Cargando…

Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation

The production of biobutanol is hindered by the product's toxicity to the bacteria, which limits the productivity of the process. In situ product recovery of butanol can improve the productivity by removing the source of inhibition. This paper reviews in situ product recovery techniques applied...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Outram, Victoria, Lalander, Carl‐Axel, Lee, Jonathan G. M., Davies, E. Timothy, Harvey, Adam P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.2446
_version_ 1783245991688798208
author Outram, Victoria
Lalander, Carl‐Axel
Lee, Jonathan G. M.
Davies, E. Timothy
Harvey, Adam P.
author_facet Outram, Victoria
Lalander, Carl‐Axel
Lee, Jonathan G. M.
Davies, E. Timothy
Harvey, Adam P.
author_sort Outram, Victoria
collection PubMed
description The production of biobutanol is hindered by the product's toxicity to the bacteria, which limits the productivity of the process. In situ product recovery of butanol can improve the productivity by removing the source of inhibition. This paper reviews in situ product recovery techniques applied to the acetone butanol ethanol fermentation in a stirred tank reactor. Methods of in situ recovery include gas stripping, vacuum fermentation, pervaporation, liquid–liquid extraction, perstraction, and adsorption, all of which have been investigated for the acetone, butanol, and ethanol fermentation. All techniques have shown an improvement in substrate utilization, yield, productivity or both. Different fermentation modes favored different techniques. For batch processing gas stripping and pervaporation were most favorable, but in fed‐batch fermentations gas stripping and adsorption were most promising. During continuous processing perstraction appeared to offer the best improvement. The use of hybrid techniques can increase the final product concentration beyond that of single‐stage techniques. Therefore, the selection of an in situ product recovery technique would require comparable information on the energy demand and economics of the process. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 33:563–579, 2017
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5485034
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54850342017-07-11 Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation Outram, Victoria Lalander, Carl‐Axel Lee, Jonathan G. M. Davies, E. Timothy Harvey, Adam P. Biotechnol Prog REVIEWS The production of biobutanol is hindered by the product's toxicity to the bacteria, which limits the productivity of the process. In situ product recovery of butanol can improve the productivity by removing the source of inhibition. This paper reviews in situ product recovery techniques applied to the acetone butanol ethanol fermentation in a stirred tank reactor. Methods of in situ recovery include gas stripping, vacuum fermentation, pervaporation, liquid–liquid extraction, perstraction, and adsorption, all of which have been investigated for the acetone, butanol, and ethanol fermentation. All techniques have shown an improvement in substrate utilization, yield, productivity or both. Different fermentation modes favored different techniques. For batch processing gas stripping and pervaporation were most favorable, but in fed‐batch fermentations gas stripping and adsorption were most promising. During continuous processing perstraction appeared to offer the best improvement. The use of hybrid techniques can increase the final product concentration beyond that of single‐stage techniques. Therefore, the selection of an in situ product recovery technique would require comparable information on the energy demand and economics of the process. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 33:563–579, 2017 John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-03-10 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5485034/ /pubmed/28188696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.2446 Text en © 2017 The Authors Biotechnology Progress published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Institute of Chemical Engineers This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle REVIEWS
Outram, Victoria
Lalander, Carl‐Axel
Lee, Jonathan G. M.
Davies, E. Timothy
Harvey, Adam P.
Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation
title Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation
title_full Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation
title_fullStr Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation
title_full_unstemmed Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation
title_short Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation
title_sort applied in situ product recovery in abe fermentation
topic REVIEWS
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.2446
work_keys_str_mv AT outramvictoria appliedinsituproductrecoveryinabefermentation
AT lalandercarlaxel appliedinsituproductrecoveryinabefermentation
AT leejonathangm appliedinsituproductrecoveryinabefermentation
AT daviesetimothy appliedinsituproductrecoveryinabefermentation
AT harveyadamp appliedinsituproductrecoveryinabefermentation