4.2 Article

Bioconversion of cassava starch by-product into Bacillus and related bacteria polyhydroxyalkanoates

期刊

出版社

UNIV CATOLICA DE VALPARAISO
DOI: 10.2225/vol15-issue3-fulltext-6

关键词

Bacillus megaterium; biodegradable plastics; biopolymer; MTT assay; starch substrates

资金

  1. The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [300898/2007-0]
  2. Brazilian Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Ind stria Corn Products do Brasil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Unlike petroleum-based synthetic plastics, biodegradable biopolymer generation from industrial residue is a key strategy to reduce costs in the production process, as well as in the waste management, since efficient industrial wastewater treatment could be costly. In this context, the present work describes the prospection and use of bacterial strains capable to bioconvert cassava starch by-product into biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Results: The first step of this study was the bacterial competence screening which was conducted with 72 strains covering 21 Bacillus and related species. The microorganism growth in a medium with a starch substrate was measured by an innovative MTT assay, while the ability of the bacteria to secrete amylase and produce PHA was evaluated by the Nile Red Dye method. Based on growth and potential for PHA production, four isolates were selected and identified as Bacillus megaterium by 16S rRNA sequencing. When cultivated in hydrolyzed cassava starch by-product, maximum production reached 4.97 g dry biomass/L with 29.7% of Poly-(3-hydroxybutyrate) (characterized by FTIR). Conclusions: MTT assay proved to be a reliable methodology for monitoring bacterial growth in insoluble media. Selected amylolytic strains could be used as an alternative industrial process for biodegradable plastics production from starchy residues, reducing costs for biodegradable biopolymer production and wastewater treatment operations.

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

4.2
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