Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 13–22 | Cite as

Comparison of the continuous flotation performances of Saccharomyces cerevisiae LBG H620 and DSM 2155 strains

  • R. Tybussek
  • F. Linz
  • K. Schügerl
  • N. Moses
  • A. J. Léonard
  • P. G. Rouxhet
Biotechnology

Abstract

Saccharomyces cerevisiae LBG H620 and DSM 2155 strains were continuously cultivated under carbon (C)-limited, phosphorus (P)-limited and nitrogen (N)-limited growth conditions. Cell and protein concentrations in feed, foam, and residue as well as the degree of cell recovery and the rate of foaming were measured, and the concentration and enrichment factors were evaluated at different dilution rates (D). The LBG H620 cells were reduced, while the DSM 2155 cells were enriched in the foam. The highest concentration factors in DSM 2155 cells were attained if they were cultivated under strong P-limitation at a low D. Fairly high concentration factors were also found under C-limitation. Under N-limitation, low concentration factors were found with low Ds. At the beginning of the continuous cultivations, all of the cells were recovered, but with advancing time the degree of recovery and cell concentration and the enrichment factor ratio diminished. The cellular properties of the yeast were characterized by flow cytometry, and the surface properties by measurements of their hydrophobicity, electrophoretic mobility, and chemical composition (using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, XPS). These investigations indicated that the large difference in flotation between the two strains is due to different surface properties. Strain DSM 2155 has higher surface hydrophobicity and lower electrokinetic potential. Cell wall properties and the cell flotation depend on medium composition and age of the culture.

Keywords

Foam Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Enrichment Factor Dilution Rate H620 Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amory DE, Rouxhet PG (1988) Surface properties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces carlsbergiensis: chemical composition, electrostatic charge and hydrophobicity. Biochim Biophys Acta 983:61–70Google Scholar
  2. Amory DE, Mozes N, Hermesse MP, Leonard AJ, Rouxhet PG (1988a) Chemical analysis of the surface of microorganisms by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. FEMS Microbiol Lett 49:107–110Google Scholar
  3. Amory DE, Rouxhet PG, Dufour JP (1988b) Flocculence of brewery yeasts and their surface properties: chemical composition, electrostatic charge and hydrophobicity. J Inst Brew 94:79–84Google Scholar
  4. Bahr KH, Schügerl K (1992) Recovery of yeast from cultivation medium by continuous flotation and its dependence on cultivation conditions. Chem Eng Sci 47:11–20Google Scholar
  5. Bahr KH, Weisser H, Schügerl K (1991) Investigations on proteins excreted by the yeast Hansenula polymorpha and their influence on broth foaminess and cell recovery by flotation. Enzyme Microb Technol 13:747–754Google Scholar
  6. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254Google Scholar
  7. Eschenbruch R, Rassel JM (1975) The development of non-foaming yeast strains for winemaking. Vitis 14:43–47Google Scholar
  8. Gehle R, Sie TL, Kramer T, Schügerl K (1991) Continuous cultivation and flotation of Hansenula polymorpha and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in an integrated pilot plant reactor-flotation column-system. J Biotechnol 17:147–154Google Scholar
  9. Iimura Y, Hara S, Otsuka K (1980a) Cell surface hydrophobicity as a pellice formation factor in film strains of Saccharomyces, studies on film yeasts of wine, Part II. Agric Biol Chem 44:1215–1222Google Scholar
  10. Iimura Y, Hara S, Otsuka K (1980b) Fatty acids as hydrophobic substance on cell surface of film strains of Saccharomyces, studies on film yeasts of wine, Part III. Agric Biol Chem 44:1223–1229Google Scholar
  11. Iimura Y, Hara S, Otsuka K (1981) Fatty acids associated with the cell wall in film strains of Saccharomyces, studies on film yeasts of wine, Part IV. Agric Biol Chem 45:1113–1119Google Scholar
  12. Linz F (1989) Durchflusscytometrie zur Prozessbeobachtung in der Biotechnologie. Dissertation, University of HannoverGoogle Scholar
  13. Moss CW, Lambert MA, Merwin WH (1974) Comparison of rapid methods for analysis of bacterial fatty acids. Appl Microbiol 28:80–85Google Scholar
  14. Mozes N, Leonard AJ, Rouxhet PG (1988) On the relations between the elemental surface composition of yeasts and bacteria and their charge and hydrophobicity. Biochim Biophys Acta 945:324–334Google Scholar
  15. Ouchi K, Akiyama H (1971) Non-foaming mutants of sake yeasts. Selection by cell agglutination method and by froth flotation method. Agric Biol Chem 35:1024–1032Google Scholar
  16. Ouchi K, Kikuchi T, Nunokawa Y (1974) Effect of various treatment on the affinity for air bubbles of sake yeast Kyokai no 7 and its foaming mutant. J Ferment Technol 52:811–817Google Scholar
  17. Parthasarathy S, Das TR, Kumar R, Gopalakrishnan (1988) Foam separation of microbial cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 32:174–183Google Scholar
  18. Sedmak JJ, Grossberg SE (1977) A rapid, sensitive and versatile assay for protein using Coomassie Brilliant Blue G 250. Anal Biochem 79:544–552Google Scholar
  19. Sie TL, Schügerl K (1989) Gewinnung von Mikroorganismen aus Kulturmedien durch Flotation. Swiss Biotechnol 7:41–44Google Scholar
  20. Urrutia Desmaison G, Schügerl K (1980) Mikroflotation der Hefe Hansenula polymorpha. Chem Ing Techn 52:846–880Google Scholar
  21. Viehweg H, Schügerl K (1983) Cell recovery by continuous flotation. Eur J Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 17:96–102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Tybussek
    • 1
  • F. Linz
    • 1
  • K. Schügerl
    • 1
  • N. Moses
    • 2
  • A. J. Léonard
    • 2
  • P. G. Rouxhet
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für technische Chemie Universität HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Unité de Chimie des InterfacesUniversité Catholique de LouvainLovain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations