Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Cellulosic Biomass to Acetic Acid

  • Jacob R. Borden
  • Youn Y. Lee
  • Hyon-Hee Yoon
Chapter
Part of the Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology book series (ABAB)

Abstract

A strain of Clostridium thermoaceticum (ATCC 49707) was evaluated for its homoacetate potential. This thermophilic anaerobe best produces acetate from glucose at pH 6.0 and 59°C with a yield of 83% of theoretical. Enzyme hydrolysis of two substrates, a-cellulose and a pulp mill sludge, yielded 68% and 70% digestion, respectively. The optimum conditions for the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) were substrate dependent: 55°C, pH 6.0 for α-cellulose, and 55°C, pH 5.5 for the pulp mill sludge. In the SSF with a-cellulose, the overall yield of acetate was strongly influenced by the enzyme loading. In a fed-batch operation of SSF with a-cellulose, an overall acetic acid yield of 60 wt% was obtained. Among the factors limiting the yields were incomplete digestion by the enzyme and the end-product inhibition. In the SSF of pulp mill sludge, inhibitors present in the sludge severely limited bacterial action. A large accumulation of glucose developed over the entire process, changing the intended SSF operation into a separate hydrolysis and fermentation operation. Despite a long lag phase of microbial growth, a terminal yield of 85% was obtained with this substrate.

Index Entries

Biomass SSF acetic acid Clostridium thermoaceticum 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Witjitra, K. (1994), Masters thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agreda, V. H. and Zoeller, J. R. (1993), in Acetic Acid and Its Derivatives, Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ljungdahl, L. G. (1983), in Organic Chemicals from Biomass, Wise D. L., ed., Benjamin/ Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryan, W. L. (1992), in Chemical Deicers and the Environment, 463-478.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Layman, P. L. and O’Sullivan, D. A. (1989), Chem. Eng. News 67, 13–15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fontaine, F. E., Peterson, W. H., McCoy, E., and Johnson, M. J. (1942), J. Bacteriol. 43, 701–715.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andreesen, J. R., Schaupp, A., Neurauter, C., Brown, A., and Ljungdahl, L. G. (1973), J. Bacteriol. 114, 743–751.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brumm, P. J. (1988), Biotechnol. Bioeng. 32, 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parekh, S. and Cheryan, M. (1990), Biotechnol. Lett. 12, 861–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reed, W. M., Keller, F. A., Kite, F. E., Bogdan, M. E., and Ganoung, J. S. (1987), Enzyme Microbiol. Technol. 9, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parekh, S. R. and Cheryan, M., (1994), Biotechnol. Lett. 16, 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parekh, S. R. and Cheryan, M. (1990), Process Biochem. 25, 117–121.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parekh, S. R. and Cheryan, M. (1991), Appl. Microbiol. Biotech. 36, 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Althouse, J. W. and Tavlarides, L. L. (1992), Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 31, 1971–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Busche, R. M. (1991), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 28/29, 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han, I. S. and Cheryan, M. (1996), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 57/58, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah, M. M. and Cheryan, M. (1995), J. Ind. Microbiol. 15, 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walker, L. P. and Wilson, D. B., NYSERDA Report No. 97-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob R. Borden
    • 1
  • Youn Y. Lee
    • 1
  • Hyon-Hee Yoon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringAuburn UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringKyungwon UniversitySungnamKorea

Personalised recommendations