{"id":26216,"date":"2019-03-25T11:16:59","date_gmt":"2019-03-25T11:16:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=26216"},"modified":"2020-04-23T09:47:21","modified_gmt":"2020-04-23T09:47:21","slug":"comparative-study-of-ethanol-production-from-cassava-pulp-by-a-mixed-culture-of-amylomyces-rouxii-with-zygosaccharomyces-pseudorouxii-and-zymomonas-mobilis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol12no1\/comparative-study-of-ethanol-production-from-cassava-pulp-by-a-mixed-culture-of-amylomyces-rouxii-with-zygosaccharomyces-pseudorouxii-and-zymomonas-mobilis\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparative Study of Ethanol Production from Cassava Pulp by a Mixed Culture of Amylomyces Rouxii with Zygosaccharomyces Pseudorouxii and Zymomonas Mobilis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The global ethanol production forecast in 2018 is approximately 30.91 billion gallons (117 billion liters).1<\/sup>\u00a0The United States (US) and Brazil are the world\u2019s largest bioethanol producers. The US forecasts producing up to 16.3 billion gallons of ethanol from corn, wood chips and stalks, whereas Brazilian ethanol production was approximately 7,093 million gallons from sugar cane.1<\/sup>\u00a0Currently, cassava is also used as a raw material for ethanol production in various countries including Thailand. Thailand produced nearly 28.56 million tons of cassava in 2017.2<\/sup>\u00a0A large amount of cassava pulp (10%-15% of root weight) is generated from the starch production process.3<\/sup>\u00a0Approximately 2 million tons of pulp is produced \u00a0annually. Because cassava pulp contains 60%-68% starch and 10%-27% fiber4,5<\/sup> it was used directly as feedstuff5<\/sup> and fertilizer,6<\/sup> or by converting it, as biogas,7<\/sup>\u00a0reducing sugar,8,9<\/sup>\u00a0and bioethanol.10,11<\/sup><\/p>\n

Cassava pulp is a by product from starch manufacturing from cassava root (Manihot esculenta<\/em> Crantz) which is widely cultivated in tropical country such as Thailand. Cassava pulp contains both starch and cellulose that can be converted to glucose by acid treatment12<\/sup> and enzyme treatment.8,9<\/sup>\u00a0Reduced sugar derived from cassava pulp is useful for producing various products, such as glucose syrup, vinegar, ethanol, and others. Fermentable sugar from cassava pulp was prepared using several methods. Chaikaew et al., 201213<\/sup> developed the method of using a water jet system (star burst system) for releasing the starch granules followed by an enzyme cocktail (cellulase and \u03b1-amylase) to hydrolyze the starch. Glucose was obtained at a rate of 1.15 g\/l from 1% cassava pulp. Apiwatanapiwat et al. (2013)14<\/sup> studied ethanol production from cassava pulp using Kluyveromyces marxianus<\/em> TISTR 5925 in simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and a separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) process. Cassava pulp was hydrolyzed by a mixture of enzymes (cellulose, pectinase, \u03b1-amylase, and glucoamylase) after being gelatinized by boiling for 10 min. The researchers found that more ethanol was produced from SSF than the SHF process from a sample of 20% cassava pulp. Furthermore, using response surface methodology (RSM), a maximum ethanol concentration was obtained, 5% (w\/v), using optimum temperature conditions of 41\u00b0C, enzyme dilution of 0.1, and a fermentation time of 27 h.<\/p>\n

In this current study, mixed cultures between Amylomyces rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 or Zymomonas mobilis<\/em> and yeast TY2 (Zygosaccharomyces pseudorouxii<\/em> TISTR 5966) was conducted to produce ethanol from cassava pulp. Firstly, the starch granule of cassava pulp was hydrolyzed to reducing sugar by A. rouxii<\/em>. After that cellulose as fiber was converted to fermentable sugar by cellulase. RSM was employed to evaluate the effect of pH, enzyme, and cassava pulp concentration on ethanol production using mixed culture.\u00a0 Effect of cellulase on \u00a0ethanol production from cassava pulp was performed in the fermenter.<\/p>\n

Materials and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

Raw Material<\/strong><\/p>\n

The cassava pulp used in all experiments was a gift from National Starch Industries, Thailand. The cassava pulp was heated at 70\u00b0C until dry, ground and sieved through a 0.5 mm sieve screen (ZM-100; Retsch GmbH; Haan, Germany) and kept in a plastic bag with zip locked until used. The chemical composition of cassava pulp was analyzed by the standard methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2000).15<\/sup><\/p>\n

Microorganism, maintenance and identification<\/strong><\/p>\n

Amylomyces rouxii<\/em> YTH3, and\u00a0 yeast TY2 were the isolates at our laboratory from loog-pang and fermented sweet rice (khao mak), respectively.\u00a0 Yeast TY2 was identified<\/p>\n

by D1\/D2 domain sequence of the large subunit (LSU) of rDNA and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) as Zygosaccaromyces pseudorouxii<\/em> TY2. Both of them were submitted to Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technology research culture collection (TISTR) with the accession number as Amylomyces rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667, and Zygosaccaromyces pseudorouxii<\/em> TISTR 5966. The sequence of Amylomyces rouxii<\/em> YTH3 was submitted to GenBank with accession number KM215272). \u00a0Those isolates were grown and maintained on potato dextrose agar (PDA). Zymomonas<\/em> mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 was a gift from the Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, and it was cultivated and maintained on YPDA medium, yeast extract (10 g\/l), peptone (10 g\/l), glucose (20 g\/l), and agar (16 g\/l).<\/p>\n

Genomic DNA was isolated from yeast TISTR 5966 cells that were collected from YM broth using a nucleic acid extraction kit (GF-1 plant DNA extraction kit, Vivantis). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products at the D1\/D2 domain sequence of the large subunit (LSU) of rDNA and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) were amplified using the forward primer NL-1 (5\u2019-GCA TAT CAA TAA GCG GAG GAA AAG-3\u2019) and the reverse primer NL-4 (5\u2019-GGT CCG TGT TTC AAG ACG G-3\u2019). The PCR mixtures contained approximately 10-20 ng of genomic DNA, 1 \u00b5l of 20 pmol of each primer, 12.5 \u00b5l of master mix Taq polymerase in 25 \u00b5l of total reaction volume. PCR products were amplified in a thermal cycler machine. The reaction cycle was as follows: initial denaturation at 94\u00b0C for 5 min; followed by 30 cycles of 40 s at 94\u00b0C for DNA denaturation; 30 s at 50\u00b0C for primer annealing; and 40 s at 72\u00b0C for primer extension; with a final extension of 7 min at 72\u00b0C, followed by storage at 4\u00b0C.<\/p>\n

The PCR product was purified with a purification kit. The sequencing reactions of each primer were performed in the DNA Engine Tetrad 2 Peltier Thermal Cycle (BIO-RAD) using ABI BigDye\u00ae Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems Co.,). Chromas version 2.6.4 (www.technelysium.com), Blastn (https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and CLUSTAL Omega multiple sequence alignment tool16<\/sup> were used for retrieving similar sequences and sequence alignment, respectively. A phylogenetic tree was reconstructed by MEGA6.17<\/sup><\/p>\n

Inoculum and Medium Preparation<\/strong><\/p>\n

A koji starter of A. rouxi<\/em>i TISTR 3667 was prepared as inoculum in a solid-state medium using the following methods: 20 g of sticky rice was combined with 30 ml of water and sterilized at 121\u00b0C for 15 min. Subsequently, one colony (1 cm diameter) of the Amylomyces<\/em> strain that was well growth on YM agar plate \u00a0was transferred into the sterilized sticky rice and then incubated for two days at 30\u00b0C. Yeast TISTR 5966 and Zymomonas mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 inoculum were prepared in a liquid medium of YPD (yeast extract 10 g\/l, peptone 20 g\/l, glucose 20 g\/l) by transferring a loopful of cells from a stocked slant and incubating the liquid medium at 30\u00b0C on a rotary shaker at 150 rpm for 24 h.<\/p>\n

Hydrolysis of Cassava Pulp by Amylolytic Fungi<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cassava pulp (CP) at various concentrations (7%-20%) was prepared in a flask as a solid medium by adding water at 3.5 ml\/g cassava pulp before autoclaving at 121\u00b0C for 15 min. Saccharification was carried out by adding koji starter of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 followed by incubation at 30\u00b0C for 24 h, 36 h, and 48 h. After that, the remaining volume was adjusted with sterilized distilled water to the setting CP concentration volume of 100 ml. Then, the mixture was mixed by shaking at 200 rpm at 30\u00b0C for 1 h. The supernatant was separated from each concentration by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 10 min at 4\u00b0C and stored at -20\u00b0C. Starch and reducing sugar content were measured by the iodine method18\u00a0<\/sup>and Miller\u2019s method19<\/sup>, respectively.<\/p>\n

Ethanol Production from Mixed Culture by Response Surface Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

An experimental design was used to determine the variables that affect cellulose hydrolysis and directly influence ethanol yield. The parameters used in the experimental design were pH (4-8, A), cassava pulp percentage (13% – 20%, B), and cellulase enzyme concentration (0.1%-1% w\/v, C) with a Box-Behnken design for three factors that enabled the construction of a second-order polynomial model to be used with Design Expert software version 7.15 (Stat-Ease, Inc.). The mathematical model derived from the experimental design is according to equation (1):<\/p>\n

\"Equatin<\/p>\n

where:<\/p>\n

Yi<\/sub><\/em> =\u00a0response function (ethanol, %);<\/p>\n

A, B, C<\/em> = the independent variable value pH, % CP and cellulase concentration, respectively;<\/p>\n

A, B, C<\/em> = the independent variable value pH, % CP and cellulase concentration, respectively;<\/p>\n

\u03b2o <\/sub>=\u00a0<\/sub><\/em>coefficient relating the interception of the plane with the axis of response;<\/p>\n

\u03b21<\/sub>,\u00a0<\/sub>\u03b22<\/sub>,\u00a0\u03b23 <\/sub>=\u00a0<\/em>linear coefficients estimated by the method of least squares;<\/p>\n

\u039211<\/sub>,\u00a0<\/sub>\u03b222<\/sub>,\u00a0\u03b233 <\/sub>=\u00a0<\/em>coefficients of the quadratic variables;<\/p>\n

\u039212<\/sub>,\u00a0<\/sub>\u03b213<\/sub>,\u00a0\u03b223\u00a0<\/sub>=\u00a0<\/em>coefficients of the interaction between the independent variables,<\/p>\n

All experiments were performed in a shake flask in triplicate. Solidified cassava pulp at various concentrations was hydrolyzed by A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 for 2 days. Fermentation was started by adding 10% yeast TISTR 5966 inoculum for the G1 experiment and Z. mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 for the G2 experiment and incubating the mixtures at 30\u00b0C with shaking at 150 rpm. The ethanol concentration (observed value) was measured after harvesting the fermentation broth at 48 h by centrifugation at 10,732 g for 10 min (Beckman, S0410).<\/p>\n

Ethanol Production in Batch Bioreactor<\/strong><\/p>\n

A solid-state medium of 130 g (10%) cassava pulp powder was prepared by adding water at 3.5 ml\/g cassava pulp before autoclaving at 121\u00b0C for 15 min. A koji starter of 20 g of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 (prepared as above) was inoculated and incubated at 30\u00b0C for 2 days. Then, the hydrolyzing cassava medium was transferred aseptically into the fermenter (Biostat B, Sartorious, Germany) and adding 715 ml of \u00a0sterilized water and 6.5 g (0.5%) of cellulase. Subsequently, the medium was mixed by continuous agitation at 400 rpm (because it was very viscous) at the same temperature for 2 h. Ethanol fermentation was then started by adding 10% v\/v (130 ml) of yeast TISTR 5966 inoculum (G1 experiment) or Z. mobilis<\/em> TISTS 550 inoculum (G2 experiment). The fermentation process was controlled at 30\u00b0C with a continuous agitation speed of 200 rpm. \u00a0Sample was collected at different time points, and the supernatant was stored at -20\u00b0C before being analyzed.<\/p>\n

Analytic Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

The starch was analyzed by iodine solution.18<\/sup>\u00a0Starch samples 100 \u00b5L were mixed with 2.5 ml of iodine solution (0.2 g I2<\/sub> and 2 g KI was dissolved and make the volume 100 ml) and measured at 600 nm after well mixing by spectrophotometer (UV-160A Shimadzu, Japan). The reducing sugar was determined following the method proposed by Miller (1959)19<\/sup>. Briefly, diluted 200 \u00b5L samples were mixed with 300 \u00b5L of 0.044 M 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid solution (1g 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid dissolved with 20 ml 2N NaOH.<\/p>\n

And adjusted volume 100 ml) and boiled in water bath for 10 min. After the mixture was cooled down, 2.5 ml distilled water was added. The optical density was measure at 520 nm by spectrophotometer. The reducing sugar concentration was compared with the standard glucose curve. Ethanol was measured by gas chromatography (Shimadzu GC-14A, Japan) using a Porapak Q column 80\/100 (6 mm \u00d7 1\/8 mm) with a flame ionization detector (FID). The column temperature, injection temperature, and detector temperature were 180, 200 and 220\u00b0C, respectively. The carrier gas was nitrogen, and the sample injection was 1 \u00b5l. Isopropanol was used as the internal standard.<\/p>\n

Proximate analysis of cassava pulp was analyzed as described by the method AOAC, 2000. Moisture content was measured by drying the cassava pulp in an oven at 105\u00b0C for 3 h. Protein was analyzed by Kjeldahl\u2019s method. Lipid content was determined by a Soxhlet apparatus. Impurities were burned in a furnace at 550\u00b0C for ash measurement. Fiber content was measured as the weight of ash after hydrolyzing the sample with an acid and base. Carbohydrate content was determined by the following equation (2):<\/p>\n

Carbohydrate ate, % = <\/em>100 \u2013 (% moisture + % ash + %protein + %lipids + % fiber)<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (2)<\/p>\n

Results and Discussions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chemical Compositions of Cassava Pulp<\/strong><\/p>\n

Due to differences between species, climatic differences, soil fertility, age of the harvested plants, processing methods and instrument type, etc.,20<\/sup> \u00a0the chemical compositions of cassava pulp were different, as shown in Table 1.<\/p>\n

Table 1: The chemical composition of cassava pulp.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Chemical composition<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage, % (This study)<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage, % Ref. 9<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage,% Ref. 4\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage,% Ref. 11<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbohydrate<\/p>\n

-starch<\/p>\n

-cellulose<\/p>\n

-hemicellulose<\/td>\n

63.36\u00b10.14<\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

–<\/td>\n

66.22<\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

–<\/td>\n

69.89<\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

–<\/td>\n

–<\/p>\n

40.12<\/p>\n

11.4<\/p>\n

8.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Protein<\/td>\n3.46\u00b10.03<\/td>\n3.39<\/td>\n1.55<\/td>\n4.43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lipid<\/td>\n0.99\u00b10.004<\/td>\n0.24<\/td>\n0.12<\/td>\n3.45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Fiber<\/td>\n19.14\u00b10.06<\/td>\n15.25<\/td>\n27.75<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ash<\/td>\n3.24\u00b10.013<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n1.7<\/td>\n2.84<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Moisture content<\/td>\n9.80\u00b10.03<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

*Each value represents the mean \u00b1 SD of triplicates.<\/p>\n

However, the primary compositions were 62%-69% carbohydrate and 15%-28% fiber that can be converted to fermentable sugar. Generally, acid or enzymatic reactions were used to convert starch and fibrous components into fermentable sugars. Furfural (F) and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) are byproducts from acid hydrolysis that are highly toxic to microbial growth and metabolism. It was found that 0.2% furfural is a strong inhibitor of both functions. HMF was a weaker inhibitor than furfural.21,22,23<\/sup>\u00a0Glucose and xylose were liberated from cassava pulp by an enzyme cocktail (\u03b1-amylase, \u03b2-amylase, glucoamylase, and cellulase) and not inhibition by byproducts such as furfural or HMF.11<\/sup>\u00a0In this study, high-efficiency fungi such as A. rouxi<\/em>i TISTR 3667 supplemented with cellulase were used to convert carbohydrates into fermentable sugars.<\/p>\n

Identification of Yeast Species<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yeast TISTR 5966 was identified by D1\/D2 domain sequence of the large subunit (LSU) of rDNA and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS). The complete sequence of yeast TISTR 5966 was derived from the complementary sequence from the forward and reverse primers NL-1 and NL-4, respectively, using Chromas version 2.6.4 (www.technelysium.com). The nucleotide sequence of yeast TISTR 5966 was compared with the GenBank database using the blastn tool. The results showed various strains of Zygosaccharomyces rouxii<\/em> and Zygosaccharomyces pseudorouxii<\/em> with the most similarity at 96-99%. Subsequently, similar sequences of those various strains were selected and used to construct a phylogenetic tree by MEGA6. A maximum likelihood tree with 1000 replicates is shown in Figure 1. S. cerevisiae<\/em> and Torulaspora quercuum<\/em> were used as the outgroup. Yeast TISTR 5966 was placed in the same branch as Zygosaccharomyces pseudorouxii<\/em> AM947680. Then, it was named Zygosaccharomyces pseudorouxii<\/em> TISTR 5966.<\/p>\n

The genus Zygosaccharomyces <\/em>was first placed in the genus Saccharomyces<\/em>. In 1983, it was reclassified to its current name by Barnett et al., 1983.24<\/sup>\u00a0This genus now comprises more than 10 species. Z. pseudorouxii<\/em>\u00a0is an unofficial name and is closely related to the species\u00a0Z. sapae.<\/em>25<\/sup>\u00a0Zygosaccharomyces<\/em> is tolerant to high sugar, high ethanol, high acetic acid, and high salt and is also abundant in common food preservatives such as ascorbic and benzoic acid. In most food and beverage products, it is considered a spoilage yeast. However, some species, such as Z. bailii<\/em>,<\/em> produce high esters. The mixed culture of Z. bailii<\/em> with S. cerevisiae<\/em> was used to improve the production of ethyl esters in wine.26,27<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 1: Neighbour-joining phylogram was reconstructed by MEGA6 from D1\/D2 domain.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to view figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sequence of the large subunit (LSU) of rDNA and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of the sequence of yeast TISTR 5966 with similar sequences from the Gen Bank data base.<\/p>\n

The number at nodes indicate percentage of 1000 bootstraps replicates. The bar scale indicates nucleotide substitutions\/ site. The symbol T. and \u00a0Z. represent\u00a0Torulaspora\u00a0<\/em>and \u00a0Zygosaccharomyces<\/em>, repectively.<\/p>\n

Effect of Solid State Cassava Pulp Concentration on Fungal Hydrolysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

Solid cassava pulp (CP) at various concentrations (7% \u2014 20%) was hydrolyzed by\u00a0A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 for various time courses before addition of distilled water to those concentrations and determination of the reducing sugar and starch content. The results are shown in Figure 2. It was found that A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 in the solid-state can hydrolyze highly concentrated CP. However, at a higher CP concentration, a higher concentration of sugar was released. Furthermore, the more time used for hydrolyzing, the more reducing sugar was rapidly consumed in 48 h. However, the mycelium of the fungi could not penetrate the solidified starch at 20% CP, and a little setting CP remained. The highest reducing sugar was approximately 38 g\/l from 20% CP at 48 h of hydrolysis. However, the sugar remaining in the 10% CP concentration was nearly half that of 20% CP concentration. Zhu et al., 201211<\/sup> reported that 52.70 g\/l and 6.01 g\/l of glucose and xylose, respectively, were produced from 20% CP using an enzyme cocktail (amylase, cellulase, glucoamylase, and glucosidase) at 50\u00b0C for 96 h. These results indicated that A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 was an efficient microbe for hydrolyzing starch at low temperature and obtaining high glucose content. However, the problem of solidification of gelatinized cassava pulp at high concentration must be solved by milling the pulp into small pieces to enable easy penetration by the fungal mycelium, thus obtaining higher glucose content and decreasing viscosity of the CP medium. The advantage of glucose preparation by fungal mycelium treatment is that there is no furfural or HMF formation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 2: Starch hydrolysis and sugar released by A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 on solid state from various concentration of cassava pulp at various hydrolysing time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to view figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Effect of Parameters on Ethanol Production from Cassava Pulp by Response Surface Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

Due to the fiber content of cassava, cassava pulp can be converted to fermentable sugar by cellulase enzyme activity. To produce ethanol, three parameters, pH (4-8), cellulase concentration (0.1%-1%), and CP concentration (13%-20%) were studied by response surface methodology using two groups of mixed culture. The first group was A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and yeast TISTR 5966, and the second group was A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Zymomonas mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550. Seventeen runs were introduced by the Design Expert program (Version 7.15), as shown in Table 2. Ethanol production was calculated from the model (equations 3 and 4) that was established for ethanol prediction under various conditions after two days of fermentation. These results are also shown in Table 2. Equations 3 and 4 were used with the mixed culture of groups 1 and 2, respectively.<\/p>\n

Table 2: Predicted and observed value of ethanol production under Box-Behken experimental design from various parameters of pH, cassava pulp and cellulase concentration.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Treatment<\/strong><\/td>\npH\u00a0<\/strong>(A)<\/strong><\/td>\nCP,%\u00a0<\/strong>(B)<\/strong><\/td>\nCellulase,\u00a0<\/strong>(C)<\/strong><\/td>\nEthanol, % (v\/v)*<\/strong><\/td>\nEthanol, % (v\/v)**<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Observed<\/strong><\/td>\nPredicted<\/strong><\/td>\nObserved<\/strong><\/td>\nPredicted<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n0.1<\/td>\n1.81<\/td>\n1.712<\/td>\n3.11<\/td>\n3.446<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n3.09<\/td>\n3.008<\/td>\n4.48<\/td>\n4.93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.1<\/td>\n2.8<\/td>\n2.816<\/td>\n3.6<\/td>\n3.70<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n1.0<\/td>\n2.43<\/td>\n2.527<\/td>\n6.09<\/td>\n6.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.1<\/td>\n2.53<\/td>\n2.366<\/td>\n3.5<\/td>\n3.42<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n1.0<\/td>\n2.74<\/td>\n2.723<\/td>\n3.86<\/td>\n4.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n1.0<\/td>\n2.65<\/td>\n2.813<\/td>\n4.35<\/td>\n4.67<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.77<\/td>\n2.508<\/td>\n5.1<\/td>\n5.46<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.56<\/td>\n2.641<\/td>\n3.64<\/td>\n3.44<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.89<\/td>\n2.722<\/td>\n4.36<\/td>\n4.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n1.34<\/td>\n1.601<\/td>\n3.33<\/td>\n3.22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n1.0<\/td>\n2.44<\/td>\n2.195<\/td>\n3.35<\/td>\n3.92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n0.1<\/td>\n2.41<\/td>\n2.655<\/td>\n5.25<\/td>\n5.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.78<\/td>\n2.722<\/td>\n3.9<\/td>\n4.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.78<\/td>\n2.722<\/td>\n4.45<\/td>\n4.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.7<\/td>\n2.722<\/td>\n3.89<\/td>\n4.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n0.55<\/td>\n2.46<\/td>\n2.722<\/td>\n4.57<\/td>\n4.35<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

* Mixed culture between A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and yeast TISTR 5966 (or Group 1).<\/p>\n

** Mixed culture between A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Zymomonas mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 (or group 2)<\/p>\n

Yi<\/sub> = \u201313.2015 + 0.84175 A + 1.40304 B + 2.963854 C \u2013 0.055 AB \u2013 0.1 AC\u00a0\u2013 0.09683 BC + 0.015688 A2<\/sup> \u2013 0.02814 B2<\/sup> \u2013 0.51728 C2<\/sup>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (3)<\/p>\n

Yii<\/sub> = 3.7278 + 0.9312 A \u2013 0.5598 B \u2013 1.3577 C + 0.011 AB + 0.1083 AC + 0.0952 BC \u2013 0.0898 A2<\/sup> + 0.0214 B2<\/sup> \u2013 0.2321 C2<\/sup>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (4)<\/p>\n

where Y is the predicted response value (% ethanol). A, B, C are the levels of pH, CP and cellulose concentrations, respectively.<\/p>\n

Equation 3 and 4 represent the model of ethanol production from the mixed culture of G1 (A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and yeast TISTR 5966) and G2 (A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Z. mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550) with R2<\/sup> values of 0.8379 and 0.8928, respectively. The models were used to predict ethanol production, and they correspond to the observed data, as shown in Tables 3 and 4.<\/p>\n

Table 3: Analysis of variance for the fitted quadratic polynomial model of mixed culture between A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Zygosaccharomyces pseudorouxii<\/em><\/strong> TISTR 5966 (G1).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source Model<\/strong><\/td>\nCoefficient Estimate<\/strong><\/td>\nSum of Squares<\/strong><\/td>\ndf<\/strong><\/td>\nStandard error<\/strong><\/td>\nF Value<\/strong><\/td>\np-Value Prob >F<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Intercept<\/td>\n2.72<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.11<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0A-pH<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.089<\/td>\n2.28<\/td>\n0.1745<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0B-cassava pulp<\/td>\n0.32<\/td>\n0.81<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.089<\/td>\n12.73<\/td>\n0.0091*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0C-cellulase<\/td>\n0.089<\/td>\n0.063<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n00.089<\/td>\n0.99<\/td>\n0.3536<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0AB<\/td>\n-0.39<\/td>\n0.59<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.13<\/td>\n9.28<\/td>\n0.0187*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0AC<\/td>\n-0.09<\/td>\n0.032<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.13<\/td>\n0.51<\/td>\n0.4993<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0BC<\/td>\n-0.15<\/td>\n0.093<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.13<\/td>\n1.46<\/td>\n0.2666<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0A2<\/sup><\/td>\n0.063<\/td>\n0.017<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.12<\/td>\n0.26<\/td>\n0.6260<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0B2<\/sup><\/td>\n-0.34<\/td>\n0.50<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.12<\/td>\n7.84<\/td>\n0.0265*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0C2<\/sup><\/td>\n-0.10<\/td>\n0.046<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.12<\/td>\n0.72<\/td>\n0.4231<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Model<\/td>\n<\/td>\n0.26<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n4.02<\/td>\n0.0401*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pure Error<\/td>\n<\/td>\n0.1<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2.76<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

df; degree of freedom, *significant, R2<\/sup> = 0.8379.<\/p>\n

Table 4: Analysis of variance for the fitted quadratic polynomial model of mixed culture between A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Z. mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 (G2).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source Model<\/strong><\/td>\nCoefficient Estimate<\/strong><\/td>\nSum of Squares<\/strong><\/td>\nDf<\/strong><\/td>\nStandard error<\/strong><\/td>\nF Value<\/strong><\/td>\np-Value Prob >F<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Intercept<\/td>\n3.772<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.17<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0A-pH<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n0.29<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n1.9<\/td>\n0.2105<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0B-cassava pulp<\/td>\n0.94<\/td>\n7.01<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n46.14<\/td>\n0.0003*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0C-cellulase<\/td>\n0.27<\/td>\n0.60<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.14<\/td>\n3.94<\/td>\n0.0874*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0AB<\/td>\n0.077<\/td>\n0.024<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n0.16<\/td>\n0.7028<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0AC<\/td>\n0.097<\/td>\n0.038<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n0.25<\/td>\n0.6323<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0BC<\/td>\n0.15<\/td>\n0.090<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n0.59<\/td>\n0.4668<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0A2<\/sup><\/td>\n-0.36<\/td>\n0.54<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n3.58<\/td>\n0.1004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0B2<\/sup><\/td>\n0.26<\/td>\n0.29<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n1.92<\/td>\n0.2088<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0C2<\/sup><\/td>\n-0.047<\/td>\n0.0009301<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n0.061<\/td>\n0.8117<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Model<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n8.86<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n6.48<\/td>\n0.0111*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pure Error<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n0.41<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n11.03<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

df; degree of freedom, *significant, R2<\/sup> = 0.8928.<\/p>\n

Ethanol production by G2 was higher than G1 at each level of experimentation. The models from G1 and G2 were fitted to the observed data with p-values of 0.0401 and 0.0111 (Table 3 and Table 4), respectively. Both groups of data were significantly fitted to the models. The optimum pH, CP and cellulase of G1 were 4, 20% and 0.55%, respectively, and 3.08% ethanol was produced. While pH 6, 20% CP, and 1% cellulase were the optimum parameters for G2, for which ethanol production was 6.09%. The fitted responses for the regression models are plotted in Figures 3 and 4 for G1 and G2, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 3: Surface and contour plots show the relative effects of parameter pairs on ethanol production in a mixed culture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Zygosaccharomyces pseudorouxii<\/em> TISTR 5966 (G1): (a) % cassava pulp and cellulase, (b) pH and % cellulase, (c) cassava pulp and pH.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to view figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 4: Surface and contour plots show in the relative effects of parameter pairs on ethanol production in mixed culture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Z. mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 (G2): (a) % cassava pulp and cellulase, (b) pH and % cellulase, (c) cassava pulp and pH.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to view figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sivasakthivelan et al., 201428<\/sup> reported that the optimum pH for ethanol production from yeast and Z. mobilis<\/em> were 5.5 and 6.5, respectively. In this study, the contour plots from G1 showed that pH and CP concentration had a significant interactive effect on ethanol production (Figure 3 c). Alternatively, contour plots from G2 showed the interactive effect on ethanol production between pH and cellulase concentrations (Figure 4 b). However, cellulase concentration showed no significant interaction with the other variable parameters of CP and pH in G1. In G2, pH showed an insignificant interaction with CP and cellulase concentration. However, glucose was the main C source that was derived from CP hydrolysis by Amylomyces rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667. Then, CP was the main parameter for ethanol production. In this study, cellulase was used to hydrolyze cellulose from cassava pulp to glucose and xylose. Both yeast and Z. mobilis<\/em> cannot utilize pentose sugars such as xylose and arabinose.<\/p>\n

Ethanol Production in the Fermenter<\/strong><\/p>\n

Comparative studies of ethanol production from cassava pulp using the mixed culture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Z. mobilis<\/em> TISTR 550 in the presence and absence of cellulase were carried out in a 1.3 l working volume. The result is shown in Figure 5. A small portion of starch remained from the cassava pulp after two days of hydrolyzing by A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 (in solid-state), and it was all used within 24 h of the fermentation process. It was clear that in the presence of cellulase, more reducing sugar was released than in the absence of cellulase. The more reducing sugar in the system, the more ethanol production was gained. In this study, 20 and 25 g\/l of ethanol were produced without and with cellulase added to the fermentation process, respectively. The result from equation (4) that predicted ethanol at 26.87 g\/l (3.402%) corresponded with the actual value. This research showed that higher glucose was gained from the addition of cellulase to the system while the viscosity of the fermentation broth was decreased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/td>\nFigure 5: Comparative study of ethanol production from cassava pulp 10% in a mixed culture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and<\/strong> Z. mobilis<\/strong><\/em> TISTR 550 in the absence of cellulase (B1), and the presence of 0.5% cellulase (B2) in the fermenter 1.3 litre at 30\u00b0<\/sup>C and 200 rpm continuously.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Click here to view figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Zhu el at., 201211<\/sup> studied ethanol production from cassava pulp using an enzyme cocktail in simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) processes. They found that the optimum conditions for SSF were a temperature of 37\u00b0C, a pH of 5.0, and an inoculum size of 6%. The fed-batch process resulted in more ethanol than the batch process, and SSF provided a more efficient method than SHF for utilization of cassava pulp. Ethanol production in the batch process from SHF and SSF was 23.51 and 34.67 g\/l from 20% cassava pulp, respectively. As in the fed-batch process, the levels of ethanol production from SHF and SSF increased to 29.39 and 43.25 g\/l, respectively.<\/p>\n

In order to produce high reducing sugar from cassava pulp, various enzymes dosage (cellulase, pectinase, \u03b1-amylase, and glucoamylase) fermentation times, and temperatures were designed using RSM for ethanol production by Kluyveromyces marxianus<\/em> TISTR 5925.29<\/sup>\u00a0The optimum parameters\u00a0 were\u00a0 enzyme dosage 0.1 (cellulose 1 U, pectinase 10 U, amylase 5.5 U, and glucoamylase 2 U\/g dry pulp), temperature 41o<\/sup>C and fermentation time 27 h. The maximum ethanol production was 5.0% (w\/v)\u00a0 from cassava pulp 20% that was very close to the prediction value at 5.3% (w\/v). \u00a0Cassava pulp is a C-source containing starch and cellulose.\u00a0 Then many types of enzymes should be used for hydrolyzing both of starch and cellulose to glucose.\u00a0 Molecular technique for yeast strain that was containing amylolytic, cellulolytic, and \u03b2-glucosidase enzymes was constructed.30<\/sup>\u00a0However ethanol production was very low.\u00a0 Enzyme regulation, coordinated action, and gene expression are needed to study more.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

This study demonstrated a mild condition to hydrolyze starch and cellulose from cassava pulp by using A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and cellulase. RSM was performed to optimize the parameters for gaining the highest fermentable sugar. \u00a0It was found that the optimum pH was different in a mixed culture of G1 and G2. The highest cassava pulp concentration of 20% was preferred for the highest reducing sugar release by fungal hydrolysis using A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667. However, this concentration was highly viscous and difficult to handle by agitation. This problem can be solved by using cellulase. The results of RSM showed that the cellulase contents of the two mixed cultures were different. Optimum cellulase concentration of the mixture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and yeast TISTR 5966 was 0.55%, while 1% cellulase was optimum for the\u00a0 co-culture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Z. mobilis<\/em> 550.<\/p>\n

The comparative study for ethanol production in the fermenter was performed with 10% cassava pulp using mixed culture of A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 and Z. mobilis<\/em> 550 with and without added cellulase. The results showed that the viscosity of the medium was decreased and ethanol production was increased by adding cellulase. Equation (4) of the model fit the actual value of ethanol produced using fermentation parameters of 10% cassava pulp, pH 6 and 0.5% cellulase.<\/p>\n

This promising results reveal that the development procedure by using\u00a0 A. rouxii<\/em> TISTR 3667 with enzyme cellulase is an efficient process for hydrolyzing cassava pulp.\u00a0\u00a0 Response surface methodology is a powerful tool for optimizing parameters and the mathematical model can predict the accurately results.<\/p>\n

Conflicts of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is no conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgements<\/strong><\/p>\n

The authors gratefully acknowledge Mahasarakham University for the financial support for this project with grant no 6005044.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Nguyen L. World ethanol production growth may accelerate in 2018. KNect365 Energy. https:\/\/knect365.com\/energy\/article\/bb855c8d-460e-4185-a2a1-\u00a014ce8800f56b\/world-ethanol-production-growth-may-accelerate-in-2018. [December 2,\u00a02018].<\/li>\n
  2. Tapioca Production, Tapioca Production and Trading Survey Committee, Thai Tapioca Development Institute. http:\/\/www.tapiocathai.org\/L1.html [December 2, 2018].<\/li>\n
  3. Edama N. A., Sulaiman A and Rahim S. N. Enzymatic saccharification of tapioca processing wastes into biosugars through immobilization technology. Biof Res J.<\/em> 2014;1:2-6.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Sriroth K., Chollakup R., Chotineeranat S., Piyachomkwan K and Oates C. G. Processing of cassava waste for improved biomass utilization. Biores Technol.<\/em> 2000;71(1):63-69.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Khempaka S., Molee W., Guillaume M. Dried cassava pulp as alternative feedstuff for broilers: effect on growth performance, carcass traits, digestive organs, and nutrient digestibility. J App. Poul. Res<\/em>. 2009;18:487-493.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Kamolmanit N and Reungsang A.\u00a0 Effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio on the composting of cassava pulp with swine manure. J Wat Envi Technol. <\/em>2006;4(1):33-50.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Piyachomkwan K and Tanticharoen M. Cassava Industry in Thailand: Prospects. J. of the Royal Insti Thailand.<\/em> 2011;3:160-170.<\/li>\n
  8. Souto L. R. F., Caliari M., Soares Junior M. S., Fiorda F. A and Garcia M. C. Utilization of residue from cassava starch processing for production of fermentable \u00a0sugar by enzymatic hydrolysis. Food Sci.\u00a0 Techno<\/em>. 2017;37(1):19-24.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Chotineeranat S., Pradistsuwana C., Siritheerasas P and Tantratian S. Reducing sugar production from cassava pulp using enzymes and ultrafiltration I: Enzymatic hydrolyzation. J. Scient. Res. Chulalongkorn Univ<\/em>. 2004;29(2):119-128.<\/li>\n
  10. Archibong E. J., Obika I. E., Okafor O. I., Okafor U. I., Ezewuzie C. S., Ezemba C. C., Awah N. C., Okeke B. C., Anaukwu \u00a0G. C and Anakwenzw V. N. Ethanol production from cassava wastes (Pulp and peel) using alcohol tolerant yeast isolated from palm wine. Amer. J. Lif. Sci. Res<\/em>. 2016;4:92-97. DOI:\u00a010.21859\/ajlsr-040305.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  11. Zhu M., Li P., Gong Z and Wang J. A comparison of the production of ethanol between simultaneous saccarification and fermentation and separate hydrolysis and fermentation using unpretreated cassava pulp and enzyme cocktail. J Biosci Biotechnol Biochem.<\/em> 2012;76(4):671-678.\u00a0 \u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1271\/bbb.110750.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  12. Hermiati E., Tsubaki S and Azuma J. Cassava pulp hydrolysis under microwave irradiation with oxalic acid catalyst for ethanol production. J Math Fund Sci.<\/em> 2014;46(2):125-139.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  13. Chaikaew S., Maeno Y., Visessanguan W., Ogura K., Sugino G., Lee S. H and Ishikawa K. Application of thermophilic enzymes and water jet system to cassava pulp. Biores. Technol.<\/em> 2012;126:87-91.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  14. Apiwatanapiwat W., Rugthaworn P., Vaithanomsat P., Thanapase W., Kosugi A., Arai T., Mori Y., and Murata Y.\u00a0 Ethanol production at hightemperature \u00a0from cassava pulp by a newly isolated Kluyveromeces marxianus<\/em> strain, TISTR 5925. AIMS Ener.<\/em> 2013;1:3-16.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  15. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC. International, 17th edition; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Association of Analytical Communities. 2000.<\/li>\n
  16. Sievers F., Wilm A., Dineen D., Gibson T. J., Karplus K., Li W., Lopez R., McWilliam H., Remmert M., S\u00f6ding J., Thompson J. D and Higgins D. G. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using\u00a0 Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol<\/em>. 2011;7:539.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  17. Stecher G., Liu L., Sanderford M., Peterson D., Tamura K and Kumar S. MEGA-MD: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software with mutational diagnosis of amino acid variation. Bioinfor<\/em>. 2014;30(9):1305-1307. doi:10.1093\/bioinformatics\/btu018.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  18. Hoover R and Ratnayake W. S. Determination of Total Amylose Content of starch. Current Protocals in Food Analytical Chemistry.<\/em> 2001;E2.3.1-E2.3.5.\u00a0 Copyright \u00a0by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<\/li>\n
  19. Miller G. L. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for the determination of reducing sugars.\u00a0Analytical Chemistry<\/em>. 1959;31(3):426-428.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. Oliveira M. A and Moraes P. S. B. Technological and postharvest characteristic and productivity of cassava. Ci\u00eancia e Agrotecnologia<\/em>.\u00a02009;33(3):837-843.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  21. Sanchez B and Bautista J. Effects of furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural on the fermentation of\u00a0Saccharomyces cerevisiae<\/em>\u00a0and biomass production from\u00a0Candida guilliermondii<\/em>. Enz Micro Technol. <\/em>1988;10(5):315-318.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  22. Michael T., Guarnieri M. A., Franden C., JohnsonGregg W and Beckham T. Conversion and assimilation of furfural and 5-(hydroxymethyl) furfural by Pseudomonas putida <\/em>KT2440. Met Engine Commun<\/em>. 2017;4:22\u201328.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  23. Boyer L. J., Vega J. L., Kjell T. K., Clausen E. C and Gaddy J. L. The effects of furfural on ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae<\/em> in batch culture. Biomass Bioen<\/em>. 1992;3(1):41\u201348.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  24. Barnett J. A., Payne R. W and Yarrow D. Yeasts: Characteristics and Identification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1983.<\/li>\n
  25. Hulin M and Wheals A. Rapid identification of Zygosaccharomyces with genus specific primers. Inter. J. Food Micro.<\/em> 2014;173(3):9-13.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  26. Garavaglia J., de Schneider R. D. S., Mendes S. D., Welke J. E., Zini C. A., Caram\u00e3o E. B and Valente P. Evaluation of\u00a0Zygosaccharomyces bailii<\/em>\u00a0BCV 08 as a co-starter in wine fermentation for the improvement of ethyl esters production. Microbiological Research.\u00a0<\/em>2015;173:59\u201365.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  27. Xu Y., Zhi Y., Wu Q., Du R and Xu Y. Zygosaccharomyces bailii<\/em> is a potential producer of various flavor compounda in Chiness Maotai-flavor liquor fermentation. Front. Microbio.<\/em> 2017;8:1-9.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  28. Sivasakthivelan P., Saranraj P and Sivassakthi S. Production of ethanol by Zymomonas mobilis<\/em> and Saccharomyces cerevisiae<\/em> using sunflower head waste \u2013 A comparative study. International Inter. J. Microbio. Res.<\/em> 2014;5(3):208-216.<\/li>\n
  29. Apiwatanapiwat W., Rugthaworn P., Vaithanomsat P., Thanapase W., Kosugi A., Arai T., Mori Y., and Murata Y. Ethanol production at high temperature from cassava pulp by a newly isolated Kluyveromyces marxianus strain, TISTR 5925. AIMS Energy.<\/em> 2013;1:3-16.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  30. Apiwatanapiwat W., Murata Y., Kosugi A., Yamada R., Kondo A., Arai T., Rugthaworn P and Mori Y.\u00a0 Direct ethanol production from cassava pulp using a surface-engineered yeast strain-co-displaying two amylases, two cellulases, and \u03b2-glucosidase. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.<\/em> 2011;90:377-384.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction The global ethanol production forecast in 2018 is approximately […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol12no1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26216"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32324,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26216\/revisions\/32324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}