ABSTRACT
Yeasts are important microorganisms used for ethanol production; however, they are not equally efficient in the amount of ethanol production under different environmental conditions. It is, therefore, necessary to screen for elite strains to utilize them for commercial production of these commodities. In this study, yeasts were isolated from different Ethiopian traditional fermented alcoholic beverages (teji, tella, shamiata and areqe tinisis), milk and ergo, teff and maize dough, soil and compost, flowers, and fruits to evaluate their potential use for ethanol fermentation process. Isolates were screened for efficient ethanol production and the selected ones were identified using phenotypic and genetic characters using D1/D2 region of LSU rDNA sequence analysis. The yeast isolates were evaluated based on their growth and fermentation of different carbon sources. Response surface methodology (RSM) was applied to optimize temperature, pH and incubation time using central composite design (CCD) in Design-Expert 7.0.0. A total of 211 yeasts colonies were isolated of which 60% were ethanologenic yeasts (ethanol producers) and 40% were non-ethanol producers. The yeast population detected from various sources was in the range of 10 5 CFU from traditional foods and beverages to that of 10 3 CFU from fruits and soil samples. The data also showed that the number of colony types (diversity) did not correlate with population density. The highly fermentative isolates were taxonomically characterized into four genera, of which 65% of the isolates (ETP37, ETP50; ETP53, ETP89, ETP94) were categorized under Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the remaining were Pichia fermentans ETP22, Kluyveromyces marxianus ETP87, and Candida humilis ETP122. The S. cerevisiae isolates produced ethanol (7.6-9.0 g/L) similar with K. marxianus ETP87 producing 7.97 g/L; comparable to the ethanol produced from commercial baker's yeast (8.43 g/L) from 20 g/L dextrose; whereas C. humilis ETP122 and P. fermentans ETP22 produced 5.37 g/L and 6.43 g/L ethanol, respectively. S. cerevisiae ETP53, K. marxianus ETP87, P. fermentans ETP22 and C. humilis ETP122 tolerated 10% extraneous ethanol but the percentage of ethanol tolerance considerably decreased upon 15%. S. cerevisiae ETP53 produced ethanol optimally at pH 5.0, 60 h, and 34 o C. pH 4.8, temperature 36 o C, and 65 h of time were optimal growth conditions of ethanol fermentation by K. marxianus ETP87. The ethanol fermentation conditions of P. fermentans ETP22 was similar to S. cerevisiae ETP53 though the ethanol titer of S. cerevisiae ETP53 was higher than P. fermentans ETP22. Therefore, S. cerevisiae ETP53, K. marxianus and P. fermentans ETP22 are good candidates for ethanol production.
ABSTRACT
Bioethanol is one of the most commonly used biofuels in transportation sector to reduce greenhouse gases. S. cerevisiae is the most employed yeast for ethanol production at industrial level though ethanol is produced by an array of other yeasts, bacteria, and fungi. This paper reviews the current and nonmolecular trends in ethanol production using S. cerevisiae. Ethanol has been produced from wide range of substrates such as molasses, starch based substrate, sweet sorghum cane extract, lignocellulose, and other wastes. The inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates can be reduced by repeated sequential fermentation, treatment with reducing agents and activated charcoal, overliming, anion exchanger, evaporation, enzymatic treatment with peroxidase and laccase, in situ detoxification by fermenting microbes, and different extraction methods. Coculturing S. cerevisiae with other yeasts or microbes is targeted to optimize ethanol production, shorten fermentation time, and reduce process cost. Immobilization of yeast cells has been considered as potential alternative for enhancing ethanol productivity, because immobilizing yeasts reduce risk of contamination, make the separation of cell mass from the bulk liquid easy, retain stability of cell activities, minimize production costs, enable biocatalyst recycling, reduce fermentation time, and protect the cells from inhibitors. The effects of growth variables of the yeast and supplementation of external nitrogen sources on ethanol optimization are also reviewed.
