| Literature DB >> 27854078 |
J Satya Eswari1, Kannekanti Kavya2.
Abstract
Rhamnolipids are bio surfactants which are extra-cellular glycolipids composed of L-rhamnose and 3-hydroxyalkanoics. Rhamnolipids are produced through fermentation process by using Pseudomonas sp. as the species. An alteration to the traditional procedures in order to achieve increase in the production of biosurfactants, a numerous process technologies have been adopted in fed batch mode. Fed batch mode facilitates the high production of product by avoiding the substrate or product inhibition line of attack. To overcome the controlling parameters which reduce the product yield, optimal control profiles are designed. In order to develop viable control methods for fed-batch fermentation of Rhamnolipid production, multiple substrate feeding strategies were employed and their efficiencies were compared with different substrates concentration of glucose, nitrogen and phosphorous. The product formation depends upon the substrate feeding strategy and so, the fed-batch fermentation was carried out by using P. aeruginosa providing substrates at manifold rates. With the obtained experimental data, using the kinetic models (logistic equation and by Luedeking Piret), the kinetic parameters were estimated. These kinetic parameters were implemented in tabu search algorithm and this programme was executed in Dev-C++, optimal control profiles were generated as a result. These obtained optimal control profiles have shown an increase in productivity of rhamnolipid with a decline in computational time. Through this procedure, the optimal control profiles of substrate feeding strategies of glucose, nitrogen and phosphorous were estimated. In comparison with other algorithms like genetic algorithm, Tabu Search algorithm was able to generate an accurate optimal control profiles with a reduction in their intricacy.Entities:
Keywords: Genetic algorithms; Kinetic constants; Optimal control profile; Rhamnolipid; Tabu search
Year: 2016 PMID: 27854078 PMCID: PMC5112228 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-016-0279-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Batch and fed batch kinetic equations
|
| Equation (1) |
|
| Equation (2) |
|
| Equation (3) |
|
| Equation (4) |
|
| Equation (5) |
|
| Equation (6) |
|
| Equation (7) |
|
| Equation (8) |
|
| Equation (9) |
|
| Equation (10) |
|
| Equation (11) |
|
| Equation (12) |
Fig. 1X-axis represents time interval, Y-axis represents substrates (S1,S2,S3) and rhamnolipid (P)
Fig. 2Tabu search algorithm
Batch kinetic constants
| Alpha ( | Beta ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Glucose | 0.6111 | 0.0002 |
| Nitrogen | 0.0112 | −0.000003 |
| Phosphorous | 0.1765 | −0.000005 |
| Rhamnolipid | 0.3091 | −0.000009 |
Fed batch kinetic constants and Tabu search parameters
| Constant feeding rate | Exponential feeding rate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | Nitrogen | Phosphorous | Glucose | Nitrogen | Phosphorous | |
| Umax | 0.0258 | 0.1283 | 0.01161 | 0.1366 | 0.123 | 0.12 |
| l1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| h1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| F | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Ki | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Si | 0.29 | 0.071 | 0.1104 | 0.07 | 0.009 | 0.0558 |
| Sgf | 0.41 | 1.56 | 1.5 | 0.87 | 1.48 | 1.42 |
| Snf | 0.1196 | 0.0495 | 0.2779 | 0.0109 | 0.0393 | 0.3184 |
| Spf | 0.0755 | 0.0567 | 0.2987 | 0.1099 | 0.0453 | 0.0326 |
| Alpha ( | 0.824 | 0.633 | 0.966 | 0.07512 | 0.0078 | 0.891 |
| Beta ( | 1 | 0.699 | 2.59 | 5.0972 | 0.4246 | 0.282 |
| Gamma ( | 0.85 | −12.725 | 2.4 | 0.6763 | 13.298 | −3.177 |
| eta ( | 0.45 | −7.5772 | 1.3 | 2.5618 | 9.9924 | −0.999 |
| Ks | 0.387 | 5.0972 | 1.28 | 0.683 | 0.0106 | −0.00468 |
| Muf | 0.005 | 0.0086 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Y | 0.421 | 0.421 | 0.421 | 0.421 | 0.421 | 0.421 |
| Xf | 3.04 | 3.12 | 2.87 | 3.14 | 3.32 | 3.02 |
| Pf | 0.637 | 0.626 | 0.734 | 0.734 | 0.666 | 0.634 |
| Sf | 0.41 | 0.0495 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.393 | 0.0326 |
Kinetic model parameter substituted in equations
| Parameters | Serial no. | Models | Glucose (A) | Nitrogen (B) | Phosphorous (C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant feeding strategy (1) | 1 | Cell growth rate ( | 0.13 | 0.12830 | 0.1161 |
| 2 | Product formation rate ( | 0.824, 1 | 0.633, 0.699 | 0.966, 2.59 | |
| 3 | Substrate formation rate ( | 0.85, 0.45 | −12.725, −7.5772 | 2.4, 1.3 | |
| 4 | Yield coefficient of substrate (glucose) | −0.00948 | −0.005 | −0.00936 | |
| 5 | Yield coefficient of substrate (nitrogen) | −0.06502 | −0.00192 | −0.0032 | |
| 6 | Yield coefficient of substrate (phosphorous) | −0.05958 | −0.00193 | −0.003 | |
| 7 | Yield coefficient of product | −0.00936 | −0.30264 | −0.25359 | |
| Exponential feeding strategy (2) | 1 | Cell growth rate ( | 0.1366 | 0.133 | 0.12 |
| 2 | Product formation rate ( | 0.07512, 5.0972 | 0.0078, 0.4241 | 0.891, 0.282 | |
| 3 | Substrate formation rate ( | 0.6743, 2.548 | 13.298, 9.9924 | −3.177, −0.999 | |
| 4 | Yield coefficient of substrate (glucose) | −0.48396 | −0.00507 | −0.00488 | |
| 5 | Yield coefficient of substrate (nitrogen) | −0.06502 | −0.00192 | −0.0032 | |
| 6 | Yield coefficient of substrate (phosphorous) | −0.05958 | −0.00193 | −0.003 | |
| 7 | Yield coefficient of product | 0.114277 | −0.30264 | −0.25359 |
Fig. 3Batch kinetic constants and product constants graphically
Fig. 4Constant feeding strategy with respect to time
Fig. 5Exponential feeding strategy with respect to time
Fig. 6Optimal control profile for constant and exponential feeding strategy
Fig. 7Rhamnolipid production from Pseudomonas aeruginosa