Biofuel Research Journal

Biofuel Research Journal

Evaluation of different lignocellulosic biomass pretreatments by phenotypic microarray-based metabolic analysis of fermenting yeast

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Stuart Wilkinson
Darren Greetham
Gregory A. Tucker
Brewing Science Section, Division of Food Sciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, United Kingdom
10.18331/BRJ2016.3.1.5
Abstract
Advanced generation biofuel production from lignocellulosic material (LCM) was investigated.  A range of different thermo-chemical pre-treatments were evaluated with different LCM. The pre-treatments included; alkaline (5% NaOH at 50°C), acid (1% H2SO4 at 121°C) and autohydrolytical methods (200°C aqueous based hydrothermal) and were evaluated using samples of miscanthus, wheat-straw and willow. The liberation of sugars, presence of inhibitory compounds, and the degree of enhancement of enzymatic saccharification was accessed. The suitability of the pre-treatment generated hydrolysates (as bioethanol feedstocks for Saccharomyces cerevisiae) was also accessed using a phenotypic microarray that measured yeast metabolic output. The use of the alkaline pre-treatment liberated more glucose and arabinose into both the pre-treatment generated hydrolysate and also the hydrolysate produced after enzymatic hydrolysis (when compared with other pre-treatments). However, hydrolysates derived from use of alkaline pre-treatments were shown to be unsuitable as a fermentation medium due to issues with colloidal stability (high viscosity).  Use of acid or autohydrolytical pre-treatments liberated high concentrations of monosaccharides regardless of the LCM used and the hydrolysates had good fermentation performance with measurable yeast metabolic output. Acid pre-treated wheat straw hydrolysates were then used as a model system for larger scale fermentations to confirm both the results of the phenotypic microarray and its validity as an effective high-throughput screening tool.

Graphical Abstract

Evaluation of different lignocellulosic biomass pretreatments by phenotypic microarray-based metabolic analysis of fermenting yeast

Highlights

  • Efficacy of pre-treatments on different lignocellulosic materials tested.

  •  Phenotypic microarray was used to access fermentation.

  •  Alkaline system liberated more sugar but hydrolysates not as fermentable.

  •  Acid system had best fermentability.

  •  Acetic acid and furfural present reduced ethanol production to 70% theoretical yield.

Keywords
Lignocellulosic ethanol
Pre-treatment
Yeast
metabolic output
phenotypic microarray
[1] Allen, S.A., Clark, W., McCaffery, J.M., Cai, Z., Lanctot, A., Slininger, P.J., Liu, Z.L., Gorsich, S.W., 2010. Furfural induces reactive oxygen species accumulation and cellular damage in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 3(2), 1-10.
[2] Almeida, J.R., Modig, T., Petersson, A., Hähn-Hägerdal, B., Lidén, G., Gorwa-Grauslund, M.F., 2007. Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 82(4), 340-349.
[3] Antoni, D., Zverlov, V.V., Schwarz, W.H., 2007. Biofuels from microbes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.77(1), 23-35.
[4] Bailey, A.M., Paulsen, I.T., Piddock, L.J., 2008. RamA confers multidrug resistance in Salmonella enterica via increased expression of acrB, which is inhibited by chlorpromazine. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52(10), 3604-3611.
[5] Balat, M., 2011. Production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic materials via the biochemical pathway: a review. Energy Convers. Manage. 52(2), 858-875.
[6] Banerjee, G., Car, S., Scott-Craig, J.S., Hodge, D.B., Walton, J.D., 2011. Alkaline peroxide pretreatment of corn stover: effects of biomass, peroxide, and enzyme loading and composition on yields of glucose and xylose. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 4(1), 16.
[7] Bauen, A.W., Dunnett, A.J., Richter, G.M., Dailey, A.G., Aylott, M., Casella, E., Taylor, G., 2010. Modelling supply and demand of bioenergy from short rotation coppice and Miscanthus in the UK. Bioresour. Technol. 101(21), 8132-43.
[8] Binod, P., Satyanagalakshmi, K., Sindhu, R., Janu, K.U., Sukumaran, R.K., Pandey, A., 2012. Short duration microwave assisted pretreatment enhances the enzymatic saccharification and fermentable sugar yield from sugarcane bagasse. J. Renew. Energ. 37(1), 109-116.
[9] Carvalheiro, F., Duarte, L.C., Girio, F.M., 2008. Hemicellulose biorefineries: a review on biomass pretreatments. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 67(11), 849-864.
[10] Chandra, R.P., Bura, R., Mabee, W.E., Berlin, A., Pan, X., Saddler, J.N., 2007. Substrate pretreatment: the key to effective enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosics? Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 108, 67-93.
[11] Chang, V.S., Holtzapple, M.T., 2000. Fundamental factors affecting biomass enzymatic reactivity. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 84-86, 5-37.
[12] Chheda, J.N., Román-Leshkov, Y., Dumesic, J.A., 2007. Production of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and furfural by dehydration of biomass-derived mono-and poly-saccharides. Green Chem. 9(4), 342-350.
[13] Chundawat, S.P., Beckham, G.T., Himmel, M.E., Dale, B.E., 2011a. Deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass to fuels and chemicals. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 2, 121-145.
[14] Chundawat, S.P., Bellesia, G., Uppugundla, N., da Costa Sousa, L., Gao, D., Cheh, A.M., Agarwal, U.P., Bianchetti, C.M., Phillips Jr, G.N., Langan, P., 2011b. Restructuring the crystalline cellulose hydrogen bond network enhances its depolymerization rate. J. Chem. Soc. 133(29), 11163-11174.
[15] Coote, N., Kirsop, B., 1976. Factors responsible for the decrease in pH during beer fermentations. J. Inst. Brew. 82(3), 149-153.
[16] DEFRA, 2007. PLanting and growing miscanthus- natural England. Best Practice Guidelines.
[17] Eggeman, T., Elander, R.T., 2005. Process and economic analysis of pretreatment technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 96(18), 2019-2025.
[18] Galbe, M.Z., Zacchi, G., 2012. Pretreatment: The key to efficient utilization of lignocellulosic materials. Biomass Bioenergy. 46, 70-78.
[19] Ghose, T., 1987. Measurement of cellulase activities. Pure Appl. Chem. 59(2), 257-268.
[20] Girio, F.M., Fonseca, C., Carvalheiro, F., Duarte, L.C., Marques, S., Bogel-Lukasik, R., 2010. Hemicelluloses for fuel ethanol: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 101(13), 4775-4800.
[21] Glithero, N., Ramsden, S.J., Wilson P., 2013a. Barriers and incentives to the production of bioethanol from cereal straw: a farm business perspective. Energ. Policy. 59, 161-171.
[22] Glithero, N.J., Wilson, P., Ramsden, S.J., 2013b. Prospects for arable farm uptake of Short Rotation Coppice willow and miscanthus in England. Appl. Energy. 107(100), 209-218.
[23] Greetham, D., 2014. Phenotype microarray technology and its application in industrial biotechnology. Biotechnol. Lett. 36(6), 1153-1160.
[24] Greetham, D., Wimalasena, T., Kerruish, D., Brindley, S., Ibbett, R., Linforth, R., Tucker, G., Phister, T., Smart, K., 2014. Development of a phenotypic assay for characterisation of ethanologenic yeast strain sensitivity to inhibitors released from lignocellulosic feedstocks. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 41(6), 931-945.
[25] Hawkins, G.M., Doran-Peterson, J., 2011. A strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae evolved for fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass displays improved growth and fermentative ability in high solids concentrations and in the presence of inhibitory compounds. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 4(1), 1-14.
[26] Jorgensen, U. 2011. Benefits versus risks of growing biofuel crops: the case of Miscanthus. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.3(1), 24-30.
[27] Klinke, H.B., Thomsen, A., Ahring, B.K., 2004. Inhibition of ethanol-producing yeast and bacteria by degradation products produced during pre-treatment of biomass. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 66(1), 10-26.
[28] McKendry, P., 2002. Energy production from biomass (Part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 83(1), 37-46.
[29] Mira, N.P., Teixeira, M.C., Sá-Correia, I., 2010. Adaptive response and tolerance to weak acids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a genome-wide view. OMICS. 14(5), 525-540.
[30] Narendranath, N., Thomas, K., Ingledew, W., 2001. Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a minimal medium. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26(3), 171-177.
[31] Nguyen, Q.A., Tucker, M.P., Keller, F.A., Eddy, F.P., 2000. Two-stage dilute-acid pretreatment of softwoods. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 84-86, 561-76.
[32] Palmqvist, E., Galbe, M., Hahn-Hagerdal, B., 1998. Evaluation of cell recycling in continuous fermentation of enzymatic hydrolysates of spruce with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and on-line monitoring of glucose and ethanol. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 50(5), 545-51.
[33] Park, S.E., Koo, H.M., Park, Y.K., Park, S.M., Park, J.C., Lee, O.K., Park, Y.C., Seo, J.H., 2011. Expression of aldehyde dehydrogenase 6 reduces inhibitory effect of furan derivatives on cell growth and ethanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour. Technol. 102(10), 6033-6038.
[34] Powell, C.D., Quain, D.E., Smart, K.A., 2003. The impact of brewing yeast cell age on fermentation performance, attenuation and flocculation. FEMS yeast Res. 3(2), 149-157.
[35] Rathmann R., Szklo, A., Schaeffer R., 2010. Land use competition for production of food and liquid biofuels: an analysis of the arguments in the current debate. Renew. Energ. 35(1), 14-22.
[36] Ray, M.J., Brereton, N.J.B., Shield, I., Karp, A., Murphy R.J., 2012. Variation in Cell Wall Composition and Accessibility in Relation to Biofuel Potential of Short Rotation Coppice Willows. Bioenerg. Res. 5, 685-698.
[37] Saha, B.C., Cotta, M.A., 2006. Ethanol production from alkaline peroxide pretreated enzymatically saccharified wheat straw. Biotechnol. Progr. 22(2), 449-453.
[38] Sticklen, M.B., 2008. Plant genetic engineering for biofuel production: towards affordable cellulosic ethanol. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9(6), 433-443.
[39] Taherzadeh, M.J., Karimi, K., 2008. Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Wastes to Improve Ethanol and Biogas Production: a Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 9(9), 1621-1651.
[40] Tomás-Pejó, E., Ballesteros, M., Oliva, J., Olsson, L., 2010. Adaptation of the xylose fermenting yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae F12 for improving ethanol production in different fed-batch SSF processes. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37(11), 1211-1220.
[41] Tomás-Pejó, E., Oliva, J.M., Ballesteros, M., Olsson, L., 2008. Comparison of SHF and SSF processes from steam-exploded wheat straw for ethanol production by xylose-fermenting and robust glucose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 100(6), 1122-1131.
[42] Verduyn, C., Postma, E., Scheffers, W.A., Van Dijken, J., 1990. Energetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in anaerobic glucose-limited chemostat cultures. J. Gen. Microbiol. 136(3), 405-412.
[43] Wimalasena, T.T., Greetham, D., Marvin, M.E., Liti, G., Chandelia, Y., Hart, A., Louis, E.J., Phister, T.G., Tucker, G.A., Smart, K.A., 2014. Phenotypic characterisation of Saccharomyces spp. yeast for tolerance to stresses encountered during fermentation of lignocellulosic residues to produce bioethanol. Microb. Cell Fact. 13(1), 47.
[44] Yang, B., Wyman, C.E., 2008. Characterization of the degree of polymerization of xylooligomers produced by flowthrough hydrolysis of pure xylan and corn stover with water. Bioresour. Technol. 99(13), 5756-5762.
[45] Zhu, L., O’Dwyer, J.P., Chang, V.S., Granda, C.B., Holtzapple, M.T., 2008. Structural features affecting biomass enzymatic digestibility. Bioresour. Technol. 99(9), 3817-3828.
Biofuel Research Journal
Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
Winter 2016
Pages 357-365