| Literature DB >> 32595760 |
Menglei Xia1,2, Mingmeng Peng1,2, Danni Xue1,2, Yang Cheng1,2, Caixia Li1,2, Di Wang1,2, Kai Lu1,2, Yu Zheng1,2, Ting Xia1,2, Jia Song1,2, Min Wang1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The industrial vinegar residue (VR) from solid-state fermentation, mainly cereals and their bran, will be a potential feedstock for future biofuels because of their low cost and easy availability. However, utilization of VR for butanol production has not been as much optimized as other sources of lignocellulose, which mainly stem from two key elements: (i) high biomass recalcitrance to enzymatic sugar release; (ii) lacking of suitable industrial biobutanol production strain. Though steam explosion has been proved effective for bio-refinery, few studies report SE for VR pretreatment. Much of the relevant knowledge remains unknown. Meanwhile, recent efforts on rational metabolic engineering approaches to increase butanol production in Clostridium strain are quite limited. In this study, we assessed the impact of SE pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis kinetics, overall sugar recovery and applied atmospheric and room temperature plasma (ARTP) mutant method for the Clostridium strain development to solve the long-standing problem.Entities:
Keywords: Bioconversion; Industrial vinegar residue; Integration of ARTP and repetitive domestication; Kinetic model; Steam explosion; Working mechanism
Year: 2020 PMID: 32595760 PMCID: PMC7315531 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-020-01751-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
The composition of raw vinegar residue based on the absolute dry weight
| The composition content (g/100 g of raw material) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Glucan | 25.53 ± 3.76 | Ash | 5.92 ± 0.03 |
| Xylan | 17.08 ± 1.78 | Soluble protein | 0.58 ± 0.01 |
| Arabinan | 5.83 ± 0.11 | Crude fat | 11.8 ± 0.01 |
| Lignin | 24.48 ± 0.06 | Othera | 8.98 ± 3.00 |
aOther mainly represents crude protein (except for soluble protein) and a small quantity of micro-element [16, 17]
Chemical composition of washing liquid from exploded VR
| Pretreatment conditions | Composition of the washing liquid (g/100 g feedstock) | Glucan conversion (%) | Xylan conversion (%) | Arabinan conversion (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure (MPa) | Time (min) | Severity (Log(R0)) | Glucose | Xylose | Arabinose | Furfural | HMF | Total monosaccharides | |||
| 1.5 | 1 | 2.87a | 4.18 ± 0.59 | 7.80 ± 0.51 | 1.86 ± 0.12 | Not detected | Not detected | 13.84 ± 0.41 | 14.74 ± 2.10 | 40.19 ± 2.67 | 9.58 ± 0.63 |
| 1.5 | 2 | 3.17a | 4.46 ± 0.63 | 10.51 ± 0.61 | 2.58 ± 0.15 | 0.012 ± 0.001 | 0.010 ± 0.001 | 17.55 ± 0.46 | 15.72 ± 2.24 | 54.1 ± 3.20 | 13.29 ± 0.79 |
| 1.5 | 3 | 3.34a | 6.62 ± 0.95 | 12.39 ± 0.71 | 3.79 ± 0.22 | 0.015 ± 0.002 | 0.011 ± 0.001 | 22.8 ± 0.63 | 23.34 ± 3.38 | 63.38 ± 3.72 | 19.53 ± 1.15 |
| 1.5 | 4 | 3.47a | 8.50 ± 1.21 | 14.19 ± 0.93 | 4.62 ± 0.30 | 0.021 ± 0.003 | 0.034 ± 0.002 | 27.31 ± 0.81 | 29.97 ± 4.31 | 72.65 ± 4.87 | 23.81 ± 1.57 |
| 2 | 1 | 3.32a | 2.82 ± 0.40 | 8.37 ± 0.57 | 2.16 ± 0.15 | 0.024 ± 0.003 | 0.028 ± 0.004 | 13.35 ± 0.37 | 9.94 ± 1.42 | 43.13 ± 2.99 | 11.13 ± 0.79 |
| 2 | 2 | 3.62a | 7.43 ± 1.07 | 13.45 ± 0.87 | 3.64 ± 0.24 | 0.054 ± 0.008 | 0.063 ± 0.005 | 24.52 ± 0.73 | 26.2 ± 3.81 | 69.05 ± 4.56 | 18.76 ± 1.26 |
| 2 | 3 | 3.79a | 7.64 ± 1.09 | 14.10 ± 0.85 | 3.81 ± 0.23 | 0.062 ± 0.007 | 0.097 ± 0.007 | 25.55 ± 0.72 | 26.94 ± 3.88 | 72.65 ± 4.45 | 19.63 ± 1.20 |
| 2 | 4 | 3.92a | 9.07 ± 1.30 | 15.06 ± 0.91 | 4.25 ± 0.26 | 0.180 ± 0.011 | 0.230 ± 0.016 | 28.38 ± 0.82 | 31.98 ± 4.63 | 77.29 ± 4.77 | 21.9 ± 1.36 |
| 2.5 | 1 | 3.59a | 5.22 ± 0.75 | 12.23 ± 0.61 | 2.62 ± 0.13 | 0.120 ± 0.007 | 0.192 ± 0.021 | 20.07 ± 0.5 | 18.4 ± 2.67 | 62.86 ± 3.20 | 13.5 ± 0.68 |
| 2.5 | 2 | 3.89a | 8.36 ± 1.19 | 13.90 ± 0.71 | 4.31 ± 0.22 | 0.180 ± 0.013 | 0.220 ± 0.020 | 26.57 ± 0.71 | 29.47 ± 4.24 | 71.62 ± 3.72 | 22.21 ± 1.15 |
| 2.5 | 3 | 4.07a | 9.80 ± 1.40 | 14.62 ± 0.72 | 4.79 ± 0.24 | 0.320 ± 0.045 | 0.456 ± 0.036 | 29.21 ± 0.79 | 34.55 ± 4.99 | 75.23 ± 3.77 | 24.68 ± 1.26 |
a Compared with the untreated VR group, the content of monosaccharide from all the pretreated groups increased significantly by t test (p < 0.05)
Fig. 1Fermentable sugars obtained in the water extraction after steam explosion pretreatment. a–c The correlationship between fermentable sugars in the water extraction and pretreatment severity of SE; d–f the fermentation sugars obtained under different operation conditions of SE (pressure and retention time); f–h the three phases of steam explosion
The enzymolysis result of SE-treated VR and untreated
| Pretreatment conditions | Composition of SE-treated VR (%) | Enzymolysis resulta | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure (MPa) | Time (min) | Severity (Log(R0)) | Glucan | Xylan | Arabinan | Glucose (g/100 g) | Xylose (g/100 g) | Arabinose | Glucose recovery (%) | Xylose recovery (%) | Arabinose recovery (%) |
| (g/100 g) | |||||||||||
| 1.5 | 1 | 2.87 | 27.61 ± 3.59 | 6.59 ± 0.99 | 2.77 ± 0.22 | 8.96 ± 0.90 | 3.03 ± 0.33 | 2.15 ± 0.15 | 29.14 ± 3.26 | 40.47 ± 5.01 | 68.31 ± 5.42 |
| 1.5 | 2 | 3.17 | 25.86 ± 3.36 | 6.43 ± 0.77 | 2.63 ± 0.13 | 10.02 ± 0.90 | 3.06 ± 0.21 | 2.39 ± 0.31 | 34.88 ± 3.48 | 41.88 ± 3.27 | 79.98 ± 11.79 |
| 1.5 | 3 | 3.34 | 24.37 ± 2.19 | 5.19 ± 0.26 | 2.09 ± 0.13 | 11.78 ± 1.41 | 3.69 ± 0.48 | 2.66 ± 0.19 | 43.51 ± 5.79 | 62.57 ± 9.25 | 112.01 ± 9.09 |
| 1.5 | 4 | 3.47 | 23.38 ± 2.57 | 3.72 ± 0.52 | 1.76 ± 0.25 | 13.16 ± 1.58 | 4.01 ± 0.28 | 2.74 ± 0.41 | 50.66 ± 6.76 | 94.87 ± 7.53 | 137.02 ± 23.30 |
| 2 | 1 | 3.32 | 24.58 ± 1.23 | 6.44 ± 0.97 | 2.20 ± 0.26 | 11.59 ± 1.51 | 3.36 ± 0.34 | 2.48 ± 0.20 | 42.44 ± 6.14 | 45.92 ± 5.28 | 99.21 ± 9.09 |
| 2 | 2 | 3.62 | 22.05 ± 1.10 | 4.18 ± 0.50 | 1.88 ± 0.15 | 14.66 ± 1.17 | 2.41 ± 0.29 | 1.94 ± 0.14 | 59.84 ± 5.31 | 50.74 ± 6.94 | 90.82 ± 7.45 |
| 2 | 3 | 3.79 | 21.87 ± 2.19 | 3.91 ± 0.51 | 1.56 ± 0.23 | 16.05 ± 1.93 | 1.89 ± 0.26 | 1.98 ± 0.14 | 66.05 ± 8.82 | 42.54 ± 6.65 | 111.71 ± 8.97 |
| 2 | 4 | 3.92 | 21.76 ± 2.83 | 3.81 ± 0.50 | 1.24 ± 0.06 | 17.06 ± 2.05 | 1.99 ± 0.30 | 2.00 ± 0.22 | 70.57 ± 9.42 | 45.97 ± 7.87 | 141.95 ± 17.74 |
| 2.5 | 1 | 3.59 | 22.05 ± 3.31 | 6.05 ± 0.54 | 2.08 ± 0.19 | 15.07 ± 0.90 | 2.85 ± 0.31 | 2.21 ± 0.22 | 61.52 ± 4.08 | 41.46 ± 5.12 | 93.51 ± 10.58 |
| 2.5 | 2 | 3.89 | 21.76 ± 1.31 | 3.90 ± 0.47 | 1.29 ± 0.12 | 19.92 ± 1.20 | 1.78 ± 0.11 | 2.16 ± 0.17 | 82.4 ± 5.51 | 40.17 ± 2.82 | 147.37 ± 13.18 |
| 2.5 | 3 | 4.07 | 21.71 ± 2.39 | 3.52 ± 0.21 | 1.19 ± 0.16 | 20.18 ± 1.62 | 2.30 ± 0.14 | 2.01 ± 0.28 | 83.66 ± 7.46 | 57.51 ± 3.98 | 148.66 ± 23.53 |
| Untreated | 25.53 ± 3.83 | 17.08 ± 2.56 | 5.83 ± 0.70 | 7.05 ± 0.92 | 2.95 ± 0.44 | 2.25 ± 0.16 | 24.86 ± 3.60 | 14.59 ± 2.58 | 33.97 ± 2.74 | ||
a The enzymatic hydrolysis conditions were pH 5.0, 150 rpm, 50 °C, 72 h, a solid load of 5% (w/w) and the enzyme load was adjusted to 15 FPU/g DM of Celluclast 1.5 L and 15 U/g DM of β-glucosidases
Fig. 2The enzymatic hydrolysis process of vinegar untreated and pretreated with steam explosion. a–c The glucose yields from the hydrolysis of VR with different pretreatment conditions at different enzymolysis time. d–f The xylose yields and g–i the arabinose yields, respectively. The X-axis represents the enzymolysis time. The SE pressures are 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 MPa, which are noted on the figures. The VR without SE pretreatment was set as control
The kinetic parameter k of the kinetic model of enzymatic hydrolysis reaction
| Pretreatment | Glucan | Xylan | Arabinan |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 mPa, 1 min | 0.0006 | 0.0052 | 0.0446 |
| 1.5 mPa, 2 min | 0.0007 | 0.0053 | 0.0870 |
| 1.5 mPa, 3 min | 0.0011 | 0.0177 | 0.2214 |
| 1.5 mPa, 4 min | 0.0018 | 0.1443 | 0.0633 |
| 2.0 mPa, 1 min | 0.0011 | 0.0061 | 0.1824 |
| 2.0 mPa, 2 min | 0.0025 | 0.0147 | 0.2182 |
| 2.0 mPa, 3 min | 0.0025 | 0.0085 | 0.2667 |
| 2.0 mPa, 4 min | 0.0034 | 0.0103 | 0.5035 |
| 2.5 mPa, 1 min | 0.0023 | 0.0054 | 0.6214 |
| 2.5 mPa, 2 min | 0.0052 | 0.0084 | 0.9981 |
| 2.5 mPa, 3 min | 0.0051 | 0.0190 | 1.9238 |
| Control/1 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.0038 |
Fig. 3The relationship between steam explosion and enzymatic hydrolysis. a The relationship between the enzymatic hydrolysis rate constant k and pretreatment severity; b the change rate of the enzymatic hydrolysis rate constant k under different pretreatment severity; c the agreement between the mathematical model and the actual experiment data; d the mass balance of the steam explosion treatment in the optimal condition
Fig. 4The ultrastructure images of vinegar residue before and after steam explosion treatment. a The control (untreated vinegar residue); b–d the treated VR from 1.5 MPa to 2 min, 2 MPa–2 min and 2.5 MPa–2 min respectively
Fig. 5The changes of cumulative hole area, hole area and pore diameter under different pretreatment severity. a The relationship cumulative hole distribution of VR under different pretreatment severity; b the correlationship between the cumulative hole area and pretreatment severity; c the hole area distribution; d the correlationship between pretreatment severity and hole area within different pore diameter intervals
Fig. 6C. acetobutylicum Tust-001 obtained from ARTP mutagenesis. a The schematic diagram of the ARTP equipment; b effects of different plasma treatment times on the survival rate of C. acetobutylicum ATCC 824; c the screening process of C. acetobutylicum Tust-001
Fig. 7The ABE fermentation process of C. acetobutylicum Tust-001. a The substrate consumption process; b and c the changes of OD600 and pH during fermentation; d the production of solvents during fermentation