High-Solid Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Fermentation of Solka Floc into Ethanol

  • Um, Byung-Hwan (Forest Bioproducts Research Initiative, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Maine) ;
  • Hanley, Thomas R. (Department of Chemical Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University)
  • Published : 2008.07.31

Abstract

To lower the cost of ethanol distillation of fermentation broths, a high initial glucose concentration is desired. However, an increase in the substrate concentration typically reduces the ethanol yield because of insufficient mass and heat transfer. In addition, different operating temperatures are required to optimize the enzymatic hydrolysis (50$^{\circ}C$) and fermentation (30$^{\circ}C$). Thus, to overcome these incompatible temperatures, saccharification followed by fermentation (SFF) was employed with relatively high solid concentrations (10% to 20%) using a portion loading method. In this study, glucose and ethanol were produced from Solka Floc, which was first digested by enzymes at 50$^{\circ}C$ for 48 h, followed by fermentation. In this process, commercial enzymes were used in combination with a recombinant strain of Zymomonas mobilis (39679:pZB4L). The effects of the substrate concentration (10% to 20%, w/v) and reactor configuration were also investigated. In the first step, the enzyme reaction was achieved using 20 FPU/g cellulose at 50$^{\circ}C$ for 96 h. The fermentation was then performed at 30$^{\circ}C$ for 96 h. The enzymatic digestibility was 50.7%, 38.4%, and 29.4% after 96 h with a baffled Rushton impeller and initial solid concentration of 10%, 15%, and 20% (w/v), respectively, which was significantly higher than that obtained with a baffled marine impeller. The highest ethanol yield of 83.6%, 73.4%, and 21.8%, based on the theoretical amount of glucose, was obtained with a substrate concentration of 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, which also corresponded to 80.5%, 68.6%, and 19.1%, based on the theoretical amount of the cell biomass and soluble glucose present after 48 h of SFF.

Keywords

References

  1. Amanullah, A., L. H. Christensen, K. Hansen, A. W. Nienow, and C. R. Thomas. 2002. Dependence of morphology on agitation intensity in fed-batch cultures of Aspergillus oryzae and its implications for recombinant protein production. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 77: 815-826 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.10181
  2. Beyond Petroleum. 2005. Statistical Review of World Energy.
  3. Bioethanol: Fueling Sustainable Transportation.
  4. Davis, M., J. O. Baker, T. Rignall, and M. E. Himmel. 2002. Changes in cellulose morphology of pretreated yellow poplar during enzymatic hydrolysis. NREL Report No. PO-510-32125
  5. Eriksson, T., J. Karlsson, and F. Tjerneld. 2002. A model explaining declining rate in hydrolysis of lignocellulosic substrates with cellobiohydrolase I (Cel7A) and endoglucanase I (Cel7B) of Trichoderma reesei. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 101: 41-59 https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:101:1:41
  6. Kang, H. J. and K. Ishikawa. 2007. Analysis of active center in hyperthermophilic cellulase from Pyrococcus horikoshii. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17: 1249-1253
  7. Kusuma, K., G. H. Chon, J. S. Lee, J. Kongkiattikajorn, K. Ratanakhanokchai, K. L. Kyu, et al. 2006. Hydrolysis of agricultural residues and kraft pulps by xylanolytic enzymes from alkaliphilic Bacillus sp. strain BK. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 16: 1255-1261
  8. Li, Z. J., V. Shukla, K. Wenger, A. Fordyce, A. G. Pedersen, and M. Marten. 2002. Estimation of hyphal tensile strength in production-scale Aspergillus oryzae fungal fermentations. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 77: 601-613 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.10209
  9. Lubbert, A. and B. S. Jorgensen. 2001. Bioreactor performance: A more scientific approach for practice. J. Biotechnol. 85: 187-212 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00366-7
  10. Lynd, L., P. J. Weimer, W. H. van Zyl, and I. S. Pretorius. 2002. Microbial cellulose utilization: Fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 6: 506-577
  11. Mansfield, S. D., C. Mooney, and J. N. Saddler. 1999. Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol. Prog. 15: 804-816 https://doi.org/10.1021/bp9900864
  12. Oldshue, J. Y. 1983. Fluid Mixing Technology, pp. 1-23. McGraw-Hill, New York
  13. Philippidis, G. P. and C. Hatzis. 1997. Biochemical engineering analysis of critical process factors in the biomass-to-ethanol technology. Biotechnol. Prog. 13: 222-231 https://doi.org/10.1021/bp970017u
  14. Rushton, J. H., E. W. Costich, and H. J. Everett. 1950. Power characteristics of mixing impellers. Chem. Eng. Prog. 9: Part I: 395-450, Part II: 467-476
  15. Shin, D. G., A. Yoo, S. W. Kim, and D. R. Yang. 2006. Cybernetic modeling of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation for ethanol production from steam-exploded wood with Brettanomyces custersii. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 16: 1355-1361
  16. Um, B. H. 2002. Effect of pretreatment reagent and hydrogen peroxide on enzymatic hydrolysis of oak in percolation process. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 91/93: 81-94
  17. Um, B. H., M. N. Karim, and L. L. Henk. 2003. Effect of sulfuric and phosphoric acid pretreatments on enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 105/108: 115-152
  18. USA Today, June 11, 2006. Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?
  19. Valjamae, P., V. Sild, G. Pettersson, and G. Johansson. 1998. The initial kinetics of hydrolysis by cellobiohydrolases I and II is consistent with a cellulose surface-erosion model. Eur. J. Biochem. 253: 469-475 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1327.1998.2530469.x
  20. Yin, L. and R. J. Chrost. 2006. Enzymatic activities in petroleum wastewater purification system by an activated sludge process. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 16: 200-204
  21. Zhang, Y. H. P. and L. Lynd. 2004. Toward an aggregated understanding of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: Noncomplexed cellulase systems. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 88: 797-824 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20282