Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 3787–3800 | Cite as

Repeated batches as a feasible industrial process for hemicellulosic ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse by using immobilized yeast cells

  • F. A. F. AntunesEmail author
  • J. C. Santos
  • A. K. Chandel
  • D. J. Carrier
  • G. F. D. Peres
  • T. S. S. Milessi
  • S. S. da Silva
Original Research
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Currently, sugarcane bagasse (SB) is the most abundant agricultural residue generated in Brazil. Given that hemicelluloses can reach up to 30% of SB, bioconversion of this fraction into second generation ethanol (2G) is essential for the success of biorefinery based operations. For 2G ethanol production, techniques such as immobilization process could be an interesting strategy to improve process productivity and must receive special investigation. Cell immobilization of the native Brazilian pentose wild converting yeast, Scheffersomyces shehatae UFMG-HM 52.2, was proposed for the production of 2G ethanol from SB hemicellulosic hydrolysate. A 23 full experimental design was constructed with varying concentrations of sodium alginate (1.0, 1.5 and 2.0% w/v), and calcium chloride (0.1 M, 0.15 M and 0.2 M) and conditioning time (12, 18 and 24 h). Through statistical analysis, it was determined that highest ethanol yield (YP/S of 0.32 g/g) and productivity (QP of 0.146 g/L.h) were obtained with immobilization conditions of 1% sodium alginate, 0.2 M calcium chloride and 12 h of conditioning time. Repeated batches were conducted employing these defined conditions, showing the feasibility to use the system for 5 consecutive cycles. Results highlighted the use of proposed approach for ethanol production, promoting its inclusion in biorefinery operation portfolios.

Graphical abstract

Hemicellulosic hydrolysate from sugarcane bagasse: a large available carbon source; S. shehatae UFMG-HM 52.2 is a Brazilian wild native pentose fermenting yeast; Immobilization conditions for this yeast were defined for ethanol production; Stability in ethanol production was demonstrated in 5 repeated consecutive batches; Our approach was demonstrated feasible for industrial 2G ethanol process development.

Keywords

Bioethanol production Sugarcane bagasse Hemicellulosic hydrolysate Cell immobilization Repeated batch process 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—Processo CNPq [154193/2018-6], FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) (2014/27055-2), CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), and FAPESP-BIOEN. AKC is thankful to USP-CAPES visiting researcher program. Authors also thank Prof. Carlos A. Rosa, who kindly provided the yeast S. shehatae UFMG-HM 52.2 from the culture collection of Federal University of Minas Gerais- MG- BRAZIL.

References

  1. Akin C (1987) Biocatalysis with immobilized cells. Biotechnol Genetic Eng Rev 5:319–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves LA, Felipe MGA, Silva JBA, Silva SS, Prata AMR (1998) Pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose hydrolysate for xylitol production by Candida guilliermondii. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 70:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvira P, Tomás-pejó E, Ballesteros M, Negro MJ (2010) Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: a review. Bioresour Technol 101:4851–4861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antunes FAF, Chandel AK, Santos JC; et al (2018) Bioethanol: An overview of production possibilities. In: Brienzo, M.. (Ed) Bioethanol and Beyond ¬ Andvances in Production Process and Future Directions. 1ed.NY - USA: Nova Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
  5. Bangrak P, Savitree L, Phisalaphong M (2011) Continuous ethanol production using immobilized yeast cells entrapped in loofa-reinforced alginate carriers. Braz J Microbiol 42:676–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behera S, Kar S, Mohanty RC, Ray RC (2010) Comparative study of bio-ethanol production from (mahula (Madhula latifolia L.) flowers by Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells immobilized in agar and Ca alginate matrices. Appl Energy 87:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Behera S, Mohanty RC, Ray RC (2012) Ethanol fermentation of sugarcane molasses by Zymomonas mobilis MTCC 92 immobilized in Luffa cylindrical L. sponge discs and Ca- alginate matrices. Braz J Microbiol 43:1499–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan L, Owende P (2010) Biofuels from microalgae—a review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:557–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canilha L, Chandel AK, Milessi TSS, Antunes FAF, Freitas WLC, Felipe MGA, da Silva SS (2012) Review article : Bioconversion of sugarcane biomass into ethanol: an overview about composition, pretreatment methods, detoxification of hydrolysates, enzymatic saccharification, and ethanol fermentation. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carvalho W, Silva SS, Vitolo M, Felipe MGA, Mancilha IM (2002) Improvement in xylitol production from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate achieved by the use of a repeated-batch immobilized cell system. Z Naturforsch C 57:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carvalho W, Silva SS, Santos JC, Converti A (2003) Xylitol production by Ca-alginate entrapped cells: comparison of different fermentation systems. Enzyme Microb Technol 32:553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerqueira-Leite RC, Leal MRLV, Cortez LAB, Griffin WM, Scandiffio MIG (2009) Can Brazil replace 5% of the 2025 gasoline world demand with ethanol? Energy 34:655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandel AK, Antunes FAF, Anjos V, Bell MJB, Rodrigues LN, Singh OV, Rosa CA, Pagnocca FC, da Silva SS (2013) Ultra-structural mapping of sugarcane bagasse after oxalic acid fiber expansion (OAFEX) and ethanol production by Candida shehatae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol Biofuels 6(4):1–15Google Scholar
  14. Chandel AK, Antunes FAF, Anjos V et al (2014) Multi-scale structural and chemical analysis of sugarcane bagasse in the process of sequential acidbasepretreatment and ethanol production by Scheffersomyces shehatae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechn Biofuels 7:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chandel AK, Garlapatib VK, Singhc AK, Antunes FAF, da Silva SS (2018a) The path forward for lignocellulose biorefineries: bottlenecks, solutions, and perspective on commercialization. Biores Technol 26:370–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandel AK, Garlapati VK, Singh AK, Antunes FAF, Silva SS (2018b) The path forward for lignocellulose biorefineries: Bottlenecks, solutions, and perspective on commercialization. Biores Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.004 Google Scholar
  17. Chen KC, Huang CT (1998) Effects of the growth of T. cutaneum in calcium alginate gel beads upon bead structure and oxygen transfer characteristics. Enzyme Microb Technol 10:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cherubini F (2010) The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for producing energy and chemicals. Energy Convers Manag 51:1412–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. CONAB (2018) National Supply Company. Monitoring of the Brazilian harvest, Brazilian Supply Ministry (Segundo Levantamento Safra 2018/2019). https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/cana/boletim-da-safra-de-cana-de-acucar. Accessed Oct 2018
  20. Freeman A, Lilly MD (1998) Effect of processing parameters on the feasibility and operational stability of immobilized viable microbial cells. Enzyme Microb Technol 23:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gírio FM, Fonseca C, Carvalheiro F, Duarte LC, Marques S, Bogel-Lukasik R (2010) Hemicelluloses for fuel ethanol: a review. Bioresour Technol 101:4775–4800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ha SJ, Galazkac JM, Kima SR, Choia JH, Yang X, Seoe JHN, Glassf L, Catec JHD, Jina YS (2011) Engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae capable of simultaneous cellobiose and xylose fermentation. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 108:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hahn-hägerdal B, Jeppsson H, Skoog K, Prior B (1994) Biochemistry and physiology of xylose fermentation by yeasts. Enzyme Microbiol Technol 16:933–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harmsen PFH, Huijgen WJJ, Bermúdez Lopez LM, Bakke RC (2012) Literature review of physical and chemical pretreatment processes for lignocellulosic biomass. Food and Biomass Res Wageningen UR 1:1–49Google Scholar
  25. Holtzapple T (2003) Hemicelluloses. Encycl Food Sci Nutr.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-227055-X/00589-7 Google Scholar
  26. Ivanova V, Petrova P, Hristov J (2011) Application in the ethanol fermentation of immobilized yeast cells in matrix of alginate/magnetic nanoparticles, on chitosan-magnetite microparticles and cellulose-coated magnetic nanoparticles. Int Rev Chem Eng 3:289–299Google Scholar
  27. Jeffries TW (1983) Utilization of xylose by bacteria, yeasts and fungi. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 27:1–32Google Scholar
  28. Knauf M, Moniruzzaman M (2004) Lignocellulosic biomass processing: a perspective. Int Sugar J 1263:147–150Google Scholar
  29. Ksungur YG, Zorlu N (2001) Production of ethanol from beet molasses by Ca-alginate immobilized yeast cells in a packed-bed bioreactor. Turkish J Biol 25:265–275Google Scholar
  30. Meena K, Raja TK (2006) Immobilization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells by gel entrapment using various metal alginates. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22:651–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelder JA (1998) The selection of terms in response surface models—how strong is the weak heredity principle. Am Stat 52:16Google Scholar
  32. Nigam JN (2000) Continuous ethanol production from pineapple cannery waste using immobilized yeast cell. J Biotechnol 80:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ogbonna JC, Amano Y, Nakamura KJ (1989) Elucidation of optimum conditions for immobilization of viable cells by using calcium alginate. J Ferment Bioeng 67:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Omar SH (1993) Oxygen diffusion through gels employed for immobilization. 2—In the presence of microorganisms. Appli Microbiol Biotechnol 40:173–181Google Scholar
  35. Parajó JC, Dominguez H, Dominguez JM (1998) Biotechnological production of xylitol. Part 1: interest of xylitol and fundamentals of its biosynthesis. Bioresour Technol 65:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parekh SR, Yu S, Wayman M (1986) Adaptation of Candida shehatae and Pichia stipitis to wood hydrolysates for increased ethanol production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 25:300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peart PC, Chen ARM, Reynolds WR, Reese PB (2012) Entrapment of mycelial fragments in calcium alginate: a general technique for the use of immobilized filamentous fungi in biocatalysis. Steroids 77:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perez-Bibbins B, Torrado-Agrasar A, Salgado JM, Mussato SI, Dominguez JM (2015) Xylitol production in immobilized cultures: a recent review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 10:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowell RM, Pettersen R, Tshabalala MA (2005) Cell wall chemistry. In: Rowell RM (ed) Handbook of wood chemistry and wood composites. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 35–74Google Scholar
  40. Sanda T, Hasunuma T, Matsuda F, Kondo A (2011) Repeated-batch fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysate to ethanol using a hybrid Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain metabolically engineered for tolerance to acetic and formic acids. Biores Technol 102:7917–7924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santos JC, Silva SS, Mussatto SI, Carvalho W, Cunha MA (2005) Immobilized cells cultivated in semi-continuous mode in a fluidized bed reactor for xylitol production from sugarcane bagasse. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:531–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarrouh BF, Silva SS (2013) Repeated batch cell-immobilized system for the biotechnological production of xylitol as a renewable green sweetener. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarrouh BF, Tresinari DS, Silva SS (2007) Biotechnological production of xylitol in a three-phase fluidized bed bioreactor with immobilized yeast cells in Ca-alginate beads. Biotechnol J 2:759–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh A, Sharma P, Saran AK, Singh N, Bishnoi NR (2013) Comparative study on ethanol production from pretreated sugarcane bagasse using immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae on various matrices. Renewable Energy 50:488–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang Y, Tan L, Wang T, Sun Z, Tang Y, Kida K (2017) Production of ethanol from kitchen waste by using flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae KF-7. Environ Technol 38:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winkelhausen E, Kuzmanova S (1998) Microbial conversion of d-xylose to xylitol. J Ferment Bioeng 86:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao J, Xia L (2010) Ethanol production from corn stover hemicellulosic hydrolysate using immobilized recombinant yeast cells. Biochem Eng J 49:28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. A. F. Antunes
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. C. Santos
    • 1
  • A. K. Chandel
    • 1
  • D. J. Carrier
    • 2
  • G. F. D. Peres
    • 1
  • T. S. S. Milessi
    • 1
  • S. S. da Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering School of LorenaUniversity of São PauloLorenaBrazil
  2. 2.Biosystems Engineering and Soil ScienceUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations