Agitation and pressure effects on acetone‐butanol fermentation

Biotechnology and Bioengineering (Impact Factor: 4.16). 05/1985; 27(6):852 - 860. DOI: 10.1002/bit.260270615

ABSTRACT Batch fermentations were run at varying agitation rates and were either pressurized to 1 bar (15.2 psig) or nonpressurized. Agitation and pressure both affect the level of dissolved hydrogen gas in the media, which in turn influences solvent production. In nonpressurized fermentations volumetric productivity of butanol increased as the agitation rate decreased. While agitation had no significant effect on butanol productivity under pressurized conditions, overall butanol productivity was increased over that obtained in the nonpressurized runs. Maximum butyric acid productivity, however, was found to occur earlier and increased as agitation increased. Peak hydrogen productivity occurred simultaneously with peak butyric acid productivity. The proporation of reducing equivalents used in forming the above products was determined using a redox balance based on the fermentation stoichiometry. An inverse relationship between the final concentrations of acetone and acetoin was found in all fermentations studied. The results show that agitation and pressure are important parameters for solvent productivity in acetone-butanol fermentation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biobutanol is a potential fuel substitute and has been receiving increased attention in recent years. However, the economics of biobutanol production have been hampered by a number of bottlenecks such as high cost of raw material and low yield of solvent. Co-production of value-added products is a possible way to improve the economics of biobutanol production. Here, we present metabolic engineering strategies to substitute the major by-product acetone for a value-added product acetoin during butanol fermentation. By overexpressing the α-acetolactate decarboxylase gene alsD in C. acetobutylicum B3, the acetoin yield was markedly increased while acetone formation was reduced. Subsequent disruption of adc gene effectively abolished acetone formation and further increased acetoin yield. After optimization of fermentation conditions, the alsD-overexpressing adc mutant generated butanol (13.8g/L), acetoin (4.3g/L), and ethanol (3.9g/L), but no acetone. Thus, acetone was completely substituted for acetoin, and both mass yield and product value were improved. This study provides valuable insights into the regulation of acetoin synthesis and should be highly useful for the development of acetoin-derived products like 2,3-butanediol and 2-butanol in C. acetobutylicum. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Metabolic Engineering 11/2014; 27. DOI:10.1016/j.ymben.2014.11.002 · 8.26 Impact Factor
  • FEMS Microbiology Reviews 02/1995; 16(2-3):151-162. DOI:10.1016/0168-6445(94)00056-5 · 13.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The separation performances, in terms of adsorption selectivity, desorption, and regeneration of an innovative hyper-cross-linked resin (HD-02) for recovery of acetoin from the ethanol-acetoin-acetic acid ternary mixture were explored in this work. The competitive adsorption behaviors of the ternary mixture were determined experimentally. The results showed the HD-02 resin had a good adsorption selectivity toward acetoin over acetic acid and ethanol. Subsequently, the desorption behaviors in terms of desorption isotherms and kinetics were systematically investigated. Using ethanol as a desorbent, the recovery could be achieved as high as 98% in the batch desorption experiments. The Fick model was adopted to simulate the desorption process. The simulation results revealed that the intraparticle diffusion was the rate-limiting step and the obtained effective diffusivities (1.530 x 10(-9) m(2)/min) were independent of the acetoin concentrations. In the end of this work, three cycles of adsorption desorption regeneration operations confirmed good reproducibility of the resin for the attainment of acetoin.
    Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 08/2014; 53(31):12411-12419. DOI:10.1021/ie502105q · 2.24 Impact Factor