cell growth and SL production
| Inoculum dose | Final pH | Residual glu (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | Total SL (g/L) | Lactonic SL (g/L) | Lac SL/tot SL (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 2.55 | 0.81 ± 0.08 | 6.53 ± 0.14 | 40.74 ± 1.60 | 18.83 ± 0.01 | 46.22 |
| 1 % | 5.21 | 0.63 ± 0.42 | 5.57 ± 0.09 | 29.08 ± 3.48 | 5.28 ± 3.27 | 18.17 |
| 2 % | 4.49 | 0.78 ± 0.21 | 6.73 ± 0.25 | 42.33 ± 1.65 | 8.76 ± 0.46 | 20.70 |
| 4 % | 4.26 | 0.27 ± 0.04 | 8.53 ± 0.33 | 37.56 ± 0.27 | 14.44 ± 0.97 | 38.46 |
Effects of yeast extract concentration on final broth pH, cell growth and SL production
| YE content (w/w, %) | Final pH | Residual glu (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | Total SL (g/L) | Lactonic SL (g/L) | Lac SL/tot SL (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 2.55 | 0.81 ± 0.08 | 6.53 ± 0.14 | 40.74 ± 1.60 | 18.83 ± 0.01 | 46.22 |
| 0.00 | 4.35 | 1.77 ± 0.01 | 3.07 ± 0.78 | 41.53 ± 3.62 | 10.03 ± 0.84 | 24.15 |
| 0.05 | 4.03 | 0.24 ± 0.04 | 3.55 ± 0.02 | 49.66 ± 0.99 | 22.32 ± 2.37 | 44.94 |
| 0.10 | 4.16 | 0.14 ± 0.11 | 4.47 ± 0.28 | 51.42 ± 0.92 | 21.60 ± 0.43 | 42.01 |
| 0.15 | 4.40 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 4.65 ± 0.35 | 53.70 ± 2.61 | 22.06 ± 5.33 | 41.08 |
| 0.20 | 4.46 | 0.08 ± 0.06 | 5.64 ± 0.13 | 50.09 ± 5.92 | 20.57 ± 1.77 | 41.06 |
| 0.25 | 4.66 | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 6.88 ± 0.46 | 46.05 ± 4.30 | 20.12 ± 1.34 | 43.70 |
| 0.30 | 4.77 | 0.18 ± 0.00 | 7.32 ± 0.46 | 45.83 ± 2.00 | 18.12 ± 0.48 | 39.53 |
Effects of pH regulators on final broth pH, cell growth and SL production
| pH regulator | Final pH | Residual glu (g/L) | Biomass (g/L) | Total SL (g/L) | Lactonic SL (g/L) | Lac SL/tot SL (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 2.55 | 0.81 ± 0.08 | 6.53 ± 0.14 | 40.74 ± 1.60 | 18.83 ± 0.01 | 46.22 |
| NaOH | 4.56 | 0.81 ± 0.01 | 9.65 ± 0.01 | 38.89 ± 1.09 | 14.91 ± 0.52 | 38.33 |
| K2CO3 | 5.62 | 2.40 ± 0.14 | 5.72 ± 0.39 | 38.27 ± 4.03 | 8.14 ± 3.46 | 21.27 |
| CaO | 5.71 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 9.92 ± 1.01 | 40.69 ± 0.88 | 11.96 ± 4.46 | 29.38 |
| AlCl3 | 3.89 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 7.05 ± 0.12 | 50.09 ± 3.64 | 23.58 ± 4.79 | 47.08 |
| C6H8O7 | 4.18 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 9.21 ± 0.08 | 41.01 ± 0.48 | 20.03 ± 2.56 | 48.84 |
| Na3C6H5O7·2H2O | 4.48 | 0.24 ± 0.00 | 5.87 ± 0.08 | 39.52 ± 1.96 | 16.13 ± 0.79 | 40.81 |
Fig. 2Correlation fitting curve between final broth pH and lactonic SL (a) or Lac SL/tot SL ratio (b)
Microorganisms, culture conditions, and SL production in non-glucose medium reported in previous references
| Microorganism | Hydrophilic C source (g/L) | Hydrophobic C source (g/L) | N source (g/L) | Culture | T (°C)/t (h) | Yield (g/L) | Country | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Fructose (20) | – | YE (10.0) | CF | 30/72 | 4.10 | Germany | Göbbert et al. ( |
| Mannose (20) | 4.90 | |||||||
| Saccharose (20) | 3.20 | |||||||
| Maltose (20) | 2.00 | |||||||
| Raffinose (20) | 4.10 | |||||||
|
| Sucrose (100) | Sunflower oil | YE (2.5) | CF | 30/144 | 33.00 | Czechoslovakia | Klekner et al. ( |
| YE (5.0) | 9.00 | |||||||
| YE (10.0) | 13.00 | |||||||
| YE (20.0) | 17.00 | |||||||
|
| Lactose (100) | Olive oil | YE (2.5–3.0) | b | 30/192 | 46.46 | Canada | Zhou and Kosaric ( |
| Galactose (100) | Olive oil | 24.41 | ||||||
| Sucrose (100) | Safflower oil | 58.32 | ||||||
|
| Lactose (100) | Canola oil | YE (4.0) | CF | 30/192 | 90–110 | Canada | Zhou and Kosaric ( |
|
| Deproteinized whey concentrate [lactose (100)] | Rapeseed oil | YE (4.0) | F-b | 26/168 | 280.00 | Germany | Daniel et al. ( |
|
| Deproteinized cheese whey concentrate [lactose (110)] | SCO & rapeseed oil | – | F-b | 30/410 | 422.00 | Germany | Daniel et al. ( |
|
| Soy molasses [333 + 667, total sugar (300)] | Oleic acid | YE (2.5) | F-b | 26/168 | 21.00 | USA | Solaiman et al. ( |
|
| Honey (100) | Turkish corn oil | YE (10.0) | F-b | 25/436 | >400 | Turkey | Pekin et al. ( |
|
| Biodiesel co-product stream (100 + 100) | – | YE (10.0) | b | 26/168 | 60.00 | USA | Ashby et al. ( |
|
| Glycerol (100) | Methyl-soyate | YE (10.0) | F-b | 27/168 | 46.00 | USA | Ashby et al. ( |
| ethyl-soyate | 42.00 | |||||||
| propyl-soyate | 18.00 | |||||||
|
| Soy molasses [333 + 667, total sugar (300)] | Oleic acid | YE (10.0) | F-b | 26/168 | 75.00 | USA | Solaiman et al. ( |
|
| Sugarcane molasses (100) | Soybean oil | – | b | 30/120 | 23.25 | India | Daverey and Pakshirajan ( |
|
| Deproteinized whey (90) & glu (10) | Oleic acid | YE (2.0) | b | 30/192 | 23.29 | India | Daverey and Pakshirajan ( |
| CF | 25.54 | |||||||
|
| Sugarcane molasses (50) | Synthetic dairy wastewater & soybean oil | – | b | 30/192 | 38.76 | India | Daverey et al. ( |
|
| Sugarcane molasses [total sugar (150)] | – | – | F-b | 25/120 | 14.40 | Japan | Takahashi et al. ( |
|
| Sweetwater [glycerol (150)] | Sunflower oil | YE (4.0) | CF | 30/200 | 6.60 | India | Wadekar et al. ( |
|
| Delignined corncob residue hydrolysate [glu (60)] | Single cell oil | YE (3.0) | CF | 30/168 | 42.06 | China | Ma et al. ( |
|
| Sweet sorghum bagasse hydrolysate [glu (100)] | Soybean oil | YE (10.0) | CF | 25/240 | 84.60 | USA | Samad et al. ( |
| corn fiber hydrolysate [glu (100)] | 15.60 | |||||||
|
| Glycerol 150 | Castor oil | – | CF | 30/200 | 2.70 | India | Bhangale et al. ( |
|
| Corncob hydrolysate [glu (45)] | Olive oil | YE (1.0) | CF | 25/168 | 43.80 | Japan | Konishi et al. ( |
|
| Rice straw holocellulose hydrolysate [glu (60)] | Oleic acid | YE (3.0) | CF | 30/168 | 53.70 | China | Present study |
T temperature, t time, F-b fed-batch, b batch, CF continuous fermentor, YE yeast extract, glu glucose