| Literature DB >> 28783118 |
Mounira Kara Ali1, Nawel Outili2, Asma Ait Kaki3, Radia Cherfia4, Sara Benhassine5, Akila Benaissa6, Noreddine Kacem Chaouche7.
Abstract
This work aims to study the production of the biomass of S. cerevisiae on an optimized medium using date extract as the only carbon source in order to obtain a good yield of the biomass. The biomass production was carried out according to the central composite experimental design (CCD) as a response surface methodology using Minitab 16 software. Indeed, under optimal biomass production conditions, temperature (32.9 °C), pH (5.35) and the total reducing sugar extracted from dates (70.93 g/L), S. cerevisiae produced 40 g/L of their biomass in an Erlenmeyer after only 16 h of fermentation. The kinetic performance of the S. cerevisiae strain was investigated with three unstructured models i.e., Monod, Verhulst, and Tessier. The conformity of the experimental data fitted showed a good consistency with Monod and Tessier models with R² = 0.945 and 0.979, respectively. An excellent adequacy was noted in the case of the Verhulst model (R² = 0.981). The values of kinetic parameters (Ks, Xm, μm, p and q) calculated by the Excel software, confirmed that Monod and Verhulst were suitable models, in contrast, the Tessier model was inappropriately fitted with the experimental data due to the illogical value of Ks (-9.434). The profiles prediction of the biomass production with the Verhulst model, and that of the substrate consumption using Leudeking Piret model over time, demonstrated a good agreement between the simulation models and the experimental data.Entities:
Keywords: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; biomass; date extract; kinetic models; optimization; response surface methodology
Year: 2017 PMID: 28783118 PMCID: PMC5575639 DOI: 10.3390/foods6080064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Dates Mech-Degla.
Coded levels and real values of studied variables.
| −α | −1 | 0 | +1 | +α | |
| 27 | 29 | 33 | 37 | 39 | |
| 2.4 | 3.6 | 5.5 | 7.3 | 8.6 | |
| 1 | 44.1 | 107.5 | 170.9 | 214 | |
In the central composite design, the −1 and +1 correspond to the lower and the higher level, respectively. The value 0 represents the central value of the rangeand α has the value of 1.68 (α = ∜N, where N is a number of experiments).
The central composite experimental design (CCD) matrix for different variables (coded levels).
| Experiments | Coded Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | |
| 01 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
| 02 | +1 | −1 | −1 |
| 03 | −1 | +1 | −1 |
| 04 | +1 | +1 | −1 |
| 05 | −1 | −1 | +1 |
| 06 | +1 | −1 | +1 |
| 07 | −1 | +1 | +1 |
| 08 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| 09 | −1.68 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | +1.68 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 0 | −1.68 | 0 |
| 12 | 0 | +1.68 | 0 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | −1.68 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | +1.68 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The CCD matrix is composed of a complete factorial design, 23; two axial points on the axis of each design variable at a distance of α = 1.682 from the design center and 5 points at the domain center. The actual experimental values corresponding to the coded levels used for the creation of the experiment matrix are presented below (Table 3).
Unstructured kinetic models to determinate the kinetic parameters.
| Kinetic Models | Equations | Linearized Form | Description | Symbols |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monod | Monod kinetic model is a substrate concentration dependent. | |||
| Verhulst | Verhulst kinetic model is an unstructured model depends on biomass concentration. | |||
| Tessier |
| Tessier is an unstructured model for a substrate concentration dependent. |
The central composite design for biomass production.
| Experiments | Coded Levels | Real Values | ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | Initial pH | Concentration of Sugar (g/L) | Observed Mean Values * | Predicted | ||||
| 01 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 29 | 3.6 | 44.1 | 24.07 | 23.99 |
| 02 | +1 | −1 | −1 | 37 | 3.6 | 44.1 | 15.99 | 17.45 |
| 03 | −1 | +1 | −1 | 29 | 7.3 | 44.1 | 25.70 | 27.80 |
| 04 | +1 | +1 | −1 | 37 | 7.3 | 44.1 | 15.79 | 20.98 |
| 05 | −1 | −1 | +1 | 29 | 3.6 | 170.9 | 28.40 | 25.05 |
| 06 | +1 | −1 | +1 | 37 | 3.6 | 170.9 | 29.86 | 29.59 |
| 07 | −1 | +1 | +1 | 29 | 7.3 | 170.9 | 20.78 | 21.16 |
| 08 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 37 | 7.3 | 170.9 | 23.51 | 25.42 |
| 09 | −1.68 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 22.61 | 24.06 |
| 10 | +1.68 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 26.20 | 22.15 |
| 11 | 0 | −1.68 | 0 | 33 | 2.4 | 107.5 | 26.00 | 28.21 |
| 12 | 0 | +1.68 | 0 | 33 | 8.6 | 107.5 | 32.72 | 27.90 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | −1.68 | 33 | 5.5 | 1 | 25.37 | 21.09 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | +1.68 | 33 | 5.5 | 214 | 24.04 | 25.71 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 40.00 | 40.07 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 40.00 | 40.07 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 40.00 | 40.07 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 40.00 | 40.07 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 40.00 | 40.07 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 | 40.00 | 40.07 |
* Each experiment was carried out twice and the average value is used here.
Estimated regression coefficients of t and p-values of the model.
| Terms | Coefficients | Square Error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β0 | 40.0744 | 1.3912 | 28.806 | 0.000 |
| β1 | −0.5684 | 0.9230 | −0.616 | 0.552 |
| β2 | −0.0907 | 0.9230 | −0.098 | 0.924 |
| β3 | 1.3739 | 0.9230 | 1.488 | 0.167 |
| β12 | −0.0700 | 1.2060 | −0.058 | 0.955 |
| β23 | −1.9250 | 1.2060 | −1.596 | 0.142 |
R2 = 91.1%, R2 (adj) = 83.16%, S = 3.41104, PRESS = 884.951.
Figure 2Variable effect signification on a biomass production.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
| Source | DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 9 | 1196.65 | 1196.65 | 132.961 | ||
| Linear | 3 | 30.30 | 30.30 | 10.101 | 0.87 | 0.489 |
| A | 1 | 4.41 | 4.41 | 4.412 | 0.38 | 0.552 |
| B | 1 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.112 | 0.01 | 0.924 |
| C | 1 | 25.78 | 25.78 | 25.779 | 2.22 | 0.167 |
| Square | 3 | 1075.17 | 1075.17 | 358.390 | 30.80 | 0.000 |
| A*A | 1 | 379.27 | 518.80 | 518.799 | 44.59 | 0.000 |
| B*B | 1 | 195.28 | 260.07 | 260.071 | 22.35 | 0.001 |
| C*C | 1 | 500.62 | 500.62 | 500.618 | 43.03 | 0.000 |
| Interaction | 3 | 91.18 | 91.18 | 30.393 | 2.61 | 0.109 |
| A*B | 1 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.039 | 0.00 | 0.955 |
| A*C | 1 | 61.49 | 61.49 | 61.494 | 5.29 | 0.044 |
| B*C | 1 | 29.64 | 29.64 | 29.645 | 2.55 | 0.142 |
| Residual Error | 10 | 116.35 | 116.35 | 11.635 |
DF: degrees of freedom; Seq SS: sequential sum of squares; Adj SS: adjusted, sum of squares; AdjMS: adjusted, mean of squares F: Fischer’s variance ratio; P: probability value.
Figure 3The fit between the model and experimental data of cell growth.
Figure 4Surface plot for the effect of different parameters on biomass production.
Figure 5Isoresponse contour plot for the effect of the studied variables on biomass production.
Figure 6Coded values of optimal conditions on biomass production.
Figure 7The biomass production (■), and total reducing sugar consumption (▲) over time at optimized conditions.
Kinetic parameters of S. cerevisiae growth and substrate utilization using unstructured models.
| Kinetic Models | Parameters Estimation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monod | 0.945 | 0.228 | 0.496 | - |
| Verhulst | 0.981 | - | 0.376 | 15.04 |
| Tessier | 0.979 | −9.434 | 0.408 | |
Figure 8The Lineweaver Burk linear plot fitting the experimental data using the Monod kinetic model.
Figure 9A plot fitting the experimental data using the Verhulst kinetic model.
Figure 10A plot fitting the experimental data using the Tessier kinetic model.
Figure 11The comparison between predicted (□), experimental data (■) for biomass production of baker’s yeast; and predicted (∆), experimental data (▲), for total reducing sugar consumption.
Actual values for the three independent variables.
| Experiments | Actual Values | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | Initial pH | Sugars Concentration (g/L) | |
| 01 | 29 | 3.6 | 44.1 |
| 02 | 37 | 3.6 | 44.1 |
| 03 | 29 | 7.3 | 44.1 |
| 04 | 37 | 7.3 | 44.1 |
| 05 | 29 | 3.6 | 170.9 |
| 06 | 37 | 3.6 | 170.9 |
| 07 | 29 | 7.3 | 170.9 |
| 08 | 37 | 7.3 | 170.9 |
| 09 | 27 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 10 | 39 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 11 | 33 | 2.4 | 107.5 |
| 12 | 33 | 8.6 | 107.5 |
| 13 | 33 | 5.5 | 1 |
| 14 | 33 | 5.5 | 214 |
| 15 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 16 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 17 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 18 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 19 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 |
| 20 | 33 | 5.5 | 107.5 |