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)

Najmi, Z., Ebrahimipour, G., Franzetti, A., Banat, I. (2018). In situ downstream strategies for cost-effective bio/surfactant recovery. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY, 65(4), 523-532 [10.1002/bab.1641].

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

Franzetti, A
;
2018

Abstract

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)
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Biosurfactants; Foam fraction; Rhamnolipids; Surfactins; Ultrafiltration; Biotechnology; Bioengineering; Molecular Medicine; Biomedical Engineering; Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology; Drug Discovery3003 Pharmaceutical Science; Process Chemistry and Technology
English
2018
65
4
523
532
none
Najmi, Z., Ebrahimipour, G., Franzetti, A., Banat, I. (2018). In situ downstream strategies for cost-effective bio/surfactant recovery. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY, 65(4), 523-532 [10.1002/bab.1641].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/194845
Citazioni
  • Scopus 56
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 46
Social impact