Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology

, Volume 38, Issue 11, pp 1787–1792 | Cite as

Influence of cultivation procedure for Saccharomyces cerevisiae used as pitching agent in industrial spent sulphite liquor fermentations

  • Emma Johansson
  • Tomas Brandberg
  • Christer Larsson
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The cell viability and fermentation performance often deteriorate in fermentations of spent sulphite liquor (SSL). This investigation therefore addresses the question of how different cultivation conditions for yeast cells influence their ability to survive and boost the ethanol production capacity in an SSL-based fermentation process. The strains used as pitching agents were an industrially harvested Saccharomyces cerevisiae and commercial dry baker’s yeast. This study therefore suggests that exposure to SSL in combination with nutrients, prior to the fermentation step, is crucial for the performance of the yeast. Supplying 0.5 g/l fresh yeast cultivated under appropriate cultivation conditions may increase ethanol concentration more than 200%.

Keywords

Spent sulphite liquor Ethanol Yeast Microbial infections Pitching 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support by the Kempe Foundation and the county administrative board of Västernorrland is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are also given to Domsjö Fabriker for their cooperation.

References

  1. 1.
    Alkasrawi M, Rudolf A, Lidén G, Zacchi G (2006) Influence of strain and cultivation procedure on the performance of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated spruce. Enzym Microbiol Technol 38:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida JRM, Modig T, Petersson A, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Lidén G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF (2007) Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82:340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbour EA, Priest FG (1988) Some effects of Lactobacillus contamination in scotch whiskey fermentations. J Inst Brew 94:89–92Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basilio ACM, de Araujo PRL, de Morais JOF, da Silva Filho EA, de Morais MA Jr, Simoes DA (2008) Detection and identification of wild yeast contaminants of the industrial fuel ethanol fermentation process. Curr Microbiol 56:322–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bischoff KM, Liu S, Leathers TD, Worthington RE, Rich JO (2009) Modeling bacterial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 103:117–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delgenes JP, Moletta R, Navarro JM (1996) Effects of lignocellulose degradation products on ethanol fermentations of glucose and xylose by Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Zymomonas mobilis, Pichia stipitis, and Candida shehatae. Enzym Microbiol Technol 19:220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ingledew WM (2009) Yeasts: physiology, nutrition and ethanol production. In: Ingledew WM, Kelsall DR, Austin GD, Kluhspies C (eds) The alcohol textbook, 5th edn. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp 101–113Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ivorra C, Pérez-Ortìn IE, del Olmo M (1999) An inverse correlation between stress resistance and stuck fermentations in wine yeasts. A molecular study. Biotechnol Bioeng 64:668–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laluce C, Tognolli JO, de Oliviera KF, Souza CS, Morais MR (2009) Optimization of temperature, sugar concentration, and inoculum size to maximize ethanol production without significant decrease in yeast cell viability. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 83:627–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsson S, Reimann A, Nilvebrant N-O, Jönsson LJ (1999) Comparison of different methods for the detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolyzates of spruce. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 77:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez MJ, Nichols NN, Dien BS, Moreno J, Bothast RJ (2004) Isolation of microorganisms for biological detoxification of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 64:125–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinez A, Rodriguez ME, York SW, Preston JF, Ingram LO (2000) Effects of Ca(OH)2 treatments (“overliming”) on the composition and toxicity of bagasse hemicellulose hydrolyzates. Biotechnol Bioeng 69(5):526–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCaig R, Bendiak DS, Dirk S (1985) Yeast handling studies. I. Agitation of stored pitching yeast. Techn Quart Master Brew Assoc Am 22:172–176Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCaig R, Bendiak DS (1985) Yeast handling studies. II. Temperature of storage of pitching yeast. Techn Quart Master Brew Assoc Am 22:177–180Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Narendranath NV, Thomas KC, Ingledew WM (2001) Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in minimal media. J Indust Microbiol Biotech 26:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nilsson A, Norbeck J, Oelz R, Blomberg A, Gustafsson L (2001) Fermentative capacity after cold storage of baker’s yeast is dependent on the initial physiological state but not correlated to the levels of glycolytic enzymes. Inter J Food Microbiol 71:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olsson L, Hahn-Hägerdal B (1993) Fermentative performance of bacteria and yeast in lignocellulose hydrolysates. Process Biochem 28:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Szengyel Z, Zacchi G, Rèczey K (1997) Simultaneous detoxification and enzyme production of hemicellulose hydrolyzates obtained after steam pretreatment. Enzyme Microbiol Technol 20:286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parawira W, Tekere M (2010) Biotechnological strategies to overcome inhibitors in lignocellulose hydrolysates for ethanol production: review. Crit Rev Biotechnol. doi:  10.3109/07388551003757816
  20. 20.
    Schimz K-L (1980) The effect of sulfite on the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Arch Microbiol 125:89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silva CJSM, Roberto IC (2001) Improvement of xylitol production by Candida guilliermondii FTI 20037 previously adapted to rice straw hemicellulosic hydrolysate. Lett Appl Microbiol 32:248–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sjöström E (1981) Wood chemistry—fundamentals and applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skinner AK, Leathers TD (2004) Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:401–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomsson E, Larsson C, Albers E, Nilsson A, Fransén CJ, Gustafsson L (2003) Carbon starvation can induce energy deprivation and loss of fermentative capacity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:3251–3257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhu JJ, Yong Q, Xu Y, Yu S-Y (2009) Comparative detoxification of vacuum evaporation/steam stripping combined with overliming on corn stover prehydrolyzate. Energy Environ Technol ICEET `09. International conference. doi:  10.1109/ICEET.2009.523

Copyright information

© Society for Industrial Microbiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma Johansson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Tomas Brandberg
    • 2
  • Christer Larsson
    • 3
  1. 1.Processum Biorefinary Initiative ABÖrnsköldsvikSweden
  2. 2.SEKAB E-TechnologyÖrnsköldsvikSweden
  3. 3.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations