Please wait a minute...
购物车 申请加入邮件组 English
高级检索 图表检索
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-0179

ISSN 2095-0187(Online)

CN 11-5981/TQ

邮发代号 80-969

2019 Impact Factor: 3.552

热点文章  |  下载排行  |  浏览排行
在线投稿 免费RSS订阅
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering  2019, Vol. 13 Issue (1): 152-163   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-018-1721-z
  本期目录
Purification and concentration of gluconic acid from an integrated fermentation and membrane process using response surface optimized conditions
Parimal Pal1(), Ramesh Kumar2, Subhamay Banerjee1
1. Environment and Membrane Technology Laboratory, Chemical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, West Bengal 713209, India
2. Department of Chemistry, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal 713104, India
 全文: PDF(2471 KB)   HTML
Abstract：

A response surface method was used to optimize the purification and concentration of gluconic acid from fermentation broth using an integrated membrane system. Gluconobacter oxydans was used for the bioconversion of the glucose in sugarcane juice to gluconic acid (concentration 45 g∙L−1) with a yield of 0.9 g∙g−1. The optimum operating conditions, such as trans-membrane pressure (TMP), pH, cross-flow rate (CFR) and initial gluconic acid concentration, were determined using response surface methodology. Five different types of polyamide nanofiltration membranes were screened and the best performing one was then used for downstream purification of gluconic acid in a flat sheet cross-flow membrane module. Under the optimum conditions (TMP= 12 bar and CFR= 400 L∙h−1), this membrane retained more than 85% of the unconverted glucose from the fermentation broth and had a gluconic acid permeation rate of 88% with a flux of 161 L∙m−2∙h−1. Using response surface methods to optimize this green nanofiltration process is an effective way of controlling the production of gluconic acid so that an efficient separation with high flux is obtained.
Key words： gluconic acid    optimized nanofiltration    green processing    process intensification
收稿日期: 2017-12-17      出版日期: 2019-02-25
Corresponding Author(s): Parimal Pal   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2019, 13(1): 152-163.
Parimal Pal, Ramesh Kumar, Subhamay Banerjee. Purification and concentration of gluconic acid from an integrated fermentation and membrane process using response surface optimized conditions. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 152-163.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/CN/10.1007/s11705-018-1721-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/CN/Y2019/V13/I1/152
Characteristics Membranes
NF1
(Sepro Co.)		 NF2
(Sepro Co.)		 NF3
(Sepro Co.)		 NF20
(Sepro Co.)		 NFX
(Synder USA)
a)Solute (2 g?L?1) rejection at 10 bar pressure/%
a)Bivalent ion rejection SO42+ 99 97 98 98 99
a)Monovalent ion Cl? 90 50 60 35 40
a)Average MWCO/Da 150–300 150–300 150–300 150–300 150–300
a)pH range 3–10 3–10 3–10 3–10 3–10
a)Pressure limit/bar 83 83 83 83 83
a)Temperature limit/°C 50 50 50 50 50
b)Effective surface area used/m2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
c)Pore radius/nm 0.53 0.57 0.55 0.54 ?
b)Deionized water permeability/L?m?2? h?1? bar?1 8–10 25–28 11–13 9–11 9–11
Tab.1  
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
Input variables Unit Symbol ?a + a ?1 0 + 1
Applied pressure bar A 3 15 6 12 9
CFR L?h?1 B 250 850 400 700 550
pH ? C 2 10 4 8 6
GA concentration g?L?1 D 10 130 40 100 70
Tab.2  
Standard Run Applied pressure/bar CFR/L?h?1 pH GA conc./g?L?1 Y1 (GA permeation/%) Y2 (glucose rejection/%)
27 1 9.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 76 82
22 2 9.00 550.00 10.00 70.00 66 82
5 3 6.00 400.00 8.00 40.00 73 45
13 4 6.00 400.00 8.00 100.00 71 52
23 5 9.00 550.00 6.00 10.00 82 81
15 6 6.00 700.00 8.00 100.00 69 72
8 7 12.00 700.00 8.00 40.00 74 84
29 8 9.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 75.5 71
11 9 6.00 700.00 4.00 100.00 86 42
19 10 9.00 250.00 6.00 70.00 76 61
3 11 6.00 700.00 4.00 40.00 92 40
18 12 15.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 72 83
9 13 6.00 400.00 4.00 100.00 88 36
17 14 3.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 76 19
2 15 12.00 400.00 4.00 40.00 88 83
16 16 12.00 700.00 8.00 100.00 70 84
28 17 9.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 76 71
7 18 6.00 700.00 8.00 40.00 77 51
10 19 12.00 400.00 4.00 100.00 83 80
1 20 6.00 400.00 4.00 40.00 91 40
6 21 12.00 400.00 8.00 40.00 81 81
25 22 9.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 75.5 72
30 23 9.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 76 71
12 24 12.00 700.00 4.00 100.00 78 82
20 25 9.00 850.00 6.00 70.00 71 74
14 26 12.00 400.00 8.00 100.00 78 83
21 27 9.00 550.00 2.00 70.00 95 68
26 28 9.00 550.00 6.00 70.00 75 74
24 29 9.00 550.00 6.00 130.00 71 73
4 30 12.00 700.00 4.00 40.00 82 72
Tab.3  
Response R2 Adj. R2 Pre. R2 CV/% SD AP
GA permeation (Y1) 0.93 0.86 0.65 3.5 2.6 20.2
Glucose rejection (Y2) 0.95 0.91 0.79 7.6 5.1 20.1
Tab.4  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Parameter Membrane-based production system Conventional production system
Production Microbial fermentation Catalytic conversion under alkaline condition
Main product Direct acid form (i.e. gluconic acid) Indirect acid form (i.e. in salt form like Na/K gluconate)
Nature of feed Renewable carbon source is used Only pure glucose is used
Modular design Flexible and may be changed according to need Fixed and hard to change
Operating units Fewer in number Higher in number
Plant capacity Adjustable according to need Fixed, unchangeable
Energy requirement Low due to no phase changes High, due to multiphase (solid, liquid and gas) operations
Environmental issues Minimum, due to no byproducts High, due to excess salt production like calcium sulfate
Waste generation No harmful waste, due to no pre- or post-treatment Harmful waste generated, due to pre- or post-treatment
Use of acid or base Minimal use used in large amounts
Use of heat Not used Operational units can use or generate heat
Cost Low due to need for fewer operating units High due to need for more units
Tab.5  
1 PPal, R Kumar, JNayak, SBanerjee. Fermentative production of gluconic acid in membrane-integrated hybrid reactor system: Analysis of process intensification. Chemical Engineering & Processing, 2017, 122: 258–268
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2017.10.016
2 SRamachandran, P Fontanille, APandey, CLarroche. Gluconic acid: Properties, applications and microbial production. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 2006, 44: 185–195
3 H AEl-Enshasy. Production of gluconic acid by free and immobilized cells of recombinant Aspergillus niger in batch culture. Egyptian Journal of Biotechnology, 2003, 13: 187–201
4 Food Chemicals Codex. Seventh ed. Maryland: United Book Press Inc., 2010, 523
5 KDeller, H Krause, EPeldszus, BDespeyroux. US Patent, 5132452, 1992
6 O VSingh, R Kumar. Biotechnological production of gluconic acid: future implications. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2007, 75(4): 713–722
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-007-0851-x
7 WShang, D Wang, XWang. Modeling of the separation performance of nanofiltration membranes and its role in the applications of nanofiltration technology in product separation processes. Frontiers of Chemical Engineering in China, 2007, 1(2): 208–215
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-007-0038-0
8 PPal, R Kumar, SBanerjee. Manufacture of gluconic acid: A review towards process intensification for green production. Chemical Engineering & Processing, 2016, 104: 160–171
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2016.03.009
9 BRehr, C Wilhelm, HSahm. Production of sorbitol and gluconic acid by permeabilized cells of Zymomonas mobilis. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 1991, 35(2): 144–148
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184677
10 GStephanopoulos, G V Reklaitis. Process systems engineering: From Solvay to modern bio- and nanotechnology: A history of development, successes and prospects for the future. Chemical Engineering Science, 2011, 66(19): 4272–4306
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2011.05.049
11 CAbels, F Carstensen, MWessling. Membrane processes in biorefinery applications. Journal of Membrane Science, 2013, 444: 285–317
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.05.030
12 PPal, V C Dekonda, R Kumar. Fermentative production of glutamic acid from renewable carbon source: Process intensification through membrane-integrated hybrid bio-reactor system. Chemical Engineering & Processing, 2015, 92: 7–17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2015.03.022
13 PDey, P Pal. Direct production of L (+) lactic acid in a continuous and fully membrane-integrated hybrid reactor system under non-neutralizing conditions. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 389: 355–362
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.10.051
14 S TMorthensen, BZeuner, A SMeyer, HJørgensen, MPinelo. Membrane separation of enzyme-converted biomass compounds: Recovery of xylose and production of gluconic acid as a value-added product. Separation and Purification Technology, 2018, 194: 73–80
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.031
15 KPanpae, W Jaturonrusmee, WMingvanish, CNuntiwattanawong, SChunwiset, KSantudrob, STriphanpitak. Minimization of sucrose losses in sugar industry by pH and temperature optimization. Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences, 2008, 12: 513–519
16 PDey, L Linnanen, PPal. Separation of lactic acid from fermentation broth by cross flow nanofiltration: Membrane characterization and transport modelling. Desalination, 2012, 288: 47–57
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.12.009
17 SChakrabortty, M Roy, PPal. Removal of fluoride from contaminated groundwater by cross flow nanofiltration: Transport modeling and economic evaluation. Desalination, 2013, 313: 115–124
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.12.021
18 L ABoczek, E W Rice, C H Johnson. Total viable counts pour plate technique. In: Carl A B, Mary T, eds. Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Academic Press, 2014, 625–629
19 J PRobinson, E S Tarleton, C R Millington, A Nijmeijer. Solvent flux through dense polymeric nanofiltration membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2004, 230(1-2): 29–37
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2003.10.027
20 JTanninen, M Manttari, MNystrom. Effect of salt mixture concentration on fractionation with NF membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 283(1–2): 57–64
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.06.012
21 G QXu, J Chu, YWang, YZhuang, SZhang, HPeng. Development of a continuous cell-recycle fermentation system for production of lactic acid by Lactobacillus paracasei. Process Biochemistry, 2006, 41(12): 2458–2463
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.05.022
22 I HTsibranska, BTylkowski. Concentration of ethanolic extracts from Sideritis ssp. L. by nanofiltration: Comparison of dead-end and cross-flow modes. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 2013, 91(2): 169–174
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2012.09.004
23 UBalyan, B Sarkar. Integrated membrane process for purification and concentration of aqueous Syzygium cumini (L.) seed extract. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 2016, 98: 29–43
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2015.12.005
24 S TMorthensen, JLuo, A S Meyer, H Jørgensen, MPinelo. High performance separation of xylose and glucose by enzyme assisted nanofiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 492: 107–115
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.05.025
25 PPal, S Chakrabortty, JNayak, SSenapati. A flux-enhancing forward osmosis-nanofiltration integrated treatment system for the tannery wastewater reclamation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2017, 24(18): 15768–15780
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9206-z
26 AWerner, A Rieger, MMosch, RHaseneder, J URepke. Nanofiltration of indium and germanium ions in aqueous solutions: Influence of pH and charge on retention and membrane flux. Separation and Purification Technology, 2018, 194: 319–328
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.006
27 YXu, R E Lebrun. Investigation of the solute separation by charged nanofiltration membrane: Effect of pH, ionic strength and solute type. Journal of Membrane Science, 1999, 158(1-2): 93–104
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(99)00005-8
28 J HChoi, K Fukushi, KYamamoto. A study on the removal of organic acids from wastewaters using nanofiltration membranes. Separation and Purification Technology, 2008, 59(1): 17–25
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2007.05.021
29 MMänttäri, APihlajamäki, MNyström. Effect of pH on hydrophilicity and charge and their effect on the filtration efficiency of NF membranes at different pH. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 280(1-2): 311–320
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.01.034
30 LXu, L S Du, J He. Effects of operating conditions on membrane charge property and nanofiltration. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2011, 5(4): 492–499
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-011-1143-7
31 ZMa, M Wang, XGao, CGao. Charge and separation characteristics of nanofiltration membrane embracing dissociated functional groups. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2014, 8(5): 650–658
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-0605-1
32 P KSrivastava, MKapoor. Extracellular endo-mannanase from Bacillus sp. CFR1601: Economical production using response surface methodology and downstream processing using aqueous two phase system. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 2013, 91(4): 672–681
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2013.06.006
33 N VSankpal, B D Kulkarni. Optimization of fermentation conditions for gluconic acid production using Aspergillus niger immobilized on cellulose microfibrils. Process Biochemistry, 2002, 37(12): 1343–1350
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00335-1
34 M ABezerra, R E Santelli, E P Oliveira, L S Villar, L A Escaleirá. Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta, 2008, 76(5): 965–977
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.05.019
35 R HMyers, D C Montgomery, C M Anderson-Cook. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments.3rd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons publishers, 2009
36 T KTrinh, L S Kang. Response surface methodological approach to optimize the coagulation-flocculation process in drinking water treatment. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 2011, 89(7): 1126–1135
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.12.004
37 ABraghetta, F A DiGiano, W P Ball. Nanofiltration of natural organic matter: pH and ionic strength effects. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 1997, 123(7): 628–641
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1997)123:7(628)
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed