Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 103, Issue 7, pp 3001–3013 | Cite as

Utilization of brewing and malting by-products as carrier and raw materials in l-(+)-lactic acid production and feed application

  • Miloš RadosavljevićEmail author
  • Jelena Pejin
  • Milana Pribić
  • Sunčica Kocić-Tanackov
  • Ranko Romanić
  • Dragana Mladenović
  • Aleksandra Djukić-Vuković
  • Ljiljana Mojović
Biotechnological products and process engineering


Application of agro-industrial by-products for the production of lactic acid was studied in this paper. Brewer’s spent grain (BSG), malt rootlets (MR), brewer’s yeast (BY), and soy lecithin (SL) were used as raw materials in l-(+)-LA fermentation by free and immobilized Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469. The BSG, solid remains after BSG and MR hydrolysis (BSGMRSR), and MR were evaluated as carriers for batch and repeated batch fermentations with immobilized cells. During batch fermentations with immobilized cells, high cell viability (10 to 11 log CFU/g) was achieved on all carriers. In batch fermentation with BSG as a carrier, the highest LA yield of 93.79% and volumetric productivity of 1.15 g/L/h were obtained. Furthermore, very high LA yield (95.46%), volumetric productivity (1.98 g/L/h) and L. rhamnosus viability (11.5 log CFU/g) were achieved in repeated batch fermentations with the cells immobilized on this carrier. The immobilized cells showed high survival rate (94–95%) during exposure to simulated gut condition. Based on the analysis of BSGMRSR, and BY solid remains, and on in vitro evaluation of the probiotic characteristics of immobilized cells, it was observed that they could satisfy the recommendations for high-quality feed preparation.


Lactic acid fermentation Brewer’s spent grain Brewer’s yeast Malt rootlets Immobilization 



The authors would like to thank Novozymes (A/S Bagsvaerd, Denmark) for the free enzymes supply. The authors would like to thank Assistant Professor Dr. Đorđe Veljović for scanning electron micrographs.


This work was funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia (TR-31017).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

253_2019_9683_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (167 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 167 kb)


  1. AACC—Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists (2008) Protein content by Kjeldahl method, Method 56-81 B, 10th edn. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdel-Rahman MA, Sonomoto K (2016) Opportunities to overcome the current limitations and challenges for efficient microbial production of optically pure lactic acid. J Biotechnol 236:176–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AOAC—Official methods of analysis of AOAC international (2007) Method 925.10 Solids (Total) and Moisture in Flour, Method 923.03 Ash of Flour, 18th edn, AOAC international, Ste 300 Rockville, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Athanasios M, Paul L, Argyro B, Athanasios K, Michael K (2007) Ambient and low temperature winemaking by immobilized cells on brewer’s spent grains: effect on volatile composition. Food Chem 104:918–927. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brányik T, Silva DP, Vicente AA, Lehnert R, De Silva JBA, Dostálek P, Teixeira JA (2006) Continuous immobilized yeast reactor system for complete beer fermentation using spent grains and corncobs as carrier materials. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33:1010–1018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brányik T, Vincente A, Cruz J, Teixeira J (2001) Spent grains—a new support for brewing yeast immobilisation. Biotechnol Lett 23:1073–1078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brányik T, Vincente A, Rosario O, Teixeira J (2004) Physicochemical surface properties of brewing yeast influencing their immobilization onto spent grains in a continuous reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 88:84–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro-Aguirre E, Iñiguez-Franco F, Samsudin H, Fang X, Auras R (2016) Poly(lactic acid)—mass production, processing, industrial applications, and end of life. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:333–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen H, Liu J, Chang X, Chen D, Xue Y, Liu P, Lin H, Han S (2017) A review on the pretreatment of lignocellulose for high-value chemicals. Fuel Process Technol 160:196–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chronopoulos G, Bekatorou A, Bezirtzoglou E, Kaliafas A, Koutinas AA, Marchant R, Banat IM (2002) Lactic acid fermentation by Lactobacillus casei in free cell form and immobilised on gluten pellets. Biotechnol Lett 24:1233–1236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooray ST, Chen WN (2018) Valorization of brewer’s spent grain using fungi solid-state fermentation to enhance nutritional value. J Funct Foods 42:85–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Da Silva AM, Tavares APM, Rocha CMR, Cristóvão RO, Teixeira JA, Macedo EA (2012) Immobilization of commercial laccase on spent grain. Process Biochem 47:1095–1101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Oliveira R, Komesu A, Vaz Rossell CE, Maciel Filho R (2018) Challenges and opportunities in lactic acid bioprocess design—from economic to production aspects. Biochem Eng J 133:219–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Djukić-Vuković AP, Jokić BM, Kocić-Tanackov SD, Pejin JD, Mojović LV (2016) Mg-modified zeolite as a carrier for Lactobacillus rhamnosus in L(+) lactic acid production on distillery wastewater. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 59:262–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Djukić-Vuković AP, Mojović LV, Semenčenko VV, Radosavljević MM, Pejin J, Kocić-Tanackov SD (2015) Effective valorization of distillery stillage by integrated production of lactic acid and high quality feed. Food Res Int 73:75–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dos Santos Mathias TR, De Mello PPM, Sérvulo EFC (2014) Solid wastes in brewing process: a review. J Brew Distill 5(1):1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Du J, Zhang X, Li X, Liu G, Gao B, Qu Y (2018) The cellulose binding region in Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolase I has a higher capacity in improving crystalline cellulose degradation than that of Penicillium oxalicum. Bioresour Technol 266:19–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elezi O, Kourkoutas Y, Koutinas AA, Kanellaki M, Bezirtzoglou E, Barnett YA, Nigam P (2003) Food additive lactic acid production by immobilized cells of Lactobacillus brevis on delignified cellulosic material. J Agric Food Chem 51:5285–5289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eş I, Mousavi Khaneghah A, Barba FJ, Saraiva JA, Sant’Ana AS, Hashemi SMB (2018) Recent advancements in lactic acid production—a review. Food Res Int 107:763–770. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eş I, Ribeiro MC, Dos Santos Júnior SR, Khaneghah AM, Rodriguez AG, Amaral AC (2016) Production of cyclodextrin glycosyltransferase by immobilized Bacillus sp. on chitosan matrix. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 39:1487–1500. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eş I, Vieira JDG, Amaral AC (2015) Principles, techniques, and applications of biocatalyst immobilization for industrial application. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:2065–2082. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farias N, Soares M, Gouveia E (2016) Enhancement of the viability of Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469 in passion fruit juice: application of a central composite rotatable design. LWT Food Sci Technol 71:149–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoshino K, Taniguchi M, Marumoto H, Shimizu K, Fujii M (1991) Continuous lactic acid production from raw starch in a fermentation system using a reversibly soluble-autoprecipitating amylase and immobilized cells of Lactobacillus casei. Agric Biol Chem 55(2):479–485. Google Scholar
  24. Hosseini Koupaie E, Dahadha S, Bazyar Lakeh AA, Azizi A, Elbeshbishy E (2018) Enzymatic pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biomethane production—a review. J Environ Manag 233:774–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Idris A, Suzana W (2006) Effect of sodium alginate concentration, bead diameter, initial pH and temperature on lactic acid production from pineapple waste using immobilized Lactobacillus delbrueckii. Process Biochem 41(5):1117–1123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO 659:2009 Oilseeds—determination of oil content (Reference method) (2009) International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Kopsahelis N, Agouridis N, Bekatoru A, Kanellaki M (2007) Comparative study of spent grains and delignified spent grains as yeast supports for alcohol production from molasses. Bioresour Technol 98:1440–1447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kopsahelis N, Bosnea L, Bekatorou A, Tzia C, Kanellaki M (2012) Alcohol production from sterilized and non-sterilized molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae immobilized on brewer’s spent grains in two types of continuous bioreactor systems. Biomass Bioenergy 45:87–94.
  29. Kosin B, Rakshit SK (2006) Microbial and processing criteria for production of probiotics: a review. Food Technol Biotechnol 44(3):371–379. Google Scholar
  30. Kourkoutas Y, Xolias V, Kallis M, Bezirtzoglou E, Kanellaki M (2005) Lactobacillus casei cell immobilization on fruit pieces for probiotic additive, fermented milk and lactic acid production. Process Biochem 40(1):411–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krishnan S, Gowthaman MK, Misra MC, Karanth NG (2001) Chitosan treated polypropylene matrix as immobilization support for lactic acid production using Lactobacillus plantarum NCIM 2084. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 76:461–468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar MN, Gialleli A-I, Masson JB, Kandylis P, Bekatorou A, Koutinas AA, Kanellaki M (2014) Lactic acid fermentation by cells immobilised on various porous cellulosic materials and their alginate/poly-lactic acid composites. Bioresour Technol 165:332–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kwan TH, Hu Y, Lin CSK (2018) Techno-economic analysis of a food waste valorisation process for lactic acid, lactide and poly(lactic acid) production. J Clean Prod 181:72–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li L, Cai D, Wang C, Han J, Ren W, Zheng J, Wang Z, Tan T (2015) Continuous L-lactic acid production from defatted rice bran hydrolysate using corn stover bagasse immobilized carrier. RSC Adv 5:18511–18517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liao SF, Nyachoti M (2017) Using probiotics to improve swine gut health and nutrient utilization. Anim Nutr 3(4):331–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martinez FAC, Balciunas EM, Salgado JM, González JMD, Converti A, De Souza Oliveira RP (2013) Lactic acid properties, applications and production: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 30(1):70–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazzoli R, Bosco F, Mizrahi I, Bayer EA, Pessione E (2014) Towards lactic acid bacteria-based biorefineries. Biotechnol Adv 32(7):1216–1236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MEBAK–Wort Beer Beer-based Beverages (2013) Method Free amino nitrogen (FAN) ninhydrin method, Mitteleuropäische Brautechnische Analysenkommission (MEBAK), 85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-9805814-7-9Google Scholar
  39. Merino D, Ollier R, Lanfranconi M, Alvarez V (2016) Preparation and characterization of soy lecithin-modified bentonites. Appl Clay Sci 127–128:17–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller G (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid for determining reducing sugars. Anal Chem 31:426–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mirdamadi S, Atashgahi S, Rajabi A, Aziz-Mohseni F, Roayaei M, Hamedi J (2008) Cell entrapment of Lactobacillus casei subsp. casei ATCC 39392 for lactic acid production. Iran J Biotechnol 6:16–21. Google Scholar
  42. Moayyedi M, Eskandari MH, Rad AHE, Ziaee E, Khodaparast MHH, Golmakani M-T (2018) Effect of drying methods (electrospraying, freeze drying and spray drying) on survival and viability of microencapsulated Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469. J Funct Foods 40:391–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mussatto SI, Aguilar CN, Rodrigues LR, Teixeira JA (2009) Fructooligosaccharides and β-fructofuranosidase production by Aspergillus japonicus immobilized on lignocellulosic materials. J Mol Catal B 59:76–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pejin J, Radosavljević M, Kocić-Tanackov S, Djukić-Vuković A, Mojović L (2017) Lactic acid fermentation of brewer’s spent grain hydrolysate by Lactobacillus rhamnosus with yeast extract addition and pH control. J Inst Brew 123:98–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pejin J, Radosavljević M, Pribić M, Kocić-Tanackov S, Mladenović D, Djukić-Vuković A, Mojović L (2018) Possibility of L-(+)-lactic acid fermentation using malting, brewing, and oil production by-products. Waste Manag 79:153–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Radosavljević M, Pejin J, Pribić M, Kocić-Tanackov S, Mladenović D, Djukić-Vuković A, Mojović L (2018) Brewing and malting technology by-products as raw materials in L-(+)-lactic acid fermentation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol.
  47. Rao CS, Prakasham RS, Rao AB, Yadav JS (2008) Production of L (+) lactic acid by Lactobacillus delbrueckii immobilized in functionalized alginate matrices. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:1411–1415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Qiu Z, Gao Q, Bao J (2018) Engineering Pediococcus acidilactici with xylose assimilation pathway for high titer cellulosic l-lactic acid fermentation. Bioresour Technol 249:9–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Serbian Government, (2015) Rulebook for feed quality (in Serbian). Službeni glasnik RS 4/2010, 113/2012, 27/2014 i 25/2015. ( (Last time accessed 9th October 2018))
  50. Shen X, Xia L (2006) Lactic acid production from cellulosic waste by immobilized cells of Lactobacillus delbrueckii. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22:1109–1114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shi Z, Wei P, Zhu X, Cai J, Huang L, Xu Z (2012) Efficient production of l-lactic acid from hydrolysate of Jerusalem artichoke with immobilized cells of Lactococcus lactis in fibrous bed bioreactors. Enzym Microb Technol 51(5):263–268.
  52. Shurson GC (2018) Yeast and yeast derivatives in feed additives and ingredients: sources, characteristics, animal responses, and quantification methods. Anim Feed Sci Technol 235:60–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sosa-Hernández O, Popat SC, Parameswaran P, Alemán-Nava GS, Torres CI, Buitrón G, Parra-Saldívar R (2016) Application of microbial electrolysis cells to treat spent yeast from an alcoholic fermentation. Bioresour Technol 200:342–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. SRPS EN ISO 6865 (2008) Animal feeding stuffs—determination of crude cellulose content—method with intermediate filtrationGoogle Scholar
  55. Succi M, Tremonte P, Reale A, Sorrentino E, Grazia L, Pacifico S, Coppola R (2005) Bile salt and acid tolerance of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strains isolated from Parmigiano Reggiano cheese. FEMS Microbiol Lett 244(1):129–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanyildizi MS, Bulut Ş, Selen V, Özer D (2012) Optimization of lactic acid production with immobilized Rhizopus oryzae. Afr J Biotechnol 11(34):8546–8552. Google Scholar
  57. The European parliament & the Council of the European union (EC) (2003) Regulation (EC) no 1831/2003 of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. Off J Eur Union L268:29–43Google Scholar
  58. Tian S-Q, Zhao R-Y, Chen Z-C (2018) Review of the pretreatment and bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass from wheat straw materials. Renew Sust Energ Rev 91:483–489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vieira E, Brandão T, Ferreira IMPLVO (2013) Evaluation of brewer’s spent yeast to produce flavor enhancer nucleotides: influence of serial repitching. J Agric Food Chem 61:8724–8729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang S, Gao W, Chen K, Xiang Z, Zeng J, Wang B, Xu J (2018) Deconstruction of cellulosic fibers to fibrils based on enzymatic pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 267:426–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yirga H (2015) The use of probiotics in animal nutrition. J Prob Health 3(2).
  62. Zahran WE, Elsonbaty SM, Moawed FSM (2017) Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469 exopolysaccharides synergizes with low level ionizing radiation to modulate signaling molecular targets in colorectal carcinogenesis in rats. Biomed Pharmacother 92:384–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang D, Li R, Li J (2012) Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 and L22 display probiotic potential in vitro and protect against Salmonella-induced pullorum disease in a chick model of infection. Res Vet Sci 93:366–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhao Z, Xie X, Wang Z, Tao Y, Niu X, Huang X, Liu L, Li Z (2016) Immobilization of Lactobacillus rhamnosus in mesoporous silica-based material: an efficiency continuous cell-recycle fermentation system for lactic acid production. J Biosci Bioeng 121(6):645–651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miloš Radosavljević
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jelena Pejin
    • 1
  • Milana Pribić
    • 1
  • Sunčica Kocić-Tanackov
    • 1
  • Ranko Romanić
    • 1
  • Dragana Mladenović
    • 2
  • Aleksandra Djukić-Vuković
    • 2
  • Ljiljana Mojović
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology Novi SadUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Technology and MetallurgyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations