Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C

A Journal of Biosciences

Editor-in-Chief: Seibel, Jürgen

Editorial Board: Aigner , Achim / Boland, Wilhelm / Bornscheuer, Uwe / Hoffmann, Klaus

12 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.882
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.912

CiteScore 2017: 0.92

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.448

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 73, Issue 9-10


Screening of the five different wild, traditional and industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains to overproduce bioethanol in the batch submerged fermentation

Reza Shaghaghi-Moghaddam
  • Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, East Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Hoda Jafarizadeh-Malmiri
  • Corresponding author
  • Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, East Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran, Phone: +98 4133459099, Fax: +98411-3444355, E-mail:
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Parviz Mehdikhani / Sepide Jalalian / Reza Alijanianzadeh
Published Online: 2017-12-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2017-0180


Efforts to produce bioethanol with higher productivity in a batch submerged fermentation were made by evaluating the bioethanol production of the five different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, namely, NCYC 4109 (traditional bakery yeast), SFO6 (industrial yeast), TTCC 2956 (hybrid baking yeast) and two wild yeasts, PTCC 5052 and BY 4743. The bioethanol productivity and kinetic parameters for all five yeasts at constant fermentation conditions, during 72 h, were evaluated and monitored. The obtained results indicated that compared to the wild yeasts, both traditional bakery (NCYC 4109) and industrial (SFO6) yeasts had higher bioethanol productivity (0.9 g/L h). Significant (p<0.05) differences between biomass concentration of NCYC 4109 yeast and those of other yeasts 30 h after start of fermentation, and its high bioethanol concentration (59.19 g/L) and yield over consumed sugars (77.25%) were highlighted among all the studied yeasts. Minimum bioethanol productivity was obtained using yeasts PTCC 5052 (0.7 g/L h) and TTCC 2956 (0.86 g/L h). However, maximum yield over consumed sugar was obtained using the yeast TTCC 2956 (79.41%).

Keywords: bioethanol; productivity; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; screening; submerged fermentation


  • 1.

    Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys 2008;8:389–95.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Jayus J, Nurhayati N, Mayzuhroh A, Arindhani S, Caroenchai C. Studies on bioethanol production of commercial baker’s and alcohol yeast under aerated culture using sugarcane molasses as the media. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 2016;9:493–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Laluce C, Tognolli JO, De Oliveira KF, Souza CS, Morais MR. Optimization of temperature, sugar concentration, and inoculum size to maximize ethanol production without significant decrease in yeast cell viability. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2009;83:627–37.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Martínez O, Sánchez A, Font X, Barrena R. Valorization of sugarcane bagasse and sugar beet molasses using Kluyveromyces marxianus for producing value-added aroma compounds via solid-state fermentation. J Cleaner Prod 2017;158:8–17.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Nahvi I, Emtiazi G, Alkabi L. Isolation of a flocculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae and investigation of its performance in the fermentation of beet molasses to ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:481–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Goshima T, Tsuji M, Inoue H, Yano S, Hoshino T, Matsushika A. Bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass by a novel Kluyveromyces marxianus strain. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 2013;77:1505–10.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Meenakshi A, Kumaresan R. Ethanol production from corn, potato peel waste and its process development. Int J Chemtech Res 2014;6:2843–53.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Shaibani N, Ghazvini S, Andalibi MR, Yaghmaei S. Ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse by means of enzymes produced by solid state fermentation method. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2011;59:1836–9.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Shaibani N, Yaghmaei S, Andalibi MR, Ghazvini S. Ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse by means of on-site produced and commercial enzymes; a comparative study. Period Polytech Chem Eng 2012;56:91–6.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Ashok A, Kumar DS. Different methodologies for sustainability of optimization techniques used in submerged and solid state fermentation. Biotech 2017;7:301.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Siqueira PF, Karp SG, Carvalho JC, Sturm W, Rodríguez-León JA, Tholozan JL, et al. Production of bioethanol from soybean molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae at laboratory, pilot and industrial scales. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:8156–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Ergun M, Mutlu SF. Application of a statistical technique to the production of ethanol from sugar beet molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour Technol 2000;73:251–5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Mishra J, Kumar D, Samanta S, Vishwakarma MK. A comparative study of ethanol production from various agro residues by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans. J Yeast Fungal Res 2012;3:12–7.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Jafari N, Jafarizadeh-Malmiri H, Hamzeh-Mivehroud M, Adibpour M. Optimization of UV irradiation mutation conditions for cellulase production by mutant fungal strains of Aspergillus niger through solid state fermentation. Green Process Synth 2017;6:333–40.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Liu X, Jia B, Sun X, Ai J, Wang L, Wang C, et al. Effect of initial pH on growth characteristics and fermentation properties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Food Sci 2015;80:800–8.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Son HS, Hong YS, Park WM, Yu MA, Lee CH. A novel approach for estimating sugar and alcohol concentrations in wines using refractometer and hydrometer. J Food Sci 2009;74:106–11.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Betiku E, Taiwo AE. Modeling and optimization of bioethanol production from breadfruit starch hydrolyzate via response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Renew Energy 2015;74:87–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-10-01

Revised: 2017-10-16

Accepted: 2017-11-30

Published Online: 2017-12-28

Published in Print: 2018-09-25

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C, Volume 73, Issue 9-10, Pages 361–366, ISSN (Online) 1865-7125, ISSN (Print) 0939-5075, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2017-0180.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in