Publication: Co-fermentation of 1,3-propanediol and 2,3-butanediol from crude glycerol derived from the biodiesel production process by newly isolated Enterobacter sp.: Optimization factors affecting
Issued Date
2021-02-01
Resource Type
ISSN
2589014X
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85097468921
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Bioresource Technology Reports. Vol.13, (2021)
Suggested Citation
Prawit Kongjan, Rattana Jariyaboon, Alissara Reungsang, Sureewan Sittijunda Co-fermentation of 1,3-propanediol and 2,3-butanediol from crude glycerol derived from the biodiesel production process by newly isolated Enterobacter sp.: Optimization factors affecting. Bioresource Technology Reports. Vol.13, (2021). doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100616 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/76547
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Co-fermentation of 1,3-propanediol and 2,3-butanediol from crude glycerol derived from the biodiesel production process by newly isolated Enterobacter sp.: Optimization factors affecting
Abstract
Co-fermentation of 1,3-propanediol and 2,3-butanediol from crude glycerol derived from biodiesel production process was investigated. The isolation of diols producer was firstly investigated. Factors including crude glycerol, yeast extract concentrations, and initial pH affecting diols were optimized using isolated microbes as the inoculum. Results determined strain MU-01 as the most efficient strain producing the highest concentration of diols. Sequence analysis revealed strain MU-01 as a member of Enterobacter sp. (Accession no. MT491125). Crude glycerol, yeast extract, and pH were influenced on 1,3-propanediol and 2,3-butanediol. Maximum 1,3-propanediol of 0.70 g/L was obtained at 10 g/L crude glycerol, 1 g/L yeast extract, and pH 8, respectively. The strain MU-01 also produced 2,3-butanediol at the concentration of 0.88 g/L under optimal conditions. The validation experiment indicated that the model was accurate, with a 2.85% difference between expected and observed values.