Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethanol production by Klebsiella sp. SWET4 using banana peel as feasible substrate

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethanol has gained its importance as one of the highly demanded biofuels and is being produced from different food crops or food crop wastes after vigorous pretreatment compelling the production process economically incompatible to some extent. The process also becomes non-ecofriendly as the pretreatment process generally produces acid fumes and toxic effluents as well as consumes high energy. In this current study, the potential of the banana peel as a probable substrate for ethanol production was evaluated with the help of logical prediction. Moreover, a single-step ethanol production process was investigated to eliminate hazardous pretreatment processes. A potential bacterial strain SWET4 was isolated from a sewage treatment pond and was identified as a member of the Klebsiella genus by partial sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. The isolated strain showed ethanol tolerance up to 12% and exhibited its potential as a cellulolytic strain. The bacterial strain SWET4 was found able to ferment banana peel in MSM broth without any other carbon source with a comparatively prolonged lag phase of cellular growth. Trace of ethanol in banana peel fermentation broth of SWET4 was confirmed by high-pressure liquid chromatography. The optimization study for ethanol production enlightened the fact that high temperature and pH supported higher ethanol production. However, due to the growth restriction of the bacterial cell at higher temperatures and pH, only 40 °C and pH 8 were considered optimum. At the optimum substrate concentration (40 g l−1), ethanol concentration was found to be 5.48 g l−1 after 5 days of incubation which summed as a total yield of 0.137 g of ethanol per g of dried banana peel. This current study evaluates the potential of banana peel as a probable substrate for ethanol production and emphasizes on a new possibility of single-step ethanol production without any pretreatment, although metabolic optimization of the strain SWET4 is required to make the process industrially feasible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mustapha A, Soskolne CL (2018) Environmental injustice: local (environmental contamination) and global (climate change) effects from the use of fossil fuels on those who benefit least from their use. ISEE Conference Abstracts

    Google Scholar 

  2. Maity JP, Hou CP, Bundschuh J, Kulp TR, Chen CY, Chuang LT, Chen CN, Jean JS, Yang TC, Chen CC (2014) The production of biofuel and bioelectricity associated with wastewater treatment by green algae. Energy 78:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adenle AA, Haslam GE, Lee L (2013) Global assessment of research and development for algae biofuel production and its potential role for sustainable development in developing countries. Energ Policy 6:1182–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guo M, Song W, Buhain J (2015) Bioenergy and biofuels: history, status, and perspective. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:712–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. NS Energy Staff Writer (2019) e. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/top-biofuel-production-countries/?fbclid=IwAR1UvBfLT6EC-IWIMtJ43XXNLOW_K1gjDMKW2pfCsebhhjVBGVTiOXEnETA. Accessed 29 April 2020

  6. Elshahed MS (2010) Microbiological aspects of biofuel production: current status and future directions. J Adv Res 1:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2010.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohr A, Raman S (2013) Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energ Policy 63:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarkar N, Ghosh SK, Bannerjee S, Aikat K (2012) Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: an overview. Renew Energy 37:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Robak K, Balcerek M (2018) Review of second generation bioethanol production from residual biomass. Food Technol Biotech 56:174–187. https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi IS, Lee YG, Khanal SK, Park BJ, Bae HJ (2015) A low-energy, cost-effective approach to fruit and citrus peel waste processing for bioethanol production. Appl Energy 140:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boulal A, Kihal M, Khelifi C, Benali B (2016) Bioethanol production from date palm fruit waste fermentation using solar energy. Afr J Biotechnol 15:1621–1627. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2016.15368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boyce N (2014) Bioethanol production from mango waste (Mangifera indica L. cv chokanan): biomass as renewable energy. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 8:229–237

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gil LS, Maupoey PF (2018) An integrated approach for pineapple waste valorisation. Bioethanol production and bromelain extraction from pineapple residues. J Clean Prod 172:1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jayaprakashvel M, Akila S, Venkatramani M, Vinothini S, Bhagat J, Hussain AJ (2014) Production of bioethanol from papaya and pineapple wastes using marine associated microorganisms. Biosci Biotechnol Res Asia 11:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Derman E, Abdulla R, Marbawi H, Sabullah MK (2018) Oil palm empty fruit bunches as a promising feedstock for bioethanol production in Malaysia. Renew Energy 129:285–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cardoso S, Maraschin M, Peruch LAM, Rocha M, Pereira A (2017) Characterization of the chemical composition of banana peels from southern Brazil across the seasons using nuclear magnetic resonance and chemometrics. In: 11th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology & Bioinformatics, pp 321–328

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Romelle FD, Rani PA, Manohar RS (2016) Chemical composition of some selected fruit peels. Eur J Food Sci Technol 4:12–21

    Google Scholar 

  18. Guo J, Li Z, Su L, Tsang YF, An AK, Yu CF (2018) Optimization of acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis on the production of ethanol fuel from waste banana peels. Energy Environ 29:1354–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X18777232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wiegel J (1980) Formation of ethanol by bacteria. A pledge for the use of extreme thermophilic anaerobic bacteria in industrial ethanol fermentation processes. Experientia 36:1434–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo GN, Cai B, Li R, Pan X, Wei M, Zhang C (2019) Enhancement of saccharification and ethanol conversion from tobacco stalks by chemical pretreatment. Biomass Convers Bior:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00478-2

  21. Yang S, Fei Q, Zhang Y, Contreras LM, Utturkar SM, Brown SD, Himmel ME, Zhang M (2016) Zymomonas mobilis as a model system for production of biofuels and biochemicals. Microb Biotechnol 9:699–717 https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sharma N, Kalra KL, Oberoi HS, Bansal S (2007) Optimization of fermentation parameters for production of ethanol from kinnow waste and banana peels by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Indian J Microbiol 47:310–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-007-0057-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Soleimani SS, Adiguzel A, Nadaroglu H (2017) Production of bioethanol by facultative anaerobic bacteria. J I Brewing 123:402–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta N, Poddar K, Sarkar D, Kumari N, Padhan B, Sarkar A (2019) Fruit waste management by pigment production and utilization of residual as bioadsorbent. J Environ Manag 244:138–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sarkar D, Prajapati S, Poddar K, Sarkar A (2019) Production of ethanol by Enterobacter sp. EtK3 during fruit waste biotransformation. Int Biodeter Biodegr 145:104795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2019.104795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Horticultural Statistic at a Glance (2018) Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers’ Welfare, Horticulture Statistics Division

  27. Sarkar D, Gupta K, Poddar K, Biswas R, Sarkar A (2019) Direct conversion of fruit waste to ethanol using marine bacterial strain Citrobacter sp. E4. Process Saf Environ 128:203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.05.051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gül BY, Koyuncu I (2017) Assessment of new environmental quorum quenching bacteria as a solution for membrane biofouling. Process Biochem 61:137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2017.05.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sveinsdóttir M, Baldursson SRB, Örlygsson J (2009) Ethanol production from monosugars and lignocellulosic biomass by thermophilic bacteria isolated from Icelandic hot springs. Icel Agric Sci 22:45–58 http://hdl.handle.net/1946/19950

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gupta P, Samant K, Sahu A (2012) Isolation of cellulose-degrading bacteria and determination of their cellulolytic potential. Int J Microbiol 2012:578925–578925. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/578925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wu X, Staggenborg S, Propheter JL, Rooney WL, Yu J, Wang D (2010) Features of sweet sorghum juice and their performance in ethanol fermentation. Ind Crop Prod 31:164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2009.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Manmai N, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2020) Bioethanol production from sunflower stalk: application of chemical and biological pretreatments by response surface methodology (RSM). Biomass Convers Bior:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00602-7

  33. Oyeyinka BO, Afolayan AJ (2019) Comparative evaluation of the nutritive, mineral, and antinutritive composition of Musa sinensis L.(Banana) and Musa paradisiaca L.(Plantain) fruit compartments. Plants 8:598. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8120598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pathak PD, Mandavgane SA, Kulkarni BD (2017) Fruit peel waste: characterization and its potential uses. Curr Sci 113:444–454. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v113/i03/444-454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oberoi HS, Vadlani PV, Saida L, Bansal S, Hughes JD (2011) Ethanol production from banana peels using statistically optimized simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process. Waste Manag 31:1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chandel AK, Kapoor RK, Singh AK, Kuhad RC (2007) Detoxification of sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate improves ethanol production by Candida shehatae NCIM3501. Bioresour Technol 98:1947–1950 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Karimi K, Emtiazi G, Taherzadeh MJ (2006) Production of ethanol and mycelia biomass from rice straw hemicellulose hydrolyzate by Mucor indicus. Process Biochem 41:653–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/jprocbio.2005.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wiratno EN, Ardyati T, Wardani AK (2015) Effect of reducing sugar and total nitrogen to ethanol production from molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Expe Life Sci 4:50–55. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jels.2014.004.02.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pasotti L, Zucca S, Casanova M, Micoli G, De Angelis MGC, Magni P (2017) Fermentation of lactose to ethanol in cheese whey permeate and concentrated permeate by engineered Escherichia coli. BMC Biotechnol 17:48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12896-017-0369-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Singh N, Mathur AS, Gupta RP, Barrow CJ, Tuli D, Puri M (2018) Enhanced cellulosic ethanol production via consolidated bioprocessing by Clostridium ther-mocellum ATCC 31924. Bioresour Technol 250:860–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Barbosa MFS, Beck MJ, Fein JE, Potts D, Ingram LO (1992) Efficient fermentation of Pinus sp. acid hydrolyzates by anethanologenic strain of Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:1382–1384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lahiry S (2018) India’s ethanol equation. Down to Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/energy/india-s-ethanol-equation-61170. Accessed 29 April 2020

  43. Islam R, Panditharatne C, Schellenberg J, Sparling R, Cicek N, Levin DB (2015) Potential of thin stillage as a low-cost nutrient source for direct cellulose fermentation by Clostridium thermocellum. AIMS Energy 3:711–727. https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2015.4.711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Laura M, Monica T, Dan-Cristian V (2020) The effect of crude glycerol impurities on 1, 3-propanediol biosynthesis by Klebsiella pneumoniae DSMZ 2026. Renew Energy 153:1418–1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li Y, Zhu Q, Ding P, You S, Zhang Q, Jiang H (2020) Effects of Fe0 and Ni0 nanoparticles on hydrogen production from cotton stalk hydrolysate using Klebsiella sp. WL1316: evaluation of size and concentration of the nanoparticles. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:6243–6253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tao W, Kasuga T, Li S, Huang H, Fan Z (2019) Homoethanol production from cellobionate and glycerol using recombinant Klebsiella oxytoca strains. Biochem Eng J 151:107364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.107364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu S, Qureshi N (2009) How microbes tolerate ethanol and butanol. N Biotechnol 26:117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2009.06.984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Watanabe M, Tamura K, Magbanua JP, Takano K, Kitamoto K, Kitagaki H, Akao T, Shimoi H (2007) Elevated expression of genes under the control of stress response element (STRE) and Msn2p in an ethanol-tolerance sake yeast kyokai no. 11. J Biosci Bioeng 104:163–170. https://doi.org/10.1263/jbb.104.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jang D, Lee H, Pyo S, Roh SW, Rhee JK, Lee HS (2014) Fermentation and quality evaluation of makgeolli, Korean rice wine supplemented with alcohol-tolerant Pediococcus acidilactici K3. Korean J Microbiol Biotechnol 42:367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Liu S, Skory C, Qureshi N, Hughes S (2016) The yajC gene from Lactobacillus buchneri and Escherichia coli and its role in ethanol tolerance. J Ind Microbiol Biot 43:441–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-015-1730-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. König H, Fröhlich J (2017) Lactic acid bacteria. In: König H, Unden G, Fröhlich J (eds) Biology of microorganisms on grapes, in must and in wine, vol 46, 1st edn. Springer-verlag, Cham, pp 3–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Oh ES, Kim YJ, Park MA, Woo SH (2019) Feed additive comprising Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis, a feed composition comprising the feed additive and a method for producing the feed additive. CJ CheilJedang Corp 2019. U.S. Patent Application 15/745,087

  53. Akintola AI, Oyedeji O, Bakare MK, Adewale IO (2017) Purification and characterization of thermostable cellulase from Enterobacter cloacae IP8 isolated from decayed plant leaf litter. Biocatal Biotransfor 35:379–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242422.2017.1349761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Flimban S, Oh SE, Joo JH, Hussein KA (2019) Characterization and identification of cellulose-degrading bacteria isolated from a microbial fuel cell reactor. Biotechnol Bioproc Eng 24:622–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-019-0089-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shakarami MH, Mohammadabadi T, Motamedi H, Sari M, Teimouri Yansari A (2019) Isolation and identification of cellulolytic bacteria from gastrointestinal tract of Arabian horse and investigation of their effect on the nutritional value of wheat straw. J Appl Microbiol 127:344–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Waghmare PR, Kshirsagar SD, Saratale RG, Govindwar SP, Saratale GD (2014) Production and characterization of cellulolytic enzymes by isolated Klebsiella sp. PRW-1 using agricultural waste biomass. Emir J Food Agric 26:44–59. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v26i1.15296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lu MGX, Jiang J, Liu L, Ma APY, Leung FCC (2015) Complete genome sequence of Klebsiella variicola strain HKUOPLA, a cellulose-degrading bacterium isolated from giant panda feces. Genome Announc 3(5):01200–01215. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.01200-15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kalaiselvi V, Jayalakshmi S (2013) Cellulase from an estuarine Klebsiella ozeanae. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 2(9):111–112

    Google Scholar 

  59. Maier RM, Pepper IL (2015) Bacterial growth. In: Pepper IL, Gerba CP, Gentry TJ (eds) Environmental microbiology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 37–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Seta K, Suzuki T, Kiyoshi K, Shigeno T, Nakajima-Kambe T (2018) Potential use of methane fermentation digested slurry as a low-cost, environmentally-friendly nutrient for bioethanol production from crude glycerol by Klebsiella variicola TB-83D. New Biotechnol 44:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2018.02.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Chen WC, Chuang CJ, Chang JS, Wang LF, Soo PC, Wu HS, Tsai SL, Wei YH (2019) Exploring dual-substrate cultivation strategy of 1, 3-propanediol production using Klebsiella pneumoniae. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 191:346–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-019-03208-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Vikromvarasiri N, Haosagul S, Boonyawanich S, Pisutpaisal N (2016) Microbial dynamics in ethanol fermentation from glycerol. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(35):15667–15673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bagewadi ZK, Mulla SI, Ninnekar HZ (2018) Optimization of endoglucanase production from Trichoderma harzianum strain HZN11 by central composite design under response surface methodology. Biomass Convers Bior 8:305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-017-0285-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Biotechnology and Medical Engineering, the National Institute of Technology Rourkela for providing a research environment and use the available technical facilities for the work.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Debapriya Sarkar and Sushant Prajapati contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biotechnology and Medical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, Odisha, 769008, India

    Debapriya Sarkar, Sushant Prajapati, Kasturi Poddar & Angana Sarkar

Authors
  1. Debapriya Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sushant Prajapati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kasturi Poddar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angana Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angana Sarkar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors of this manuscript declare no conflict of interest for the submission of the manuscript to the journal Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarkar, D., Prajapati, S., Poddar, K. et al. Ethanol production by Klebsiella sp. SWET4 using banana peel as feasible substrate. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 12, 1479–1491 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00880-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00880-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation