Advertisement

Development of Continuous Surfactin Production from Potato Process Effluent by Bacillus subtilis in an Airlift Reactor

  • Karl S. Noah
  • Sandra L. Fox
  • Debby F. Bruhn
  • David N. Thompson
  • Gregory A. Bala
Chapter
Part of the Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology book series (ABAB)

Abstract

The biosurfactant surfactin has the potential to aid in the recovery of subsurface organic contaminants (environmental remediation) or crude oils (oil recovery). However, high medium and purification costs limit its use in these high-volume applications. In previous work, we showed that surfactin can be produced from an inexpensive low-solids (LS) potato process effluent with minimal amendments or pretreatments. Previous research has also shown that 95% or more of the surfactin in Bacillus subtilis cultures can be recovered by foam fractionation. In this work, we present the results of research to integrate surfactin production with foam fractionation. Experiments were performed in an airlift reactor, with continuous collection of the foam through a tube at the top of the column. Preliminary results using both purified potato starch and unamended low-solids potato process effluent as substrates for surfactin production indicate that the process is oxygen limited and that recalcitrant indigenous bacteria in the potato process effluent may hamper continuous surfactin production.

Index Entries

Bacillus subtilis biosurfactant surfactin alternate feedstock enhanced oil recovery. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson, D. N., Fox, S. L., and Bala, G. A. (2000), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 84–86, 917–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson, D. N., Fox, S. L., and Bala, G. A. (2001), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 91–93, 487–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenberg, E. (1986), CRC Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 3(3), 109–132.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arima, K., Kakinuma, A., and Tamura, G. (1968), Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 31, 488–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, D. G., McDonald, C. R., Duff, S. J. B., and Kosaric, N. (1981), Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42, 408–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besson, F. and Michel, G. (1992), Biotechnol. Lett. 14(11), 1013-1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Georgiou, G., Lin, S.-Y., and Sharma, M. M. (1992), Bio/Technology 10, 60–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, D. A., Lynch, H. C., and Varley, J. (2001), Enzyme Microb. Technol. 28, 346–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniels, L., Hanson, R. S., and Phillips, J. A. (1994), in Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology, Gerhardt, P., Murray, R. G. E., Wood, W. A., and Krieg, N. R., eds., American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp. 518–519.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herd, M. D., Lassahn, G. D., Thomas, C. P., Bala, G. A., and Eastman, S. L. (1992), Proceedings of the DOE Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE/DOE 24206, Tulsa, OK, pp. 513–519.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin, S.-C. and Jiang, H.-J. (1997), Biotechnol. Techniques 11(6), 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl S. Noah
    • 1
  • Sandra L. Fox
    • 1
  • Debby F. Bruhn
    • 1
  • David N. Thompson
    • 1
  • Gregory A. Bala
    • 1
  1. 1.Biotechnology DepartmentIdaho National Engineering and Environmental LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations