4.3 Article

Enhanced cellulolytic enzyme production by the synergism between Trichoderma reesei RUT-C30 and Aspergillus niger NL02 and by the addition of surfactants

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOPROCESS ENGINEERING
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 390-398

出版社

KOREAN SOC BIOTECHNOLOGY & BIOENGINEERING
DOI: 10.1007/s12257-012-0562-8

关键词

cellulolytic enzymes; steam-exploded corn stover; mixed culture; synergism; surfactants; enzymatic hydrolysis

资金

  1. High-Tech Research and Development Program of China [2008AA05Z401]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development (PAPD) of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two improvement approaches comprising of a mixed culture of Trichoderma reesei and Aspergillus niger and the addition of surfactants were employed in this study in order to enhance cellulolytic enzyme production as well as to improve the composition. Different delay times of A. niger inoculation (0, 24, and 48 h) and inoculum ratios of T. reesei versus A. niger (1:1 and 5:1) derived six mixed culture forms, which were 0 h/1:1, 0 h/5:1, 24 h/1:1, 24 h/5:1, 48 h/1:1, and 48 h/5:1. It was found that the form 48 h/5:1 allowed the highest FPA, 3.30 +/- 0.34 IU/mL, and a relatively high BGA, 1.01 +/- 0.25 IU/mL, thereafter being selected for the subsequent improvement step addition of surfactants. Among the three surfactants, including Triton X-100, CHAPS and sodium taurocholate, the third one was found to be the best one giving rise to the highest FPA and BGA, 5.02 +/- 0.40 and 1.48 +/- 0.28 IU/mL, respectively. Differently sourced cellulases were compared in the enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-exploded corn stover (SECS). Moreover, the cellulase produced by the mixed culture form 48 h/5:1 using SECS as a substrate showed the highest yield at 80.93 +/- 2.04%, indicating that the composition of this cellulase was improved by the mixed culture of T. reesei and A. niger. The results validate that these two improvement approaches are efficient and applicable in cellulase 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

4.3
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