4.4 Article

Simultaneous saccharification and lactic acid fermentation of the cellulosic fraction of municipal solid waste using Bacillus smithii

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 43, Issue 3, Pages 667-675

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10529-020-03049-y

Keywords

Bacillus smithii; Lactic acid; Municipal solid waste; Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation

Funding

  1. BBSRC NIBB, Network of Integrated Technologies: Plants to Products

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated nine thermophilic Bacillus and Parageobacillus species for growth and lactic acid fermentation at high temperature and low pH, identifying B. smithii SA8Eth as the most promising candidate. Using this strain, lactic acid was successfully produced from municipal solid waste cellulosic pulp in a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process.
Objective A primary drawback to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) processes is the incompatibility of the temperature and pH optima for the hydrolysis and fermentation steps-with the former working best at 50-55 degrees C and pH 4.5-5.5. Here, nine thermophilic Bacillus and Parageobacillus spp. were evaluated for growth and lactic acid fermentation at high temperature and low pH. The most promising candidate was then carried forward to demonstrate SSF using the cellulosic fraction from municipal solid waste (MSW) as a feedstock. Results B. smithii SA8Eth was identified as the most promising candidate and in a batch SSF maintained at 55 degrees C and pH 5.0, using a cellulase dose of 5 FPU/g glucan, it produced 5.1 g/L lactic acid from 2% (w/v) MSW cellulosic pulp in TSB media. Conclusion This work has both scientific and industrial relevance, as it evaluates a number of previously untrialled bacterial hosts for their compatibility with lignocellulosic SSF for lactic acid production and successfully identifies B. smithii as a potential candidate for such a process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available