| Literature DB >> 27568226 |
Xin-Ge Liu1, Xiao-Jing Ma1, Ri-Sheng Yao2, Chun-Yu Pan1, Hua-Bing He3.
Abstract
A novel lignocellulose material, holocellulose from rice straw via the pretreatment of SO3 micro-thermal explosion, was developed to produce sophorolipids (SLs) with Wickerhamiella domercqiae var. sophorolipid CGMCC 1576. The influence factors of inoculum dose, yeast extract concentration and pH regulators (chemical regents used for adjusting/influencing pH) was investigated and discussed. Results showed that W. domercqiae can grow in the rice straw holocellulose hydrolysate, and acquire relative high SL yield of 53.70 ± 2.61 g/L in shake flask culture. Inoculum dose, yeast extract concentration and pH regulator made obvious influence on fermentation parameters, especially on final broth pH and SLs production. Furthermore, there is a strong negative linear correlation existing between final broth pH and lactonic SL or ratio of lac SL/tot SL. Additionally, comparison between SL production and non-glucose carbon sources, culture methods, microbes in previous reports was carried out. These results will be benefit for acquiring SL mixture with suitable lac SL/tot SL ratio for specific purpose and scope economically.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