| Literature DB >> 28324414 |
Sethuraman Padmanaban1, Nagarajan Balaji1, Chandrasekaran Muthukumaran2, Krishnamurthi Tamilarasan3,4.
Abstract
Statistical experimental designs were applied to optimize the fermentation medium for exopolysaccharide (EPS) production. Plackett-Burman design was applied to identify the significance of seven medium variables, in which sweet potato and yeast extract were found to be the significant variables for EPS production. Central composite design was applied to evaluate the optimum condition of the selected variables. Maximum EPS production of 9.3 g/L was obtained with the predicted optimal level of sweet potato 10 %, yeast extract 0.75 %, 5.5 pH, and time 100 h. The determined (R 2) value was 0.97, indicating a good fitted model for EPS production. Results of this study showed that sweet potato can be utilized as a low-cost effective substrate for pullulan production in submerged fermentation.Entities:
Keywords: Central composite design; Exopolysaccharide; Response surface methodology; Sweet potato
Year: 2015 PMID: 28324414 PMCID: PMC4624145 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-015-0308-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Plackett–Burman experimental design for screening of media components for EPS production
| Std. order | Media components, (w/v) (%) | EPS (g/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | ||
| 1 | 15 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 7.2 |
| 2 | 15 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 7.5 |
| 3 | 5 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 4.0 |
| 4 | 15 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 6.8 |
| 5 | 15 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 8.0 |
| 6 | 15 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 9.0 |
| 7 | 5 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 4.0 |
| 8 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 2.0 |
| 9 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 3.0 |
| 10 | 15 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 6.8 |
| 11 | 5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 4.5 |
| 12 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.0 |
Statistical analysis of Plackett–Burman design on EPS production
| Variables | Lower level (−1) | Higher level (+1) | Main effect |
|
| Confidence level (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweet potato, (X1) | 5 | 15 | 4.13 | 16.35 | <0.001 | 99.9 |
| Yeast extract, (X2) | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.36 | 5.41 | 0.006 | 99.4 |
| NH4SO4, (X3) | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.901 | 09.9 |
| NaNO3, (X4) | 0.3 | 0.6 | −0.53 | −2.11 | 0.102 | 89.8 |
| NaCl, (X5) | 0.1 | 0.3 | −0.03 | −0.13 | 0.901 | 09.9 |
| KH2PO4, (X6) | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.40 | 1.58 | 0.189 | 81.1 |
| MgSO4, (X7) | 0.1 | 0.3 | −0.13 | −0.53 | 0.626 | 37.4 |
Fig. 1Pareto plot for Plackett–Burman parameter estimates for seven medium components. A Sweet potato, B yeast extract, C NH4SO4, D NaNO3, E NaCl, F KH2PO4, and G MgSO4
CCD matrix of independent variables used in RSM with corresponding experimental and predicted values of EPS production
| Std. order | A | B | C | D | EPS (g/L) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | |||||
| 1 | 5 | 0.50 | 4.5 | 80 | 5.2 | 4.8 |
| 2 | 15 | 0.50 | 4.5 | 80 | 7.0 | 7.1 |
| 3 | 5 | 1.00 | 4.5 | 80 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| 4 | 15 | 1.00 | 4.5 | 80 | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| 5 | 5 | 0.50 | 6.5 | 80 | 3.5 | 3.9 |
| 6 | 15 | 0.50 | 6.5 | 80 | 8.2 | 8.0 |
| 7 | 5 | 1.00 | 6.5 | 80 | 3.5 | 3.7 |
| 8 | 15 | 1.00 | 6.5 | 80 | 8.3 | 8.1 |
| 9 | 5 | 0.50 | 4.5 | 120 | 3.0 | 3.4 |
| 10 | 15 | 0.50 | 4.5 | 120 | 5.0 | 4.8 |
| 11 | 5 | 1.00 | 4.5 | 120 | 5.1 | 5.2 |
| 12 | 15 | 1.00 | 4.5 | 120 | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| 13 | 5 | 0.50 | 6.5 | 120 | 3.8 | 3.9 |
| 14 | 15 | 0.50 | 6.5 | 120 | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| 15 | 5 | 1.00 | 6.5 | 120 | 5.4 | 5.6 |
| 16 | 15 | 1.00 | 6.5 | 120 | 8.8 | 9.1 |
| 17 | 0 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 3.2 | 2.6 |
| 18 | 20 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 7.9 | 8.4 |
| 19 | 10 | 0.25 | 5.5 | 100 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| 20 | 10 | 1.25 | 5.5 | 100 | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| 21 | 10 | 0.75 | 3.5 | 100 | 4.8 | 4.9 |
| 22 | 10 | 0.75 | 7.5 | 100 | 6.4 | 6.2 |
| 23 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 60 | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| 24 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 140 | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| 25 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 9.1 | 8.9 |
| 26 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 8.9 | 8.9 |
| 27 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 8.8 | 8.9 |
| 28 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 8.2 | 8.9 |
| 29 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 9.3 | 8.9 |
| 30 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 8.9 | 8.9 |
| 31 | 10 | 0.75 | 5.5 | 100 | 9.0 | 8.9 |
Analysis of variance of second-order Polynomial model for effect of variable on EPS production
| Sources | Coefficient | DF | SS | MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 8.88 |
|
|
|
| < |
|
|
|
|
|
| < | |
| A:Sweet potato | 1.45 | 1 | 50.460 | 50.4600 | 310.59 | <0.001* |
| B:Yeast extract | 0.46 | 1 | 5.227 | 5.2267 | 32.17 | <0.001* |
| C:pH | 0.32 | 1 | 2.535 | 2.5350 | 15.60 | 0.001* |
| D:Time | −0.1 | 1 | 0.240 | 0.2400 | 1.48 | 0.242 |
|
|
|
|
|
| < | |
| Sweet potato*sweet potato | −0.85 | 1 | 21.097 | 21.0967 | 129.86 | <0.001* |
| Yeast extract*Yeast extract | −0.73 | 1 | 15.403 | 15.4031 | 94.81 | <0.001* |
| pH*pH | −0.84 | 1 | 20.487 | 20.4872 | 126.10 | <0.001* |
| Time*time | −0.59 | 1 | 10.172 | 10.1723 | 62.61 | <0.001* |
|
|
|
|
|
| < | |
| Sweet potato*yeast extract | 0.1 | 1 | 0.160 | 0.1600 | 0.98 | 0.336 |
| Sweet potato*pH | 0.45 | 1 | 3.240 | 3.2400 | 19.94 | <0.001* |
| Sweet potato*time | −0.24 | 1 | 0.902 | 0.9025 | 5.56 | 0.032* |
| Yeast extract*pH | −0.02 | 1 | 0.010 | 0.0100 | 0.06 | 0.807 |
| Yeast extract*time | 0.48 | 1 | 3.802 | 3.8025 | 23.41 | <0.001* |
| pH*time | 0.33 | 1 | 1.823 | 1.8225 | 11.22 | 0.004* |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Lack-of-fit | 10 | 1.891 | 0.1891 | 1.60 | 0.292 | |
| Pure error | 6 | 0.709 | 0.1181 | |||
| Total | 30 | 122.371 | ||||
|
| 0.97 | |||||
|
| 0.96 |
* Significant model terms (p < 0.005)
Fig. 2Contour plots showing the combined effect of the medium variables (sweet potato, yeast extract, pH, and time) on EPS production by Aureobasidium pullulans