| Literature DB >> 35740052 |
Zeineb Hamden1, Yassine El-Ghoul2,3, Fahad M Alminderej2, Sayed M Saleh2,4, Hatem Majdoub1.
Abstract
Dates are very rich in various nutritious compounds, especially reducing sugars. Sugars ensure both anaerobic and aerobic fermentation, carried out respectively for the production of bioethanol and vinegar. Currently, the world production of dates is constantly increasing owing to the significant improvement in production conditions following the continuous scientific and technological development of this field. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the most important world producers of dates, occupying the second place by producing 17% of the total world production. This is why it has become a national priority to find new ways to exploit and further valorize dates and palm waste in the development of new and sustainable products. The present study was designed to explore the possible study of a variety of date palm by-products in the production of bioethanol and vinegar via Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Different parameters of bioethanol and vinegar production, including pH, time, fermentation temperature, and yeast concentration, were studied and optimized. Chemical, physicochemical, purity behavior, and antioxidant performance were carried out via NMR, FTIR, and antioxidant activity essays (TPC, DPPH, FRAP, and β-carotene bleaching test) with the aim to evaluate the potential of the bioethanol and vinegar samples extracted from date palm by-products. Khalas date vinegar revealed significantly more phenolic content (5.81 mg GAE/mL) (p < 0.05) than the different kinds of vinegar tested (Deglet Nour and Black dates; 2.3 and 1.67 mg GAE/mL, respectively) and the commercial vinegar (1.12 mg GAE/mL). The Khalas date vinegar generally showed a higher carotenoid value and better antioxidant activity than the other vinegars extracted from other date varieties and commercially available vinegar. The results confirmed the high quality of the bioethanol and vinegar products, and the efficiency of the developed production processes.Entities:
Keywords: DPPH assessment; FRAP assay; Saudi Khalas dates; TPC evaluation; antioxidant activity; bioethanol; vinegar; β-carotene assay
Year: 2022 PMID: 35740052 PMCID: PMC9220106 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11061155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Scheme 1Different steps used for bioethanol and vinegar production.
Different synthesized samples.
| Code | B10 | B15 | B25 | B50 | V15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | Bioethanol | Bioethanol | Bioethanol | Bioethanol | Vinegar |
| Initial TSS (°Brix) | 17 ± 0.19 | 17 ± 0.19 | 17 ± 0.2 | 17 ± 0.2 | 17 ± 0.2 |
| Yeast concentration (g/L) | 10 ± 0.1 | 15 ± 0.1 | 25 ± 0.1 | 50 ± 0.1 | 15 ± 0.1 |
Figure 1Evolution of Total Soluble Solids (TSS) with time during the direct sugar extraction at different temperatures.
Influence of yeast concentration on bioethanol production.
| Code | B10 | B15 | B25 | B50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeasts (g/L) | 10 | 15 | 25 | 50 |
| Ethanol yield concentration (g/L) | 43.45 ± 1.09 | 60 ± 1.08 | 58.7 ± 1.02 | 43 ± 1.02 |
Figure 2Bioethanol concentration and TTS (°Brix) content during anaerobic fermentation: (a): B10, (b): B15, (c): B25 and (d): B50.
Figure 3pH evolution during anaerobic fermentation.
Various conditions for ethanol production from dates and comparison with previously published studies.
| Ethanol Production Conditions | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sugar Concentration (g·L−1) | Time (h) | Temp (°C) | pH | Yeast Strains | Shaker (rpm) | Ethanol Concentration (g·L−1) | References |
| 162.2 | 72 | 30 | 5 |
| 200 | 60 ± 1.08 | This work |
| 200 | 72 | 30 | 6 |
| 150 | 50 | [ |
| 174 | 72 | 28 | 6 |
| 382 | 63 | [ |
| 45 | 96 | 30 | 4 |
| 150 | 11 | [ |
| 131.4 | 48 | 30 | Un-controlled |
| 120 | 48.9 | [ |
Figure 4Infrared spectra of the commercial pure ethanol and the various produced bioethanol samples.
Figure 5The 1H NMR Spectrum of the produced Bioethanol B15.
Results of physico-chemical analyzes of date vinegar.
| Samples | Source | pH | °Brix | Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm) | Ethanol | Acidity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date vinegar | Saudi Arabia | 3.6 ± 0.1 | 5 ± 0.11 | 5650 ± 0.2 | ~0.0 ± 0.05 | 4 ± 0.1 |
Figure 6IR spectrum of date vinegar (V15) and commercial vinegar.
Figure 7The 1H NMR Spectrum of the produced date vinegar V15.
1H NMR chemical shifts and characteristics signals of compounds in vinegar samples.
| Compound | Group | δ (ppm) | Multiplicity a | J (Hz) | Hydrogen No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetoin | C4H3 | 1.36 | d | 7.15 | 3 |
| Lactic acid | C3H3 | 1.42 | d | 6.84 | 3 |
| Acetic acid | C2H3 | 2.1 | s | - | 3 |
| Succinic acid | C2H2 + C3H2 | 2.68 | s | - | 4 |
| Glucose & Fructose | 3CH | 3.6 | m | - | 1 |
| 3.7 | m | - | 1 | ||
| Fructose | α(C3H + C5H) + βC5H | 4.12 | m | - | 3 |
| Tartaric acid | C2H + C3H | 4.44 | s | - | 2 |
a Multiplicity; s, singlet; d, doublet; m, multiple.
The total phenolic contents, antioxidants, and total carotenoid content of produced date vinegar and comparison with commercial vinegar and other tested date varieties.
| Vinegar Sample | TPC (mg GAE/mL) | DPPH (mg TE/mL) | FRAP (μmol | TCC (mg/100 mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial vinegar | 1.12 ± 0.11 a | 0.62 ± 0.05 b | 0.58 ± 0.08 a | 0.88 ± 0.04 a |
| Deglet Nour (Tunisia) | 2.3 ± 0.15 c | 1.18 ± 0.09 c | 1.62 ± 0.12 b | 3.43 ± 0.11 b |
| Black dates (china) | 1.67 ± 0.13 b | 0.99 ± 0.02 a | 1.27 ± 0.15 c | 3.12 ± 0.15 c |
| Khalas dates (current study) | 5.81 ± 0.14 bc | 2.01 ± 0.03 a | 1.89 ± 0.11 b | 3.87 ± 0.12 b |
Notes. TPC: total phenolic content; DPPH: 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; TCC: total carotenoid contents. Data presented as mean ± SD. Mean values followed by different superscripted alphabets in a column are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 8Detailed flow diagram of bioethanol and vinegar production process from waste dates.