Bioreactors for the Production of Biosurfactants

Beuker, Janina; Syldatk, Christoph; Hausmann, Rudolf

doi:10.1201/b17599-10

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These elements have an additional energy demand and need maintenance, thus increasing also process costs. Further alternatives exist, e.g., adsorption of cell-containing foam, bubble-free membrane reactors, and foam fractionation (Winterburn et al, 2011;Beuker et al, 2014;Anic et al, 2017). However, all control or prevention methods have their limits, and usually add complexity to the fermentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The foaming facilitates biomass and product loss from the liquid phase. The product can be enriched in the foam phase by more than 20 times ( Beuker et al, 2014 , 2016b ). Losing the whole-cell catalyst has a negative impact on volumetric production rate ( Davis et al, 2001 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While foaming is a true challenge, several strategies to control or prevent foaming exist. Antifoaming agents (or antifoamers) can be used, with the potential drawbacks of lowering the oxygen transfer rate, increasing the cost as they are expensive, and complicate downstream processing due to emulsification ( Vardar-Sukan, 1998 ; Beuker et al, 2014 ). Another alternative is the use of mechanical foam breakers, which destroy the foam by shear stress ( Junker, 2007 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Killing Two Birds With One Stone – Strain Engineering Facilitates the Development of a Unique Rhamnolipid Production Process

Bator

Karmainski

Tiso

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Killing Two Birds With One Stone – Strain Engineering Facilitates the Development of a Unique Rhamnolipid Production Process

Bator

Karmainski

Tiso

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In situ downstream strategies for cost‐effective bio/surfactant recovery

Najmi

Ebrahimipour

Franzetti

et al. 2018

Biotech and App Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 60-80% of total costs of production are usually associated with downstream collection, separation, and purification processes, it has become advantageous to investigate how to replace traditional methods with efficient and cost-effective alternative techniques for recovery and purification of biosurfactants. In the traditional techniques, large volumes of organic solvents are usually used for increasing production cost and the overall environmental burden. In addition, traditional production and separation methods typically carried out in batch cultures reduce biosurfactant yields due to product inhibition and lower biosurfactants activity as a result of interaction with the organic solvents used. However, some in situ recovery methods that allow continuous separation of bioproducts from culture broth leading to an improvement in yield production and fermentation efficiency. For biosurfactants commercialization, enhancement of product capacity of the separation methods and the rate of product removal is critical. Recently, interest in the integration of separation methods with a production step as rapid and efficient techniques has been increasing. This review focuses on the technology gains and potentials for the most common methods used in in situ product removal: foam fractionation and ultrafiltration, especially used to recover and purify two well-known biosurfactants: glycolipids (rhamnolipids) and lipopeptides (surfactins).

show abstract