Advertisement

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 112, Issue 8, pp 1177–1187 | Cite as

Sugarcane must fed-batch fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: impact of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must

  • Maria Letícia Bonatelli
  • Jaciane Lutz IenczakEmail author
  • Carlos Alberto Labate
Original Paper

Abstract

The presence of microbial contaminants is common in the sugarcane ethanol industry and can decrease process yield, reduce yeast cell viability and induce yeast cell flocculation. To evaluate the effect of microbial contamination on the fermentation process, we compared the use of sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must in the performance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with similar fermentation conditions to those used in Brazilian mills. Non-sterilized sugarcane must had values of 103 and 108 CFU mL−1 of wild yeast and bacterial contamination, respectively; decreased total reducing sugar (TRS); and increased lactic and acetic acids, glycerol and ethanol concentrations during storage. During fermentation cycles with sterilized and non-sterilized sugarcane must, S. cerevisiae viability did not change, whereas ethanol yield varied from 74.1 to 80.2%, but it did not seem to be related to must microbial contamination. Ethanol productivity decreased throughout the fermentation cycles and was more pronounced in the last two fermentation cycles with non-sterilized must, but that may be related to the decrease in must TRS. High values of the ratio of total acid production per ethanol were reported at the end of the last two fermentation cycles conducted with non-sterilized must. Additionally, the values of wild yeast contamination increased from 102 to 103 CFU mL−1 and bacterial contamination increased from 104 to 106 CFU mL−1 when comparing the first and last fermentation cycles with non-sterilized must. In addition to the increase in microbial contamination and acid concentration, ethanol yield and yeast viability rates were not directly affected by the microbial contamination present in the non-sterilized sugarcane must.

Keywords

Microbial contamination Fermentation Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sugarcane must 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory-CTBE/CNPEM and FAPESP for financial support to the scholarship to Maria Leticia Bonatelli (Proc. N.2013/08431-0).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbott DA, Ingledew WM (2005) The importance of aeration strategy in fuel alcohol fermentations contaminated with Dekkera/Brettanomyces yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 69:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcarde AR, Walder JMM, Horii J (2003) Fermentation of irradiated sugarcane must. Scientia Agricola 60:677–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amorim HV, Lopes ML, Oliveira JVC et al (2011) Scientific challenges of bioethanol production in Brazil. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1267–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrietta MGS, Andrietta SR, Stupiello ENA (2011) Bioethanol what has Brazil learned about yeasts inhabiting the ethanol production processes from sugar cane? In: Bernardes MAS (ed) Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. InTech, Rijeka, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  5. Andrietta SR, Andrietta MGS, Bicudo MHP (2012) Comparação do rendimento fermentativo utilizando diferentes metodologias de cálculo para a avaliação do desempenho de um processo industrial. Sociedade dos Técnicos Açucareiros e Alcooleiros do Brasil 30:41–49Google Scholar
  6. Araújo TM, Souza MT, Diniz RHS et al (2018) Cachaça yeast strains: alternative starters to produce beer and bioethanol. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 111:1749–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basílio ACM, De Araújo PRL, De Morais JOF et al (2008) Detection and identification of wild yeast contaminants of the industrial fuel ethanol fermentation process. Curr Microbiol 56:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basso LC, De Amorim HV, De Oliveira AJ, Lopes ML (2008) Yeast selection for fuel ethanol production in Brazil. FEMS Yeast Res 8:1155–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basso LC, Basso TO, Rocha SN (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. In: Bernardes MAS (ed) Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects. Intech, Rijeka, pp 85–100Google Scholar
  10. Basso TO, Gomes FS, Lopes ML et al (2014) Homo-and heterofermentative lactobacilli differently affect sugarcane-based fuel ethanol fermentation. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 105:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bayrock D, Ingledew WM (2001) Changes in steady state on introduction of a Lactobacillus contaminant to a continuous culture ethanol fermentation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 27:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beckner M, Ivey ML, Phister TG (2011) Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations. Lett Appl Microbiol 53:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonatelli ML, Quecine MC, Silva MS, Labate CA (2017) Characterization of the contaminant bacterial communities in sugarcane first-generation industrial ethanol production. FEMS Microbiol Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx159 Google Scholar
  14. Brexó RP, Sant’Ana AS (2017) Impact and significance of microbial contamination during fermentation for bioethanol production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carvalho-Netto OV, Carazzolle MF, Mofatto LS et al (2015) Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptional reprograming due to bacterial contamination during industrial scale bioethanol production. Microb Cell Fact 14:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa OYA, Souto BM, Tupinambá DD et al (2015) Microbial diversity in sugarcane ethanol production in a Brazilian distillery a culture-independent method. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 42:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. da Silva-Filho EA, Dos Santos SKB, do Monte Resende A et al (2005) Yeast population dynamics of industrial fuel-ethanol fermentation process assessed by PCR-fingerprinting. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 88:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Souza Liberal AT, Basílio ACM, do Monte Resende A et al (2007) Identification of Dekkera bruxellensis as a major contaminant yeast in continuous fuel ethanol fermentation. J Appl Microbiol 102:538–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Souza RB, Dos Santos BM, de Souza RDFR et al (2012) The consequences of Lactobacillus vini and Dekkera bruxellensis as contaminants of the sugarcane-based ethanol fermentation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 39:1645–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eggleston G (2002) Deterioration of cane juice—sources and indicators. Food Chem 78:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graves T, Narendranath NV, Dawson K, Power R (2006) Effect of pH and lactic or acetic acid on ethanol productivity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in corn mash. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammes WP, Vogel RF (1995) The genus Lactobacillus. In: Holzapfel WHN, Wood BJ (eds) The genera of lactic acid bacteria, vol 2, 1st edn. Springer, Boston, pp 19–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopes ML, de Lima Paulillo SC, Godoy A et al (2016) Ethanol production in Brazil: a bridge between science and industry. Braz J Microbiol 47:64–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucena BT, dos Santos BM, Moreira JL et al (2010) Diversity of lactic acid bacteria of the bioethanol process. BMC Microbiol 10:298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Narendranath NV, Thomas KC, Ingledew WM (2001) Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a minimal medium. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 26:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliva-Neto P, Dorta C, Carvalho AFA et al (2013) The Brazilian technology of fuel ethanol fermentation—yeast inhibition factors and new perspectives to improve the technology. In: Mendéz-Vila A (ed) Materials and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments. Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, pp 371–379Google Scholar
  27. Pereira LF, Bassi APG, Avansini SH et al (2012) The physiological characteristics of the yeast Dekkera bruxellensis in fully fermentative conditions with cell recycling and in mixed cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 101:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Queiroz LL, Costa MS, Pereira AA et al (2018) Dynamics of microbial contaminants is driven by selection during ethanol production. Biorxiv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/489500 Google Scholar
  29. Santos SC, Souza AS, Dionísio SR et al (2016) Bioethanol production by recycled Scheffersomyces stipitis in sequential batch fermentations with high cell density using xylose and glucose mixture. Bioresour Technol 219:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skinner KA, Leathers TD (2004) Bacterial contaminants of fuel ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Souza RSC, Okura VK, Armanhi JSL et al (2016) Unlocking the bacterial and fungal communities assemblages of sugarcane microbiome. Sci Rep 6:28774CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Letícia Bonatelli
    • 1
  • Jaciane Lutz Ienczak
    • 2
    Email author
  • Carlos Alberto Labate
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Genetics, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of AgricultureUniversity of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Chemical Engineering and Food Engineering DepartmentSanta Catarina Federal UniversityFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations