Comparison of bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus on bagasse acid and enzymatic hydrolysates

Wiley - Tập 134 Số 28 - 2017
Gaoxiang Qi1,2, Mutan Luo1,2, Chao Huang3,4,1, Haijun Guo3,4,1, Xuefang Chen3,4,1, Lian Xiong3,4,1, Bo Wang1,2, Xiaoqing Lin3,4,1, Fen Peng3,4,1, Xinde Chen3,4,1
1Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, People’s Republic of China
2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, People’s Republic of China
3CAS Key Laboratory of Renewable Energy, Guangzhou 510640, People’s Republic of China
4Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New and Renewable Energy Research and Development, Guangzhou 510640, People’s Republic of China

Tóm tắt

ABSTRACTTo fulfill the comprehensive utilization of cellulose and hemicellulose components in bagasse for bacterial cellulose (BC) production, both bagasse acid and enzymatic hydrolysates were used for BC production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Although the BC accumulation rate was slower during the early period of fermentation in the bagasse acid hydrolysate than in the enzymatic hydrolysate, the highest BC yield (1.09 vs. 0.42 g/L) was higher in the bagasse acid hydrolysate. The substrate utilization was evaluated in both bagasse acid and enzymatic hydrolysates, and glucose, xylose, and acetic acid were better carbon sources than arabinose and cellobiose for G. xylinus. The structure of the BC samples obtained from bagasse acid and enzymatic hydrolysates, including the microscopic morphology, functional groups, and crystals, was similar especially in the later phase of fermentation, which was analyzed by field emission scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and X‐ray diffraction. Thus, both bagasse acid and enzymatic hydrolysates could be promising substrates for BC production. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134, 45066.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1007/s10570-013-0088-z

10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.035

10.5114/aoms.2013.33433

10.1007/s12088-015-0550-8

10.3390/polym8040129

Kubiak K., 2014, Biotechnol., 176, 18

10.1038/sj.jim.7000303

10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.11.009

10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.09.015

10.1021/bp0498490

10.1038/nature07190

10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.028

10.1002/jctb.2567

10.1007/s12010-014-1407-z

10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.029

10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.107

10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.094

Vivekanand V., 2014, J. BioResources, 9, 1311

10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.047

10.1016/j.biortech.2005.08.015

10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.052

10.1007/s10570-009-9346-5

10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00161-3

Yang X. Y., 2013, J. Appl. Microbiol., 115, 955, 10.1111/jam.12297

10.1002/jctb.1676

10.1007/s11274-009-0151-y

10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.043

10.1002/bit.20282

10.1023/B:BILE.0000007065.63682.18

10.1023/A:1009272904582