Next Article in Journal
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Cholesterol-Lowering Effect of BBR 4401 in Adults with Moderate Hypercholesterolemia
Next Article in Special Issue
Lactic Acid Production Using Sugarcane Juice as an Alternative Substrate and Purification through Ion-Exchange Resins
Previous Article in Journal
Biosynthesis of Glucaric Acid by Recombinant Strain of Escherichia coli Expressing Two Different Urinate Dehydrogenases
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lignocellulose Degrading Weizmannia coagulans Capable of Enantiomeric L-Lactic Acid Production via Consolidated Bioprocessing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 9
Issue 8
10.3390/fermentation9080765
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Advanced Fermentation Techniques for Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Waste

by
Jiaqi Huang
,
Jianfei Wang
and
Shijie Liu
*
Department of Chemical Engineering, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2023, 9(8), 765; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9080765
Submission received: 1 August 2023 / Revised: 11 August 2023 / Accepted: 14 August 2023 / Published: 17 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Agro-Industrial Wastes as Feedstock for Lactic Acid Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Lactic acid plays an important role in industrial applications ranging from the food industry to life sciences. The growing demand for lactic acid creates an urgent need to find economical and sustainable substrates for lactic acid production. Agricultural waste is rich in nutrients needed for microbial growth. Fermentative production of lactic acid from non-food-competing agricultural waste could reduce the cost of lactic acid production while addressing environmental concerns. This work provided an overview of lactic acid fermentation from different agricultural wastes. Although conventional fermentation approaches have been widely applied for decades, there are ongoing efforts toward enhanced lactic acid fermentation to meet the requirements of industrial productions and applications. In addition, agricultural waste contains a large proportion of pentose sugars. Most lactic-acid-producing microorganisms cannot utilize such reducing sugars. Therefore, advanced fermentation techniques are also discussed specifically for using agricultural waste feedstocks. This review provides valuable references and technical supports for the industrialization of lactic acid production from renewable materials.

1. Introduction

Lactic acid (LA) is an organic acid with widespread applications in the food, textile, cosmetic, chemical, polymer and pharmaceutical industries. As one of the most important platform chemicals, LA can be converted to a variety of biopolymers, green solvents, and chemicals. Polylactic acid (PLA) polymers have presented great potential for replacing petroleum-derived polymers in industry and developing biomaterials (scaffolds, implants, sutures, etc.) in biomedical engineering, owing to their biodegradability and biocompatibility [1]. LA exists in two optically active isomers, l-LA and d-LA. Some specific applications require high enantiomeric purity of LA, especially when LA and its derivatives are applied in the pharmaceutical and food industries.
The globe LA market is expected to expand to 1,960 kilotons in 2025, representing USD 9.8 billion [2]. The industrial production of LA is mainly carried out by chemical synthesis or fermentation. The chemical synthesis starts with acetaldehyde, a toxic petrochemical feedstock, and always results in a racemic mixture of d/l-lactic acid. On the other hand, the fermentation method generally uses corn, rice, sweet potato, and other starchy substances as raw materials and has the biggest advantage of producing an optically pure LA by selecting the appropriate microorganism [3]. Due to the milder production conditions and higher purity, about 90% of LA in the market is produced by fermentation. However, the price of the substrates and food competition remain major challenges regarding the fermentation process. There is a great need to discover sustainable and non-food-competitive substrates.
LA-producing microorganisms involve a variety of bacteria and fungi, including lactic acid bacteria (LAB), Bacillus strains, Corynebacterium glutamicum, Escherichia coli, filamentous fungi, yeast, microalgae, and cyanobacteria [4]. Different strains undergo different metabolic pathways and growth patterns, providing a basis for the fermentative production of LA through diverse pathways. Fermentation techniques have created technical support to produce LA using renewable resources, including food waste, starchy residues, and lignocellulosic materials [5]. Furthermore, appropriate fermentation technologies can further increase LA yield and productivity.
Agricultural waste is rich in various nutrients, making it a promising alternative feedstock for microbial processes [6]. Due to the accelerated growth of the population, agricultural production has increased more than three times over the past 50 years, with a daily average of 23.7 million food tons worldwide [7]. A massive amount of agricultural waste is generated along with agricultural production. Unplanned burning and filling of agricultural waste create greater pressure on the environment, negatively impacting human health and ecosystems. Using cost-effective and abundantly available agricultural waste for fermentative LA production offers a great opportunity to lower LA production costs without using food-competitive substrates as well as settling environmental issues. Some LA manufacturers have made promising attempts in this regard. Cathay Biotech Inc. (Shanghai, China) and its collaborators have successfully developed a cyclic synthesis of l-lactide from cellulosic l-LA using wheat straw, thus breaking through the major barrier for industrial production of PLA from lignocellulosic waste [8]. TripleW (Netanya, Israel), a start-up company established in 2015, produces biobased LA and PLA from food waste [9]. Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant (Gent, Belgium) has been working on the supply chain hurdles towards LA production from agricultural waste [10].
This review focuses on LA production from agricultural waste. Conventional fermentation approaches are discussed. Advanced fermentation techniques are also introduced, including cell immobilization, co-culture, simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation. Genetic and metabolic engineering plays an important role in adapting wild-type strains to specific agricultural waste to increase LA production. This review provides future references for the industrial scale-up of LA production from agricultural waste.

2. Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Waste

2.1. Fermentable Sugar-Rich Waste

Non-solid agricultural processing waste contains various fermentable sugars, such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose. They are relatively easier to be accessed by LA-producing microorganisms and can be directly converted into LA. The lower requirement on raw material pretreatment is beneficial to simplify the production process and further reduce production costs. Waste products from sugar manufacturing plants, such as malt, molasses, and sugar beet juice, contain a large amount of sucrose and other essential nutrients. Non-treated beet molasses was reported as the substrate for 36.79 g/L LA production by Enterococcus hirae with a productivity of 1.02 g/(L·h) and yield of 0.91 g/g [11]. The direct cultivation of Lactobacillus paracasei (L. paracasei) on sugar beet molasses combined with distillery stillage achieved the LA productivity of 1.42 g/(L·h) and yield of 0.91 g/g [12]. Without sterilization and acidification, a racemic mixture of d-LA (4.94 g/L) and l-LA (107.40 g/L) was obtained from sugarcane molasses by using a microbial consortium containing Clostridium sensustricto, Escherichia, and Enterococcus [13]. However, some LAB cannot efficiently convert sucrose to LA. It may be related to the energy balance of NADH/NAD+ and ATP/ADP [14]. In addition, other fermentable sugar-rich fruit and vegetable wastes also demonstrated their high efficiency for sustainable lactic acid production. The syrup of carrot discards was utilized by Rhizopus arrhizus to produce l-LA (22.18 g/L) [15]. The fermentation of exacted juice from date waste by Lactobacillus casei (L. casei) reached a maximum LA level of 89.2 g/L [16]. The sugar composition of these wastes may vary due to different growing conditions for specific crops. Therefore, the selection of a suitable LA-producing microorganism should be based on the sugar component.

2.2. Starchy Waste

Starch biomass can be hydrolyzed into glucose and then fermented to produce lactic acid, or it can be directly fermented by amylolytic lactic acid bacteria to produce lactic acid. Cornstarch and potato starch processing plants generate large amounts of wastewater and waste. These wastes are rich in starch and can serve as an inexpensive carbon source to produce lactic acid. A LA concentration of 31.6 g/L and productivity of 0.46 g/(L·h) was obtained by growing Lactobacillus amylovorus on enzyme-hydrolyzed cassava bagasse [17]. Enzyme-hydrolyzed cassava bagasse could also be utilized by Lactobacillus rhamnosus (L. rhamnosus) and Bacillus coagulans (B. coagulans) to produce 112.5 g/L LA at a productivity of 2.74 g/(L·h) and yield of 0.88 g/g [18]. Cassava peel enzymatic hydrolysate was used as the feedstock by Lactobacillus delbrueckii (L. delbrueckii) to produce d-LA with a yield of up to 95% of the total carbon source [19]. With the addition of amylase and glucoamylase, B. coagulans could utilize inedible cassava and sorghum flours to produce LA. The LA concentration, productivity, and yield reached 68.72 g/L, 1.72 g/(L·h), and 0.99 g/g [20]. White rice bran was another alternative for LA production by B. coagulans, with a concentration of 117 g/L, productivity of 2.79 g/(L·h), and yield of 98.75% [21]. An amylolytic Lactobacillus plantarum (L. plantarum) was able to generate 28.71 g/L LA via direct fermentation of cassava starch wastewater [22]. Cultivation of L. rhamnosus on inedible aging paddy rice with hull resulted in robust LA production (107.8 g/L) with a productivity of 3.4 g/(L·h) and a yield of 0.89 g/g theoretical glucose [23]. Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) also exhibited relatively high LA production (73.75 g/L) using aging paddy rice with hull, with a similar yield of 87% but lower productivity of 2.19 g/(L·h) [24]. The direct conversion of potato residues to LA by Geobacillus stearothermophilus (G. stearothermophilus) at 60 °C was proved to be effective, contributing to 59 g/L LA after 48 h of fermentation [25]. G. stearothermophilus was also observed to produce 5.65 g/L LA from direct fermentation of rice starch waste [26].

2.3. Dairy Waste

Lactose is the most abundant component in dairy waste, followed by proteins and mineral salts. Thus, dairy waste can be used as a cheap alternative source to grow LA-producing microorganisms and produce LA with or without adding extra nutrients. Fermentation of Pediococcus pentosaceus from supplemented paneer whey medium yielded 42.12% lactose conversion and produced 14.5 g/L LA after 48 h [27]. Mixed culture LA fermentation of cheese whey was investigated, and the maximum LA concentration of 20.1 g/L and yield of 0.37 g/g were observed [28]. L. casei also showed LA production from cheese whey, giving 27.58 g/L LA with a productivity of 0.17 g/(L·h) [29]. Whey permeate was the carbon source for cultivating L. plantarum to produce 17.69 g/L LA [30]. Among the four acid-tolerant Pedioccocus strains, Pediococcus acidilactici (P. acidilactici) had the highest LA production of 56.22 g/L from 48 h of fermentation of hydrolysed whey [31]. Lactobacillus bulgaricus (L. bulgaricus) was cultured with protease pretreated cheese whey powder to produce 70.70 g/L d-LA with an average productivity of 1.47 g/(L·h) [32]. Moradi et al. proved the efficacy of dairy wastewater as feedstock to produce LA. L. delbrueckii produced 14.2 g/L LA, with a yield of 0.78 g/g and a productivity of 0.34 g/(L·h) [33]. Weissella soli was first reported to produce 7.21 g/L LA in a 20-h fermentation of milk whey-supplemented medium [34].

2.4. Lignocellulosic Waste

Lignocellulosic waste makes up a large proportion of agricultural waste. Various cropland and orchard residues, such as straws, husks, branches, and leaves, are rich in lignocellulose. Lignocellulose is a composite of three components: cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin. Cellulose is a homopolymer of glucose, while hemicellulose is a heteropolymer of different six- and five-carbon sugars. Lignin is composed of multiple phenylpropane derivatives and is highly cross-linked. Cellulose and hemicellulose are covalently bound to lignin, making it challenging for microorganisms to uncover carbohydrates [35]. Therefore, a pretreatment process is required in most cases before lignocellulosic waste can be used for fermentation. Conventional pretreatment techniques for lignocellulosic biomass include physical and chemical methods. Physical methods decrease the material sizes by milling, grinding, and extruding, to facilitate the efficiency of subsequent treatments. Acid pretreatment and alkaline pretreatment are commonly used chemical methods to reduce lignin content and improve cellulose accessibility [36]. Biological pretreatment has been considered a promising alternative to releasing sugars from lignocellulose under milder conditions, consuming less energy and chemicals. Ligninolytic microorganisms or enzymes break down the lignin fraction, while hydrolytic enzymes hydrolyze exposed cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable sugars [37]. Raw material pretreatment can promote the utilization of lignocellulosic feedstocks, thereby enhancing the LA yield of fermentation. However, the addition of process builds up the production costs. Table 1 summarized some recent LA productions from lignocellulosic agriculture waste.

3. Conventional Fermentation Approaches

3.1. Batch Fermentation

In the batch process, all the substrates and microorganisms are added to the system from the beginning and there is no addition or removal of major components until the fermentation is complete. The closed-loop production system reduces the risk of contamination and strain mutation. It also maximizes the conversion rate of the substrate and produces a high concentration of LA. On the other hand, the accumulation of LA results in acidification of the medium, inhibiting microbial growth and LA production. Batch fermentation represents the most used and simplest model, especially for developing unknown processes. Wang et al. applied batch mode to investigate and optimize the LA production by Lactobacillus pentosus (L. pentosus) [53,54]. The sugar metabolism and LA production of E. faecalis was studied in batch modes using sucrose and mixed sugars [55]. Batch fermentation could also be used to evaluate the efficacy of producing LA from renewable substrates and develop the process [56]. Mathematical LA batch fermentation models were analyzed to estimate the process indicators [57]. Based on real-life growth patterns of eight LAB strains in batch fermentation, a predictive model was proposed to describe the behavior of microorganisms [58].

3.2. Continuous Fermentation

As opposed to batch fermentation, continuous fermentation is a process where nutrients are added while culture broth is removed continuously. High productivity is achieved via constant production and avoiding repeatedly setting up a batch. Production inhibitions can be minimized by continuously removing LA and other metabolic byproducts from the system. However, it is hard to maintain a steady state and avoid contamination in the long-term process. As the microorganism grows and reproduces through multiple generations, the likelihood of mutation increases. The bioreactor design for continuous fermentation tends to be more complex. Veeravalli et al. reported that increasing the dilution rate in continuous fermentation decreased the concentrations of LA and acetic acid but had minor effects on the ratio between the two acids. A cell washout was observed when the dilution rate was close to the maximum specific cell growth rate [59]. Starting with a low pH was found to have a positive effect on LA yield in the continuous LA fermentation of dairy effluent [60]. Compared with batch fermentation of food waste, continuous mode produced 38% higher LA concentration and 36% enhanced LA yield but 57% lowered LA productivity [61].

3.3. Fed-Batch Fermentation

Fed-batch fermentation is a variation in batch fermentation, to mimic the productivity of continuous fermentation. It starts with a batch process, but a media containing concentrated nutrients is fed to the vessel after a certain point. This provides better control over cell growth by controlling feed addition. The exponential and stationary phase of cell growth can be prolonged, resulting in sustained high production of metabolites. Pejin et al. obtained significantly higher LA concentration, yield, and volumetric productivity in fed-batch fermentation by 194.8%, 2.2%, and 20.7%, respectively [62]. Fed-batch fermentation of L. casei led to a 69.24% increase in LA production and 11% increase in yield [63]. In LA production from food waste by L. pentous, fed-batch mode further increased LA concentration from 106.7 g/L to 157.0 g/L, although the overall productivity decreased from 3.09 g/(L·h) to 2.0 g/(L·h) [64]. Feeding strategies might have positive effects on the metabolism of the microorganism. A low feed rate of model medium with inhibitors and softwood hydrolysate was proved to help P. acidilactici adapt to the inhibitors presented. The strain was able to convert softwood hydrolysate and furfural into LA and partly detoxify the media [65].

4. Cell Immobilization

Cell immobilization refers to immobilizing cells on water-insoluble carriers so that they can carry out life activities (growth, reproduction, metabolism, etc.) in a certain space and can be used repeatedly. With appropriate immobilization materials and methods, immobilized cells can robust fermentation via high cell densities. Immobilized cell fermentation allows easy cell separation from the broth and efficient cell reuse in consecutive batch cycles. Cell immobilization can be categorized as entrapment, adsorption, encapsulation, and containment within synthetic polymers (Figure 1) [66]. Wang et al. encapsulated L. pentosus in sodium alginate (SA)-polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) carrier and observed stable and efficient LA production during 15 batches of repeated fermentation [67]. Under the optimum immobilization and fermentation conditions, the LA yield and productivity of immobilized L. pentosus were 13.6% and 67.3% higher than those of free cells, respectively [68]. The LA production of SV-PVA immobilized L. pentosus was further improved by film-coated with chitosan, giving a LA yield of 0.966 g/g and productivity of 2.426 g/(L·h) [69]. Immobilized L. rhamnosus cells in PVA cryogel showed stable cell activity during 12 batch fermentations, achieving a high LA yield of 97% and productivity of 2.1 g/(L·h) [70]. In addition to chemical carriers, natural materials can also serve as economical and sustainable immobilization supports. Shahri et al. proposed a lignocellulosic plant material, loofah sponge, as the support matrix for R. oryzae immobilization [71]. Sunflower seed hull, brewers’ spent grain, and sugar beet pulp were tested as surface supports for L. paracasei attachment. Sugar beet pulp was proved to be the most effective support of the three, with an LA productivity of 1.48 g/(L·h) and a LA concentration of 80.10 g/L [72].

5. Membrane-Based Cell Retention

Conventional continuous LA fermentation faces the challenge of washout of the cell culture due to continuous flow. Membrane-based cell recovery systems have shown very good potential for continuous fermentation to prevent cell loss via medium exchange and maintain maximum cell growth, thereby significantly enhancing LA production [73]. Figure 2 shows a continuous system coupled with cell retention membranes [74]. Alexandri et al. applied a microfiltration device with hollow-fiber filters for continuous fermentation and obtained a high LA productivity of 11.28 g/(L·h) from bakery waste hydrolysates [75]. Ma et al. also reported high productivity of 13.8 g/(L·h) from corn stover hydrolysate by using a similar hollow-fiber module to recycle cells back to the fermenter [76]. With the combined effect of membrane-based cell recycling and B vitamin supplement, the d-LA productivity from rice straw hydrolysate reached 18.56 g/(L·h) with an optical purity of 99.5%. The addition of yeast extract was reduced to 0.5 g/L, contributing to an 86% cost reduction in the nutrient source [74]. Continuous fermentations of various agriculture wastes demonstrated high LA productivities over 6.62 g/(L·h), and the highest productivity was 10.34 g/(L·h) when molasses was employed [77]. By adjusting the dilution rate in the continuous fermentation with membrane microfiltration cell recovery, the LA production from sugarcane molasses reached 27.6 g/(L·h), with a LA yield of more than 0.95 g/g [78]. Although the LA productivity has been greatly improved, the cost of construction and maintenance of these complex fermentation systems cannot be ignored in industrial scale-up.

6. Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation

Simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) refers to the process in which both cellulose and hemicellulose are depolymerized into fermentable sugars and simultaneously converted into products in one vessel. Since sugars are continuously consumed during release from agricultural wastes, SSCF avoids substrate inhibition in separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), leading to enhanced LA yield and productivity. Besides, a one-pot operation reduces the costs of large-scale industrial processing. Zhou et al. compared the LA production in SHF and SSCF at 60 g/L cellulose loading of bagasse sulfite pulp. SSCF showed a 43.73% increased LA concentration with 25.00% less processing time and 33.3% lower fungal cellulase dosage [79]. In the SSCF of cassava bagasse, both starch and cellulosic fractions were saccharified and converted to LA with a productivity of 2.74 g/(L·h). LA yield was calculated as 0.8 g/g (of starch + cellulose + hemicellulose) [18]. L. paracasei was cultured directly on bakery waste with the presence of amylase and amyloglucosidase, producing more than 26.4 g/L LA [80]. However, enzyme costs account for one of the major costs in SSCF. Li et al. proposed an on-site enzyme production from paper mill sludge. The produced enzyme was then applied with B. coagulansin SSCF of the same inexpensive feedstock to produce optically pure l-LA [81]. Another major challenge of SSCF is the different optimal temperatures between decomposing enzymes (40–60 °C) and LA-producing microorganisms (30–37 °C). A proper combination can maintain a balanced rate between raw material saccharification and LA fermentation to achieve efficient bioconversion, rather than sacrificing one as the rate-limiting step. Zhang et al. developed a continuous SSCF to produce LA from dry acid pretreated and biodetoxified wheat straw substrate. Cellulase was selected for enzymatic hydrolysis, and P. acidilactici was engineered to utilize both glucose and non-glucose sugars derived from lignocellulose. The perfect agreement of the two in temperature (~50 °C) and pH (~4.8) contributed to the high LA titer and productivity of 107.5 g/L and 2.69 g/(L·h), respectively [82].

7. Co-Culture

Microbial co-culture involves the application of two or more different organisms in the same fermentation process. Traditional microbial fermentation usually relies on a single strain or single culture, and it is difficult to further improve the production capacity of natural strains after process optimization. Co-cultivation can use the advantages and abilities of different strains to simulate synergy in nature, to complete more complex synthetic pathways and achieve higher production efficiency. Unlike pure sugar medium, agricultural waste contains many impurities, inhibitors, and even harmful substances. In addition, the amount of hexose and pentose sugars derived from cellulose and hemicellulose is abundant. Failure to convert both sugars to LA results in a decreased fermentation efficiency and low LA yield. Klongklaew et al. performed a co-culture fermentation of furfural tolerant Enterococcus mundtii (xylose-utilizing LAB) and L. rhamnosus (glucose-utilizing LAB) for LA production. The co-culture was proved to be efficient without detoxification of corn stover hydrolysate, producing 31.4 g/L of 99.9% optically pure L-LA with a yield of 0.90 g/g and productivity of 1.73 g/(L·h) [83]. Co-cultures of L. plantarum and L. paracasei showed better performance in LA fermentation from orange peel than monocultures of the same strains [84]. Although Lactobacillus brevis could ferment both xylose and glucose, the mono-cultivation of L. brevis in a mixture of xylose and glucose showed only 0.52 g/g yield and a high number of by-products. Co-cultivation of L. brevis and L. plantarum significantly improved the yield and reduced ethanol production, as L. brevis focused on xylose metabolism in the co-culture system. A LA yield of 0.78 g/g and 0.80 g/g was obtained from co-culture fermentation of polar hydrolysate and alkaline-treated corn stover, respectively [85]. Another application of mixed cultures is the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of dual organisms: one microbe saccharifies the biomass while the other ferments the hydrolysate into LA. Aspergillus niger (A. niger) and Lactobacillus sp. were used as a mixed culture directly utilizing inulin-rich Jerusalem artichoke tubers. A. niger produced inulinase and invertase to hydrolyze inulin. Simultaneously, Lactobacillus sp. converted the released sugars into LA [86].

8. Genetic and Metabolic Engineering

Complete hydrolysates derived from agricultural wastes contain mixed sugars (glucose, xylose, arabinose, etc.). However, only a few LAB can ferment pentose sugars into LA. Carbon catabolite repression is observed in most LAB, where the consumption of preferred sugars represses the consumption of non-favorable sugars. The introduction of genes encoding non-favorable sugar consumption can improve the utilization of total fermentable sugars. Although LA is the natural major metabolite of most LAB, acetate and ethanol is formed via the phosphoketolase pathway or phosphate pathway. Modifications to carbon metabolism pathways can reduce by-product formation, leading to higher LA yields and lower downstream purification costs. As the fermentation process goes on, the accumulation of LA results in the acidification of the medium, so the acid resistance of the strain is also crucial for sustaining LA production. Certain applications in the medical and surgical fields may require optically pure l/d-LA. Deleting and replacing l/d-lactate dehydrogenase genes in the strains can alter the racemization of the produced LA. The higher optical purity of LA can be achieved by disrupting the dehydrogenase gene corresponding to the unwanted racemic isomer. In addition, multiple genetic and metabolic engineering strategies can be performed on the same strain to obtain higher efficiency. Sahoo et al. knocked out all the l-lactate genes in Lactococcus lactis and over-expressed a heterologous d-lactate dehydrogenase (ldhA) gene from L. bulgaricus to produce optically pure d-LA. The researchers also co-expressed a galactose permease (galP) gene and α-phosphoglucomutase (pgmA) gene, resulting in a 109% increase in d-LA yield from galactose. The recombinant L. lactis was applied to the co-culture batch process of whey permeate and showed an enhanced LA yield of 0.90 g/g and d-LA concentration of 45 g/L [87]. Table 2 summarizes some LA productions by engineered strains.

9. Conclusions and Prospectives

Agricultural waste is as a sustainable alternative to expensive pure sugar or other food-competitive raw materials for the production of LA through microbial fermentation. Depending on the type and composition of agricultural waste, varying degrees of pretreatment may be required to release fermentable sugars from the feedstocks. Appropriate application of either traditional or advanced technologies can benefit LA production in different ways. Batch, fed-batch, and continuous modes are often used as the basis for process design and optimization. Cell immobilization and cell retention can increase LA productivity by high cell density. Exploring more low-cost and environmentally friendly materials for immobilization materials and microfiltration membranes is still an important topic. SSCF combines enzymatic hydrolysis of agricultural waste and bioconversion of released sugars to LA, avoiding substrate inhibition and promoting process efficiency. Cheaper enzyme sources or on-site enzyme production can help address the high enzyme cost for industrial-scale production. Co-culture exploits the synergy between different strains to improve LA yield and LA productivity. It is necessary to search extensively for suitable combinations of strains targeting specific agricultural waste. In addition, genetic and metabolic engineering are important tools to enhance strain fitness, improve substrate utilization and reduce byproduct formation in a controlled direction. However, too much modification may bring an excessive metabolic burden to the original strain, which can affect product quality and production efficiency. Although advanced fermentation techniques promise significant improvements in LA titer, yield, or productivity, careful selection of an advanced fermentation technique needs to be made with the consideration of cost and feasibility of the industrial production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, visualization, J.H.; writing—review and editing, J.W. and S.L.; supervision, project administration, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, S.; Qin, S.; He, M.; Zhou, D.; Qin, Q.; Wang, H. Current Applications of Poly(Lactic Acid) Composites in Tissue Engineering and Drug Delivery. Compos. B Eng. 2020, 199, 108238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alves de Oliveira, R.; Komesu, A.; Vaz Rossell, C.E.; Maciel Filho, R. Challenges and Opportunities in Lactic Acid Bioprocess Design—From Economic to Production Aspects. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 133, 219–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Juodeikiene, G.; Vidmantiene, D.; Basinskiene, L.; Cernauskas, D.; Bartkiene, E.; Cizeikiene, D. Green Metrics for Sustainability of Biobased Lactic Acid from Starchy Biomass vs Chemical Synthesis. Catal. Today 2015, 239, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abedi, E.; Hashemi, S.M.B. Lactic Acid Production—Producing Microorganisms and Substrates Sources-State of Art. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ahmad, A.; Banat, F.; Taher, H. A Review on the Lactic Acid Fermentation from Low-Cost Renewable Materials: Recent Developments and Challenges. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Corrado, I.; Varriale, S.; Pezzella, C. Microbial Processes for Upcycling Food Wastes into Sustainable Bioplastics. In Sustainable Food Science—A Comprehensive Approach; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Duque-Acevedo, M.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Cortés-García, F.J.; Camacho-Ferre, F. Agricultural Waste: Review of the Evolution, Approaches and Perspectives on Alternative Uses. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e00902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. He, N.; Jia, J.; Qiu, Z.; Fang, C.; Lidén, G.; Liu, X.; Bao, J. Cyclic L-Lactide Synthesis from Lignocellulose Biomass by Biorefining with Complete Inhibitor Removal and Highly Simultaneous Sugars Assimilation. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2022, 119, 1903–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Biomaterial Products|TripleW. Available online: https://www.triplew.co/biomaterials (accessed on 9 August 2023).
  10. WASTE2FUNC—Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant. Available online: https://www.bbeu.org/projects/waste2func/ (accessed on 9 August 2023).
  11. Abdel-Rahman, M.A.; Hassan, S.E.D.; Alrefaey, H.M.A.; El-Belely, E.F.; Elsakhawy, T.; Fouda, A.; Desouky, S.G.; Khattab, S.M.R. Subsequent Improvement of Lactic Acid Production from Beet Molasses by Enterococcus Hirae Ds10 Using Different Fermentation Strategies. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021, 13, 100617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mladenović, D.D.; Djukić-Vuković, A.P.; Kocić-Tanackov, S.D.; Pejin, J.D.; Mojović, L.V. Lactic Acid Production on a Combined Distillery Stillage and Sugar Beet Molasses Substrate. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2015, 91, 2474–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sun, Y.; Xu, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Zhou, J.; Xiu, Z. Efficient Production of Lactic Acid from Sugarcane Molasses by a Newly Microbial Consortium CEE-DL15. Process. Biochem. 2019, 81, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kawai, M.; Harada, R.; Yoda, N.; Yamasaki-Yashiki, S.; Fukusaki, E.; Katakura, Y. Suppression of Lactate Production by Using Sucrose as a Carbon Source in Lactic Acid Bacteria. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2020, 129, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Salvañal, L.; Clementz, A.; Guerra, L.; Yori, J.C.; Romanini, D. L-Lactic Acid Production Using the Syrup Obtained in Biorefinery of Carrot Discards. Food Bioprod. Process. 2021, 127, 465–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nancib, A.; Nancib, N.; Boubendir, A.; Boudrant, J. The Use of Date Waste for Lactic Acid Production by a Fed-Batch Culture Using Lactobacillus Casei Subsp. Rhamnosus. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2015, 46, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Carpinelli Macedo, J.V.; de Barros Ranke, F.F.; Escaramboni, B.; Campioni, T.S.; Fernández Núñez, E.G.; de Oliva Neto, P. Cost-Effective Lactic Acid Production by Fermentation of Agro-Industrial Residues. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 27, 101706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, H.; Chen, B.; Su, Z.; Wang, K.; Wang, B.; Wang, Y.; Si, Z.; Wu, Y.; Cai, D.; Qin, P. Efficient Lactic Acid Production from Cassava Bagasse by Mixed Culture of Bacillus Coagulans and Lactobacillus Rhamnosus Using Stepwise PH Controlled Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 146, 112175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gali, K.K.; Murugesan, M.; Tadi, S.R.R.; Mohan, N.; Swaminathan, N.; Katiyar, V.; Sivaprakasam, S. Bioprospecting of Cassava Fibrous Waste as a Precursor for Stereospecific Lactic Acid Production: Inhibition Insights for Value Addition and Sustainable Utilization. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2021, 13, 2255–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Y.; Cao, W.; Luo, J.; Qi, B.; Wan, Y. One Step Open Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production from Inedible Starchy Biomass by Thermophilic Bacillus Coagulans IPE22. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 272, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Wang, Y.; Cai, D.; He, M.; Wang, Z.; Qin, P.; Tan, T. Open Fermentative Production of L-Lactic Acid Using White Rice Bran by Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 198, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tosungnoen, S.; Chookietwattana, K.; Dararat, S. Lactic Acid Production from Repeated-Batch and Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Cassava Starch Wastewater by Amylolytic Lactobacillus Plantarum MSUL 702. APCBEE Procedia 2014, 8, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sun, Y.; Liu, H.; Yang, Y.; Zhou, X.; Xiu, Z. High-Efficient l-Lactic Acid Production from Inedible Starchy Biomass by One-Step Open Fermentation Using Thermotolerant Lactobacillus Rhamnosus DUT1908. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 44, 1935–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sun, Y.; Yang, Y.; Liu, H.; Wei, C.; Qi, W.; Xiu, Z. Simultaneous Liquefaction, Saccharification, and Fermentation of l-Lactic Acid Using Aging Paddy Rice with Hull by an Isolated Thermotolerant Enterococcus Faecalis DUT1805. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 43, 1717–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Smerilli, M.; Neureiter, M.; Wurz, S.; Haas, C.; Frühauf, S.; Fuchs, W. Direct Fermentation of Potato Starch and Potato Residues to Lactic Acid by Geobacillus Stearothermophilus under Non-Sterile Conditions. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2015, 90, 648–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kunasundari, B.; Zulkeple, M.F.; Teoh, Y.P. Screening for Direct Production of Lactic Acid from Rice Starch Waste by Geobacillus Stearothermophilus. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Wuhan, China, 1 February 2017; Volume 97. [Google Scholar]
  27. Verma, S.K.; Iram, D.; Sansi, M.S.; Pandey, K.K.; Vij, S.; Sood, S.K. Sustainable Utilization of Dairy Waste Paneer Whey by Pediococcus Pentosaceus NCDC 273 for Lactic Acid Production. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2023, 47, 102588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Luongo, V.; Policastro, G.; Ghimire, A.; Pirozzi, F.; Fabbricino, M. Repeated-Batch Fermentation of Cheese Whey for Semi-Continuous Lactic Acid Production Using Mixed Cultures at Uncontrolled PH. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Catone, M.V.; Palomino, M.M.; Legisa, D.M.; Martin, J.F.; García, V.M.; Ruzal, S.M.; Allievi, M.C. Lactic acid production using cheese whey based medium in a stirred tank reactor by a ccpA mutant of Lacticaseibacillus casei. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 37, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sharma, A.; Mukherjee, S.; Reddy Tadi, S.R.; Ramesh, A.; Sivaprakasam, S. Kinetics of Growth, Plantaricin and Lactic Acid Production in Whey Permeate Based Medium by Probiotic Lactobacillus Plantarum CRA52. LWT 2021, 139, 110744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Juodeikiene, G.; Zadeike, D.; Bartkiene, E.; Klupsaite, D. Application of Acid Tolerant Pedioccocus Strains for Increasing the Sustainability of Lactic Acid Production from Cheese Whey. LWT 2016, 72, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, P.; Zheng, Z.; Xu, Q.; Qian, Z.; Liu, J.; Ouyang, J. Valorization of Dairy Waste for Enhanced D-Lactic Acid Production at Low Cost. Process. Biochem. 2018, 71, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moradi, S.; Zeraatpisheh, F.; Tabatabaee-Yazdi, F. Investigation of lactic acid production in optimized dairy wastewater culture medium. Biomass-Convers. Biorefinery 2022, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Montero-Zamora, J.; Fernández-Fernández, S.; Redondo-Solano, M.; Mazón-Villegas, B.; Mora-Villalobos, J.A.; Barboza, N. Assessment of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Agro-Industrial Residues: First Report of the Potential Role of Weissella Soli for Lactic Acid Production from Milk Whey. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mujtaba, M.; Fernandes Fraceto, L.; Fazeli, M.; Mukherjee, S.; Savassa, S.M.; Araujo de Medeiros, G.; do Espírito Santo Pereira, A.; Mancini, S.D.; Lipponen, J.; Vilaplana, F. Lignocellulosic Biomass from Agricultural Waste to the Circular Economy: A Review with Focus on Biofuels, Biocomposites and Bioplastics. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 402, 136815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mankar, A.R.; Pandey, A.; Modak, A.; Pant, K.K. Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass: A Review on Recent Advances. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 334, 125235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Dutta, N.; Usman, M.; Ashraf, M.A.; Luo, G.; Gamal El-Din, M.; Zhang, S. Methods to Convert Lignocellulosic Waste into Biohydrogen, Biogas, Bioethanol, Biodiesel and Value-Added Chemicals: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 803–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hu, J.; Lin, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Xiang, T.; Mei, Y.; Zhao, S.; Liang, Y.; Peng, N. High-Titer Lactic Acid Production by Lactobacillus Pentosus FL0421 from Corn Stover Using Fed-Batch Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 214, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ahring, B.K.; Traverso, J.J.; Murali, N.; Srinivas, K. Continuous Fermentation of Clarified Corn Stover Hydrolysate for the Production of Lactic Acid at High Yield and Productivity. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 109, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lu, X.; Zheng, X.; Yan, D.; Xin, J.; El-Tantawy El-Sayed, I.; Kang, Y.; Yang, J. Highly Efficient Enzymolysis and Fermentation of Corn Stalk into L-Lactic Acid by Enzyme-Bacteria Friendly Ionic Liquid Pretreatment. Green Chem. Eng. 2022, 3, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, H.; Liu, X.; Jiang, H.; Liang, C.; Zhang, Z.C. Enhanced lactic acid production from P2O5-pretreated biomass by domesticated Pediococcus pentosaceus without detoxification. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 44, 2153–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Alrumman, S.A. Enzymatic Saccharification and Fermentation of Cellulosic Date Palm Wastes to Glucose and Lactic Acid. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2016, 47, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kunasundari, B.; Arai, T.; Sudesh, K.; Hashim, R.; Sulaiman, O.; Stalin, N.J.; Kosugi, A. Detoxification of Sap from Felled Oil Palm Trunks for the Efficient Production of Lactic Acid. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 183, 412–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Saelee, N. Lactic Acid Production from Old Oil Palm Trunk Sap in the Open Batch, Open Repeated Batch, Fed-Batch, and Repeated Fed-Batch Fermentation by Lactobacillus Rhamnosus ATCC 10863. Fermentation 2022, 8, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Juturu, V.; Wu, J.C. Production of High Concentration of L-Lactic Acid from Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch by Thermophilic Bacillus Coagulans JI12. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2018, 65, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. de la Torre, I.; Acedos, M.G.; Ladero, M.; Santos, V.E. On the Use of Resting L. Delbrueckii Spp. Delbrueckii Cells for D-Lactic Acid Production from Orange Peel Wastes Hydrolysates. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 145, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, H.; Huo, W.; Wang, B.; Wang, Y.; Wen, H.; Cai, D.; Zhang, C.; Wu, Y.; Qin, P. L-Lactic Acid Production by Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Dilute Ethylediamine Pre-Treated Rice Straw. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 141, 111749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sivagurunathan, P.; Raj, T.; Chauhan, P.S.; Kumari, P.; Satlewal, A.; Gupta, R.P.; Kumar, R. High-Titer Lactic Acid Production from Pilot-Scale Pretreated Non-Detoxified Rice Straw Hydrolysate at High-Solid Loading. Biochem. Eng. J. 2022, 187, 108668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yadav, N.; Nain, L.; Khare, S.K. One-Pot Production of Lactic Acid from Rice Straw Pretreated with Ionic Liquid. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 323, 124563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ouyang, S.; Zou, L.; Qiao, H.; Shi, J.; Zheng, Z.; Ouyang, J. One-Pot Process for Lactic Acid Production from Wheat Straw by an Adapted Bacillus Coagulans and Identification of Genes Related to Hydrolysate-Tolerance. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 315, 123855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chawla, S.K.; Goyal, D. Optimization of Pretreatment of Wheat Straw Using Response Surface Methodology for Production of Lactic Acid Using Bacillus Sonorenesis Strain DGS15. Bioenergy Res. 2023, 16, 967–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cubas-Cano, E.; González-Fernández, C.; Ballesteros, M.; Tomás-Pejó, E. Lactobacillus Pentosus CECT 4023 T Co-Utilizes Glucose and Xylose to Produce Lactic Acid from Wheat Straw Hydrolysate: Anaerobiosis as a Key Factor. Biotechnol. Prog. 2019, 35, e2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, J.; Jiang, S.; Huang, J.; Guo, H.; Bi, X.; Hou, M.; Chen, X.; Hou, S.; Lin, H.; Lu, Y.; et al. Optimization of Initial Cation Concentrations for L-Lactic Acid Production from Fructose by Lactobacillus Pentosus Cells. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2021, 193, 1496–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, J.; Huang, J.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Q.; Ning, Y.; Fang, M.; Liu, S. Parametric Optimization and Kinetic Study of L-Lactic Acid Production by Homologous Batch Fermentation of Lactobacillus Pentosus Cells. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2021, 68, 809–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Reddy, L.V.; Park, J.H.; Wee, Y.J. Homofermentative Production of Optically Pure L-Lactic Acid from Sucrose and Mixed Sugars by Batch Fermentation of Enterococcus Faecalis RKY1. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2015, 20, 1099–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Anagnostopoulou, C.; Kontogiannopoulos, K.N.; Gaspari, M.; Morlino, M.S.; Assimopoulou, A.N.; Kougias, P.G. Valorization of Household Food Wastes to Lactic Acid Production: A Response Surface Methodology Approach to Optimize Fermentation Process. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 133871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gordeeva, Y.L.; Rudakovskaya, E.G.; Gordeeva, E.L.; Borodkin, A.G. Mathematical Modeling of Biotechnological Process of Lactic Acid Production by Batch Fermentation: A Review. Theor. Found. Chem. Eng. 2017, 51, 282–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Garcia, B.E.; Rodriguez, E.; Salazar, Y.; Valle, P.A.; Flores-Gallegos, A.C.; Miriam Rutiaga-Quiñones, O.; Rodriguez-Herrera, R. Primary Model for Biomass Growth Prediction in Batch Fermentation. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Veeravalli, S.S.; Mathews, A.P. Continuous Fermentation of Xylose to Short Chain Fatty Acids by Lactobacillus Buchneri under Low PH Conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 337, 764–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Choi, G.; Kim, J.; Lee, C. Effect of Low PH Start-up on Continuous Mixed-Culture Lactic Acid Fermentation of Dairy Effluent. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 10179–10191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Peinemann, J.C.; Demichelis, F.; Fiore, S.; Pleissner, D. Techno-Economic Assessment of Non-Sterile Batch and Continuous Production of Lactic Acid from Food Waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 289, 121631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pejin, J.; Radosavljević, M.; Kocić-Tanackov, S.; Mladenović, D.; Djukić-Vuković, A.; Mojović, L. Fed-Batch l-(+)-Lactic Acid Fermentation of Brewer’s Spent Grain Hydrolysate. J. Inst. Brew. 2017, 123, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. de Oliveira, P.M.; Santos, L.P.; Coelho, L.F.; Avila Neto, P.M.; Sass, D.C.; Contiero, J. Production of l (+) Lactic Acid by Lactobacillus Casei Ke11: Fed Batch Fermentation Strategies. Fermentation 2021, 7, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lobeda, K.; Jin, Q.; Wu, J.; Zhang, W.; Huang, H. Lactic Acid Production from Food Waste Hydrolysate by Lactobacillus Pentosus: Focus on Nitrogen Supplementation, Initial Sugar Concentration, PH, and Fed-Batch Fermentation. J. Food Sci. 2022, 87, 3071–3083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Campos, J.; Tejada, L.G.; Bao, J.; Lidén, G. Fed-Batch Strategies for Biodetoxification in Production of Optically Pure Lactic Acid from Softwood Hydrolysate Using Pediococcus Acidilactici. Process. Biochem. 2023, 125, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lu, J.; Peng, W.; Lv, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Xu, B.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, J.; Dong, W.; Xin, F.; Jiang, M. Application of Cell Immobilization Technology in Microbial Cocultivation Systems for Biochemicals Production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 17026–17034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, J.; Huang, J.; Guo, H.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, J.; Ning, Y.; Fang, M.; Liu, S. Optimization of Immobilization Conditions for Lactobacillus Pentosus Cells. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 43, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wang, J.; Huang, J.; Laffend, H.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, J.; Ning, Y.; Fang, M.; Liu, S. Optimization of Immobilized Lactobacillus Pentosus Cell Fermentation for Lactic Acid Production. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2020, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, J.; Guo, H.; Huang, J.; Jiang, S.; Hou, S.; Chen, X.; Lv, H.; Bi, X.; Hou, M.; Lin, H.; et al. L-Lactic Acid Production from Fructose by Chitosan Film-Coated Sodium Alginate-Polyvinyl Alcohol Immobilized Lactobacillus Pentosus Cells and Its Kinetic Analysis. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2021, 8, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Radosavljević, M.; Lević, S.; Belović, M.; Pejin, J.; Djukić-Vuković, A.; Mojović, L.; Nedović, V. Encapsulation of Lactobacillus Rhamnosus in Polyvinyl Alcohol for the Production of L-(+)-Lactic Acid. Process. Biochem. 2021, 100, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shahri, S.Z.; Vahabzadeh, F.; Mogharei, A. Lactic Acid Production by Loofah-Immobilized Rhizopus Oryzae through One-Step Fermentation Process Using Starch Substrate. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 43, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mladenović, D.; Pejin, J.; Kocić-Tanackov, S.; Radovanović, Ž.; Djukić-Vuković, A.; Mojović, L. Lactic Acid Production on Molasses Enriched Potato Stillage by Lactobacillus Paracasei Immobilized onto Agro-Industrial Waste Supports. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 124, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. López-Gómez, J.P.; Alexandri, M.; Schneider, R.; Venus, J. A Review on the Current Developments in Continuous Lactic Acid Fermentations and Case Studies Utilising Inexpensive Raw Materials. Process. Biochem. 2019, 79, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ma, K.; Cui, Y.; Zhao, K.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, G.; He, M. D-Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Residues by Membrane Integrated Continuous Fermentation Coupled with B Vitamin Supplementation. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2022, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Alexandri, M.; Blanco-Catalá, J.; Schneider, R.; Turon, X.; Venus, J. High L(+)-Lactic Acid Productivity in Continuous Fermentations Using Bakery Waste and Lucerne Green Juice as Renewable Substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 316, 123949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ma, K.; Hu, G.; Pan, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ruan, Z.; He, M. Highly Efficient Production of Optically Pure L-Lactic Acid from Corn Stover Hydrolysate by Thermophilic Bacillus Coagulans. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 219, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Olszewska-Widdrat, A.; Alexandri, M.; López-Gómez, J.P.; Schneider, R.; Venus, J. Batch and Continuous Lactic Acid Fermentation Based on a Multi-Substrate Approach. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gupta, V.; Odaneth, A.A.; Lali, A.M. High Cell Density Continuous Fermentation for L-Lactic Acid Production from Cane Molasses. Prep. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2023, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhou, J.; Ouyang, J.; Xu, Q.; Zheng, Z. Cost-Effective Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of L-Lactic Acid from Bagasse Sulfite Pulp by Bacillus Coagulans CC17. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 222, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tian, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Hang, H.; Chu, J.; Zhuang, Y. Metabolic Engineering Coupled with Adaptive Evolution Strategies for the Efficient Production of High-Quality L-Lactic Acid by Lactobacillus Paracasei. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 323, 124549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Li, J.; Shi, S.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, Z. Integrated Production of Optically Pure L-Lactic Acid from Paper Mill Sludge by Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation (SSCF). Waste Manag. 2021, 129, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, B.; Li, J.; Liu, X.; Bao, J. Continuous Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation (SSCF) for Cellulosic L-Lactic Acid Production. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 187, 115527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Klongklaew, A.; Unban, K.; Kalaimurugan, D.; Kanpiengjai, A.; Azaizeh, H.; Schroedter, L.; Schneider, R.; Venus, J.; Khanongnuch, C. Bioconversion of Dilute Acid Pretreated Corn Stover to L-Lactic Acid Using Co-Culture of Furfural Tolerant Enterococcus Mundtii WX1 and Lactobacillus Rhamnosus SCJ9. Fermentation 2023, 9, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ricci, A.; Diaz, A.B.; Caro, I.; Bernini, V.; Galaverna, G.; Lazzi, C.; Blandino, A. Orange Peels: From by-Product to Resource through Lactic Acid Fermentation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 6761–6767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhang, Y.; Vadlani, P.V. Lactic Acid Production from Biomass-Derived Sugars via Co-Fermentation of Lactobacillus Brevis and Lactobacillus Plantarum. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2015, 119, 694–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Ge, X.Y.; Qian, H.; Zhang, W.G. Improvement of L-Lactic Acid Production from Jerusalem Artichoke Tubers by Mixed Culture of Aspergillus niger and Lactobacillus Sp. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 1872–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sahoo, T.K.; Jayaraman, G. Co-Culture of Lactobacillus Delbrueckii and Engineered Lactococcus Lactis Enhances Stoichiometric Yield of d-Lactic Acid from Whey Permeate. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 5653–5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ou, M.S.; Awasthi, D.; Nieves, I.; Wang, L.; Erickson, J.; Vermerris, W.; Ingram, L.O.; Shanmugam, K.T. Sweet Sorghum Juice and Bagasse as Feedstocks for the Production of Optically Pure Lactic Acid by Native and Engineered Bacillus Coagulans Strains. BioEnergy Res. 2016, 9, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jiang, T.; Zhang, C.; He, Q.; Zheng, Z.; Ouyang, J. Metabolic Engineering of Escherichia Coli K12 for Homofermentative Production of L-Lactate from Xylose. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2018, 184, 703–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Aso, Y.; Hashimoto, A.; Ohara, H. Engineering Lactococcus Lactis for D-Lactic Acid Production from Starch. Curr. Microbiol. 2019, 76, 1186–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kuo, Y.C.; Yuan, S.F.; Wang, C.A.; Huang, Y.J.; Guo, G.L.; Hwang, W.S. Production of Optically Pure L-Lactic Acid from Lignocellulosic Hydrolysate by Using a Newly Isolated and d-Lactate Dehydrogenase Gene-Deficient Lactobacillus Paracasei Strain. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 198, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Okano, K.; Uematsu, G.; Hama, S.; Tanaka, T.; Noda, H.; Kondo, A.; Honda, K. Metabolic Engineering of Lactobacillus Plantarum for Direct L-Lactic Acid Production From Raw Corn Starch. Biotechnol. J. 2018, 13, e1700517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cubas-Cano, E.; González-Fernández, C.; Tomás-Pejó, E. Evolutionary Engineering of Lactobacillus Pentosus Improves Lactic Acid Productivity from Xylose-Rich Media at Low PH. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 288, 121540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Qiu, Z.; Gao, Q.; Bao, J. Engineering Pediococcus Acidilactici with Xylose Assimilation Pathway for High Titer Cellulosic L-Lactic Acid Fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 249, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fermentation 09 00765 g001
Figure 1. Mechanism of various immobilization technologies: (a) adsorption on a surface, (b) encapsulation, (c) entrapment within a matrix, and (d) containment within a polymer. Reprinted with permission from Lu et al. [66]. Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.
Figure 1. Mechanism of various immobilization technologies: (a) adsorption on a surface, (b) encapsulation, (c) entrapment within a matrix, and (d) containment within a polymer. Reprinted with permission from Lu et al. [66]. Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.
Fermentation 09 00765 g001
Fermentation 09 00765 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the membrane integrated continuous fermentation system. (1) N2 storage tank; (2) feed medium storage tank; (3) neutralizer reservoir; (4) fermenter; (5) hollow-fiber microfiltration module; (6) product storage tank; (7) cleaning solution tank; (8) flow meter; (9) medium feed control pump; (10) alkali feed control pump; (11) recirculation pump; (12) feed pressure indicator; (13) retentate pressure indicator; (14) retentate flow rate indicator; (15) permeate control pump; (16) backwash pump; (17) level sensor; (18) pH sensor; (19) control host; (20) sampling (analysis of residual sugars and D-lactic acid); (21) sampling (analysis of cell growth). Reprinted with permission from Ma et al. [74]. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the membrane integrated continuous fermentation system. (1) N2 storage tank; (2) feed medium storage tank; (3) neutralizer reservoir; (4) fermenter; (5) hollow-fiber microfiltration module; (6) product storage tank; (7) cleaning solution tank; (8) flow meter; (9) medium feed control pump; (10) alkali feed control pump; (11) recirculation pump; (12) feed pressure indicator; (13) retentate pressure indicator; (14) retentate flow rate indicator; (15) permeate control pump; (16) backwash pump; (17) level sensor; (18) pH sensor; (19) control host; (20) sampling (analysis of residual sugars and D-lactic acid); (21) sampling (analysis of cell growth). Reprinted with permission from Ma et al. [74]. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Fermentation 09 00765 g002
Table 1. Microbial LA productions from lignocellulosic agriculture waste.
Table 1. Microbial LA productions from lignocellulosic agriculture waste.
Lignocellulosic WastePretreatmentMicroorganismLA,
g/L		Yield,
g/g		Productivity, g/(L·h) Reference
Corn stoverAlkaline, hot waterLactobacillus pentosus92.30.661.92[38]
Grinding, wet explosion, cellulaseBacillus coagulans-0.953.69[39]
CornstalkIonic liquid, cellulaseBacillus sp.-0.963-[40]
Steam explosion, ball milling with P2O5Pediococcus pentosaceus29.80.823.4[41]
Date palm wasteGrinding, alkaline Lactobacillus delbrueckii27.80.760.386[42]
Oil palm Extruding, alkalineBacillus coagulans63.30.922.64[43]
ExtrudingLactobacillus rhamnosus91.300.873.88[44]
Oil palm empty fruit bunchAcidBacillus coagulans105.4-9.3[45]
CellulaseBacillus coagulans114.0-5.7[45]
Orange peelMilling, cellulaseLactobacillus delbrueckii-0.946.72[46]
Rice strawEthylenediamineBacillus coagulans92.5-2.01[47]
Dilute acid, steam explosion, cellulaseLactobacillus lactis82.20.8720.61[48]
Ionic liquid, hot water, cellulaseLactobacillus plantarum36.75-0.51[49]
Wheat strawMilling, cellulaseBacillus coagulans26.30.7090.253[50]
Grinding, acidBacillus sonorenesis55.90.970.77[51]
Milling, steam explosionLactobacillus pentosus17.70.820.37[52]
Table 2. Genetic and metabolic engineering in LA production.
Table 2. Genetic and metabolic engineering in LA production.
MicroorganismModificationsSubstrateOptical PurityLA,
g/L		Yield,
g/g		Productivity, g/(L·h) Reference
Bacillus coagulansDeletion of l-lactate dehydrogenase (ldh) gene and acetolactate synthase (alsS) gene, mutation of a growth-based suppressor, introduction of d-lactate dehydrogenase (D-LDH) gene Sweet sorghum juiced-LA
>99%		125-5[88]
Escherichia coliSix chromosomal deletions (pflB, ldhA, ackA, pta, frdA, adhE), over-expression of l-lactate dehydrogenase (ldhL) gene, intensification of xylose catabolism Xylose mediuml-LA
>99%		8.120.91-[89]
Lacticaseibacillus caseiMutation of catabolite control protein A (ccpA) geneCheese wheyl-LA
94.2%		44.230.8-[29]
Lactococcus lactisReplacement of l-lactate dehydrogenase (L-Ldh) gene with d-lactate dehydrogenase (D-Ldh) gene, intergration of α-amylase (amyA) gene Starchd-LA 93.8%15.0-0.63[90]
Lactobacillus paracaseiDisruption of d-lactate dehydrogenase (ldhD) geneWood hydrolysate l-LA94.860.963.23[91]
Rice straw hydrolysatel-LA66.670.975.27[91]
Lactobacillus paracaseiReplacement of d-lactate dehydrogenase (ldhD) gene with l-lactate dehydrogenase 1 (ldhL1) gene, adaptive evolution at 45 °CHigh glucose mediuml-LA 99.1%221.00.967.5[80]
Lactobacillus plantarumDeletion of d-lactate dehydrogenase (ldhA) gene, mutation of (ΔldhD) gene, disruption of lactate racemase operon (larA-E)Raw corn starchl-LA 98.6%530.91-[92]
Lactobacillus pentosusAdaptive evolution at high xylose concentration and low pHWheat straw hydrolysate-13.50.860.74[93]
Pediococcus acidilacticiDisruption of phosphoketolase (pkt) gene, integration of transketolase (tkt), transaldolase (tal), xylose isomerase (xylA) and xylulokinase (xylB) genes, long-term adaptive evolutionWheat strawl-LA130.80.951.82[94]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, J.; Wang, J.; Liu, S. Advanced Fermentation Techniques for Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Waste. Fermentation 2023, 9, 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9080765

AMA Style

Huang J, Wang J, Liu S. Advanced Fermentation Techniques for Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Waste. Fermentation. 2023; 9(8):765. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9080765

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Jiaqi, Jianfei Wang, and Shijie Liu. 2023. "Advanced Fermentation Techniques for Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Waste" Fermentation 9, no. 8: 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9080765

APA Style

Huang, J., Wang, J., & Liu, S. (2023). Advanced Fermentation Techniques for Lactic Acid Production from Agricultural Waste. Fermentation, 9(8), 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9080765

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop