Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 597–606 | Cite as

Bioprocessing of cardboard waste for cellulase production

  • Ahlam S. Al Azkawi
  • Nallusamy SivakumarEmail author
  • Saif Al Bahry
Original Article


Waste paper, a major source of cellulosic biomass, could be utilized as a potential substrate for cellulase production. In this work, different pretreated waste papers were used as substrates for cellulase production. Among them, cardboard treated with 0.1% H2SO4 was found to be the best substrate for cellulase production by Bacillus subtilis S1 (Accession number MG457704). The optimization of the culture conditions for cellulase production was performed using the Plackett-Burman design (PB) and response surface methodology (RSM). The factors considered for PB design were cardboard concentration, yeast extract, inoculum concentration, cultivation temperature, and pH, with cellulase activity (FPase) as a response. PB design at 30 h was highly significant (F = 0.0018 and R2 = 0.99). Cardboard, yeast extract, and inoculum concentrations were the variables selected for optimization by RSM. The model with 15 runs was highly significant (F = 0.0004). The model that predicted a maximum FPase activity of 2.956 U/mL could be achieved with 7.78% inoculum concentration, 3.99 g/L yeast extract, and 25.89 g/L cardboard. The results showed that the predicted values agreed well with the experimental values. The validation experiment proved the adequacy and accuracy of model. This study demonstrates that cardboard could serve as a low-cost substrate for cellulase production.


Acid treatment Bacillus subtilis Cardboard FPase Optimization Response surface method 



The authors are greatly thankful to The Research Council (TRC), Oman for the financial support (Grant no: ORG/EBR/14/003).


  1. 1.
    Schmitt E, Bura R, Gustafson R, Cooper J, Vajzovic A (2012) Converting lignocellulosic solid waste into ethanol for the state of Washington: an investigation of treatment technologies and environmental impacts. Bioresour Technol 104:400–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sivakumar N, Al Zadjali A, Al Bahry S, Elshafie A, Eltayeb EA (2016) Isolation and characterization of cellulolytic Bacillus licheniformis from compost. Afr J Biotechnol 15:2434–2446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ioelovich M (2014) Waste paper as promising feedstock for production of biofuel. J Sci Res Rep 3:905–916Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elliston A, Samuel RAC, Wilson DR, Roberts IN, Waldron KW (2013) High concentrations of cellulosic ethanol achieved by fed batch semi simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of waste-paper. Bioresour Technol 134:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pooja H, Rashmi A, Sabeena K, Bhatkal A, Sastry DN (2016) Production of ethanol from waste newspaper. Int J Eng Trends Technol 5:589–593Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Annamalai N, Al-Battashi H, Al-Bahry S, Sivakumar N (2018) Biorefinery production of poly-3-hydroxybutyrate using waste office paper hydrolysate as feedstock for microbial fermentation. J Biotech 265:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Annamalai N, Sivakumar N, Oleskowicz-Popiel P (2018) Enhanced production of microbial lipids from waste office paper by the oleaginous yeast Cryptococcus curvatus. Fuel 217:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szijártó N, Réczey ZFK, Mézes M, Bersényi A (2004) Cellulase fermentation on a novel substrate (waste cardboard) and subsequent utilization of home-produced cellulase and commercial amylase in a rabbit feeding trial. Indus Crops Prod 20:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kinnarinen T, Shakhanova M, Hietanen E, Salmimies R, Häkkinen A, Louhi-Kultanen M (2012) Effect of mixing on enzymatic hydrolysis of cardboard waste: saccharification yield and subsequent separation of the solid residue using a pressure filter. Bioresour Technol 110:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kadar ZS, Szengyel ZS, Reczey K (2004) Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of industrial wastes for the production of ethanol. Ind Crop Prod 20:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yañez R, Alonso JL, Parajó JC (2004) Production of hemicellulosic sugars and glucose from residual corrugated cardboard. Process Biochem 39:1543–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Immanuel G, Dhanusha R, Prema P, Palavesam A (2006) Effect of different growth parameters on endoglucanase enzyme activity by bacteria isolated from coir retting effluents of estuarine environment. Int J Enviro Sci Technol 3:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee SM, Koo YM (2009) Isolation, purification, characterization of cellulolytic enzymes produced by the isolate Streptomyces omiyaensis. J Microbiol Biotechnol 1:229–233Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nishida Y, Suzuki KI, Kumagai Y, Tanaka H, Inoue A, Ojima T (2007) Isolation and primary structure of a cellulase from the Japanese sea urchin Strongylocentrotus nudus. Biochimie 89:1002–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bhat MK (2000) Cellulases and related enzymes in biotechnology. Biotechnol Adv 18:355–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hebeish A, Ibrahim NA (2007) The impact of fronteir sciences on textile industry. Colourage 54:41–55Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karmakar M, Ray RR (2011) Current trends in research and application of microbial cellulases. Research J Micro 6:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minussi RC, Pastore GM, Durán N (2002) Potential applications of laccase in the food industry. Trends in Food Sci Techol 13:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Carvalho LMJ, de Castro IM, da Silva CAB (2008) A study of retention of sugars in the process of clarification of pineapple juice (Ananas comosus, L. Merril) by micro- and ultra-filtration. J Food Eng 87:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mai C, Kües U, Militz H (2004) Biotechnology in the wood industry. Appl Micro Biotech 63:477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dhiman TR, Zaman MS, Gimenez RR, Walters JL, Treacher R (2002) Performance of dairy cows fed forage treated with fibrolytic enzymes prior to feeding. Animal Feed Sci Techno 101:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cherry JR, Fidants AL (2003) Directed evolution of industrial enzymes: an update. Current Opinion in Biotechnol 14:438–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakamura K, Kappamura K (1982) Isolation and identification of crystalline cellulose hydrolyzing bacterium and its enzymatic properties. J Ferment Technol 60:343–348Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ariffin H, Abdullah N, Umi K, Shirai Y, Hassan MA (2006) Production and characterization by Bacillus pumilus EB3. Int J Eng Technol 3:47–53Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sethi S, Datta A, Lal Gupta B, Gupta S (2013) Optimization of cellulase production from bacteria isolated from soil. ISRN Biotechnology 2013:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Selvam K, Govarthanan M, Kamala-kannan S, Govindharaju M, Senthiillkimar B, Selvankumar T, Sengottaiyan A (2014) Process optimization of cellulase production from alkali-treated coffee pulp and pineapple waste using Acinetobacter sp. TSK-MASC. RSC Adv 4:13045–13051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Latifian M, Hamidi-Esfahani Z, Brzegar M (2007) Evaluation of culture conditions for cellulase production by two Trichoderma reesei mutants under solid-state fermination conditions. Bioresour Technol 98:3634–3637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gupta P, Samant K, Sahu A (2011) Isolation of cellulose-degrading bacteria and determination of their celluloytic potential. Int J Micro 2012:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31:426–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghose TK (1987) Measurment of cellulase activities. Pure Appl Chem 59:2257–2268Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guerfali M, Saidi A, Gargouri A, Belghith H (2015) Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of waste paper for ethanol production using separate saccharification and fermentation. Applied Biochem Biotechol 175:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016) MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 33:1870–1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    El-Zawawi WK, Ibrahim MM, Abdel-Fattah YR, Soliman NA, Mahmoud MM (2011) Acid and enzyme hydrolysis to convert pretreated lignocellulosic materials into glucose for ethanol production. Carbohydr Polym 84:865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gamez S, Gonzalez-Cabriales JJ, Ramırez JA, Garrote G, Vazque M (2006) Study of the hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse using phosphoric acid. J Food Eng 74:78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brummer V, Jurena T, Hlavacek V, Omelkova J, Bebar L, Gabriel P, Stehlik P (2014) Enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated waste paper- source of raw material for production of liquid biofuels. Bioresour Technol 152:543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ioelovich M (2013) Plant biomass as a renewable source of biofuels and biochemicals. Lambert Academic Publishing, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Patagundi BI, Shivasharan CT, Kaliwal BB (2004) Isolation and characterization of cellulase producing bacteria from soil. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 3:59–69Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dias P, Ramos K, Padilha I, Araujo D, Santos SFM, Silva FLH (2014) Optimization of cellulase production by Bacillus Sp. isolated from sugarcane cultivated soil. Chem Eng Trans 38:277–281Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ray AK, Bairagi KS, Ghosh A, Sen SK (2007) Optimization of fermentation conditions for cellulase production by Bacillus subtilis CY5 and Bacillus circulans TP3 isolated from fish gut. Acat Icht Et Pist 37:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ariffin H, Hassan MA, Shah UK, Abdullah N, Ghazali FM, Shirai Y (2008) Production of bacterial endoglucanase from pretreated oil palm empty fruit bunch by Bacillus pumilus EB3. J Biosci Bioeng 106:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deka D, Das SP, Sahoo N, Das D, Jawed M, Goyal D, Goyal A (2013) Enhanced cellulase production from bacillus subtilis by optimizing physical parameters for bioethanol production. ISRN Biotechnol 2013:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liang Y, Feng Z, Yesuf J, Blackburn JW (2010) Optimization of growth medium and enzyme assay conditions for crude cellulases produced by a novel thermophilic and cellulolytic bacterium, Anoxybacillus sp. 527. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 160(6):1841–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rastogi G, Muppidi GL, Gurram RN, Adhikari A, Bischoff KM, Hughes SR, Apel WA, Bang SS, Dixon DJ, Sani RK (2009) Isolation and characterization of cellulose-degrading bacteria from the deep subsurface of the Homestake gold mine, lead, South Dakota, USA. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 36:585–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Varotkar P, Tumane PM, Wasnik DD (2016) Bioconversion of waste paper into bioethanol by co- culture of fungi isolated from lignocellulosic waste. Int J Pure Appl Biosci 4:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chuprom J, Bovornreungroj P, Ahmad M, Kantachote D, Dueramae S (2016) Approach toward enhancement of halophilic protease production by Halobacterium sp. strain LBU50301 using statistical design response surface methodology. Biotechnol Rep 10:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patil MD, Shinde KD, Patel G, Chisti Y, Banerjee UC (2006) Use of response surface method for maximizing the production of arginine deiminase by Pseudomonas putida. Biotechnol Rep 10:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahlam S. Al Azkawi
    • 1
  • Nallusamy Sivakumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Saif Al Bahry
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, College of ScienceSultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman

Personalised recommendations