Sustainable Diesel Feedstock: a Comparison of Oleaginous Bacterial and Microalgal Model Systems
- 128 Downloads
The key to sustainable and commercially viable biodiesel production relies primarily on species selection. Oleaginous species with high biomass productivity, lipid content, and lipid productivity are desirable. High growth rate of the species results in high biomass productivity, which leads to high lipid productivity. It is known that algal oil technology lacks commercial feasibility predominantly due to low biomass productivity and other factors. The use of a faster-growing organism, such as oleaginous bacteria, could offset this major disadvantage. Thus, the current study analyzes two model oleaginous systems: Rhodococcus opacus PD630 (a bacterium) and Chlorella vulgaris NIOT5 (a microalga) for their growth rate and lipid productivity. It was found that the bacterial growth rate was 25-fold the microalgal growth rate. The bacterium also showed 57-fold higher biomass productivity and 75-fold higher biodiesel productivity. Further, the analysis of a large number of literature data from relevant studies under different cultivation conditions showed that R. opacus PD630 has productivities far higher than various autotrophic microalgae. Similarly, a frequency distribution of data collected from the literature showed that Rhodococcus sp. has productivities in the higher range as compared to heterotrophic microalgae. Thus, bacteria could serve as a better alternative to microalgae toward developing a commercially viable biofuel technology. Further, the biodiesel characterization study showed that the quality of diesel from the bacterium was better than that from the microalga.
KeywordsLipid productivity R. opacus Biodiesel Sustainability Growth rate Biomass productivity
The authors thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST, grant no. SB/S3/CE/007/2013) and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT, grant ref. no. BT/PR11328/PBD/26/176/2008), Government of India, for financial assistance.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 14.FAO United Nations. Sustainable bioenergy: a framework for decision makers. http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/010/a1094e/a1094e00.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2017
- 15.FAO United Nations. The state of food and agriculture. http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/011/i0100e/i0100e.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2017
- 22.Li W, Du W, Li YH, Liu DH, Zhao ZB (2007) Enzymatic transesterification of yeast oil for biodiesel fuel production. Chinese J Process Eng 7:137–140Google Scholar
- 23.Liu S, Yang W, Shi A (2000) Screening of the high lipid production strains and studies on its flask culture conditions. Microbiology 27:93–97Google Scholar
- 28.Renneberg R, Berkling V, Loroch V (2016) Biotechnology for beginners, 2nd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 34.Amorim H, Basso L, Lopes M (2009) Sugar cane juice and molasses, beet molasses and sweet sorghum: composition and usage. In: Ingledew W, Kelsall D, Austin G, Kluhspies C (eds) The alcohol textbook: a reference for the beverage, fuel, and industrial alcohol industries. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp 39–46Google Scholar
- 39.Alvarez HM, Roxana AS, Herrero OM, Hernandez MA, Villalba MS (2013) Metabolism of triacylglycerols in Rhodococcus species: insights from physiology and molecular genetics. J Mol Biochem 2:69–78Google Scholar
- 45.Harrison P, Berges J (2005) Marine culture media. In: Anderson R (ed) Algal culturing techniques. Academic, New York, pp 21–23Google Scholar
- 49.ASTM: 6751-02 (2003) American standards for testing of materials. http://www.svlele.com/biodiesel_std.htm. Accessed 22 Jul 2018
- 50.EN: 14214 (2003) European standards for biodiesel. http://www.svlele.com/biodiesel_std.htm. Accessed 22 Jul 2018
- 51.IS: 15607 (2005), Indian standards for biodiesel. https://ia600407.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.in.is.15607.2005/is.15607.2005.pdf. Accessed 22 Jul 2018
- 56.Al Taweel AM, Shah Q, Aufderheide B (2012) Effect of mixing on microorganism growth in loop bioreactors. Int J Chem Eng 984827(12)Google Scholar
- 59.Metting F (1996) Biodiversity and application of microalgae. J Ind Microbiol 17:477–489Google Scholar
- 60.Acien F, Fernández J, Molina-Grima E (2013) Economics of microalgae biomass production. In: Pandey A, Lee DJ, Chisti Y, Soccol CR (eds) Biofuels from algae. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 313–325Google Scholar
- 66.Tan KWM, Lee YK (2016) The dilemma for lipid productivity in green microalgae: importance of substrate provision in improving oil yield without sacrificing growth. Biotechnol Biofuels 1–14Google Scholar
- 68.Davis R, Markham J, Kinchin CM, Grundl N, Tan ECD, Humbird D (2016) Process design and economics for the production of algal biomass: algal biomass production in open pond systems and processing through dewatering for downstream conversion. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64772.pdf. Accessed 2 Sep 2018
- 73.Musharraf SG, Ahmed MA, Zehra N, Kabir N, Choudhary MI, Rahman AU (2012) Biodiesel production from microalgal isolates of southern Pakistan and quantification of FAMEs by GC-MS / MS analysis. Chem Cent J 6:149Google Scholar
- 77.Bamgboye A, Hansen A (2008) Prediction of cetane number of biodiesel fuel from the fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) composition. Int Agrophys 22:21–29Google Scholar
- 78.Lloyd AC, Cackette TA (2015) Diesel engines: environmental impact and control. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 37–41Google Scholar
- 80.Phillips W (1984) Role of different microbes and substrates as potential suppliers of specific, essential nutrients to marine detritivores. Bull Mar Sci 35:283–298Google Scholar