4.5 Article

Optimization of Agitation and Aeration for Very High Gravity Ethanol Fermentation from Sweet Sorghum Juice by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Using an Orthogonal Array Design

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 561-576

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en5030561

关键词

aeration; agitation; ethanol fermentation; orthogonal array design; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; very high gravity

资金

  1. Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand through Biofuels Research Cluster of Khon Kaen University (KKU)
  2. Office of the Higher Commission Education, Center for Alternative Energy Research and Development (AERD)
  3. KKU
  4. Fermentation Research Center for Value Added Agricultural Products (FerVAAP), Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimization of three parameters: agitation rate (A; 100, 200 and 300 rpm), aeration rate (B; 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 vvm) and aeration timing (C; 2, 4 and 6 h), for ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice under very high gravity (VHG, 290 g L-1 of total sugar) conditions by Saccharomyces cerevisiae NP 01 was attempted using an L-9 (3(4)) orthogonal array design. The fermentation was carried out at 30 degrees C in a 2-L bioreactor and the initial yeast cell concentration was approximately 2 x 10(7) cells mL(-1). The results showed that the optimum condition for ethanol fermentation should be A(2)B(3)C(2) corresponding to agitation rate, 200 rpm; aeration rate, 2.5 vvm and aeration timing, 4 h. The verification experiments under the optimum condition clearly indicated that the aeration and agitation strategies improved ethanol production. The ethanol concentration (P), productivity (Q(p)) and ethanol yield (Y-p/s) were 132.82 +/- 1.06 g L-1, 2.55 +/- 0.00 g L(-1)h(-1) and 0.50 +/- 0.00, respectively. Under the same condition without aeration (agitation rate at 200 rpm), P and Q(p) were only 118.02 +/- 1.19 g L-1 and 2.19 +/- 0.04 g L(-1)h(-1), respectively while Y-p/s was not different from that under the optimum condition.

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