Display options
Cite
Berlowska J, Cieciura-Włoch W, Kalinowska H, et al. Enzymatic Conversion of Sugar Beet Pulp: A Comparison of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation and Separate Hydrolysis and Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2018;56(2):188-196doi: 10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5390.
Berlowska, J., Cieciura-Włoch, W., Kalinowska, H., Kregiel, D., Borowski, S., Pawlikowska, E., Binczarski, M., & Witonska, I. (2018). Enzymatic Conversion of Sugar Beet Pulp: A Comparison of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation and Separate Hydrolysis and Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production. Food technology and biotechnology, 56(2), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5390
Berlowska, Joanna, et al. "Enzymatic Conversion of Sugar Beet Pulp: A Comparison of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation and Separate Hydrolysis and Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production." Food technology and biotechnology vol. 56,2 (2018): 188-196. doi: https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5390
Berlowska J, Cieciura-Włoch W, Kalinowska H, Kregiel D, Borowski S, Pawlikowska E, Binczarski M, Witonska I. Enzymatic Conversion of Sugar Beet Pulp: A Comparison of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation and Separate Hydrolysis and Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2018 Jun;56(2):188-196. doi: 10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5390. PMID: 30228793; PMCID: PMC6117997.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Food Technol Biotechnol. 2018 Jun;56(2):188-196. doi: 10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5390.

Enzymatic Conversion of Sugar Beet Pulp: A Comparison of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation and Separate Hydrolysis and Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production.

Food technology and biotechnology

Joanna Berlowska, Weronika Cieciura-Włoch, Halina Kalinowska, Dorota Kregiel, Sebastian Borowski, Ewelina Pawlikowska, Michał Binczarski, Izabela Witonska

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Fermentation Technology and Microbiology, Lodz University of Technology, Wolczanska 171/173, PL-90-924 Lodz, Poland.
  2. Institute of Technical Biochemistry, Lodz University of Technology, Stefanowskiego 4/10, PL-90-924 Lodz, Poland.
  3. Institute of General and Ecological Chemistry, Lodz University of Technology, Zeromskiego 116, ?PL-90-924 Lodz, Poland.

PMID: 30228793 PMCID: PMC6117997 DOI: 10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5390

Abstract

This study compares the efficiency of lactic acid production by separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) or simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of sugar beet pulp, a byproduct of industrial sugar production. In experiments, sugar beet pulp was hydrolyzed using five commercial enzymes. A series of shake flask fermentations were conducted using five selected strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB). The differences in the activities of the enzymes for degrading the principal sugar beet pulp components were reflected in the different yields of total reducing sugars. The highest yields after hydrolysis and the lowest quantities of insoluble residues were obtained using a mixture (1:1) of Viscozyme® and Ultraflo® Max. In the SHF process, only a portion of the soluble sugars released by the enzymes from the sugar beet pulp was assimilated by the LAB strains. In SSF, low enzyme loads led to reduction in the efficiency of sugar accumulation. The risk of carbon catabolic repression was reduced. Our results suggest that SSF has advantages over SHF, including lower processing costs and higher productivity. Lactic acid yield in SSF mode (approx. 30 g/L) was 80-90% higher than that in SHF.

Keywords: enzymatic hydrolysis; lactic acid; sugar beet pulp

References

  1. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008 Aug 15;100(6):1122-31 - PubMed
  2. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2001 Spring;91-93:269-82 - PubMed
  3. Membranes (Basel). 2015 Dec 03;5(4):844-56 - PubMed
  4. Bioresour Technol. 2015 Mar;180:274-80 - PubMed
  5. J Biotechnol. 2011 Dec 20;156(4):286-301 - PubMed
  6. Bioresour Technol. 2006 Jan;97(2):211-7 - PubMed
  7. J Biosci Bioeng. 2015 Jan;119(1):10-8 - PubMed
  8. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Nov;92(4):865-74 - PubMed
  9. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3154929 - PubMed
  10. Bioresour Technol. 2011 Jan;102(2):1831-6 - PubMed
  11. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2012 Nov;35(9):1531-9 - PubMed
  12. Bioresour Technol. 2010 Jul;101(13):4851-61 - PubMed
  13. Springerplus. 2014 Sep 11;3:516 - PubMed
  14. Bioresour Technol. 2014 Aug;166:187-93 - PubMed
  15. Molecules. 2016 Oct 17;21(10): - PubMed
  16. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013 Sep 28;23(9):1244-52 - PubMed
  17. Biotechnol Adv. 2013 Nov;31(6):877-902 - PubMed
  18. ScientificWorldJournal. 2016;2016:1917592 - PubMed
  19. Bioresour Technol. 2016 Aug;214:74-80 - PubMed
  20. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2008 May 01;1(1):7 - PubMed
  21. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014 Dec 04;7(1):167 - PubMed
  22. Bioresour Technol. 2016 Jun;209:259-64 - PubMed
  23. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2008 Apr;11(2):87-93 - PubMed

Publication Types