Effect of Acid Treatment in Alcoholic Fermentation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14173Keywords:
Fermentative parameters. Metabolism. Yeast.Abstract
The fermentation process in Brazil is characterized by intense cell recycle resulting in high cell density fermentation process. After fermentation the yeast is collected and centrifuged, and subjected to acid pH 2.0 during 2.0 hour treatment, these conditions are stressful for yeast. The study aims to evaluate the physiological effects of the action of acid treatments in different industrial strains of S. cerevisiael. Synthetic medium YPSAC 15% was used for the production of biomass cell for three recycles and treatment with nitric, hydrochloric and sulfuric acids for two hours. The higher biomass production occurred in the treatment with sulfuric acid in three consecutive cycles . In the presence of nitric acid was little loss of biomass and in the presence of hydrochloric acid was the major loss of biomass. The strain Catanduva 1 exhibited the highest cell viability in nitric acid in all the cycles analyzed and the lower rate of cell viability was observed in the presence of sulfuric acid in the third cycle. The treatment with hydrochloric acid in cell viability loss occurred in all cycles analyzed. In synthetic medium showed a higher accumulation of ethanol concentration in the third cycle fermentation. Treatment with nitric acid showed the highest concentrations of ethanol in the first and second cycles. In the presence of sulfuric acid occurred the lowest concentration of ethanol. On the treatment with hydrochloric acid occurred a variation of ethanol in all the cycles analyzed.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
