| Literature DB >> 31212656 |
Bernadette-Emőke Teleky1, Dan Cristian Vodnar2.
Abstract
Biomass, the only source of renewable organic carbon on Earth, offers an efficient substrate for bio-based organic acid production as an alternative to the leading petrochemical industry based on non-renewable resources. Itaconic acid (IA) is one of the most important organic acids that can be obtained from lignocellulose biomass. IA, a 5-C dicarboxylic acid, is a promising platform chemical with extensive applications; therefore, it is included in the top 12 building block chemicals by the US Department of Energy. Biotechnologically, IA production can take place through fermentation with fungi like Aspergillus terreus and Ustilago maydis strains or with metabolically engineered bacteria like Escherichia coli and Corynebacterium glutamicum. Bio-based IA represents a feasible substitute for petrochemically produced acrylic acid, paints, varnishes, biodegradable polymers, and other different organic compounds. IA and its derivatives, due to their trifunctional structure, support the synthesis of a wide range of innovative polymers through crosslinking, with applications in special hydrogels for water decontamination, targeted drug delivery (especially in cancer treatment), smart nanohydrogels in food applications, coatings, and elastomers. The present review summarizes the latest research regarding major IA production pathways, metabolic engineering procedures, and the synthesis and applications of novel polymeric materials.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus terreus; biosynthetic pathways; biotechnology; drug delivery; hydrogels; itaconic acid; polymers
Year: 2019 PMID: 31212656 PMCID: PMC6630286 DOI: 10.3390/polym11061035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1The chemical structure (a), properties (b) and chemical synthesis from citric acid (c) Δ: heat input.
Figure 2Biological pathway of IA in (a) A. terreus, (b) U. maydis; and (c) in macrophages.
Fermentation parameters and yields using different A. terreus strains.
| Substrate |
| IA [g/L] | pH | T [°C] | Method | OP [g/L/h] | Y [g/gTS] | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glucose | NRRL 1960 | 24.7–49.5 | 1.8–2.0 | 34 | BF | 0.33–0.44 | N.A. | [ |
| carbon sources | NRRL 1960 | 129 | 2.1–6.0 | N.A. | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | 2.5 | 35 | BR | N.A. | N.A. | [ | ||
| corn starch | TN-484 | 62 | 1.5 | 30 | SF/ALB | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| 61 | 2.0 | 30 | ||||||
| 59 | 2.5 | 30 | ||||||
| 57 | 3.0 | 30 | ||||||
| Jathropa seed cake | 24.46 | 3.5 | 32 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ | |
| glucose | 86.2 | 3.1 | 33 | STR | 0.51 | 0.62 | [ | |
| 90 | N.A. | 0.58 | ||||||
| corn starch | CICC 40205 | 77.6 | 4.0 | 37 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | DSM 23081 | 129 | 3.1 | 33 | STR | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| 87 | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||
| 146 | 3.0 | N.A. | ||||||
| rice husk | ATCC 10020 | 1.9 | 6.0 | 30 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| wheat chaff | DSM 23081 | 27.7 | 3.1 | 33 | SF | 0.19 | 0.41 | [ |
| artif. wheat chaff | 51.5 | 3.1 | 33 | 0.31 | 0.59 | |||
| potato starch | C1 | 30.8 | N.A. | 35 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| C2 | 23.4 | N.A. | N.A. | |||||
| wheat bran | CICC 40205 | 49.65 | 7.0 | 32 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| mannose | NRRL 1971 | 36.4 | 3.1 | 33 | SF | N.A. | 0.46 | [ |
| glucose | 42.6 | N.A. | ||||||
| xylose | 30.5 | |||||||
| arabinose | 25.8 | |||||||
| galactose | DSM 23081 | 9.1 | ||||||
| glucose | DSM 23081 | 129 | 3.0 | 35 | SGR | 0.61 | 0.57 | [ |
| 138 | 3.2 | 0.82 | N.A. | |||||
| 162 | 3.4 | 0.99 | 0.46 | |||||
| 150 | 3.0 | STR | N.A. | 0.56 | ||||
| glucose | DSM 23081 | 70 | 3.1 | 33 | Fl | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | DSM 23081 | 105 | 3.1 | 33 | ||||
| glucose | NRRL 1960 | 51.9 | 3.1 | 33 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| xylose | DSM 23081 | 38.7 | ||||||
| arabinose | NRRL 1961 | 34.8 | ||||||
| GXA | 33.2 | |||||||
| glucose | NRRL 1960 | 73.6 | 3.0 | 33 | BF | N.A. | 0.85 | [ |
| fruit waste | SKR10 | 20 | 3.0 | 34 | SF | N.A. | 0.22 | [ |
| Corn starch | 28.5–31.0 | N.A. | 0.26 |
OP—Overall productivity, Y—Yield, TS—total sugar, SF—shake flask, F—fermenter, BF—biofermenter, Fl—Flask, STR—tank reactor, BR—batch reactor, SGR—stirred glass reactor, ALB—air-lift bioreactor, N.A.—not available.
Fermentation parameters and yields using different methods and microorganisms.
| Substrate | Strain | IA [g/L] | pH | T [°C] | Method | OP [g/L/h] | Y [g/gTS] | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glucose |
| 4.6 | 3.5– 5.0 | 28 | BR | 0.045 | 0.058 | [ |
| glucose | Candida sp. | 30-35 | 3 | 26 | flask | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | 1.4–3.6 | 7.0 | 30 | BSF | N.A. | 0.011 | [ | |
| urea | 13.3–59.0 | 0.23 | ||||||
| glycerol | 34.7 | 6.5 | N.A. | SF | 0.09 | N.A. | [ | |
| glucose | 4 | 6 | 30 | CF | 0.8 | N.A. | [ | |
| potato starch |
| 34.52 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | 20 | N.A. | 30 | SF | 0.27 | 0.17 | [ | |
| cellobiose | N.A. | 6.5 | 30 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ | |
| glycerol | Eng. | 22 | 5–5.5 | 37 | BSF | 0.6 | 0.55 | [ |
| xylose | 20 | 0.6 | 0.51 | |||||
| glucose | 18 | 0.43 | 0.36 | |||||
| glucose | 2.27 | N.A. | 37 | SF | N.A. | 0.77 | [ | |
| 32 | N.A. | 30 | BR | N.A. | 0.68 | |||
| starch |
| 0.15–0.62 | 6.8 | 28 | JF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | 26.2 | 3.5 | 33 | BF | 0.35 | N.A. | [ | |
| glucose | 0.26–0.29 | 3.5 | 33 | BF | N.A. | N.A. | [ | |
| sorbitol | 3–8 | N.A. | 30 | flask | N.A. | N.A. | [ | |
| sorbitol + xylose | Eng. | 54.3 | N.A. | 30 | F | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
| glucose | Eng. | 0.82–4.92 | 3.1 | 35 | SF | N.A. | N.A. | [ |
OP—Overall productivity, Y—Yield, TS—total sugar, SF—shake flask, F—fermenter, CR—continuous fermenter, JF—jar fermenter, BF—benchtop fermenter, Br - bioreactor, Fl—flask, BSF—baffled shake flask, N.A.—not available.
IA recovery method examples and main process disadvantages
| Method | Media | Yield [%] | Disadvantage | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crystallization | FB | 80 | - high thermal energy input required | [ |
| Crystallization | FB | 51 | - low yield | [ |
| Crystallization | FB | 23 | - low yield | [ |
| Adsorption | AS | 100 | - high waste-water quantity | [ |
| Reactive extraction/back extraction/pH- shift crystallization | FB | 99 | - NaCl salt by-product formation | [ |
| Reactive extraction | AS | 94.7 | - decreased toxicity due to usage of vegetable oil | [ |
| Back extraction | 80 | - high energy demand | [ | |
| Reactive extraction | FB | 91 | - mass transfer area limitations | [ |
| Reactive extraction | AS | 80 | - process under study | [ |
| Electrodialysis | AS | 50 | - low efficiency | [ |
FB—Fermentation broth; AS—Aqueous solution.
Figure 3IA conversion into profitable derivatives.
Figure 4Hydrogel swelling and drug discharge with different physical or chemical stimulations.
Figure 5The chemical structure of IA synthesized hydrogels (a) Aam/IA, Aam/MEI, Aam/DEI (b) Itaconate starch semi- and diester (c) PIACS.
Figure 6Poly(d,l-lactic acid-1,4-butanediol–itaconic acid) copolymer obtained from polycondensation of d,l-lactic acid, 1,4-butanediol, and IA.
Figure 7The chemical structure of IA synthesized nano-scale carriers (a) PEG-P(DMAEA-co-IAc), (b) P(ITAU)-HA, (c) PIAThydCA, (d) HAp:Ln-AMP-poly(IA-MPC), (e) PVCL-hdz-IA.