Effect of contamination with Lactobacillus fermentum I2 on ethanol production by Spathaspora passalidarum
- 86 Downloads
Second-generation bioethanol is a promising source of renewable energy. In Brazilian mills, the production of ethanol from sugarcane (first generation, 1G) is a consolidated process performed by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and characterized by high substrate concentrations, high cell density, and cell recycle. The main bacterial contaminants in 1G fermentation tanks are lactic acid bacteria, especially bacteria from the Lactobacillus genus, which is associated with a decrease in ethanol yield and yeast cell viability, among other negative effects. Second-generation (2G) bioethanol production is characterized by the conversion of glucose and xylose into ethanol by genetically modified or non-Saccharomyces yeasts. Spathaspora passalidarum is a promising non-Saccharomyces yeast for 2G ethanol production due to its ability to effectively convert xylose into ethanol. The effect of bacterial contamination on the fermentation of this yeast is unknown; therefore, L. fermentum, a common bacterium found in Brazilian 1G processes, was studied in coculture with S. passalidarum in a fed-batch fermentation process similar to that used in 1G mills. Individually, L. fermentum I2 was able to simultaneously consume glucose and xylose in nutrient-rich broth (Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS + xylose) but failed to grow in a glucose- and xylose-based synthetic broth. In coculture with S. passalidarum, the bacteria remained at a concentration of 108 UFC/mL throughout cell recycling, but no flocculation was observed, and it did not affect the fermentative parameters or the cellular viability of the yeast. Under both conditions, the maximum ethanol production was 21 g L−1 with volumetric productivity ranging from 0.65 to 0.70 g L−1 h−1. S. passalidarum was thus shown to be resistant to L. fermentum I2 under the conditions studied.
KeywordsSecond-generation ethanol Microbial contamination Non-conventional yeast recycle
We are grateful to the CNPEM and CTBE for assigning the structures for the realization of the experiments and for the help in HPLC analysis.
The authors acknowledge the financial assistance of the FAPESP- São Paulo Research Foundation (processes no 2017/04997-0 and 2016/06142-0) and the CNPQ - National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (process no 132142/2017-1).
Compliance with ethical standards
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alfenore S, Molina-Jouve C, Guillouet SE, Uribelarrea JL, Goma G, Benbadis L (2002) Improving ethanol production and viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by a vitamin feeding strategy during fed-batch process. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 60:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-1092-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Araújo TM, Souza MT, Diniz RHS, Yamakawa CK, Soares LB, Lenczak JL, de Castro Oliveira JV, Goldman GH, Barbosa EA, Campos ACS, Castro IM, Brandão RL (2018) Cachaça yeast strains: alternative starters to produce beer and bioethanol. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, Int J Gen Mol Microbiol 111:1749–1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-018-1063-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bassi APG, Meneguello L, Paraluppi AL, Sanches BCP, Ceccato-Antonini SR (2018) Interaction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae–Lactobacillus fermentum–Dekkera bruxellensis and feedstock on fuel ethanol fermentation. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, Int J Gen Mol Microbiol 111:1661–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-018-1056-2
- Basso TO, Gomes FS, Lopes ML, De Amorim HV, Eggleston G, Basso LC (2014) Homo- and heterofermentative lactobacilli differently affect sugarcane-based fuel ethanol fermentation. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, Int J Gen Mol Microbiol 105:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-013-0063-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brandenburg J, Poppele I, Blomqvist J, Puke M, Pickova J, Sandgren M, Rapoport A, Vedernikovs N, Passoth V (2018) Bioethanol and lipid production from the enzymatic hydrolysate of wheat straw after furfural extraction. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:6269–6277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9081-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carvalho-Netto OV, Carazzolle MF, Mofatto LS, Teixeira PJPL, Noronha MF, Calderón LAL, Mieczkowski PA, Argueso LL, Pereira GAG (2015) Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptional reprograming due to bacterial contamination during industrial scale bioethanol production. Microb Cell Factories 14:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-015-0196-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nakanishi SC, Soares LB, Biazi LE, Nascimento VM, Costa AC, Rocha GJM, Ienczak JL (2017) Fermentation strategy for second generation ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse hydrolyzate by Spathaspora passalidarum and Scheffersomyces stipitis. Biotechnol Bioeng 9999:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26357
- Reis VR, Bassi APG, Cerri BC, Almeida AR, Carvalho IGB, Bastos RG, Ceccato-Antonini SR (2018) Effects of feedstock and co-culture of Lactobacillus fermentum and wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain during fuel ethanol fermentation by the industrial yeast strain PE-2. AMB Express 8:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-018-0556-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Santos SC, de Sousa AS, Dionisio SR, Tramontina R, Ruller R, Squina FM, Vaz Rossell CE, da Costa AC, Ienczak JL (2016) Bioethanol production by recycled Scheffersomyces stipitis in sequential batch fermentations with high cell density using xylose and glucose mixture. Bioresour Technol 219:319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schell DJ, Dowe N, Ibsen KN, Riley CJ, Ruth MF, Lumpkin RE (2007) Contaminant occurrence , identification and control in a pilot-scale corn fiber to ethanol conversion process. 98:2942–2948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.10.002