Comparing Bioalcohols Production from Olive Pruning Biomass by Biotechnological Pathway with Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis
After acid hydrolysis with H 2 SO 4 from olive pruning, subsequent fermentations were carried out in order to compare two non-traditional yeasts: Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis . During the fermentations, sugar uptake as well as ethanol and xylitol production were determined. However, bo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Waste and biomass valorization 2016-12, Vol.7 (6), p.1369-1375 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1375 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1369 |
| container_title | Waste and biomass valorization |
| container_volume | 7 |
| creator | Moya, Alberto J. Mateo, Soledad Puentes, Juan G. Fonseca, Bruno G. Roberto, Inês C. Sánchez, Sebastián |
| description | After acid hydrolysis with
H
2
SO
4
from olive pruning, subsequent fermentations were carried out in order to compare two non-traditional yeasts:
Candida guilliermondii
and
Pichia stipitis
. During the fermentations, sugar uptake as well as ethanol and xylitol production were determined. However, both yeast employed for the biotransformations showed different behaviours;
C. guilliermondii
produced ethanol from
D
-glucose and xylitol from
D
-xylose but, in contrast,
P. stipitis
only was able to produce ethanol from hexoses and pentoses although, due to the inhibitors amount (acetic acid and polyphenols mainly), it required a detoxification step. To solve this problem, activated charcoal treatment as well as a vacuum evaporation process (concentration ratio 2.7) were performed as physical detoxification methods with positive results. The maximum ethanol and xylitol yields (
Y
P
/
S
) (calculated on consumed sugars) obtained with
C. guilliermondii
were 0.38 and 0.31 kg
kg
-
1
respectively; while
P. stipitis
was able to produce 0.33 kg of ethanol per kg of fermentable sugar. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12649-016-9531-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1880843221</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1880843221</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-18aaabb996bc009c8559f7df4ea4c8b80031be8aa24851e1aa5396aa33943c4f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1KxDAUhYsoOIzzAO4Crqu5TX_SpRb_YGBmoeAu3KbpNEPb1KR1mCfwtW3pIG5c3XMP59wLn-ddA70FSpM7B0Ecpj6F2E8jBj478xbAk8QP4ujj_FeHcOmtnNtTSgMAHrBk4X1npunQ6nZHHrTBWprK1I5srSkG2WvTktKahmxq_aVGd2hPyQadI_lxkr2SVWtqs9MSa7LFvjrgkRx0X5EM20IXSHaDrmutbGPGXZPRJVstK43E9brTvXZX3kWJtVOr01x670-Pb9mLv948v2b3a1-yiPU-cETM8zSNc0lpKnkUpWVSlKHCUPKcU8ogV2MoCHkEChAjlsaIjKUhk2HJlt7NfLez5nNQrhd7M9h2fCmAc8pDFgQwpmBOSWucs6oUndUN2qMAKibkYkYuRuRiQi7Y2AnmjusmnMr-ufxv6QdhK4aa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1880843221</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing Bioalcohols Production from Olive Pruning Biomass by Biotechnological Pathway with Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Moya, Alberto J. ; Mateo, Soledad ; Puentes, Juan G. ; Fonseca, Bruno G. ; Roberto, Inês C. ; Sánchez, Sebastián</creator><creatorcontrib>Moya, Alberto J. ; Mateo, Soledad ; Puentes, Juan G. ; Fonseca, Bruno G. ; Roberto, Inês C. ; Sánchez, Sebastián</creatorcontrib><description>After acid hydrolysis with
H
2
SO
4
from olive pruning, subsequent fermentations were carried out in order to compare two non-traditional yeasts:
Candida guilliermondii
and
Pichia stipitis
. During the fermentations, sugar uptake as well as ethanol and xylitol production were determined. However, both yeast employed for the biotransformations showed different behaviours;
C. guilliermondii
produced ethanol from
D
-glucose and xylitol from
D
-xylose but, in contrast,
P. stipitis
only was able to produce ethanol from hexoses and pentoses although, due to the inhibitors amount (acetic acid and polyphenols mainly), it required a detoxification step. To solve this problem, activated charcoal treatment as well as a vacuum evaporation process (concentration ratio 2.7) were performed as physical detoxification methods with positive results. The maximum ethanol and xylitol yields (
Y
P
/
S
) (calculated on consumed sugars) obtained with
C. guilliermondii
were 0.38 and 0.31 kg
kg
-
1
respectively; while
P. stipitis
was able to produce 0.33 kg of ethanol per kg of fermentable sugar.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1877-2641</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1877-265X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12649-016-9531-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Acetic acid ; Activated carbon ; Biomass ; Biotransformation ; Charcoal ; Engineering ; Environment ; Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology ; Ethanol ; Hexoses ; Industrial Pollution Prevention ; Polyphenols ; Pruning ; Renewable and Green Energy ; Short Communication ; Sugar ; Vacuum evaporation ; Waste Management/Waste Technology ; Xylitol ; Xylose ; Yeast</subject><ispartof>Waste and biomass valorization, 2016-12, Vol.7 (6), p.1369-1375</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media 2016</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-18aaabb996bc009c8559f7df4ea4c8b80031be8aa24851e1aa5396aa33943c4f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-18aaabb996bc009c8559f7df4ea4c8b80031be8aa24851e1aa5396aa33943c4f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1169-4728</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12649-016-9531-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12649-016-9531-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moya, Alberto J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateo, Soledad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puentes, Juan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fonseca, Bruno G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberto, Inês C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez, Sebastián</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing Bioalcohols Production from Olive Pruning Biomass by Biotechnological Pathway with Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis</title><title>Waste and biomass valorization</title><addtitle>Waste Biomass Valor</addtitle><description>After acid hydrolysis with
H
2
SO
4
from olive pruning, subsequent fermentations were carried out in order to compare two non-traditional yeasts:
Candida guilliermondii
and
Pichia stipitis
. During the fermentations, sugar uptake as well as ethanol and xylitol production were determined. However, both yeast employed for the biotransformations showed different behaviours;
C. guilliermondii
produced ethanol from
D
-glucose and xylitol from
D
-xylose but, in contrast,
P. stipitis
only was able to produce ethanol from hexoses and pentoses although, due to the inhibitors amount (acetic acid and polyphenols mainly), it required a detoxification step. To solve this problem, activated charcoal treatment as well as a vacuum evaporation process (concentration ratio 2.7) were performed as physical detoxification methods with positive results. The maximum ethanol and xylitol yields (
Y
P
/
S
) (calculated on consumed sugars) obtained with
C. guilliermondii
were 0.38 and 0.31 kg
kg
-
1
respectively; while
P. stipitis
was able to produce 0.33 kg of ethanol per kg of fermentable sugar.</description><subject>Acetic acid</subject><subject>Activated carbon</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biotransformation</subject><subject>Charcoal</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Hexoses</subject><subject>Industrial Pollution Prevention</subject><subject>Polyphenols</subject><subject>Pruning</subject><subject>Renewable and Green Energy</subject><subject>Short Communication</subject><subject>Sugar</subject><subject>Vacuum evaporation</subject><subject>Waste Management/Waste Technology</subject><subject>Xylitol</subject><subject>Xylose</subject><subject>Yeast</subject><issn>1877-2641</issn><issn>1877-265X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM1KxDAUhYsoOIzzAO4Crqu5TX_SpRb_YGBmoeAu3KbpNEPb1KR1mCfwtW3pIG5c3XMP59wLn-ddA70FSpM7B0Ecpj6F2E8jBj478xbAk8QP4ujj_FeHcOmtnNtTSgMAHrBk4X1npunQ6nZHHrTBWprK1I5srSkG2WvTktKahmxq_aVGd2hPyQadI_lxkr2SVWtqs9MSa7LFvjrgkRx0X5EM20IXSHaDrmutbGPGXZPRJVstK43E9brTvXZX3kWJtVOr01x670-Pb9mLv948v2b3a1-yiPU-cETM8zSNc0lpKnkUpWVSlKHCUPKcU8ogV2MoCHkEChAjlsaIjKUhk2HJlt7NfLez5nNQrhd7M9h2fCmAc8pDFgQwpmBOSWucs6oUndUN2qMAKibkYkYuRuRiQi7Y2AnmjusmnMr-ufxv6QdhK4aa</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Moya, Alberto J.</creator><creator>Mateo, Soledad</creator><creator>Puentes, Juan G.</creator><creator>Fonseca, Bruno G.</creator><creator>Roberto, Inês C.</creator><creator>Sánchez, Sebastián</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-4728</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Comparing Bioalcohols Production from Olive Pruning Biomass by Biotechnological Pathway with Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis</title><author>Moya, Alberto J. ; Mateo, Soledad ; Puentes, Juan G. ; Fonseca, Bruno G. ; Roberto, Inês C. ; Sánchez, Sebastián</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-18aaabb996bc009c8559f7df4ea4c8b80031be8aa24851e1aa5396aa33943c4f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Acetic acid</topic><topic>Activated carbon</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biotransformation</topic><topic>Charcoal</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Hexoses</topic><topic>Industrial Pollution Prevention</topic><topic>Polyphenols</topic><topic>Pruning</topic><topic>Renewable and Green Energy</topic><topic>Short Communication</topic><topic>Sugar</topic><topic>Vacuum evaporation</topic><topic>Waste Management/Waste Technology</topic><topic>Xylitol</topic><topic>Xylose</topic><topic>Yeast</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moya, Alberto J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateo, Soledad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puentes, Juan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fonseca, Bruno G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberto, Inês C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez, Sebastián</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Waste and biomass valorization</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moya, Alberto J.</au><au>Mateo, Soledad</au><au>Puentes, Juan G.</au><au>Fonseca, Bruno G.</au><au>Roberto, Inês C.</au><au>Sánchez, Sebastián</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing Bioalcohols Production from Olive Pruning Biomass by Biotechnological Pathway with Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis</atitle><jtitle>Waste and biomass valorization</jtitle><stitle>Waste Biomass Valor</stitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1369</spage><epage>1375</epage><pages>1369-1375</pages><issn>1877-2641</issn><eissn>1877-265X</eissn><abstract>After acid hydrolysis with
H
2
SO
4
from olive pruning, subsequent fermentations were carried out in order to compare two non-traditional yeasts:
Candida guilliermondii
and
Pichia stipitis
. During the fermentations, sugar uptake as well as ethanol and xylitol production were determined. However, both yeast employed for the biotransformations showed different behaviours;
C. guilliermondii
produced ethanol from
D
-glucose and xylitol from
D
-xylose but, in contrast,
P. stipitis
only was able to produce ethanol from hexoses and pentoses although, due to the inhibitors amount (acetic acid and polyphenols mainly), it required a detoxification step. To solve this problem, activated charcoal treatment as well as a vacuum evaporation process (concentration ratio 2.7) were performed as physical detoxification methods with positive results. The maximum ethanol and xylitol yields (
Y
P
/
S
) (calculated on consumed sugars) obtained with
C. guilliermondii
were 0.38 and 0.31 kg
kg
-
1
respectively; while
P. stipitis
was able to produce 0.33 kg of ethanol per kg of fermentable sugar.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s12649-016-9531-3</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-4728</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1877-2641 |
| ispartof | Waste and biomass valorization, 2016-12, Vol.7 (6), p.1369-1375 |
| issn | 1877-2641 1877-265X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1880843221 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Acetic acid Activated carbon Biomass Biotransformation Charcoal Engineering Environment Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology Ethanol Hexoses Industrial Pollution Prevention Polyphenols Pruning Renewable and Green Energy Short Communication Sugar Vacuum evaporation Waste Management/Waste Technology Xylitol Xylose Yeast |
| title | Comparing Bioalcohols Production from Olive Pruning Biomass by Biotechnological Pathway with Candida guilliermondii and Pichia stipitis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T07%3A30%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20Bioalcohols%20Production%20from%20Olive%20Pruning%20Biomass%20by%20Biotechnological%20Pathway%20with%20Candida%20guilliermondii%20and%20Pichia%20stipitis&rft.jtitle=Waste%20and%20biomass%20valorization&rft.au=Moya,%20Alberto%20J.&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1369&rft.epage=1375&rft.pages=1369-1375&rft.issn=1877-2641&rft.eissn=1877-265X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12649-016-9531-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1880843221%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1880843221&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |