4.1 Article

Optimizing alternative substrate for simultaneous production of surfactin and 2,3-butanediol by Bacillus subtilis LB5a

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcab.2016.04.004

关键词

Surfactin; 2,3-Butanediol; Bacillus subtilis; Simultaneous production; Culture medium optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biotechnological processes, such as the production of enzymes, peptides, bioflavours, biosurfactants, etc., are increasing, worldwide. Bacillus subtilis synthesizes surfactin, a powerful surface-active agent. However, due to its high production cost, commercial use is impractical. In this sense, the culture medium of biosurfactants represents approximate to 30% of cost of production. Another interesting compound produced by B. subtilis is 2,3-butanediol, which has potential application in rubber, fuel, etc. Thus, the main aim of this work was to optimize the simultaneous production of surfactin and 2,3-butanediol by Bacillus subtilis LB5a using alternative substrates, in which the production of 2,3-butanediol was evaluated by both by solid-phase microextraction and liquid-liquid extraction. In addition, as secondary aim, it was evaluated the biofilm formation by Bacillus subtilis on activated carbon, which may improve the production of surfactin. The experiments of central composite design indicated that the best substrate composition for both bioproducts is whey (27.7-34 g/L), activated carbon (25 g/L) and cassava wastewater (74 g/L). The bioprocessing at bench-top scale achieved the simultaneous production of approximate to 27.07 mg/L of surfactin and approximate to 330 mg/L of 2,3-BD (SPME plus liquid-liquid extraction). These results proved the technical feasibility of an interesting strategy of biotechnological production (simultaneous) using alternative substrates. The identification of clusters also leads to a prospecting studies on the separation of each cluster and further evaluation of their surface-active properties. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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