Simultaneous saccharification and bioethanol production from underutilized biomass, cowpea haulm using co-cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (BY4743) and Scheffersomyces stipitis (PsY633)

Abstract

Cowpea cultivation generates large quantities of biomass after pod harvest which are underutilized and could be exploited for energy generation. In this study, evaluation of sugar production by dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment of cowpea haulm for potential ethanolic fermentation was carried out. A central composite design (CCD) was used to investigate the effects of temperature (100–120 °C), time (30–90 min), and acid concentration (1.0–4.0%) on sugar yield and inhibitor formation. The model F-values of 25.42, 78.81, and 6.96 for xylose yield, glucose yield, and total inhibitor concentration, respectively, with low probability value (p < 0.05) suggest a high significance of the models. While the R2-values of 0.9581, 0.9861, and 0.8424 indicated a satisfactory agreement of the quadratic models in predicting the responses. The quadratic model predicted optimum conditions for maximum xylose (76.5%) and glucose yield (28.6%), at minimum inhibitor concentration (2.34 g/L) and temperature (110 °C), with an acid concentration of 3.1% and reaction time of 55 min. These conditions were validated experimentally suggesting the effectiveness of experimental design towards process optimization. The resulting sugar-rich prehydrolysate was detoxified and fermented to ethanol using co-cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4743 and Scheffersomyces stipitis (PsY633), while the recovered pretreated solid was subjected to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with prehydrolysis (PSSF). A total ethanol titer of 15.67 g/L was obtained which corresponds to an overall conversion efficiency of 75%. This suggests that cowpea haulm could also be potentially exploited for bioethanol production either singly or in combination with other lignocellulosic biomass.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable

References

  1. 1.

    Tiwari R, Nain L, Labrou NE, Shukla P (2018) Bioprospecting of functional cellulases from metagenome for second generation biofuel production: a review. Crit Rev Microbiol 44:244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040841X.2017.1337713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Zhang M, Shukla P, Ayyachamy M, Permaul K, Singh S (2010) Improved bioethanol production through simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic agricultural wastes by Kluyveromyces marxianus 6556. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 26:1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0267-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    FAOSTAT (2020) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

  4. 4.

    Okuofu SI, Gerrano AS, Singh S, Pillai S (2020) Deep eutectic solvent pretreatment of Bambara groundnut haulm for enhanced saccharification and bioethanol production. Biomass Conv Bioref. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01053-w

  5. 5.

    Sun S, Sun S, Cao X, Sun R (2016) The role of pretreatment in improving the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials. Bioresour Technol 199:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Díaz-Blanco DI, Jesús R, López-Linares JC et al (2018) Optimization of dilute acid pretreatment of Agave lechuguilla and ethanol production by co-fermentation with Escherichia coli MM160. Ind Crops Prod 114:154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.01.074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Loow YL, Wu TY, Jahim JM et al (2016) Typical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into reducing sugars using dilute acid hydrolysis and alkaline pretreatment. Cellulose 23:1491–1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0936-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kim D (2018) Physico-chemical conversion of lignocellulose: inhibitor effects and detoxification strategies: a mini review. Molecules 23:309. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23020309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2016) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. ISBN: 978-1-118-91601-8

  10. 10.

    Jiang K, Ding S, Tang B (2019) Optimization of dilute NaOH pretreatment at mild temperatures for monomeric sugar release from sorghum pith using response surface methodology. BioResources 14:3411–3431

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y (2019) Optimization of pretreatment condition for ethanol production from Cyperus difformis by response surface methodology. 3. Biotech 9:218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-019-1754-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sahu S, Pramanik K (2018) Evaluation and optimization of organic acid pretreatment of cotton gin waste for enzymatic hydrolysis and bioethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotech 186:1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-018-2790-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chen H, Fu X (2016) Industrial technologies for bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:468–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sewsynker-Sukai Y, Gueguim Kana EB (2018) Simultaneous saccharification and bioethanol production from corn cobs: process optimization and kinetic studies. Bioresour Technol 262:32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chandel AK, Singh OV, Narasu ML, Rao LV (2011) Bioconversion of Saccharum spontaneum (wild sugarcane) hemicellulosic hydrolysate into ethanol by mono and co-cultures of Pichia stipitis NCIM3498 and thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae VS3. N Biotechnol 28:593–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2010.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Carrillo-Nieves D, Ruiz HA, Aguilar CN, Ilyina A, Parra-Saldivar R, Torres JA, Martínez Hernández JL (2017) Process alternatives for bioethanol production from mango stem bark residues. Bioresour Technol 239:430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Zabed H, Sahu JN, Boyce AN, Faruq G (2016) Fuel ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: An overview on feedstocks and technological approaches. Renew Sust Energ Rev 66:751–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Anele UY, Arigbede OM, Südekum KH, Ike KA, Oni AO, Olanite JA, Amole GA, Dele PA, Jolaosho AO (2010) Effects of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) haulms as a feed supplement on voluntary intake, utilization and blood profile of West African dwarf sheep fed a basal diet of Pennisetum purpureum in the dry season. Anim Feed Sci Technol 159:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Vavilala SL, Ghag SB, D’Souza JS (2019) Lignin: understanding and exploring its potential for biofuel production. In: Hosseini M (ed) Advanced bioprocessing for alternative fuels, biobased chemicals, and bioproducts. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817941-3.00009-7

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    De Bhowmick G, Sarmah AK, Sen R (2018) Lignocellulosic biorefinery as a model for sustainable development of biofuels and value added products. Bioresour Technol 247:1144–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Studer MH, DeMartini JD, Davis MF et al (2011) Lignin content in natural Populus variants affects sugar release. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:6300–6305. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009252108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jönsson LJ, Martín C (2016) Pretreatment of lignocellulose: formation of inhibitory by-products and strategies for minimizing their effects. Bioresour Technol 199:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Martínez-Patiño JC, Romero I, Ruiz E et al (2017) Design and optimization of sulfuric acid pretreatment of extracted olive tree biomass using response surface methodology. BioResources 12:1779–1797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Arumugam N, Biely P, Puchart V et al (2019) Xylan from bambara and cowpea biomass and their structural elucidation. Int J Biol Macromol 132:987–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Golets M, Ajaikumar S, Mikkola JP (2015) Catalytic upgrading of extractives to chemicals: Monoterpenes to “EXICALS”. Chem Rev 115:3141–3169. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr500407m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Tao J, Rajan K, Ownley B, Gwinn K, D’Souza D, Moustaid-Moussa N, Tschaplinski TJ, Labbé N (2019) Natural variability and antioxidant properties of commercially cultivated switchgrass extractives. Ind Crops Prod 138:111474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Brigham JS, Adney WS, Himmel ME (2018) Hemicellulases: diversity and applications. In: Wyman C (ed) Handbook on Bioethanol. Routledge, New York, pp 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203752456

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gonzales RR, Kim JS, Kim SH (2019) Optimization of dilute acid and enzymatic hydrolysis for dark fermentative hydrogen production from the empty fruit bunch of oil palm. Int J Hydrog Energy 44:2191–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Botella C, Zhang K, Baugh A, Liang Y, Sivakumar SV (2019) Reversible acid pretreatment scale up studies for the production of cellulosic ethanol from ensiled sweet sorghum. Biochem Eng J 150:107266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.107266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gaur R, Soam S, Sharma S, Gupta RP, Bansal VR, Kumar R, Tuli DK (2016) Bench scale dilute acid pretreatment optimization for producing fermentable sugars from cotton stalk and physicochemical characterization. Ind Crops Prod 83:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.11.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cao L, Chen H, Tsang DC et al (2018) Optimizing xylose production from pinewood sawdust through dilute-phosphoric-acid hydrolysis by response surface methodology. J Clean Prod 178:572–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shuai L, Questell-Santiago YM, Luterbacher JS (2016) A mild biomass pretreatment using γ-valerolactone for concentrated sugar production. Green Chem 18:937–943. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5GC02489G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cekmecelioglu D, Demirci A (2019) A statistical optimization study on dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) as a potential feedstock for fermentation applications. Waste Biomass Valor 10:3243–3249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0376-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ovejero-Pérez A, Rigual V, Domínguez JC, Alonso MV, Oliet M, Rodriguez F (2020) Acidic depolymerization vs ionic liquid solubilization in lignin extraction from eucalyptus wood using the protic ionic liquid 1-methylimidazolium chloride. Int J Biol Macromol 157:461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.04.194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Solarte-Toro JC, Romero-García JM, Martínez-Patiño JC, Ruiz-Ramos E, Castro-Galiano E, Cardona-Alzate CA (2019) Acid pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for energy vectors production: a review focused on operational conditions and techno-economic assessment for bioethanol production. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 107:587–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bichot A, Delgenès JP, Méchin V, Carrère H, Bernet N, García-Bernet D (2018) Understanding biomass recalcitrance in grasses for their efficient utilization as biorefinery feedstock. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 17:707–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-018-9485-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Majumdar S, Naha A, Bhattacharyya DK, Bhowal J (2019) Effective delignification and decrystallization of cauliflower wastes by using dilute phosphoric acid for efficient enzymatic digestibility to produce fermentable sugars. Biomass Bioenerg 125:169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kshirsagar SD, Waghmare PR, Loni PC et al (2015) Dilute acid pretreatment of rice straw, structural characterization and optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis conditions by response surface methodology. RSC Adv 5:46525–46533. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra04430h

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Anita SH, Solihat NN, Sari FP et al (2020) Optimization of microwave-assisted oxalic acid pretreatment of oil palm empty fruit bunch for production of fermentable sugars. Waste Biomass Valor 11:2673–2687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-00566-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kumar M, Upadhyay SN, Mishra PK (2019) A comparative study of thermochemical characteristics of lignocellulosic biomasses. Bioresour Technol Rep 8:100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Elsayed M, Abomohra AEF, Ai P, Wang D, el-Mashad HM, Zhang Y (2018) Biorefining of rice straw by sequential fermentation and anaerobic digestion for bioethanol and/or biomethane production: comparison of structural properties and energy output. Bioresour Technol 268:183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Zhang Q, Tang L, Zhang J, Mao Z, Jiang L (2011) Optimization of thermal-dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment for enhancement of methane production from cassava residues. Bioresour Technol 102:3958–3965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Wikandari R, Millati R, Syamsiyah S et al (2010) Effect of furfural, hydroxymethylfurfural and acetic acid on indigeneous microbial isolate for bioethanol production. Agric J 5:105–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Greetham D, Hart AJ, Tucker GA (2016) Presence of low concentrations of acetic acid improves yeast tolerance to hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and furfural. Biomass Bioenerg 85:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.11.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hu BB, Wang JL, Wang YT, Zhu MJ (2019) Specify the individual and synergistic effects of lignocellulose-derived inhibitors on biohydrogen production and inhibitory mechanism research. Renew Energy 140:397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Zhang Y, Xia C, Lu M, Tu M (2018) Effect of overliming and activated carbon detoxification on inhibitors removal and butanol fermentation of poplar prehydrolysates. Biotechnol Biofuels 11:178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1182-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Andary J, Maalouly J, Ouaini R, Chebib H, Rutledge DN, Ouaini N (2012) Application of 2D correlation spectroscopy on olive stones acid hydrolysates: Effect of overliming. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 113:58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2011.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ranatunga TD, Jervis J, Helm RF, McMillan JD, Wooley RJ (2000) The effect of overliming on the toxicity of dilute acid pretreated lignocellulosics: the role of inorganics, uronic acids and ether-soluble organics. Enzyme Microb Technol 27:240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0229(00)00216-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wikandari R, Sanjaya AP, Millati R, Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ (2019) Fermentation inhibitors in ethanol and biogas processes and strategies to counteract their effects. In: Pandey A (ed) Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Conversion Processes for the Production of Liquid and Gaseous Biofuels, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 461–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816856-1.00020-8

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Deshavath NN, Dasu VV, Goud VV, Rao PS (2017) Development of dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment method for the enhancement of xylose fermentability. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 11:224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2017.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Mohagheghi A, Ruth M, Schell DJ (2006) Conditioning hemicellulose hydrolysates for fermentation: effects of overliming pH on sugar and ethanol yields. Process Biochem 41:1806–1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2017.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Mesa L, Martínez Y, Barrio E, González E (2017) Desirability function for optimization of dilute acid pretreatment of sugarcane straw for ethanol production and preliminary economic analysis based in three fermentation configurations. Appl Energy 198:299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Keshav PK, Shaik N, Koti S, Linga VR (2016) Bioconversion of alkali delignified cotton stalk using two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis and fermentation of detoxified hydrolysate into ethanol. Ind Crops Prod 91:323–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.07.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Láinez M, Ruiz HA, Arellano-Plaza M, Martínez-Hernández S (2019) Bioethanol production from enzymatic hydrolysates of Agave salmiana leaves comparing S. cerevisiae and K. marxianus. Renew Energy 138:1127–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Fernandes MC, Ferro MD, Paulino AF et al (2018) Comparative study on hydrolysis and bioethanol production from cardoon and rockrose pretreated by dilute acid hydrolysis. Ind Crops Prod 111:633–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.11.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    McIntosh S, Zhang Z, Palmer J, Wong HH, Doherty WOS, Vancov T (2016) Pilot-scale cellulosic ethanol production using eucalyptus biomass pre-treated by dilute acid and steam explosion. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 10:346–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Fernandes MC, Torrado I, Carvalheiro F, Dores V, Guerra V, Lourenço PML, Duarte LC (2016) Bioethanol production from extracted olive pomace: dilute acid hydrolysis. Bioethanol 2:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/bioeth-2016-0007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Li P, Cai D, Luo Z, Qin P, Chen C, Wang Y, Zhang C, Wang Z, Tan T (2016) Effect of acid pretreatment on different parts of corn stalk for second generation ethanol production. Bioresour Technol 206:86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Li WC, Li X, Zhu JQ, Qin L, Li BZ, Yuan YJ (2018) Improving xylose utilization and ethanol production from dry dilute acid pretreated corn stover by two-step and fed-batch fermentation. Energy 157:877–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Wu W, Rondon V, Weeks K, Pullammanappallil P, Ingram LO, Shanmugam KT (2018) Phosphoric acid based pretreatment of switchgrass and fermentation of entire slurry to ethanol using a simplified process. Bioresour Technol 251:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mr Ezekiel Itegbeyogene, Department of Geological Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, for his technical assistance on XRD analyses and Dr Funmi Faloye, Discipline of Microbiology, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, for assisting the pretreatment studies.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (Thuthuka grants 93982 and 114227), and the ARC-DUT-UFS consortium supported. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily attributed to the funders.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Somiame Itseme Okuofu: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft; Prashant Bhagwat: writing—review and editing; Abe Shegro Gerrano: resources, writing—review and editing; Suren Singh: writing—review and editing, co-supervision; Santhosh Pillai: conceptualization of idea, project leader, funding acquisition, supervision, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santhosh Pillai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable

Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okuofu, S.I., Bhagwat, P., Gerrano, A.S. et al. Simultaneous saccharification and bioethanol production from underutilized biomass, cowpea haulm using co-cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (BY4743) and Scheffersomyces stipitis (PsY633). Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01368-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bioethanol
  • Dilute acid pretreatment
  • Cowpea haulm
  • Response surface methodology
  • Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation