Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Concentrating lignocellulosic hydrolysate by evaporation and its fermentation by repeated fedbatch using flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Concentrating lignocellulosic hydrolysate by evaporation and its fermentation by repeated fedbatch using flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Anahita Dehkhoda
Title: Concentrating lignocellulosic hydrolysate by evaporation and its fermentation by repeated fed-batch using flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae Publication: Scientific paper / Submitted
Master thesis
University College of Bors School of Engineering SE-501 90 BORS Telephone +46 033 435 4640
Prof. Mohammad Taherzadeh Dr. Tomas Brandberg, Prof. Mohammad Taherzadeh SEKAB E-Technology, rnskoldsvik, Sweden Concentrating, lignocellulosic hydrolysate, evaporation, flocculating yeast, fermentation, ethanol.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this thesis project and my graduate education are indebted to the support of industry professionals and very experienced supervisors. I am especially appreciative of Dr. Tomas Brandberg for choosing me and giving me the opportunity to do my diploma work in SEKAB E-Technology. Thanks for being patient with me always and teaching me so much from your knowledge and never hesitating in repeat yourself. Thanks for being like a friend to me, and helping me in everything from getting samples late at night to fixing disasters! You have been more than a supervisor to me, I will never forget you. I would like to thanks to Prof. Mohammad Taherzadeh, first for informing your students about this opportunity, second for your suggestions during the experiments which helped us in improving them. Writing a scientific paper would not have been possible without the considerable time and effort invested by you. I take this opportunity to thank my assistant supervisor Annika Hgglund. Every time I needed help, you rushed to give me a hand and fix the sudden problems in lab, and thank you for sharing your experiences with me. I want to extend special thanks to Torbjrn van der Meulen for giving me the opportunity to work at SEKAB. Thanks to Carl-Axel Lalander in helping with quick preparation of any equipment which I ran out of. I would also like to recognize Staffan Magnusson, Robert Selling, Birgitta Lundgren and other people at MoRe Research for the processing and measurement of samples. Thanks to my family for supporting me from such a far distance, and thanks to my fianc, whos presence and care kept me going. This work was supported by SEKAB ETechnology rnskoldsvik, Sweden and all experimental works was performed in laboratory scales at SEKAB E-Technology.
iv
Master thesis Industrial Biotechnology Bors University and SEKAB E-Technology, Sweden
ABSTRACT
In order to obtain a sugar concentration of more than 100g.l-1of fermentable sugars, a spruce wood hydrolysate was subjected to high pressure and vacuum concentration and the fermentability of each hydrolysate was assessed by fermentation experiments with flocculating S. cerevisiae. The hypothesis that high pressure evaporated hydrolysate (evaporation carried out at 108C and 1.3 bar) would be more difficult to ferment than vacuum evaporated hydrolysate (evaporation carried out at 80C and 0.5 bar) was not confirmed by the results. Minor amount of cells lost their flocculating ability after fermentation which their ratio and their viability and vitality was assessed. By vacuum and high pressure concentration, the fermentable sugars (defined as the concentration of glucose, mannose and galactose) in the hydrolysates reached to 120g.l-1 and 129g.l-1 respectively. Compared to the initial hydrolysate the concentration factor represented a 3-fold increase of fermentable sugars. Furfural was evaporated in both trials and its concentration reached to 0.03g.l-1 and 0.1g.l-1 after vacuum and high pressure evaporation respectively. Fermentation with both 0.14h-1and 0.22h-1 initial dilution rates was possible, while more than 96% of furfural and to less extent formic and acetic acids disappeared from the hydrolyzates. However, HMF and levulinic acid remained in the hydrolyzates and concentrated proportionally. More than 84% of the fermentable sugars present in VEH were fermented by fed-batch cultivation using 12g.l-1 yeast and initial dilution rate (ID) of 0.22h-1, and resulted into 0.400.01g.g-1 ethanol in 21h. Fermentation of HPEH was as successful as VEH and resulted into more than 86% of the sugar consumption at the corresponding conditions. With an ID of 0.14h-1, more than 97% of the total fermentable sugars were consumed, and ethanol yielded 0.440.01g.g-1. A viability and vitality determination from the supernatant of fermentation liquor represented that about 76% of the cells which lost their flocculating ability kept their vitality. Cultivation of yeast with beet molasses was tricky in both batch and fed-batch cultivation as the concentration more than 50g.l-1 in batch cultivation prevent from yeast growing. Keywords: concentrating, lignocellulosic hydrolysate, evaporation, flocculating yeast, ethanol, fermentation.
PUBLICATION
The following scientific publication was prepared from this thesis work.
Anahita Dehkhoda, Tomas Brandberg and Mohammad J Taherzadeh.2008. Concentrating lignocellulosic hydrolyzate by evaporation and its fermentation by repeated fed-batch using flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Submitted)
vi
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction..1
1.1 Background of ethanol production......................................................................1 1.2 Outline of the thesis ................................................2
vii
2.11 Fermentation.. ..........................................................15 2.11.1 Fermentation of dilute acid hydrolysate ....................................................15 2.11.2 Fermentation of enzymatic hydrolysyate (SSF and SHF) .........................16 2.12 Fermentation techniques ......................................................16 2.12.1 Batch process.. ...........................................................16 2.12.2 Fed batch process...........................................................17 2.12.4 Continuous process. .......................................................17 2.13 Overall rocess of ethanol roduction from lignocellulosic materias..18 2.14 Fermentation s microorganism. .......................................................19 2.14.1 Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)............................................................19 2.14.1.1 Dissolved oxygen............................................................19 2.14.1.2 Carbon dioxide............................................................20 2.14.1.3 Hydrogen ion concentration........................................................20 2.14.1.4 Temperature ............................................................20 2.14.1.5 Required nutrients by yeast.........................................................21 2.14.1.6 Life cycle of Saccharomyces.cereviseae.....................................22 2.14.1.7 Metabolisms of S.cerevisise........................................................22 2.14.1.7.1 Glucose catabolism ....................................................22 2.14.2 Bacteria.. ...........................................23 2.14.3 Filamentous fungi.. ...................................................24
viii
3.7 Experiments Type 1 (A, B, C).. .........................................................31 3.7.1 Yeast cultivation . . ...................................................31 3.7.2 Hydrolysate feeding. .....................................................31 3.7.3 Resting & airing........................................................31 3.8 Experiments Type 2 (D, E, F) ....................................................32 3.9 Experiments Type 3 (G, E) ........................................................32 3.10 Experiments Type 4 (I, J).....................................................33 3.11 Analysis........................................................34 3.11.1 Metabolic analysis. ........................................................34 3.11.2 Dry weight.. .......................................................34 3.11.3 Determination of cell vitality.. .......................................................34 3.11.4 Determination of cell viability. ......................................................35 3.11.5 Calculations........................................................35
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Cellulose structure...7 2. Hemicellulose structure...8 3. Monomers of lignin.9 4. Inhibitors scheme.. 15 5. Schematic picture of ethanol production...18 6. Fermentation process.23 7. Inoculums culture for yeast cultivation..27 8. Fermentor (Belach BR 0.4 bioreactor, AB Teknik, Solna, Sweden) ....29 9. Aerobic fed-batch cultivation process with molasses solution..30 10. Diagram of volume versus time. Yeast production (aerobic) lasted 48 hours, and then the resulting yeast culture was used for (anaerobic) fermentation in two cycles, with 2 hours of aeration between them. The feed during the fermentation consisted in VEH and HPEH.............31 11. Fed-batch fermentation with dilute- acid high pressure evaporated hydrlosate and double amount of yeast at experiment 3 (A, B).33 12. Volume changes versus time in fed-batch fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate with a regular amount of yeast and lower dilution rate..33 13. Glass tubes containing centrifuged yeast solutions for dry measurement...34 14. Concentration of glucose in experiment 1 (A - C). Fed-batch fermentation with VEH by S. cerevisiea .39 15. Concentration of mannose in experiment 1 (A-C). Fed-batch fermentation with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate by S. cerevisea39 16. Concentration of mannose from experiments type1 (A-C). Fed-batch fermentation with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate by S. cerevisea...39 17. Concentration of glucose in Experiment 2(A-C), with feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate..42
xi
18. Concentration of mannose in Experiment 2(A-C), with feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate42 19. Concentration of galactose in Experiment 2(A-C), with feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate42 20. Glucose concentration during fermentation with higher (32g.l 1 ) initial yeast concentration with feed consisting in HPEH.... 45 21. Mannose concentration during fermentation with higher (32g.l 1 ) initial yeast
concentration with feed consisting in HPEH.... 45 22. Galactose concentration during fermentation with higher (32g.l 1 ) initial yeast concentration with feed consisting in HPEH.45 23. Glucose concentration during fermentation with lower dilution rate and feed consisting of HPEH....47 24. Mannose concentration during fermentation with lower dilution rate and feed consisting of HPEH... 47 25. Galactose concentration during fermentation with lower dilution rate and feed consisting of HPEH47 26. Ethanol, biomss, glycerol yielde comparison .....49 27. Sample of CFU measurement with colonies52 28. Vitality determination of samples stained by methylen blue and analyzed by light microscope. ...53 29. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, and acetic acid concentration in experiment 4(A, B) with lower dilution rate + regular amount of yeast and HPEH.....56 30. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, acetic acid concentration in experiment 3(A, B) with double amount of yeast and HPEH56 31. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, acetic acid concentration in experiment 2 (A, B) with regular amount of yeast and HPEH...57 32. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, acetic acid concentration in experiment 1(A, B, C) with regular amount of yeast and VEH..57
xii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Production of ethanol in world based on billion gallons per year...4 2. Hardwood and softwood composition.. ..6 3. Comparison between dilute-acid and concentrated acid hydrolysis .........11 4. Comparison of enzymatic and acid hydrolysis. 12 5. Composition of beet molasses...28 9. Comparison of dilute-acid spruce hydrolysate after and before evaporation37 10. Yeast cultivation results up to the start-culture from experiments with VEH and HPEH (The numbers are averages from three experiments).37 11. Average consumption of fermentable sugars in each stage of three experiments...38 12. Yield of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per g of consumed sugar at the end of each experiment..40 13. Average glucose, mannose, galactose consumption from three experiments in fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate..41 14. Yields of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per g of added hexoses during both fermentation cycles....43 15. Average sugars consumption from two experiments in fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate+ double amount of yeast...44 16. Yields of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per g of consumed hexoses at the end of each experiment (Added sugars)46 17. Average glucose, mannose, galactose consumption from two experiments in fermentation with HPEH and lower dilution rate..46 18. Fraction of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per g of consumed sugar at the end of each experiment..48 19. Comparison of important results in experiment (1-4)..49 20. Inhibitors concentration in vacuum and high pressure concentrated hydrolysate, before fermentation50
xiii
21. Inhibitors conversion rate after fermentation in Experiments 1-4. For experiments1-3, Samples were taken during the two cycles of fermentation, at the end of each stage. For experiment 4, more samples were taken even in the middle of stages..50 22. Results from dry weight and CFU measurements for experiments 1- 4..51 23. Performance condition of experiments58
xiv
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1
Ethanol from renewable resources has been of interest in recent decades as an alternative fuel or oxygenated additive to the current fossil fuels. Its market grew from less than a billion liter in 1975 to more than 39 billion liters in 2006 and is expected to reach 100 billion liters in 2015 (Licht et al, 2006). Fuel ethanol contributes relatively little to net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere (Bergeron et al, 1989). Besides, depletion of crude oil in the near future makes bioethanol an important fuel, not least because it is easily used as an additive to gasoline. Lignocellulosic material is renewable and abundantly available for the production of fuel ethanol. It can be obtained at low cost from a variety of resources, e.g. forest residues, municipal waste, paper, and crop residue recourses (Wyman, 1996). Acid or enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic material can be used to convert cellulose and hemicellulose to monomeric sugars. These fermentable sugars can be anaerobically converted into ethanol by microorganisms. A number of by-products are however formed during the hydrolysis, and these compounds, e.g. furfural, hydroxymethylfurfural may inhibit yeast metabolism (Larsson et al, 1999b; Taherzadeh et al, 1997b; Sanchez and Bautista, 1988; Chung and Lee, 1985; Banerjee et al, 1976). The Inhibition of these inhibitors can be avoided either by different detoxification methods prior to fermentation (e.g. by overliming) or by in situ detoxification by yeast. Chemical detoxification has, however, its drawbacks. Overliming can be performed efficiently at low cost, but is known to cause sugar loses(Martinez et al, 2000). In situ 1
detoxification was applied to develop a fed-batch process for cultivation of severely inhibiting hydrolysates (Taherzadeh et al, 2000; Taherzadeh et al, 1999). Although this method has been proved potentially successful it has showed a drastic decrease in cell viability as soon as the feed rate or toxicity of the hydrolysate was increased (Nilsson, et al, 2001). Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a detoxification method depends on the types of the hemicellulose hydrlysate because each type of hydrolysate has a different degree of toxicity (Larsson et al, 1999). An increase at the initial hydrolysate sugar concentration provides an increased ethanol concentration which has a major effect on the energy demand; especially at concentrations below 4 wt % of ethanol. The increased ethanol concentration in the feed to the distillation reduces the production cost considerably. Thus, more than 100g.l 1 sugar concentration is needed for industrial ethanologenic fermentation, since huge costs are associated with equipment required for transportation and storage of large volume of water and costs for ethanol recovery. Increasing the sugar concentration in the water-soluble fraction can be achieved either by evaporation of water or less addition of water to the hydrolysis process. The dramatic evaporation (by a factor 3) that was performed in this work is not industrially relevant, but should partly be seen as a simulation of a hydrolysis process where less water is added. Also, some evaporation may be used on industrial scale, but the comparison of vacuum evaporation and high pressure evaporation is important.
CHAPTER 2
Bioethanol
In Brazil, the proacool program was launched in the 1970s as a response to the oil crisis. While ethanol is used as a fuel additive in the US it is frequently used as the dominating fuel component in Brazil (Roehr et al, 2000). m3
Table 1. Annual production of (www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics). Country USA Brazil China India France Russia 2004 13362300 15078420 3643920 1746360 827820 748440
ethanol
in
world
based
on
good
sources
for
Lignocellulose (wood, grasses and municipal solid waste) is an attractive feedstock for ethanol production because of its availability at low cost and at large quantities. Approximately 50% of the biomass in the world is lignocelluloses and it has an estimated annual production of 10-50.10kg (Classen, 1999). There are many types of lignocellulosic materials that can be served as feed stocks for ethanol production like Agricultural residues, municipal and industrial waste materials, papers and forestry by products, trees, grasses. The dominant sources of lignocellulic materials in northern hemisphere are softwoods such as pine and spruce, softwood is an object of interest in Sweden, Canada and western United States as renewable resources for ethanol production, because it is cheaper than hardwood (Galbe et al, 2005). Besides its content of pentose-rich hemicelluloses is significantly lower than in hardwood. This is advantageous, since important fermenting organisms (such as native strains of S. cerevisiae) dont consume pentose.
Table 2. Hardwood and softwood composition. Hemicellulose Material Hardwood Softwood Cellulose % 45-51 41-42 Hemicellulose % 23-28 24-31 Lignin % 19-24 29-31
2.6.1 Celluloses
Cellulose is the major component in the cell wall of living plant cells. The most obvious purpose of cellulose is to provide strength to the plant structure. It is a linear homopolymer of anhydroglucose units linked by (1-4) glycosides bonds, its basic repeating units is disaccharide cellebiose (Delmar and Amor, 1995). The length of macromolecules varies greatly as to the source and degree of processing (DP) that it has undergone. Newsprint, e.g., exhibits an average DP of about 1000 while cotton is found to have a DP of approximately 10,000 (Roehr, 2000). Its not the primary structure which makes cellulose a hydrolysis resistant molecule. It rather seems to be the effect of secondary and tertiary configuration of the cellulose chain as well as its close association with other protective polymeric structure within the plant cell wall such as lignin, starch, pectin, hemicelluloses, proteins and mineral elements. The easily and quickly hydrolyzed degraded regions in cellulose structure are amorphous in nature and difficult parts are crystalline parts (Roehr, 2000).
2.6.2 Hemicelluloses
Hemicellulose is a highly branched, low molecular weight heteropolymers of Dgalactoses, Dglucose, and D-mannose, D-xyloses, L- arabinoses and various other Sugars as well as their uronic acid. It is bound covalently to lignin and through hydrogen bonds to cellulose (Sjstrm et al, 1993).
Its composition differs from softwood to hardwood, it means that in hardwood hemicellulose mainly consists of xylose but glucose and mannose are the dominating buildingblocks in softwood carbohydrates (Sjstrm et al, 1993). Hemicellulose has a low degree of crystallinity and microfibrils and it has more amorphous regions than cellulose; this means that hemicelluloses are more susceptible to hydrolysis than to the rigid structure of cellulose.
2.6.3 Lignin
Lignin is an aromatic large cross-linked polymer synthesised from phenylpropanoid precursors that compose around 25% of lignocellulose. Lignins are divided into two classes, namely ``guaiacyl lignins'' and ``guaiacyl-syringyl lignins'', differing in the substituents of the phenylpropanoid skeleton, Guaiacyl-lignins have a methoxy-group in the 3-carbon position, whereas syringyl- lignins have a methoxy-group in both the 3carbon and 5-carbon positions. It is the main by-product when lignocellulosic materials are used for ethanol production, but it can be used as an ash free solid fuel for production of heat and electricity (Galbe and Zacchi, 2002). The lignin is formed by removal of water from sugars, these reactions are not reversible. There are many possible monomers of lignin, and the types and proportions depend on the source in nature. This molecule of phenolic character is the dehydration product of three monomeric alcohols: Trans-p-coumaryl alcohol, Trans-coniferil alcohol, transsinapyl alcohol linked together by ether bonds. The lignin component of cellulosic based biomass is responsible to a great extent for the difficulties inherent in cellulose hydrolysis; its matrix forms a protective sheath around the cellulose microfibrils, and can be accounted for some degree of protection to the microfibrils. The composition of lignin varies depending on the source of raw material. Softwood contains a higher amount of lignin (about 30%) than hardwood (about 20%).
with or without acid catalyst (Clark et al, 1989; Kaar et al., 1998; San et al, 1995; Scultz et al, 1983; Tanahashi et al, 1988).
2.8 Hydrolysis
The aim of the hydrolysis is cleaving the polymers of celluloses and hemicelluloses to monomeric sugars which can be fermented to ethanol by microorganisms. In ethanol production industry the process of hydrolysis is very complicated, depending on several parameters such as properties of the substrate, acidity, and rate of decomposition of the products during hydrolysis (Taherzadeh and Karimi, 2007). The hydrolysis can be carried out either chemically or by a combined chemical and enzymatic treatment. Acids are predominantly applied in chemical hydrolysis and Sulphuric acid is the most investigated one, although other acid such as HCL have been used too.
10
Table 3. Comparison between dilute-acid and concentrated acid hydrolysis (Taherzadeh and Karimi, 2007). Hydrolysis method Concentrated acid Process Advantages -operated at low temperature - High sugar yield Disadvantages -high acid consumption -high energy consumption for acid recovery -longer reaction time (e.g. 2-6h) -equipment corrosion - operated at high temperature -low sugar yield -equipment corrosion
11
Acid
1. Non-specific catalyst therefore will delignify material as well as hydrolyze cellulose.
Enzyme
Specific macromolecule catalyst, therefore extensive physical and chemical pretreatment is necessary to make cellulose available for degradation. production of clear sugar syrup ready for subsequent anaerobic fermentation Run under mild conditions (50,atmospheric pressure ,pH4,8)
2.Decomposition of hemicellulose to inhibitory compounds 3.Harsh reaction condition therefore necessary increased costs for heat and corrosion resistant equipment 4.Relatively low yield of glucose
12
The by products which produced during the hydrolysis can be divided to: Organic acids, furan compounds, phenolic compounds.
13
concentration above 1g.l 1 was found to decrease significantly the CO 2 evolution rate and the cell multiplication also the total viable cell number in the early phase of fermentation (Azhar et al., 1981; Banerjee et al., 1981; Boyer et al., 1992; Chung and Lee, 1985; Sanchez and Bautista, 1988). During anaerobic fermentation, furfural is reduced to furfuryl alcohol, while furoic acid is produced from oxidation of furfural during aerobic cultivation. HMF has the similar inhibitory effect as furfural, except that it has a lower conversion rate that it can be because of its lower membrane permeability. An addition of 4g.l 1 of HMF decrease the CO 2 evolution rate about 32%, ethanol production rate 40%, specific growth rate 70 %. However this inhibitory effect is less than caused by the same amount of furfural, therefore HMF can not be considered as toxic as furfural for growth and fermentation of S. cereviseae. It belongs to the picture that since S. cerevisiae has an in situ detoxification mechanism for both furfural and HMF, these compounds are less inhibitory if they are supplied continuously at a rate that is lower than the detoxification rate.
14
Hemicellulose acetic acid (11-37%) pentoses furfural Formic acid hexoses HMF Formic acid Levulinic acid Lignin phenolic compounds (17-32%)
2.11 Fermentation
During fermentation monomeric sugars released in the hydrolysis are converted into the desired product, by a microorganism, these microorganisms could be yeasts or bacteria. Anaerobic production of ethanol is a typical example of fermentation. The metabolic basis for the conversion is the desire of the microorganism to use the sugars as carbon and energy source in order to maintain viability and growth. The saccharid released during hemicelluloses and celluloses degradation have to be fermented to ethanol by yeast or bacteria.
15
perspective, the fermentation can be carried out in different ways, to a large extent depending on the hydrolysis method.
16
the given strain and the environmental conditions (Tuite and Oliver, 1991), and then a zero growth period appear which is called stationary phase.
17
18
19
Many Saccharomyces species are sensitive to glucose and their respiration is repressed in the presence of a concentration of glucose greater than 1.0g.l 1 , under such condition biomass yield decrease and ethanol will be produced. This is known as a Crabtree effect or contre-pasture effect. In a study of the crabtree effect in various yeast strains, growing on a medium containing 30g.l 1 glucose, seven of eight Sacchromyces species tested gave a positive crabtree effect (Tuite and Oliver, 1991). C 2 H12 O 6 2 C 2 H 5 OH + 2 CO 2 Fully anaeroic (fermentation) G= -54 kcal
In the brewing industry the specific growth rate, viability and yield of the Saccharomyces species employed have been found to increase with the level of oxygen concentration in the wort for the levels of up to 20% saturation, as the saturation level is necessary for yeast cell maintenance and growth, the higher dissolved oxygen levels do not affect the fermentation (Tuite and Oliver, 1991).
2.14.1.3 pH
The general pH for yeast cultivation is lower than for fermentation. It has been advised to lower the pH to (3.5-4.5) in order to decrease the risk of bacterial contamination during the cultivation period, but the pH shouldnt be less than 3.5 because it values the color of the yeast produced and if sucrose is the carbon source, the yeast invertase activity maybe affected (Tuite and Oliver, 1991). During fermentation of inhibitory hydrolysates, a higher pH causes inhibitory acids to dissociate, which makes them less prone to permeate cell membranes. The pH at the current work was maintained among 4.5-5.0 during the cultivation and among 5-6 during the fermentation phase.
2.14.1.4 Temperature
The optimum temperature for maximum growth rate is strain dependent and lies generally around 28-35C. However the tolerance limit for S. cereviseae is 40C and growth around this temperature cause disruption of fatty acids synthesis. In a commercial 20
manufacture of Saccharomyces yeast the temperature initially maintained at 25C but is allowed to rise gradually to 30C by the end of the fermentation. At current work the temperature kept on 300.1C during the all time.
21
folic acid, riboflavin and nicotinic acid (Ratledge and Kristiansen, 2005; Tuite and Oliver, 1991). Trace elements: Additional elements such as iron, manganese, cobalt, borom, cadmium, chromium, copper, iodine, molybdenum and vanadium are needed in concentrations of 0.1-100 m (Tuite and Oliver, 1991).
2.14.1.6 Life cycle of S. cereviseae S. cereviseae is a unicellular eukaryote which can reproduce both sexually (mioses) and asexually by budding (mitoses). Yeast has two mating types, called a and . when grown on rich medium, two haploid yeast cells with opposite mating types merge to form a diploid cell. Meioses and spore formation can therefore be induced by alternation of the culture conditions. A culture media with a high level of acetate and low concentration of dexterose and nitrogen induces meioses in which four haploid spores are created. The whole process takes around 24 hours to complete. 2.14.1.7 Metabolism of S.cerevisise S. cerevisie is chemoheterotrophic, which means that it uses material both for driving energy and as building blocks for cellular components. Organic sources that can be used by S. cerevisie for growth are mannose fructose, glucose, sucrose, organic acids, e.g. acetate, pyrovate and lactate, ethanol and glycerol. These sources are up taken by facilitated transport controlled by a system involving 20 different genes. 2.14.1.7.1 Glucose catabolism S. cerevisie favors aerobic fermentation over respiration in the presence of high concentration of sugar and less oxygen (Cassey and Ingledew, 1986), while respiratory metabolism tends to dominate in the presence of oxygen and low sugar concentrations. All microorganisms need energy for growth and maintenance and ATP is used as an intracellular energy transporter. The (reversible) reduction of ATP to ADP releases free energy. Cells obtain ATP from their controlled chemical breakdown of glucose to two pyruvate molecules, which under aerobic conditions can be a dominating source of intracellular energy.
This process is referred to as glycolysis. Once pyruvate is formed it can be processed in several different ways like in TCA cycle (kerebs cycle); this is referred as an aerobic respiration. However, when oxygen is limiting other othetr metabolic pathways must be used to deal with pyruvate. The fermentative path from pyruvate begins with decarboxylation by pyrovate decarboxylase producing acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is then reduced to ethanol with NADH being oxidised to NAD+ by the action of alchohol dehydrogenase. Consequently, the overall pathway leading from glucose to ethanol is redox neutral, since NADH formed in connection to oxidation of glyceraldehyde-3phosohate in the upper part of gycolysisis reoxidesied by the formation of ethanol (www.scq.ubc).
22
Fig. 6. Fermentation process that can lead to the ethanol production (www.emc.maricopa.edu).
23
2.14.2 Bacteria
Zymomonas mobilis is naturally able to produce ethanol with a high productivity but it has some draw backs, it has a narrow substrate range and can not consume mannose, galactose or xylose and also it s sensitive to inhibitors (Dien et al, 2003).
There is another bacteria, Escherichia coli that has a broad substrate range and is able to convert glucose, mannose, galactose, xylose and arabinose into pyrovate and then pyrovate change to ethanol, acetic acid, lactic acid and formate therefore the ethanol yield is much lower than S. cereviae because the product is not only ethanol. These native strains of E. coli are sensitive to inhibitors too, but there are a lot of engineered E. coli that are able to produce ethanol with a high yield (Dien et al, 2003).
24
CHAPTER 3
Materials & methods
25
be removed from the gas steam in the pre-steaming scrubber. If the chemicals are not removed during this step, then they stay in the stream and get transported to the water scrubber. After pre-steaming, the steamed raw material is transported to the first reactor, a horizontal plug flow reactor. In this reactor, diluted sulfuric acid is added and the temperature is regulated between around 170-200C. Under such conditions mainly hemicellulose is hydrolyzed, and the released sugars are dissolved in the liquid phase. This water-sugar solution is separated from the solid residues by filtration and is then transported to the detoxification step. The solid residues, containing most cellulose and lignin, were transported by transportation screws to reactor 2. From this reactor there is a gas flow to the SO2 scrubber. In reactor 2 the conditions are harsher. The temperature in this reactor is around 200230C. Solid material is fed to the top of the reactor. Also the hold-up time can be regulated. While mainly hemicellulose is hydrolysed in reactor 1 also cellulose is hydrolysed to a large extent in reactor 2. The harsh conditions cause formation of byproducts to decomposition of lignin and reactions involving the sugars. This does not only decrease the sugar yield, it also hampers the fermentation since several by-products are inhibitory to fermenting organisms. When the slurry of lignin and cellulose has passed the reactors most of the cellulose is hydrolyzed and the remaining slurry is transported to the membrane filter press. The purpose of the press is to separate the liquid hydrolysate (e.g. sugars) from the solid residues. The mix of the hydrolysate and solid residues is pumped into the press. When the press is full, water is pumped through the solid. The wash water will press out the remaining hydrolysate in the solid residues. The water is not a part of the process stream, and after it is squeezed out from the solid residues it is transported to the environmental tank (collection tank for the waste water). The hydrolysate is then transported to the detoxification unit. The remaining material in the press is mostly lignin material and is collected and later incinerated. This increase in pH reduces the problem of inhibitors in the fermentation process. After detoxification the neutralized hydrolysate is ready to be fermented (the composition of SEKAB hydrolysate is in results and discussion part).
26
incrustation, precipitation or odor was observed during the evaporation. The pH was kept above 2.1. The high pressure evaporation was performed at a temperature 107.50.5 with a 1.3 bar pressure, and the pH was kept above 2.1. The amount of hydrolysate was reduced to 1/3 of the original amount. (The complete results of the evaporation are available in result and discussion part). A pH below 2.0 or a temperature higher than 120 tends to trigger decomposition of sugars.
27
3.5 Pre-culture
3.5.1 Pre- culture nutrition
Under laboratory conditions, all nutrients can be supplied in the form of pure defined chemicals. In contrast, in large scale production, for economic reasons cheap and complex additives must be used. Molasses with additional nutrients can be a good option for yeast cultivation on large scale. Since this experiment was performed for an industrial company, a complex medium of beet molasses was used for yeast cultivation. The beet molasses (supplied by Danisco, Denmark) contain about 45-50% sugar, the sugar is predominantly consists in sucrose. One of the disadvantages associated with beet molasses is that 0.5-3 % of the sugar is raffinose, a thrisaccharid that consist of fructose, glucose and galactose. Since S. cereviseae lacks -galactosidase activity, the raffinose is only partially hydrolysed. An invertase, which is a cell wall bound enzyme, breaks down the raffinose between fructose and glucose, the raffinose can only be utilized to one third of its energy content. Also beet molasses is limited in biotin (V itamin H or B7) for cell growth; hence it may need to be supplemented with a biotin source. The non-sugar content of beet molasses includes many salts as calcium, potassium, oxalate and chloride.
Sugar
47% (DW)
pyrrolidone carboxylate Organic non-sugar 30% (DW) 12% glu/gln betaine D, L-lactic acid Citric acid Malic acid Volatile acids
3% 0.3%
8%
4% 0.5% 0.6% 3%
1.3 g. kg 1 36 mg. kg 1 20 g. kg 1
28
Fig. 8. Fermentor (Belach BR 0.4 bioreactor, AB Teknik, Solna, Sweden) from the type that could be used under sterile conditions in a laboratory work (a sterile tank reactor).Temperature, pH probes were inserted for monitoring the fermentation. Ports were available for addition of alkali, air, inoculums culture. Agitation was achieved by an impeller. The lowest possible volume was 0.7 l.
29
30
3.7.1 Yeast cultivation: The yeast cultivation was performed aerobically (2l.min 1 of air). The batch phase, which lasted 24 hours, started with 0.7 l molasses solution with 50g.l 1 concentration. The second day a fed-batch cultivation started with molasses solution (concentration: 38g.l 1 , 1 liter), which increased the volume of the bioreactor to 1.55 l (at 48h). Initial dilution rate: ID= 0.05h 1 , Initial volume: IV= 0.7 l). pH was kept between 5-6 by addition of 2-M NaOH. The temperature was kept at 30 , the stirrer worked with 500rpm. 3.7.2 Hydrolysate feeding: At the end of 48 h the volume of the bioreactor was sucked to 0.7 l and the vacuum evaporated hydrolysate was fed into the bioreactor for 18h(ID= 0.22h 1 ), as the diagram shows, the volume at the end of this stage reached to 3.5 l. 3.7.3 Resting & airing: At the end of feeding the pump switched off and the bioreactor worked in a batch mode for 3h, thereafter the content of the bioreactor was sucked to 0.7 l and with the aim of biomass growth air was sparged into it (2l. min 1 ) for 2h. After 72 h the first cycle was completed and the second cycle started for another 18h, this cycle repeated like the first one. At the end of the second resting, after 93h the bioreactor switched off and by this way one experiment was done ( this experiment repeated for three times).
18 h feeding
0.7 0 0 24 48
72 Time (h)
96
120
Fig. 10. Diagram of volume versus time. Yeast production (aerobic) lasted 48 hours, and resulting yeast culture was used for (anaerobic) fermentation in two cycles, with 2 hours of aeration between them. The feed during the fermentation consisted of vacuum and high pressure evaporated hydrolysate.
31
3.8 Experiment 2(A, B, C): Fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate.
For these series of experiments the methodology was performed exactly the same with the experiments type 1 just the hydrolysate changed. An aerobic fed-batch cultivation of yeast was applied for 48h, then 2 cycles of anaerobic hydrolysate fermentation with fedbatch method was performed (18h feeding, 3h resting, 2h aeration). A regular amount of yeast (12g.l 1 ) and high pressure evaporated hydrloysat were used for fermentation, pH was controlled among 5-6 by addition of 2-M NaOH, temperature set on 30, and rotation rate of stirrer was 500 rpm(Condition of experiments is available at appendix B).
3.9 Experiment 3(A, B): Fermentation with higher initial biomass concentration.
In experiment 1 and 2 a large amount of sugars were not been utilized and remained in the bioreactor, there are two options for decreasing the remained sugar in the fermenter either increasing the amount of yeast or decreasing the feed rate, but the intention of an ethanol production project is to produce ethanol in an economical way and shorter time, therefore raising the amount of yeast can be a better option rather than decreasing the feed rate. In this group of experiments the yeast amount was doubled. These two experiments took 2 weeks. The methodology kept the same with experiments type1 and type 2, just for increasing the yeast amount a slightly changes were performed on the yeast cultivation part. The yeast batch cultivation with 100g.l 1 beet molasses and double amount of salt solution was unsuccessful and ended up just to 2.5g.l 1 biomass, also cultivation with 50g.l 1 molasses in batch and 76g.l molasses in fed-batch mode with 200ml salt solution ended up again just to 12g.l 1 yeast, like before. Double amount of biomass was gained by keeping the batch part concentration 50g.l 1 and performing the fed-batch part twice with 38g.l 1 molasses in each fed, 200ml salt solution was injected in two loads, 100ml of that in batch part and the other 100ml in the second fed-batch.
32
4.2 3.5 Volume (l) 2.8 2.1 1.4 0.7 batch 50 g/l 0 0 24 48 72 Time (h) 96 120 144 2 h aeration fed-batch 38 g/l fed-batch 38 g/l 3 h resting 3 h resting
18 h feeding
18 h feeding
. Fig. 11. Fed-batch fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrlosate and double amount of yeast at experiment 3 (A, B).
3.10 Experiments Type 4(A, B): Fermentation with lowered initial dilution rate.
After experiments with double amount of yeast, and no improvement in sugar consumption another series of experiments were defined which the feeding period was prolonged for about 50%. The methodology for yeast cultivation part was repeated like the experiments from type 1 and 2, with a regular amount of yeast about 12g.l 1 (one aerobic batch and fed-batch plus 100ml salt solution). For fermentation part, 2.8 l high pressure evaporated hydrolysate was fed into the fermentor in 27h, the initial dilution rate decreased to 0.14h 1 and then a 3h resting and 2h of aeration was repeated like the previous experiments (sucking of supernatant by syringe repeated at the end of yeast cultivation and aeration to 0.7 l volume).
4
3h resting
3 Volume (l)
3h resting 27 h feeding
27 h feeding
2
fed-batch 38 g/l
1 batch 50 g/l
2h aeration
0 0 24 48 Tim e (h) 72 96 120
Fig. 12. Volume changes versus time in fed-batch fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate with a regular amount of yeast and lower dilution rate.
33
3.11 Analysis
3.11.1 Metabolic analysis
The metabolites were quantified using either HPLC or GC. Formic acid, acetic acid, levulinic acid and ethanol concentrations were determined by HPLC using an ionexchange column (Aminex HPX-87H, Bio-Rad, USA) with a refractive index (RI) detector at 55-65C, using 0.005 M sulfuric acid as the eluent at flow rate 0.6 ml/min. Furfural and HMF were detected by a UV detector. Sugars were quantified by the HPLC using Aminex HPX-87P column (Bio-Rad) at 80-85C and pure water as the eluent. Glycerol and lactic acid were derivatized to silylesters and then analyzed using a GC-MS. Sulfate is measured with titration and the method SCAN-N 6:85. Dissolved lignin is measured with spectrophotometer at 286.5nm after dilution. Indulin used as standard
Fig. 13. Glass tubes containing centrifuged yeast solutions for dry measurement.
34
for supernatant liquor. The vitality, i.e. the fraction of metabolically active cells was estimated using methylene blue staining. An equal volume of a cell suspension and a methylene blue solution were mixed and the percentage of unstained cells (determined by light microscope examination) was taken as the fraction of vital cells (The analyses of vitality were performed by light microscope).
3.11.5 Calculations
A biomass composition of CH1.8O0.5N0.2 was used in the carbon balance calculations (Vandijken et al., 1990). A mass balance was calculated based on gram for the calculation of ethanol, glycerol, and biomass yields, the residual sugars were taken into account. The metabolite and biomass yields were calculated from the determined concentrations at the end of the exponential growth phase.
35
CHAPTER 4
Results
36
Table 10. Yeast cultivation results up to the start-culture from experiments with VEH and HPEH (The numbers are averages from three experiments).
Cultivation method Flask Batch Fed-batch Totally Totally Time After 24h After 48h After 72h After 72h After 72h Amount of yeast ...... 2.8g 6.5g 8.8g 8.8g Volume 0.1l 0.7l 1.5l 1.55l 0.7l Concentration . 3.9g.l
1
ID 0.05h -1
37
Table 11. Average consumption of fermentable sugars in each stage of three experiments.
Added 1st cycle (g) Glucose Mannose Galactos 172.2 131.8 30.5 Consumed 1st cycle (%) 95.4 76.4 60.1 Added total (g) 344.4 263.7 61.04 Consumed total (%) 92.62.5 64.30.1 600.0
38
15 12
Glucose (g/l)
9 2 6 3 0 0 20 40 60 80 1
Time (h)
Fig. 14. Concentration of glucose in experiment 1 (A - C). Fed-batch fermentation with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate by S. cerevisiea ( Ex 1A, Ex 1B, Ex 1C) .
30 25 3 4
Mannose (g/l)
15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80
Time (h)
Fig. 15. Concentration of mannose in experiment 1 (A-C). Fed-batch fermentation with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate by S. cerevisea( Ex 1A, Ex 1B, Ex 1C).
6 5 3 4
Galactose (g/l)
3 2
1 1 0 0 20 0
Time (h)
40
60
80
Fig. 16. Concentration of mannose from experiments type1(A-C). Fed-batch fermentation with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate by S. cerevisea ( Ex 1A, Ex 1B, Ex 1C).
39
Volume(l)
Volume (l)
20
Volume (l)
Table 12. Yield of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per gram of consumed sugar at the end of each experiment.
g.g 1
For growth and maintenance of yeast cells oxygen is a necessity and yeast cells can not stay alive more than 4 or 5 generations without oxygen (Tuite and Oliver, 1991), unless the ergestrol and twin (as fatty acid sources) be added to the medium. In the current work air was added for 2 hours between the fermentation cycles. The biomass yield was low (0.015g.g 1 per consumed hexoses). One possible explanation is that weak acids are liposoluble and can diffuse across the plasma membrane. The growth-inhibiting effect on microorganisms has been proposed to be due to inflow of undissosiated acid into the cytosol(Axe and bailey, 1995; Vandijken et al,1990) also compounds like formic acid, levilinic acid HMF, furfural, acetic acid can inhibit cell growth more than the ethanol fermentation and no net growth was observed at the initial 10g.l 1 yeast when 5g.l 1 acetic acid, 10g.l 1 formic acid, 1.2g.l 1 furfural, 1.3g.l 1 HMF and 23g.l 1 levulinic caid were present in fermentation broth (Larsson et al, 1998). Glycerol is a product of fermentation by S. cerevisiae. One direction of glucose goes to glyceraldehydes and pyrovate production which results in biomass and ethanol production. The other direction goes to dehydroxyacetate and glycrol production.
40
4.4 Fed-batch fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate. Experiment 2 (A, B, C)
In this series of experiments the condition was kept like in experiment 1, but the vacuum evaporated hydrolysate was switched to high pressure hydrolysate. The experiments were, like previous and designed to produce 12g.l 1 yeast for fed-batch fermentation.
Table 13. Average glucose, mannose, galactose consumption from three experiments in fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate.
Added 1st cycle (g) Glucose Mannose Galactose 181.5 147.9 31.7 Consumed 1st cycle (%) 99.3 84.4 16.1 Added total (g) 363.0 295.9 63.4 Consumed total (%) 97.60.0 74.30.0 16.00.0
Average yield of aeration 87 % Average yield of resting 70.6% Like in Experiment 1, the consumption of hexoses in the second cycles decreased drastically, compared to the first cycle. However, the drop in fermentation was smaller than in Experiment 1. The average residual hexose concentration after two cycles in Experiment 1 was 27.5g.l 1 with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate while it was 29.4g.l 1 with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate. The difference is not very large, but in conclusion these experiments do not confirm the assumption that vacuum evaporation would be better than high pressure evaporation for fermentability.
41
10
6 2 4 1 2
0 0 10 20 Tim e (h) 30 40 50
Fig. 17. Concentration of glucose in Experiment 2(A-C), with feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate( Ex 2A, Ex 2B, Ex 2C).
25 4
0 0 10 20 Tim e (h) 30 40 50
Fig. 18. Concentration of mannose in Experiment 2(A-C), with feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate( Ex 2A, Ex 2B, Ex 2C).
12 4
9 Galactose (g/l)
0 0 10 20 Tim e (h) 30 40 50
Fig. 19. Concentration of galactose in Experiment 2(A-C), with feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate( Ex 2A, Ex 2B, Ex 2C).
42
Table 14. Yields of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per gram of consumed hexoses during both fermentation cycles
g.g 1
CO 2
43
higher
biomass
The results from the previous experiments based on regular amount of yeast (12g.l 1 ) with two different types of hydrolysates showed that, there is a lot of sugars left in the fermentor at the end of the experiments (about 27.5g.l 1 in fermentation with vacuum evaporated hydrolysate and 29.4g.l 1 after fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate). It can be argued that higher cell density should allow for more efficient uptake of sugars and a more efficient intracellular detoxification of the inhibitors. Therefore the methodology in Experiment 3 was designed to produce a higher initial cell concentration by adding more carbon source. The yeast amount was doubled (it increased from 12g.l 1 to 32g.l 1 ). The biomass doubled in 3days cultivation with beet molasses (two fed-batches and one batch phase). The complete methodology of this experiment is available in page 32.
Table 15. Average glucose, mannose, galactose consumption from two experiments in fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate+ double amount of yeast.
Added 1st cycle (g) Glucose Mannose Galactose 181.5 147.9 31.7 Consumed 1st cycle (%) 99.1 96.5 48.2 Added total (g) 363.0 295.9 63.4 Consumed total (%) 95.80.0 74.70.0 33.30.0
44
10 8
Glucose (g/l)
3
Volume (l)
Volume (l)
Volume (l)
6 2 4 2 0 0 20 40
Tim e (h)
0 60 80
Fig. 20. Glucose concentration during fermentation with higher (32 g.l 1 ) initial yeast concentration with feed consisting in high pressure evaporated hydrolysate ( Ex 3A, Ex 1B).
30 4
24 Mannose (g/l)
18 2 12 1
0 0 20 40 Tim e (h) 60 80
Fig. 21. Mannose concentration during fermentation with higher (32g.l 1 ) initial yeast concentration with feed consisting in high pressure evaporated hydrolysate ( Ex 1A, Ex 1B).
12 4
9 Galactose (g/l)
0 0 20 40 Tim e (h) 60 80
Fig. 22. Galactose concentration during fermentation with higher (32g.l 1 ) initial yeast concentration with feed consisting in high pressure evaporated hydrolysate ( Ex1A, Ex 1B).
45
Table 16. Yields of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per gram of consumed hexoses at the end of each experiment.
g.g 1
CO 2
46
4.6 Fed-batch fermentation with lower initial dilution rate. Experiment 4 (A, B)
In this series of experiments the conditions were kept like Experiment 1 and 2. The flocculating yeast was cultivated with batch and fed batch methodology and the high pressure evaporated hydrolysate, was fermented in two cycles (each one composed of 18h feeding, 3h resting, 2h aeration). The goal amount of yeast from cultivation was12g.l 1 , just the dilution rate lowered (ID = 0.14, IV= 0.7 l).
Table 17. Average glucose, mannose, galactose consumption from two experiments in fermentation with high pressure evaporated hydrolysate and lower dilution rate.
Added 1st cycle (g) Glucose Mannose Galactose 181.5 147.9 31.7 Consumed 1st cycle (%) 99.7 99.1 75.5 Added total (g) 363.0 295.9 63.4 Consumed total (%) 99.40.1 94.50.0 47.90.1
Table 18. Fraction of ethanol, biomass, and glycerol per gram of consumed sugar at the end of each experiment.
g.g 1
CO 2
47
4 Glucose (g/l)
3 Volume (l)
Volume (l)
3 2 2 1
0 0 20 40 Time (h) 60 80
Fig. 23. Glucose concentration during fermentation with lower dilution rate and feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate ( Ex 4, Ex 4).
12 4
9 Mannose (g/l)
3 Volume (l)
0 0 20 40 Tim e (h) 60 80
Fig. 24. Mannose concentration during fermentation with lower dilution rate and feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate ( Ex 4, Ex 4).
10 4
8 Galactose (g/l)
6 2 4 1
0 0 20 40 Tim e (h) 60 80
Fig. 25. Galactose concentration during fermentation with lower dilution rate and feed consisting of high pressure evaporated hydrolysate ( Ex 4, Ex 4).
48
Y x/s
(g.g
1
Ygly/s
) (g.g
1
Yp/s
) (g.g
1
0.015 0.025 41.021 (0.004) (0.003) (1.239) 0.015 0.030 40.392 (0.005) (0.004) (2.715) 0.019 0.030 41.113 (0.012) (0.012) (0.375) 0.050 0.030 40.107 (0.010) (0.003) (0.869)
Ex 2(A,B,C)
86.7%
81%
29.43 30 13.1
41.8g/l
Ex 3(A,B)
93.5%
82%
37.4g/l
Ex 4(A,B)
97.3%
93%
44g/l
60
A
50 40 30 20 10 0 60
B
50 40 30 20 10 0
1 8
21
24
42 Time (h)
45
48
66
69
24
27
30
33
48
52
55
60
63
Time (h)
Fig. 26. Black(ethanol), white(biomass) in fed-batch cultivation of (A) VEH with 12g.l 1 biomass and ID 0.22h-1, (B) HPEH with 12g.l 1 biomass and ID 0.22h-1, (C) HPEH with 32g.l 1 biomass and ID 0.22h-1, and (D) HPEH with 12g.l 1 biomass and ID 0.14 h-1.
49
4.8 Inhibitors
It is well known that lignocellulose hydrolysate contains inhibitory compounds. In this section the inhibitor concentrations before and after fermentation in the feed are presented. The water was evaporated in 67 minutes with 80 C from hydrolysate for vacuum concentration and in 75 minutes with118C for high pressure concentration.
Table 20. Inhibitors concentration in vacuum and high pressure concentrated hydrolysate, before fermentation.
Inhibitors (g.l 1 ) Furfural HMF Acetic acid Formic acid Levulinic acid
Table 21. Inhibitors conversion rate after fermentation in Experiments 1-4. For experiments1-3, Samples were taken during the two cycles of fermentation, at the end of each stage. For experiment 4, more samples were taken even in the middle of stages.
Types of
experiments Furfural HMF Levulinic acid Acetic acid Formic acid
Ex 1 A, B, C Ex 2 A, B, C Ex 3 A, B Ex 4 A, B
50
Table 22. Results from dry weight and CFU measurements for experiments 1- 4.
12g.l 1 yeast VEH+HPEH 32g.l 1 yeast HPEH 12 g.l 1 yeast+ lower ID HPEH
In experiments with regular 12g.l 1 yeast, just the plates with 10-10 3 were contained yeasts. As in these experiments the yeast was just spread in plates with dilution of 10 3 to was measured and the dry measurement from the same sample showed 1.3g.l yeast which according to the references 1g.l 1 dry weight is equal to 1. 1011 Cells and no bacteria were observed. Therefore after calculations 0.02% viable cells were concluded in supernatant. This means that 99.98 % of cells in supernatant lost their ability of flocculating and they are not viable but maybe they can metabolize, which the results of metabolization also was performed which it comes later.
1
106 then the cells were counted in plate with 10 3 dilution rate. 2.10 CFU.l
7
Experiments type 3 For experiments with double amount of yeasts the same samples were taken and both dry measurement and plate counting were performed. In these experiments all plates with different dilution rates were containing yeast. Like the previous experiments plates with 10 3 dilution rate were chosen and an average from two plates gave 138. 10 7 CFU. l 1 + 8. 10 7 CFU. l 1 bacteria and dry measurement gave 4.6g.l 1 yeast and according to the
51
references this much dry weight is equal to 4. 1011 yeast. Dividing the amount of yeasts in supernatant to total amount of yeast gives 0.35% viable yeast cells which means that 99.65% of cells in supernatant lost their ability to flocculate and 0.02% bacterial cells. There was not a big progress in raising the viability of yeast cells by doubling the amount of biomass.
Experiments type 4 In experiments with lower initial dilution rate and regular amount of yeast, the same measurements were done. And the average CFU in 10 3 dilution rate was about 173. 10 7 CFU. l 1 yeast cells + No bacteria cells. Dry measurement showed a 0.75g.l 1 yeast cells which gives a 1.75% viable yeast cells in supernatant. This can be inferred as a good progress in keeping more cells alive by giving them more time to metabolize the toxic hydrolysate.
Conclusion
Totally we can say that the cells which loose their viability, they loose their flocculating ability too, but this is not for sure and more researches can be done in the future works. By lowering the initial dilution rate the smaller amount of yeasts loose their viability, and dry weight samples from supernatant shows a lower amount of yeasts too.
52
Fig. 28. Vitality determination of samples stained by methylen blue and analyzed by light microscope. 500 cells were counted in each sample (Blue colored = dead cells, colorless=alive).
53
CHAPTER 5
Discussion & conclusion remarks
5.1 Discussion
The results of this work show a successful increase of the sugars concentration in lignocellulosic hydrolyzates followed by successful fermentation by repeated fed-batch operation using a flocculating strain of S. cerevisiae. Both evaporations under vacuum or pressure resulted in high-sugar and fermentable hydrolyzates by fed-batch operation. These results may be interesting industrially, since higher sugar concentrations in the hydrolyzates lead to less energy consumption in the distillation and downstream processes, while fermentation can be carried out successfully with no prior detoxification. Furthermore, the successful evaporation of the hydrolyzates under vacuum and pressure can lead in designing multi-effect evaporators, in which the hydrolyzate can be evaporated with low consumption of energy. The evaporations under either vacuum or pressure used in this work did not decompose the sugars, but were able to remove the volatile inhibitors partially or completely. As long as the evaporation is performed at pH higher than 2.1 and temperature lower than 120, the risk of sugars decomposition is negligible. The boiling points of the inhibitors reported in this work at normal pressure are 161.7, 118.1, 100.8 and 245C for furfural, acetic acid, formic acid and levulinic acid, while HMF is not volatile and boils at ca. 115C at 1 mbar. Comparing these boiling points with the results presented in Table 1 indicates that volatility is important, but probably not the only factor that governs decreasing the concentration of the inhibitors, since e.g. more furfural than formic acid disappeared from the hydrolyzate during evaporations. Furfural is a strong inhibitor for bakers yeast.
54
Carboxylic acids might inhibit or enhance fermentation, depending on the cultivation conditions . Presence of acetic acid in the cultivation media can result in higher ethanol yield from sugars , while more than 5g.l-1 undissociated molecules of this acid can severely inhibit the fermentation . During cultivation of flocculating yeasts in toxic dilute-acid hydrolyzates, some yeast cells lose their vitality as well as the ability to flocculate . This means that the viability and vitality are high with the flocculated cells, but probably not with the non-flocculated cells. In this work, the cells in the supernatants had 76% vitality, and thus were still able to produce ethanol.
5.2 Conclusions
Evaporation of lignocellulosic hydrolyzates with low sugar concentration and subsequent fed-batch cultivation by flocculating yeast may help to fulfill the demands for industrial production of ethanol from lignocellulosic materials. The evaporation increases the sugar concentrations in inverse proportionality to the volume. It does not decompose the sugars in either VEH or HPEH, but removes part of the toxic components. The results showed no significant difference between the vacuum and high-pressure evaporation of hydrolyzates. The flocculating yeasts tolerate the remaining inhibitors in fed-batch operation, and are able to consume most of the fermentable sugars and produce ethanol in high concentration, although with a low biomass yield.
55
Appendix A
Inhibitors figures
5 HMF, levulinic, acetic, formic acid (gl) 4
3 Volume (l)
3 2 2 1
0 0 20 40 Tim e (h) 60 80
Fig. 29. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, acetic acid concentration in experiment 1(A, B, C) with regular amount of yeast and vacuum evaporated hydrolysate. () HMF, () acetic acid, () formic acid, () levulinic acid.
3 Volume (l)
0 0 10 20 Time (h) 30 40 50
Fig. 30. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, acetic acid concentration in experiment 2 (A, B) with regular amount of yeast and high pressure evaporated hydrolysate. () HMF, () acetic acid, () formic acid, () levulinic acid.
56
3 Volume (l)
0 0 20 40 Tim e (h) 60 80
Fig. 31. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, acetic acid concentration in experiment 3(A, B) with double amount of yeast and high pressure evaporated hydrolysate. () HMF, () acetic acid, () formic acid, () levulinic acid.
4
HMF, levulinic acid, acetic acid, formic acid (g/l)
3
Volume (l)
0 0 20 40
Tim e (h)
0 60 80
Fig. 32. HMF, formic acid, levulinic acid, and acetic acid concentration in experiment 4(A, B) with lower dilution rate + regular amount of yeast and high pressure evaporated hydrolysate. () HMF, () acetic acid, () formic acid, () levulinic acid.
57
Appendix B
Yeast cultivation Batch Total time ID IV Feed rate Feed volume Feeding time Resting Aeration 24h . 0.7 l . . Fed-batch 24h 0.05 1/h 0.7 l 35.5 ml/ h 0.85 l 24h . 24h
Hydrolysate fermentation Fed-batch(1st cycle) 24h 0.22, 0.14 1/h 0.7 l 155.5, 103* ml/h 2.8 l 18, 27* h 3h 2h Fed batch (2nd cycle) 24h 0.22, 0.14 1/h 0.7 l 155.5, 103* ml. h 2.8 l 18, 27*h 3h N.P
58
Nomenclature
CFU Cf HPEH ID VEH V Y x/s Ygly/s Yp/s Colony forming unit Concentration factor High pressure evaporated hydrolysate Initial dilution rate Vacuum evaporated hydrolysate Vacuum Yield of biomass Yield of glycerol Yield of ethanol
References
Acebal, C.; Catillon, M. P. E; Mata, J, 1988.; Aguada, J.; Romero, D. Production of cellulases by Thericoderma reesei QM-9414 in batch and fed-batch culture on wheat straw. Acta. Biotechnol, (6), 847-494.
Azhar, A.F., Bery, M.K., Colcord, A.R., Roberts, R.S., Corbitt, G.V, 1981. Factors Affecting alcohol fermentation of wood acid hydrolysate. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 293-300.
Axe, D.D., Bailey, J.E., 1995. Transport of Lactate and Acetate through the Energized Cytoplasmic Membrane of Escherichia-Coli. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 47, 8-19.
Ballesteros, I, Ballestros, M., Carrasco, J, Martin, C., Negro, M. J, 1992. Optimization of the SSF process to obtain ethanol from cellulose using thermotolerant yeast Biomass Energy Ind. Environ. 6th E. C. Conf., 531-535
59
Banerjee, N., Bhatnagar, R., Viswanathan, L, 1981. Inhibition of glycolysis by furfural In Saccharomyces Crevisiae. European Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 11, 226-228 Baired C, 1999. Enviromental chemistry. 2nd ed. WH freeman and company. NEW YORK.
Berg C, 2004. World fuel ethanol analysis and outlook. Html (accesed in April 2007).
Bergeron, P., Benham, C., Werdene, P, 1989. Dilute Sulfuric-Acid Hydrolysis of Biomass for Ethanol-Production. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 20-1, 119-134.
Boyer, L.J., Vega, J.L., Basu, R., Clausen, E.C., Gaddy, J.L, 1992. Effect of furfural On ethanol production by saccaromces- cerevisieae in a cross-linked immobilized cell reactor. Biomass & Bioenergy, 3, 71-76
Bonjar GHS, 2004. Potential ecotoxicological implication of methyl trebutyl ether (MTBE) spills in the environment. Ecotoxicology 13: 631-635.
Brandberg T, 2005. Frementation of Undetoxified Dilute Acid Lignocelluloses Hydrolysate For Fuel Ethanol Production. PhD Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology.
Brandberg
T.
SEKAB
E-Technology,
2007.
Personal
communication.
Cassey, G. & Ingledew. W, 1986. Ethanol tolerance in yeasts. Crit Rev Microbial, 13(3). 219-80.
Chen SL and Gutmanis F, 1976. Carbon dioxide inhibition of yeast growth in biomass production. Biotech. Bioeng. 18. 1462.
60
Chung, I.S., Lee, Y.Y., 1985. Ethanol Fermentation of Crude Acid Hydrolyzate of Cellulose Using High-Level Yeast Inocula. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 27, 308-315.
Clark, T. A.; Mackie, K. L.; Dare, P. H, 1989; Mc Donald, A. G. Steam explosion of Softwood Piniis radiata with sulphur dioxide addition. 2. Process
Classen PAM et al, 1999. Utilisation of biomass for the supply of energy carriers. Appl.Microbiol. Bioethanol. characterization. J Wood Chem. Technol, 9 (2), 135-166.
Dahlin M, 2000. Analys och opimering av fermentationsprocessen at domsj fabriker. Thesis work. Royal institue of thechnology
Delmer D P and Amor Y, 1995. Cellilose Biosynthesis. The plant cell, 7, 987- 1000.
Dickinson R E and Cicerone R J, 1986. Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases. Nature, 319, 109-115.
Dickenson J, 2004. Carbon metabolism. In. Metabolism and molecular phisiology of Saccaromyces cereviceae, J. Dickenson & M. Scheweizer, ed., pages 23-55. Taylor Francis. B. S. Dien M. A. Cotta T. W. Jeffries, 2003. Bacteria engineered for fuel ethanol production: current status. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2003) 63: 258 -266
Faith W L, 1954. Development of the scholler process in the United States industrial and engineering chemistry, 37, 9-11.
Galbe M and Zacchi G, 2002. A review of the production of ethanol from softwood. Applied microbiology and Biotechnology 59, 618-628.
Galbe, M., Linden, G., & Zacchi, G, 2005. Production of ethanol from biomassresearch in sweden. Journal of scientific industrial research, 64(11). 905-919.
61
Gusakov; A, Synitsyn, A. F, 1992. A theoretical analysis of cellulose products inhibition: Effect of cellulose binding constant enzyme/ substrate ratio, and glucosidase activity on the inhibition pattern. Biotech. Bioeng, 40 (6), 663-671.
Hogan, C M., Mes Hartree., M, 1990. Recycle of cellulases and the use of lignocellulosic residue for enzyme production after hydrolysis of steam- wood. pretreated aspen J Ind. Microbial. 6, 253-261
. Jones P D, Wigley T M L and Wright P B, 1986. between 1861 and 1864. Nature, 322, 430-434.
Jones JL., and KT Semrau 1984. Wood hydrolysis for ethanol production previous experience and the economics of selected process. Biomass. 5: 109-135.
Jnsson LJ., Palmqvist E., Nilverbent NO., Hahn-Hgerdal B, 1998. Detoxification Of wood hydrolysatea with laccase and prixidase from the White-rot fungus Trametes versicolor. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
Kaar, W. E., Gutierrez, C. V., Kinoshita, C. M., 1998. Steam explosion of sugarcane bagasse as a pretreatment for conversion to ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy, 14 (3), 277- 287.
Klass D L, 1988, Energy consumption, Reserves, Depletion and Enviromental Isuues. In: Klass D L, editor. Biomass for Renewable Energy, Fuels, and Chemicals, Academic Press.
Kunkee RE and Ough CS, 1966. Multiplication and fermentation of saccharomyces cereviseae under carbon dioxide pressure in wine. Appl. Microbial. 14.643.
Lalander CA, 2002. Inhibition in the ethanol fermentation at Domsj Fabriker. Thesis work. Royal institute of thechnology.
Larsson, S., Palmqvist, E., Hahn-Hgerdal, B., Tengborg, C., Stenberg, K., Zacchi,
62
G., Nilvebrant, N. 0, 1999. The generation of fermentation inhibitors during Dilute acid Hydrolysis of softwood. Enzyme Microb. Technol, 24 (3/4), 151159.
Lee, Y., lyer, P., & Torget, R, 1999. Diluute-acid hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomas. Advances in Biochemical Engineering.Biotechnology, 65.93-115.
Lee J, 1997. Biological conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. J. Bioethanol. 56: 1-24.
Linden, T., Peetre, J., & Hahn- Hgerdal, B, 1992. Isolation and characterization of acetic acid tolerant galactose fermenting strains of Saccharomyces cereviseae from a spent sulphite liquor fermentation plant. Applied and enviromental Microbiology, 58(5).1661-1669.
Licht, F O, 2006. World ethanol markets: The outlook to 2015, Tunbridge wells, Agra Europe special report, UK.
Mac Lean HL, Lave LB, 2003. Evaluating aoutomobile fuel/ propulsion system thechnologies. Progress in Energy and combustion Sience 29:1-69.
Biology of Microorganisms. 8TH ed. Simon and Schuster.
Mandels, M., reesei Cognata,M., Shu, Y. Hendrickson, C. Inhibition of Tricoborderma cellulase by sugars and solvents. Biotechnol. Bioeng.Bioethanol.
Martinez, A., Rodriguez, M.E., York, S.W., Preston, J.F., Ingram, L.O, 2000. Effects of Ca(OH)(2) treatments ("overliming") on the composition and toxicity of bagasse hemicellulose hydrolysates. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 69, 526-536.
Martiny SC. Analysis and Simulation of Biochemical systems, 1972. 25.387-397. Fed. Eur.Biochem. Soc. Meet.
63
Millati R, Edebo L, Taherzadeh MJ, 2005. Performance of rizopus, Rhizomocur, and mucor in ethanol production from glucose, xylose, and wood hydrolysates.Enzyme microb. Technol. 36:294-300.
Nilsson, A., Taherzadeh, M.J., Liden, G., 2001. Use of dynamic step response for Control of fed-batch conversion of lignocellulosic hydrolyzates to ethanol. Journal of Biotechnology, 89, 41-53.
Palmqvist, E., Almeida, J.S., Hahn-Hagerdal, B, 1999. Influence of furfural on anaerobic glycolytic kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in batch culture. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 62, 447-454. Palmqvist, E., Hahn-Hgerdal, B, 2000. Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates, II: inhibitors and mechanisms of jnhibition. Bioresour. Technol, 74, 25-33.
Pronk, J. T., Steensma, H. Y., & vanDijken, J. P, 1996. Saccaromyces cereviceae. Yeast, 12(16).1607-1633.
Pyrovate metabolism in
Purwadi, R., Brandberg, T., Taherzadeh, M.J, 2007. A possible industrial solution to Ferment lignocellulosic hydrolyzate to ethanol: Continuous cultivation with flocculating yeast. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 8, 920-932.
Ramanthan V, 1988. The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A test by an inadvertent global experiment. Science, 240, 293-299. Rose AH and JS Harisson (eds), 1993. 2nd ed. The yeasts. Academic press. London. UK. Roehr M, 2000. The Biotechnology of Ethnaol, Classical and future applications.
Rosillo calle F and LAB cortez, 1998. Towards ProAlchol II- a review of the Brazilian bioethanol programm. Biomass Bioenerg. 14.115-124.
64
Salameh MG, 2003. Can renewable and unconventional energy source bridge the global energy gap in the 21st century? Appl. Eng. 75: 33-42.
B San Martin, R., Perez, C., Briones, R, 1995. Simultaneous production of ethanol and kraft pulp from pine (Pinus radiata) using steam explosion. Bioresour. Technol, 53 (3), 217-223.
Sanchez, B., Bautista, J., 1988. Effects of furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural on the fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and biomass production from Candida guilliermondii. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 10, 315-318.
Sarvari Horvath I, 2004. Fermentation inhibitors in the production of cioethanol. detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysate and physiological effects of furfural on yeast. PHD thesis. Chalmers university of Technology. Gteborg, Sweden.
Schultz, T. P., Biermann, C. J., McGinnis, G. D, 1983. Steam / explosion of mixed hardwood chips as a biomass pretreatment. md. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 22 (2), 344-348.
Schultz, T. P., Templeton, M. C., Biermann, C. J.; McGinnis, G. D, 1984. Steam explosion of mixed hardwood chips, rice hulls, corn stalks, and sugar cane bagasse. J Agric. Food. Chem. 1984, 32(5), 1166-1172.
Seehan J and M Hmmel, 1999. Enzymes, energy and the environment. A Strategic perspectives on the U.S. Department of energy s research and development. activities for bioethanol. Bioethanol. Prog. 15. 817-827
Sherrard E C and Kressman F W, 1954. Review of processes in the united states prior to world war II and engineering chemistry, 37, 5-8.
Sun
Y and Cheng J.
Hydrolysis of
lignocellulosic
materials
for ethanol.
Sderstrm, J., Galbe, M, and Zacchi, G, 2005. Separate versus simultaneous Saccharification and fermentation of Two-step pre-treated softwood for ethanol production. Journal of wood chemistry and technology 25, 187-202.
65
Sjstrm E, 1993. Wood chemistry: Fundamental and application. 2nd ed. Academic press. San Diego.
Taherzadeh, M.J., Gustafsson, L., Niklasson, C., Lidn, G, 1999. Conversion of Furfural in aerobic and anaerobic batch fermentation of glucose by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 87, 169174.
Taherzadeh, M.J., Gustafsson, L., Niklasson, C., Liden, G, 2000. Inhibition effects of furfural on aerobic batch cultivation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae growing on ethanol and/or acetic acid. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 90, 374380. Taherzadeh , MJ., R Eklund., L Gustafsson., C Niklasson., and G Liden, 1997b. Charectrization and fermentation of dilute acid hydrolysate from wood. Ing.Eng. Chem. Res. 36.4659-4665.
Taherzadeh, M.J., Liden, G., Gustafsson, L., Niklasson, C., 1996. The effects of pantothenate deficiency and acetate addition on anaerobic batch fermentation of glucose by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 46, 176-182.
Takagi, M., Abe, S., Suzuki, S., Emert, G. H. and Yata, N, 1977. A Method for production of Alchol Directly from Cellulose using Cellulase and Yeast. Proceedings: Bioconversion Symposium, New Delhi, India 1976, 551- 576.
Tanahashi, M., Tamabuchi, K., Goto, T., Aoki, T., Karina, M, 1999. 1-liguchi, T. Characterization of steam-expioded wood. 2; Chemical changes of wood Component by steam explosion. D.; Cardinale, G. Steam explosion of straw in batch and continuous systems. AppI. Biochem. Biotech, 77-79, 117-125.
Tuite MF and oliver G, 1991. Saccaromyces Handbook. Plenum press. New York.
Vandijken, J.P., Verduyn, C., Postma, E., Weusthuis, R., Vanurk, H., Visser, W., Scheffers, W.A., 1990. Regulation of Metabolic Fluxes in the Utilization of Sugars by Yeasts. 5th European Congress on Biotechnology, Proceedings, Vols and 2, 1079-1082.
66
Wahlbom CF., Eliasson, A and B Hahn-Hgerdal, 2001. Intracellular fluxes in a Recombinantr xylose utilising Saccaromycxes cererviseae cultivated anaerobically at different dilution rates and concentrations. Bioethanol. Bioeng. 72. 289-296. Walker, G, 1998.
Yeast physiology and biotechnology. J. Willey Sons.
Wheals A E., Basso l c., Alves D M G and amorium H V, 1999. Fuel ethanol after 25 yeasr.TIBTECH, 17, 482-487.
William RJ et al, 1940. Relationship of inositol, thiamine, biotin, panthothenic acid and Vitamin B6 to growth of yeasts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 62:1204-1207. Wingren, A., Glabe, M. and Zacchi, G, 2003. Thechno Economic Evolution of Producing Ethanol from softwood: Comparison of SSF and SHG and Identification of Bottlenecks.Biotechnology progress 19, 1109-1117.
Wiselogel, A, 1996. Biomass feed stock recources and composition. In . Hanbd book on Bioethanol. Production and utilization, C. Wyman, ed., Applied energy technology series, pages 105-118. Taylor and Francis.
Wyaman C.E, 1996. Ethanol production from lignocleuulosic Biomass: overview. In: Wyman C.E., editor. Handbook on bioethanol: Production and utilization taylor& francis,
Wyman
C E., S pindler, D. D. And Grohmann, K, 1992. Simultaneous Saccharification and fermentation of several lignocellulosic feedstocks to fuel ethanol. Biomass and Bioenergy 3, 301-307.
Xcoffier, G., Toussaint, B., Vignon, M. R, 1992. Steam explosion pretreatment of Poplar wood for enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis, inhibition and reversion reactions Biomass Energy md. Environ. 1992, 6 conJ 418-424.
Zaldivar J, Nielsen J and Olsson L, 2001. Fuel ethanol production from lignocellulose: A challenge for metabolic engineering and process integration. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 56, 17-34.
67