4.7 Article

Physiological characterization of thermotolerant yeast for cellulosic ethanol production

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 98, 期 8, 页码 3829-3840

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-014-5580-3

关键词

Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation; Ethanol; Sugarcane bagasse; Thermotolerant yeast

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The conversion of lignocellulose into fermentable sugars is considered a promising alternative for increasing ethanol production. Higher fermentation yield has been achieved through the process of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF). In this study, a comparison was performed between the yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces marxianus for their potential use in SSF process. Three strains of S. cerevisiae were evaluated: two are widely used in the Brazilian ethanol industry (CAT-1 and PE-2), and one has been isolated based on its capacity to grow and ferment at 42 A degrees C (LBM-1). In addition, we used thermotolerant strains of K. marxianus. Two strains were obtained from biological collections, ATCC 8554 and CCT 4086, and one strain was isolated based on its fermentative capacity (UFV-3). SSF experiments revealed that S. cerevisiae industrial strains (CAT-1 and PE-2) have the potential to produce cellulosic ethanol once ethanol had presented yields similar to yields from thermotolerant strains. The industrial strains are more tolerant to ethanol and had already been adapted to industrial conditions. Moreover, the study shows that although the K. marxianus strains have fermentative capacities similar to strains of S. cerevisiae, they have low tolerance to ethanol. This characteristic is an important target for enhancing the performance of this yeast in ethanol production.

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