• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Chapter 6 Figure 6.3.1

4.3 Results and Discussion

4.3.4 Comparative assessment of results with published literature

The conclusion of this study is also supported by the outcome of the study by Deka et al. (2013), where overall optimization of medium composition and fermentation parameters resulted in eight-fold enhancement in CMCase activity from Bacillus sp. and the contribution of medium optimization alone was six fold. A comparative account of optimization of medium as well as optimization of fermentation parameters is given in Table 4.3.9A and B. The enzyme activity reported by Lee et al. (2008) and Lee et al. (2010) for Bacillus sp. is significantly higher (i.e., 137 and 153 U/mL) than that reported in this study as well as several other studies cited in Table 4.3.9A. However, it should be noted that the Lee et al.

(2008) and Lee et al. (2010) determined the enzyme activity at bioreactor scale as compared with shake flask scale in present study, which has better controlled system in terms of operating parameters. Moreover, the carbon source for all species reported in Table 4.3.9A is different from each other, which influences the activity of the enzyme. For example, Sethi et al. (2013) used glucose as the sole carbon source, while Shabeb et al. (2010) used dual carbon source in the form of molasses and cellulose. It was observed that microorganisms, producing cellulase activity within a similar range as B. amyloliquefaciens SS35, were able to hydrolyze several lignocellulosic biomasses significantly. For example: (1) Sago pith waste hydrolysis

by B. amyloliquefaciens UMAS 1002 with CMCase activity 0.63 U/mL (Apun et al.

2000); (2) enzymatic hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse for bioethanol production using cellulase with 0.112 and 0.902 U/mL produced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum PTCC 5140 and Aspergillus niger, respectively (Shaibani et al.

2011); (3) Wild grass (Achnatherum hymenoides) hydrolysis by B. subtilis AS3 with 0.57 U/mL CMCase activity (Deka et al. 2013).

It was proven with rigorous study of numerous commercial enzyme preparations (from suppliers such as Novozymes, Dyadic, Genencor, Rhodia- Danisco, Lyven) comprising cellulase, cellobiase and xylanases that the enzyme activities predicted by standard assays using commercially available substrates do not really reflect the actual activity of the enzyme on plant (lignocellulosic) materials (Kabel et al. 2006). The enzyme showing lower activity with commercial substrates can do efficient hydrolysis with a lignocellulosic substrate. In the study by Kabel et al. (2006), xylanase activity analyzed in the standard xylanase assay did not present a high correlation with the degradation of xylan-rich fractions of wheat bran and grass.

A remarkable example is the comparison of the standard activity of Cellubrix (107 U/mL) and Cellulase 2000L (568 U/mL) with the degradation of xylan to xylose of Cellubrix (only 50-60%) and Cellulase 2000L (only 18-20%). The enzyme activity towards the cellulose- and xylan-enriched fractions from grass and wheat bran was revealed to be markedly different than that found with standard assays. Therefore, the actual degradation of the xylan- and cellulose-rich fractions from wheat bran and grass could not be correlated with the (relatively low) activity of enzymes as indicated by standard assays. Therefore, in general, the choice of most suitable

enzyme preparation is dependent on the substrate characteristics also other than on standard enzyme activities measured.

Table 4.3.9 Comparison of various optima reported in literature for CMCase production by Bacillus spp.

(A) Representative literature review on optimization of medium components.

Bacillus sp. Source Medium

Component Method

Optimum Conc.

(g/L)

Scale

Cellulase activity (U/mL)

Reference

Bacillus sp. VG1

Hot spring

soil

CMC

OVAT

10.0

Shake

flask 0.63 Singh et al. 2001

Tryptone 5.0

B. pumilus EB3

Oil palm empty

fruit bunch

CMC

OVAT

10.0

Shake

flask 0.076 Ariffin et al. 2008

Yeast extract 2.5

(NH4)2SO4 2.5

B. amyloliquefaciens

DL3 Soil

Rice hull

OVAT

20.0

7 L

Bioreactor 153.0 Lee et al.

2008

Peptone 2.5

(NH4)2SO4 0.6

B. subtilis subsp.

subtilis A-53

Sea water

Rice bran

OVAT 20.0 7 L

Bioreactor 137.0 Lee et al.

2010

Yeast extract 2.5

B. subtilis KO

Sugar factory product

Molasses +

Cellulose OVAT 1.0 Shake

flask 35.0 Shabeb et al. 2010 (NH4)2PO4/tryptone 2.0

B. subtilis AS3 Cow

dung

CMC Plackett-

Burman and CCD

18.0

Shake

flask 0.43 Deka et al. 2011

Yeast extract 4.79

Peptone 8.0

B. subtilis Soil Glucose

OVAT 50.0 Shake

flask 1.0 Sethi et al. 2013

(NH4)2SO4 5.0

B. amyloliquefaciens SS35

Rhino- ceros dung

CMC Plackett-

Burman and CCD

19.05

Shake

flask 0.55

This study (Singh et al. 2014)

Yeast extract 8.0

Peptone 2.0

(B) Representative literature review for optimization of fermentation parameters.

Bacillus sp. Source Optimization

Parameter Method Optimum

value Scale

Cellulase activity (U/mL)

Reference

B. amyloliquefaciens UMAS1002

Sago pith waste

pH

OVAT

6.0

Shake flask

9.38 Khan and Hussaini 2006

Temperature (oC) 40

Inoculum size (%, v/v) 4

Shaking speed (rpm) 100

Bacillus sp.

Coir retting effluent

pH

OVAT

7.0

Shake flask

0.02 Immanuel et al. 2006

Temperature (oC) 40

Inoculum size (%, v/v) ND

Shaking speed (rpm) ND

B. amyloliquefaciens

DL3 Soil

pH

OVAT

6.8

7 L

Bioreactor 367 Lee et al.

2008

Temperature (oC) 37

Inoculum size (%, v/v) ND

Shaking speed (rpm) ND

B. subtilis subsp.

subtilis A-53

Sea water

pH

OVAT

6.8

7 L

Bioreactor 137 Lee et al.

2010

Temperature (oC) 30

Inoculum size (%, v/v) ND

Shaking speed (rpm) ND

B. amyloliquefaciens UNPDV-22

Hot spring

pH

CCD

5.25

Shake

flask 13

Vasudeo and Lew 2011

Temperature (oC) 42.24

Inoculum size (%, v/v) 4.95

Shaking speed (rpm) ND

B. subtilis AS3 Cow

dung

pH

CCD

7.2

Shake

flask 0.56 Deka et al. 2013

Temperature (oC) 39

Inoculum size (%, v/v) ND

Shaking speed (rpm) 121

B. subtilis Soil

pH

OVAT

10.0

Shake

flask 0.9 Sethi et al. 2013

Temperature (oC) 40

Inoculum size (%, v/v) ND

Shaking speed (rpm) ND

B. amyloliquefaciens SS35

Rhino- ceros dung

pH

CCD

5.65

Shake

flask 0.69

This study (Singh et al. 2014)

Temperature (oC) 40.4

Inoculum size (%, v/v) 6.96

Shaking speed (rpm) 120

ND - not determined