Abstract
The presence of microbial contaminants is common in the sugarcane ethanol industry and can decrease process yield, reduce yeast cell viability and induce yeast cell flocculation. To evaluate the effect of microbial contamination on the fermentation process, we compared the use of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must in the performance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with similar fermentation conditions to those used in Brazilian mills. Non-sterilized sugarcane must had values of 103 and 108 CFU mL−1 of wild yeast and bacterial contamination, respectively; decreased total reducing sugar (TRS); and increased lactic and acetic acids, glycerol and ethanol concentrations during storage. During fermentation cycles with sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must, S. cerevisiae viability did not change, whereas ethanol yield varied from 74.1 to 80.2%, but it did not seem to be related to must microbial contamination. Ethanol productivity decreased throughout the fermentation cycles and was more pronounced in the last two fermentation cycles with non-sterilized must, but that may be related to the decrease in must TRS. High values of the ratio of total acid production per ethanol were reported at the end of the last two fermentation cycles conducted with non-sterilized must. Additionally, the values of wild yeast contamination increased from 102 to 103 CFU mL−1 and bacterial contamination increased from 104 to 106 CFU mL−1 when comparing the first and last fermentation cycles with non-sterilized must. In addition to the increase in microbial contamination and acid concentration, ethanol yield and yeast viability rates were not directly affected by the microbial contamination present in the non-sterilized sugarcane must.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott DA, Ingledew WM (2005) The importance of aeration strategy in fuel alcohol fermentations contaminated with Dekkera/Brettanomyces yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 69:16–21
Alcarde AR, Walder JMM, Horii J (2003) Fermentation of irradiated sugarcane must. Scientia Agricola 60:677–681
Amorim HV, Lopes ML, Oliveira JVC et al (2011) Scientific challenges of bioethanol production in Brazil. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1267–1275
Andrietta MGS, Andrietta SR, Stupiello ENA (2011) Bioethanol what has Brazil learned about yeasts inhabiting the ethanol production processes from sugar cane? In: Bernardes MAS (ed) Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. InTech, Rijeka, pp 67–84
Andrietta SR, Andrietta MGS, Bicudo MHP (2012) Comparação do rendimento fermentativo utilizando diferentes metodologias de cálculo para a avaliação do desempenho de um processo industrial. Sociedade dos Técnicos Açucareiros e Alcooleiros do Brasil 30:41–49
Araújo TM, Souza MT, Diniz RHS et al (2018) Cachaça yeast strains: alternative starters to produce beer and bioethanol. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 111:1749–1766
Basílio ACM, De Araújo PRL, De Morais JOF et al (2008) Detection and identification of wild yeast contaminants of the industrial fuel ethanol fermentation process. Curr Microbiol 56:322–326
Basso LC, De Amorim HV, De Oliveira AJ, Lopes ML (2008) Yeast selection for fuel ethanol production in Brazil. FEMS Yeast Res 8:1155–1163
Basso LC, Basso TO, Rocha SN (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. In: Bernardes MAS (ed) Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. Intech, Rijeka, pp 85–100
Basso TO, Gomes FS, Lopes ML et al (2014) Homo-and heterofermentative lactobacilli differently affect sugarcane-based fuel ethanol fermentation. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 105:169–177
Bayrock D, Ingledew WM (2001) Changes in steady state on introduction of a Lactobacillus contaminant to a continuous culture ethanol fermentation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 27:39–45
Beckner M, Ivey ML, Phister TG (2011) Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations. Lett Appl Microbiol 53:387–394
Bonatelli ML, Quecine MC, Silva MS, Labate CA (2017) Characterization of the contaminant bacterial communities in sugarcane first-generation industrial ethanol production. FEMS Microbiol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx159
Brexó RP, Sant’Ana AS (2017) Impact and significance of microbial contamination during fermentation for bioethanol production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:423–434
Carvalho-Netto OV, Carazzolle MF, Mofatto LS et al (2015) Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptional reprograming due to bacterial contamination during industrial scale bioethanol production. Microb Cell Fact 14:13
Costa OYA, Souto BM, Tupinambá DD et al (2015) Microbial diversity in sugarcane ethanol production in a Brazilian distillery a culture-independent method. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 42:73–84
da Silva-Filho EA, Dos Santos SKB, do Monte Resende A et al (2005) Yeast population dynamics of industrial fuel-ethanol fermentation process assessed by PCR-fingerprinting. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 88:13–23
de Souza Liberal AT, Basílio ACM, do Monte Resende A et al (2007) Identification of Dekkera bruxellensis as a major contaminant yeast in continuous fuel ethanol fermentation. J Appl Microbiol 102:538–547
de Souza RB, Dos Santos BM, de Souza RDFR et al (2012) The consequences of Lactobacillus vini and Dekkera bruxellensis as contaminants of the sugarcane-based ethanol fermentation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 39:1645–1650
Eggleston G (2002) Deterioration of cane juice—sources and indicators. Food Chem 78:95–103
Graves T, Narendranath NV, Dawson K, Power R (2006) Effect of pH and lactic or acetic acid on ethanol productivity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in corn mash. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33:469–474
Hammes WP, Vogel RF (1995) The genus Lactobacillus. In: Holzapfel WHN, Wood BJ (eds) The genera of lactic acid bacteria, vol 2, 1st edn. Springer, Boston, pp 19–54
Lopes ML, de Lima Paulillo SC, Godoy A et al (2016) Ethanol production in Brazil: a bridge between science and industry. Braz J Microbiol 47:64–76
Lucena BT, dos Santos BM, Moreira JL et al (2010) Diversity of lactic acid bacteria of the bioethanol process. BMC Microbiol 10:298
Narendranath NV, Thomas KC, Ingledew WM (2001) Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a minimal medium. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 26:171–177
Oliva-Neto P, Dorta C, Carvalho AFA et al (2013) The Brazilian technology of fuel ethanol fermentation—yeast inhibition factors and new perspectives to improve the technology. In: Mendéz-Vila A (ed) Materials and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments. Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, pp 371–379
Pereira LF, Bassi APG, Avansini SH et al (2012) The physiological characteristics of the yeast Dekkera bruxellensis in fully fermentative conditions with cell recycling and in mixed cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 101:529–539
Queiroz LL, Costa MS, Pereira AA et al (2018) Dynamics of microbial contaminants is driven by selection during ethanol production. Biorxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/489500
Santos SC, Souza AS, Dionísio SR et al (2016) Bioethanol production by recycled Scheffersomyces stipitis in sequential batch fermentations with high cell density using xylose and glucose mixture. Bioresour Technol 219:319–329
Skinner KA, Leathers TD (2004) Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:401–408
Souza RSC, Okura VK, Armanhi JSL et al (2016) Unlocking the bacterial and fungal communities assemblages of sugarcane microbiome. Sci Rep 6:28774
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory-CTBE/CNPEM and FAPESP for financial support to the scholarship to Maria Leticia Bonatelli (Proc. N.2013/08431-0).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bonatelli, M.L., Ienczak, J.L. & Labate, C.A. Sugarcane must fed-batch fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: impact of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 112, 1177–1187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-019-01250-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-019-01250-2