Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simultaneous fermentation of glucose and xylose by using co-culture of S. cerevisiae and a potential robust pentose fermenting fungi (Fusarium incarnatum)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Xylose is the second most prevalent sugar in lignocellulosic biomass after glucose. However, most of the microbial strains are unable to metabolize xylose efficiently leading to reduced ethanol yield and poor volumetric productivity. The aim of the study was to develop a co-culture strategy for efficient production of ethanol from mustard biomass. Present study covers enzymatic hydrolysis of alkali-treated mustard biomass using mixture of different cellulases. The highest reducing sugar (500.06 mg/g dry substrate) was obtained at a substrate loading of 15% (w/v), pH 5 within 48 h of incubation. Pentose sugar fermenting Fusarium incarnatum MTCC 10,292 was characterized for assimilation of different sugars and tolerance to ethanol and acetic acids. Optimization of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process using co-culture of Fusarium incarnatum MTCC 10,292 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 170 was carried out by using variable parameters. Within 5 days of incubation, the maximum ethanol production (3.29%, w/v) was recorded. Significant utilization of both hexose and pentose sugars for ethanol production is the major challenge for commercial lignocellulosic bioethanol production. This problem has been addressed in this study through co-culture strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

This submitted article contains all of the data generated or analyzed during this investigation.

References

  1. Araújo K, Mahajan D, Kerr R, da-Silva M (2019) Global biofuels at the crossroads: an overview of technical, policy, and investment complexities: general. Oilseeds Focus 1:54–55. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7040032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Isikgor FH, Becer CR (2015) Lignocellulosic biomass: a sustainable platform for the production of bio-based chemicals and polymers. Polym Chem 25:4497–4559. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5py00263j

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gupta R, Yadav G, Kumar G, Yadav A, Saini JK, Kuhad RC (2019) Second generation bioethanol production: the state of art. In: Srivastava N., Srivastava M., Mishra P., Upadhyay S., Ramteke P., Gupta V. (eds) Sustainable approaches for biofuels production technologies. biofuel and biorefinery technologies, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94797-6_8

  4. Aditiya HB, Mahlia TM, Chong WT, Nur H, Sebayang AH (2016) Second generation bioethanol production: a critical review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 66:631–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Unrean P, Srienc F (2010) Continuous production of ethanol from hexoses and pentoses using immobilized mixed cultures of Escherichia coli strains. J Biotechnol 2:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2010.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharma S, Sharma V, Kuila A (2018) Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of corn husk by co-culture strategy. J Pet Environ Biotechnol 360:2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7463.1000360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Farias D, Maugeri-Filho F (2019) Co-culture strategy for improved 2G bioethanol production using a mixture of sugarcane molasses and bagasse hydrolysate as substrate. Biochem Eng J 147:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Karagöz P, Özkan M (2014) Ethanol production from wheat straw by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Scheffersomyces stipitis co-culture in batch and continuous system. Bioresource Technol 158:286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Agarwal M, Dinker A (2013) Application of consolidate enzymatic system of Fusarium and Saccharomyces to enhance the production of ethanol from spent grain. J Renew Sust Energ 5:053112. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4821518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Crocker D (2012) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass, Report NREL/TP-510-42618. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy13/42618.pdf

  11. Sharma S, Kuila A, Sharma V (2017) Enzymatic hydrolysis of thermochemically pretreated biomass using a mixture of cellulolytic enzymes produced from different fungal sources. Clean Technol Environ Policy 5:1577–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1346-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghose TK (1987) Measurement of cellulase activities. Pure Appl Chem 2:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/iupac.59.0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall G, Reuter WM (2007) HPLC analysis for the monitoring of fermentation broth during ethanol production as a biofuel application brief, Perkin Elmer. http://www.perkinelmer.com/pdfs/downloads/ABR_EthanolAsBiofuelbyHPLCAppBrief.pdf

  14. Liesche J, Marek M, Günther-Pomorski T (2015) Cell wall staining with trypan blue enables quantitative analysis of morphological changes in yeast cell. Front Microbiol 6:107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wanderley MCA, Soares ML, Gouveia ER (2014) Selection of inoculum size and Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for ethanol production in simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of sugarcane bagasse. Afr J Biotechnol 13:2762–2765. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2013.13179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gao X, Kumar R, Singh S, Simmons BA, Balan V, Dale BE, Wyman CE (2014) Comparison of enzymatic reactivity of corn stover solids prepared by dilute acid, AFEXTM, and ionic liquid pretreatments. Biotechnol Biofuels 1:71. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18437-15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Toquero C, Bolado S (2014) Effect of four pretreatments on enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation of wheat straw. Influence of inhibitors and washing. Bioresource Technol 157:68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang YH, Lynd LR (2004) Toward an aggregated understanding of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: noncomplexed cellulase systems. Biotechnol Bioeng 7:797–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mathew AK, Chaney K, Crook M, Humphries AC (2011) Alkaline pre-treatment of oilseed rape straw for bioethanol production: evaluation of glucose yield and pre-treatment energy consumption. Bioresource Technol 11:6547–6553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ethaib S, Omar R, Mazlina MKS, Radiah ABD (2020) Evaluation of the interactive effect pretreatment parameters via three types of microwave-assisted pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis on sugar yield. Processes 7:787. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8070787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wen Z, Liao W, Chen S (2004) Hydrolysis of animal manure lignocellulosics for reducing sugar production. Bioresource Technol 1:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-8524(03)00166-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang Y, Yang J, Luo L, Wang E, Wang R, Liu L, Liu J, Yuan H (2020) Low-cost cellulase-hemicellulase mixture secreted by Trichoderma harzianum EM0925 with complete saccharification efficacy of lignocellulose. Int J Mol Sci 2:371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21020371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kumar V, Patel SK, Gupta RK, Otari SV, Gao H, Lee JK, Zhang L (2019) Enhanced saccharification and fermentation of rice straw by reducing the concentration of phenolic compounds using an immobilized enzyme cocktail. Biotechnol J 6:1800468. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201800468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rech FR, Fontana RC, Rosa CA, Camassola M, Ayub MAZ, Dillon AJP (2019) Fermentation of hexoses and pentoses from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysates into ethanol by Spathaspora hagerdaliae. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 42:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-2016-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martins GM, Bocchini-Martins DA, Bezzerra-Bussoli C, Pagnocca FC, Boscolo M, Monteiro DA, Silva R, Gomes E (2018) The isolation of pentose-assimilating yeasts and their xylose fermentation potential. Braz J Microbiol 49:162–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.11.014

  26. Sree NK, Sridhar M, Suresh K, Banat IM, Rao LV (2000) Isolation of thermotolerant, osmotolerant, flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae for ethanol production. Bioresource Technol 1:43–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6701(00)90852-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xiros C, Vafiadi C, Paschos T, Christakopoulos P (2011) Toxicity tolerance of Fusarium oxysporum towards inhibitory compounds formed during pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 86:223–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ueno R, Urano N, Kimura S (2001) Characterization of thermotolerant, fermentative yeasts from hot spring drainage. Fish Sci 1:138–145. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1444-2906.2001.00210.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zha Y, Muilwijk B, Coulier L, Punt PJ (2012) Inhibitory compounds in lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates during hydrolysate fermentation processes. J Bioprocess Biotech 1:112–122. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9821.1000112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fakruddin M, Quayum MA, Ahmed MM, Naiyyam C (2012) Analysis of key factors affecting ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae IFST-072011. Biotechnology 4:248–252. https://doi.org/10.3923/biotech.2012.248.252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thanonkeo P, Chamnipa N, Thanonkeo S (2014) Isolation and selection of thermo tolerant yeast for ethanol production at high temperature. In: The 26th Annual Meeting of the Thai Society of Biotechnology and International Conference, pp 65–69

  32. Boudjema K, Fazouane-naimi F, Hellal A (2016) Isolation, identification of yeast strains producing bioethanol and improvement of bioethanol production on cheese whey. Turkish J Biochem 41:157–166. https://doi.org/10.1515/tjb-2016-0026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ekunsanmi TJ, Odunfa SA (1990) Ethanol tolerance, sugar tolerance and invertase activities of some yeast strains isolated from steep water of fermenting cassava tubers. J Appl Bacteriol 5:672–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb01561.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Logothetis S, Walker G, Nerantzis ET (2007) Effect of salt hyperosmotic stress on yeast cell viability. Proceedings for Natural Sciences of Matica Srpska Novi Sad 113:271–284. https://doi.org/10.2298/zmspn0713271l

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhao XQ, Bai FW (2009) Mechanisms of yeast stress tolerance and its manipulation for efficient fuel ethanol production. J Biotechnol 1:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2009.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sutticha N, Thammasittirong T, Thammasittirong T, Malee S (2013) Improvement of ethanol production by ethanol-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae UVNR56. Springer plus 1:583. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moremi ME, Jansen-Van-Rensburg EL, La-Grange DC (2020) The improvement of bioethanol production by pentose-fermenting yeasts isolated from herbal preparations, the gut of dung beetles, and marula wine. Int J Microbiol 2020:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5670936

  38. Balakumar S, Arasaratnam V (2012) Osmo-, thermo-and ethanol-tolerances of Saccharomyces cerevisiae S1. Braz J Microbiol 1:157–166. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-83822012000100017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Morales P, Gentina JC, Aroca GE, Mussatto SI (2017) Development of an acetic acid tolerant Spathaspora passalidarum strain through evolutionary engineering with resistance to inhibitors compounds of autohydrolysate of Eucalyptus globulus. Ind Crop Prod 106:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.12.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Naseeruddin S, Desai S, Rao LV (2021) Co-culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (VS3) and Pichia stipitis (NCIM 3498) for bioethanol production using concentrated Prosopis juliflora acid hydrolysate. 3 Biotech 11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-02595-6

  41. Mishra A, Ghosh S (2020) Saccharification of kans grass biomass by a novel fractional hydrolysis method followed by co-culture fermentation for bioethanol production. Renew Energ 146:750–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chohan NA, Aruwajoye GS, Sewsynker-Sukai Y, Gueguim Kana EB (2020) Valorisation of potato peel wastes for bioethanol production using simultaneous saccharification and fermentation: Process optimization and kinetic assessment. Renew Energ 146:1031–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ranjeet kaur for the critical reading of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi (Grant No. BT/PR31154/PBD/26/762/2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Banasthali Vidyapith, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 304022, India

    Ritika, Shailja Pant & Arindam Kuila

  2. Department of Marine Sciences, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), 144 Carvalho de Mendonça St, Santos, SP, 11070-100, Brazil

    Andrea Komesu, Eduardo Dellosso Penteado & Anthony Andrey Ramalho Diniz

  3. Department of Biotechnology, Engineering and Food Technology, University Institute of Technology, Chandigarh University, Punjab, 140413, India

    Md. Azizur Rahman

  4. Plant Tissue Culture and Genetic Engineering, National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute (NABI), Sector-81, Knowledge City, Mohali, 140306, Punjab, India

    Rupam Kumar Bhunia

Authors
  1. Ritika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shailja Pant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Komesu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eduardo Dellosso Penteado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anthony Andrey Ramalho Diniz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Md. Azizur Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rupam Kumar Bhunia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arindam Kuila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AK conceived the project. SP and Ritika performed all the work related to present study. AK, Eduardo DP, AARD, MAR, RKB, and AK planned the experiments. AK, AK, EDP, AARD, MAR, and RKB wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arindam Kuila.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ritika, Pant, S., Komesu, A. et al. Simultaneous fermentation of glucose and xylose by using co-culture of S. cerevisiae and a potential robust pentose fermenting fungi (Fusarium incarnatum). Biomass Conv. Bioref. 13, 8089–8100 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01801-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01801-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation