Potential Utilization of Low Quality Sweet Potato for Bioethanol Production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae TISTR5339

Supasit  CHOOKLIN; Parichat  NINUP-PATHAM; Saovanee  CHOOJIT

doi:10.48048/wjst.2020.5685

Authors

Supasit CHOOKLIN Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Thungyai, Nakhon Si Thamarat 80240, Thailand
Parichat NINUP-PATHAM Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Agro-Industry, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Thungyai, Nakhon Si Thamarat 80240, Thailand
Saovanee CHOOJIT Department of General Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Muban Chombueng Rajabhat University, Chom Bueng, Ratchaburi 70150, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48048/wjst.2020.5685

Keywords:

Low quality sweet potato, Acid hydrolysis, Ethanol, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Response surface methodology

Abstract

This study was aimed to investigate the optimal condition of ethanol production that has 2 major stages: acid hydrolysis and fermentation processes. These processes came from low quality sweet potato (LQSP) which was destroyed by the sweet potato weevil. The main compositions of LQSP were starch and fiber which consist of 55.25 and 10.29 %, respectively. In this case, the starch can be hydrolyzed to reduce the sugar, followed by the fermentation of the reduced sugar to ethanol. For this experiment, the effecting factors on acid hydrolysis of LQSP and the ethanol fermentation condition were optimized by S. cerevisiae using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) with Box-Behnken design in order to maximize ethanol yield. It was found that the maximum reducing sugar concentration of 390.99 ± 5.35 g/L was obtained from the hydrolysis condition with 1 % (v/v) of sulfuric acid and 25 % (w/v) of LQSP. Accordingly, the effects of ammonium sulphate content (0.05 - 0.15 %), pH (4.5 - 5.5) and inoculum content (5 - 10 %) on ethanol production was determined by RSM using Box-Behnken experiment design with a total 17 sets of all trials. The results were found that the maximum experimental ethanol productivity of 5.98 g/L was obtained from the condition at 0.05 % of ammonium sulphate, pH 5.5 and 5.0 % of inoculum size to 90 mL LQSP based medium and incubated at 30 °C for 48 h. In addition, the scale-up of ethanol production was studied in 9 L fermenter which provided the maximum ethanol yield of 5.04 g/L. Therefore, it can be concluded that LQSP had a potential as a substrate for ethanol production.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

1 SZ Li and C Chan-Halbrendt. Ethanol production in the people’s republic of China: Potential and technologies. Appl. Energ. 2012; 86, 162-9.

2 F Wirawan, CL Cheng, WC Kao, DJ Lee and JS Chang. Cellulosic ethanol production performance with SSF and SHF processes using immobilized Zymomonas mobilis. Appl. Energ. 2012; 100, 19-26.

3 S Beher, S Kar, RC Mohanty and RC Ray. Comparative study of bio-ethanol production from mahula (Madhuca latifolia L.) flowers by Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells immobilized in agar and Ca-alginate matrices. Appl. Energ. 2010; 87, 96-100.

4 WH Duvernay, MS Chinn and GC Yencho. Hydrolysis and fermentation of sweet potatoes for production of fermentable sugars and ethanol. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013; 42, 527-37.

5 L Putri, SE Nasrulloh and A Haris. Bioethanol production from sweet potato using combination of acid and enzymatic hydrolysis. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011; 110, 1767-72.

6 C Lareo, MD Ferrari, M Guigou, L Fajardo, V Larnaudie, MB Ramirez and J Martinez-Garreiro. Evaluation of sweet potato for fuel bioethanol production: Hydrolysis and fermentation. Springer Plus 2013; 2-11.

7 LH Ziska, GB Runion, M Tomecek, SA Prior, HA Torbet and R Sicher. An evaluation of cassava, sweet potato and field corn as potential carbohydrate sources for bioethanol production in Alabama and Maryland. Biomass Bioenerg. 2009; 33, 1503-8.

8 M Balat, H Balat and C Oz. Progress in bioethanol processing. Prog. Energ. Combust. 2008; 34, 551-73.

9 P Kumar, DM Barrett, MJ Delwiche and P Stroeve. Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009; 48, 3713-29.

10 QA Nguyen, MP Tucker, FA Keller and FP Eddy. Two-stage dilute-acid pretreatment of softwoods. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 2000; 84, 561-76.

11 N Bujang, MNM Rodhi, M Musa, F Subari, N Idris, NSM Makhtar and KHK Hamid. Effect of dilute sulfuric acid hydrolysis of coconut dregs on chemical and thermal properties. Proc. Eng. 2013; 68, 372-8.

12 F Muhamud and I Bin. Production of Bio-Ethanol from Tapioca Starch using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. University of Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia, 2009.

13 D Conininck, J Bouquelet, S Dumortier, V Duyme, V Verdier and I Denates. Industrial media and fermentation processes for improved growth and protease production by Tetrahymena thermophile. J. Indus. Microbiol. Biotech. 2000; 24, 285-90.

14 MA Bezerra, RE Santelli, EP Oliveira, LS Villar and LA Escaleira. Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 2008; 76, 965-77.

15 W Horwitz and GW Latimer. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 18th ed. AOAC International, USA, 2005, p. 856-7.

16 GL Miller. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal. Chem 1959; 31, 426-8.

17 M Dubois, KA Gilles, JK Hamilton, PA Rebers and F Smith. Colormetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 1956; 28, 350-6.

18 M Iggland and M Mazzotti. Introduction to Chemical Engineering for Lecture 7: Flash distillation. Available at: https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mavt/process-engineering/ separation-processes-laboratory-dam/documents/education/bce%20notes/Lec7-Flash.pdf, accessed March 2018.

19 D Kunmanotewong. Protein Separation and Comparison some Physicochemical Properties of Sweet Potato Starch. King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Thailand, 2006.

20 OG Olatunde, OF Henshaw, AM Idowu and K Tomlins. Quality attributes of sweet potato flour as influenced by variety, pretreatment and drying method. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015; 4, 623-35.

21 M Pratiwi, DN Faridah and HN Lioe. Structural to starch after acid hydrolysis, debranching, autoclaving-cooling cycles, and heat moisture treatment HMT: A review. Starch 2018; 70, 1-13.

22 LSE Putri, Nasrulloh and A Haris. Bioethanol production from sweet potato using combination of acid and enzymatic hydrolysis. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011; 110-116, 1767-72.

23 S Choojit, T Ruengpeerakul and C Sangwichien. Optimization of acid hydrolysis of pineapple leaf residue and bioconversion to ethanol by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cellulose Chem. Technol. 2018; 52, 247-57.

24 K Yoonan, P Yowapui and J Kongkiattikajorn. Ethanol production from acid hydrolysate of cassava peels using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. KMUTT Res. Develop. J. 2007; 30, 405-17.

25 OI Maxwell, MG Onyebuchukwu and IF Sugar. Optimization of acidic hydrolysis of sweet potato peels to produce fermentable sugar. J. Eng. 2018; 8, 20-6.

26 B Klinpratoom. 2014, Response Surface Optimization of Dilute Sulfuric Acid Hydrolysis of Cassava Stem for Lignocellulosic Ethanol Production. Master of Thesis. Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

27 OE Onoghwarite, NVI Obiora and EA Ben. Effects of process variables on the fermentation of corn stover : A review. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2016; 3, 279-88.

28 RM Swain, J Mishra and H Thatoi. Bioethanol Production from sweet sotato (Ipomoea batatas L.) flour using co-culture of Trichoderma sp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in solid-state fermentation. Braz. Arch. Boil. Tech. 2013; 56, 171-9.

29 A Kumar, SJ Duhan, Surekha, KS Gahlawat. Production of ethanol from tuberous plant (Sweet potato) using Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC-170. Afr. J. Biotech. 2014; 13, 2874-83.