Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

  • 제32권11호
  • /
  • Pages.1479-1484
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1017-7825(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1738-8872(eISSN)
한국미생물·생명공학회 (The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Microbial Production of Bacterial Cellulose Using Chestnut Shell Hydrolysates by Gluconacetobacter xylinus ATCC 53524

  • Jeongho Lee (Department of Biotechnology, Sangmyung University) ;
  • Kang Hyun Lee (Department of Biotechnology, Sangmyung University) ;
  • Seunghee Kim (Department of Biotechnology, Sangmyung University) ;
  • Hyerim Son (Department of Biotechnology, Sangmyung University) ;
  • Youngsang Chun (Department of Bio-Convergence Engineering, Dongyang Mirae University) ;
  • Chulhwan Park (Department of Chemical Engineering, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Hah Young Yoo (Department of Biotechnology, Sangmyung University)
  • 투고 : 2022.08.14
  • 심사 : 2022.09.19
  • 발행 : 2022.11.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Bacterial cellulose (BC) is gaining attention as a carbon-neutral alternative to plant cellulose, and as a means to prevent deforestation and achieve a carbon-neutral society. However, the high cost of fermentation media for BC production is a barrier to its industrialization. In this study, chestnut shell (CS) hydrolysates were used as a carbon source for the BC-producing bacteria strain, Gluconacetobacter xylinus ATCC 53524. To evaluate the suitability of the CS hydrolysates, major inhibitors in the hydrolysates were analyzed, and BC production was profiled during fermentation. CS hydrolysates (40 g glucose/l) contained 1.9 g/l acetic acid when applied directly to the main medium. As a result, the BC concentration at 96 h using the control group and CS hydrolysates was 12.5 g/l and 16.7 g/l, respectively (1.3-fold improved). In addition, the surface morphology of BC derived from CS hydrolysates revealed more densely packed nanofibrils than the control group. In the microbial BC production using CS, the hydrolysate had no inhibitory effect during fermentation, suggesting it is a suitable feedstock for a sustainable and eco-friendly biorefinery. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to valorize CS by utilizing it in BC production.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) (NRF-2020R1A2C1007493 and NRF-2020R1C1C1005060).

참고문헌

  1. Abdullah SSS, Aris FAF, Azmi SNNS, John JHSA, Anuar NNK, Asnawi ASFM. 2022. Development and evaluation of ciprofloxacin-bacterial cellulose composites produced through in situ incorporation method. Biotechnol. Rep. 34: e00726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2022.e00726
  2. Zeng Z, Wang D, Yang L, Wu J, Ziegler AD, Liu M, et al. 2021. Deforestation-induced warming over tropical mountain regions regulated by elevation. Nat. Geosci. 14: 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00666-0
  3. Li Z, Chen SQ, Cao X, Li L, Zhu J, Yu H. 2021. Effect of pH buffer and carbon metabolism on the yield and mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose produced by Komagataeibacter hansenii ATCC 53582. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 31: 429-438. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2010.10054
  4. Bang WY, Kim DH, Kang MD, Yang J, Huh T, Lim YW, et al. 2021. Addition of various cellulosic components to bacterial nanocellulose: a comparison of surface qualities and crystalline properties. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 31: 1366-1372. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2106.06068
  5. Haq I, Mazumder P, Kalamdhad AS. 2020. Recent advances in removal of lignin from paper industry wastewater and its industrial applications-A review. Bioresour. Technol. 312: 123636.
  6. Huang Y, Huang X, Ma M, Hu C, Seidi F, Yin S, et al. 2021. Recent advances on the bacterial cellulose-derived carbon aerogels. J. Mater. Chem. 9: 818-828.
  7. Khan H, Saroha V, Raghuvanshi S, Bharti AK, Dutt D. 2021. Valorization of fruit processing waste to produce high value-added bacterial nanocellulose by a novel strain Komagataeibacter xylinus IITR DKH20. Carbohydr. Polym. 260: 117807.
  8. Yoo HY, Kim SW. 2021. The next-generation biomass for biorefining. BioResources 16: 2188-2191. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.16.2.2188-2191
  9. Chun Y, Lee SK, Yoo HY, Kim SW. 2021. Recent advancements in biochar production according to feedstock classification, pyrolysis conditions, and applications: a review. BioResources 16: 6512-6547. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.16.3.Chun
  10. Toquero C, Bolado S. 2014. Effect of four pretreatments on enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation of wheat straw. Influence of inhibitors and washing. Bioresour. Technol. 157: 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.090
  11. Guragain YN, Wang D, Vadlani PV. 2016. Appropriate biorefining strategies for multiple feedstocks: critical evaluation for pretreatment methods, and hydrolysis with high solids loading. Renew. Energy 96: 832-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.099
  12. Lee KH, Jang YW, Lee J, Kim S, Park C, Yoo HY. 2021. Statistical optimization of alkali pretreatment to improve sugars recovery from spent coffee grounds and utilization in lactic acid fermentation. Processes 9: 494.
  13. An HE, Lee KH, Jang YW, Kim CB, Yoo HY. 2021. Improved glucose recovery from Sicyos angulatus by NaOH pretreatment and application to bioethanol production. Processes 9: 245.
  14. Lee JH, Yoo HY, Lee SK, Chun Y, Kim HR, Bankeeree W, et al. 2020. Significant impact of casein hydrolysate to overcome the low consumption of glycerol by Klebsiella aerogenes ATCC 29007 and its application to bioethanol production. Energy Convers. Manag. 221: 113181.
  15. Kim H, Son J, Lee J, Yoo HY, Lee T, Jang M, et al. 2021. Improved production of bacterial cellulose through investigation of effects of inhibitory compounds from lignocellulosic hydrolysates. GCB Bioenergy 13: 436-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12800
  16. Lee KH, Lee SK, Lee J, Kim S, Kim SW, Park C, et al. 2022. Energy-efficient glucose recovery from chestnut shell by optimization of NaOH pretreatment at room temperature and application to bioethanol production. Environ. Res. 208: 112710.
  17. Takahama R, Kato H, Tajima K, Tagawa S, Kondo T. 2021. Biofabrication of a hyaluronan/bacterial cellulose composite nanofibril by secretion from engineered gluconacetobacter. Biomacromolecules 22: 4709-4719. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.1c00987
  18. Yoo HY, Yang X, Kim DS, Lee SK, Lotrakul P, Prasongsuk S, et al. 2016. Evaluation of the overall process on bioethanol production from miscanthus hydrolysates obtained by dilute acid pretreatment. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 21: 733-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-016-0485-x
  19. Riadi L, Hansen Y, Pratiwi J, Purwanto MGM. 2020. Mild alkaline pretreatment on sugarcane bagasse: effects of pretreatment time and lime to dry bagasse ratio. Proc. Pak. Acad. Sci. 57: 43-50.
  20. Zhang B, Zhan B, Bao J. 2021. Reframing biorefinery processing chain of corn fiber for cellulosic ethanol production. Ind. Crops Prod. 170: 113791.
  21. Lee KH, Lee SK, Lee J, Kim S, Park C, Kim SW, et al. 2021. Improvement of enzymatic glucose conversion from chestnut shells through optimization of KOH pretreatment. Int. J. Environ. Res. 18: 3772.
  22. Toda K, Asakura T, Fukaya M, Entani E, Kawamura Y. 1997. Cellulose production by acetic acid-resistant Acetobacter xylinum. J. Ferment. Bioeng. 84: 228-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0922-338X(97)82059-4
  23. Revin V, Liyaskina E, Nazarkina M, Bogatyreva A, Shchankin M. 2018. Cost-effective production of bacterial cellulose using acidic food industry by-products. Braz. J. Microbiol. 49: 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2017.12.012
  24. Son HJ, Heo MS, Kim YG, Lee SJ. 2001. Optimization of fermentation conditions for the production of bacterial cellulose by a newly isolated Acetobacter. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 33: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1042/BA20000065
  25. Jung HI, Lee OM, Jeong JH, Jeon YD, Park KH, Kim HS, et al. 2010. Production and characterization of cellulose by Acetobacter sp. V6 using a cost-effective molasses-corn steep liquor medium. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162: 486-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-009-8759-9
  26. Molina-Ramirez C, Enciso C, Torres-Taborda M, Zuluaga R, Ganan P, Rojas OJ, et al. 2018. Effects of alternative energy sources on bacterial cellulose characteristics produced by Komagataeibacter medellinensis. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 117: 735-741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.05.195
  27. Blanco Parte FG, Santoso SP, Chou CC, Verma V, Wang HT, Ismadji S, et al. 2020. Current progress on the production, modification, and applications of bacterial cellulose. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 40: 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2020.1713721
  28. Hur DH, Choi WS, Kim TY, Lee SY, Park JH, Jeong KJ. 2020. Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose in Komagataeibacter xylinus via tuning of biosynthesis genes with synthetic RBS. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 30: 1430-1435. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2006.06026
  29. Yoo HY, Lee JH, Kim DS, Lee JH, Lee SK, Lee SJ, et al. 2017. Enhancement of glucose yield from canola agricultural residue by alkali pretreatment based on multi-regression models. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 51: 303-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.03.018
  30. Eryasar-Orer K, Karasu-Yalcin S. 2021. Optimization of activated charcoal detoxification and concentration of chestnut shell hydrolysate for xylitol production. Biotechnol. Lett. 43: 1195-1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-021-03087-0
  31. Morana A, Squillaci G, Paixao SM, Alves L, La Cara F, Moura P. 2017. Development of an energy biorefinery model for chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) shells. Energies 10: 1504.
  32. Guzel M, Akpinar O. 2020. Preparation and characterization of bacterial cellulose produced from fruit and vegetable peels by Komagataeibacter hansenii GA2016. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 162: 1597-1604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.049
  33. Guzel M, Akpinar O. 2018. Production and characterization of bacterial cellulose from citrus peels. Waste Biomass Valorization 10: 2165-2175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0241-x
  34. Ul-Islam M, Ullah MW, Khan S, Park JK. 2020. Production of bacterial cellulose from alternative cheap and waste resources: a step for cost reduction with positive environmental aspects. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 37: 925-937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-020-0524-3
  35. Li ZY, Azi F, Dong JJ, Liu LZ, Ge ZW, Dong MS. 2021. Green and efficient in-situ biosynthesis of antioxidant and antibacterial bacterial cellulose using wine pomace. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 193: 2183-2191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.11.049
  36. Son J, Lee KH, Lee T, Kim HS, Shin WH, Oh JM, et al. 2022. Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose from Miscanthus as sustainable feedstock through statistical optimization of culture conditions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public 19: 866.
  37. Wang Q, Nnanna PC, Shen F, Huang M, Tian D, Hu J, et al. 2021. Full utilization of sweet sorghum for bacterial cellulose production: a concept of material crop. Ind. Crops. Prod. 162: 113256.
  38. Zhong C, Zhang GC, Liu M, Zheng XT, Han PP, Jia SR. 2013. Metabolic flux analysis of Gluconacetobacter xylinus for bacterial cellulose production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97: 6189-6199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4908-8
  39. Yang HJ, Lee T, Kim JR, Choi YE, Park C. 2019. Improved production of bacterial cellulose from waste glycerol through investigation of inhibitory effects of crude glycerol-derived compounds by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 75: 158-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2019.03.017