Noah et al. [76] subsequently produced surfactin with a low‐solid potato effluent with the same microbial strain in batch‐mode operated chemostat and recorded ~0.8–0.9 g/l production after 52 h of fermentation. Another study conducted by Das and Mukherjee [121] documented the production of lipopeptides using B. subtilis DM03 and DM04 strain with 5 g potato peel waste under solid‐state fermentation and 2% w/v substratum in submerged fermentation. During fermentation, the production of lipopeptide by B. subtilis DM‐03 was reported with 80 and 67 mg/g in submerged and solid‐state fermentation, respectively.
Wang et al. [122] used B. subtilis B6–1 for fengycin and poly‐β‐glutamic acid(α‐PGA) production by incorporating 5 g/l of soy curd and 5 g/l of sweet potato residue in solid‐state fermentation. The quantity of lipopeptide was reached at the maximum level after 54 hours of incubation; however, the highest amount of γ‐PGA (3.63%) was achieved after 42 hours of incubation. The researchers also emphasized the potential use of these lipopeptides as a biocontrol agent and fertilizer synergists.
Cassava wastewater is another extremely rich carbohydrate waste used for biosurfactant production [123, 124]. The Bacillus sp. strain LB5a produced biosurfactants from cassava wastewater [125]. The results of a Nitschke and Pastore [126] study showed that bacteria were able to grow and yield biosurfactants in both solid and liquid medium, but the best results were reported in broth medium with the surface tension of 26.6 mN/m. They also examined the efficiency of B. subtilis ATCC 21332 and B. subtilis LB5a for biosurfactant production using cassava wastewater in another study. B. subtilis LB5a lowered the medium surface tension up to 26 mN/m with 3.0 g/l of biosurfactant, while the strain ATCC‐21332 produced crude biosurfactant (2.2 g/l) and changed medium surface tension up to 25.9 mN/m [127, 128]. The above studies emphasized the potential use of starchy byproducts and associated carbon sources for synthesis of biosurfactants. The potential of starch‐rich waste as a carbon source for the production of biosurfactants and some other useful products is promising; however, multidisciplinary collaborative research is needed to meet the industrial needs in terms of product quantity and quality.
3.6.5 Biosurfactant Synthesis from Lignocellulosic Industrial Byproducts
Lignocellulosic substances comprise cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose. The paper industry primarily utilizes cellulose from lignocellulose and applies a variety of techniques to eliminate certain fiber elements (such as hemicellulose and lignin), as a result of which these other elements remain, more often than not, unused, thus becoming waste products. Furthermore, in bioethanol research, various pretreatment techniques are used to extract cellulose for fermentation, with very little attention paid to hemicellulose and lignin. Such pretreatment technologies are, therefore, only midway to becoming primary methods of refining lignocellulosic materials, and only realize the use of one or two key elements, whereas other contents are wasted [35, 129, 130]. Portilla‐Rivera et al. [131] examined Lactobacillus pentosus's ability for biosurfactant and lactic acid production in fermentation medium composed with 10.0 g/l of the byproduct of corn wet‐milling, 10 g/l of yeast extract, and hydrolyzed pomace (10.8% cellulose, 11.2% hemicellulose, and 51% lignin). They obtained 5.5 g/l of lactic acid and 4.8 mg/l of cell‐bound biosurfactant. In a subsequent study, the sustainability and emulsification of biosurfactants obtained from L. pentosus from distilled pomace hydrolysates, walnut, and hazelnut shell‐based fermentation media were also examined by Portilla‐Rivera et al. [131]. The emulsion density reported was 14.1% for gasoline and 27.2% for kerosene, which was higher than those produced for industrial surfactin. Cortés‐Camargo et al. [132] used the ZSB10 strain of Bacillus tequilensis, separated from Mexican brine, for intracellular and extracellular biosurfactant production. Their findings revealed that the extracellular biosurfactant production using lignocellulosic waste was 1.52 g/l with a surface tension reduction of 38.6 mN/m and 177.0 mg/l CMC value. The intracellular biosurfactant produced was only 0.078 g/l in quantity and exhibited a lesser EI (41%) than an extracellular EI (47%). Jokari and group [133] reported the impact of aeration levels on B. subtilis ATCC 6633 growth and the amount of biosurfactant produced in a miniaturized bioreactor ventilated flask. In the ideal conditions where the filling and shaking rates were 15 ml and 300 rpm, the maximum biosurfactant content (0.0485 g/l/h) was achieved. Their findings indicated the noticeable increase in surfactin productivity under environments that were not oxygen‐limiting.
These studies have shown that lignocellulosic compounds and waste products could be considered as raw materials for the production of biosurfactants due to their low processing costs and higher nutrient quality. The results of these studies also show that lignocellulosic waste can be a potential carbon source for fermentation. The biosurfactant synthesis of these industrial byproducts offers a promising financial advantage that can be used to achieve cost savings over the production of synthetic surfactants.
3.7 Conclusions
The large‐scale production of valuable products in the bioreactor is a complex process, requiring an assessment of the different parameters affecting its efficiency. The skills of a biotechnologist and a chemical engineer need to be combined in order to achieve a practical approach to the production of biosurfactants. Several research efforts have been made to evaluate the potential of different microbes for the production of industrial byproduct biosurfactants as substrates.
The use of low‐cost industrial waste and renewable materials may significantly reduce the operating costs of biosurfactant production (by almost 50%). The use of industrial byproducts/waste for the production of biosurfactant is therefore a sustainable option.
Acknowledgement
The editor (Hemen Sarma) has extensively revised the readability and carried out editing on the basis of the original text of the authors, without altering the meaning of the text in this chapter. However, any competing interest arises from any statement, and the author is liable.
References
1 1 Ochsner, U.A. and Reiser, J. (1995). Autoinducer‐mediated regulation of rhamnolipid biosurfactant synthesis in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92 (14): 6424–6428.
2 2 Das Neves, L.C.M., De Oliveira, K.S., Kobayashi, M.J. et al. (2007). Biosurfactant production by cultivation of Bacillus atrophaeus ATCC 9372 in semidefined glucose/casein‐based media. Appl. Biochem. Biotecnol. 137: 539–554.
3 3 Batista, B.D., Taniguti, L.M., Almeida, J.R. et al. (2016). Draft genome sequence of multitrait plant growth‐promoting Bacillus sp. strain RZ2MS9. Genome Announc. 4 (6): e01402–e01416.
4 4 Nguyen, T.T. and Sabatini, D.A. (2011). Characterization and emulsification properties of rhamnolipid and sophorolipid biosurfactants and their applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 12: 1232–1244.
5 5 Sarma, H., Bustamante, K.L.T., and Prasad, M.N.V. (2018). Biosurfactants for oil recovery from refinery sludge: magnetic nanoparticles assisted purification. In: Industrial and Municipal Sludge (eds. M.N.V. Prasad, P.J. de Campos, F. Meththika and V.S. Venkata Mohan (eds.)). Elsevier. ISBN: 9780128159071.
6 6 Mata‐Sandoval, J.C., Karns, J., and Torrents, A. (2002). Influence of rhamnolipids and triton X‐100 on the desorption of pesticides from soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 4669–4675.
7 7 Das, P., Mukherjee, S., and Sen, R. (2009). Substrate dependent production of extracellular biosurfactant by a marine bacterium. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2): 1015–1019.
8 8 Geetha, S.J., Banat, I.M., and Joshi, S.J. (2018). Biosurfactants: Production and potential applications in microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 14: 23–32.
9 9 Geissler,
