| Literature DB >> 27681895 |
Zuhaida Mohd-Zaki1, Juan R Bastidas-Oyanedel2, Yang Lu3, Robert Hoelzle4, Steven Pratt5, Fran R Slater6, Damien J Batstone7.
Abstract
Mixed culture anaerobic fermentation generates a wide range of products from simple sugars, and is potentially an effective process for producing renewable commodity chemicals. However it is difficult to predict product spectrum, and to control the process. One of the key control handles is pH, but the response is commonly dependent on culture history. In this work, we assess the impact of pH regulation mode on the product spectrum. Two regulation modes were applied: in the first, pH was adjusted from 4.5 to 8.5 in progressive steps of 0.5 and in the second, covered the same pH range, but the pH was reset to 5.5 before each change. Acetate, butyrate, and ethanol were produced throughout all pH ranges, but there was a shift from butyrate at pH < 6.5 to ethanol at pH > 6.5, as well as a strong and consistent shift from hydrogen to formate as pH increased. Microbial analysis indicated that progressive pH resulted in dominance by Klebsiella, while reset pH resulted in a bias towards Clostridium spp., particularly at low pH, with higher variance in community between different pH levels. Reset pH was more responsive to changes in pH, and analysis of Gibbs free energy indicated that the reset pH experiments operated closer to thermodynamic equilibrium, particularly with respect to the formate/hydrogen balance. This may indicate that periodically resetting pH conforms better to thermodynamic expectations.Entities:
Keywords: fermentation; glucose; mixed culture; pH control; pH regulation method
Year: 2016 PMID: 27681895 PMCID: PMC5029507 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms4010002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1Schematic diagram of reactor set-up.
Figure 2Influence of different pH regulation approach to product spectrums of glucose (in % produce) fermentation in progressive pH approach (top) and reset pH approach (bottom). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals based on two-tailed t-tests (n = 5).
Figure 3Influence of pH regulation approach on relative acetate:butyrate, ethanol:butyrate, and ethanol:acetate ratios for reset pH approach (grey square) and progressive pH approach (dark diamond) (Note: logarithmic scale).
Figure 4Influence of pH regulation approach on the hydrogen and formate produced as a function of pH in progressive pH approach (top) and reset pH approach (bottom). Ratio of H2 to total H2 and formate is indicated as dark diamond and ratio of formate to total of H2 and formate is indicated as grey square.
Figure 5Species affiliated T-RFs (16S rRNA gene target) proportional area for progressive pH approach (top) and reset pH approach (bottom) at each pH point. Bars are split based on Klebsiella (top) and Clostridium and unknown (bottom) prominence. Klebsiella was identified as K. rennanqilfy, Clostridium A was identified as C. thermocellum, Clostridium B was identified as C. botulinum and intestinale, and Clostridium C was identified as C. pasteurianum.
Figure 6Gibbs free energy (kJ/mole) for the reaction CO2 + H2 ↔ HCOOH of reset pH approach (grey square) and progressive pH approach (dark diamond). Equation ΔG’ = ΔG° + RT ln Q, where ΔG° = ΔH° − ΔS° is used for calculation.