4.8 Article

Consolidated bioprocessing of lactose into lactic acid and ethanol using non-engineered cell factories

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126464

关键词

Consolidated bioprocessing of lactose; Whey exploitation; Non engineered cell factory; S; cerevisiae

资金

  1. project Research Infrastructure on Food Bioprocessing Development and Innovation Exploitation -Food Innovation RI - Operational Programme Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (NSRF 2014-2020) [MIS 5027222]
  2. European Union (European Regional Development Fund)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study successfully utilized nonengineered Cell Factories to prepare two composite biocatalysts for the conversion of lactose into lactic acid and ethanol. The results showed that freeze-dried CF2 holds potential for future application due to its preservation and manageability.
The aim of this study is the consolidated bioprocessing of lactose into lactic acid and ethanol using nonengineered Cell Factories (CFs). Therefore, two different types of composite biocatalysts (CF1-CF2) based on Saccharomyces cerevisiae with immobilized microorganism or enzyme on starch gel (SG) were prepared for 5% w/ v lactose fermentation. In CF1, S. cerevisiae was covered with SG containing Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Kluyveromyces marxianus CF1a-c. S. cerevisiae/SG-beta-galactosidase (CF1d) was also used for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of lactose. In CF2, S. cerevisiae immobilized on tubular cellulose (TC) was covered with SG containing the aforementioned microorganisms (CF2a-c). The wet CF1d resulted in 96% of the theoretical ethanol yield while the wet CF1b and freeze-dried CF2b resulted in 89% of the theoretical lactic acid yield. The repeated batches using the CF2a-c exhibited better results than using CF1a-c. Subsequently, the freeze-dried CF2 as preservative and more manageable were verified for future exploitation of whey.

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

4.8
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