Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 3(5): 331-334, 2015
Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology www.agrifoodscience.com, Turkish Science and Technology
Production of Bioethanol from Waste Potato Merve Duruyurek1, Cihan Dusgun1, Mehmet Fuat Gulhan2, Zeliha Selamoglu1* 1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Science, Niğde University, 51200 Niğde, Turkey Department of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Aksaray University, 68100 Aksaray, Turkey
2
ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 20 November 2014 Accepted 28 January 2015 Available online, ISSN: 2148-127X Keywords: Saccaromyces cerevisiae Potato Ethanol Renewable Energy Waste fuel
ABSTRACT Using primary energy sources in World as fossil fuels, causes air pollution and climate change. Because of these reasons, people looking for renewable energy suppliers which has less carbondioxide and less pollution. Carbon in biofuels is producing from photosynthesis. For this, burning biofuels don’t increase carbondioxide in atmosphere. Scientists predict that plants with high carbonhydrate and protein contents are 21. centuries biofuels. Potatoes are producing over 280 million in whole world and Turkey is 6th potato producer. Turkey produces 5250000 tonne of potatoes. Approximately 20% of potatoes are waste in Niğde. Our study aimed to produce bioethanol from Solanum tuberosum by using the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. As a result renewable energy sources can be produced from natural wastes.
Corresponding Author: E-mail:
[email protected] *
ords: Metal ions, Dietary intake, Target hazard quotients, Introduction Ready-to-eat-foods, Nigeria In recent years, in most developed countries, energy is
[email protected] more than 90% of total energy comes from non-renewable
fuel sources and most of these countries import that fuel sources for the energy (Lee et al., 2012).This relationship causes global energy crisis because of their nonsustainability. The fossil energy consumption of worldwide might be double in the following 20 years is predicted by International Energy Agency (Liu et al., 2009; Li et al., 2009). People need to look for the new and recycled alternative energy sources because of the global energy crisis and continual soaring prices of fossil fuels. The renewable energy increasing popularity year by year, including bioethanol, biodiesel, hydro power, fire power, and wind power energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, biological hydrogen production, and fuel cell, etc. was indicated conclusions of national energy meeting in 2005 (Liu et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2012). Renewable biomass fuels such as bioethanol, bio-diesel, bio-hydrogen, etc., derived from sugarcane, corn, switch grass, algae, etc. can replace all petroleum-based fuels. The importance of ethanol is increasing for some reasons such as global warming and changing in world climate. Bioethanol has been acquiring common interest in whole world (Sarkar et al., 2012). There is close relationship between agriculture
and energy. Agriculture is an energy user and also energy supplier in the form of bio-energy (Mohammadi et al., 2008). Agricultural wastes which are a type of lignocellulosic resource, can comprise up to 50% of agricultural production, and are regarded as cheap, abundant and accessible feedstocks for bioethanol production (Littlewood at al., 2013). Plants which stores starch/ cellulose can produce ethanol. Ethanol is less toxic, easily biodegradable and its use less pollutant less pollutant than petroleum fuel (John et al., 2011; Celik et al., 2012). Bioethanol is taken consideration the cleanest liquid fuel alternative to gasoline. Bioethanol is produced from cellulosic biomass, including agricultural and forestry residues, portions of municipal waste, and herbaceous and woody crops. Bioethanol has become importance with its powerful economic, environmental and strategic attributes (Orozco et al., 2013). Bioethanol which is produced from agricultural residues, is a carbon neutral, clean burning, sustainable and renewable fuel (Song et al., 2013). Renewable resources such as biofuels could help to decrease the fossil fuel burning and CO2 production (Naik et al., 2010). Plant cell walls have carbohydrate polymers, lignins, glycoproteins and minerals. The carbohydrate components (i.e. cellulose,
Duruyurek et al. / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 3(5): 331-334, 2015
hemicelluloses and pectins) are the sugar sources for biofuel production (Taylor et al., 2008). Most recently, production of bioethanol is primarily from sugarcane, maize (corn) and sugar beets. There is hesitation about whether it is a sustainable energy resource that may offer environmental and long-term economic advantages over fossil fuels but, the technology to produce ethanol from cellulosic feedstock is in development (Herna´ndez et al., 2009). Potatoes which have large production worldwide are a desirable feedstock for fuel ethanol production (FEP). In 2007, the world potato production was about 325 million tonnes. This means that it can be produced 1200-7200 million liters of fuel ethanol per year (Tasi´c et al., 2011).
Niğde is an important source of potato in Turkey. Niğde is in the first as potato producer but about 20% of these potatoes are waste. The figure 1 showed the produced and waste potato amount in Turkey. According to figure 1 too many potatoes are waste every year. For fermantation the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is commonly used as a fermentative microorganism because of its low cost (Tasi´c et al., 2011). Our study aimed to produce bioethanol from Solanum tuberosum by using the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioethanol which is second generation biofuel has environmental and long-term economic advantages. Bioethanol could be the most important biofuel soon.
Amount of production potato and waste potato
Potato production in Turkey (tonne) Waste potato amount in Turkey (tonne)
6.000.000,00 5.000.000,00 4.000.000,00 3.000.000,00 2.000.000,00 1.000.000,00 0,00 1980
1985
1990
1995 2000 Years
2001
2006
2010
Figure 1 Potato production and amount of waste potato (BÜGEM, 2012) Material and Methods Microorganism Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast was used as a fermentation microorganism. Potato tubers were washed, peeled, sliced and milled. Saccharomyces cerevisiae solution was prepared content of 2.6% and 4%. 75g potatoes were used for each group. Acid Dichromate Solution 70 mL of concentrated sulfiric acid and 0.75g of potassium dichromate were mixed in an erlenmayer. Then it was diluted with 250 mL distilled water. Starch Indicator Solution 1.0g of soluble starch dissolved in 100 mL of recently boiled water. Sodium Thiosulfate Solution 0.03 M sodium thiosulfate solution was prepared.
Potassium Iodide Solution 5g of potassium iodide was dissolved in with 25 mL water. Methods 75g potato and 75g Saccharomyces cerevisiae solution were mixed in an erlenmeyer. 6 samples include 2.6% Saccharomyces cerevisiae solution and another 6 samples include 4% Saccharomyces cerevisiae solution. 7.5 g sugar was used for 4 groups and 1.5 g sugar was used for 4 groups. All of samples were stored in an incubator at 34°C. 6 of samples were removed after 30 minutes. 10 mL of liquid phase was taken by pipette. 30 mL acid dichromate solution and 1 mL potassium iodide solution were mixed and then waited in overnight for 5 minutes. 1 mL starch indicator solution was transferred. Then this
332
Duruyurek et al. / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 3(5): 331-334, 2015
solution was titrated with sodium thiosulfate solution. The same procedure was applied after 90 minutes for other 6 samples. Experimental design Group 1 included 75g potato, 4% yeast solution, 1% sugar and waiting time was 30 minutes. Group 2 included 75g potato, 4% yeast solution, 1% sugar and waiting time was 90 minutes. Group 3 included 75g potato, 4% yeast solution, 5% sugar and waiting time was 30 minutes. Group 4 included 75 g potato, 4% yeast solution, 5% sugar and waiting time was 90 minutes. Group 5 included 75g potato, 2.6% yeast solution, 1% sugar and waiting time was 30 minutes. Group 6 included 75 g potato, 2.6% yeast solution, 1% sugar and waiting time was 90 minutes. Group 7 included 75g potato, 2.6% yeast solution, 5% sugar and waiting time was 30 minutes. Group 8 included 75 g potato, 2.6% yeast solution, 5% sugar and waiting time was 90 minutes. Group 9 included 75g potato, 4% yeast solution and waiting time was 30 minutes. Group 10 included 75g potato, 4% yeast solution and waiting time was 90 minutes. Group 11 included 75 g potato, 2.6% yeast solution and waiting time was 30 minutes. Group 12 included 75g potato, 2.6% yeast solution and waiting time was 90 minutes.
amount for each group. Ethanol production was 3.88 mL in group 1. Produced ethanol amount were 4.11 mL in group 2, 8 mL in group 3, 6.23 mL in group 4, 8.23 mL in group 5, 9.17 mL in group 6, 6.23 mL in group 7, 6.47 mL in group 8, 7.41mL in group 9, 4.47 mL in group 10, 9.7 mL in group 11 and 7.64 mL in group 12. The data shown that the best ethanol production was in group 11. This group has no sugar and time was 30 minutes. The only differences between group 11 and group 12 are the time. In group 12 the time was 90 minutes. Produced ethanol amount decreased in group 12. Comparing 1.5 g sugar and 7.5 g sugar, in groups with 7.5 g sugar produces more ethanol than groups with 7.5 sugar. There is too many methods for production of bioenergy from the renewable sources but they are very expensive and hard methods. In compared with Lee et al., 2012 our results showed that our method is the cheapest way for ethanol production. Our results showed the possibility of using potato peels waste as an economical source for bioethanol production. From this investigation, ethanol production can be through by simultaneous fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Results and Discussion
Acknowledgement
Produced ethanol quantity has differences in all groups. The table 1 is shown that amount of produced ethanol. Table 1 summarized the produced ethanol
The authors would like to thank Nuriye Bayrak, Utku Furkan Yildiz, Mustafa Mert Esen for the support on this research.
Table 1 The amount of produced ethanol in all groups Potato (g) Distilled water (mL) Group 1 75 g 72 mL Group 2 75 g 72 mL Group 3 75 g 72 mL Group 4 75 g 72 mL Group 5 75 g 73 mL Group 6 75 g 73 mL Group 7 75 g 73 mL Group 8 75 g 73 mL Group 9 75 g 72 mL Group 10 75 g 72 mL Group 11 75 g 73 mL Group 12 75 g 73 mL
Yeast 3g 3g 3g 3g 2g 2g 2g 2g 3g 3g 2g 2g
Sugar 1% 1.5 g 1% 1.5 g 5% 7.5 g 5% 7.5 g 1% 1.5 g 1% 1.5 g 5% 7.5 g 5% 7.5 g (---) (---) (---) (---)
Time (minutes) 30 90 30 90 30 90 30 90 30 90 30 90
Bioethanol (mL) 3.88 4.11 8 6.23 8.23 9.17 6.23 6.47 7.41 4.47 9.7 7.64
References BÜGEM. 2012. Bitkisel üretim genel müdürlüğü. Celik M, Kahraman A, Acaroglu M. 2012. The effects of washing process on fuel properties in biodiesel production. Energy Educ. Sci. Tech. Part:A 29: 973-978. Herna´ndez L, Kafarov V. 2009. Use of bioethanol for sustainable electrical energy production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34:7041–7050. John RP, Anisha GS, Nampoothiri KZ, Pandey A. 2011. Micro and macroalgal biomass: A renewable source for bioethanol. Bioresource Technol. 102: 186–193. Lee WS, Chen IC, Chang CH, Yang SS. 2012. Bioethanol production from sweet potato by co-immobilization of saccharolytic molds and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Renew. Energ. 39: 216-222.
Li
S, Sun J, Zhao Y. 2012. An approach of transportationoptimization in biomass collection for biopower plant. Energy Educ. Sci. Tech. Part:A 29: 761-770. Littlewood J, Murphy RJ, Wang L. 2013. Importance of policy support and feedstock prices on economic feasibility of bioethanol production from wheat straw in the UK. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 17: 291–300. Liu SY, Lin CY. 2009. Development and perspective of promising energy plants for bioethanol production in Taiwan. Renew. Energ. 34: 1902–1907. Mohammadi A, Tabatabaeefar A, Rafiee S, Keyhani A. 2008. Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energ. Conver. Manage. 49: 3566–3570.
333
Duruyurek et al. / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 3(5): 331-334, 2015 Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK. 2010. Production of first and second generation biofuels: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14: 578–597. Orozco AM, Al-Muhtaseb AH, Rooney D, Walker GM, Ahmad MNM. 2013. Hydrolysis characteristics and kinetics of waste hay biomass as a potential energy crop for fermentable sugars production using autoclave parr reactor system. Ind. Crop. Prod. 44: 1-10. Sarkar N, Ghosh SK, Bannerjee S, Aikat K. 2012. Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: An overview. Renew.Energ. 37: 19-27.
Song L, Ma F, Zeng Y, Zhang X, Yu H. 2013. The promoting effects of manganese on biological pretreatment with Irpex lacteus and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Bioresource Technol. 135: 89–92. Sun J, Guo J, Liu S. 2012. Comparative analysis of somecollection strategies for industrial buyers in agricultural biomass supply market. Energy Educ. Sci. Tech. Part:A 29: 771-784. Tasi´c MB, Veljkovi´c VB. 2011. Simulation of fuel ethanol production from potato tubers. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35: 2284– 2293.
334
