Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 26:22:e00329.
doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00329. eCollection 2019 Jun.

Bioethanol production from sugarcane leaf waste: Effect of various optimized pretreatments and fermentation conditions on process kinetics

Preshanthan Moodley  1 , E B Gueguim Kana  1
Affiliations

Bioethanol production from sugarcane leaf waste: Effect of various optimized pretreatments and fermentation conditions on process kinetics

Preshanthan Moodley et al. Biotechnol Rep (Amst). .

Abstract

This study examines the kinetics of S. cerevisiae BY4743 growth and bioethanol production from sugarcane leaf waste (SLW), utilizing two different optimized pretreatment regimes; under two fermentation modes: steam salt-alkali filtered enzymatic hydrolysate (SSA-F), steam salt-alkali unfiltered (SSA-U), microwave salt-alkali filtered (MSA-F) and microwave salt-alkali unfiltered (MSA-U). The kinetic coefficients were determined by fitting the Monod, modified Gompertz and logistic models to the experimental data with high coefficients of determination R2 > 0.97. A maximum specific growth rate (μ max ) of 0.153 h-1 was obtained under SSA-F and SSA-U whereas, 0.150 h-1 was observed with MSA-F and MSA-U. SSA-U gave a potential maximum bioethanol concentration (Pm) of 31.06 g/L compared to 30.49, 23.26 and 21.79 g/L for SSA-F, MSA-F and MSA-U respectively. An insignificant difference was observed in the μ max and P m for the filtered and unfiltered enzymatic hydrolysate for both SSA and MSA pretreatments, thus potentially reducing a unit operation. These findings provide significant insights for process scale up.

Keywords: Fermentation kinetics; Inorganic salt pretreatment; Lignocellulosic bioethanol; Microwave pretreatment; Sugarcane.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Time course of biomass concentration under the four examined fermentation conditions.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Times course of bioethanol production and glucose consumption from SLW under SSA-F and MSA-F fermentation conditions.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Times course of bioethanol production and glucose consumption from SLW under SSA-U and MSA-U fermentation conditions.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Time course of pH evolution during ethanol fermentation from SLW under SSA-F, SSA-U, MSA-F and MSA-U conditions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Zabed H., Sahu J.N., Boyce A.N., Faruq G. Fuel ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: an overview on feedstocks and technological approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016;66:751–774.
    1. Chng L.M., Lee K.T., Chan D.J.C. Synergistic effect of pretreatment and fermentation process on carbohydrate-rich Scenedesmus dimorphus for bioethanol production. Energy Convers. Manage. 2017;141:410–419.
    1. Akhtar N., Goyal D., Goyal A. Characterization of microwave-alkali-acid pre-treated rice straw for optimization of ethanol production via simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) Energy Convers. Manage. 2016
    1. Franko B., Galbe M., Wallberg O. Bioethanol production from forestry residues: a comparative techno-economic analysis. Appl. Energy. 2016;184:727–736.
    1. Dominguez-Bocanegra A.R., Torres-Munoz J.A., Lopez R.A. Production of bioethanol from agro-industrial wastes. Fuel. 2015;149:85–89.

LinkOut - more resources