4.7 Article

Comparison of poly-γ-glutamic acid production between sterilized and non-sterilized solid-state fermentation using agricultural waste as substrates

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 255, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120248

Keywords

Poly-gamma-glutamic acid; Comparison; Solid-state fermentation; Agricultural waste; B. amyloliquefaciens JX-6

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Service Network Initiative of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KFJ-STS-QYZD-077, KFJ-STS-QYZD-098]
  2. Biological Resources Program, Chinese Academy of Sciences [KFJ-BRP-009]
  3. Major Science and Technology Projects of Sichuan Province [2018SZDZX0024]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid-state fermentation (SSF), using corn stalk and soybean meal as solid substrates, was carried out for the first time to produce poly-gamma-glutamic acid (gamma-PGA) by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens JX-6. Comparison for the yield of gamma-PGA, characteristics of solid substrates, and changes of bacterial communities between sterilized and non-sterilized conditions was performed with an aim to find a cleaner and more efficient approach for producing gamma-PGA. Changes to solid substrates occurred during fermentation, and nonsterilized SSF had a more significant effect on fermentation substrates. Analysis of bacterial communities showed that JX-6 had an excellent ability to produce gamma-PGA. Sterilized SSF resulted in higher yield of gamma-PGA, while non-sterilized SSF possessed a faster fermentation process. The latter could be more suitable and environmental-friendly for large-scale gamma-PGA fermentation because of the advantages of time and cost savings. It is noted that the production of gamma-PGA in this study was the highest in the literatures, indicating a successful bioconversion of agricultural waste into value-added products. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available