4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Utilisation of potato processing wastewater formicrobial lipids and γ-linolenic acid production by oleaginous fungi

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 95, 期 15, 页码 3084-3090

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.7044

关键词

Aspergillus flavus I16-3; gamma-linolenic acid; microbial lipid; Mucor rouxii; potato processing wastewater

资金

  1. College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDMicrobial lipids are considered as the starting material for production of second-generation biofuels and their polyunsaturated fatty acids are rich sources of neutraceuticals. Exploring cheap feedstock for producing microbial lipids is necessary. The present study examined the potential of microbial lipids and -linolenic acid (GLA) production by two oleaginous fungi, Aspergillus flavusI16-3 and Mucor rouxii, with potato processing wastewater as a low-cost or no-cost nutrient source. RESULTSBiochemistry and physiology of two oleaginous fungi, A. flavusI16-3 and M. rouxii, on lipid accumulation showed the two fungi grew well and efficiently utilised the starch in wastewater. On average (P < 0.05), 2.8 and 3.6gL(-1) of lipids were produced by A. flavusI16-3 and M. rouxii, respectively, with maximum GLA yields of 60 and 100mgL(-1). Addition of nutrients to raw wastewater significantly improved (P < 0.05) the lipid and GLA yields; 3.5 and 4.2gL(-1) of lipids, and 100 and 140mgL(-1) of GLA were produced by A. flavusI16-3 and M. rouxii, respectively. In addition, the wastewater was efficiently treated, with soluble chemical oxygen demand, total soluble nitrogen and total soluble phosphorus removals up to 60% and 90%, 100% and 98%, and 92% and 81% by A. flavusI16-3 and M. rouxii, respectively. CONCLUSIONThis study demonstrated an alternative approach to valorise potato processing wastewater to produce microbial lipids and GLA (nutraceuticals). (c) 2014 Society of Chemical 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

4.7
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