Advertisement

3 Biotech

, 9:455 | Cite as

Optimization of pre-saccharification time during dSSF process in oat-hull bioethanol technology

  • Galina F. MironovaEmail author
  • Ekaterina A. Skiba
  • Aleksey A. Kukhlenko
Original Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

This study suggests a mathematical description and the optimization of the pre-saccharification time during simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with delayed yeast inoculation (dSSF) to ensure the fastest and fullest possible conversion of a substrate into the target product—bioethanol. A pulp derived by alkaline delignification of oat hulls was used as a substrate. The pre-saccharification step of oat-hull pulp was performed at a solid loading of 60 g/L, at 46 ± 2 °C, using mixed enzymes CelloLux-A and BrewZyme BGX, the pre-saccharification time was 8, 15, 24, 39, 48 and 72 h. Afterwards, the reaction mixture was cooled to 28 °C, a 10% inoculum of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y-1693 was seeded, and fermentation combined with saccharification. The optimum pre-saccharification time (inoculation time) under these conditions was found to be 24 h, thus providing the maximum hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicelluloses and the highest yield of bioethanol. The procedure suggested herein for determining the optimum pre-saccharification time can be used for other model substrates from lignocellulosic feedstocks.

Keywords

Oat hulls Pre-saccharification dSSF model Bioethanol 

Abbreviations and List of symbols

CP(t)

Concentration of reducing sugars (g/L)

CS(t)

Concentration of substrate (g/L)

CS(0)

Initial concentration of substrate (g/L)

CES(t)

Concentration of enzyme–substrate complex (g/L)

Cm

Final concentration of reducing sugars after 72-h enzymatic hydrolysis (g/L)

Cn(t0)

Concentration of unutilized reducing sugars for bioethanol production (g/L)

C0(t,t0)

Concentration of unutilizable reducing sugars for bioethanol production (g/L)

Cps(t,t0)

Concentration of utilizable reducing sugars for bioethanol production (g/L)

Ck

Concentration of utilized reducing sugars for bioethanol production (g/L)

dSSF

Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with delayed inoculation

K

Bioethanol concentration (g/L)

k0

Coefficient of the proportion of unutilizable reducing sugars for bioethanol production

k1

Formation rate of enzyme–substrate complex (h−1)

k2

Breakdown rate of enzyme–substrate complex (g/(L h))

k3

Formation rate of reducing sugars (g/(L h))

k4

Fermentation rate of utilizable reducing sugars for bioethanol production (h−1)

k5

Theoretical yield of bioethanol from sugars (g/g)

RS

Reducing sugars

SHF

Separate hydrolysis and fermentation

SSF

Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation

t

Total process time (h)

t0

Enzymatic hydrolysis time (inoculation time) (h)

Y

Bioethanol yield on a substrate weight basis (g/g)

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted under the State Assignment Program with Theme Registration no. AAAA-A17-117011910006-5.

Author contributions

GFM and EAS designed and performed experiments on bioethanol synthesis, and AAK did mathematical modeling.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baig KS, Wu J, Turcotte G (2019) Future prospects of delignification pretreatments for the lignocellulosic materials to produce second generation bioethanol. Int J Energy Res 43(4):1411–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajpai P (2016) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for biofuel production. SpringerBriefs in molecular science. Springer, Singapore, pp 17–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0687-6_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballesteros I, Ballesteros M, CabaÑas A et al (1991) Selection of thermotolerant yeasts for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of cellulose to ethanol. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 28:307–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02922610 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs GE, Haldane JB (1925) A note on the kinetics of enzyme action. Biochem J 19(2):338–339PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. De Souza CJA, Costa DA, Rodrigues MQRB, dos Santos AF, Lopes MR, Abrantes ABP, dos Santos CP, Silveira WB, Passos FM, Fietto LG (2012) The influence of presaccharification, fermentation temperature and yeast strain on ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse. Biores Tech 109:63–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donohoe BS, Resch MG (2015) Mechanisms employed by cellulase systems to gain access through the complex architecture of lignocellulosic substrates. Curr Opin Chem Biol 29:100–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2015.08.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Du R, Su R, Qi W, He Z (2018) Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of corncob by ultrasound-assisted soaking in aqueous ammonia pretreatment. 3 Biotech 8:166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1186-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Esfahanian M, Nikzad M, Najafpour G, Ghoreyshi A (2013) Modeling and optimization of ethanol fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae: response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q 19(2):241–252.  https://doi.org/10.2298/ciceq120210058e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fan L, Gharpuray MM, Lee YH (1987) Enzymatic hydrolysis. Cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnology monographs 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 21–119.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-72575-3_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta A, Verma JP (2015) Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:550–567.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guss A, Lynd LR (2012) Clostridium thermocellum strains for enhanced ethanol production and method of their use. WO Pat 109578:A3Google Scholar
  12. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu F, Ragauskas A (2012) Pretreatment and lignocellulosic chemistry. Bioenerg Res 5(4):1043–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9208-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu ML, Zha J, He LW et al (2016) Enhanced bioconversion of cellobiose by industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae used for cellulose utilization. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00241 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ioelovich M (2015) Study of kinetics of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose materials. ChemXpress 8:231–239.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3185.6806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joshi B, Joshi J, Bhattarai T, Sreerama L (2019) Currently used microbes and advantages of using genetically modified microbes for ethanol production. Bioethanol production from food crops. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 293–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-813766-6.00015-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kadhum HJ, Mahapatra DM, Murthy GS (2019) A comparative account of glucose yields and bioethanol production from separate and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation processes at high solids loading with variable PEG concentration. Biores Tech 283:67–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaymak DB (2019) Design and control of an alternative bioethanol purification process via reactive distillation from fermentation broth. Ind Eng Chem Res 58(4):1675–1685.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b04832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurschner K, Hoffer A (1993) Cellulose and cellulose derivative. Fresenius J Anal Chem 92(3):145–154Google Scholar
  20. Kvist T, Mikkelsen MJ, Andersen RL (2012) Thermophilic Thermoanaerobacter italicus subsp. marato having high alcohol productivity. EP Patent 2516621 A1Google Scholar
  21. Lim WL, Gunny AAN, Kasim FH, AlNashef IM, Arbain D (2019) Alkaline deep eutectic solvent: a novel green solvent for lignocellulose pulping. Cellulose 26:4085.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-019-02346-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu Y, Xu J, Zhang Y, Yuan Z, He M, Liang C, Zhuang X, Xie J (2015) Sequential bioethanol and biogas production from sugarcane bagasse based on high solids fed-batch SSF. Energy 90:1199–1205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu CG, Xiao Y, Xia XX, Zhao XQ, Peng L, Srinophakun P, Bai FW (2019) Cellulosic ethanol production: progress, challenges and strategies for solutions. Biotechnol Adv 37(3):491–504.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. López-Linares JC, Romero I, Cara C, Ruiz E, Moya M, Castro E (2014) Bioethanol production from rapeseed straw at high solids loading with different process configurations. Fuel 122:112–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Makarova EI, Budaeva VV (2016) Bioconversion of non-food cellulosic biomass. Part 1. Izvestiya vuzov. Prikladnaya khimiya i Biotekhnologiya [Proceedings of universities. Applied chemistry and biotechnology] 6(2):43–50.  https://doi.org/10.21285/2227-2925-2016-6-2-43-50 (in Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makarova EI, Budaeva VV, Skiba EA (2014) Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose from oat husks at different substrate concentrations. Russ J Bioorganic Chem 40(7):726–732.  https://doi.org/10.1134/s1068162014070103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Makarova EI, Budaeva VV, Kukhlenko AA, Orlov SE (2017) Enzyme kinetics of cellulose hydrolysis of Miscanthus and oat hulls. 3 Biotech 7(5):317.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-017-0964-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mansouri A, Rihani R, Laoufi AN, Özkan M (2016) Production of bioethanol from a mixture of agricultural feedstocks: biofuels characterization. Fuel 185:612–621.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mesa L, González E, Romero I, Ruiz E, Cara C, Castro E (2011) Comparison of process configurations for ethanol production from two-step pretreated sugarcane bagasse. Chem Eng J 175:185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.09.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31(3):426–428.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60147a030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mohd Azhar SH, Abdulla R, Jambo SA, Marbawi H, Gansau JA, Mohd Faik AA, Rodrigues KF (2017) Yeasts in sustainable bioethanol production: a review. Biochem Biophys Rep 10:52–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2017.03.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Morales-Rodriguez R, Gernaey KV, Meyer AS, Sin G (2011) A mathematical model for simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) of C6 and C5 Sugars. Chin J Chem Eng 19(2):185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1004-9541(11)60152-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreno AD, Ibarra D, Ballesteros I, González A, Ballesteros M (2013) Comparing cell viability and ethanol fermentation of the thermotolerant yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on steam-exploded biomass treated with laccase. Biores Tech 135:239–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Öhgren K, Vehmaanperä J, Siika-Aho M, Galbe M, Viikari L, Zacchi G (2007) High temperature enzymatic prehydrolysis prior to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated corn stover for ethanol production. Enzym Microb Technol 40(4):607–613.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2006.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olofsson K, Bertilsson M, Lidén G (2008) A short review on SSF—an interesting process option for ethanol production from lignocellulosic feedstocks. Biotechnol Biofuels 1:7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-1-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Paulová L, Patáková P, Rychtera M, Melzoch K (2014) High solid fed-batch SSF with delayed inoculation for improved production of bioethanol from wheat straw. Fuel 122:294–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramachandran KB, Hashim MA (1990) Simulation studies on simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose to ethanol. Chem Eng J 45(2):B27–B34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9467(90)80038-e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sewsynker-Sukai Y, Gueguim Kana EB (2018) Simultaneous saccharification and bioethanol production from corn cobs: process optimization and kinetic studies. Biores Tech 262:32–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skiba EA, Budaeva VV, Baibakova OV, Zolotukhin VN, Sakovich GV (2017a) Dilute nitric-acid pretreatment of oat hulls for ethanol production. Biochem Eng J 126:118–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2016.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skiba EA, Baibakova OV, Budaeva VV et al (2017b) Pilot technology of ethanol production from oat hulls for subsequent conversion to ethylene. Chem Eng J 329:178–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.05.182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steensels J, Snoek T, Meersman E, Nicolino MP, Voordeckers K, Verstrepen KJ (2014) Improving industrial yeast strains: exploiting natural and artificial diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev 38(5):947–995.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12073 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. TAPPI method T211 om-85 (1985) Ash in wood, pulp, paper, and paperboard. Test methods. TAPPI Press, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  43. TAPPI method T222 om-83 (1999) Acid-insoluble lignin in wood and pulp. Test methods 1998–1999. TAPPI Press, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  44. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Global Analysis (2019) World Agricultural Production (Circular Series WAP 6-19). https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/production.pdf. Accessed Jul 2019
  45. Unrean P, Khajeeram S, Laoteng K (2016) Systematic optimization of fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation at high-solid loading based on enzymatic hydrolysis and dynamic metabolic modeling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100(5):2459–2470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-7173-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zabed HM, Akter S, Yun J, Zhang G, Awad FN, Qi X, Sahu JN (2019) Recent advances in biological pretreatment of microalgae and lignocellulosic biomass for biofuel production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 105:105–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Bioconversion, Laboratory of Chemical Engineering Processes and Apparatuses, Institute for Problems of Chemical and Energetic TechnologiesSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPCET SB RAS)BiyskRussia

Personalised recommendations