Increased utilization of fossil fuels leads to rapid
depletion of its sources which in turn increases interest to produce biofuels
from acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation. Use of natural sources to
produce biobutanol and bioethanol from ABE fermentation makes the production
process more sustainable, renewable and environmental benign leading to
decreased dependency on fossil fuel reservoirs (Mahalingamet al., 2022). Alcoholic biofuels bioethanol and biobutanol produced
through ABE fermentation can be blended with gasoline.However, bioethanol has a lower heat of combustion
than gasoline makes it unsuitable and limits its blending of 5–10% with gasoline for present IC engines.
While
biobutanol with similar physicochemical
properties as that of gasoline serves as a potential
transportation fuel compatible with present engine (Moholkar et al. 2019). Apart from this biobutanol offers several advantages such as, high boiling
point, non-corrosive
nature, lower
moistureabsorption,
lower volatility and reduced
Reid vapor pressure, which decreases its tendency to evaporate quickly and
lowers the risk of explosiveness
During World War I, a microbial approach for
generating butanol using ABE fermentation was pioneered and established as a
largest fermentation process during 20th century. However, increased
emergence of petrochemical industry, microbial route of ABE fermentation was declined
(Gottumukkala et al., 2019). Biobutanol is an exciting liquid transportation
fuel that has a net-zero carbon footprint, butitsproduction for purposes has
been hindered
by the conflict between using
crops for food or fuel which limits the utilization of conventional materials
such as sugar and starch which leads to intrinsic challenges of recalcitrant
nature of lignocellulosic feedstock. Feedstock, a prime component in the ABE
fermentation, it defines the process economy and productivity of biodiesel
(Kumar et al., 2012). Chaim Weizmann, called as a father of industrial fermentation after
discovery of Clostridum acetobutylicum for butanol production through ABE fermentation. Over the years tremendous development has been done
in ABE fermentation in terms of identification of new substrate and its
pretreatment, isolation of new competitive strains, optimization of down strea m
process to increase yield and productivity (Gottumukkala et al., 2019).
Researchers reported limitations of biobutanol production i.e. self-inhibition due to its toxicity, also nutrient depletion
ceases the fermentation
and resulted in lower productivity and yield (Nalawade et al., 2023).
Biobutanol is generated via ABE fermentation. Nonetheless, the extraction of
butanol from the ABE solvent remains a costly and intricate process. As a
result, the ABE solvent is utilized directly to reduce purification expenses. (Mahalingam et al., 2022). However, the information about
ABE as a biofuel, its progress in process development and technoeconomical analysis are dispersed
and not well-coordinated. Hence,
the present review paper explicitly deals with the potential of ABE fermentation as a biofuel and
limitation and challenges during ABE fermentation.
2. ABE Fermentation
Commonly used industrial strains for ABE production
are dedicated to genera Clostridium, they
are well-known for their capacity to digest both simple and complex
carbohydrates, including as glucose, cellulose, and sucrose (Li et al., 2019).
Generally, several clostridia species exhibits almost similar metabolic
pathways, illustrated in Figure 1. These pathways can be broken down into three
distinct stages: 1. acidogenesis, 2. solventogenesis, and 3. sporogenesis,
which collectively result in the generation of three primary products: (1)
solvents (including ABE), (2) organic acids (such as acetic and butyric acid),
and (3) gases (carbon dioxide and hydrogen) (Li et al., 2020).
The process begins with the uptake of glucose or other
fermentable carbohydrates by C. acetobutylicum. Glucose is metabolized through
glycolysis, resulting in the production of pyruvate. Further pyruvatе is thеn dеcarboxylatеd
by thе еnzymе pyruvatе: fеrrеdoxin oxidorеductasе, producing acеtyl-CoA and
rеducing fеrrеdoxin . Then acetyl-CoA can be converted into acetate through the
acetate kinase and phosphate acetyl transferase enzymes. A significant portion
of acetyl-CoA is further converted into acetone, butanol, and ethanol through
the ABE pathway. This pathway includes the following steps: initially
acetyl-CoA gets converted into acetoacetyl-CoA through the enzyme acetoacetyl-CoA:
acetate/butyrate:CoA-transferase, followed by reduction of acetoacetyl-CoA to
3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA by the NADPH-dependent 3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase.
Theen 3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA gets converted into butyryl-CoA by the
3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA dehydratase enzyme and ultimately converted to butanol
through a series of enzymatic reactions, including butyraldehyde formation and
reduction to butanol. Furthermore, acetone is produced by the decarboxylation
of acetoacetate. Moreover, acetobutylicum can also produce ethanol through a
separate pathway that involves the conversion of acetyl-CoA to acetaldehyde by
the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase and then the reduction of acetaldehyde to
ethanol by alcohol dehydrogenase. Acetyl-CoA can also be converted into
butyrate through a series of enzymatic reactions. These reactions involve
enzymes like butyryl-CoA dehydrogenase and butyrate kinase. ABE fermentation
pathway is tightly regulated and can be influenced by environmental factors,
such as nutrient availability and pH. The production of acetone, butanol, and
ethanol is often associated with the metabolic shift from acidogenesis
(production of organic acids like acetate and butyrate) to solventogenesis
(production of ABE) (Li et al., 2019).
C. acetobutylicum
and C. beijerinckii are most
popular
industrial strains, however, C.
pasteurianum, C. saccharoperbutylacetonicum andC. sporogenes, wild type strains exhibits more industrial potential
in ABE production under strictly anaerobic condition (Gottumukkala et al.,
2019). These wild type strains suffers from several drawback
such as sluggish growth, reduced cell density during solventogenic phase and weak
solvent tolerance (Qureshi
and Blaschek, 2001).
Fig. 1 Intracellular metabolic
pathway in C. acetobutylicum dedicated to ABE production (Li et al., 2019)
Tsai et al. (2020) have used PVA-immobilized
C. acetobutylicum for biobutanol
production using
lignocellulosic feedstock
such as
rice straw, sugarcane bagasse and microalgal hydrolysate. A higher butanol productivity of 0.90 g/L/h, yield of0.23 g biobutanol/g glucose and titer of 13.80 g/L was achieved using rice straw as feedstock (Tsai et al., 2020). During the pre-genomic
era, high butanol-producing strains were obtained by mutagenesis of clostridia through
physical or chemical methods.
Qureshi
and Blaschek, (2001) used
mutant strainC. beijerinckii
BA101 which hydrolyzes
starch effectively and produces 27–29 g/ l of solvents. Moreover, utilization of sodium
acetate enhances solvent production to 33 g/l (Qureshi and Blaschek, 2001). Further, to boost butanol yield and productivity,
researchers focused on manipulating genes involved in solvent synthesis and
modifying the metabolic regulatory system. Schwarz et al. (2017), reported in-frame
deletion mutants of pivotal genes particularlyhydA (hydrogenase), rex (Redox response
regulator) and dhaBCE (glycerol dehydratase) linked to solvent production in C. pasteurianum.
hydA mutant exhibits
elevated levels of ethanol production (64.3 ± 3.2 mM after
24 h) over rex mutant. However,
rexmutant shows highest butanol titre 133.3 ± 1.8 mM
compared to hydA mutant.
Furthermore, increased n-butanol titres result from the inactivation of both
rex and hydA, which are the initial steps towards using C. pasteurianum
as a possible strain for the industrial production of ABE (Schwarz et al., 2017). With the byproduct acetone declining by 31.2%, the
hydA disrupted strain of C. acetobutylicum ATCC 5502 was able to produce
18.3% more butanol, suggesting that the suppression of hydrogenase regulated
redox balance for the selective suppression of acetone formation. Furthermore,
they employed methyl viologen which shifted the carbon flux and produces elevated butanol yield of
0.28 g/g with
reduced acetone formation
(Du et al. 2021).Using Targe Tron technology, the
acetoacetate decarboxylase gene (adc) in hyperbutanol producing C. acetobutylicum
EA 2018 was disrupted. In the adc-disrupted mutant, acetone synthesis decreased
to about 0.21 g/L while the butanol ratio increased from 70% to 80.05% (Jiang et al., 2009). Jang et al. (2012) obtained increased butanol yield
by strengthening C. acetobutylicum's direct butanol-forming flow.
Through batch fermentation, 18.9 g/liter of butanol was generated, yielding
0.71 mol butanol/mol glucose—levels 160% and 245% greater than those achieved
with the wild type. A fed-batch culture of this modified strain with in situ
recovery yielded 585.3 g of butanol from 1,861.9 g of glucose, with a
productivity of 1.32 g/liter/h and a yield of 0.76 mol butanol/mol
glucose.(Jang et al., 2012).
Consolidated Bioprocessing (CBP) is a bioengineering
approach that aims to streamline the production of biofuels or biochemicals by
combining multiple processes into a single step. When it comes to butanol
production, CBP approaches
seek to integrate the fermentation of biomass
feedstocks and the conversion of sugars into ABE within a single microorganism
or bioprocess. Wen et al. (2019) discusses three strategies for CBP. These
includes modifying solventogenic Clostridia to secrete/cell display cellulases
or cellulosomes, butanol pathway engineering of cellulolytic Clostridia, and
mixed-culture of butanol-producing and cellulolytic Clostridia, as shown in
Fig. 2. CBP is a potential method for the near future cellulosic butanol
manufacturing on a huge scale (Wen et al., 2017).
Researchers started focusing on improving ABE
fermentation through enzyme modification as an alternative strategy,
however
significant progress has not been achieved. Thiolases
are essential enzymes for metabolic pathways that produce carbon–carbon bonds
as they catalyze the condensation of two acetyl–CoA molecules into
acetoacetyl–CoA. C. acetobutylicum's thiolase was specially altered by
substituting three amino acids (R133G, H156N, G222V) to decrease sensitivity towards
coenzyme A (CoA‐SH) and
considerably increases butanol titers by 46% and 18%,
respectively (Li et al.
2020). Clostridium acetobutylicum produces acetone from acetoacetyl-CoA
by the action of the enzymes acetoacetate decarboxylase and coenzyme A
transferase. The genes ctf and adhE, which together encode a likely
polyfunctional aldehyde/alcohol dehydrogenase, create a shared transcription
unit, whereas the adc gene, which codes for the former enzyme, is arranged in a
monocistronic operon. This genetic configuration may represent physiological
needs during solventogenesis (Durre et al., 1995).
3. Feedstock for ABE fermentation
The main feedstock for acetone-butanol-ethanol
fermentation is typically starchy or sugary substrates, such as corn or molasses, which contain a high concentration of carbohydrates can be turned into fermentable sugars( Li et al., 2019).Other potential
feedstock options for ABE fermentation include microalgal biomass, lignocellulosic biomass (Fathima et al., 2016; Paniagua-García et al.,
2018). These feedstocks
offer several advantages, such as their abundance and low cost.
Furthermore, their utilization helps in
reducing the dependence on food-based sources like corn and sugarcane, making
the process more sustainable (Tsai et al., 2020). Table 1 represents the different feedstock and theit
corresponding ABE titre.
Qureshi et al. (2008a), produced ABE in batch reactors employing C.
beijerinckiiand alkaline peroxide treated and enzymatically hydrolized
wheat straw Acid and enzyme hydrolyzed corn fibre as a substrate in ABE
production using C. Beijerinckii (Qureshi et al., 2008b). Enzymatic
hydrolysis and detoxification are common pre-treatment steps used in the
biofuel conversion of lignocellulosic biomass. These processes are critical in
reducing the complexity of lignocellulosic biomass and making it more
accessible for subsequent conversion into biofuels. Enzymatic hydrolysis is the
process of breaking down cellulose and hemicellulose into simpler sugars such
as glucose and xylose using enzymes such as cellulases and xylanases. However,
one major challenge in enzymatic hydrolysis is the presence of inhibitors in
the biomass, which can hinder the activity of the enzymes and reduce the
efficiency of the process (Gottumukkala et al., 2019). To overcome this
challenges in enzymatic hydrolysis, Paniagua-García et al. (2018), have used
hydrolysate obtained from switchgrass for ABE fermentation without prior
enzymatic hydrolysis or detoxification steps using C. beijerinckii CECT
508 (Paniagua-García et al., 2018). To maximize the utilization of fresh corn
stalks, the juice, which contains sugars, served as the exclusive source for
ABE production, without the addition of any extra nutrients. Additionally, the
bagasse, remaining after juice extraction, was employed as the immobilization
matrix. In this setup, a total of 21.34 grams per liter (g/L) of ABE was
generated in the immobilized batch cells. Continuous multiple stages ABE
fermentation process demonstrated excellent stability and tremendous promise for
use in upcoming industrial applications (Chang et al., 2016). Baral and Shah,
(2016) used corn stover feedstock treated with dilute sulfuric acid for ABE
fermentation. The approach of vacuum fermentation, simultaneous
saccharification, and recovery holds promise for raising ABE yield.
The process of producing ABE from lignocellulosic feedstock offers the
potential to generate its own energy needs from the raw materials, making it
self-sustaining in terms of bio-energy. This means that the net energy value (NEV)
matches the gross energy value (GEV) of the feedstock (Haigh et al., 2018). In
contrast, the molasses-ABE process would necessitate either importing biomass
from a nearby industrial source or relying on fossil fuels for energy during
the production process, as described by Haigh et al. (2018). Although the
lignocellulosic-based approach may not be as energy-efficient as the
molasses-butanol method, probably it exhibit superior environmental performance
owed to its ability to generate its own energy from bio-resources.
4. Techno-economical analysis
In the biological production process, the
production of ABE suffers from several disadvantages. Therefore,
techno-economic analysis (TEA) of ABE fermentation involves evaluating the
economic feasibility and viability of the process. The majority of the total
production cost, around 85%, is influenced by the fixed capital investment and
the cost of the feedstock. To make the process commercially viable, there is a
need to achieve a significant reduction in production cost, aiming for
approximately a 55% reduction. A substantial portion of the fixed capital
investment, around 50%, is allocated to the pretreatment and hydrolysis units,
highlighting the critical necessity for enhancing the preliminary phases of the
butanol fermentation (Gottumukkala et al., 2019). The effectiveness of this
approach can be improved by choosing a highly efficient strain, using more
cost-effective sugar sources, and implementing advanced recovery techniques.
These process optimizations have a potential to result in a more economically
efficient production of ABE .
Fig.2 CBP approaches for
butanol production
(Wen et al. 2019)
Compared to processes utilizing alternative
cellulosic and non-cellulosic resources, the capital investment for a
glucose-based process is 37% less. Moreover, sensitivity analysis reveals that
a 50% rise in the cost of glucose results in a 49% rise to the unitary cost of
producing ABE. On the other hand, sugarcane and cellulosic materials
demonstrate a substantial potential for cost-effective ABE production, owing to
their lower costs. Costs of production per unit using these feedstocks fall
within the range of $0.59 to $0.75 per kilogram, which is in line with the
current market prices and makes them economically feasible options. By making
adjustments to various design and process factors, like the size of the
fermentor, the capacity of the plant and the yield of the product, significant
cost reductions can be achieved for ABE production using sugarcane and
cellulosic materials. These reductions can reach up to 53%, 19% and 31%
respectively (Kumar et al., 2012).
5. Future perspective
The revival of ABE fermentation in industrial
settings faces challenges due to substantial production expenses associated
with pronounced product inhibition and restricted inherent yield. The key to
reducing these costs lies in the efficient utilization of integrated methods
for removing toxic byproducts. The primary goal is to assess ABE extractive
fermentation using solvents with varying extraction capabilities and
biocompatibility (González-Peñas et al., 2014). Further the potential of
reactor modeling and process intensification techniques can be explored to
boost productivity and yield of ABE (Moholkar et al., 2018).
Development of improved resistance strains
towards inhibitory compounds can assist to achieve the higher ABE productivity.
Moreover, there is an increasing emphasis on enhancing the sustainability of
ABE fermentation methods, which involves prioritizing the use of renewable
source materials and minimizing the environmental footprint. Considering the
cost of ABE fermentation efforts aimed at lowering production expenses involve
the utilization of economical raw materials, the implementation of improved recovery
techniques, and the enhancement of process efficiency. ABE fermentation suffers
from intrinsic up-scaling challenges. The future outlook for ABE fermentation
will likely encompass a blend of technological progress, the adoption of
sustainable practices, and a broader acceptance in the market. This trajectory
will contribute to the ongoing shift towards more environmentally responsible
and economically viable production methods.
Table 1. ABE production from different feedstock
|
Feedstock
|
Strain
|
Titre (g/l)
|
Reference
|
Wheat
straw
|
C.
beijerinckii P260
|
22.2
|
Qureshi
et al., 2008a
|
Corn
fiber
|
C.
beijerinckii BA101
|
9.0
|
Qureshi
et al., 2008b
|
switchgrass
|
Clostridium
beijerinckii CECT 508
|
17 %
|
Paniagua-García
et al., 2018
|
rice
straw
|
Clostridium acetobutylicum ATCC 824
|
9.10
|
Tsai
et al., 2020
|
sugarcane
bagasse
|
8.40
|
microalgal
biomass
|
4.32
|
Corn
straw
|
Clostridium
acetobutylicum
|
15.82
|
Zhang
et al., 2018
|
Switchgrass
|
Clostridium
beijerinckii P260
|
1.48
|
Qureshi
et al., 2010b
|
Starch
and glucose
|
Clostridium
beijerinckii BA101
|
9.9
|
Ezeji
et al., 2005
|
Rice
straw
|
Clostridium
sporogenes NCIM 2918
|
23.5
|
Kaushal
et al., 2019
|
Barley
straw
|
Clostridium
beijerinckii P260
|
26.64
|
Qureshi
et al., 2010a
|
Wastewater
algal
|
Clostridium
phytofermentans DSM1183
|
11.92
|
Fathima
et al., 2016
|
Chlorella
vulgaris UTEX 271
|
Clostridium
saccharobutylicum
|
11.50
|
Gao
et al., 2016
|
Arthrospira
platensis
|
C.
acetobutylicum
|
8.2
|
Efremenko
et al., 2012
|
Dunaliellatertiolecta
|
12.7
|
Nannochloropsis
|
15.4
|
6. Conclusion
ABE fermentation offers great potential as a
sustainable and economically viable production process. It has shown promise in
producing valuable chemicals like acetone, butanol, and ethanol from renewable
feedstocks, with a focus on improving efficiency and reducing production costs.
The future of ABE fermentation lies in the continued development of advanced
microbial strains, optimized production processes, and a stronger emphasis on
sustainability. As we move forward, it is essential to address scalability
challenges, regulatory considerations, and explore new applications and
markets. ABE fermentation is poised to participate significantly in the shift
to more environmentally friendly and economically efficient industrial
practices.