| Literature DB >> 28626652 |
Zulfiqar Ali Raza1, Naseer Ahmad1,2, Shahid Kamal2.
Abstract
The present paper envisages the multi-response optimization of certain process parameters like total sugars concentration, C/N ratio and incubation time on rhamnolipid yield, surface tension reduction, biomass formation and substrate utilization, in rhamnolipid production by a Pseudomonas aeruginosa mutant strain grown on clarified blackstrap molasses, under L9 orthogonal array in Taguchi design. The results have been analyzed by using grey relational analysis for the identification of an optimum level of process parameters. The validity of the results was checked though confirmation experiment, under grey relational analysis. Subsequently, the rhamnolipid yield improved from 1.45 to 1.50 g/L, substrate utilization reduced from 26 to 14% (w/v) and lesser biomass was formed. Moreover, the volumetric productivity of the process improved from 0.0086 to 0.0208 g/L/h by 142%. Furthermore, using analysis of variance method, significant contributions of process parameters were determined.Entities:
Keywords: Biosurfactant; Grey relational analysis; Taguchi method
Year: 2014 PMID: 28626652 PMCID: PMC5466101 DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2014.06.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Rep (Amst) ISSN: 2215-017X
Factors and levels.
| Factor | Code | Unit | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
| TS | A | % (w/v) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| C/N ratio | B | – | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| Incubation time | C | days | 3 | 5 | 7 |
L9 Orthogonal array with factors and responses.
| Run | TS | C/N ratio | Incubation time | Utilized TS | DCBM | RL | ST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (w/v) | – | (days) | % (w/v) | (g/L) | (g/L) | (mN/m) | (g/g) | (g/g) | (g/g) | (g/L/h) | |
| 1 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 24 | 0.65 | 0.80 | 32.0 | 3.33 | 1.23 | 2.71 | 0.0111 |
| 2 | 1 | 20 | 5 | 39 | 1.11 | 0.90 | 31.0 | 2.31 | 0.81 | 2.85 | 0.0075 |
| 3 | 1 | 30 | 7 | 47 | 1.10 | 0.88 | 31.0 | 1.87 | 0.80 | 2.34 | 0.0052 |
| 4 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 19 | 1.30 | 1.00 | 30.0 | 2.63 | 0.77 | 3.42 | 0.0083 |
| 5 | 2 | 20 | 7 | 26 | 1.50 | 1.45 | 28.0 | 2.79 | 0.97 | 2.88 | 0.0086 |
| 6 | 2 | 30 | 3 | 13 | 1.20 | 1.20 | 29.0 | 4.62 | 1.00 | 4.61 | 0.0167 |
| 7 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 19 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 31.0 | 1.67 | 1.12 | 1.49 | 0.0056 |
| 8 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 10 | 1.21 | 0.90 | 29.5 | 3.00 | 0.74 | 4.03 | 0.0125 |
| 9 | 3 | 30 | 5 | 15 | 1.00 | 1.04 | 30.0 | 2.31 | 1.04 | 2.22 | 0.0087 |
Fig. 1Cause and effect diagram for rhamnolipid production.
Fig. 2Plots of normal probability (a), and standard residuals versus fitted values (b) for RL.
Fig. 3Factor effects on (a) utilized TS, (b) DCBM, (c) RL, (d) ST, (e) YP/S, (f) YP/X, (g) YX/S and (h) PV.
S/N ratio values at all runs.
| Run | Utilized TS | DCBM | RL | ST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −27.604 | 3.742 | −1.938 | −30.103 | 10.449 | 1.805 | −8.659 | −39.094 |
| 2 | −31.821 | −0.906 | −0.915 | −29.827 | 7.272 | 1.820 | −9.097 | −42.499 |
| 3 | −33.44 | −0.828 | −1.110 | −29.827 | 5.437 | 1.938 | −7.384 | −45.680 |
| 4 | −25.575 | −2.279 | 0.000 | −29.542 | 8.399 | 2.282 | −10.680 | −41.618 |
| 5 | −28.300 | −3.522 | 3.227 | −28.943 | 8.912 | 0.292 | −9.188 | −41.310 |
| 6 | −22.279 | −1.584 | 1.584 | −29.248 | 13.293 | 0.000 | −13.274 | −35.546 |
| 7 | −25.575 | 1.412 | −0.446 | −29.827 | 4.454 | −0.969 | −3.464 | −45.0362 |
| 8 | −20.000 | −1.656 | −0.915 | −29.396 | 9.542 | 2.568 | −12.106 | −38.062 |
| 9 | −23.522 | 0.000 | 0.341 | −29.542 | 7.272 | −0.341 | −6.927 | −41.210 |
Normalized S/N ratio values at all runs.
| Run | Utilized TS | DCBM | RL | ST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.566 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.678 | 0.784 | 0.530 | 0.650 |
| 2 | 0.879 | 0.640 | 0.1980 | 0.762 | 0.319 | 0.788 | 0.574 | 0.314 |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.629 | 0.1603 | 0.762 | 0.111 | 0.822 | 0.400 | 0.000 |
| 4 | 0.415 | 0.829 | 0.375 | 0.517 | 0.446 | 0.919 | 0.736 | 0.401 |
| 5 | 0.617 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.504 | 0.356 | 0.583 | 0.431 |
| 6 | 0.1170 | 0.733 | 0.682 | 0.263 | 1.000 | 0.274 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 7 | 0.415 | 0.321 | 0.289 | 0.762 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.064 |
| 8 | 0.000 | 0.743 | 0.198 | 0.391 | 0.576 | 1.000 | 0.881 | 0.752 |
| 9 | 0.262 | 0.515 | 0.441 | 0.517 | 0.319 | 0.178 | 0.353 | 0.441 |
Quality loss function values at all runs.
| Run | ΔutilizedTS | ΔDCBM | ΔRL | ΔST | Δ. | Δ. | Δ. | Δ. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.434 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.322 | 0.216 | 0.470 | 0.350 |
| 2 | 0.1206 | 0.360 | 0.802 | 0.238 | 0.681 | 0.212 | 0.426 | 0.686 |
| 3 | 0.000 | 0.371 | 0.840 | 0.238 | 0.889 | 0.178 | 0.600 | 1.000 |
| 4 | 0.585 | 0.171 | 0.625 | 0.483 | 0.554 | 0.0812 | 0.264 | 0.599 |
| 5 | 0.383 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.496 | 0.644 | 0.416 | 0.569 |
| 6 | 0.830 | 0.267 | 0.318 | 0.737 | 0.000 | 0.726 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 7 | 0.585 | 0.679 | 0.711 | 0.238 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.936 |
| 8 | 1.000 | 0.257 | 0.802 | 0.609 | 0.424 | 0.000 | 0.119 | 0.248 |
| 9 | 0.738 | 0.485 | 0.559 | 0.483 | 0.681 | 0.822 | 0.647 | 0.559 |
Grey relational co-efficient and grey grade values at all runs.
| Run | GCutilizedTS | GCDCBM | GCRL | GCST | GC. | GC. | GC. | GC. | G | Grey relational order |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.697 | 0.5 | 0.5.00 | 1.000 | 0.757 | 0.822 | 0.680 | 0.741 | 0.712 | 6 |
| 2 | 0.892 | 0.735 | 0.555 | 0.808 | 0.595 | 0.825 | 0.701 | 0.593 | 0.713 | 5 |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.729 | 0.544 | 0.808 | 0.529 | 0.849 | 0.625 | 0.500 | 0.698 | 7 |
| 4 | 0.631 | 0.854 | 0.615 | 0.674 | 0.644 | 0.925 | 0.791 | 0.625 | 0.720 | 4 |
| 5 | 0.723 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.500 | 0.669 | 0.608 | 0.706 | 0.637 | 0.730 | 3 |
| 6 | 0.546 | 0.789 | 0.759 | 0.576 | 1.000 | 0.579 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.781 | 1 |
| 7 | 0.631 | 0.596 | 0.584 | 0.808 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.516 | 0.580 | 9 |
| 8 | 0.500 | 0.796 | 0.555 | 0.621 | 0.702086 | 1.000 | 0.894 | 0.801 | 0.734 | 2 |
| 9 | 0.575 | 0.673 | 0.642 | 0.674 | 0.594821 | 0.549 | 0.607 | 0.641 | 0.620 | 8 |
Main effects on grey grades.
| Factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | Max − Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.708 | 0.644 | 0.100 | |
| B | 0.670 | 0.700 | 0.056 | |
| C | 0.684 | 0.669 | 0.073 |
Fig. 4Factors effects on grade values.
Comparison of Taguchi method and grey relational analysis results.
| Response | Taguchi method (at A2B2C3) | Great relational analysis (at A2B2C1) | Variation rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilized TS | 26.0 | 14.00 | −46 |
| DCBM | 1.50 | 1.00 | −33 |
| RL | 1.45 | 1.50 | 3 |
| ST | 28.00 | 28.00 | 0 |
| 2.79 | 5.36 | 92 | |
| 0.97 | 1.50 | 55 | |
| 2.88 | 3.57 | 24 | |
| 0.0086 | 0.0208 | 142 |
Table of ANOVA.
| Factor | SS | Df | MS | % Contribution | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.0153 | 2 | 0.0076 | 9.71 | 50.30 |
| B | 0.0046 | 2 | 0.0023 | 2.91 | 15.10 |
| C | 0.0089 | 2 | 0.0045 | 5.67 | 29.41 |
| Error | 0.0016 | 2 | 0.0008 | 5.18 | |
| Total | 0.0304 | 8 |
Fig. 5Percentage contribution of factors in the grey relational grade.