4.4 Article

Enhanced Biological Straw Saccharification Through Coculturing of Lignocellulose-Degrading Microorganisms

期刊

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 175, 期 8, 页码 3709-3728

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-015-1539-9

关键词

Lignocellulosic straws; Microbial consortia; Saccharification; Cellulolytic-xylanolytic enzymes

资金

  1. RMIT University
  2. Egyptian Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lignocellulosic waste (LCW) is an abundant, low-cost, and inedible substrate for the induction of lignocellulolytic enzymes for cellulosic bioethanol production using an efficient, environmentally friendly, and economical biological approach. In this study, 30 different lignocellulose-degrading bacterial and 18 fungal isolates were quantitatively screened individually for the saccharification of four different ball-milled straw substrates: wheat, rice, sugarcane, and pea straw. Rice and sugarcane straws which had similar Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy profiles were more degradable, and resulted in more hydrolytic enzyme production than wheat and pea straws. Crude enzyme produced on native straws performed better than those on artificial substrates (such as cellulose and xylan). Four fungal and five bacterial isolates were selected (based on their high strawase activities) for constructing dual and triple microbial combinations to investigate microbial synergistic effects on saccharification. Combinations such as FUNG16-FUNG17 (Neosartorya fischeri-Myceliophthora thermophila) and RMIT10-RMIT11 (Aeromonas hydrophila-Pseudomonas poae) enhanced saccharification (3- and 6.6-folds, respectively) compared with their monocultures indicating the beneficial effects of synergism between those isolates. Dual isolate combinations were more efficient at straw saccharification than triple combinations in both bacterial and fungal assays. Overall, co-culturing can result in significant increases in saccharification which may offer significant commercial potential for the use of microbial consortia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据