Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Process Biochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/procbio
Food Science Department, Food Engineering Faculty, University of Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 80, Cidade Universitria Zeferino Vaz, 13083-862 Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil
Chemistry Institute, University of Campinas, Post Box 6154, Cidade Universitria Zeferino Vaz, 13083-970 Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil
c
Microbiology Department, Federal University of Vicosa, Av. PH Rolfs - Campus Universitrio, 36570 000 Vicosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
d
BioSage, 807 Eagles Chase Drive, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, United States
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 February 2011
Received in revised form 24 June 2011
Accepted 1 July 2011
Keywords:
B. subtilis
Biosurfactant
Surfactin
Raw glycerol
Biodiesel
Mass spectrometry
a b s t r a c t
The production of biosurfactant by Bacillus subtilis LSFM-05 was carried out using raw glycerol, obtained
from a vegetable oil biodiesel plant in Brazil, as the sole carbon source. Production of the biosurfactant was
carried out in a 15-L bench-top fermentor and the surfactant was obtained from the foam produced. The
crude surfactant was puried by silica gel column chromatography with a yield of 230 mg of the puried
biosurfactant per liter of foam. TLC, IR spectroscopy, 1 H and 13 C NMR and Fourier transform ion cyclotron
resonance mass spectrometry with electrospray ionization (ESI-FTMS) were used to characterize the
puried surfactant. The isolated surfactant was identied as a surfactin lipopeptide. MS/MS data identied
the amino acid sequence as GluOMe-Leu-Leu-Asp-Val-Leu-Leu and showed that the fatty acid moiety
contained 14 carbons in iso, anteiso or normal congurations. The critical micelle concentration of the
C14 /Leu7 surfactin was 70 M, with emulsication efciency after 24 h (E24 ) of 67.6% against crude oil.
Raw glycerol represents an abundant and renewable carbon source and provides an opportunity for
reducing the cost of biosurfactant production and may add value to biodiesel production by creating new
commercial applications for this by-product.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under the Elsevier OA license.
1. Introduction
Biosurfactants or microbial surfactants are surface active
molecules that are produced by a variety of microorganisms
including bacteria, yeast and lamentous fungus. Due to their
amphipathic nature, these biomolecules reduce the interfacial
tension between an aqueous phase and hydrophobic molecules,
thereby enhancing the solubility and bioavailability of hydrophobic organic compounds [1]. In comparison to synthetic chemical
surfactants, biosurfactants are of interest due to their high level
of activity, specic activity at extreme temperatures, pH and
salinity, ability to be produced from renewable feedstock and
high degree of biodegradability [2]. However, biosurfactants have
not yet been commercialized extensively due to low production yields and high feedstock and purication costs [2,3]. In
order to solve these problems, many studies have been carried out using low-cost feedstock or agricultural byproducts as
substrates for biosurfactant production. Low-cost carbon sources
that have been used for biosurfactant production by microorganisms include sludge palm oil [4], cassava wastewater [5],
vegetable oil renery waste [6], molasses [7] and raw glycerol
[8]. Raw glycerol is a by-product of biodiesel production [9].
Biodiesel is produced by transesterication of fatty acids derived
from vegetable oils and animal fats and the raw glycerol byproduct represents 10% (v/v) of the total biodiesel production
[9,10].
The European Union has been the global leader in biodiesel production [11]. According to the European Biodiesel Board [12], the
overall biodiesel production in the EU has increased from 9.0 million tonnes in 2009 to nearly 21.9 million tonnes in 2010. Brazil is
also among the largest producers and consumers of biodiesel in the
world with an annual production in 2010 of 2.4 billion liters and
an installed capacity in the same year of 5.8 billion liters, according to the Brazilian National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and
1952
comparing the proles of the fatty acid methyl esters to those in the Aerobe reference
library database (TSBA, version 4.0).
2.2. Media and culture conditions
B. subtilis LSFM-05 was grown on nutrient agar (Difco) plates at 30 C for 24 h
and transferred to 200 mL conical asks containing 50 mL of Nutrient Broth (Difco),
followed by incubation at 32 C and 150 rpm for 48 h. The inoculum was prepared
by centrifuging the culture for 10 min at 18,000 g in a HITACHI-CR-21 centrifuge,
and the cells were washed twice with a sterile NaCl solution 0.85% (w/v) and resuspended in the basal salts medium containing (per liter): 3 g of NaNO3 ; 1 g of
KH2 PO4 ; 0.1 g of NaCl; 0.5 of MgSO4 7H2 O; 1 mL of vitamin stock solution (0.002 g/L
folic acid, 0.010 g/L pyridoxine, 0.005 g/L riboavin, 0.005 g/L thiamine, 0.005 g/L
nicotinic acid, 0.005 g/L pantothenic acid, 0.001 g/L cyanocobalamin, 0.005 g/L aminobenzoic acid, 0.005 g/L thioctic acid and 0.002 g/L biotin), at pH 6.8. The
fermentation was conducted using a 15-L bench-top fermentor (Bioo 3000 New
Brunswick Scientic) with 10 L working volume. The organic substrate was added
to basal salt medium in the concentration of 5% (v/v) as the sole carbon source. The
glycerol sample was donated by the biodiesel industry Granol, Anpolis, Brazil and
stored at 4 C. According to the Granol industry, the raw glycerol sample contained
80% glycerol, 58% water, 6% mineral salts, 5% unidentied organic compounds
other than glycerol and 0.3% methanol. The culture medium was inoculated with
106 CFU/mL giving an initial optical density at 600 nm of 0.1. The fermentation was
carried out at 32 C for 72 h, with agitation at 250 rpm, oxygenation at 0.5 vvm in
the absence of a chemical antifoaming agent. The pH was not controlled during
the fermentation. The fermentative process was carried out in three independent
replicates. The glycerol consumption and microbial growth were determined from
samples collected at 12-h intervals following inoculation. To remove the bacterial
cells, the samples were centrifuged at 18,000 g for 10 min at 4 C. The glycerol
concentration was determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
using a Shimadzu Chromatograph model CR-21 equipped with a Supercogel C-610H
column conditioned at 75 C and an isocratic mobile phase of 0.1% H2 SO4 (98% purity,
Synth, Brazil) at a ow rate of 1.0 mL/min [24]. To determine cellular growth the
samples were submitted to serial dilutions in saline solution (0.85%, w/v) and viable
counts were performed by the spread plate technique. The results are expressed as
colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL). The pH of the culture was measured
during the fermentation using a pH probe inserted into the fermentation broth.
2.3. Biosurfactant recovery
The surfactant was obtained by collecting the foam produced during fermentation. The fermentor was tted with a collection vessel in the air-exhaust line to
collect the foam overow. The foam was allowed to settle in sterile asks at room
temperature, centrifuged to remove microbial cells (18,000 g for 15 min, 4 C). The
surface activity of the cell-free foam collected was analyzed by measuring the surface tension and critical micelle dilution (CMD1 and CMD2 ). The surface tension
was determined with a Du Nouy tensiometer-K10S (Krss/Germany) using the ring
method. The CMD1 and CMD2 were determined by measuring the surface tension
of the 10 and 100 times-diluted cell-free supernatant in distilled water. Crude biosurfactant was precipitated from the cell-free foam by acidication to pH 2.0 using
37% HCl (Synth, Brazil) [25], followed by storage at 4 C for 24 h. The crude biosurfactant was separated from the supernatant by centrifugation at 18,000 g for 15 min.
The precipitate was washed twice with acidied water at pH 2.0, re-dissolved in
distilled water at pH 7.0 and freeze-dried using the Dura Dry-FTS-System. The dry
weight of crude surfactant was calculated as grams crude surfactant per liter of foam
volume (g/L).
2.4. Biosurfactant purication
Crude biosurfactant was puried by absorption column chromatography using
The 1 H and 13 C NMR analyses of the puried LSFM-05 biosurfactant were carried
out in a Buker INOVA 500 MHz (Varian) spectrometer. The spectra were obtained
from 20 mg of puried biosurfactant dissolved in 500 l deuterated chloroform
(Sigma Co.) at 500 MHz and 298.1 K.
2.7. Mass spectrometry analysis by ESI-FTMS
A sample of puried biosurfactant (1 mg) was dissolved in 1 mL of methanol.
For analysis in the positive ion mode, a total of 1 L of a 0.1% (v/v) aqueous solution
of formic acid was added to the nal solution to facilitate protonation of the basic
nitrogen compounds yielding protonated molecules [M+H]+ . A direct infusion automated chip-based nano-ESI Triversa NanoMate 100 system (Advion BioSciences,
Ithaca, NY, USA) was used in both the positive and negative ion modes. The samples
were loaded into 96-well plates (total volume of 100 L in each well) and analyzed
using a 7.2T LTQ FT Ultra mass spectrometer (ThermoScientic, Bremen, Germany).
The general conditions for ESI were: gas pressure of 0.0020 MPa and capillary voltage of 1.55 kV. The mass spectra were the result of over 100 microscans processed
via the Xcalibur 2.0 software (ThermoScientic, Bremen, Germany).
2.8. Emulsication index (E24 ) and critical micelle concentration of the puried
biosurfactant
The emulsication activity was analyzed using tubes containing 3 mL of the
puried surfactant solution at concentration of 1.0 g/L and 2 mL of hydrocarbon
substrate. The synthetic surfactants Triton X and SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) were
also evaluated at a concentration of 0.1% (v/v) and 1 g/L, respectively. The test was
performed using the hydrocarbons toluene, pristane, kerosene, diesel oil, hexadecane, tetradecane, tridecane, heptane, benzene and crude oil. The tubes containing
the hydrocarbon and surfactant solution were mixed by vortexing at high speed for
2 min and maintained under static conditions at room temperature for 24 h [27]. The
emulsion stability was determined after 24 h, and the emulsication index (E24 ) was
calculated by dividing the measured height of emulsication layer by the mixtures
total height and multiplying by 100.
The critical micelle concentration (CMC) was determined by measuring the surface tension of serial dilutions of a puried biosurfactant solution (1 g/L). The puried
biosurfactant solution was prepared and diluted using TrisHCl buffer, pH 8.
1953
1954
Fig. 1. (--) Microbial growth (CFU/mL), (--) glycerol concentration (g/L), (--) pH values and (--) biosurfactant yield (g/L) registered during the growth of B. subtilis
LSFM-05 in a mineral salt medium supplemented with 5% (v/v) of raw glycerol as the sole carbon source at 32 C, 250 rpm, 0.5 vvm for 72 h.
Table 1
Surface properties (surface tension, CMD1 and CMD2 ) and biosurfactant yield on the foam samples collected at 12-h intervals. Critical micelle dilution CMD1 and CMD2
is the surface tension of the 10 and 100 times-diluted cell-free supernatant in distilled water, respectively.
Properties of foam collected
Time (h)
Volume (L)
36
48
60
72
0.55
2.4
0.78
0.5
0.04
0.17
0.04
0.06
Biosurfactant (g/L)
0.92
0.7
1.38
1.36
0.15
0.05
0.13
0.22
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.4
CMD1 (mN/m)
29.8
33.8
33.7
33.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
2.2
CMD2 (mN/m)
37.5
38.9
40.8
40.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
Surfactant species
1022.68
1036.69
1044.66
1058.7
1046.66
1060.0
Leu/Ile7
Leu/Ile7
Leu/Ile7
Leu/Ile7
Leu/Ile7
Leu/Ile7
C13
C14
C13
C14
C13
C14
[M+H]+
[M+H]+
[M+Na]+
[M+Na]+
[M+K]+
[M+K]+
a
The surfactins were fractioned by using Acros Organics silica gel (0.030.07 mm,
as the stationary phase and the mobile phase: CHCl3 /CH3 OH/NH4 OH (80:20:4)
60 A)
(v/v/v), CHCl3 /CH3 OH/NH4 OH (75:25:4) (v/v/v) and CHCl3 /CH3 OH/NH4 OH (65:35:5)
(v/v/v). The surfactin isoforms were collected in the organic fractions and identied
by ESI-FTMS.
1955
1956
Fig. 3. (a) Fragmentation (ESI-MS/MS) of the m/z 1036.7 ion using the IRMPD (left) and CID (right) modes, showing the composition of the peptide and fatty acid moiety and
(b) simple cleavage of the lipopeptide showing a set of ions produced after fragmentation.
Table 3
Emulsifying activity of the C14 /Leu7 surfactin, SDS and Triton X against different
hydrocarbons.
Emulsication index EI24 (%)
Hydrocarbons
SDSa
Triton Xb
Tridecane
Pristane
Diesel
Kerosene
Hexadecene
Toluene
Heptane
Benzene
Tetradecane
Crude oil
56.8 0.6
55.6 1.9
55 0.3
59.1 0.4
55 0.8
49.6 1.4
52.8 1.6
53.2 2.2
58 0.3
67.6 1.0
50.0 0.5
52.8 1.0
54.3 0.6
50.1 1.9
50.0 0.2
49.5 1.4
52 2.0
46.1 0.9
51 1.0
44.3 0.7
49.5 1.4
49.2 0.8
49.5 0.4
50 0.9
49.1 0.9
50 0.3
45.7 0.9
46.8 1.3
49.5 0.5
46.5 0.2
a
b
1957
[18] Liu X-Y, Yang S-Z, Mu B-Z. Production and characterization of a C15 -surfactin-Omethyl ester by a lipopeptide producing strain Bacillus subtilis HSO121. Process
Biochem 2009;44:114451.
[19] Snook ME, Mitchell T, Hinton DM, Bacon CW. Isolation and characterization of leu7 -surfactin from the endophytic bacterium Bacillus mojavensis
RRC 101, a biocontrol agent for Fusarium verticillioides. J Agric Food Chem
2009;l57:428792.
[20] Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG. The clustral X
windows interface: exible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided
by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;24:487682.
[21] Kumar S, Tamura K, Jakobsen IB, Nei M. MEGA2: molecular evolutionary
genetics analysis software, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Bioinformatics 2001;17:12445.
[22] Kimura M. A simple model for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol
1980;16:11120.
[23] Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987;4:40625.
[24] Lpez EF, Gmez EF. Simultaneous determination of the major organic acids,
sugar, glycerol and ethanol by HPLC in grape musts and white wines. J Chromatogr Sci 1996;34:2547.
[25] Cooper DG, Macdonald CR, Duff SJB, Kosaric N. Enhanced production of surfactin
from Bacillus subtilis by continuous product removal and metal cation additions.
Appl Environ Microbiol 1981;42:40812.
[26] Blackwood KS, Turenne CY, Harmsen D, Kabani AM. Reassessment of
sequence-based targets for identication of Bacillus species. J Clin Microbiol
2004;42:162630.
[27] Llarch , Logan NA, Castellv J, Prieto MJ, Guinea J. Isolation and characterization of thermophilic Bacillus spp. from geothermal environmental on deception
island, south shetland archipelago. Microb Ecol 1997;34:5865.
[28] De Clerck E, Rodrigues-Diaz M, Forsyth G, Lebbe L, Logan NA, DeVos P. Polyphasic characterization of Bacillus coagulans strains, illustrating heterogeneity
within this species, and emended description of the species. System Appl
Microbiol 2004;27:5060.
[29] Noah KS, Fox SL, Bruhn DF, Thompson DN, Bala GA. Development of continuous
surfactin production from potato process efuent by Bacillus subtilis in an airlift
reactor. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2002;9:8100, 803-813.
[30] Koch V, Rffner HM, Schgerl K, Innertsberger E, Menzel H, Weis J. Effect of
antifoam agents on the medium and microbials cells properties and process
performance in small an large bioreactors. Process Biochem 1995;30:43546.
[31] Makkar RS, Cameotra SS. Synthesis of enhanced biosurfactant by Bacillus subtilis
MTCC 2423 at 45 C by foam fractionation. J Surfact Deterg 2001;4:3557.
[32] Chen C-Y, Baker SC, Darton RC. Continuous production of biosurfactant with
foam fractionation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2006;81:191522.
[33] Davis DA, Lynch HC, Varley J. The application of foaming for the recovery of
surfactin from Bacillus subtilis ATCC 21332 cultures. Enzyme Microb Technol
2000;28:34654.
[34] Joshi S, Bharucha C, Desai AJ. Production of biosurfactant and antifungal
compound by fermented food isolate Bacillus subtilis 20B. Bioresour Technol
2008;99:46038.
[35] Thaniyavarn J, Roongsawang N, Kameyama T, Haruki M, Imanaka T, Morikawa
M, et al. Production and characterization of biosurfactants from Bacillus licheniformis F2.2. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 2003;67:123944.
[36] Tang J-S, Gao H, Hong K, Yu Y, Jiang M-M, Lin H-P, et al. Complete assignments of 1 H and 13 C NMR spectra of nine surfactin isomers. Magn Reson Chem
2007;45:7926.
[37] Batrakov SG, Radionova TA, Esipov SE, Polyakov NB, Sheichenko VI,
Shekhovtsova NV, et al. A novel lipopeptide, an inhibitor of bacterial adhesion from the thermophilic and halotolerant subsurface Bacillus licheniformis
strain 603. Biochim Biophys Acta 2003;1634:1057.
[38] Li Y, Yang S, Mu B. Structural characterization of lipopeptide methyl esters
produced by Bacillus licheniformis HSN 221. Chem Biodivers 2010;7:206575.
[39] Liu X-Y, Yang S-Z, Mu B-Z. Isolation and characterization of a C12 -lipopeptide
produced by Bacillus subtilis HSO 121. J Pept Sci 2008;14:86475.
[40] Tang J-S, Zhao F, Gao H, Dai Y, Yao Z-H, Hong K, et al. Characterization and
online detection of surfactin isomers based on HPLCMSn analyses and their
inhibitory effects on the overproduction of nitric oxide and the release of TNF-
and IL-6 in LPS-induced macrophages. Mar Drugs 2010;8:260518.
[41] Peypoux F, Bonmatin J-M, Labbe H, Grangemard I, Das BC, Ptak M, et al.
[Ala4]Surfactin, a novel isoform from Bacillus subtilis studied by mass and NMR
spectroscopies. Eur J Biochem 1994;224:8996.
[42] Haddad NIA, Wang J, Mu B. Identication of a biosurfactant producing strain:
Bacillus subtilis HOB2. Protein Pept Lett 2009;16:713.
[43] Nitschke M, Pastore GM. Production and properties of a surfactant obtained
from Bacillus subtilis grown on cassava wastewater. Bioresour Technol
2006;97:336441.