Skip to main content

Sugarcane must fed-batch fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: impact of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek volume 112, pages 1177–1187 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

The presence of microbial contaminants is common in the sugarcane ethanol industry and can decrease process yield, reduce yeast cell viability and induce yeast cell flocculation. To evaluate the effect of microbial contamination on the fermentation process, we compared the use of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must in the performance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with similar fermentation conditions to those used in Brazilian mills. Non-sterilized sugarcane must had values of 103 and 108 CFU mL−1 of wild yeast and bacterial contamination, respectively; decreased total reducing sugar (TRS); and increased lactic and acetic acids, glycerol and ethanol concentrations during storage. During fermentation cycles with sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must, S. cerevisiae viability did not change, whereas ethanol yield varied from 74.1 to 80.2%, but it did not seem to be related to must microbial contamination. Ethanol productivity decreased throughout the fermentation cycles and was more pronounced in the last two fermentation cycles with non-sterilized must, but that may be related to the decrease in must TRS. High values of the ratio of total acid production per ethanol were reported at the end of the last two fermentation cycles conducted with non-sterilized must. Additionally, the values of wild yeast contamination increased from 102 to 103 CFU mL−1 and bacterial contamination increased from 104 to 106 CFU mL−1 when comparing the first and last fermentation cycles with non-sterilized must. In addition to the increase in microbial contamination and acid concentration, ethanol yield and yeast viability rates were not directly affected by the microbial contamination present in the non-sterilized sugarcane must.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Abbott DA, Ingledew WM (2005) The importance of aeration strategy in fuel alcohol fermentations contaminated with Dekkera/Brettanomyces yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 69:16–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alcarde AR, Walder JMM, Horii J (2003) Fermentation of irradiated sugarcane must. Scientia Agricola 60:677–681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Amorim HV, Lopes ML, Oliveira JVC et al (2011) Scientific challenges of bioethanol production in Brazil. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1267–1275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrietta MGS, Andrietta SR, Stupiello ENA (2011) Bioethanol what has Brazil learned about yeasts inhabiting the ethanol production processes from sugar cane? In: Bernardes MAS (ed) Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. InTech, Rijeka, pp 67–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrietta SR, Andrietta MGS, Bicudo MHP (2012) Comparação do rendimento fermentativo utilizando diferentes metodologias de cálculo para a avaliação do desempenho de um processo industrial. Sociedade dos Técnicos Açucareiros e Alcooleiros do Brasil 30:41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Araújo TM, Souza MT, Diniz RHS et al (2018) Cachaça yeast strains: alternative starters to produce beer and bioethanol. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 111:1749–1766

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basílio ACM, De Araújo PRL, De Morais JOF et al (2008) Detection and identification of wild yeast contaminants of the industrial fuel ethanol fermentation process. Curr Microbiol 56:322–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basso LC, De Amorim HV, De Oliveira AJ, Lopes ML (2008) Yeast selection for fuel ethanol production in Brazil. FEMS Yeast Res 8:1155–1163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basso LC, Basso TO, Rocha SN (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. In: Bernardes MAS (ed) Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. Intech, Rijeka, pp 85–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Basso TO, Gomes FS, Lopes ML et al (2014) Homo-and heterofermentative lactobacilli differently affect sugarcane-based fuel ethanol fermentation. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 105:169–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayrock D, Ingledew WM (2001) Changes in steady state on introduction of a Lactobacillus contaminant to a continuous culture ethanol fermentation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 27:39–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beckner M, Ivey ML, Phister TG (2011) Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations. Lett Appl Microbiol 53:387–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonatelli ML, Quecine MC, Silva MS, Labate CA (2017) Characterization of the contaminant bacterial communities in sugarcane first-generation industrial ethanol production. FEMS Microbiol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brexó RP, Sant’Ana AS (2017) Impact and significance of microbial contamination during fermentation for bioethanol production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:423–434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho-Netto OV, Carazzolle MF, Mofatto LS et al (2015) Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptional reprograming due to bacterial contamination during industrial scale bioethanol production. Microb Cell Fact 14:13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Costa OYA, Souto BM, Tupinambá DD et al (2015) Microbial diversity in sugarcane ethanol production in a Brazilian distillery a culture-independent method. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 42:73–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • da Silva-Filho EA, Dos Santos SKB, do Monte Resende A et al (2005) Yeast population dynamics of industrial fuel-ethanol fermentation process assessed by PCR-fingerprinting. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 88:13–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza Liberal AT, Basílio ACM, do Monte Resende A et al (2007) Identification of Dekkera bruxellensis as a major contaminant yeast in continuous fuel ethanol fermentation. J Appl Microbiol 102:538–547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza RB, Dos Santos BM, de Souza RDFR et al (2012) The consequences of Lactobacillus vini and Dekkera bruxellensis as contaminants of the sugarcane-based ethanol fermentation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 39:1645–1650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eggleston G (2002) Deterioration of cane juice—sources and indicators. Food Chem 78:95–103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graves T, Narendranath NV, Dawson K, Power R (2006) Effect of pH and lactic or acetic acid on ethanol productivity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in corn mash. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33:469–474

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammes WP, Vogel RF (1995) The genus Lactobacillus. In: Holzapfel WHN, Wood BJ (eds) The genera of lactic acid bacteria, vol 2, 1st edn. Springer, Boston, pp 19–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes ML, de Lima Paulillo SC, Godoy A et al (2016) Ethanol production in Brazil: a bridge between science and industry. Braz J Microbiol 47:64–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lucena BT, dos Santos BM, Moreira JL et al (2010) Diversity of lactic acid bacteria of the bioethanol process. BMC Microbiol 10:298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Narendranath NV, Thomas KC, Ingledew WM (2001) Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a minimal medium. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 26:171–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliva-Neto P, Dorta C, Carvalho AFA et al (2013) The Brazilian technology of fuel ethanol fermentation—yeast inhibition factors and new perspectives to improve the technology. In: Mendéz-Vila A (ed) Materials and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments. Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, pp 371–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira LF, Bassi APG, Avansini SH et al (2012) The physiological characteristics of the yeast Dekkera bruxellensis in fully fermentative conditions with cell recycling and in mixed cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 101:529–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz LL, Costa MS, Pereira AA et al (2018) Dynamics of microbial contaminants is driven by selection during ethanol production. Biorxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/489500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos SC, Souza AS, Dionísio SR et al (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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner KA, Leathers TD (2004) Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:401–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Souza RSC, Okura VK, Armanhi JSL et al (2016) Unlocking the bacterial and fungal communities assemblages of sugarcane microbiome. Sci Rep 6:28774

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory-CTBE/CNPEM and FAPESP for financial support to the scholarship to Maria Leticia Bonatelli (Proc. N.2013/08431-0).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Av. Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba, SP, 13400-970, Brazil

    Maria Letícia Bonatelli & Carlos Alberto Labate

  2. Chemical Engineering and Food Engineering Department, Santa Catarina Federal University, CP 476, Florianópolis, SC, 88040-900, Brazil

    Jaciane Lutz Ienczak

Authors
  1. Maria Letícia Bonatelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaciane Lutz Ienczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Alberto Labate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaciane Lutz Ienczak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonatelli, M.L., Ienczak, J.L. & Labate, C.A. Sugarcane must fed-batch fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: impact of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 112, 1177–1187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-019-01250-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-019-01250-2

Keywords

  • Microbial contamination
  • Fermentation
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae
  • Sugarcane must