4.5 Article

Optimization of protein extraction from Spirulina platensis to generate a potential co-product and a biofuel feedstock with reduced nitrogen content

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2015.00030

关键词

Spirulina platensis; protein isolate; high-pressure homogenization; response surface methodology; residual biomass; biofuel feedstock

资金

  1. Department of Defense ARO [W911NF-11-1-0218]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-93ER20097]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current work reports protein extraction from Spirulina platensis cyanobacterial biomass in order to simultaneously generate a potential co-product and a biofuel feed-stock with reduced nitrogen content. S. platensis cells were subjected to cell disruption by high-pressure homogenization and subsequent protein isolation by solubilization at alkaline pH followed by precipitation at acidic pH. Response surface methodology was used to optimize the process parameters - pH, extraction (solubilization/precipitation) time and biomass concentration for obtaining maximum protein yield. The optimized process conditions were found to be pH 11.38, solubilization time of 35 min and biomass concentration of 3.6% (w/w) solids for the solubilization step, and pH 4.01 and precipitation time of 60 min for the precipitation step. At the optimized conditions, a high protein yield of 60.7% (w/w) was obtained. The protein isolate (co-product) had a higher protein content [80.6% (w/w)], lower ash [1.9% (w/w)] and mineral content and was enriched in essential amino acids, the nutritious.-linolenic acid and other high-value unsaturated fatty acids compared to the original biomass. The residual biomass obtained after protein extraction had lower nitrogen content and higher total non-protein content than the original biomass. The loss of about 50% of the total lipids from this fraction did not impact its composition significantly owing to the low lipid content of S. platensis (8.03%).

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

4.5
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