| Literature DB >> 31440459 |
Aline Alves Oliveira Santos Prado1,2, Brenda Lohanny Passos Santos3, Isabela Maria Monteiro Vieira1,3, Larissa Castor Ramos1, Roberto Rodrigues de Souza1,3, Daniel Pereira Silva1,3, Denise Santos Ruzene1,3.
Abstract
The biosurfactant production is characterized by high costs with substrates, which does not make them sufficiently competitive against synthetic surfactants. The insertion of alternative sources of low cost, especially agro-industrial residue, is an excellent alternative to make this competitiveness viable. An alkaline pretreatment was used to extract the hemicellulose from corncob in order to enhance its C5 fraction, common to vegetable biomasses. The hemicellulosic corncob liquor was used with glucose and mineral salt solution as carbon and nutrients sources in a fermentation process for the growth of Bacillus subtilis. It was performed a 23 full factorial design to determine the best conditions for the surfactin production in relation to the following response variables: surface tension reduction rate (STRR) and emulsification index (EI24), from which were obtained two optimized bioproducts under specific conditions. The optimized biosurfactants found to be effected presenting a critical micelle concentration of 100 mg.L-1 and a maximum bioremediation potential of 85.18%, as well as maximum values of 57.38% and 65.30% for STRR and EI24 variables, respectively. Overall results pointed for a successful commercial application for the surfactin produced.Entities:
Keywords: Bioremediation; Biosurfactant; Design of experiments; Hemicellulosic corncob liquor; Lignocellulosic residue
Year: 2019 PMID: 31440459 PMCID: PMC6698937 DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Rep (Amst) ISSN: 2215-017X
Experimental range and levels of the independent variables used in the 23 full factorial design for the evaluation of carbon sources and the mineral salt solution.
| Real Variables (%) | Levels of the experimental design | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.68 | −1 | 0 | +1 | +1.68 | |
| Hemicellulosic corncob liquor (X1) | 0 | 8.16 | 20.16 | 32.16 | 40.32 |
| Glucose (X2) | 0 | 1.02 | 2.52 | 4.02 | 5.04 |
| Mineral salt solution (X3) | 0 | 0.41 | 1.01 | 1.61 | 2.02 |
Chemical composition of hemicellulosic corncob liquor (HCL).
| Chemical composition (%) | Hemicellulosic corncob liquor |
|---|---|
| Carbon | 0.78 |
| Hydrogen | 10.57 |
| Nitrogen | 0.71 |
| Oxygen | 87.95 |
| Cellulose | 9.8 ± 0.6 |
| Hydroxymethylfurfural | 0 |
| Hemicellulose | 48.8 ± 1.2 |
| Furfural | 0 |
| Soluble Lignin | 13.5 ± 0.6 |
Matrix of the experimental design of the coded independent variables in conjunction with the results for carbon sources and mineral salt solution evaluation.
| Run | Coded variables | Response variables | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | STRR | % EI24 | |
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 38.46 | 9.13 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 40.22 | 8.30 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 40.04 | 6.51 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 30.93 | 10.53 |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 41.62 | 36.01 |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 38.84 | 10.01 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 41.96 | 50.41 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 32.14 | 12.98 |
| 9 | −1.68 | 0 | 0 | 38.18 | 29.77 |
| 10 | 1.68 | 0 | 0 | 38.05 | 8.25 |
| 11 | 0 | −1.68 | 0 | 43.12 | 35.87 |
| 12 | 0 | 1.68 | 0 | 45.20 | 61.54 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | −1.68 | 42.30 | 28.35 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 1.68 | 46.16 | 64.25 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47.15 | 64.38 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47.91 | 47.05 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44.48 | 57.90 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44.32 | 62.95 |
X1: Hemicellulosic corncob liquor (HCL); X2: Glucose; X3: Mineral salt solution.
STRR: Surface tension reduction rate; EI24: Emulsification index in kerosene.
Regression coefficients and p-values corresponding to the biosurfactant production considering the responses of surface tension reduction rate (STRR) and emulsification index in kerosene (EI24) under different test conditions.
| Variables | Regression coefficient | Standard error | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STRR | ||||
| Average | 46.16 | 1.76 | 0.0000 | |
| X1 | −1.48 | 0.96 | 0.1610 | NS |
| X12 | −3.63 | 1.00 | 0.0065 | |
| X2 | −0.77 | 0.96 | 0.4416 | NS |
| X22 | −1.49 | 0.99 | 0.1732 | NS |
| X3 | 0.83 | 0.96 | 0.4087 | NS |
| X32 | −1.46 | 1.00 | 0.1795 | NS |
| X1·X2 | −2.24 | 1.25 | 0.1110 | NS |
| X1·X3 | −0.65 | 1.25 | 0.6148 | NS |
| X2·X3 | 0.17 | 1.25 | 0.8958 | NS |
| EI24 | ||||
| Average | 59.01 | 6.72 | <0.0001 | |
| X1 | −7.06 | 3.64 | 0.0884 | NS |
| X12 | −17.92 | 3.79 | 0.0015 | |
| X2 | 4.40 | 3.64 | 0.2611 | NS |
| X22 | −7.39 | 3.79 | 0.0867 | NS |
| X3 | 9.91 | 3.64 | 0.0262 | |
| X32 | −8.25 | 3.79 | 0.0612 | NS |
| X1·X2 | −0.82 | 4.76 | 0.8672 | NS |
| X1·X3 | −8.32 | 4.76 | 0.1182 | NS |
| X2·X3 | 2.22 | 4.76 | 0.6531 | NS |
NS: not significant.
significant at the 95% level.
Lack of fit and pure error obtained from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for surface tension reduction rate (STRR) and emulsification index (EI24) responses.
| Source of variations | SS | df | MS | Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STRR | ||||||
| lack-of-fit | 90.2100 | 5 | 18.0420 | 5.3498 | 0.0990 | NS |
| pure error | 10.1174 | 3 | 3.3725 | |||
| total | 368.9639 | |||||
| EI24 | ||||||
| lack-of-fit | 1271.546 | 5 | 254.309 | 4.1233 | 0.1365 | NS |
| pure error | 185.028 | 3 | 61.676 | |||
| total | 8764.755 | |||||
SS: Sum of squares; df: Degree of freedom; MS: Mean square. NS: not significant at the 95% level.
Fig. 1Three-dimensional response surface for surface tension reduction rate as a function of interaction between factors: (a) HCL and glucose and (b) HCL and mineral salt solution.
Fig. 2Three-dimensional response surface for emulsification index as a function of the interaction between factors (a) glucose and HCL and (b) mineral salt solution and HCL.
Values of the surface tension reduction rate, emulsification index and bioremediation potential for the optimized biosurfactants B-STRR, B-EI24, Glucose 4% and Tween 80.
| Analyses | Experiments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B-STRR | B-EI24 | Glucose 4% | Tween 80 | |
| Surface tension reduction rate (%) | 57.10 | 57.38 | 52.88 | 52.42 |
| Emulsification index (%) | 34.12 | 65.30 | 5.59 | 0.00 |
| Bioremediation potential (%) | 85.18 | 71.16 | 85.66 | 91.55 |
Fig. 3Plot of surface tension as a function of surfactin concentration to determine the value of CMC of the following emulsifier agents: (a) B-RTS, (b) B-EI24, (c) Glucose 4% and (d) surfactant Tween 80.