Biological treatment of vinasse with yeast and simultaneous production of single-cell protein for feed supplementation

  • K. C. dos Reis
  • J. M. Coimbra
  • W. F. Duarte
  • R. F. Schwan
  • C. F. SilvaEmail author
Original Paper


Vinasse is the final residue of bioethanol production and presents a low pH (≤ 3) and a high Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in the range of 3000–9000 mg L−1, characterizing this residue as highly polluting. Despite being a highly polluting effluent, vinasse could be used in the production of single-cell proteins and other value-added products due to its high carbon content. Thus, the aim of this work was to propose an aerobic biological treatment for vinasse through the application of a fermentation process in the presence of different yeasts and to simultaneously produce SCP. The optimal conditions were determined by central composite rotational design. Out of ten yeasts selected from the CCMA (Culture Collection of Agricultural Microbiology, Lavras, Brazil), two strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CCMA0187 and CCMA0188) and one strain of Candida glabrata (CCMA0193) and Candida parapsilosis (CCMA0544) presented the highest biomass production at 306, 312, 388 and 306 mg L−1, respectively. The generated microbial biomass presented a low anti-nutritional value and, on average, a protein content of 46.85%. The applied biological treatment was promising, demonstrating a reduction in vinasse toxicity or a decrease of 55.8 and 46.9% in BOD and COD, respectively. These results confirmed the potential for using yeasts in the treatment of vinasse while concomitantly producing protein biomass for use in other applications such as animal feed.


Biological treatment Spirit production waste Value-added products Microbial biomass 



The authors thank to CAPES, CNPq and FAPEMIG for financial support. Ms Josiane Pires and the Federal University of São Carlos are gratefully acknowledged for their help in toxicity analysis.


  1. Ahmadi AR, Ghoorchian H, Hajihosaini R, Khanifar J (2010) Determination of the amount of protein and amino acids extracted from microbial protein of lignocellulosic wastes. Pak J Biol Sci 13:355–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anapuma RP (2000) Value-added food: single-cell protein. Biotechnol Adv 18:459–479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1992) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvanitoyannis IS (2008) Potential and representatives for application of environmental management system (EMS) to food industries. Waste Manag Food Ind. Google Scholar
  5. Bekatorou A, Psarianos C, Koutinas AA (2006) Production of food grade yeasts. Food Technol Biotechnol 44:407–415Google Scholar
  6. Bueno PC, Rubí JAM, Giménez RG, Ballesta RJ (2009) Impacts caused by the addition of wine vinasse on some chemical and mineralogical properties of a Luvisol and a Vertisol in la Mancha (Central Spain). J Soils Sedim 9:121–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buitrón G, Carvajal C (2010) Biohydrogen production from Tequila vinasses in an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor: effect of initial substrate concentration, temperature and hydraulic retention time. Bioresour Technol 101:9071–9077. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabello PE, Scognamiglio FP, Terán FJC (2009) Tratamento de vinhaça em reator anaeróbio de leito fluidizado. Rev Eng Ambl 6:321–338Google Scholar
  9. Campos CR, Mesquita VA, Silva CF, Schwan RF (2014) Efficiency of physicochemical and biological treatment of vinasse and their influence on indigenous microbiota for disposal into the environment. Waste Manag. 34:2036–2046. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavalcante MAB, Pereira OG, Valadares Filho SC, Ribeiro KG, Pacheco LBB, Araújo D, Lemos VMC (2006) Níveis de proteína bruta em dietas para bovinos de corte: parâmetros ruminais, balanço de compostos nitrogenados e produção de proteína microbiana. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, Viçosa, MG. 35:203–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CNIT (2016) Informe estadístico 2015. Accessed 15 Dec 2016
  12. CONAB (2016) Cane sugar: seasons. Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  13. CONAMA (2005) Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Resolução n° 357, de 17 demarço de 2005. Ministériodo Meio Ambiente, Brasilia. ¼459. Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  14. COPAM/CERH-MG nº 01 (2008) Deliberação Normativa Conjunta de 05 de maio de 2008. Accessed 10 November 2016
  15. CRT (2016) Estadísticas de economía. Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  16. DEC (2016) Department of Environmental Conservation Acessed 13 Nov 2016
  17. Dhanasekaran D, Lawanya S, Saha S, Thajuddin N, Panneerselvam A (2011) Production of single cell protein from pineapple waste using yeast. Innov Rom Food Biotechnol 8:26–32Google Scholar
  18. España-Gamboa E, Mijangos-Cortes J, Barahona-Perez L, Dominguez-Maldonado J, Hernández-Zarate G, Alzate-Gaviria L (2011) Vinasses: characterization and treatments. Waste Manag Res 29:1235–1250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (1989) Protein quality evaluation. Rome 27p. (Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Food and Nutrition Paper, n.51)Google Scholar
  20. FAO (2006) Food security. Agriculture and Development Economics Division. Policy Brief, Rome (FAO 2:1-4)Google Scholar
  21. Fuess LT, Garcia ML (2014) Anaerobic digestion of stillage to produce bioenergy in the sugarcane-to-ethanol industry. Environ Technol 35:333–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gao Y, Li D, Liu Y (2012) Production of single cell protein from soy molasses using Candida tropicalis. Ann Microbiol 62:1165–1172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. García R, Izquierdo Y, Ribas M, Tortoló K, Ibáñez M, León O, Saura M, Saura G (2014) Effects of urea supplementation on Candida utilis biomass production from distillery waste. Waste Biomass 5:119–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haggag F, Sharin MFM, Mustafa NS, Mahdy HA, Hassan HSA (2015) Studies on the effect of vinasse, amino acids and humic acid substances as soil applications on fruit quality and quantity of manzanillo olive trees. Middle East J Appl Sci 5:984–991Google Scholar
  25. Hamilton MA, Russo RC, Thurston RV (1977) Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 11:714–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Instituto Brasileiro da cachaça (IBRAC) 2016 Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  27. Isidori M, Lavorgna M, Nardelli A, Parrella A (2003) Toxicity identification evaluation of leachates from municipal solid waste landfills: a multispecies approach. Chemosphere 52:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jiang ZP, Li YR, Wei GP, Liao Q, Su TM, Meng YC, Zhang HY, Lu CY (2012) Effect of long-term vinasse application on physico-chemical properties of sugarcane field soils. Sugar Technol 14:412–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. López-López A, Davila-Vazquez G, León-Becerril E, Villegas García E, Gallardo-Valdez J (2010) Tequila vinasses: generation and full scale treatment processes. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 9:109–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malavolta E, Vitti GC, Oliveira SA (1997) Avaliação do estado nutricional de plantas: princípios e aplicações, 2 eds. Potafos, PiracicabaGoogle Scholar
  31. Nitayavardhana S, Issarapayup K, Pavasant P, Khanal SK (2013) Production of protein-rich fungal biomass in an airlift bioreactor using vinasse as substrate. Bioresour Technol 133:301–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NMX-AA-004-SCFI-2013 (2012) Análisis de agua – Medición de sólidos sedimentables en aguas naturales, residuales y residuales tratadas - Método de prueba (cancela a la NMX-AA-004-SCFI-2000). Acessed 13 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  33. Ohgren K, Vehmaanpera J, Siika-Aho M, Galbe M, Viikari L, Zacchi G (2006) High temperature enzymatic prehydrolysis prior to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated corn stover for ethanol production. Enzym Microb Technol 40:607–613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ortegón GP, Arboleda FM, Candela L, Tamoh K, Valdes-Abellan J (2016) Vinasse application to sugar cane fields. Effect on the unsaturated zone and groundwater at Valle del Cauca (Colombia). Sci Total Environ 539:410–419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pires JF, Ferreira GMR, Reis KC, Schwan RF, Silva CF (2016) Mixed yeasts inocula for simultaneous production of SCP and treatment of vinasse to reduce soil and fresh water pollution. J Environ Manag 182:445–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rajoka MI, Khan SH, Jabbar MA, Awan MS, Hasshmi AS (2006) Kinetics of batch single cell protein production from rice polishings with Candida utilis in continuously aerated tank reactors. Biores Technol 97:1934–1941. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) (2016) Ethanol industry statistics, Washington, DC, USA. Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  38. Sadeghi SH, Hazbavi Z, Harchegani MK (2016) Controllability of runoff and soil loss from small plots treated by vinasse-produced biochar. Sci Total Environ 541:483–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneper L, Duvel K, Broach RJ (2004) Sense and sensibility: nutritional response and signal integration in yeast. Curr Opin Microbiol 7:624–630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Silva CF, Arcuri SL, Campos CR, Vilela DM, Alves JGLF, Schwan RF (2011) Using the residue of spirit production and bio-ethanol for protein production by yeast. Waste Manag 31:108–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sumar G, Nupur M, Anuradha S, Pradeep B (2015) Single cell production: a review. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 4:251–262Google Scholar
  42. Tigini V, Giansanti P, Mangiavillano A, Pannocchia A, Varese GC (2011) Evaluation of toxicity, genotoxicity and environmental risk of simulated textile and tannery wastewaters with a battery of biotests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:866–873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Haandel AC (2005) Integrated energy production and reduction of the environmental impact at alcohol distillery plants. Waste Sci Technol 52:49–57Google Scholar
  44. Vesela S, Vijverberg J (2007) Effect of body size on toxicity of zinc in neonates of four differently sized Daphnia species. Aquat Ecol 41:67–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. WHO (1995) Guideline for discharge of industrial effluent characteristics. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolfe RR, Rutherfurd SM, Kim IY, Moughan PJ (2016) Protein quality as determined by the digestible indispensable amino acid score: evaluation of factors underlying the calculation. Nutr Rev 74:584–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. C. dos Reis
    • 1
  • J. M. Coimbra
    • 1
  • W. F. Duarte
    • 1
  • R. F. Schwan
    • 1
  • C. F. Silva
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BiologyFederal University of LavrasLavrasBrazil

Personalised recommendations