Browse > Article

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology / v.18, no.7, 2008 , pp. 1257-1265 More about this Journal
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
High-solid fermentation; enzymatic hydrolysis; saccharification followed by fermentation (SFF); Solka Floc;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
Times Cited By Web Of Science : 5  (Related Records In Web of Science)
연도 인용수 순위
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   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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
3 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   DOI   ScienceOn
4 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
5 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
6 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   과학기술학회마을
7 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
8 Kang, H. J. and K. Ishikawa. 2007. Analysis of active center in hyperthermophilic cellulase from Pyrococcus horikoshii. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17: 1249-1253   과학기술학회마을
9 Oldshue, J. Y. 1983. Fluid Mixing Technology, pp. 1-23. McGraw-Hill, New York
10 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   과학기술학회마을
11 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   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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   과학기술학회마을
13 Lubbert, A. and B. S. Jorgensen. 2001. Bioreactor performance: A more scientific approach for practice. J. Biotechnol. 85: 187-212   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Mansfield, S. D., C. Mooney, and J. N. Saddler. 1999. Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol. Prog. 15: 804-816   DOI   ScienceOn
15 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
16 USA Today, June 11, 2006. Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?
17 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   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Beyond Petroleum. 2005. Statistical Review of World Energy.
19 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   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Bioethanol: Fueling Sustainable Transportation.
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   DOI   ScienceOn