4.6 Article

Modeling Bacterial Contamination of Fuel Ethanol Fermentation

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 117-122

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.22244

关键词

bacterial contamination; fuel ethanol; lactic acid bacteria; Lactobacillus fermentum

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0538739]
  2. State of Illinois Matching Fund
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh [0538739] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria may limit the effectiveness of antibiotics to treat bacterial contamination in fuel ethanol plants, and therefore, new antibacterial intervention methods and tools to test their application are needed. Using shake-flask Cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae grown on saccharified corn mash and strains of lactic acid bacteria isolated from a dry-grind ethanol facility, a simple model to simulate bacterial contamination and infection was developed. Challenging the model with 10(8) CFU/mL Lactobacillus fermentum decreased ethanol yield by 27% and increased residual glucose from 6.2 to 45.5 g/L. The magnitude of the effect was proportional to the initial bacterial load, with 10(5) CFU/mL L. fermentum still producing an 8% decrease in ethanol and a 3.2-fold increase in residual glucose. Infection was also dependent on the bacterial species used to challenge the fermentation, as neither L. delbrueckii ATCC 4797 nor L. amylovorus 0315-7B produced a significant decrease in ethanol when inoculated at a density of 10(8) CFU/mL. In the shake-flask model, treatment with 2 mu g/mL virginiamycin mitigated the infection when challenged with a susceptible strain of L. fermentum (MIC for virginiamycin <= 2 ppm), but treatment was ineffective at treating infection by a resistant strain of L. fermentum (MIC = 16 ppm). The model may find application in developing new antibacterial agents and management practices for use in controlling contamination in the fuel ethanol industry.

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

4.6
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