3 Biotech

, 8:158 | Cite as

Bio-ethanol production from waste biomass of Pogonatherum crinitum phytoremediator: an eco-friendly strategy for renewable energy

  • Pankajkumar R. Waghmare
  • Anuprita D. Watharkar
  • Byong-Hun Jeon
  • Sanjay P. Govindwar
Original Article


In this study, we have described three steps to produce ethanol from Pogonatherum crinitum, which was derived after the treatment of textile wastewater. (a) Production of biomass: biomass samples collected from a hydroponic P. crinitum phytoreactor treating dye textile effluents and augmented with Ca-alginate immobilized growth-promoting bacterium, Bacillus pumilus strain PgJ (consortium phytoreactor), and waste sorghum husks were collected and dried. Compositional analysis of biomass (consortium phytoreactor) showed that the concentration of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin was 42, 30 and 17%, respectively, whereas the biomass samples without the growth-promoting bacterium (normal phytoreactor) was slightly lower, 40, 29 and 16%, respectively. (b) Hydrolysate (sugar) production: a crude sample of the fungus, Phanerochaete chrysosporium containing hydrolytic enzymes such as endoglucanase (53.25 U/ml), exoglucanase (8.38 U/ml), glucoamylase (115.04 U/ml), xylanase (83.88 U/ml), LiP (0.972 U/ml) and MnP (0.459 U/ml) was obtained, and added to consortium, normal and control phytoreactor derived biomass supplemented with Tween-20 (0.2% v/v). The hydrolysate of biomass from consortium phytoreactor produced maximum reducing sugar (0.93 g/l) than hydrolysates of normal phytoreactor biomass (0.82 g/l) and control phytoreactor biomass (0.79 g/l). FTIR and XRD analysis confirmed structural changes in treated biomass. (c) Ethanol production: the bioethanol produced from enzymatic hydrolysates of waste biomass of consortium and normal phytoreactor using Saccharomyces cerevisiae (KCTC 7296) was 42.2 and 39.4 g/l, respectively, while control phytoreactor biomass hydrolysate showed only 25.5 g/l. Thus, the amalgamation of phytoremediation and bioethanol production can be the truly environment-friendly way to eliminate the problem of textile dye along with bioenergy generation.


Pogonatherum crinitum Phytoremediation Phanerochaete chrysosporium Enzymatic hydrolysis Fermentation Bioethanol 



The authors Dr. P. R. Waghmare and Dr. A. D. Watharkar would like to thank UGC (University Grants Commission), New Delhi for providing funding through UGC-NET-SRF fellowship and UGC-Women Postdoctoral fellowship (PDFW), respectively. Corresponding author wishes to thank UGC for providing funding through Special Assistance Program i.e. SAP (Grant No. SU/EST/PG/1328) to the Department of Biochemistry, Shivaji University Kolhapur. Prof. S. P. Govindwar is also thankful to The Korean Federation of Science and Technology Society, South Korea for providing Brain Pool Fellowship (Grant number 172S-5-3-1917).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

13205_2018_1188_MOESM1_ESM.docx (298 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 298 kb)


  1. Adachi S (1965) Thin-layer chromatography of carbohydrates in the presence of bisulfite. J Chromatogr A 17:295–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adney B, Baker J (2008) Measurement of cellulase activities, Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP). Technical Report NREL/TP-510-42628. pp 1–8Google Scholar
  3. Anto H, Trivedi UB, Patel KC (2006) Glucoamylase production by solid-state fermentation using rice flake manufacturing waste products as substrate. Bioresour Technol 97:1161–1166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anwar Z, Gulfraz M, Irshad M (2014) Agro-industrial lignocellulosic biomass a key to unlock the future bio-energy: a brief review. J Rad Res Appl Sci 7:163–173. Google Scholar
  5. AOAC (1980) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. In: Horwitz W (ed), 13th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Balat M (2011) Production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic materials via the biochemical pathway: a review. Energy Convers Manag 52:858–875. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banat IM, Nigam P, Singh D, Marchant R (1996) Microbial decolourization of textile dyes containing effluents: a review. Bioresour Technol 58:217–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belkacemi K, Turcotte G, Savoie P (2002) Aqueous/steam-fractionated agricultural residues as substrates for ethanol production. Ind Eng Chem Res 41:173–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berlin A, Gilkes N, Kurabi A, Bura R, Tu MB, Kilburn D, Saddler J (2005) Weak lignin-binding enzymes—a novel approach to improve activity of cellulases for hydrolysis of lignocellulosics. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 121:163–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binod P, Sindhu R, Singhania RR, Vikram S, Devi L, Nagalakshmi S, Kurien N, Sukumaran RK, Pandey A (2010) Bioethanol production from rice straw: an overview. Bioresour Technol 101:4767–4774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cervero JM, Skovgaard PA, Felby C, Sorensen HR, Jorgensen H (2010) Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of palm kernel press cake for production of bioethanol. Enzyme Microb Technol 46:177–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eriksson T, Karlsson J, Tjerneld F (2002) A model explaining declining rate in hydrolysis of lignocellulose substrates with cellobiohydrolase I (Cel7A) and endoglucanase I (Cel7B) of Trichoderma reesei. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 101:41–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Govumoni SP, Gentela J, Koti S, Haragopal V, Venkateshwar S, Rao LV (2015) Extracellular lignocellulolytic enzymes by Phanerochaete chrysosporium (MTCC 787) under solid-state fermentation of agro wastes. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 4:700–710Google Scholar
  14. Gutierrez-Maneroa FJ, Ramos-Solanoa B, Probanzaa A, Mehouachib J, Tadeob FR, Talon M (2001) The plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria Bacillus pumilus and Bacillus licheniformis produce high amounts of physiologically active gibberellins. Physiol Plant 111:206–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall M, Bansal P, Lee JH, Realff MJ, Bommarius AS (2010) Cellulose crystallinity—a key predictor of the enzymatic hydrolysis rate. FEBS J 277:1571–1582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jagtap SS, Woo SM, Kim TS, Dhiman SS, Kim D, Lee JK (2014) Phytoremediation of diesel-contaminated soil and saccharification of the resulting biomass. Fuel 116:292–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janardhan S, Sain M (2011) Targeted disruption of hydroxyl chemistry and crystallinity in natural fibers for the isolation of cellulose nano-fibers via enzymatic treatment. BioRes 6:1242–1250Google Scholar
  18. Kagalkar AN, Govindwar SP (2010) Phytoremediation technologies for removal of textile dyes: an over view and future prospectus. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kariminiaae HR, Sakurai A, Sakakibara M (2007) Decolorization of synthetic dyes by a new manganese peroxidase-producing white rot fungus. Dyes Pigm 72:157–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khaliq S, Khalid A, Saba B, Mahmood S, Siddique MT, Aziz I (2013) Effect of acc deaminase bacteria on tomato plants containing azo dye wastewater. Pak J Bot 45:529–534Google Scholar
  21. Khandare RV, Govindwar SP (2015) Phytoremediation of textile dyes and effluents: current scenario and future prospects. Biotechnol Adv 33:1697–1714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kshirsagar SD, Saratale GD, Saratale RG, Govindwar SP, Oh MK (2016) An isolated Amycolatopsis sp. GDS for cellulase and xylanase production using agricultural waste biomass. J Appl Microbiol 120:112–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhad RC, Mehta G, Gupta R, Sharma KK (2010) Fed batch enzymatic saccharification of newspaper cellulosics improves the sugar content in the hydrolysates and eventually the ethanol fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1189–1194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee JW, Kim HY, Koo BW, Choi DH, Kwon M, Choi IG (2008) Enzymatic saccharification of biologically pretreated Pinus densiflora using enzymes from brown rot fungi. J Biosci Bioeng 106:162–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu XL, Zeng GM, Tang L, Zhong H, Wang RY, Fu HY, Liu ZF, Huang HL, Zhang JC (2008) Effects of dirhamnolipid and SDS on enzyme production from Phanerochaete chrysosporium in submerged fermentation. Process Biochem 43:1300–1303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lo YC, Saratale GD, Chen WM, Bai MD, Chang JS (2009) Isolation of cellulose-hydrolytic bacteria and applications of the cellulolytic enzymes for cellulosic biohydrogen production. Enzyme Microb Technol 44:417–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31:426–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nzila C, Dewulf J, Spanjers H, Kiriamiti H, van Langenhove H (2010) Biowaste energy potential in Kenya. Renew Energy 35:2698–2704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Öhgren K, Bura R, Lesnicki G, Saddler J, Zacchi G (2007) A comparison between simultaneous saccharification and fermentation and separate hydrolysis and fermentation using steam-pretreated corn stover. Process Biochem 42:834–839. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliveira JG, Cruz CHG (2013) Properties of a biosurfactant produced by Bacillus pumilus using vinasse and waste frying oil as alternative carbon sources. Braz Arch Biol Technol 56:155–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park S, Baker JO, Himmel ME, Parilla PA, Johnson DK (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogalski J, Szczodrak J, Janusz G (2006) Manganese peroxidase production in submerged cultures by free and immobilized mycelia of Nematoloma frowardii. Bioresour Technol 97:469–476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saratale GD, Saratale RG, Lo YC, Chang JS (2010) Multicomponent cellulase production by Cellulomonas biazotea NCIM-2550 and its applications for cellulosic biohydrogen production. Biotechnol Prog 26:406–416. Google Scholar
  35. Sawada T, Nakamura Y, Kobayashi F, Kuwahara M, Watanabe T (1995) Effects of fungal pretreatment and steam explosion pretreatment on enzymatic saccharification of plant biomass. Biotechnol Bioeng 48:719–724. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seo D-J, Fujita H, Sakoda A (2011) Effects of a non-ionic surfactant, Tween-20, on adsorption/desorption of saccharification enzymes onto/from lignocelluloses and saccharification rate. Adsorption 17:813–822. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shu H, Zhang P, Chang CC, Wang R, Zhang S (2015) Agricultural waste. Water Environ Res 87:1256–1285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taherzadeh MJ, Karimi K (2008) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int J Mol Sci 9:1621–1651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tollefson J (2008) Energy: not your father’s biofuels. Nature 451:880–883. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Uma C, Muthulakshmi C, Gomathi D, Gopalkrishan VK (2010) Fungal invertase as aid for production of ethanol from sugarcane bagasse. Res J Microbiol 5:980–985. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UN (2008) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2008, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Waghmare PR, Kadam AA, Saratale GD, Govindwar SP (2014) Enzymatic hydrolysis and characterization of waste lignocellulosic biomass produced after dye bioremediation under solid state fermentation. Bioresour Technol 168:136–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watharkar AD, Khandare RV, Waghmare PR, Jagadale AD, Govindwar SP, Jadhav JP (2015) Treatment of textile effluent in a developed phytoreactor with immobilized bacterial augmentation and subsequent toxicity studies on Etheostoma olmstedi fish. J Hazard Mater 283:698–704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams MB, Reese HD (1950) Colorimetric determination of ethyl alcohol. Anal Chem 22:1556–1561. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yeoman CJ, Han Y, Dodd D, Schroeder CM, Mackie RI, Cann IKO (2010) Thermostable enzymes as biocatalysts in the biofuel industry. Adv Appl Microbiol 70:1–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yoswathana N, Phuriphipat P, Treyawutthiwat P, Eshtiaghi MN (2010) Bioethanol production from rice straw. Energy Res J 1:26–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhong C, Lau MW, Balan V, Dale BE, Yuan YJ (2009) Optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation from AFEX-treated rice straw. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 84:667–676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhou D, Zhang L, Guo S (2005) Mechanisms of lead biosorption on cellulose/chitin beads. Water Res 39:3755–3762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pankajkumar R. Waghmare
    • 1
  • Anuprita D. Watharkar
    • 1
  • Byong-Hun Jeon
    • 2
  • Sanjay P. Govindwar
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryShivaji UniversityKolhapurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Earth Resources and Environmental EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations