Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
Department of Wood Science and Landscape Architecture, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 500-757, Republic of Korea
Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, United States
c
Division of Business and Commerce, Chonnam National University, Yeosu 550-749, Republic of Korea
d
Department of Bioenergy Science and Technology, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 500-757, Republic of Korea
b
h i g h l i g h t s
! Simple bioprocess of bioethanol production from fruit wastes containing D-limonene.
! Ethanol production by immobilized yeast fermentation and LRC was 12-fold greater.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 March 2014
Received in revised form 17 November 2014
Accepted 29 November 2014
Available online 13 December 2014
Keywords:
Citrus peel waste
Bio ethanol
Enzymatic hydrolysis
D-Limonene extract
Continuous immobilized yeast fermentation
a b s t r a c t
Large quantities of fruit waste are generated from agricultural processes worldwide. This waste is often
simply dumped into landfills or the ocean. Fruit waste has high levels of sugars, including sucrose, glucose, and fructose, that can be fermented for bioethanol production. However, some fruit wastes, such as
citrus peel waste (CPW), contain compounds that can inhibit fermentation and should be removed for
efficient bioethanol production. We developed a novel approach for converting single-source CPW (i.e.,
orange, mandarin, grapefruit, lemon, or lime) or CPW in combination with other fruit waste (i.e., banana
peel, apple pomace, and pear waste) to produce bioethanol. Two in-house enzymes were produced from
Avicel and CPW and were tested with fruit waste at 1215% (w/v) solid loading. The rates of enzymatic
conversion of fruit waste to fermentable sugars were approximately 90% for all feedstocks after 48 h. We
also designed a D-limonene removal column (LRC) that successfully removed this inhibitor from the fruit
waste. When the LRC was coupled with an immobilized cell reactor (ICR), yeast fermentation resulted in
ethanol concentrations (14.429.5 g/L) and yields (90.293.1%) that were 12-fold greater than products
from ICR fermentation alone.
! 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The world consumed approximately 89 million barrels of crude
oil per day in 2013. Consumption of liquid fuels (mainly petroleum) is expected to increase to 115 million barrels per day by
2040, which is a 63% overall increase in total liquid fuel consumed.
The consumption of liquid fuel by the transportation sector will
increase by 57% by 2040 [1]. The transportation sector is a source
of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases
(GHG) such as nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx). Biofuels
are and alternative energy source that reduce the production of
pollution gases [2]. The production of nonpetroleum liquid fuels,
such as biofuels, from food crops is not sustainable due to competition for materials and high production costs. Therefore, cheap and
abundant nonfood materials are required as alternative biomass
feedstocks (e.g., agricultural byproducts, woody biomass, or energy
crops) and processes must be developed that can efficiently and
economically convert these types of lignocellulosic and cellulosic
biomass into biofuels, such as bioethanol [3].
Fruit waste is generated in large quantities from the processing
of agricultural products. Examples of such waste include citrus,
banana, apple, and pear residues remaining after industrial processing. Citrus, which includes oranges, grapefruits, lemons, limes,
66
mandarins, are the most abundant crops in the world. Over 115
million tons of citrus fruits are produced annually, and about 30
million tons are processed industrially for juice production. After
industrial processing, citrus peel waste (CPW) accounts for almost
50% of the wet fruit mass. The annual production of bananas,
apples, and pears are approximately 107.1, 75.5, and 24.0 million
tons, respectively, and 2540% of this mass remains as waste after
processing (Fig. 1A) [4]. Fruit waste serves as cattle feed, but
because of its low protein content, it is not a high-value feedstock,
and much of it is dumped into landfills or disposed of in the ocean.
Because fruit waste is rich in sugars and other nutrients, these
forms of disposal may cause environmental problems. Disposal of
waste is also becoming increasingly expensive. For example, European Union (EU) landfill directives have caused landfill gate fees to
increase in some cases because of land limitations and transport
and labor costs [5]. In America, the annual cost of apple pomace
disposal alone is $10 million USD [6]. Fruit waste is rich in fermentable soluble sugars such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose along
with structural cellulose and hemicellulose. These chemical constituents, along with the fact that fruit waste is in abundant supply,
suggest that fruit waste may be an excellent source of waste biomass for ethanol production.
However, among the variety of fruit wastes available, CPW
requires additional processing before bioethanol production. This
Fig. 1. Citrus and fruit production and schematic representation of bioethanol production processes. (A) Annual production of citrus and major fruit worldwide, (B)
traditional processes for citrus peel bioethanol production, and (C) schema of the study process. In most cases, steam explosion pretreatment is convention process to remove
the fermentation inhibitor D-limonene. Citrus peel was hydrolyzed by commercial enzymes, including pectinase, cellulase, and b-glucosidase.
67
Pretreatment
Milling
Milling
Steam explosion
Steam explosion
Acidic steam explosion
Steam explosion
Popping
Steam explosion
Enzymesa
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Pectinase,
Fermentation process
cellulase,
cellulase,
cellulase,
cellulase,
cellulase,
cellulase,
xylanase,
cellulase,
glucosidase
glucosidase
glucosidase
glucosidase
glucosidase
glucosidase
glucosidase
glucosidase
HF
HF
SSF
SSF
SSF
SSF
SHEFb
SSF
Microorganism
S. cerevisiae
Escherichia coli KO11
S. cerevisiae
Kluyveromyces marxianus
S. cerevisiae
S. cerevisiae
S. cerevisiae
S. cerevisiae
Ethanol production
c
4.7
2.76c
3.96c
3.45c
2.7c
59.3d
46.2d
67.8d
References
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
Gwangju, Korea). Citrus, apple, and pear waste was collected after
juice extraction (Hurom, Seoul, Korea). Banana waste was
removed, lyophilized ("50 "C), and stored at "20 "C. CPW and fruit
wastes, individually or mixed in equal ratios, waste were used for
hydrolysis and fermentation.
2.2. Chemical composition
The content of soluble sugar was analyzed by high performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC) with a refractive index detector
(2414, Waters, USA), REZEX RPM (Phenomenex, USA) column
(300 # 7.8 mm) at 85 "C and eluted with deionized water at a flow
rate of 0.6 mL per min. Insoluble solids were analyzed for neutral
sugar content using gas chromatography (GC) [20,21]. Samples
were hydrolyzed with 72% sulfuric acid for 45 min at room temperature and diluted with distilled water to 4% sulfuric acid, followed
by autoclaving for 1 h at 121 "C. The neutral sugar composition was
measured with alditol acetates containing myo-inositol as an internal standard. Gas chromatography (GC-2010, Shimadzu, Japan)
was used, and the analysis conditions, using a DB-225 capillary column (30 m # 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 lm film thickness, J&W) operated
with He, injector temperature of 220 "C, flame ionization detector
(FID) at 250 "C, and oven temperature programming, were 100 "C
for 1.5 min and 5 "C/min to 220 "C.
The D-limonene content was determined according to a previous study [13]. Briefly, CPW was homogenized in 10 mL hexane,
which had a known amount of camphor as an internal standard.
After treatment for 3 h, 5 mL of supernatant was transferred to a
test tube. A quantity of 0.2 mL potassium hydroxide (2 N) was
added to methanol and mixed for 1 min. After the addition of
1 mL distilled water, the samples were shaken and centrifuged
for 5 min at 3000 rpm. The hexane phase was measured by GC
(CP-9100, Chrompack), using a CP-Sil 5 CB fused silica capillary column (25 m # 0.32 mm i.d., 1.2 lm film thickness, Chrompack)
operated with He, injector temperature 280 "C, FID at 280 "C, and
oven temperature programming at 110 "C for 5 min and 20 "C/
min to 220 "C, which was then held constant for 10 min.
2.3. In-house enzyme production
Aspergillus citrisporus (KCCM 11449) was obtained from the Korean Culture Center of Microorganisms (KCCM), and Trichoderma
longibrachiatum (KCTC 6507) was purchased from the Korean Collection for Type Cultures (KCTC). The lyophilized fungi were revitalized on potato dextrose broth with 1.2% (w/v) agar (PDA) and
incubated for spore production for 7 days at 25oC. One hundred
of potato dextrose broth (PDB) was sterilized in 500 mL Erlenmeyer flasks.
Two types of carbon sources were used to produce extracellular
enzymes for fruit waste hydrolysis. The medium contained either
20 g/L MP or Avicel as the carbon source. The other components
68
were similar for both media (in g/L): 40, peptone; 24, KH2PO4; 5,
(NH4)2SO4; 4.7, K2C4H4O6$4H2O; 2, urea; 1.2, MgSO4$7H2O and (in
mg/L) 10; ZnSO4$7H2O, 9.3; MnSO4$7H2O, 8.7; CuSO4$7H2O with
1 mL Tween 80. The pH was adjusted to 5.0, using hydrochloric
acid. The medium was sterilized at 121 "C for 15 min. Cultures
were conducted in a 10 L fermenter (Fermentec, Korea) equipped
with a 7 L working volume for 7 d. The culture broth was centrifuged and the supernatant was stored at 4 "C.
Table 2
Chemical compositions of fruit waste.
(% Dry matter)
Rhamnose
Arabinose
Xylose
Mannose
Galactose
Sucrose
Glucose
Fructose
FSa
Total
OP
MP
GP
LeP
LiP
AP
BP
PP
MixP
TFW
2.1 0.0
2.9 0.1
3.4 0.0
2.1 0.1
2.5 0.2
1.7 0.1
0.6 0.1
1.3 0.1
2.7 0.1
2.0 0.1
5.6 0.2
3.3 0.1
4.8 0.2
5.2 0.3
8.5 0.4
5.5 0.1
4.4 0.3
6.0 0.3
5.6 0.2
5.4 0.4
2.2 0.0
2.4 0.1
2.3 0.1
2.6 0.2
2.5 0.1
6.2 0.3
5.6 0.4
20.2 0.9
2.4 0.2
5.5 0.6
2.4 0.1
2.3 0.1
2.2 0.0
2.1 0.1
2.0 0.1
2.8 0.1
3.6 0.1
2.4 0.0
2.2 0.0
2.5 0.1
2.7 0.1
3.9 0.1
3.5 0.2
4.6 0.1
4.3 0.1
4.2 0.3
2.8 0.1
4.5 0.3
3.8 0.0
3.8 0.2
5.6 0.2
7.4 0.2
1.4 0.1
ND
ND
9.2 0.1
ND
1.9 0.1
2.9 0.1
3.2 0.3
35.5 0.5
39.4 1.1
30.6 0.8
27.9 0.4
22.5 1.2
25.2 2.8
30.1 0.8
21.1 0.6
32.0 0.8
29.0 1.7
12.1 0.4
10.3 0.8
8.2 0.3
3.3 0.1
0.7 0.0
24.7 0.3
15.2 0.7
14.1 0.5
6.8 0.3
11.1 0.9
53.2 0.4
57.1 0.6
43.2 0.7
31.2 0.4
23.2 1.0
59.1 1.8
45.3 0.3
37.1 0.8
41.7 1.1
43.4 1.9
68.2 0.5
71.9 0.9
59.4 0.8
47.8 0.3
43.0 0.6
79.5 1.5
71.5 0.6
62.3 0.7
58.4 0.8
62.5 1.7
Abbreviations used: OP, orange peel; MP, mandarin peel; GP, grapefruit peel; LeP, lemon peel; LiP, lime peel; AP, apple pomace; BP, banana peel; PP, pear peel; MixP, mixed
citrus peel; TFW, mixed total fruit wastes; ND, not detected.
Values represent the average of three replicates.
a
FS: Fermentable sugars are the sum of sucrose, glucose, and fructose, which are fermented by S. cerevisiae.
Table 3
Comparison of specific activities for the in-house enzymes used in the study.
8.41 0.11
13.22 1.21
0.18 0.01
1.26 0.17
170.95 1.81
4.34 0.52
17.90 0.43
1.11 0.21
69
Abbreviations used: OP, orange peel; MP, mandarin peel; GP, grapefruit peel; LeP, lemon peel; LiP, lime peel; MixP, mixed citrus peel; TFW, mixed total fruit wastes; HEA, in-house enzyme A; HEB, in-house enzyme B.
LiP
LeP
71.6 2.2
85.7 2.1
89.0 1.2
89.1 0.9
89.4 1.7
73.0 1.0
79.6 1.1
84.7 1.9
91.1 2.0
91.2 2.1
TFW
MixP
73.1 1.7
84.1 1.5
87.8 2.2
90.0 2.0
90.4 1.7
72.5 1.6
80.1 1.5
82.7 1.7
90.1 1.0
90.3 1.9
GP
MP
73.1 1.2
82.4 2.9
86.1 1.6
90.8 1.2
90.7 1.5
70.4 2.2
83.4 3.5
85.7 2.1
90.2 1.4
90.5 2.0
OP
LiP
70.6 1.2
81.1 0.8
88.7 1.2
88.9 1.7
88.9 2.0
70.1 1.9
82.1 2.0
89.0 2.1
89.1 1.8
89.1 2.1
LeP
TFW
69.1 1.7
72.8 1.6
79.8 2.1
84.1 1.8
85.8 3.5
66.8 1.5
75.4 1.2
77.1 3.3
76.2 2.2
83.4 1.1
MixP
GP
MP
64.0 0.9
71.6 1.5
73.6 3.1
78.7 1.6
80.1 1.2
OP
65.8 1.2
73.1 0.9
76.1 1.8
81.2 2.2
82.4 3.3
Group A
Group B
Group A
The carbohydrate composition of the various fruit wastes differed as shown in Table 2. The total carbohydrate contents of the
fruit wastes were separated into soluble sugars, which dissolve
easily in water, and insoluble sugars (cellulose and hemicellulose) in the cell walls. Although arabinose and xylose were present, they appeared in low concentrations in the fruit waste. We
mainly focused on fermentable sugars (FS), namely, glucose, fructose, and sucrose. All fruit wastes presented were high in FS content (Table 2). Sucrose and fructose were present as soluble free
sugars, whereas, glucose was part of the fruit waste structural
components and present as a free sugar. FS contents in the various fruit wastes ranged from 23.2% to 59.1%. Orange peel (OP),
mandarin peel (MP), grapefruit peel (GP), apple pomace (AP),
and banana peel (BP) waste contained 53.2%, 57.1%, 43.2%,
59.1%, and 45.3% FS, respectively. Lemon peel (LeP), lime peel
(LiP), and pear pomace (PP) showed moderate FS levels of
31.2%, 23.2%, and 37.1%, respectively. FS contents in the CPW
mixture (MixP) and CPW, in combination with other fruit waste
(TFW), were 41.7% and 43.4%, respectively.
Table 4
Conversion rates for various types of citrus peel waste (CPW), alone or in combination with other fruit wastes after treatment with in-house enzymes (HEA and HEB) at different loading volumes.
63.2 1.8
72.1 1.2
75.4 3.1
80.4 2.2
81.2 2.6
Group B
0
10
15
20
25
70.9 1.0
84.1 2.0
88.7 1.6
88.4 1.6
88.4 2.1
70
Table 5
Influence of enzymatic hydrolysis time on various kinds of citrus and mixed fruit waste.
Time (h)
12
15
18
21
24
48
Group A (12%)
OP
MP
GP
MixP
TFW
53.0 2.3
51.8 1.9
51.8 2.5
51.8 1.5
52.1 2.1
64.0 2.0
66.3 3.0
65.3 3.1
65.0 2.4
67.2 2.0
76.2 2.7
78.8 2.1
75.6 2.9
76.3 2.3
79.1 2.6
84.8 3.1
85.7 2.7
85.7 2.1
85.7 2.4
87.8 2.1
86.2 1.3
87.4 3.1
87.4 3.5
87.4 2.7
89.2 2.3
87.3 1.8
88.5 2.0
88.5 2.5
88.5 3.0
90.1 1.8
88.8 2.0
89.3 3.3
89.3 2.5
89.3 3.2
90.3 2.7
89.5 2.2
89.7 2.6
89.7 3.0
89.7 2.8
90.8 2.1
90.2 1.7
90.8 2.1
90.1 2.3
90.0 1.8
91.4 2.1
Group B (15%)
LeP
LiP
45.8 2.1
47.2 2.9
61.2 2.6
64.3 1.9
72.4 1.9
73.8 1.9
80.1 2.6
79.4 3.0
85.3 1.9
86.7 2.7
87.0 2.2
87.8 1.9
87.8 1.7
88.0 1.9
89.3 2.6
88.0 2.4
89.0 1.7
88.7 2.0
Abbreviations used: OP, orange peel; MP, mandarin peel; GP, grapefruit peel; LeP, lemon peel; LiP, lime peel; MixP, mixed citrus peel; TFW, mixed total fruit wastes.
Group A and B concentrations were 12% and 15% (w/w) solid loading, respectively.
Table 6
Summary of ethanol production from LRCICR system.
OP
MP
GP
MixP
TFW
LeP
LiP
Productivity (g/L/h)
63.8
68.5
51.8
50.0
47.4
46.8
34.8
57.5/90.2%
62.2/90.8%
46.7/90.1%
44.4/90.0%
43.3/91.4%
42.1/89.0%
31.0/88.7%
27.1
29.5
21.6
20.4
20.3
19.6
14.4
92.4
93.1
90.7
90.2
91.8
91.1
90.8
3.01
3.28
2.40
2.27
2.26
2.18
1.60
Ethanol yield was calculated based on the fermentable sugars obtained from the hydrolysis of fruit waste.
Theoretical ethanol yield was assumed to be 0.51 g/g sugar.
a
Enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency.
Although effects on fruit waste hydrolysis rates were speciesdependent, the relatively low loading of HEA supplemented with
HEB achieved a high overall hydrolysis rate. An increase in FS concentrations from OP, MP, GP, MixP, and TFW (group A) was
observed when HEA levels were increased from 12 to 16 mg HEA
with 20 mg HEB per g fruit waste. The FS from LeP and LiP (group
B) increased at lower enzyme loadings (HEA 12 and HEB 15 mg/g
fruit waste) compared to loadings required in group A. The different chemical components of fruit waste may lead to differences in
enzymatic hydrolysis processes. However, FS concentration was
not increased significantly, even added more enzymes to group A
and B. This may have occurred because the hydrolysis of hemicellulose and pectin increases the surface area of the fruit waste and,
71
Fig. 3. Limonene removal and recovery. (A) The sorbent column was filled with raw cotton and activated carbon. (B) Citrus peel and mixed fruit waste contained different
D-limonene concentrations. (C) D-limonene from orange peel (black arrow) was detected by gas chromatography, before and after recovery, and (D) D-limonene was recovered
after fermentation.
According to Ghorbani et al. [29], to increase fermentation efficiency and avoid limitations, sucrose must be hydrolyzed to glucose and fructose via sucrose hydrolysis enzymes.
3.2.2. Influences of fruit waste concentration and time on enzymatic
hydrolysis
Based on the enzyme loading results in Table 4, we evaluated
the effects of varying fruit waste concentrations on the enzymatic
conversion of waste to FS. The conversion rates were calculated
based on the total FS of fruit waste. Fruit waste solid loadings varied from 3% to 18% (Fig. 2). For group A (OP, MP, GP, MixP, and
TFW) and group B (LeP and LiP), conversion rates decreased only
slightly as substrate loadings increased from 3% to 12% and 3% to
15%, respectively. After this point, further increases in substrate
loading significantly decreased conversion rates in group A
(>12%) and group B (>15%). Based on these results, all further
experiments used solid waste loadings of 12% for group A wastes,
and 15% for group B wastes. In addition to the influence of substrate loading, we examined the influence of hydrolysis time on
waste-to-FS conversion (Table 5). FS conversion rates were high
within the first 3 h, and considerable conversion of CPW to FS
was achieved within 9 h of hydrolysis. This kinetic behavior is in
agreement with our previous work [13], which showed rapid
72
Fig. 4. Comparisons of fermentable sugar conversion and ethanol concentrations in ICR vs. LRCICR fermentation. (A) Initial FS concentrations in OP, (B) MixP, and (C) TFW
were 57.5, 44.4, and 47.4 g/L, respectively. (D) The glucose-to-ethanol conversion rates obtained after 10 days of fermentation. Black solid lines indicate the amount of FS from
ICR (
) or LRCICR (
) fermentation, and gray solid lines indicate the amount of ethanol produced from ICR (
) or LRCICR (
) fermentation.
9 h (Fig. 4D). These results are likely due to high D-limonene concentrations and its inhibitory effect on fermentation in the ICR system. Regarding the remaining feedstocks, MP and GP showed high
FS contents and low ethanol concentrations after ICR fermentation,
similar to the results obtained for OP, MixP, and TFW following ICR
fermentation. After ICR fermentation, LeP and LiP showed FS contents of 5.5 and 3.8 g/L, respectively, and ethanol concentrations
of 20.2 and 15.1 g/L, respectively (Supplementary Fig. S2AD).
The FS-to-ethanol conversion rates for LeP and LiP in the ICR system were only slightly lower compared to the LRCICR system
(Supplementary Fig. S2ad). This may have occurred because the
initial D-limonene concentrations in the LeP and LiP hydrolysates
were insufficient to inhibit fermentation. However, these results
indicate that the LRCICR fermentation system improved the FSto-ethanol conversion rates and ethanol concentrations even at
low D-limonene concentrations. Interestedly, the ethanol productivity of OP and MP, which are major citrus biomass sources, were
3.01 and 3.28 g/L/h, respectively, through the LRCICR system. In
other words, 1000 kg fresh OP and MP (19.8% and 20.1% of moisture contents) would be converted into 44.8 and 49.5 L of bioethanol, respectively (Table 6).
Several previous studies have examined the effects of pretreatment on CPW composition and subsequent bioethanol production;
however, ethanol concentrations and productivities obtained in
this study were similar to or greater than those observed in previous studies. For example, ethanol production from OP, using steam
explosion combined with acid pretreatment, produced 2527 g/L
ethanol concentration with around 0.5 g/L/h productivity [11].
Another study reported that the fermentation of MP and LeP after
steam explosion produced approximately 60 L/1000 kg (fresh matter) of ethanol concentration with 0.50.94 g/L/h productivity,
respectively [12,14].
Fruit waste and other solid residues, such as coffee waste and
rice, from agricultural by-products were considered bioethanol
production materials [13,21,33]. One main obstacle to achieving
efficient bioethanol production is the cost of production. The commercial success of ethanol production depends on productivity, in
terms of volume and concentration. Notably, our new process
achieved high ethanol production without costly pretreatment,
suggesting utility in industrial ethanol production applications.
The high ethanol production during the validation experiment
could be due to several factors, including suitable inhibitor
removal conditions, enzyme production, loading volume, and continuous yeast fermentation.
4. Conclusion
Fruit waste is an attractive biomass alternative for bioethanol
production because it has high levels of FS such as sucrose, glucose,
and fructose. In this study, these sugars were hydrolyzed and fermented without an energy-intensive conventional pretreatment.
After enzymatic hydrolysis with two in-house enzymes, D-limonene was removed using an adsorbent column containing raw cotton and activated carbon and directly conducted to an immobilized
reactor (LRCICR) for fermentation. Ethanol production in this
LRCICR system was 12-fold greater than that observed without
prior use of the sorbent column (LRC) to remove the fermentation
inhibiting D-limonene. This new approach to removing D-limonene
and enhancing immobilized yeast fermentation could potentially
be useful in more cost-effective bioethanol production.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Priority Research Centers Program
(2010-0020141) through the National Research Foundation of
73
74
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]