7 views

Uploaded by Jonathan Sierra

- Characteristics of Low Temperature Biomass Gasification and Syngas Release Behavior Using Hot Slag
- Pembangkitan Energi Biomass (Slide03)
- SEMMY MOKITI
- Prediction of Higher Heating Values of Biomass From Proximate and Ultimate Analyses
- Bio Energy
- National Renewable Energy Laboratory
- Prediction of Gaseous Products From Biomass Pyrolysis Through Combined Kinetic and Thermodynamic Simulations
- Abstract Biomass 2016
- 2006_UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf
- SHAIYO
- TRADITIONAL COOKING FUELS, OVENS & STOVES in TURKEY.pdf
- Regional Feedstock Partnership Summary ReportRegional Feedstock Partnership Summary Report
- Environmental Impac At
- Test Euroexam
- Alex Abakash Abhilash Arunangshu Venkatesh Vishal Bio Ethanol
- Biofuels Industry Report
- USDA Spring Mtn National Rec Area
- part 2
- Boonrod_Session21_ACEF2008
- Heat Insulation

You are on page 1of 22

sugarcane byproductsby-products

Bianca Yadira Prez-Sariana1*, Aln Rogelio Gmez-Rincn2, Sergio SaldaaTrinidad2, Peggy Elizabeth Alvarez-Gutirrez2, Sebastian P. J. 1, Carlos Alberto

Guerrero-Fajardo3

Colombia.

Corresponding author

Email addresses:

BYPS: bipes@ier.unam.mx, biyapesa@gmail.com,

ARGR: tool_alan@hotmail.com

SST: ssaldana@upchipas.edu.mx

PEAG: peggy.alvarez@hotmail.com

SPJ: sjp@ier.unam.mx

CAGF: caguerrerofa@unal.edu.co

-1-

Abstract

Background

environmentally friendly, it can be produced from agricultural raw materials with high

sugar content. It can be obtained from common crops such as sugarcane (Saccharum

officinarum). Microorganisms such as yeast can produce ethanol through anaerobic

fermentation by conversion of glucose in bioethanol and carbon dioxide.

Results

Experimental design 2k factorial with central points was used with the substrate and

cell concentration as a variable with three levels for each parameter. This design was

performed to establish the formulation of media and fermentation conditions.

Our results show the kinetics of fermentation from sugarcane juice and sugarcane

molasses as substrate. BiomassCell concentration, bioethanol production, sugar

substrate consumption were analysed, the physical-chemical variables such as pH,

temperature were monitored. The model predicted that the maximum production of

bioethanol was using sugarcane juice to cell concentration of 1.2e+7 cfu/mL of yeast,

sugar concentration of 120.79 g/L of sugar, producing 40 g/L of bioethanol with a

yield of sugar consumption to bioethanol of 37.97%. Under these conditions,

experimental bioethanol production was 44.41 g/L and 38.35% of yield.

Conclusions

sugarcane juice and sugarcane molasses, allowed to do statistical analysis and

optimize the bioetanol production.

-2-

Background

An alternative to fuel demand is the sustainable use of biomass conversion for energy

(bioenergy). Bioenergy has the potential to become an important part of sustainable

energy systems, contributing to reducing reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,

promoting sustainable development and may could gradually replace fossil fuels [1].

Ethanol derived from biomass is one of modern forms of bioenergy, it has the

potential to be a sustainable transport fuel and a fuel oxygenate that it can replace

gasoline [2].

There are several methods for transforming biomass into energy, the most widely used

is dare the thermochemical and biological processes [4]. The thermochemical heat is

usedused as an energy source of by biomass conversion and can be of three types:

combustion, pyrolysis and gasification.

Biological methods are based on the use of various types of microorganisms such as

bacteria, molds and yeasts, which degrade the molecules to simpler compounds of

high energy density, the best known is the alcoholic fermentation. In the literature

there are several types of microorganisms that produce biofuels, such as biodiesel, by

Rhodococcus opacus [5], E. Coli [6], Cyanobacteria and Microalgae among others.

The biohydrogen can be produced by Cyanobacteria and Microalgae [7] and mixed

acid organisms [8]. The biogas can also be produced by Cyanobacteria and

Microalgae [7]. Isobutanol may be produced by E. Coli [9] and others. And

bioethanol can be produced by Cyanobacteria and Microalgae [7], Clostridium [10],

Pichia stipitis [11], Laminaria digitata [12], Ceriporiopsis subvermispora [13],

Geobacillus [14], Saccharomyces cerevisiae, among others.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a microorganism producer of bioethanolAmong the

producers of bioethanol microorganism is the Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it is the most

-3-

commonly used for fermentation, and like many organisms metabolizes glucose via

Embden-Meyerhof [15].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fermentation of sugars to produce bioethanol

from sugarcane juice and sugarcane molasses, to do statistical analysis and to

optimize the system variables [3].

Growth kinetic of the yeast S. cerevisiae Y2034.

other words: carbohydrates consumption is associated with specific growth rate and

bioethanol production rate. In a submerged culture of microorganisms, it can be

differentiated at least four phases: lag phase or adjustment, exponential phase,

stationary phase and death phase [16].

In exponential phase, number differential of cells with respect to time, is equal to

specific growth rate () for the number of cells, in stationary phase the number of

cells with respect to time is equal to zero and in death phase there is a reduction of

viable cell, this reduction is represented for k [17].

Growth kinetic of yeast S. cerevisiae with 50 and 150 g/L initial sugar from sugarcane

juice (SJ) is displayed in Figure 1. In graph a can be observed lag phase from 0 to 6h,

exponential phase lasted 12 h (6 to 18 h), where was 0.30 h-1 (), 0.281 h-1 () and

0.280 h-1 (). Death phase was comprised between 18 and 24 h where k was -0.080,

-0.034 and -0.018 for 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL initials cell concentration. Graph

b, shows lag phase from 0 to 6 h, exponential phase was 12 h (6 to 18 h), where was

0.404 h-1 (), 0.321 h-1 () and 0.332 h-1 (). Death phase was 18 to 24 h where k

was -0.050, -0.004 and -0.012 for 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL initials cell

concentration, respectively.

-4-

Growth kinetic of yeast S. cerevisiae with 200 g/L initial sugar from SJ is showed in

Figure 2. It can be observed lag phase from 0 to 6 h, exponential phase lasted 12 h (6

to 18 h), where was 0.248 h-1, 0.248 h-1 and 0.224 h-1 for 1e+7, 2e+7, 3e+7 cfu/mL

initials cell concentration, respectively. Neither death phase was observed nor it could

see stationary phase due to long time intervals.

Comparing Figure 1 to Figure 2 was observed that in the graph a, the exponential

phase was higher than in the graph b, although in Figure 2 there was no death phase,

but it was obtained maximum number of cells, approximately 1.1e+10, 1.4e+10,

1.6e+10 to 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL initials cell concentration. This was because

of there was highest sugar concentration therefore fermentation would take longer.

Growth kinetic of yeast S. cerevisiae with 50 and 150 g/L initial sugar from sugarcane

molasses (SM) is displayed in Figure 3. In graph a can be observed that lag phase

from 0 to 6 h, exponential phase lasted 12 h (6 to 18 h), where was 0.260 h-1 (),

0.246 h-1 () and 0.239 h-1 (). Death phase was 18 and 24 h where k was -0.013,

-0.012 and -0.170 for initial cell concentrations 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL.

Graph b in Figure 3 was observed lag phase from 0 to 6 h, exponential phase was 12 h

(6 to 18 h) where was 0.340 (), 0.333 () and 0.337 (). Death phase was 18 to

24 h where k was -0.085, -0.023 and -0.012 for initial cell concentrations of 1e+7,

2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL, respectively.

Growth kinetic of yeast S. cereviasie with 200 g/L initial sugar from SM is showed in

Figure 4. It can be observed that the adaptation phase was in a time interval from 0 to

6 h, exponential phase lasted 12 h (6 to 18 h) where was 0.007, 0.008 and 0 to 1e+7,

2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL initial cells concentration, respectively. The death phase was

not observed.

-5-

Comparing Figure 3 to Figure 4 shows that in the graph a, exponential phase was

higher than the graph b, although in phase Figure 4 there was no death phase, but a

maximum number of cells, approximately 4.2e+10 (), 4.5e+10 () and 5.3e+10

() to 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL initial cells concentration respectively. This was

because of there was highest sugar concentration therefore fermentation would take

longer.

Consumption kinetics of sugars

In Figure 1 sugar consumption with 50 g/L initial sugar was 47.68 g/L, 47.72 g/L and

47.68 g/L; with 125 g/L initial sugar was 110.51 g/L, 110.48 g/L and 110.30 g/L, and

with 200 g/L initial sugar (Figure 2) was 183.21 g/L, 183.99 g/L and 183.53 g/L to

1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL cell initial concentration, respectively.

Sugar consumption from SM

Figures 3 sugar consumption with 50 g/L initial sugar was 46.67 g/L, 46.63 g/L and

46.67 g/L; with 125 g/L was 112.53 g/L, 112.47 g/L and 112.13 g/L, and 200 g/L

initial sugar (Figure 4) was 184.54 g/L, 183.47 g/L and 184.51 g/L to 1e+7, 2e+7 and

3e+7 cfu/mL initial, respectively. As we can observed sugar consumption was a

higher than 89%.

Effect of sugar concentration on the rate of net growth in the yeast S.

cerevisiae Y2034

linearly on concentration of added substrate. While that catalyzed reactions by

microorganisms, usually a hyperbolic dependence of rate is obtained relative to

substrate concentration, distinguishing itself three different parts of curve. In first part,

at low substrate concentrations, rate is proportional to substrate concentration, such

that if substrate concentration is doubled, the velocity is doubled (first order reaction).

-6-

The second part of curve at intermediate substrate concentrations, the rate increases is

less than first part with increasing concentration, starting around the half of the

maximum speed. Last part of the curve, at high substrate concentrations, the, rate is

independent of substrate concentration (zero order reaction), and so the rate achieved

is close to the maximum [17].

Figure 5, graph a showed the effect of substrate sugar concentration to SJ on net

growth rate of the yeast, which was 0.251 h-1, 0.260 h-1 with 1e+7 cfu/mL, 0.254 h-1,

0.275 h-1 with 2e+7 cfu/mL and 0.251 h-1, 0.295 h-1 with 3e+7 cfu/mL from 50 g/L to

125 g/L of sugar concentration. But from 125 to 200 g/L of sugar ubstrate

concentration, growth rate remains constant.

Figure 5, graph b showed the effect of the concentration of substratesugar

concentration to SM on net growth rate of the yeast. The bBehaviorsbehaviours of

these curves showed that from 50 g/L to 125 g/L the growth rate for were 0.250 h-1,

0.265 h-1 to 1e+7; 0.283 h-1, 0.317 h-1 to 2e+7 cfu/mL; 0.281 h-1, 0.308 h-1 to 3e+7

cfu/mL. But from 125 to 200 g/L growth rate remains constant, which means that at a

concentration greater than 125 g/L, rate was independent of the sugar concentration.

Summary of all results is shown in Table ??????

Statistical analysis

test analysis of variance (ANOVA, Table 2 and 3).

The adequacy of the models was expressed by the coefficient of determination R2,

which proved to be 1 and 0.9998 for the production of bioethanol from SJ and SM,

respectively. These values indicate 100% of the variability of response in the

production of bioethanol from SJ and 99.98% of the variability of response in SM.

-7-

The lower the coefficient of variation (CV) (0.12% for bioethanol production from SJ

and 0.62% to SM), the greater the accuracy and reliability of the experiments carried

out. Chance probability for models less than 0,00501 was also noted that models were

highly significant and no significant chance of lack of fit for models indicate that the

experimental data obtained are in good agreement with the model. TIf the value of

testing the lack of fit for the model was significant (P-value < 0.05) to X1, X2, X1X2,

X22 to SJ and X2 to SM.

Optimization of production of bioethanol

Figure 6 and 7 showed that 3D graphics for response surface plotted the regression

equation. Using the response surface plots, the interaction between two variables and

their optimal level are easy to understand and locate. Graphs a and b show interaction

between cell concentration and sugar concentration respect bioethanol production and

yield.

Yields of sugar consumptionversion to bioethanol are shown in Figure 7, results

showed that optimum level (Table 4) was observed near the initial value of biomass

concentration and near the central value of sugar concentration. Myers and

Montgomery describe a multiple response method called desirability [18]. The

method makes use of an objective function D; it reflects the desirable ranges for each

response (di). The desirable range is from zero to one (from least to most desirable,

respectively). This work was obtained 0.952 of desirability for SJ, and 0.943 for SM.

Culture in bioreactor

The optimum condition using sugarcane juice with 1.2e+7 cfu/mL initial cell

concentration and 120.79 g/L initial sugar concentration was evaluated using a

bioreactor, experimental bioethanol production was 44.41 g/L with a conversion yield

of sugar consumption to bioethanol of 38.35% (Figure 8), in this process the total

-8-

consumption of sugars was 115.79 g/L. It may be noted that the yeast metabolized

95%.

Conclusions

It is Eestablished a fermentation processes that allowed the construction of the growth

kinetics of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Y2034 and their effect with sugar concentration

to find the optimal conditions for bioethanol production.

The result of statistical analysis we found that the best theoretical condition for

bioethanol, was using sugarcane juice with 1.2e+7 cfu/mL initial cell concentration,

120.79 g/L initial sugar concentration, 40 g/L of bioethanol production. Under these

conditions bioethanol production was 44.41 g/L and 38.35% of conversion yield.

The oOptimization was an alternative to improve bioethanol production in sugarcane

juice.

Through the growth kinetics of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y2034, it was

determined that the best substrate for cells production was sugarcane molasses.

Methods

Substrate

The sugarcane juice (SJ) was extracted from a local extractor, while the sugarcane

molasses (SM) was obtained from local sugar milltalent in the state. SJ had total

soluble solids concentration of 27 Bx and SM had 83 Bx. Both substrates were used

as basis for the preparation of the fermentation medium, and these were supplemented

with salts: 0.02 g/L magnesium sulfatesulphate (MgSO47H2O), 0.2 g/L ammonium

phosphate ((NH4)2SO4) and 2 g/L yeast extract [19].

Microorganism

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y2034 was kindly donated the ceparium

Biotechnology Laboratory of Universidad Politcnica de Chiapas. The strain was

-9-

maintained in YPD agar, (1% w/v yeast extract, 2% w/v peptone, 2% w/v glucose,

and 2% w/v agar) kept slants at 4C. YPD liquid is used as inoculum shaken at 150

rpm, 30 C during 24 h.

Fermentation process

Fermentation process was performed in triplicate with the two substrates in 250 mL

flasks with constant agitation at 180 rpm, 5 pH [20] and 30 C temperature [21]. The

final volume used for the fermentations was 150 mL being stirred for 24 h.

For validation experiments with optimum conditions was performed with a Bioreactor

Applikon using 2.5 L of SJ in a 3 L bioreactor (Applikon, Foster City, CA) equipped

with two six-blade Rushton turbines. The pH was monitored using an autocleavable

electrode (Applikon) and controlled at 5 0.48 by a Bioconsole ADI

1035/Biocontroller 1010 (Applikon). The experiments were performed at 30 C and

stirred at 180 rpm.

Analytic methods

The sugars concentration was measured with for Millers method [22]. The count of

viable cells was determinated with Neubauers Chamber adapted to an optical

microscope; the trypan blue was used as dye of viable cells [23]. To bioethanol

concentration were sampled in the aqueous phase, centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min

at 5 C, supernatant was changed to a new tube [24] and the precipitate was discarded.

Samples were analysed by gas chromatography Agilent Technologies 6850 with data

acquisition system with software A.02.01 Agilent Cerity.

For validation experiments with optimum conditions, YSI 2700 SELECT equipment

Biochemistry analyzer was used in manual mode and a membrane (enzyme oxidase

alcohol immobilized) to ethanol 2786 with software included, the equipment was

calibrated with a standard solution of ethanol 2 g/L. Culture samples of 1 mL were

- 10 -

taken every 3 h and centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min at 5C. The supernatant was

filtered through a 0.22 m filter (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA).

Experimental design

experimental design with two input variables; initial cell concentration, initial sugar

concentration, and two output variables; bioethanol concentration and yield of sugar

consumption to bioethanol yield conversion of sugar to bioethanol from SJ and SM,

each variable with three levels (Design Expert 7.0.0 software). The experimentals

designed and is shown in Table 5.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Authors' contributions

BYPS performed the experiments, analyzed the results and prepared of the

manuscript. ARGR carried out validation of optimum conditions. SST participated in

the experimental design and fermentation process. PEAG participated in the

microorganism culture and substrate characterization. SJP coordinated the study and

revised the manuscript. CAGF helped to structure and draft the manuscript. All

authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Science and Technology Council 100212 to the project

PAPIIT 103410. We would like to thank M.B Jos Raunel Tinoco of the Instituto de

Biotecnologa, and Dr. Alejandro Tllez Jurado of the Universidad Politcnica de

Pachuca, for the crucial technical support during this work.

- 11 -

References

1. Humpender F., Schaldach, Rdiger, Cikovani Y., Schebek L. Effects of land-use

change on the carbon balance of 1st generation biofuels: An analysis for the

European Union combining spatial modeling and LCA. Biomass and

Bioenergy, 2013, 56: 166-178

2. Kim S., Dale B. E. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops

and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2004, 4: 361375.

3. Pereira F. B., Guimares P. M., Teixeira J. A., & Domingues L. Optimization of

low-cost medium for very high gravity ethanol fermentations by

Saccharomyces cerevisiae using statistical experimental designs. Bioresource

Technology, 2010, 101: 78567863.

4. Binod, P., Janu, K.U., Sindhu, R., Pandey, A.,. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic

biomass for bioethanol production. In: Pandey, A., Larroche, C., Ricke, S.C.

(Eds.), Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Conversion Processes. Elsevier Inc.,

USA, pp. 229250.

5. Holder J. W., Ulrich J. C., De Bono A. C., Godfrey P. A., Desjardins C. A., Zucker

J., Zeng Q., Leach A. L., Ghiviriga I., Dancel C., Abeel T., Gevers D., Kodira C.

D., Desany B., Affourtit, J. P., Birren B. W., Sinskey A. J. Comparative and

functional genomics of Rhodococcus opacus pd630 for biofuels development.

PLoS Genetics, 2011, 7, e1002219

6. Nawabi P., Bauera S., Kyrpidesa N., Lykidis A. Engineering E. coli for biodiesel

production utilizing a bacterial fatty acid methyltransferase. Applied and

Environmental Microbiology, 2011, 77: 80528061.

- 12 -

7. Parmar A., Singh, N. K., Pandeyb A., Gnansounouc E., & Madamwar, D.

Cyanobacteria and microalgae: A positive prospect for biofuels. Bioresource

Technology, Review, 2011, 102: 10163-72.

8. Forrest A.K., Wales M.E., Holtzapple M.T. Thermodynamic prediction of

hydrogen production from mixed-acid fermentations. Bioresources

Technology, 2011, 102: 98239926.

9. Smith K. M., Liao J.C. An evolutionary strategy for isobutanol production

strain development in Escherichia coli. Metabolic Engineering, Review, 2011,

13: 674-81.

10. Maddipati P., Atiyeh H. K., Bellmer D. D., Huhnke R. L. Ethanol production

from syngas by Clostridium strain P11 using corn steep liquor as a nutrient

replacement to yeast extract. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102: 64946501.

11. Yadav, K. S., Shaik N., Prashanthi G. S., Sateesh L., & Rao L. V. Bioethanol

fermentation of concentrated rice straw hydrolysate using co-culture of

Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia stipitis. Bioresources Technology, 2011,

102: 64736478.

12. Adams J., Toop T., Donnison I., Gallagher J. Seasonal variation in laminaria

digitata and its impact on biochemical conversion routes to biofuels.

Bioresources Technology, 2011, 102: 99769984.

13. Sasaki Chizuru, Takada R., Watanabe T., Honda Y., Karita S., Nakamura, Y., &

Watanabe, T. Surface carbohydrate analysis and bioethanol production of

sugarcane bagasse pretreated with the white rot fungus, Ceriporiopsis

subvermispora and microwave hydrothermolysis. Bioresource Technology,

2011, 10: 99429946.

- 13 -

14. Zambare V. P., Bhalla A., Muthukumarappan K., Sani R. K., Christopher L. P.

Bioprocessing of agricultural residues to ethanol utilizing a cellulolytic

extremophile extremophiles. Biomedical and Life Sciences, 2011, 15: 611618.

15. Lin Y., Tanaka S. Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: current state

and prospects. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2006, 69: 627642.

16. Guidi F., Magherini F., Gamberi T., Borro M., Simmaco M., Modesti A. Effect of

different glucose concentrations on proteome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Biochimica et biophysica acta, 2010, 1804: 1516-1525.

17. Shuler M.L., Kargi F., Bioprocess Engineering: Basic Concepts, Prentice-Hall

College Div. Second edition, 2002.

18. Myers R.H., Montgomery D.C., Anderson-Cook C.M. Response Surface

Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments,

3rd Edition. JohnWiley and Sons Inc, 2009.

19. Mishima D., Kuniki M., Sei K., Soda S., Ike M., Fujita M. Ethanol production

from candidate energy crops: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and

water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.). Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99: 2495

2500.

20. Ostergaard, S., Olsson, L., & Nielsen, J. Metabolic pathway analysis of

Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Applied Microbiology, 2002, 2, 75-85.

21. Olsson L., Ahring B. K. Biofuels. Advanced in Biochemical Engineering/

Biotechnology, 2008, Springer 2007 edition.

22. Miller, G.L. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing

sugar. Anal. Chem, 1959, 31: 426428.

- 14 -

23. Miller D. Differential staining of living and dead yeast cells. Food Research,

1941, 6: 361371.

24. Navarro A. R., Seplveda M. C., Rubio M. C. Bio-concentration of vinasse from

the alcoholic fermentation of sugar cane molasses. Waste Management, 2000,

20: 581585.

Figures

kinetic from SJ with 50 g/L (a) and 150 g/L (b) ( 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7

cfu/mL).

- 15 -

kinetic from SJ with 200 g/L ( 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL).

- 16 -

kinetic from SM with 50 g/L (a) and 150 g/L (b) ( 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7

cfu/mL).

kinetic from SM with 200 g/L ( 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL).

- 17 -

Y2034, SJ (a) SM (b) ( 1e+7, 2e+7 and 3e+7 cfu/mL).

- 18 -

Figure 6 - Response surface graphs and contour showing effect cell, sugar and

bioethanol concentration; from with SJ (a), SM (b).

concentration, sugar concentration and yield; from with SJ (a), SM (b).

- 19 -

kinetic () from optimum conditions.

Tables

Table 1. Summary results.

SJ

Factor 1

Factor 2

(cfu/mL)

(g/L)

3.0e+07

50

0.254

3.0e+07

125

0.251

3.0e+07

200

0.271

2.0e+07

50

0.251

(h-1)

2.0e+07

125

0.295

2.0e+07

200

0.297

1.0e+07

50

0.262

1.0e+07

125

0.302

dt

(h)

2.71

9

2.55

1

2.55

Ks

SM

(h-1)

(h-1)

0.281

4.715

0.279

0.317

8

2.75

2

2.54

9

2.37

0.308

0.283

11.50

8

0.309

0.317

0.324

0

2.64

0.290

4

2.29

12.06

9

- 20 -

0.326

0.335

dt

(h)

2.19

0

2.18

8

2.01

m

Ks

(h-1)

8.795

0.330

0

2.19

0

2.17

0

2.07

10.44

3

0.342

0

2.56

0

2.65

12.84

0.365

1.0e+07

200

0.303

2.28

0.340

2.45

1

0

Factor 1: cell concentration, Factor 2: sugar concentration, : specific growth rate, dt:

doubling time, Ks: saturation constant, m: maximum growth rate.

Source

Estimated

Sum of

Degree

Mean

coefficient

squares

1630.0631

freedom

5

F-value P-value

square

326.0126 133008.4 0.0001

Model

Intercept

X1

X2

X1X2

X12

41.4200

0.8300

16.2600

0.6700

0.2100

4.1168

1585.3502

1.8225

0.1228

1

1

1

1

4.1168

1585.350

1.8225

0.1228

1679.601

646799.9

743.5536

50.1015

0.0001

0.0001

0.0001

0.0002

X22

-3.5400

34.5942

34.5942

14113.94

0.0001

Residual

0.0172

7

0.0025

Lack of Fit

0.0172

3

0.0057

Pure Error

0.0000

4

0.0000

Corr. Total

1630.0

12

X1: cell concentration, X2: sugar concentration, F: Fisher test, P-value: probability

distribution value. The correlation coefficient (R2) was 1, adjusted correlation

coefficient was 0.99 and coefficient of variation was 0.12%.

Table 3. Variance analysis to for bioethanol production fromof sugarcane

molasses.

Source

Model

Intercept

X1

X2

X1X2

X12

X22

Residual

Lack of Fit

Pure Error

Corr. Total

Estimated

Sum of

Degree

coefficient

squares

1700.8963

freedom

5

0.0323

1699.8300

0.6006

0.4024

0.1635

2.1143

2.1143

0.0000

1703.010

1

1

1

1

1

7

3

4

12

37.0162

0.0733

16.8317

-0.3875

-0.3817

0.2433

- 21 -

Mean

F-value

square

340.1793 1126.241

P-value

0.0323

1699.830

0.6006

0.4024

0.1635

0.3020

0.7048

0.0000

0.7533

0.0001

0.2013

0.2863

0.4859

0.1068

5627.675

1.9885

1.3324

0.5412

0.0000

0.0001

X1: cell concentration, X2: sugar concentration, F: Fisher test, P-value: probability

distribution value. The correlation coefficient (R2) was 0.99, adjusted correlation

coefficient was 0.98 and coefficient of variation was 0.62%.

Substrate

Factor 1

Factor 2

Response 1

Response 2

Desabirility

(cfu/mL) (g/L)

(g/L)

(%)

SJ

1.2e+7

120.79

40

37.97

0.95

SM

1.2e+7

140.13

40

32.12

0.94

Factor 1: cell concentration, Factor 2: sugar concentration, Response 1:

bioethanol production, Response 2: conversion yield

Tests

Factor 1

Factor 2

Response 1 (g/L)

Response 2

(cfu/mL)

(g/L)

SJ

SJ

SM

SM

1

3.0e+07

200

55.83

52.75

30.92

30.83

2

2.0e+07

125

41.43

36.94

37.81

33.74

3

1.0e+07

50

21.73

20.04

47.57

44.87

4

3.0e+07

50

22.03

20.29

48.24

45.44

5

2.0e+07

50

21.53

20.19

47.10

45.24

6

2.0e+07

125

41.43

36.94

37.81

33.74

7

3.0e+07

125

42.43

37.57

38.78

34.31

8

2.0e+07

125

41.43

36.94

37.81

33.74

9

2.0e+07

200

54.16

54.71

29.92

30.82

10

1.0e+07

200

52.83

54.050

29.31

30.44

11

2.0e+07

125

41.43

36.940

37.81

33.74

12

1.0e+07

125

40.76

36.08

37.19

33.06

13

2.0e+07

125

41.43

36.940

37.81

33.74

Factor 1: cell concentration, Factor 2: sugar concentration, Response 1: bioethanol

production, Response 2: yield

- 22 -

- Characteristics of Low Temperature Biomass Gasification and Syngas Release Behavior Using Hot SlagUploaded byHotib Perwira
- Pembangkitan Energi Biomass (Slide03)Uploaded bySteffi Dwithasari
- SEMMY MOKITIUploaded byBonaventure Nzeyimana
- Prediction of Higher Heating Values of Biomass From Proximate and Ultimate AnalysesUploaded byTiago Santos
- Bio EnergyUploaded byramesh2184
- National Renewable Energy LaboratoryUploaded byWKNI
- Prediction of Gaseous Products From Biomass Pyrolysis Through Combined Kinetic and Thermodynamic SimulationsUploaded byapi-3799861
- Abstract Biomass 2016Uploaded byAnonymous zyIfM5S
- 2006_UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdfUploaded bylan
- SHAIYOUploaded byAmitoza71
- TRADITIONAL COOKING FUELS, OVENS & STOVES in TURKEY.pdfUploaded byTeshe Tdm
- Regional Feedstock Partnership Summary ReportRegional Feedstock Partnership Summary ReportUploaded bySivamani Selvaraju
- Environmental Impac AtUploaded bynirmal_inbox
- Test EuroexamUploaded byBreggae
- Alex Abakash Abhilash Arunangshu Venkatesh Vishal Bio EthanolUploaded byAswathy Honeylal
- Biofuels Industry ReportUploaded byNirav
- USDA Spring Mtn National Rec AreaUploaded byCatelia Kulman
- part 2Uploaded byRaKesh P SuKhwal
- Boonrod_Session21_ACEF2008Uploaded bynienke_stam
- Heat InsulationUploaded byAbhishek Kadian
- Enhancement of Biomass and Hydrocarbon Product Ivies of B. Braunii by Mixotrophic CultivationUploaded byf18dan
- Furimsky 2000 HDOUploaded byMiriam Gonzalez
- Ogola Thesis (1)Uploaded bymbuthiac
- Earth Science (Wind and Solar Energy)Uploaded byFed
- The Co-firing WorldUploaded bygarridolopez
- [First Author] 1997 Fuel and Energy AbstractsUploaded bymanish_chaturvedi_6
- A.awamoriUploaded bySprei Lovey
- Ba381 Oil PresentationUploaded byalisson
- 1Uploaded byLuckyoluz Ramanda Msi
- Proposal DraftUploaded byg1974611

- Mixed Oxides of Calcium and Zinc as Heterogeneous ICC 2014 JFS v300514Uploaded byJonathan Sierra
- P10-0100 CFR InstructionsUploaded bynathanielek1989
- P10-0100 CFR InstructionsUploaded bynathanielek1989
- Seguridad Para Un LaboratorioUploaded byJonathan Sierra
- Handbook of Heterogeneous Catalysis TOCUploaded byJonathan Sierra
- pH_210_11_12_13Uploaded byThanh Nguyên
- Chemistry and Physical Properties of EstolidesUploaded byJonathan Sierra
- Valid Analytical Methods & ProceduresUploaded byJonathan Sierra

- MODULE Excel MarksheetUploaded byshi3ting
- BMW M3 and BMW M4 Press ReleaseUploaded byIndian Autos Blog
- Java prac2Uploaded byDrishya Pillai
- Spectrum One CCD DetectorsUploaded bymanish_keswani01
- Stationary HP Units Solar Booster and Delta BoosterpdfUploaded byamirouche15
- 2 ACCA MA F2 THE ACOWTANCY.pdfUploaded byAhsanMughalAcca
- ABOUT Musicology.pdfUploaded byAda Ma
- ERA2010 Conference ListUploaded byasif1253
- Short Wave DiathermyUploaded byAkshat Singh
- Auto Lab ManualUploaded byjhpandi
- A Treatise on the Adjustment of Observations (1884)Uploaded byMarcelo Silvano de Camargo
- Communication in FieldUploaded byHimanshu Sharma
- Bitsat 2018 Question paperUploaded byNew Scribd user
- AssignmentUploaded bySebastian Lembang Igol
- 2864 June 2005Uploaded byBin Ren
- 18-2.Uploaded byRendiPratamaII
- Wireline Service ToolsUploaded bycuervohijoguacho
- Lloyds Rules for Manufacture Testing and Certification of MaterialsUploaded bykatchani
- segam2014-1567.1Uploaded byNana Higiana Hasanah
- Work Power and EnergyUploaded byVenu Gopal
- Objectarx APIUploaded byNikola Boskovic
- Godfrey Boyle Chap01Uploaded byVanillasky06
- G-Factor (Physics) WikiUploaded bybugoff700
- SEM2-A Structural Equation Model to Analyse the Antecedents to Students’ Web-based Problem-solving PerformanceUploaded byrudden
- Solar Pond ScribdUploaded byBabalola Philip Olufemi
- Hirotugu Akaike - Wikipedia.pdfUploaded bystallone21
- 370hw9sUploaded byNikka Lopez
- SE Unit IV 2marksUploaded byPraveen Raj
- Channel Estimation in a Proposed IEEE802.11n OFDM MIMO WLAN SystemsUploaded bykhajarasool_sk
- JJDJSIJISJDISJDISUploaded byJack McMillan