Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessment of the Viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Response to Synergetic Inhibition During Bioethanol Production


Affiliations
1 School of Chemical and Minerals Engineering, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
2 Centre of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
 

Second-generation biofuels, fuels produced from lignocellulosic materials, including wood, agricultural residues and biomass waste include bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas. These fuel sources have great potential as useful substitutes to conventional fossil fuels. Biomass sources are also non-toxic and biodegradable energy sources that can be produced from a wide range of organic materials resulting in economic and renewable energy source. Pretreatment of lingocellulosic biomass is required to reduce physicochemical restrictions that hinder the accessibility of sugars necessary for hydrolysis and fermentation. Various pretreatment processes exist, but all of them produce inhibitory compounds that ultimately reduce ethanol production and cell viability of the fermenting microorganism, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In this study different combinations of inhibitors (acetic acid, formic acid and vanillin) were considered to mimic realistic fermentation conditions during bioethanol production; ethanol yield and cell viability were then concurrently measured over a period of 48 h. The combination of acetic acid and formic acid exhibited ethanol reduction up to 11 ± 3.74%, while cell viability decreased by 23 ± 6.61%. Acetic acid and vanillin reduced ethanol production by 25 ± 1.77% and cell viability by 4 ± 4.38%. Formic acid and vanillin inhibited ethanol production by 31 ± 3.14% and cell viability 16 ± 7.54%. Finally, the synergistic effect of all three inhibitors reduced the final ethanol production by 58 ± 5.09% and cell viability by 27 ± 5.44%, indicating the toxic effect of the synergistic combination.

Keywords

Bioethanol Production, Cell Viability, Flow Cytometry, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Synergetic Inhibition.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Fosso-Kankeu, E., Marx, S. and Meyer, A., Simulated inhibitory effects of typical byproducts of biomass pretreatment process on the viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and bioethanol production yield. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 2015, 14, 2383–2394.

  • Chen, H. and Fu, X., Industrial technologies for bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev., 2016, 57, 468–478.

  • Sarkar, N., Ghosh, S. K., Bannerjee, S. and Aikat, K., Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: an overview. Renew. Energ., 2011, 37, 19–27.

  • Ahmia, A. C., Danane, F., Bessah, R. and Boumesbah, I., Raw material for biodiesel production. Volarization of used edible oil. Rev. Energ. Renou., 2014, 17, 335–343.

  • Samuel, T. M., Bioethanol fermentation of corn cob using immobilized yeast cells. Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2001.

  • Sheenan, J., Aden, A., Paustian, K., Killian, K., Brenner, J., Walsh, M. and Nelson, R., Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J. Ind. Ecol., 2004, 7, 117–146.

  • Licht, F. O., World ethanol markets: the outlook to 2015. Tunbridge Wells, UK, 2006.

  • Chandel, A. K., Chan, E. S., Rudravaram, R., Narasu, L. M., Rao, L. V. and Ravindra, P., Economics and environmental impact of bioethanol production technology: an appraisal. Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. Rev., 2007, 2(1), 14–32.

  • Almeida, J. R. M., Modig, T., Petersson, A., Hahn-Hagerdal, B., Liden, G. and Gorwa-Grauslund, M. F., Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 2007, 82, 340–349.

  • Tye, Y. Y., Lee, K. T., Abdullah, W. N. W. and Leh, C. P., The world availability of non-wood lignocellulosic biomass for the production of cellulosic ethanol and potential pretreatments of enzymatic saccharification. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2016, 60, 155–172.

  • Naik, S. N., Goud, V. V., Rout, P. K. and Dalai, A. K., Production of first and second-generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2010, 14, 578–597.

  • Wallace-Salinas, V., Improving stress tolerance in industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden, 2014.

  • Dias, M. O. S., Modesto, M., Ensinas, A. V., Nebra, S. A., Filho, R. M. and Rossel, C. E. V., Improving bioethanol production form sugarcane: evaluation of distillation, thermal integration and cogeneration systems. Energy, 2010, 36(6), 1–13.

  • Talebnia, F., Karakashev, D. and Angelidaki, I., Production of bioethanol from wheat straw: an overview on pretreatment hydrolysis and fermentation. Bioresour. Technol., 2010, 101, 4744– 4753.

  • Kumar, P., Barrett, D., Delwiche, M. J. and Stroeve, P., Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2009, 48, 3713– 3729.

  • Gray, K. A., Zhao, L. and Emptage, M., Bioethanol. Biocatal. Biotransform., 2006, 10, 141–146.

  • Olsson, L. and Hahn-Hagerdal, B., Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates for ethanol production. Enzyme Microb. Technol., 1996, 18, 312–331.

  • Zheng, Y., Pan, Z. and Zhang, R., Overview of biomass pretreatment for cellulosic ethanol production. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng., 2009, 2, 51–68.

  • Chandel, A. K., Da Silva, S. S. and Singh, O. V., Detoxification of lignocellulosic hydrolysates for improved bioethanol production. In Biofuel Production for Improved Bioethanol Production, In Tech, 2011, vol. 10, pp. 225–246.

  • Klinke, H. B., Thomsen, A. B. and Ahring, B. K., Inhibition of ethanol-producing yeast and bacteria by degradation products produced during pre-treatment of biomass. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2004, 66, 10–26.

  • Sanchez, O. J. and Cardona, C. A., Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol. Bioresour. Technol., 2008, 99, 5270– 5295.

  • Kuloyo, O. O., Ethanol production by yeast fermentation of an Optuntia ficusindica biomass hydrolysate. Master’s dissertation. Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2010.

  • Jayakody, L. N., Hayashi, N. and Kitagaki, H., Molecular mechanisms for detoxification of major aldehyde inhibitors for production of bioethanol by Saccharomyces cerevisiae from hot-compressed water-treated lignocellulose. In Stress Biology of Yeasts and Fungi: Applications for Industrial Brewing and Fermentation (eds Takagi, H. and Kitagaki, H.), Springer, 2015.

  • Huang, H., Guo, X., Li, D, Liu, M., Wu, J. and Ren, R., Identification of crucial yeast inhibitors in bio-ethanol and improvement of fermentation at high pH and high total solids. Bioresour. Technol., 2011, 102, 7486–7493.

  • Fu, S., Hu, J. and Liu, H., Inhibitory effects of biomass degradation products on ethanol fermentation and a strategy to overcome them. BioResources, 2014, 9, 4323–4335.

  • Bauer, F. F. and Pretorius, I. S., Yeast stress response and fermentation efficiency: how to survive the making of wine. S. Afr. J. Enol. Viticult., 2000, 21, 27–51.

  • Kubota, S. et al., Effect of ethanol on cell growth of budding yeast: genes that are important for cell growth in the presence of ethanol. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 2014, 68, 968–972.

  • Wallace-Salinas, V. and Gorwa-Grauslund, M. F., Adaptive evolution of an industrial strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for combined tolerance to inhibitors and temperature. Biotechnol. Biofuels, 2013, 6, 1–9.

  • Andrews, J. M., Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J. Antimicrob. Chem., 2001, 48, 5–16.

  • Narendranath, N. V., Thomas, K. C. and Ingledew, W. M., Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a minimal medium. J. Indust. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2001, 26(3), 171–177.

  • Piper, P., Calderon, C. O., Hatzixanthis, K. and Mollapour, M., Weak acid adaptation: the stress response that confers yeasts with resistance to organic acid food preservatives. Microbiology, 2001, 147, 2635–2642.

  • Westman, J. O., Ethanol production from lignocellulose using high local cell density cultures. Investigations of flocculating and encapsulated Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2014.

  • Maiorella, B., Blanch, H. W. and Wilke, C. R., By-product inhibition effects on ethanolic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 1983, 25, 103–121.

  • Guaragnella, N., Antonacci, L., Passarella, S., Marra, E. and Giannattasio, S., Hydrogen peroxide and superoxide anion production during acetic acid-induced yeast programmed cell death. Folia Microbiol., 2007, 7, 237–240.

  • Rolland, F., Winderickx, J. and Thevelein, J. M., Glucose-sensing and signalling mechanisms in yeast. FEMS Yeast Res., 2002, 2, 183–201.


Abstract Views: 225

PDF Views: 68




  • Assessment of the Viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Response to Synergetic Inhibition During Bioethanol Production

Abstract Views: 225  |  PDF Views: 68

Authors

Corli de Klerk
School of Chemical and Minerals Engineering, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
Elvis Fosso-Kankeu
School of Chemical and Minerals Engineering, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
L. Du Plessis
Centre of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
S. Marx
School of Chemical and Minerals Engineering, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa

Abstract


Second-generation biofuels, fuels produced from lignocellulosic materials, including wood, agricultural residues and biomass waste include bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas. These fuel sources have great potential as useful substitutes to conventional fossil fuels. Biomass sources are also non-toxic and biodegradable energy sources that can be produced from a wide range of organic materials resulting in economic and renewable energy source. Pretreatment of lingocellulosic biomass is required to reduce physicochemical restrictions that hinder the accessibility of sugars necessary for hydrolysis and fermentation. Various pretreatment processes exist, but all of them produce inhibitory compounds that ultimately reduce ethanol production and cell viability of the fermenting microorganism, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In this study different combinations of inhibitors (acetic acid, formic acid and vanillin) were considered to mimic realistic fermentation conditions during bioethanol production; ethanol yield and cell viability were then concurrently measured over a period of 48 h. The combination of acetic acid and formic acid exhibited ethanol reduction up to 11 ± 3.74%, while cell viability decreased by 23 ± 6.61%. Acetic acid and vanillin reduced ethanol production by 25 ± 1.77% and cell viability by 4 ± 4.38%. Formic acid and vanillin inhibited ethanol production by 31 ± 3.14% and cell viability 16 ± 7.54%. Finally, the synergistic effect of all three inhibitors reduced the final ethanol production by 58 ± 5.09% and cell viability by 27 ± 5.44%, indicating the toxic effect of the synergistic combination.

Keywords


Bioethanol Production, Cell Viability, Flow Cytometry, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Synergetic Inhibition.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi6%2F1124-1132