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