Home Screening of the five different wild, traditional and industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains to overproduce bioethanol in the batch submerged fermentation
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Screening of the five different wild, traditional and industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains to overproduce bioethanol in the batch submerged fermentation

  • Reza Shaghaghi-Moghaddam , Hoda Jafarizadeh-Malmiri EMAIL logo , Parviz Mehdikhani , Sepide Jalalian and Reza Alijanianzadeh
Published/Copyright: December 28, 2017
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Efforts to produce bioethanol with higher productivity in a batch submerged fermentation were made by evaluating the bioethanol production of the five different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, namely, NCYC 4109 (traditional bakery yeast), SFO6 (industrial yeast), TTCC 2956 (hybrid baking yeast) and two wild yeasts, PTCC 5052 and BY 4743. The bioethanol productivity and kinetic parameters for all five yeasts at constant fermentation conditions, during 72 h, were evaluated and monitored. The obtained results indicated that compared to the wild yeasts, both traditional bakery (NCYC 4109) and industrial (SFO6) yeasts had higher bioethanol productivity (0.9 g/L h). Significant (p<0.05) differences between biomass concentration of NCYC 4109 yeast and those of other yeasts 30 h after start of fermentation, and its high bioethanol concentration (59.19 g/L) and yield over consumed sugars (77.25%) were highlighted among all the studied yeasts. Minimum bioethanol productivity was obtained using yeasts PTCC 5052 (0.7 g/L h) and TTCC 2956 (0.86 g/L h). However, maximum yield over consumed sugar was obtained using the yeast TTCC 2956 (79.41%).

Acknowledgments

This research was undertaken with material support from the Bidestan Company (Qazvin, Iran) and Agricultural Researches and Education Natural Resources Center (West Azerbaijan, Iran). The authors appreciate this support. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  1. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys 2008;8:389–95.10.1007/978-3-319-27460-7_12Search in Google Scholar

2. Jayus J, Nurhayati N, Mayzuhroh A, Arindhani S, Caroenchai C. Studies on bioethanol production of commercial baker’s and alcohol yeast under aerated culture using sugarcane molasses as the media. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 2016;9:493–9.10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.168Search in Google Scholar

3. Laluce C, Tognolli JO, De Oliveira KF, Souza CS, Morais MR. Optimization of temperature, sugar concentration, and inoculum size to maximize ethanol production without significant decrease in yeast cell viability. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2009;83:627–37.10.1007/s00253-009-1885-zSearch in Google Scholar

4. Martínez O, Sánchez A, Font X, Barrena R. Valorization of sugarcane bagasse and sugar beet molasses using Kluyveromyces marxianus for producing value-added aroma compounds via solid-state fermentation. J Cleaner Prod 2017;158:8–17.10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.155Search in Google Scholar

5. Nahvi I, Emtiazi G, Alkabi L. Isolation of a flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae and investigation of its performance in the fermentation of beet molasses to ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:481–6.10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00070-3Search in Google Scholar

6. Goshima T, Tsuji M, Inoue H, Yano S, Hoshino T, Matsushika A. Bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass by a novel Kluyveromyces marxianus strain. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 2013;77:1505–10.10.1271/bbb.130173Search in Google Scholar

7. Meenakshi A, Kumaresan R. Ethanol production from corn, potato peel waste and its process development. Int J Chemtech Res 2014;6:2843–53.Search in Google Scholar

8. Shaibani N, Ghazvini S, Andalibi MR, Yaghmaei S. Ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse by means of enzymes produced by solid state fermentation method. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2011;59:1836–9.Search in Google Scholar

9. Shaibani N, Yaghmaei S, Andalibi MR, Ghazvini S. Ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse by means of on-site produced and commercial enzymes; a comparative study. Period Polytech Chem Eng 2012;56:91–6.10.3311/pp.ch.2012-2.07Search in Google Scholar

10. Ashok A, Kumar DS. Different methodologies for sustainability of optimization techniques used in submerged and solid state fermentation. Biotech 2017;7:301.10.1007/s13205-017-0934-zSearch in Google Scholar

11. Siqueira PF, Karp SG, Carvalho JC, Sturm W, Rodríguez-León JA, Tholozan JL, et al. Production of bioethanol from soybean molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae at laboratory, pilot and industrial scales. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:8156–63.10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.037Search in Google Scholar

12. Ergun M, Mutlu SF. Application of a statistical technique to the production of ethanol from sugar beet molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour Technol 2000;73:251–5.10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00140-6Search in Google Scholar

13. Mishra J, Kumar D, Samanta S, Vishwakarma MK. A comparative study of ethanol production from various agro residues by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans. J Yeast Fungal Res 2012;3:12–7.Search in Google Scholar

14. Jafari N, Jafarizadeh-Malmiri H, Hamzeh-Mivehroud M, Adibpour M. Optimization of UV irradiation mutation conditions for cellulase production by mutant fungal strains of Aspergillus niger through solid state fermentation. Green Process Synth 2017;6:333–40.10.1515/gps-2016-0145Search in Google Scholar

15. Liu X, Jia B, Sun X, Ai J, Wang L, Wang C, et al. Effect of initial pH on growth characteristics and fermentation properties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Food Sci 2015;80:800–8.10.1111/1750-3841.12813Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Son HS, Hong YS, Park WM, Yu MA, Lee CH. A novel approach for estimating sugar and alcohol concentrations in wines using refractometer and hydrometer. J Food Sci 2009;74:106–11.10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.01036.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Betiku E, Taiwo AE. Modeling and optimization of bioethanol production from breadfruit starch hydrolyzate via response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Renew Energy 2015;74:87–94.10.1016/j.renene.2014.07.054Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-10-01
Revised: 2017-10-16
Accepted: 2017-11-30
Published Online: 2017-12-28
Published in Print: 2018-09-25

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Diverse bioactive compounds from Sarcophtyton glaucom: structure elucidation and cytotoxic activity studies
  4. Pobeguinine: a monoterpene indole alkaloid and other bioactive constituents from the stem bark of Nauclea pobeguinii
  5. Why is the hydrolytic activity of acetylcholinesterase pH dependent? Kinetic study of acetylcholine and acetylthiocholine hydrolysis catalyzed by acetylcholinesterase from electric eel
  6. Evaluation of Lavandula stoechas L. subsp. stoechas L., Mentha spicata L. subsp. spicata L. essential oils and their main components against sinusitis pathogens
  7. Screening of the five different wild, traditional and industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains to overproduce bioethanol in the batch submerged fermentation
  8. The effects of inulin and fructo-oligosaccharide on the probiotic properties of Lactobacillus spp. isolated from human milk
  9. A proteomics analysis of adventitious root formation after leaf removal in lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.)
  10. Larval hemolymph of rhinoceros beetle, Allomyrina dichotoma, enhances insulin secretion through ATF3 gene expression in INS-1 pancreatic β-cells
  11. Antimalarial activity of the isolates from the marine sponge Hyrtios erectus against the chloroquine-resistant Dd2 strain of Plasmodium falciparum
  12. Rapid-communication
  13. Bioactive compounds from bay leaves (Laurus nobilis) extracted by microwave technology
  14. Erratum
  15. Erratum to: Transcriptome profiling reveals an IAA-regulated response to adventitious root formation in lotus seedling
  16. Erratum to: A comparative proteomic analysis for adventitious root formation in lotus root (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn)
Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/znc-2017-0180/pdf
Scroll to top button