Bioethanol Production From Apple Pomace Using Co-Cultures With Saccharomyces Cerevisiae in Solid-State Fermentation

Abstract

The objective of this study was isolation and screening of apple pomace utilizing microorganisms from soil which can be used as co-culture with S. cerevisiae for production of bioethanol. In this study, fifteen microorganisms were isolated from soil near the dumping site of apple pomace at HPMC, Parwanoo, H.P. on medium enriched with apple pomace. These isolates were assigned codes APW 1-15 and were screened for their potential to produce cellulase, xylanase and ethanol. The selected isolates were used as co-culture with S. cerevisiae for bioethanol production. All the isolates exhibited cellulase and xylanase activities ranging from 228.2 to 502.5 U/mL/min and 185.3 to 1010.7 U/mL/min respectively, but only three isolates (APW-02, APW-04 and APW-12) produced ethanol. Isolate APW-13 exhibited highest cellulase activity (502.5 U/mL/min), APW-04 showed highest xylanase activity (1010.7 U/mL/min) and APW-12 produced highest amount of ethanol (36 g/L). Two isolates (APW-12 and APW-13) were selected to co-culture with S. cerevisiae in solid-state fermentation of apple pomace for ethanol production. S. cerevisiae and isolate APW-12 co-culture fermentation resulted in higher ethanol production (49.64 g/L) than S. cerevisiae and APW-13 co-culture fermentation (41.7 g/L) while, S. cerevisiae alone produced 37.6 g/L ethanol. Isolate APW-12 and APW-13 belonged to genera Actinomyces and Bacillus respectively.

Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Empty Fruit Bunches of Palm for Bioethanol Production Using a Microbial Consortium of S. cerevisiae and T. harzianum

“…A quadratic model was suggested as the model because the p-value was statistically significant with a p-value of <0.0001 (Table S2). The R2 value at 0.9633 was close to 1, hence indicating the high accuracy of this model and signifying a better correlation between the observed and predicted values [87]. The adjusted R2 of 0.9266 was in agreement with the predicted R2 of 0.7774.…”

“…A microbial consortium is considered a prospective bioprocess if each microorganism metabolizing its substrate is not disturbed by the presence of another microorganism [19]. According to Kumar et al [87], S. cerevisiae and Actinomyces co-culture fermentation resulted in higher bioethanol production from apple pomace with 49.64 g/L, while employing a culture of S. cerevisiae alone produced only 37.6 g/L ethanol. Swain et al [33] mentioned that the ability of bioethanol production from un-saccharified sweet potato flour using S. cerevisiae and Trichoderma spp.…”

Biofuels Production and Processing Technology

“…The genome, metabolome, flux group, and computational simulation techniques of systems biology and synthetic biology also provide rich tools for microbial community research [85]. At present, screening of microbial communities that degrade cellulose efficiently from nature, identifying their community structure, studying the fermentation kinetics, analyzing the mechanism of their efficient degradation and transformation, and then simulating the construction of similar systems or further strengthening their functions through transformation will provide us with new ideas for the establishment of a new cellulose degradation system [86][87][88].…”

“…A microbial consortium is considered a prospective bioprocess if each microorganism metabolizing its substrate is not disturbed by the presence of another microorganism [19]. According to Kumar et al [87], S. cerevisiae and Actinomyces coculture fermentation resulted in higher bioethanol production from apple pomace with 49.64 g/L, while employing a culture of S. cerevisiae alone produced only 37.6 g/L ethanol. Swain et al [33] mentioned that the ability of bioethanol production from un-saccharified sweet potato flour using S. cerevisiae and Trichoderma spp.…”

Sustainable Bioethanol Production by Solid State Fermentation: A Systematic Review

“…Furthermore, SSF processes that employed thermotolerant yeasts such as Kluyveromyces marxianus ATCC-3690 enabled the reduction of processing steps, which decreased the risk of contamination, escalation of sacchari cation e ciency and eventually resulted in cost reduction (da Silva et al, 2018). Kumar et al reported that co-culture of S. cerevisiae with a microbe that is isolated from apple pomace soil exhibited elevated bioethanol production from apple pomace via SSF(Kumar et al, 2020). Furthermore, in a study conducted by Sala a et al, enzymatic hydrolysis of pineapple waste releases xylose and arabinose that are unable to be fermented by wild Saccharomyces spp.…”