4.8 Article

Tuber melanosporum fermentation medium optimization by Plackett-Burman design coupled with Draper-Lin small composite design and desirability function

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 101, 期 9, 页码 3139-3146

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.022

关键词

Tuber melanosporurn; Fermentation medium optimization; Plackett-Burman design; Draper-Lin small composite design; Desirability function

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [20706012, 20976038]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Key Program of China [2007AA021506]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB714306]
  4. Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation [2008CDA002]
  5. Discipline Leader Project of Wuhan Municipality
  6. Open Project Program for Key Laboratory of Fermentation Engineering (Ministry of Education)
  7. Hubei Provincial Department of Education, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel method using Plackett-Burman design (PBD) coupled with Draper-Lin small composite design (SCD) and desirability function (DF) was developed to optimize Tuber melanosporum fermentation medium. Firstly, sucrose, yeast extract, peptone and Mg2+ were identified to be key medium components by PBD. Secondly, in order to evaluate the relationships between responses and the identified key components, mathematical models were developed by SCD. Finally, by using DF, the responses were optimized simultaneously and the optimal concentration was located to be 73 g/L sucrose, 11 g/L yeast extract, 8 g/L peptone, and 46 mM Mg2+. Under the identified optimal conditions, the maximal biomass, the production of extracellular (EPS) and intracellular (IPS) polysaccharides was 25.10 +/- 0.12 g/L, 3.88 +/- 0.23 g/L and 2.87 +/- 0.32 g/L, respectively, which agreed with the predicted Values well. Compared with the basic medium, the biomass, the production of EPS and IPS was enhanced by 54.4%, 71.7% and 124.2%, respectively. (C) 2009 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

4.8
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