4.3 Article

Isolation of xylose-assimilating yeasts and optimization of xylitol production by a new Meyerozyma guilliermondii strain

期刊

INTERNATIONAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 325-334

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10123-019-00105-0

关键词

Biorefinery; Bio-based products; Fermentation; Lignocellulosic biomass; Physiological characterization; Response surface methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Production of xylitol from lignocellulosic biomass is of interest to modern biorefineries, because this biomass should be processed into a spectrum of chemicals (bio-based products) and not only energy. The isolation of new yeast strains capable of efficiently converting xylose into xylitol and withstanding inhibitors released from biomass hydrolysis can contribute to making its production feasible in biorefineries. Forty-three out of 128 yeast strains isolated from the gut of Passalidae beetles were capable of assimilating xylose as the sole carbon source. Meyerozyma guilliermondii UFV-1 was selected due to its ability to grow and ferment D-xylose in a synthetic medium. This yeast assimilated the broad range of sugars present in lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates, such as xylose, raffinose, cellobiose, rhamnose, arabinose, and glucose. Its optimum growth conditions were pH 8.0 and a temperature of 30 degrees C. In concentrations of 0.07 mol/L acetic acid, 0.05 mol/L 5-hydroximethylfurfural, and 0.04 mol/L furfural, M. guilliermondii UFV-1 did not grow. Maximum xylitol production in aerobiosis and hypoxia were 51.88 and 27.73 g/L, respectively. Under aerobic condition, xylose concentration and agitation rate were the factors which were statistically significant, while only the agitation rate was significant in hypoxia. We fitted a response surface (RS) that estimated the best agitation rate (113.33 rpm) and xylose concentration (90 g/L) for maximum xylitol production in aerobiosis. Therefore, M. guilliermondii UFV-1 displays potential for being used for xylitol production in biorefineries.

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

4.3
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