Regulatory Factor Optimization by Response Surface Methodology for Biogas Yield by Methanobacterium Soehngenii Strain YH

Abstract:

The methanogen medium, supplemented with malate, succinate and glutamate, was used as substrates for high biogas yield by M. soehngenii YH. The fermentation medium was optimized by response surface methodology. First, more compatible concentrations of malate, succinate and glutamate were ensured. In the second step, the concentrations of the three supplemental nutrients above were further optimized using a Box–Behnken design. The average biogas yield (450 mL), 61% higher than those of the control in five independent samples, was obtained on the laboratory scale with optimized initial additions of malate, succinate and glutamate corresponding to 0.52 g/L, 1.06 g/L and 0.33 g/L, respectively. These would lay a foundation for increasing the efficiency of biogas synthesis and exploring a late-model culture technics of M. soehngenii.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 433-440)
• Pages: 1275-1279
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.433-440.1275
• Online since: January 2012
• Authors: Zhi Wang, Xiong Chen, Yong Ze Wang, Jin Fang Zhao, Ting Ting Fan, Jin Hua Wang, Dong Sheng Li
• Keywords: Methanobacterium Soehngenii Strain YH, Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

References

[1] K. Veit, C. Ehlers, R.A. Schmitz, Effects of nitrogen and carbon sources on transcription of soluble methyltransferases in Methanosarcina mazei strain Gö1, Journal of bacteriology, vol. 187, no. 17, p.6147, (2005).

DOI: 10.1128/jb.187.17.6147-6154.2005

[2] E.L. Hendrickson, R. Kaul, Y. Zhou, Complete genome sequence of the genetically tractable hydrogenotrophic methanogen Methanococcus maripaludis, Journal of bacteriology, vol. 186, no. 20, p.6956, (2004).

DOI: 10.3410/f.1016667.251782

[3] K.S. Makarova, E.V. Koonin, Filling a gap in the central metabolism of archaea: prediction of a novel aconitase by comparative-genomic analysis, FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 227, no. 1, p.17, (2003).

DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1097(03)00596-2

[4] É. Bapteste, C. Brochier, Y. Boucher, Higher-level classification of the Archaea: evolution of methanogenesis and methanogens, Archaea, vol. 13, no. 4, p.353, (2005).

DOI: 10.1155/2005/859728

[5] T. Shen, J.Y. Wang, Carbohydrate metabolism,. In T Shen, JY Wang (eds) Biochemistry. Beijing, Higher Education Press, 1998, p.96–126.

[6] J.E. Galagan, C. Nuabaum, The genome of M. acetivorans reveals extensive metabolic and physiological diversity, Genome Research, vol. 12, no. 4, p.532, (2002).

[7] X. Chen, S.W. Chen, M. Sun, Z.N. Yu, Medium optimization by response surface methodology for poly-γ-glutamic acid production using dairy manure as the basis of a solid substrate, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 69, no. 3, p.390, (2005).

DOI: 10.1007/s00253-005-1989-z

[8] F. Francis, A. Sabu, K.M. Nampoothiri, Use of response surface methodology for optimizing process parameters for the production of α-amylase by Aspergillus oryzae, Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, p.107, (2003).

DOI: 10.1016/s1369-703x(02)00192-4

[9] P.R.M. Reddy, S. Mrudula, B. Ramesh, Production of thermostable pullulanase by C lostridium thermosulfurogenes SV2 in solid-state fermentation: optimization of enzyme leaching conditions using response surface methodology, Bioprocess Engineering , 2000, 23: 107-112.

DOI: 10.1007/pl00009116

[10] C.B. Muriel, G. Armel, N.D. Lindley, Growth ratedependent modulation of carbon flux through central metabolism and the kinetic consequences for glucoselimited chemostat cultures of Corynebacterium glutamicum, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 62, no. 3, p.429.

DOI: 10.1128/aem.62.2.429-436.1996

+1 Malate 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 Succinate 0. 9 1. 0 1. 1 Glutamate 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 Figure 3. Influence of regulatory factors addition on biogas yield. The experimental data represented the means (with standard deviation) calculated from five independent samples TABLE II. The Box–Behnken design for optimizing supplementation with nutrients Nutrient Biogas （mL） Malate Succinate Glutamate.

[1] -1 -1.

377.

[2] -1.

[1] [0] 385.

[3] [1] -1.

392.

[4] [1] [1] [0] 401.

[5] [0] -1 -1 381.

[6] [0] -1.

[1] 395.

[7] [0] [1] -1 388.

[8] [0] [1] [1] 410.

[9] -1.

-1 383.

[10] [1] [0] -1 387.

[11] -1.

[1] 394.

[12] [1] [0] [1] 403.

[13] [0] [0] [0] 435.

[14] [0] [0] [0] 447.

[15] [0] [0] [0] 425 TABLE III. Analysis of variancefor the experimental results of the Box–Behnken design aFactor DF SS MS Pr>F Model.

[9] 5678. 98 631. 00 0. 0116* X1.

[1] 351. 12 351. 12 0. 0696* X2.

[1] 242. 00 242. 00 0. 1143 X3.

[1] 300. 13 300. 13 0. 0866* X1X2.

[1] 0. 25 0. 25 0. 9534 X1X3.

[1] 16. 00 16. 00 0. 6440 X2X3.

[1] 6. 25 6. 25 0. 7712 X12.

[1] 1883. 10 1883. 10 0. 0031* X22.

[1] 2186. 26 2186. 26 0. 0022* X32.

[1] 1416. 03 1416. 03 0. 0057* Residual.

[5] 331. 42 66. 28 Total.

[14] 6010. 40 aX1= Malate, X2=Succinate, X3=Glutamate *Statistically significant at 95% of probability level *Statistically significant at 99% of probability level. DF, Degree of freedom. SS, Sum of square. MS, Mean square.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12297/table-4