| Literature DB >> 28223971 |
Darne G Almeida1, Rita de Cássia F Soares da Silva1, Juliana M Luna2, Raquel D Rufino2, Valdemir A Santos2, Leonie A Sarubbo3.
Abstract
Biosurfactant production optimization by Candida tropicalis UCP0996 was studied combining central composite rotational design (CCRD) and response surface methodology (RSM). The factors selected for optimization of the culture conditions were sugarcane molasses, corn steep liquor, waste frying oil concentrations and inoculum size. The response variables were surface tension and biosurfactant yield. All factors studied were important within the ranges investigated. The two empirical forecast models developed through RSM were found to be adequate for describing biosurfactant production with regard to surface tension (R2 = 0.99833) and biosurfactant yield (R2 = 0.98927) and a very strong, negative, linear correlation was found between the two response variables studied (r = -0.95). The maximum reduction in surface tension and the highest biosurfactant yield were 29.98 mNm-1 and 4.19 gL-1, respectively, which were simultaneously obtained under the optimum conditions of 2.5% waste frying oil, 2.5%, corn steep liquor, 2.5% molasses, and 2% inoculum size. To validate the efficiency of the statistically optimized variables, biosurfactant production was also carried out in 2 and 50 L bioreactors, with yields of 5.87 and 7.36 gL-1, respectively. Finally, the biosurfactant was applied in motor oil dispersion, reaching up to 75% dispersion. Results demonstrated that the CCRD was suitable for identifying the optimum production conditions and that the new biosurfactant is a promising dispersant for application in the oil industry.Entities:
Keywords: Candida tropicalis; biosurfactant; oil dispersion; optimization; scale up
Year: 2017 PMID: 28223971 PMCID: PMC5293750 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Experimental ranges and levels of independent variables for central composite rotational design used in optimization of biosurfactant production by .
| Sugarcane molasses (%), | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 |
| Corn steep liquor (%), | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 |
| Waste frying oil (%), | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 |
| Inoculum size (%), | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Experimental deign matrix for optimization of biosurfactant optimization produced by .
| 1 | −1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 29.98 | 4.19 |
| 2 | −1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 35.07 | 2.43 |
| 3 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 32.53 | 2.90 |
| 4 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 34.20 | 2.63 |
| 5 | −1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 30.66 | 3.21 |
| 6 | −1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 34.28 | 2.33 |
| 7 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 31.49 | 3.03 |
| 8 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 31.23 | 3.06 |
| 9 | 1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 31.76 | 3.05 |
| 10 | 1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 36.76 | 1.55 |
| 11 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 34.63 | 2.44 |
| 12 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 35.31 | 2.31 |
| 13 | 1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | 32.35 | 2.88 |
| 14 | 1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 1.0 | 35.87 | 1.68 |
| 15 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | −1.0 | 33.04 | 2.70 |
| 16 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 32.66 | 2.95 |
| 17 | −2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.12 | 3.13 |
| 18 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.35 | 2.10 |
| 19 | 0.0 | −2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.86 | 2.77 |
| 20 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.96 | 2.89 |
| 21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −2.0 | 0.0 | 32.95 | 2.76 |
| 22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 32.28 | 2.90 |
| 23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −2.0 | 31.16 | 3.18 |
| 24 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 35.84 | 1.84 |
| 25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.10 | 3.42 |
| 26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.12 | 3.44 |
| 27 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.13 | 3.39 |
| 28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.14 | 3.40 |
| 29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.09 | 3.38 |
| 30 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.11 | 3.41 |
Mean and standard deviation for replicate experiments at the central point for: Surface tension, 30.12 ± 0.02 mNm.
Analysis of variance for response surface quadratic model regarding surface tension achieved with biosurfactant produced by .
| 15.6817 | 1 | 15.68167 | 44804.76 | 0.000000 | |
| 22.8699 | 1 | 22.86987 | 65342.48 | 0.000000 | |
| 6.4688 | 1 | 6.46882 | 18482.33 | 0.000000 | |
| 13.7053 | 1 | 13.70530 | 39157.99 | 0.000000 | |
| 0.3700 | 1 | 0.37002 | 1057.19 | 0.000001 | |
| 10.9947 | 1 | 10.99467 | 31413.34 | 0.000000 | |
| 33.3704 | 1 | 33.37042 | 95344.05 | 0.000000 | |
| 20.0217 | 1 | 20.02167 | 57204.77 | 0.000000 | |
| 0.0110 | 1 | 0.01103 | 31.50 | 0.002484 | |
| 0.0196 | 1 | 0.01960 | 56.00 | 0.000673 | |
| 0.1056 | 1 | 0.10563 | 301.79 | 0.000012 | |
| 3.8416 | 1 | 3.84160 | 10976.00 | 0.000000 | |
| 2.2052 | 1 | 2.20523 | 6300.64 | 0.000000 | |
| 15.0544 | 1 | 15.05440 | 43012.57 | 0.000000 | |
| Lack of Fit | 0.2074 | 10 | 0.02074 | 59.25 | 0.000147 |
| Pure Error | 0.0018 | 5 | 0.00035 | – | – |
| Total square sum | 125.2933 | 29 | – | – | – |
R.
p ≤ 0.05–significant at 5% level.
(L), linear effect.
(Q), quadratic effect.
Figure 1Plot of predicted vs. actual surface tension achieved using biosurfactant produced by .
Figure 2Response surface plots and contour plots for minimum surface tension generated using data in Table . Inputs, 30 experimental runs carried out under conditions established by CCRD; reduction in surface tension as function of (A) sugarcane molasses and corn steep liquor; (B) sugarcane molasses and waste frying oil; (C) sugarcane molasses and inoculum size; (D) corn steep liquor and waste frying oil; (E) corn steep liquor and inoculum size; (F) waste frying oil and inoculum size.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for response surface quadratic model of biosurfactant yield by .
| 1.643267 | 1 | 1.643267 | 3521.286 | 0.000000 | |
| 1.051905 | 1 | 1.051905 | 2254.082 | 0.000000 | |
| 0.014017 | 1 | 0.014017 | 30.036 | 0.002758 | |
| 0.553719 | 1 | 0.553719 | 1186.541 | 0.000000 | |
| 0.040017 | 1 | 0.040017 | 85.750 | 0.000247 | |
| 0.553719 | 1 | 0.553719 | 1186.541 | 0.000000 | |
| 2.760817 | 1 | 2.760817 | 5916.036 | 0.000000 | |
| 1.352805 | 1 | 1.352805 | 2898.867 | 0.000000 | |
| 0.119025 | 1 | 0.119025 | 255.054 | 0.000018 | |
| 0.198025 | 1 | 0.198025 | 424.339 | 0.000005 | |
| 0.005625 | 1 | 0.005625 | 12.054 | 0.017814 | |
| 0.416025 | 1 | 0.416025 | 891.482 | 0.000001 | |
| 0.216225 | 1 | 0.216225 | 463.339 | 0.000004 | |
| 1.703025 | 1 | 1.703025 | 3649.339 | 0.000000 | |
| Lack of Fit | 0.102192 | 10 | 0.010219 | 21.898 | 0.001638 |
| Pure Error | 0.002333 | 5 | 0.000467 | – | – |
| Total square sum | 9.740750 | 29 | – | – | – |
R.
p ≤ 0.05–significant at 5% level.
(L), linear effect.
(Q), quadratic effect.
Figure 3Predicted vs. actual biosurfactant yield by .
Figure 43D response surface curve of interaction of sugarcane molasses and corn steep liquor (A), sugarcane molasses and waste frying oil (B), sugarcane molasses and inoculum size (C), corn steep liquor and waste frying oil (D), corn steep liquor and inoculum size (E), and waste frying oil and inoculum size (F) on biosurfactant yield.
Figure 5Comparative parity plot of surface tension (.
Surface tension and biosurfactant yield evaluation of the biosurfactant from .
| 2-L bioreactor | 5.87 ± 0.21 | 34.12 ± 0.07 |
| 50-L bioreactor | 7.36 ± 0.34 | 35.6 ± 0.05 |
Results are expressed as means ± standard deviations of values obtained from triplicate experiments.
Evaluation of the biosurfactant from .
| 1/1 | C (50%) | 1/1 | B (75%) |
| 1/2 | C (50%) | 1/2 | C (50%) |
| 1/4 | D (25%) | 1/4 | D (50%) |
| 1/8 | D (25%) | 1/8 | D (25%) |
| 1/16 | D (25%) | 1/16 | D (25%) |
| 1/20 | E | 1/2 | E |