Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Fermentation
View on Wikipedia

Fermentation is a type of anaerobic metabolism which harnesses the redox potential of the reactants to make adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and organic end products.[1][2] Organic molecules, such as glucose or other sugars, are catabolized and their electrons are transferred to other organic molecules (cofactors, coenzymes, etc.).[1] Anaerobic glycolysis is a related term used to describe the occurrence of fermentation in organisms (usually multicellular organisms such as animals) when aerobic respiration cannot keep up with the ATP demand, due to insufficient oxygen supply or anaerobic conditions.
Fermentation is important in several areas of human society. Humans have used fermentation in the production and preservation of food for 13,000 years.[3] It has been associated with health benefits, unique flavor profiles, and making products have better texture. Humans and their livestock also benefit from fermentation from the microbes in the gut that release end products that are subsequently used by the host for energy. Perhaps the most commonly known use for fermentation is at an industrial level to produce commodity chemicals, such as ethanol and lactate. Ethanol is used in a variety of alcoholic beverages (beers, wine, and spirits) while lactate can be neutralized to lactic acid and be used for food preservation, curing agent, or a flavoring agent.[3]
This complex metabolism utilizes a wide variety of substrates and can form nearly 300 different combinations of end products. Fermentation occurs in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The discovery of new end products and new fermentative organisms suggests that fermentation is more diverse than what has been studied.[4]
Definition
[edit]A variety of definitions have been proposed throughout the years, but the simplest definition and most recent definition of fermentation proposed is "catabolism where organic compounds are both the electron donor and acceptor."[5] This definition distinguishes fermentation from aerobic respiration (when oxygen is the acceptor) and types of anaerobic respiration (when an inorganic species is the acceptor).[4] However, this definition does not encompass all forms of fermentation. For example, propionate fermentation which uses H2 as an electron donor, or the second step of butyrate fermentation where CO2 can act as an electron acceptor. Thus, it is simplest to use this definition while acknowledging that protons and CO2 can also be used as electron donors and acceptors, respectively.[4]
In 1876, before the discovery of anaerobic respiration, Louis Pasteur described it as "la vie sans air" (life without air). It was also common for fermentation to be defined based on how fermentation forms ATP which was catabolism that forms ATP through only substrate-level phosphorylation.
Industrial fermentation is another type of fermentation that is defined loosely as a large-scale biological manufacturing process; however, this definition focuses on the process of manufacturing rather than metabolic details.[4]
Biological role and prevalence
[edit]Fermentation can be used by organisms to generate a net gain of ATP from exogenous sources of organic molecules, such as glucose. It was not a net source of energy in the earliest forms of life because they were mostly single cell organisms living in the ocean and the ocean does not contain significant concentrations of complex organic molecules.
Because fermentation does not need an exogenous electron acceptor, it is able to occur regardless of the environmental conditions. However, the primary disadvantage of fermentation is that fermentation is relatively inefficient and produces between 2 and 5 ATP molecules per glucose versus 32 ATP molecules during aerobic respiration.[6][7]
Over 25% of bacteria and archaea carry out fermentation.[2][8] Fermentation is especially prevalent in prokaryotes of phylum Bacillota, but most rare in Actinomycetota, according to phylogenetic analysis. The fermenting microbes are most frequently found in host-associated habitats such as the gastrointestinal tract, but also sediments, food, and other habitats. Both bacteria and archaea share the capacity for fermentation, leading to a wide variety of organic end products. The most common fermentation products include lactate, acetate, ethanol, carbon dioxide (CO2), succinate, hydrogen (H2), propionate, and butyrate.[9][2]
In humans, fermentation pathways occur in health, as in exercising, and in disease, as in sepsis and hemorrhagic shock,[10] providing energy for a period ranging from 10 seconds to 2 minutes. During this time, it can augment the energy produced by aerobic metabolism, but is limited by the buildup of lactate. Rest eventually becomes necessary.[11]
Substrates and products of fermentation
[edit]
Like many biochemical reactions, fermentation is an enzyme catalyzed reaction with the goal of either changing the initial substrate or forming a useful byproduct. When naturally occurring fermentation is carried out by microbes, the goal is usually to obtain useful metabolic products such as ATP, pyruvate, or lactic acid. The substrates used in this type of fermentation are often simple sugars (carbohydrates) that serve as a carbon source and this type of fermentation can be carried out by microbes and humans.[12]
Food as a substrate for fermentation is the most common and oldest anthropogenic use of fermentation as it was a method to preserve food. This includes cereal, dairy products, rice, honey, bread, and beers.[13] This type of naturally occurring fermentation continues to be harnessed by humans for preservative effects, flavor profiles, and texture profiles. Advances in fermentation has led to the engineering and industrialization of specific microbes and substrates in order to obtain certain flavor and texture profiles – this is most obvious when observing beer fermentation.
Biochemical overview
[edit]
When an organic compound is fermented, it is broken down to a simpler molecule and releases electrons. The electrons are transferred to a redox cofactor, which, in turn, transfers them to an organic compound. ATP is generated in the process, and it can be formed via substrate-level phosphorylation or by ATP synthase.[12]
When glucose is fermented, it enters glycolysis or the pentose phosphate pathway and is converted to pyruvate. From pyruvate, pathways branch out to form a number of end products (e.g. lactate). At several points, electrons are released and accepted by redox cofactors (NAD and ferredoxin). At later points, these cofactors donate electrons to their final acceptor and become oxidized. ATP is also formed at several points in the pathway.[6][14]

Biochemistry of individual products
[edit]Ethanol
[edit]Yeast and other anaerobic microorganisms can convert the pyruvate produced from the oxidation of glucose by a glycolysis pathway to ethanol and CO2. In ethanol fermentation, one glucose molecule is converted into two ethanol molecules and two carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules.[15][16] It is used to make bread dough rise: the carbon dioxide forms bubbles, expanding the dough into a foam.[17][18] The ethanol is the intoxicating agent in alcoholic beverages such as wine, beer and liquor.[19] Fermentation of feedstocks, including sugarcane, maize, and sugar beets, produces ethanol that is added to gasoline.[20] In some species of fish, including goldfish and carp, it provides energy when oxygen is scarce (along with lactic acid fermentation).[21]
Before fermentation, a glucose molecule breaks down into two pyruvate molecules (glycolysis). The energy from this exothermic reaction is used to bind inorganic phosphates to ADP, which converts it to ATP, and convert NAD+ to NADH. The pyruvates break down into two acetaldehyde molecules and give off two carbon dioxide molecules as waste products. The acetaldehyde is reduced into ethanol using the energy and hydrogen from NADH, and the NADH is oxidized into NAD+ so that the cycle may repeat. The reaction is catalyzed by the enzymes pyruvate decarboxylase and alcohol dehydrogenase.[15]
History of bioethanol fermentation
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (August 2023) |
The history of ethanol as a fuel spans several centuries and is marked by a series of significant milestones. Samuel Morey, an American inventor, was the first to produce ethanol by fermenting corn in 1826. However, it was not until the California Gold Rush in the 1850s that ethanol was first used as a fuel in the United States. Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his engine, which could run on vegetable oils and ethanol, in 1895, but the widespread use of petroleum-based diesel engines made ethanol less popular as a fuel. In the 1970s, the oil crisis reignited interest in ethanol, and Brazil became a leader in ethanol production and use. The United States began producing ethanol on a large scale in the 1980s and 1990s as a fuel additive to gasoline, due to government regulations. Today, ethanol continues to be explored as a sustainable and renewable fuel source, with researchers developing new technologies and biomass sources for its production.[citation needed]
- 1826: Samuel Morey, an American inventor, was the first to produce ethanol by fermenting corn. However, ethanol was not widely used as a fuel until many years later. (1)
- 1850s: Ethanol was first used as a fuel in the United States during the California gold rush. Miners used ethanol as a fuel for lamps and stoves because it was cheaper than whale oil. (2)
- 1895: German engineer Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his engine, which was designed to run on vegetable oils, including ethanol. However, the widespread use of diesel engines fueled by petroleum made ethanol less popular as a fuel. (3)
- 1970s: The oil crisis of the 1970s led to renewed interest in ethanol as a fuel. Brazil became a leader in ethanol production and use, due in part to government policies that encouraged the use of biofuels. (4)
- 1980s–1990s: The United States began to produce ethanol on a large scale as a fuel additive to gasoline. This was due to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990, which required the use of oxygenates, such as ethanol, to reduce emissions. (5)
- 2000s–present: There has been continued interest in ethanol as a renewable and sustainable fuel. Researchers are exploring new sources of biomass for ethanol production, such as switchgrass and algae, and developing new technologies to improve the efficiency of the fermentation process. (6)
Lactate
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2021) |
Pyruvate is the terminal electron acceptor in lactic acid fermentation, and homolactic fermentation (producing only lactic acid) is the simplest type of fermentation. Pyruvate from glycolysis[22] undergoes a simple redox reaction, forming lactic acid.[23][24] Overall, one molecule of glucose (or any six-carbon sugar) is converted to two molecules of lactic acid:
- C6H12O6 → 2 CH3CHOHCOOH
It occurs in the muscles of animals when they need energy faster than the blood can supply oxygen. (In mammals, lactate can be transformed by the liver back into glucose using the Cori cycle.) It also occurs in some kinds of bacteria (such as lactobacilli) and some fungi. It is the type of bacteria that convert lactose into lactic acid in yogurt, giving it its sour taste. These lactic acid bacteria can carry out either homolactic fermentation, where the end-product is mostly lactic acid, or heterolactic fermentation, where some lactate is further metabolized to ethanol and carbon dioxide[23] (via the phosphoketolase pathway), acetate, or other metabolic products, e.g.:
- C6H12O6 → CH3CHOHCOOH + C2H5OH + CO2
If lactose is fermented (as in yogurts and cheeses), it is first converted into glucose and galactose (both six-carbon sugars with the same atomic formula):
- C12H22O11 + H2O → 2 C6H12O6
Heterolactic fermentation is in a sense intermediate between lactic acid fermentation and other types, e.g. alcoholic fermentation. Reasons to go further and convert lactic acid into something else include:
- The acidity of lactic acid impedes biological processes. This can be beneficial to the fermenting organism as it drives out competitors that are unadapted to the acidity. As a result, the food will have a longer shelf life (one reason foods are purposely fermented in the first place); however, beyond a certain point, the acidity starts affecting the organism that produces it.
- The high concentration of lactic acid (the final product of fermentation) drives the equilibrium backwards (Le Chatelier's principle), decreasing the rate at which fermentation can occur and slowing down growth.
- Ethanol, into which lactic acid can be easily converted, is volatile and will readily escape, allowing the reaction to proceed easily. CO2 is also produced, but it is only weakly acidic and even more volatile than ethanol.
- Acetic acid (another conversion product) is acidic and not as volatile as ethanol; however, in the presence of limited oxygen, its creation from lactic acid releases additional energy. It is a lighter molecule than lactic acid, forming fewer hydrogen bonds with its surroundings (due to having fewer groups that can form such bonds), thus is more volatile and will also allow the reaction to proceed more quickly.
- If propionic acid, butyric acid, and longer monocarboxylic acids are produced, the amount of acidity produced per glucose consumed will decrease, as with ethanol, allowing faster growth.
Hydrogen gas
[edit]Hydrogen gas is produced in many types of fermentation as a way to regenerate NAD+ from NADH. Electrons are transferred to ferredoxin, which in turn is oxidized by hydrogenase, producing H2.[15] Hydrogen gas is a substrate for methanogens and sulfate reducers, which keep the concentration of hydrogen low and favor the production of such an energy-rich compound,[25] but hydrogen gas at a fairly high concentration can nevertheless be formed, as in flatus.[citation needed]
For example, Clostridium pasteurianum ferments glucose to butyrate, acetate, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen gas.[26] The reaction leading to acetate is:
- C6H12O6 + 4 H2O → 2 CH3COO− + 2 HCO3− + 4 H+ + 4 H2
Glyoxylate
[edit]Glyoxylate fermentation is a type of fermentation used by microbes that are able to utilize glyoxylate as a nitrogen source.[27]
Other
[edit]Other types of fermentation include mixed acid fermentation, butanediol fermentation, butyrate fermentation, caproate fermentation, and acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation.[28][citation needed]
In the broader sense
[edit]In food and industrial contexts, any chemical modification performed by a living being in a controlled container can be termed "fermentation". The following do not fall into the biochemical sense, but are called fermentation in the larger sense:
Alternative protein
[edit]
Fermentation can be used to make alternative protein sources. It is commonly used to modify existing protein foods, including plant-based ones such as soy, into more flavorful forms such as tempeh and fermented tofu.
More modern "fermentation" makes recombinant protein to help produce meat analogue, milk substitute, cheese analogues, and egg substitutes. Some examples are:[29]
- Recombinant myoglobin for faux meat (Motif Foodworks)
- Recombinant leghemoglobin for faux meat (Impossible Foods)
- Recombinant whey protein for dairy replacement (Perfect Day)
- Recombinant casein protein for dairy replacements (Those Vegan Cowboys[30])
- Recombinant egg white (EVERY)
Heme proteins such as myoglobin and hemoglobin give meat its characteristic texture, flavor, color, and aroma. The myoglobin and leghemoglobin ingredients can be used to replicate this property, despite them coming from a vat instead of meat.[29][31]
Enzymes
[edit]Industrial fermentation can be used for enzyme production, where proteins with catalytic activity are produced and secreted by microorganisms. The development of fermentation processes, microbial strain engineering and recombinant gene technologies has enabled the commercialization of a wide range of enzymes. Enzymes are used in all kinds of industrial segments, such as food (lactose removal, cheese flavor), beverage (juice treatment), baking (bread softness, dough conditioning), animal feed, detergents (protein, starch and lipid stain removal), textile, personal care and pulp and paper industries.[32]
Modes of industrial operation
[edit]Most industrial fermentation uses batch or fed-batch procedures, although continuous fermentation can be more economical if various challenges, particularly the difficulty of maintaining sterility, can be met.[33]
Batch
[edit]In a batch process, all the ingredients are combined and the reactions proceed without any further input. Batch fermentation has been used for millennia to make bread and alcoholic beverages, and it is still a common method, especially when the process is not well understood.[34]: 1 However, it can be expensive because the fermentor must be sterilized using high pressure steam between batches.[33] Strictly speaking, there is often addition of small quantities of chemicals to control the pH or suppress foaming.[34]: 25
Batch fermentation goes through a series of phases. There is a lag phase in which cells adjust to their environment; then a phase in which exponential growth occurs. Once many of the nutrients have been consumed, the growth slows and becomes non-exponential, but production of secondary metabolites (including commercially important antibiotics and enzymes) accelerates. This continues through a stationary phase after most of the nutrients have been consumed, and then the cells die.[34]: 25
Fed-batch
[edit]Fed-batch fermentation is a variation of batch fermentation where some of the ingredients are added during the fermentation. This allows greater control over the stages of the process. In particular, production of secondary metabolites can be increased by adding a limited quantity of nutrients during the non-exponential growth phase. Fed-batch operations are often sandwiched between batch operations.[34]: 1 [35]
Open
[edit]The high cost of sterilizing the fermentor between batches can be avoided using various open fermentation approaches that are able to resist contamination. One is to use a naturally evolved mixed culture. This is particularly favored in wastewater treatment, since mixed populations can adapt to a wide variety of wastes. Thermophilic bacteria can produce lactic acid at temperatures of around 50 °Celsius, sufficient to discourage microbial contamination; and ethanol has been produced at a temperature of 70 °C. This is just below its boiling point (78 °C), making it easy to extract. Halophilic bacteria can produce bioplastics in hypersaline conditions. Solid-state fermentation adds a small amount of water to a solid substrate; it is widely used in the food industry to produce flavors, enzymes and organic acids.[33]
Continuous
[edit]In continuous fermentation, substrates are added and final products removed continuously.[33] There are three varieties: chemostats, which hold nutrient levels constant; turbidostats, which keep cell mass constant; and plug flow reactors in which the culture medium flows steadily through a tube while the cells are recycled from the outlet to the inlet.[35] If the process works well, there is a steady flow of feed and effluent and the costs of repeatedly setting up a batch are avoided. Also, it can prolong the exponential growth phase and avoid byproducts that inhibit the reactions by continuously removing them. However, it is difficult to maintain a steady state and avoid contamination, and the design tends to be complex.[33] Typically the fermentor must run for over 500 hours to be more economical than batch processors.[35]
History of the use of fermentation
[edit]The use of fermentation, particularly for beverages, has existed since the Neolithic and has been documented dating from 7000 to 6600 BCE in Jiahu, China,[36] 5000 BCE in India, Ayurveda mentions many Medicated Wines, 6000 BCE in Georgia,[37] 3150 BCE in ancient Egypt,[38] 3000 BCE in Babylon,[39] 2000 BCE in pre-Hispanic Mexico,[39] and 1500 BC in Sudan.[40] Fermented foods have a religious significance in Judaism and Christianity. The Baltic god Rugutis was worshiped as the agent of fermentation.[41][42]
In alchemy, fermentation ("putrefaction") was symbolized by Capricorn
♑︎.[citation needed]

In 1837, Charles Cagniard de la Tour, Theodor Schwann and Friedrich Traugott Kützing independently published papers concluding, as a result of microscopic investigations, that yeast is a living organism that reproduces by budding.[43][44]: 6 Schwann boiled grape juice to kill the yeast and found that no fermentation would occur until new yeast was added. However, many chemists, including Antoine Lavoisier, continued to view fermentation as a simple chemical reaction and rejected the notion that living organisms could be involved. This was seen as a reversion to vitalism and was lampooned in an anonymous publication by Justus von Liebig and Friedrich Wöhler.[45]: 108–109
The turning point came when Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), during the 1850s and 1860s, repeated Schwann's experiments and showed fermentation is initiated by living organisms in a series of investigations.[24][44]: 6 In 1857, Pasteur showed lactic acid fermentation is caused by living organisms.[46] In 1860, he demonstrated how bacteria cause souring in milk, a process formerly thought to be merely a chemical change. His work in identifying the role of microorganisms in food spoilage led to the process of pasteurization.[47]
In 1877, working to improve the French brewing industry, Pasteur published his famous paper on fermentation, "Etudes sur la Bière", which was translated into English in 1879 as "Studies on fermentation".[48] He defined fermentation (incorrectly) as "Life without air",[49] yet he correctly showed how specific types of microorganisms cause specific types of fermentations and specific end-products.[citation needed]
Although showing fermentation resulted from the action of living microorganisms was a breakthrough, it did not explain the basic nature of fermentation; nor did it prove it is caused by microorganisms which appear to be always present. Many scientists, including Pasteur, had unsuccessfully attempted to extract the fermentation enzyme from yeast.[49]
Success came in 1897 when the German chemist Eduard Buechner ground up yeast, extracted a juice from them, then found to his amazement this "dead" liquid would ferment a sugar solution, forming carbon dioxide and alcohol much like living yeasts.[50]
Buechner's results are considered to mark the birth of biochemistry. The "unorganized ferments" behaved just like the organized ones. From that time on, the term enzyme came to be applied to all ferments. It was then understood fermentation is caused by enzymes produced by microorganisms.[51] In 1907, Buechner won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work.[52]
Advances in microbiology and fermentation technology have continued steadily up until the present. For example, in the 1930s, it was discovered microorganisms could be mutated with physical and chemical treatments to be higher-yielding, faster-growing, tolerant of less oxygen, and able to use a more concentrated medium.[53][54] Strain selection and hybridization developed as well, affecting most modern food fermentations.[citation needed]
Post 1930s
[edit]The field of fermentation has been critical to producing a wide range of consumer goods, from food and drink to industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Since its early beginnings in ancient civilizations, fermentation has continued to evolve and expand, with new techniques and technologies driving advances in product quality, yield, and efficiency. The period from the 1930s onward saw a number of significant advancements in fermentation technology, including the development of new processes for producing high-value products like antibiotics and enzymes, the increasing importance of fermentation in the production of bulk chemicals, and a growing interest in the use of fermentation for the production of functional foods and nutraceuticals.[citation needed]
The 1950s and 1960s saw the development of new fermentation technologies, such as immobilized cells and enzymes, which allowed for more precise control over fermentation processes and increased the production of high-value products like antibiotics and enzymes. In the 1970s and 1980s, fermentation became increasingly important in producing bulk chemicals like ethanol, lactic acid, and citric acid. This led to developing new fermentation techniques and genetically engineered microorganisms to improve yields and reduce production costs. In the 1990s and 2000s, there was a growing interest in fermentation to produce functional foods and nutraceuticals, which have potential health benefits beyond basic nutrition. This led to new fermentation processes, probiotics, and other functional ingredients.[citation needed]
Overall, the period from 1930 onward saw significant advancements in the use of fermentation for industrial purposes, leading to the production of a wide range of fermented products that are now consumed worldwide.[citation needed]
Circular economy
[edit]Recent research has begun to investigate the relationship between fermentation and creating a circular economy in effort to address the current climate crisis and the increasing demands for resources as the population grows. The production of fuels, materials, and other chemicals has led to a notable increase in greenhouse gasses and a subsequent increase in global temperatures.[55][56] The current, linear economy relies heavily on fossil fuels and nonrenewable energy to produce chemicals and materials. In a circular economy, the use of renewable resources would be employed to produce chemicals; moreover, this type of economy focuses on reusing end-of-life chemicals and materials. Investigation into alternative biofuels and biomaterials has become increasingly popular with fermentation as a notable method.
The primary source of biomass for fermentation is using biomass feedstocks which contain a mix of carbohydrates, proteins, oils and fats, and lignin. Carbohydrates such as sucrose and starch (sources include sugarcane, corn, and cassava) are the most commonly used substrate for fermentation; however, in the discussion of biofuels, there are concerns regarding land competition between food and fuel biomass. Attention has been turned towards second-generation biomass feedstock such as silvergrass or wood chips.
Anaerobic digestion
[edit]Anerobic digestion is found in all facets of biomass fermentation to create biofuels, biobased materials, and biochemicals.[57] One of the most popular and established anaerobic fermentation process is the transformation of organic waste into biogas.[58][59] Further research has explored the possibility and reusing residual solids left over from fermentative processes and converting them into "char-based materials". If successful, this would promote increased efficiency and a decreased environmental impact in the biomanufacturing industry.[60] Additionally, homogenous gas streams of CO2, and CH4, can be formed from anaerobic digestion by some bacteria, while other bacteria are able to fixate CO2 or CO and convert them into alcohols or fatty acids.
Biofuel production
[edit]One the most widely known biobased chemicals produced through fermentation, the process of fermenting sugars from plants into ethanol and CO2 uses Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biobased ethanol is used as a popular renewable transportation fuel and also holds value in the chemical industry as the precursor for ethylene, which can be converted into polyethylene. Commercial bioethanol production via fermentation is dominant in Brazil and the USA and employs sugarcane and starch from corn as feedstocks. The process involves starch enzymatic hydrolysis to glucose, followed by fermentation and distillation. There were around 200 ethanol plants operating in the U.S. as of 2021, with capacities of production varying from 6 kilotonnes to over one million tonnes annually.[61][60]
Biochemical production
[edit]Succinic acid is an important biobased chemical utilized for the production of biodegradable polymers including polybutylene succinate (PBS) and as feedstock to other biobased chemicals like 1,4-butanediol. Succinic acid can be produced via the fermentation of sugar and carbon dioxide using native strains of bacteria; however, yields depend upon strain and conditions. Neutral or acidic fermentations are feasible, with low-pH fermentations facilitated by acid-resistant yeast strains simplifying downstream recovery through avoiding neutralization and reacidification.[62]
Throughout the 2010s, several companies ordered commercial-scale production facilities , e.g., BioAmber, Myriant, Reverdia, and Succinity, on different host organisms and feedstocks like corn syrup and sorghum starch. While having proven the technical feasibility of succinic acid large-scale biobased production, most of them failed to compete economically with petrochemical products on a commercial scale. Several of the plants were spun off or shut down to new proprietors, demonstrating the financial challenges of scaling up bio-based platforms within current markets. However, these projects are evidence that under right market conditions, succinic acid biobased has promise for greater industrial use.[60]
Product production
[edit]Fermentation plays a significant role in producing precursor polymers to products and food additives such as amino acids, organic acids, triglycerides and fatty acids.
Amino acids are industrially produced through fermentation by microorganisms such as Corynebacterium glutamicum and Escherichia coli. The global market application for amino acids is primarily food and feed additive. L-glutamic acid and L-lysine are the most commonly found amino acids in this market with L-glutamic acid being mainly used as a food flavoring in the form of monosodium glutamate (MSG) and L-lysine being mainly used as an animal feed supplement. Other amino acids like L-threonine and L-phenylalanine are also produced on large scales for different applications.[60][63]
Organic acids such as citric acid, lactic acid, and acetic acid are procured by microbial fermentation. Citric acid finds widespread use in the food industry as a preservative and flavoring agent. Lactic acid is used in food preservation and as a precursor for biodegradable plastics. Acetic acid is used in food as vinegar and as a chemical reagent in industries. These organic acids are produced using microorganisms like Aspergillus niger and Lactobacillus species under controlled fermentation conditions.[60]
Fatty acids and triglycerides are produced by fermentation on oleaginous microorganisms such as Yarrowia lipolytica and certain fungi. These microorganisms can accumulate lipids under specific culture conditions and therefore are suitable for industrial-scale production of lipids. The fatty acids produced can be used in the manufacture of soaps, detergents, and as starting compounds for various chemicals. Triglycerides are energy storage compounds with applications in the food industry and biofuel sector. The fermentation processes involve the optimization of environmental conditions and nutrient composition for maximum lipid accumulation.[64][60]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f Hackmann TJ (June 2024). "The vast landscape of carbohydrate fermentation in prokaryotes". FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 48 (4) fuae016. doi:10.1093/femsre/fuae016. PMC 11187502. PMID 38821505.
- ^ a b c Hackmann TJ, Zhang B (September 2023). "The phenotype and genotype of fermentative prokaryotes". Science Advances. 9 (39) eadg8687. Bibcode:2023SciA....9G8687H. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg8687. PMC 10530074. PMID 37756392.
- ^ a b Liu L, Wang J, Rosenberg D, Zhao H, Lengyel G, Nadel D (2018-10-01). "Fermented beverage and food storage in 13,000 y-old stone mortars at Raqefet Cave, Israel: Investigating Natufian ritual feasting". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 21: 783–793. Bibcode:2018JArSR..21..783L. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.08.008. ISSN 2352-409X.
- ^ a b c d Hackmann TJ (2024-07-01). "The vast landscape of carbohydrate fermentation in prokaryotes". FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 48 (4) fuae016. doi:10.1093/femsre/fuae016. ISSN 0168-6445. PMC 11187502. PMID 38821505.
- ^ Hackmann TJ, Zhang B (2023-09-29). "The phenotype and genotype of fermentative prokaryotes". Science Advances. 9 (39) eadg8687. Bibcode:2023SciA....9G8687H. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg8687. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 10530074. PMID 37756392.
- ^ a b Chaudhry R, Varacallo MA (2025), "Biochemistry, Glycolysis", StatPearls, Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, PMID 29493928, retrieved 2025-04-14
- ^ Nelson DL, Cox MM (2021). Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
- ^ Hackmann TJ, Zhang B (March 2021). "Using neural networks to mine text and predict metabolic traits for thousands of microbes". PLOS Computational Biology. 17 (3) e1008757. Bibcode:2021PLSCB..17E8757H. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008757. PMC 7954334. PMID 33651810.
- ^ Hackmann TJ, Zhang B (2023-09-29). "The phenotype and genotype of fermentative prokaryotes". Science Advances. 9 (39) eadg8687. Bibcode:2023SciA....9G8687H. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg8687. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 10530074. PMID 37756392.
- ^ Stojan G, Christopher-Stine L (2015-01-01). Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME (eds.). "151 - Metabolic, drug-induced, and other noninflammatory myopathies". Rheumatology (Sixth Edition). Philadelphia: Content Repository Only!. pp. 1255–1263. ISBN 978-0-323-09138-1. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
- ^ Pigozzi F, Giombini A, Fagnani F, Parisi A (2007-01-01), Frontera WR, Herring SA, Micheli LJ, Silver JK (eds.), "CHAPTER 3 - The Role of Diet and Nutritional Supplements", Clinical Sports Medicine, Edinburgh: W.B. Saunders, pp. 23–36, doi:10.1016/b978-141602443-9.50006-4, ISBN 978-1-4160-2443-9, retrieved 2020-11-02
- ^ a b Folch PL, Bisschops MM, Weusthuis RA (May 2021). "Metabolic energy conservation for fermentative product formation". Microbial Biotechnology. 14 (3): 829–858. doi:10.1111/1751-7915.13746. ISSN 1751-7915. PMC 8085960. PMID 33438829.
- ^ Mannaa M, Han G, Seo YS, Park I (2021-11-18). "Evolution of Food Fermentation Processes and the Use of Multi-Omics in Deciphering the Roles of the Microbiota". Foods. 10 (11): 2861. doi:10.3390/foods10112861. ISSN 2304-8158. PMC 8618017. PMID 34829140.
- ^ Zhang B, Lingga C, De Groot H, Hackmann TJ (2023-09-30). "The oxidoreductase activity of Rnf balances redox cofactors during fermentation of glucose to propionate in Prevotella". Scientific Reports. 13 (1): 16429. Bibcode:2023NatSR..1316429Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-43282-9. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 10542786. PMID 37777597.
- ^ a b c Purves WK, Sadava DE, Orians GH, Heller HC (2003). Life, the science of biology (7th ed.). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. pp. 139–40. ISBN 978-0-7167-9856-9.
- ^ Stryer L (1975). Biochemistry. W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 978-0-7167-0174-3.
- ^ Logan BK, Distefano S (1997). "Ethanol content of various foods and soft drinks and their potential for interference with a breath-alcohol test". Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 22 (3): 181–183. doi:10.1093/jat/22.3.181. PMID 9602932.
- ^ "The Alcohol Content of Bread". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 16 (11): 1394–1395. November 1926. PMC 1709087. PMID 20316063.
- ^ "Alcohol". Drugs.com. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
- ^ Jacobs J. "Ethanol from Sugar". United States Department of Agriculture. Archived from the original on 2007-09-10. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
- ^ van Waarde A, Thillart GV, Verhagen M (1993). "Ethanol Formation and pH-Regulation in Fish". Surviving Hypoxia. CRC Press. pp. 157–70. ISBN 978-0-8493-4226-4.
- ^ Berg LR (2007). Introductory Botany: plants, people, and the Environment. Cengage Learning. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-534-46669-5.
- ^ a b Anestis M (2006). AP Biology (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-07-147630-0.
- ^ a b Thorpe TE (1922). A dictionary of applied chemistry. Vol. 3. Longmans, Green and Co. p. 159.
- ^ Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Parker J (1996). Brock biology of microorganisms (8th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-520875-5. Retrieved 2010-07-12.
- ^ Thauer RK, Jungermann K, Decker K (March 1977). "Energy conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria". Bacteriological Reviews. 41 (1): 100–180. doi:10.1128/MMBR.41.1.100-180.1977. PMC 413997. PMID 860983.
- ^ Villas-Bôas SG, Åkesson M, Nielsen J (May 2005). "Biosynthesis of glyoxylate from glycine in Saccharomyces cerevisiae". FEMS Yeast Research. 5 (8). Retrieved 2024-09-27.
- ^ Valentine RC, Drucker H, Wolfe RS (1964). "Glyoxylate fermentation by Streptococcus Allantoicus". Journal of Bacteriology. 87 (2): 241–246. doi:10.1128/jb.87.2.241-246.1964. ISSN 0021-9193. PMC 276999. PMID 14151040.
- ^ a b Southey F (27 January 2022). "What's next in alternative protein? 7 trends on the up in 2022". Food-Navigator.com, William Reed Business Media. Retrieved 27 January 2022.
- ^ "Those Vegan Cowboys Develop Casein From Microbes to Make Dairy Without the Cow". vegconomist – the vegan business magazine. 2021-04-12. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
- ^ Simon M (2017-09-20). "Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat That 'Bleeds'". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
- ^ Kirk O, Borchert TV, Fuglsang CC (August 2002). "Industrial enzyme applications". Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 13 (4): 345–351. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00328-2. PMID 12323357.
- ^ a b c d e Li T, Chen XB, Chen JC, Wu Q, Chen GQ (December 2014). "Open and continuous fermentation: products, conditions and bioprocess economy". Biotechnology Journal. 9 (12): 1503–1511. doi:10.1002/biot.201400084. PMID 25476917. S2CID 21524147.
- ^ a b c d Cinar A, Parulekar SJ, Undey C, Birol G (2003). Batch fermentation modeling, monitoring, and control. New York: Marcel Dekker. ISBN 978-0-203-91135-8.
- ^ a b c Schmid RD, Schmidt-Dannert C (2016). Biotechnology: an illustrated primer (Second ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 92. ISBN 978-3-527-33515-2.
- ^ McGovern PE, Zhang J, Tang J, Zhang Z, Hall GR, Moreau RA, et al. (December 2004). "Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historic China". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101 (51): 17593–17598. Bibcode:2004PNAS..10117593M. doi:10.1073/pnas.0407921102. PMC 539767. PMID 15590771.
- ^ Vouillamoz JF, McGovern PE, Ergul A, Söylemezoğlu GK, Tevzadze G, Meredith CP, et al. (2006). "Genetic characterization and relationships of traditional grape cultivars from Transcaucasia and Anatolia". Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization. 4 (2): 144–158. Bibcode:2006PGRCU...4..144V. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.611.7102. doi:10.1079/PGR2006114. S2CID 85577497.
- ^ Cavalieri D, McGovern PE, Hartl DL, Mortimer R, Polsinelli M (2003). "Evidence for S. cerevisiae fermentation in ancient wine" (PDF). Journal of Molecular Evolution. 57 (Suppl 1): S226 – S232. Bibcode:2003JMolE..57S.226C. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.628.6396. doi:10.1007/s00239-003-0031-2. PMID 15008419. S2CID 7914033. 15008419. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 9, 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
- ^ a b "Fermented fruits and vegetables. A global perspective". FAO Agricultural Services Bulletins - 134. Archived from the original on January 19, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
- ^ Dirar HA (1993). The Indigenous Fermented Foods of the Sudan: A Study in African Food and Nutrition. UK: CAB International. ISBN 0-85198-858-X.
- ^ Beresneviius G. "M. Strijkovskio "Kronikos" lietuvių dievų sąrašas" [List of Lithuanian gods in "Kronikas" by M. Strijkovskis]. spauda.lt. Archived from the original on 2020-06-26. Retrieved 2013-10-27.
- ^ "Rūgutis". Mitologijos enciklopedija [Encyclopedia of Mythology]. Vol. 2. Vilnius: Vagam. 1999. p. 293.
- ^ Shurtleff W, Aoyagi A. "A Brief History of Fermentation, East and West". Soyinfo Center. Soyfoods Center, Lafayette, California. Retrieved 30 April 2018.
- ^ a b Lengeler JW, Drews G, Schlegel HG, eds. (1999). Biology of the prokaryotes. Stuttgart: Thieme [u.a.] ISBN 978-3-13-108411-8.
- ^ Tobin A, Dusheck J (2005). Asking about life (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. ISBN 978-0-534-40653-0.
- ^ Collazo FJ (2005-12-30). "Accomplishments of Louis Pasteur". Fjcollazo.com. Archived from the original on 2010-11-30. Retrieved 2011-01-04.
- ^ HowStuffWorks "Louis Pasteur". Science.howstuffworks.com (2009-07-01). Retrieved on 2011-01-04.
- ^ Pasteur L (1879). Studies on fermentation: The diseases of beer, their causes, and the means of preventing them. Landmarks of Science. Macmillan Publishers.
- ^ a b Pasteur L (1879). "Physiological Theory of Fermentation". Modern History Sourcebook Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). Translated by Faulkner F, Robb DC.
- ^ Cornish-Bowden A (1997). New beer in an old bottle: Eduard Buchner and the growth of biochemical knowledge. València: Universitat de Valencia. p. 25. ISBN 978-84-370-3328-0.
- ^ Lagerkvist U (2005). The enigma of ferment: from the philosopher's stone to the first biochemical Nobel prize. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific. p. 7. ISBN 978-981-256-421-4.
- ^ Runes DD (August 1962). "A Treasury of World Science". Journal of Medical Education. 37 (8): 803.
- ^ Steinkraus K (2018). Handbook of Indigenous Fermented Foods (Second ed.). CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-351-44251-0.
- ^ Wang HL, Swain EW, Hesseltine CW (1980). "Phytase of molds used in oriental food fermentation". Journal of Food Science. 45 (5): 1262–1266. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb06534.x.
- ^ Fackler N, Heijstra BD, Rasor BJ, Brown H, Martin J, Ni Z, et al. (2021-06-07). "Stepping on the Gas to a Circular Economy: Accelerating Development of Carbon-Negative Chemical Production from Gas Fermentation". Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. 12 (1): 439–470. doi:10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-120120-021122. ISSN 1947-5438. PMID 33872517.
- ^ Change NG. "Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved 2025-04-16.
- ^ A Ewing T, Nouse N, Lint Mv, Haveren Jv, Hugenholtz J, Es DS (2022). "Fermentation for the production of biobased chemicals in a circular economy: a perspective for the period 2022–2050". Green Chemistry. 24 (17): 6373–6405. doi:10.1039/D1GC04758B.
- ^ Naresh Kumar A, Sarkar O, Chandrasekhar K, Raj T, Narisetty V, Mohan SV, et al. (2022-02-01). "Upgrading the value of anaerobic fermentation via renewable chemicals production: A sustainable integration for circular bioeconomy". Science of the Total Environment. 806 (Pt 1) 150312. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.80650312N. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150312. hdl:1826/17114. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 34844320.
- ^ Narisetty V, Nagarajan S, Gadkari S, Ranade VV, Zhang J, Patchigolla K, et al. (2022-08-15). "Process optimization for recycling of bread waste into bioethanol and biomethane: A circular economy approach". Energy Conversion and Management. 266 115784. Bibcode:2022ECM...26615784N. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115784. ISSN 0196-8904.
- ^ a b c d e f Sterling J (2024-05-16). "Creating a Circular Economy for Fermentation-Based Biomanufacturing". GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. Retrieved 2025-04-16.
- ^ Mohsenzadeh A, Zamani A, Taherzadeh MJ (2017). "Bioethylene Production from Ethanol: A Review and Techno-economical Evaluation". ChemBioEng Reviews. 4 (2): 75–91. doi:10.1002/cben.201600025. ISSN 2196-9744.
- ^ Cheng KK, Zhao XB, Zeng J, Zhang JA (2012). "Biotechnological production of succinic acid: current state and perspectives". Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 6 (3): 302–318. doi:10.1002/bbb.1327. ISSN 1932-1031.
- ^ D'Este M, Alvarado-Morales M, Angelidaki I (2018). "Amino acids production focusing on fermentation technologies – A review". Biotechnology Advances. 36 (1): 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2017.09.001. ISSN 0734-9750. PMID 28888551.
- ^ Lamers D, van Biezen N, Martens D, Peters L, van de Zilver E, Jacobs-van Dreumel N, et al. (2016-05-27). "Selection of oleaginous yeasts for fatty acid production". BMC Biotechnology. 16 (1): 45. doi:10.1186/s12896-016-0276-7. ISSN 1472-6750. PMC 4884388. PMID 27233820.
External links
[edit]- Works of Louis Pasteur – Pasteur Brewing (archived 24 June 2010)
- The chemical logic behind fermentation and respiration (archived 17 September 2008)
Fermentation
View on GrokipediaFundamentals
Definition
Fermentation is a metabolic process by which certain microorganisms, such as yeast and bacteria, and some eukaryotic cells convert organic substrates—typically carbohydrates like glucose—into simpler end products, including alcohols, organic acids, or gases, while generating a limited amount of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for energy under anaerobic conditions.[12][13] This process begins with glycolysis, where glucose is oxidized to pyruvate, producing two molecules of ATP and two molecules of NADH per glucose molecule.[14] In the absence of oxygen, fermentation regenerates NAD⁺ from NADH by reducing pyruvate or its derivatives via organic molecules as electron acceptors, rather than an external inorganic acceptor like oxygen in aerobic respiration.[15] This NAD⁺ recycling sustains glycolysis, yielding a net ATP gain of two molecules per glucose, compared to approximately 30-32 ATP in full aerobic oxidation.[12] Common end products include ethanol and carbon dioxide in yeast or lactate in certain bacteria and muscle cells, distinguishing specific fermentation types.[16] Biochemically, fermentation encompasses diverse pathways sharing the core feature of substrate-level phosphorylation for ATP production without an electron transport chain.[17] It enables survival in oxygen-limited environments but is less efficient energetically than respiration, reflecting its role as an ancient adaptation predating atmospheric oxygenation around 2.4 billion years ago.[4]Biological Role and Prevalence
Fermentation functions as a fundamental anaerobic metabolic process across diverse organisms, enabling ATP production through substrate-level phosphorylation when oxygen or other external electron acceptors are unavailable. By oxidizing reduced cofactors like NADH back to NAD⁺ via organic end products such as lactate or ethanol, it sustains glycolysis, yielding a net gain of two ATP molecules per glucose molecule. This mechanism is critical for obligate anaerobes that inhabit oxygen-deprived niches, including sediments, animal intestines, and deep subsurface environments, where it supports growth by catabolizing carbohydrates or amino acids.[18][12] In multicellular organisms, fermentation plays a supplementary role during transient oxygen shortages; for instance, skeletal muscle cells in vertebrates shift to lactic acid fermentation during intense exercise, accumulating lactate to regenerate NAD⁺ and prevent glycolytic halt, though this incurs an oxygen debt resolved later via aerobic metabolism. Certain plants, such as rice under flooding, employ ethanol fermentation to tolerate anoxia in roots, preventing toxic metabolite buildup. These adaptations underscore fermentation's utility in facultative anaerobes, balancing energy needs against byproduct toxicity.[12][4] Fermentation prevails ubiquitously in anaerobic settings, with microbial practitioners spanning Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya; in prokaryotes, it dominates among anaerobes like Firmicutes (e.g., Clostridium) and Bacteroidetes, while some Archaea perform mixed-acid fermentations. Eukaryotic examples include yeasts (Saccharomyces) for ethanol production and protozoa in low-oxygen habitats. Given carbohydrates' abundance and fermentation's occurrence in virtually all anaerobic ecosystems—from soils to guts—its distribution reflects an ancient, conserved strategy predating aerobic respiration, employed by countless species incapable of oxidative phosphorylation.[4][19]Biochemical Mechanisms
Overview of Pathways
Fermentation pathways initiate with the anaerobic catabolism of glucose through glycolysis, specifically the Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas (EMP) pathway, which converts one molecule of glucose into two molecules of pyruvate, generating a net yield of two ATP and two NADH in the cytoplasm.[20] This universal initial phase provides limited energy compared to aerobic respiration, as the electron transport chain is unavailable without oxygen, necessitating alternative mechanisms for NADH reoxidation to sustain glycolysis.[21] In most fermenting organisms, including bacteria and yeast, pyruvate serves as the branch point for divergent routes that regenerate NAD+ by transferring electrons to organic acceptors, producing characteristic end products like acids, alcohols, or gases.[4] The core purpose of these post-glycolytic steps is NAD+ regeneration, as depleted NAD+ would halt glycolysis due to the dependency of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase on NAD+.[22] For example, in lactic acid fermentation, pyruvate is directly reduced to lactate by lactate dehydrogenase, oxidizing NADH to NAD+ without net carbon loss beyond pyruvate. In alcoholic fermentation, pyruvate is first decarboxylated by pyruvate decarboxylase to acetaldehyde, releasing CO2, followed by reduction to ethanol via alcohol dehydrogenase.[20] These processes yield no additional ATP beyond glycolysis but enable ATP production rates up to 100 times faster than oxidative phosphorylation in some anaerobes, prioritizing speed over efficiency.[21] Variations exist across taxa; homofermentative bacteria, such as Lactobacillus species, exclusively use the EMP pathway and produce lactate nearly stoichiometrically from glucose, while heterofermentative strains may employ the phosphoketolase pathway or Entner-Doudoroff route, yielding diverse products like CO2, ethanol, and acetate with lower ATP efficiency (one ATP per glucose via Entner-Doudoroff).[4] Other fermentations, including butyrate or propionate production in clostridia, involve additional acetyl-CoA intermediates and hydrogen gas evolution, reflecting adaptations to specific ecological niches.[20] These pathways underscore fermentation's role in redox balance and energy conservation under anaerobiosis, with end products often conferring selective advantages, such as acidification for microbial inhibition.[4]Ethanol Fermentation
Ethanol fermentation, also termed alcoholic fermentation, constitutes an anaerobic metabolic pathway wherein glucose or other hexose sugars are transformed into ethanol and carbon dioxide, enabling ATP production without oxygen.[12] This process occurs predominantly in yeasts such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which possess the requisite enzymes, though certain bacteria like Zymomonas mobilis can also perform it via distinct mechanisms.[23] The net reaction is C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2, reflecting the conversion of one glucose molecule into two ethanol and two carbon dioxide molecules.[24] The pathway initiates with glycolysis, yielding two pyruvate molecules, a net gain of two ATP via substrate-level phosphorylation, and two NADH from the oxidation of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate.[12] Under anaerobic conditions, pyruvate undergoes decarboxylation catalyzed by pyruvate decarboxylase, producing acetaldehyde and releasing CO2 as a byproduct; this enzyme requires thiamine pyrophosphate as a cofactor.[24] Acetaldehyde is then reduced to ethanol by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), which oxidizes NADH back to NAD+, thereby regenerating the electron acceptor essential for continuous glycolysis.[25] This NAD+ regeneration prevents NADH accumulation, which would otherwise halt upstream glycolytic flux due to thermodynamic constraints.[12] The process yields only two ATP per glucose molecule, far less than the approximately 30-32 ATP from aerobic respiration, underscoring its role as an adaptive mechanism for energy conservation in oxygen-limited environments rather than maximal efficiency.[12] In S. cerevisiae, ADH exists in multiple isozymes, with ADH1 facilitating the fermentative reduction and ADH2 enabling ethanol oxidation under aerobic conditions for reutilization.[26] Ethanol tolerance in fermenting organisms limits yields, as concentrations above 12-15% typically inhibit yeast viability by disrupting membrane integrity and enzyme function.[23] This pathway's irreversibility stems from the exergonic decarboxylation step, committing cells to ethanol production once initiated.[24] In practical ethanol fermentations, such as brewing, brief air exposure during the initial phase carries low risk of contamination. Rapid CO2 production by yeast generates positive pressure and outward flow, expelling airborne contaminants. Limited oxygen exposure at this stage also aids yeast multiplication by supporting synthesis of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids for membrane integrity, promoting a healthy start before anaerobic conditions dominate; however, oxygen becomes problematic later as fermentation slows and CO2 production diminishes, risking oxidation.[27]Lactic Acid Fermentation
Lactic acid fermentation is an anaerobic metabolic process in which glucose is converted to lactic acid, regenerating nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺) to sustain glycolysis.[21] In this pathway, pyruvate produced from glycolysis is reduced to lactate by the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase, using NADH as the electron donor: pyruvate + NADH + H⁺ → lactate + NAD⁺.[1] This reaction allows continued ATP production under oxygen-limited conditions, yielding a net of 2 ATP molecules per glucose molecule via substrate-level phosphorylation in glycolysis.[28] The process is primarily carried out by lactic acid bacteria (LAB), including genera such as Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, and Streptococcus.[29] These Gram-positive, acid-tolerant microorganisms thrive in anaerobic environments and are responsible for the acidification that preserves foods like yogurt, cheese, sauerkraut, and kimchi.[30] In human physiology, skeletal muscle cells also perform lactic acid fermentation during strenuous exercise when oxygen demand exceeds supply, leading to lactate accumulation and temporary acidosis.[12] Lactic acid fermentation occurs in two main variants: homolactic and heterolactic. Homolactic fermentation, predominant in species like Lactobacillus delbrueckii and Streptococcus thermophilus, exclusively produces lactic acid from glucose via the Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas (EMP) glycolytic pathway, with the overall equation C₆H₁₂O₆ → 2 CH₃CH(OH)COOH + 2 ATP.[31] Heterolactic fermentation, seen in Leuconostoc mesenteroides and certain Lactobacillus strains, employs the phosphoketolase pathway, yielding lactic acid, ethanol, carbon dioxide, and sometimes acetate, with lower ATP efficiency (1 ATP per glucose) and the equation C₆H₁₂O₆ → CH₃CH(OH)COOH + C₂H₅OH + CO₂ + ATP.[32] This distinction arises from metabolic flexibility, enabling heterolactic bacteria to utilize diverse substrates like pentoses.[33] Key regulatory factors include pH tolerance, as LAB maintain internal homeostasis via proton pumps despite extracellular acidification, and temperature optima varying by species (e.g., mesophilic Lactobacillus plantarum at 30–40°C, thermophilic Lactobacillus helveticus above 45°C).[29] The pathway's efficiency stems from rapid NADH recycling without oxidative phosphorylation, though it limits energy yield compared to aerobic respiration.[21] In industrial contexts, homolactic strains are favored for high-yield lactic acid production, reaching concentrations up to 140 g/L under optimized anaerobic conditions.[34]Other Fermentations
Mixed acid fermentation occurs in facultative anaerobes such as Escherichia coli and other Enterobacteriaceae, where glucose is metabolized anaerobically to a mixture of organic acids (primarily acetate, lactate, and succinate) along with neutral products like ethanol, formate, CO₂, and H₂.[35][36] This pathway branches from glycolysis, with pyruvate converted via multiple routes including lactate dehydrogenase, pyruvate formate-lyase (yielding formate and acetyl-CoA), and phosphotransacetylase-acetate kinase for acetate production; succinate arises from the reductive branch of the tricarboxylic acid cycle using phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase and fumarate reductase.[36] The typical molar ratio from glucose is approximately 0.8 acetate, 0.5 lactate, 0.3 succinate, 0.4 ethanol, and 0.7 formate per mole of glucose, enabling NAD⁺ regeneration without oxygen while producing less ATP than respiration (net 2 ATP per glucose).[36] This fermentation supports survival in anaerobic gut environments but generates acidic conditions that bacteria tolerate via pH homeostasis mechanisms.[37] Butyric acid fermentation, performed by obligate anaerobes like Clostridium tyrobutyricum and other Clostridium species, converts carbohydrates such as glucose into butyrate, acetate, CO₂, and H₂ as primary products.[38] The pathway proceeds from acetyl-CoA through acetoacetyl-CoA, crotonyl-CoA, and butyryl-CoA intermediates, with butyrate formed either via butyryl-CoA:acetate CoA-transferase (reversible, favoring butyrate at low pH) or phosphotransbutyrylase and butyrate kinase (irreversible).[39] Yields can reach 0.4–0.5 g butyrate per g glucose under optimized conditions, with acetate as a co-product from excess acetyl-CoA; hydrogenase activity links H₂ production to ferredoxin reduction, influencing redox balance.[40] This process, historically linked to silage spoilage, has industrial potential for biofuel precursors due to butyrate's higher energy density than acetate.[41] Acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation, mediated by solventogenic clostridia such as Clostridium acetobutylicum, biphasically converts starch or sugars into acids (acetate, butyrate) in the initial acidogenic phase, followed by solvent production (butanol ~70%, acetone ~25%, ethanol ~5% of solvents) via reassimilation of acids and solventogenic enzymes like acetoacetate decarboxylase and butanol dehydrogenase.[42][43] Glucose yields total solvents up to 20–25 g/L in batch processes, with butanol inhibiting growth above 12–15 g/L; the pathway relies on thiolase for acetoacetyl-CoA formation and CoA-transferases for solvent genesis, netting ~2 ATP per glucose while sporulation cues shift phases.[44] Developed industrially in the early 20th century, ABE declined post-1940s due to petrochemical competition but revives for biofuels, with genetic engineering enhancing butanol titers to 18–20 g/L.[45] Propionic acid fermentation, conducted by Propionibacterium species like P. freudenreichii, utilizes lactate or sugars via the Wood-Werkman pathway (involving methylmalonyl-CoA mutase and propionyl-CoA carboxylase) or acrylate pathway, yielding propionate, acetate, and CO₂ in a 2:1:1 molar ratio from lactate.[46] From glucose, the net reaction is C₆H₁₂O₆ + 2 H₂O → 2 propionate + 2 acetate + CO₂ + 3 H₂, with biotin-dependent carboxylases enabling C3 elongation; optimal pH 6–7 and temperatures 30–35°C support yields of 0.5–0.6 g propionate per g substrate.[47] This anaerobic process, vitamin B₁₂-dependent in key steps, underpins cheese ripening (e.g., Swiss cheese eyes from CO₂) and has biotechnological applications for food preservatives, with fed-batch strategies mitigating product inhibition.[48] Other variants include 2,3-butanediol fermentation by enterobacteria like Klebsiella pneumoniae, producing butanediol, acetoin, and lactate from pyruvate via α-acetolactate synthase, valued for its low toxicity and potential as a chemical precursor.[49] Caproic acid fermentation by Clostridium kluyveri extends fatty acid chains to hexanoate from ethanol and acetate, supporting medium-chain carboxylate platforms.[35] These pathways diversify microbial energy extraction in anoxic niches, with phylogenetic distribution spanning Firmicutes and Actinobacteria.[38]Historical Development
Ancient and Pre-Industrial Uses
Archaeological evidence indicates that humans produced fermented beverages as early as 7000 BCE in Jiahu, China, where residues in pottery vessels reveal a mixed drink of rice, honey, and hawthorn fruit or grapes, marking one of the earliest documented uses of fermentation for alcoholic beverages.[50] This practice likely arose from the natural spoilage of stored fruits and grains, enabling preservation and nutritional enhancement in Neolithic settlements.[3] In Mesopotamia, around 5000–4000 BCE, hunter-gatherers transitioned to settled agriculture partly through beer production, fermenting barley and emmer wheat into a nutrient-rich staple consumed daily by Sumerians as "liquid bread," with recipes inscribed in cuneiform tablets by 1800 BCE specifying up to 20 liters per batch using baked bread as a starter.[51] Egyptians adapted these methods by 3000 BCE, brewing lighter beers from emmer and barley without boiling, achieving alcohol contents of 2–5% and integrating it into wages, rituals, and medicine, as depicted in tomb reliefs showing workers receiving 4–5 liters daily.[52] Wine production emerged independently in the South Caucasus around 6000 BCE, with large-scale fermentation evidenced by grape presses, jars, and residue analysis at sites like Gadachrili Gora in Georgia, where villagers processed thousands of liters annually for storage in buried qvevri vessels, facilitating trade and ceremonial use across the Near East by 4000 BCE.[53] In the Mediterranean, Greeks and Romans refined viticulture, producing varietals like amphora-aged wines documented in texts from 1400 BCE onward, while fermentation preserved olives, fish sauces (garum), and vegetables through salting and lactic acid processes.[54] Dairy fermentation dates to at least 10,000 BCE, with nomadic herders in Central Asia and the Near East naturally souring milk into yogurt-like products via wild lactobacilli, as inferred from lipid residues in pottery; by 5000 BCE, Mesopotamians and Egyptians curdled milk into cheese using rennet from animal stomachs, yielding storable forms like soft whey cheeses consumed in quantities up to 1–2 kg per person annually in pre-industrial diets.[55] Bread leavening via wild yeasts appeared in Egypt by 1500 BCE, with sourdough starters enabling risen loaves from emmer wheat, a technique spreading to Europe where medieval bakers maintained cultures for consistent rise without isolation of strains.[56] Pre-industrial societies worldwide relied on fermentation for food security, such as Asian rice wines (e.g., sake precursors in Japan by 300 BCE) and soy ferments like miso in China by 1000 BCE, or European sauerkraut from cabbage lacto-fermentation documented in 10th-century texts, all leveraging anaerobic microbes to inhibit pathogens and extend shelf life in eras without refrigeration.[57] These methods, empirical and region-specific, supported population growth by converting perishables into stable, bioavailable foods, though risks of contamination persisted without pasteurization.[58]Scientific Foundations (19th Century)
![Portrait of Louis Pasteur in his laboratory Wellcome M0010355.jpg][float-right] In the early 19th century, fermentation was largely viewed through a chemical lens, with scientists like Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac elucidating the stoichiometry of alcoholic fermentation in 1810, identifying yeast extract as the catalyst but attributing the process to abiotic decomposition rather than biological activity.[59] This perspective dominated until microscopic observations challenged it. Theodor Schwann's experiments in 1837 marked a pivotal shift by demonstrating that yeast cells are living organisms whose multiplication directly causes alcoholic fermentation of sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide.[60] Schwann boiled sugar solutions to kill microbes, then exposed them to filtered air lacking airborne particles, showing no fermentation occurred without yeast introduction, thus refuting purely chemical theories and linking the process to vital activity. Independently, Charles Cagniard de la Tour observed yeast budding under the microscope in fermenting beer that same year, reinforcing the microbial causation.[61] These findings faced opposition from chemists like Justus von Liebig, who in the 1830s-1840s argued fermentation resulted from contact with dead organic matter, not living cells, viewing yeast globules as protein precipitates.[59] Louis Pasteur's work from 1857 onward provided definitive empirical validation, proving in his Mémoire sur la fermentation appelée lactique that lactic acid fermentation, like alcoholic, requires specific living microorganisms and is a physiological process of anaerobic respiration, not spontaneous chemical decay.[62] Extending to alcoholic fermentation, Pasteur showed in 1860 that yeast thrives anaerobically, converting glucose to ethanol and CO₂ via correlated cellular metabolism, with no fermentation in sterile media.[63] His swan-neck flask experiments further disproved spontaneous generation, attributing microbial contamination—and thus fermentation initiation—to airborne germs, solidifying biogenesis as the causal foundation.[6] By the 1860s, Pasteur applied these principles to wine spoilage, identifying unwanted bacterial ferments and developing pasteurization—heating to 55-60°C—to selectively kill pathogens without halting desirable yeast activity.[7] These advancements established fermentation as a microbial metabolic process, laying groundwork for microbiology and industrial applications.Industrialization (20th Century)
The industrialization of fermentation in the 20th century marked a transition from empirical, small-scale applications to large-scale, scientifically optimized processes driven by wartime necessities and commercial demands. A pivotal early development occurred during World War I, when British chemist Chaim Weizmann isolated Clostridium acetobutylicum and developed the acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation process to produce acetone from starchy substrates like corn and potatoes for cordite explosives.[64][65] This process, patented in 1915, was rapidly scaled to industrial levels, including a 7,000-gallon plant at the Naval Cordite Factory in Holton Heath by 1917, yielding acetone at rates sufficient to support Britain's munitions production amid chemical supply shortages.[64][66] The ABE method demonstrated fermentation's potential for bulk chemical synthesis, producing not only acetone but also butanol and ethanol as byproducts, though economic viability waned post-war due to cheaper petrochemical alternatives.[65] In the interwar period, advancements focused on food-related products and process engineering. Bakers' yeast production via Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation expanded significantly, with optimized aerobic processes achieving yields of over 10 grams of dry yeast per 100 grams of substrate by the 1920s, supporting the growing demand for standardized baking ingredients.[67] Concurrently, citric acid production shifted toward submerged fermentation using Aspergillus niger. By the 1930s, this method, employing sucrose or molasses in aerated tanks, replaced slower surface culture techniques, enabling manufacturers to achieve commercial-scale outputs with yields up to 70% of theoretical maximum from glucose.[68][69] These innovations emphasized sterile conditions, nutrient optimization, and agitation to mitigate contamination and enhance productivity, laying groundwork for broader microbial chemical synthesis.[70] World War II catalyzed the most transformative scale-up with penicillin production. Following Alexander Fleming's 1928 discovery, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain advanced purification in 1940, but mass production required deep-tank submerged fermentation developed by U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers using Penicillium chrysogenum strains in corn steep liquor media.[71][72] By 1943, under the War Production Board, 21 American companies scaled operations to produce 2.3 million doses for the D-Day invasion in June 1944, with yields improving from 1-2 mg/L to over 500 mg/L through strain selection and process controls.[73][74] This effort, involving thousands of 7,500-gallon fermenters, established antibiotics as an industrial sector, reducing mortality from bacterial infections and proving fermentation's efficacy for complex pharmaceuticals.[75] Post-1945, these techniques extended to other antibiotics like streptomycin and expanded into vitamins (e.g., riboflavin via Ashbya gossypii) and amino acids, with global fermentation-derived chemical output growing exponentially by the 1950s.[76][77]Modern Advances (Post-1930s)
The mass production of penicillin via deep-tank submerged fermentation emerged as a pivotal advance in the 1940s, with Pfizer developing techniques using Penicillium chrysogenum strains that scaled output from laboratory traces to industrial grams per liter, supplying Allied forces during World War II.[78] This process involved aerated stirred-tank reactors with corn steep liquor media, yielding over 100 grams per liter by the war's end through strain selection and process optimization.[79] Subsequent extensions to other antibiotics, such as streptomycin in 1944, established fermentation as a cornerstone of pharmaceutical manufacturing, reducing reliance on chemical synthesis and enabling treatments for bacterial infections previously untreatable on a large scale.[72] From the 1950s onward, microbial strain improvement via chemical and UV-induced mutations enhanced yields for commodities like citric acid and amino acids, with processes achieving titers exceeding 100 grams per liter by the 1960s through iterative selection.[80] The 1970s introduction of recombinant DNA technology marked a paradigm shift, allowing insertion of eukaryotic genes into bacterial or yeast hosts for heterologous protein expression, as exemplified by Eli Lilly's 1982 approval of human insulin produced in Escherichia coli.[81] These genetic modifications, refined by tools like plasmid vectors and selectable markers, bypassed native microbial limitations, enabling scalable production of complex biomolecules unattainable through classical fermentation. Precision fermentation, leveraging CRISPR and synthetic biology since the 2010s, further advanced targeted molecule synthesis by engineering microbes as cellular factories for high-value ingredients, with yields optimized via metabolic pathway engineering and high-throughput screening.[82] A notable application is Impossible Foods' 2011 development of soy leghemoglobin (heme) via genetically modified Pichia pastoris yeast, fermented in bioreactors to produce the iron-containing protein that imparts meat-like flavor and color to plant-based patties, achieving commercial viability by 2016 after FDA safety validation.[83] ![Impossible Burger - Gott's Roadside-2018 - Stierch.jpg][center] Ongoing bioreactor innovations, including single-use systems and fed-batch strategies, have reduced contamination risks and energy costs, supporting titers over 10 grams per liter for recombinant proteins while addressing scalability for sustainable biomanufacturing.[84] These post-1930s developments underscore fermentation's transition from empirical scaling to genetically directed precision, driven by empirical yield data and causal pathway manipulations rather than unverified assumptions.Industrial Processes
Modes of Operation
Industrial fermentation processes primarily operate in three modes: batch, fed-batch, and continuous, each tailored to balance productivity, control, and operational complexity. Batch mode involves adding all substrates and inoculum at the start, followed by a closed fermentation until completion, typically lasting days to weeks depending on the microorganism and product. This approach minimizes contamination risks through sterilization cycles but is constrained by initial substrate concentrations, which can cause inhibition or nutrient depletion, limiting yields to around 1-5 g/L for many microbial products.[85][86] Fed-batch mode extends batch processes by intermittently or continuously supplying nutrients, such as carbon sources or inducers, to maintain optimal growth without immediate product harvest, achieving higher cell densities (often 10-100 g/L dry weight) and titers through controlled feeding strategies like exponential or constant rates. This semi-continuous operation dominates industrial applications, including recombinant protein production in Escherichia coli or Pichia pastoris, where it mitigates substrate inhibition—e.g., glucose repression in yeast—and supports processes yielding up to 10 g/L of antibodies, though it requires precise monitoring of dissolved oxygen and pH to avoid overflows or acidosis. Advantages include flexibility for genetic induction timing and reduced downtime compared to batch, but drawbacks encompass potential metabolite accumulation and the need for sophisticated feeding algorithms.[87][88][86] Continuous mode maintains steady-state conditions by continuously adding fresh medium and removing culture broth at equivalent rates, often using chemostats or turbidostats to sustain dilution rates of 0.1-0.5 h⁻¹, enabling prolonged operation and theoretically maximal productivity via constant nutrient levels. It excels in applications like single-cell protein production or wastewater treatment, where volumetric productivities can exceed 1 g/L/h, but industrial adoption remains limited due to heightened contamination risks from open systems, genetic instability over extended runs (e.g., plasmid loss in bacteria), and challenges in maintaining uniform physiology, with most processes shifting to fed-batch for stability. Perfusion variants, a subset of continuous operation, recycle cells via filtration to boost densities beyond 100 g/L, primarily for mammalian cell cultures in biologics manufacturing.[89][77][86] Selection of mode depends on product type, organism physiology, and economic factors; for instance, batch suits small-scale or high-value, low-volume outputs like vaccines, while fed-batch prevails in 80-90% of antibiotic and enzyme fermentations for its yield optimization, and continuous finds niche use in steady biomass production despite scalability hurdles.[88][87]Substrates and Optimization
In industrial fermentation, substrates primarily consist of carbon sources that microorganisms convert into desired products, supplemented by nitrogen, phosphorus, and trace minerals for balanced growth. Glucose, derived from the enzymatic hydrolysis of starches in corn or potatoes, is a widely used pure carbon source due to its rapid uptake and minimal impurities, facilitating high yields in processes like antibiotic and enzyme production.[90] Sucrose from sugarcane molasses, containing 50-60% fermentable sugars alongside vitamins and minerals, serves as a cost-effective alternative in large-scale ethanol and organic acid fermentations, reducing raw material costs by up to 30% compared to refined sugars.[91] Lactose from cheese whey is employed for lactic acid production by lactose-utilizing bacteria, valorizing dairy waste while achieving titers of 100-150 g/L.[34] Lignocellulosic biomass, such as agricultural residues pretreated via acid or enzymatic hydrolysis to yield glucose and hemicellulosic sugars like xylose, offers a renewable substrate for bioethanol, though pretreatment costs and inhibitor formation limit its adoption to specialized facilities with yields of 80-90% theoretical maximum after optimization.[34] Nitrogen sources, including ammonium salts, yeast extract, or corn steep liquor, are dosed at 1-5 g/L to maintain carbon-to-nitrogen ratios of 10:1 to 30:1, preventing nitrogen limitation that reduces product formation by 20-50%.[92] Substrate and media optimization enhances productivity by identifying and refining key components through systematic approaches. Classical one-variable-at-a-time methods, though simple, often overlook interactions; statistical designs like Plackett-Burman screening followed by response surface methodology (RSM) have increased metabolite yields by 2-10 fold in cases such as citric acid production, where optimal glucose and ammonium levels boosted output from 50 to 120 g/L.[92] Fed-batch operations mitigate substrate inhibition—e.g., glucose repression in yeast—by exponential or constant feeding, achieving biomass densities over 100 g/L dry cell weight in industrial ethanol fermentations.[93] Advanced techniques incorporate evolutionary algorithms and machine learning to model complex interactions, predicting optimal media compositions with 90% accuracy in simulated scale-ups, while metabolic engineering of strains improves substrate utilization efficiency, as in engineered E. coli converting mixed sugars from hydrolysates at rates 1.5 times higher than wild types.[94][95] These optimizations are validated via bioreactor trials, ensuring scalability from lab (1-10 L) to production (100,000 L) volumes with consistent oxygen transfer rates of 100-500 mmol O2/L/h.[96]Key Applications
Food and Beverage Production
Fermentation serves as a cornerstone in food and beverage production, enabling the microbial conversion of carbohydrates into compounds such as ethanol, lactic acid, acetic acid, and carbon dioxide, which impart distinctive flavors, extend shelf life through pH reduction and antimicrobial effects, and facilitate leavening.[29] This anaerobic or microaerophilic process, primarily driven by yeasts and bacteria, underpins the manufacture of products consumed globally, with fermented foods and beverages comprising 5 to 40 percent of diets in various regions depending on cultural practices.[97] The global market for fermented foods reached approximately USD 247 billion in 2024, reflecting its economic scale and reliance on controlled microbial activity to inhibit spoilage organisms via organic acid accumulation and bacteriocin production.[98] Alcoholic fermentation dominates beverage production, where yeasts metabolize sugars via glycolysis to pyruvate, followed by decarboxylation to acetaldehyde and reduction to ethanol, regenerating NAD+ for continued glycolysis.[99] In beer brewing, Saccharomyces cerevisiae or Saccharomyces pastorianus ferments maltose and other sugars from barley wort, typically at 10–20°C for lagers or 15–24°C for ales, yielding 4–6 percent ethanol by volume alongside CO2 for carbonation and flavor congeners like esters.[100] Wine production similarly employs yeast to ferment grape-derived glucose and fructose in must, often spontaneously or with cultured strains, at 15–30°C over 5–14 days, producing 10–15 percent ethanol before malolactic fermentation by lactic acid bacteria softens acidity.[101] These processes not only generate alcohol but also extract polyphenols and develop aroma profiles through higher alcohol formation. Lactic acid fermentation, mediated by heterofermentative or homofermentative bacteria such as Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc species, converts hexoses to lactic acid via the Embden-Meyerhof pathway or phosphoketolase route, achieving pH levels of 3.0–4.6 that preserve dairy and vegetable products.[29] Yogurt results from thermophilic coculture of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus incubating milk at 40–45°C for 4–8 hours, coagulating caseins through acid-induced gelation and exopolysaccharide production for texture.[102] Cheese production extends this via rennet coagulation followed by ripening, where propionic acid bacteria in Swiss varieties ferment lactate to propionate, CO2, and acetate for flavor and eyes.[103] Vegetable fermentations, like sauerkraut or pickles, rely on salt-brined cabbage or cucumbers sequentially dominated by Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Pediococcus species, producing 1–2 percent lactic acid over 3–6 weeks at 18–22°C.[102] In baking, yeast-driven fermentation leavens dough by producing CO2 from flour-derived sugars, with S. cerevisiae hydrolyzing starches via added or endogenous amylases, fermenting at 24–38°C during bulk proofing for 1–3 hours to develop gluten structure and volatile flavors before ethanol dissipates in oven heat.[104] Sourdough variants incorporate wild lactic acid bacteria and yeasts for extended fermentation, enhancing nutrient bioavailability through phytase activity. Acetic acid fermentation concludes vinegar production, where Acetobacter species aerobically oxidize ethanol from prior alcoholic fermentation to acetic acid via alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase, reaching 4–8 percent acidity in submerged or surface methods.[105] Industrial controls, including starter cultures and temperature regulation, minimize off-flavors from over-oxidation or contamination, ensuring consistent yields.[106]Biofuels and Biochemicals
Fermentation produces biofuels such as ethanol and butanol through anaerobic microbial conversion of carbohydrates, offering renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. Ethanol, the most prominent biofuel from fermentation, is generated by Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast fermenting hexose sugars like glucose via glycolysis and alcohol dehydrogenase, yielding up to 0.51 g ethanol per gram of glucose theoretically, though practical industrial yields range from 0.45 to 0.48 g/g due to byproduct formation like glycerol and biomass.[107] Global bioethanol production exceeded 110 billion liters in 2023, primarily from sugarcane in Brazil and corn starch in the United States, with fermentation comprising the core bioconversion step after saccharification.[108] Butanol, produced via acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation by Clostridium species such as C. beijerinckii, offers advantages over ethanol including higher energy density (29.2 MJ/L vs. 21.1 MJ/L for ethanol) and compatibility with existing petroleum infrastructure without phase separation issues. Traditional ABE processes yield butanol at 0.15-0.20 g/g substrate, limited by toxicity thresholds around 20 g/L, though engineered strains and lignocellulosic feedstocks have achieved up to 0.384 g/g from rice bran hydrolysate in 2019 bench-scale trials.[109] Recent advances since 2020 include microbial consortia and integrated processes targeting 50% higher yields than conventional ABE, reducing CO2 emissions during lignocellulose utilization, though commercial scalability remains constrained by inhibitor sensitivity and downstream separation costs.[110] In biochemical production, fermentation yields platform chemicals like citric, lactic, and succinic acids, which serve as precursors for polymers, solvents, and pharmaceuticals. Citric acid, fermented by Aspergillus niger from molasses or starch hydrolysates, dominates with annual global output exceeding 2 million metric tons, achieving titers over 200 g/L in submerged processes optimized for pH 2-3 and aeration control.[111] Lactic acid, produced by lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus species under homofermentative conditions, reaches yields of 0.9-1.0 g/g glucose, with bio-based production scaling to hundreds of thousands of tons yearly for polylactic acid (PLA) bioplastics.[112] Succinic acid fermentation, utilizing Actinobacillus succinogenes or engineered Escherichia coli, converts glucose or lignocellulosic sugars to yields of 0.58 g/g, with titers up to 100 g/L in fed-batch modes incorporating CO2 fixation via the reductive TCA pathway.[113] The bio-based organic acids market, encompassing these products, was valued at approximately USD 5.3 billion in 2025 projections, driven by demand for sustainable alternatives to petroleum-derived analogs, though economic viability hinges on feedstock costs and purification efficiency exceeding 95% recovery.[114] Strain engineering and process innovations, including continuous fermentation and genetic modifications for inhibitor tolerance, have enhanced productivity by 20-50% since 2020, yet competition from cheaper chemical synthesis persists for non-chiral acids.[115]Pharmaceuticals and Enzymes
Microbial fermentation serves as a cornerstone for pharmaceutical production, particularly for antibiotics, which are secondary metabolites synthesized by bacteria and fungi under specific nutrient-limited conditions in large-scale bioreactors. Industrial processes typically employ submerged aerobic fermentation in vessels ranging from 100,000 to 150,000 liters, with precise control of oxygen transfer, temperature (often 24–28°C for fungal producers), pH (6.5–7.5), and carbon/nitrogen sources like corn steep liquor and glucose to optimize yields before stationary phase decline.[116] Strain enhancement through mutagenesis (e.g., UV or chemical agents) or recombinant DNA techniques, such as gene amplification via plasmids, has increased productivity by over 20-fold in many cases, enabling downstream recovery via solvent extraction, ion exchange, or precipitation.[116] Penicillin G, produced by Penicillium chrysogenum (formerly P. notatum), exemplifies this application; initial yields of 1–4 international units per milliliter in the 1940s were amplified to over 50 g/L today through media optimization and genetic selection, facilitating mass production during World War II that exceeded 100 billion units monthly by 1945.[84] Similarly, cephalosporins derive from Acremonium chrysogenum via comparable fed-batch fermentation, while actinomycetes like Streptomyces species yield streptomycin and tetracyclines, accounting for a substantial portion of the approximately 70% of antibiotics produced aerobically.[117] These methods remain vital, as natural product fermentation often uniquely accesses complex structures unattainable by total chemical synthesis.[118] Fermentation also enables production of therapeutic enzymes, leveraging microbial hosts for high-titer expression of recombinant or native proteins used directly in medicine or as biocatalysts in drug synthesis. L-asparaginase, sourced from Escherichia coli or Erwinia chrysanthemi via submerged fermentation, depletes serum asparagine to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with clinical formulations achieving activities of 300–500 IU/mg.[119] Streptokinase, fermented from Streptococcus species, functions as a thrombolytic agent by activating plasminogen, though its immunogenicity limits use compared to engineered variants.[120] In pharmaceutical manufacturing, enzymes like penicillin G acylase from E. coli or Bacillus megaterium hydrolyze penicillin G to 6-aminopenicillanic acid (6-APA), the nucleus for semisynthetic beta-lactams such as amoxicillin, streamlining production of over 90% of modern penicillins.[121] Other biocatalysts, including D-amino acid oxidase and nitrile hydratase from microbial strains like Burkholderia cepacia, facilitate stereoselective synthesis of intermediates for cephalosporins (e.g., 7-ACA for ceftriaxone) and amino acids in HIV inhibitors like atazanavir.[121] These fermentation-derived enzymes, often purified to high specific activities exceeding 100 U/mg, underscore the process's scalability and cost-effectiveness over chemical alternatives, with submerged methods dominating due to higher productivity than solid-state fermentation.[121]Precision Fermentation in Biotechnology
Precision fermentation utilizes genetically engineered microorganisms, such as Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or Pichia pastoris, to produce specific biomolecules like proteins and enzymes through targeted metabolic pathways.[122] This biotechnology approach involves recombinant DNA techniques to insert genes encoding desired products into host cells, which are then cultured in bioreactors under optimized conditions to yield high-purity outputs from inexpensive substrates like sugars or glycerol.[123] Unlike traditional fermentation, precision methods enable exact control over molecular composition, facilitating the synthesis of complex molecules identical to those from animal or plant sources.[124] The origins of precision fermentation trace to advancements in recombinant DNA technology during the 1970s, with the first commercial application being the production of human insulin in 1982 by Genentech using modified E. coli bacteria, marking a shift from animal-derived sources that carried risks of contamination and supply limitations.[125] Subsequent milestones include the 1990 introduction of recombinant chymosin (rennet) for cheesemaking, which captured over 90% of the global market by reducing reliance on calf stomachs and improving consistency.[126] In the 2010s, applications expanded to food ingredients, exemplified by Impossible Foods' use of engineered yeast to produce soy leghemoglobin (heme) starting in 2011, granting U.S. FDA approval for its burger product in 2019 after verifying safety through extensive testing.[126] In biotechnology, precision fermentation supports pharmaceutical production, such as insulin, where yields have improved from milligrams to grams per liter through strain optimization, enabling affordable diabetes treatment for millions.[127] It also generates industrial enzymes, like those for detergents and biofuels, with companies achieving titers exceeding 100 g/L via CRISPR-edited microbes for enhanced expression and secretion.[128] Emerging uses include dairy proteins such as whey and casein, produced without livestock, as demonstrated by Perfect Day's commercialization in 2022, offering scalable alternatives with reduced land and water footprints compared to conventional agriculture.[129] These processes prioritize host safety, with non-pathogenic strains and downstream purification ensuring product purity above 99%.[82] Challenges in precision fermentation include achieving economic scalability, as initial capital for bioreactor infrastructure can exceed $100 million for large facilities, though advancements in continuous fermentation and AI-optimized media reduce costs by up to 50%.[130] Regulatory frameworks, such as FDA's GRAS determinations, require rigorous allergenicity and toxicity assessments, delaying market entry but upholding safety standards.[131] Despite these hurdles, the technology's precision yields benefits in resource efficiency, with some processes consuming 90% less water than animal-derived equivalents.[132]Challenges and Criticisms
Technical and Scalability Issues
Industrial fermentation processes encounter significant technical hurdles when transitioning from laboratory to production scales, primarily due to discrepancies in hydrodynamics and transport phenomena between small and large bioreactors. Scaling up often introduces flow field differences that alter mixing efficiency, mass transfer coefficients, and shear forces, potentially disrupting microbial growth and product yields.[133] For instance, lab-scale shake flasks achieve adequate aeration through surface-to-volume ratios, but industrial vessels exceeding 100,000 liters face diminished oxygen solubility and transfer rates, limiting aerobic respiration in oxygen-demanding organisms like yeast or bacteria.[134] Contamination represents a persistent risk, amplified at large scales by extended process durations and greater volumes, which facilitate ingress of unwanted microbes competing for substrates or producing inhibitory metabolites. Strict aseptic protocols, including steam sterilization and clean-in-place systems, mitigate this, yet breaches can reduce product titers by up to 50% or necessitate batch discards, as evidenced in pharmaceutical fermentations where foreign organisms compromise strain reusability.[135] [136] Oxygen transfer emerges as a primary bottleneck in aerobic fermentations, where the rate-limiting step stems from oxygen's low solubility in aqueous media (approximately 8 mg/L at 30°C and 1 atm air), compounded by scale-dependent inefficiencies in sparging and agitation. In large bioreactors, volumetric oxygen transfer coefficients (kLa) decline due to larger bubble sizes and reduced interfacial area, often requiring power inputs exceeding 5 kW/m³ to sustain dissolved oxygen above critical thresholds, yet this exacerbates shear stress on shear-sensitive cells.[137] [138] Mixing and heat transfer pose additional constraints, as inadequate agitation in voluminous tanks leads to gradients in pH, temperature, and nutrients, fostering localized cell death or uneven product formation. Heat generation from microbial metabolism can reach 100-300 kW/m³ in rapid fermentations, overwhelming cooling capacities in stainless-steel jackets, while impeller designs must balance turbulence for homogeneity against energy costs that scale cubically with volume.[139] [140] Bioreactor geometry, such as height-to-diameter ratios, further influences these dynamics, with non-optimal configurations extending mixing times by up to 60% and impairing overall process stability.[141] Low product titers, yields, and productivity persist as inherent limitations, often below 10 g/L for complex metabolites, due to microbial lifespan constraints, product inhibition, and suboptimal pathway engineering, hindering economic viability despite advances in strain optimization.[142] Addressing these requires iterative scale-down simulations and advanced monitoring, yet empirical data indicate that up to 70% of pilot-scale processes fail to replicate lab performance without redesign.[143]Economic and Productivity Constraints
Industrial-scale fermentation processes face significant capital expenditures, primarily due to the need for large-volume bioreactors, sterilization systems, and cleanroom facilities compliant with good manufacturing practices (GMP). Bioreactor units typically range from $20,000 to $200,000 USD, scaling with capacity and features like agitation and aeration controls, while GMP cleanroom construction can exceed $600 per square foot.[144][145] These investments are compounded by the requirement for redundant systems to mitigate contamination risks, which can lead to total batch losses valued at millions in high-value products like pharmaceuticals.[146] Operational costs further constrain profitability, with raw material substrates often accounting for 50-70% of total expenses in metabolite production, as seen in polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biopolymers where feedstocks dominate at up to 71%.[147] Energy demands for mixing, aeration, and temperature control add substantially, particularly in aerobic fermentations where oxygen transfer limitations necessitate high-power inputs, while downstream recovery and purification—frequently 50-80% of process costs—exacerbate economics due to product instability and dilute titers requiring extensive separation technologies.[148] Utilities and media composition alone can vary costs by factors of 2-5 times based on cultivation parameters, underscoring the need for precise optimization to achieve viable margins.[148] Productivity metrics, encapsulated in titer (product concentration), rate (production speed), and yield (substrate conversion efficiency), impose fundamental limits, as microbial processes rarely exceed chemical synthesis efficiencies, yielding cost of goods sold (COGS) often above $10 USD/kg for fine chemicals and up to $40/kg for small molecules.[149][150] Low space-time yields, typically constrained by growth inhibition, byproduct formation, and oxygen solubility, result in extended fermentation times (days to weeks) versus hours for petrochemical routes, amplifying labor, waste disposal, and opportunity costs.[149] In precision fermentation for alternative proteins or biofuels, these TRY shortfalls contribute to production costs 2-10 times higher than incumbents, hindering market competitiveness without genetic or process engineering breakthroughs.[130] Scalability from laboratory to commercial volumes introduces economic risks, as empirical scale-up factors like mass transfer and heat dissipation deviate unpredictably, often requiring costly pilot testing and retrofits that inflate capital by 3-5 times.[151] Contamination vulnerabilities in non-sterile or semi-continuous modes demand energy-intensive autoclaving and antibiotics, while substrate inhibition and microbial aging reduce effective run lengths, lowering overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) below 80% in many facilities.[142] These constraints favor high-value, low-volume applications like enzymes over bulk commodities, where fermentation's biological inefficiencies—rooted in thermodynamic limits on anaerobic yields and cellular maintenance—persist despite optimizations, maintaining a cost premium over abiotic alternatives.[152][149]Safety, Regulatory, and Ethical Debates
Fermentation processes, particularly in uncontrolled or home settings, pose safety risks primarily from anaerobic conditions that favor toxin-producing bacteria such as Clostridium botulinum, leading to foodborne botulism outbreaks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that common sources include improperly preserved or fermented homemade foods like pruno (prison wine), home-canned vegetables, and traditional ferments such as Alaska Native seal oil or fermented tofu, with documented cases including an eight-person outbreak from home-prepared prickly pear cactus in June 2024 and multiple incidents in China from fermented bean products. [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] Industrial fermentation hazards include mycotoxin contamination from fungi and proliferation of pathogens if pH, temperature, or sanitation controls fail, though proper acidification often mitigates risks by inhibiting spoilage organisms. [158] [159] [160] Rare outbreaks, such as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli O157 in kimchi, highlight vulnerabilities in vegetable ferments if initial microbial loads are high. [161] Regulatory oversight for fermentation products emphasizes hazard prevention through frameworks coordinated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FDA requires risk-based preventive controls under the Food Safety Modernization Act, including sanitation, supply-chain verification, and recall plans for fermented foods and biotech-derived substances, with specific guidance for chemistry, manufacturing, and controls in fermentation-derived pharmaceuticals. [162] [163] The EPA excludes antimicrobials used in fuel ethanol fermentation from pesticide regulation under FIFRA but scrutinizes microbial pesticides and biotech traits, while the 2017 Coordinated Framework for Biotechnology—updated with joint tools in 2024—guides oversight of genetically modified microorganisms to ensure environmental and human safety without case-by-case redundancy. [164] [165] [166] Internationally, frameworks vary, with some jurisdictions imposing stricter GMO labeling for precision-fermented products to address consumer transparency. [167] Ethical debates surrounding fermentation, especially precision fermentation using genetically engineered microbes, center on the manipulation of organisms for food and biochemical production, raising concerns over unintended ecological releases, long-term health effects, and equitable access. Critics argue that GMO-derived proteins, as in alt-meat or dairy analogs, bypass traditional agriculture but risk allergenicity or novel toxins without sufficient longitudinal data, fueling public skepticism despite regulatory approvals. [168] [169] Proponents highlight efficiency gains, yet ethical critiques invoke principles against "playing God" with genetics, potential corporate control via patents, and socioeconomic disruptions to farmers, as noted in analyses of GM crop adoption in developing regions like Ghana. [170] [171] [172] Advocacy for open-source precision fermentation aims to democratize technology and counter proprietary monopolies, though scalability and biosafety remain contested. [173] These issues persist amid broader biotechnology controversies, where empirical safety records are weighed against precautionary demands for labeling and independent audits. [174] [175]Environmental and Economic Impacts
Resource Use and Efficiency
Industrial fermentation processes convert organic substrates into products via microbial metabolism, with resource efficiency determined by substrate conversion yields, product titers, volumetric productivity, and minimization of water and energy inputs during upstream preparation, fermentation, and downstream separation. Substrate yields vary by process but often approach theoretical maxima under optimized conditions; for ethanol production using Saccharomyces cerevisiae, industrial yields exceed 90% of the theoretical 0.51 g ethanol per g glucose, achieving approximately 0.46 g/g in practice. Higher product titers directly enhance efficiency by reducing the volume of broth processed downstream, thereby lowering energy for evaporation and distillation; a 6% titer increase in ethanol fermentation correlates with 4-6% reductions in steam usage, while lactic acid processes have demonstrated 21% water savings from titer improvements. These metrics underscore that low titers—common in unoptimized fermentations—amplify resource demands, as separating dilute products requires evaporating large water volumes, consuming up to 0.9 kg water per kg product at 10% concentration versus 0.09 kg at 33%. Water consumption remains a significant inefficiency, particularly in biofuel production where processing alone demands 2-4 gallons per gallon of ethanol, excluding substantial irrigation for feedstocks like maize, which contributes to a total water footprint of 110-140 m³ per gigajoule of energy output. This exceeds efficiencies in bioelectricity from biomass (e.g., 50 m³/GJ for sugar beet), highlighting fermentation's reliance on dilution for microbial growth and cooling, though recycling in modern plants mitigates some losses. Energy inputs, dominated by downstream distillation and sterilization (e.g., steam for concentration), can be indirectly quantified through titer effects, with comprehensive optimizations reducing overall operational expenditures by minimizing heat and power for purification; for instance, cumulative 150% titer gains in 2-keto-L-gulonic acid production cut steam needs by 38-75% across stages. Waste streams, such as stillage from ethanol fermentation, represent recoverable resources that bolster efficiency when valorized; these solids can yield biogas via anaerobic digestion or serve as animal feed, recovering 10-20% of input energy value in integrated systems. However, incomplete substrate utilization—due to side products like glycerol or biomass—and sensitivity to contamination often limit net efficiency below 50% on an energy basis for many biofuels, necessitating ongoing strain engineering and process intensification to align with first-principles limits of anaerobic metabolism. Empirical data from peer-reviewed optimizations confirm that while fermentation offers modular scalability, its resource profile lags chemical synthesis in high-volume applications without waste-to-substrate integration.Sustainability Claims and Empirical Realities
Proponents of precision fermentation in food production claim it substantially mitigates environmental burdens compared to animal-derived proteins, citing reductions in land use by up to 99%, water by 90-95%, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 70-97%.[176][177] These assertions often stem from industry-commissioned life cycle assessments (LCAs), such as Perfect Day's analysis of whey protein production, which reported 91-97% lower GHG emissions and 29-60% less water use than dairy equivalents, assuming optimized energy sources and yields.[176] Similarly, Verley Food's LCA for fermented milk proteins projected lower overall impacts per liter than conventional milk, emphasizing reduced methane from livestock.[178] Such claims position fermentation as a scalable path to decarbonize protein supply, with advocates like the Good Food Institute arguing it conserves resources while minimizing pollution.[179] Empirical realities, however, reveal inconsistencies and overlooked costs that temper these projections. Independent reviews indicate that precision fermentation's carbon footprint varies widely from 5.5 to 17.6 tonnes CO2 equivalent per tonne of protein, influenced by energy-intensive steps like microbial aeration, high-temperature sterilization, and purification, which can exceed benefits if powered by non-renewable sources.[180] Feedstocks such as glucose from crop-derived sugars embed upstream agricultural emissions, including fertilizer runoff and land competition, potentially negating land-sparing advantages; for instance, reliance on corn starch mirrors issues in first-generation biofuels.[180] A 2023 LCA of recombinant growth factors via fermentation found elevated eutrophication and acidification potentials due to nutrient-rich waste streams, highlighting trade-offs not always captured in promotional models.[181] Moreover, scalability challenges amplify impacts: current pilot facilities achieve lower yields than assumed in optimistic LCAs, and downstream processing can account for 50-70% of total energy use.[182] In biofuel fermentation, sustainability claims of carbon neutrality—based on biomass-derived CO2 release during ethanol production—are undermined by full-system analyses. Empirical studies show corn ethanol yields only 19-48% GHG savings over gasoline when factoring indirect land-use change (ILUC), such as deforestation for expanded cropland, with some scenarios increasing net emissions by 10-100%.[183] A FAO assessment notes that feedstock cultivation dominates 70-90% of lifecycle impacts, including water depletion and biodiversity loss from monocultures, while fermentation byproducts like distillers grains provide limited offsets.[184] U.S. ethanol production, generating over 50 million tonnes of CO2 annually from fermentation alone, underscores the scale of emissions even if captured, as utilization technologies remain nascent and energy-costly.[185] These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed LCAs rather than industry reports, reveal that while fermentation avoids direct animal emissions, systemic dependencies on intensive agriculture and electricity grids often erode purported gains, particularly without policy-mandated renewable integration or waste valorization.[186] Critically, many favorable LCAs originate from stakeholders with commercial interests, introducing selection bias toward best-case assumptions like 100% renewable energy or zero ILUC, whereas broader empirical data emphasize context-dependency and the need for third-party validation to discern causal environmental outcomes from modeled ideals.[187] Advances in low-carbon feedstocks, such as lignocellulosic sugars or CO2 fixation, could align realities closer to claims, but as of 2024, industrial deployments frequently underperform due to these unaddressed externalities.[188]Market Trends and Future Prospects
The global industrial fermentation market, encompassing chemicals, biofuels, and biochemicals, was valued at approximately USD 97.53 billion in 2025, with projections estimating growth to USD 176.61 billion by 2034 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 6.8%.[189] This expansion is driven primarily by increasing demand for bio-based alternatives to petrochemicals, particularly in alcohols, organic acids, and enzymes used in food, pharmaceuticals, and industrial processes.[190] In the biofuels segment, advanced fermentation technologies for ethanol and other bio-alcohols contribute to a market projected to grow at 13.9% CAGR from 2025 onward, supported by policy incentives for renewable energy amid fossil fuel phase-outs.[191] However, actual deployment lags projections due to feedstock competition with food production and inconsistent government subsidies, as evidenced by stalled second-generation biofuel projects in Europe and the U.S.[192] Precision fermentation, a subset leveraging genetically engineered microbes for targeted molecule production, exhibits the most rapid trajectory, with market size forecasted to rise from USD 4.31 billion in 2025 to USD 54.04 billion by 2032 at a 43.5% CAGR.[193] Key applications include animal-free proteins for dairy and meat analogs, where companies like Perfect Day and Remilk have scaled production, reducing reliance on livestock amid environmental pressures from conventional agriculture.[194] Investment surged in 2023-2024, with over USD 2 billion in funding for fermentation startups, fueled by consumer shifts toward plant-based and lab-grown foods, though consumer acceptance remains limited by taste inconsistencies and higher costs compared to traditional fermentation methods like yogurt or beer production.[195] Future prospects hinge on overcoming scalability barriers, such as high capital costs for bioreactor infrastructure and energy-intensive downstream processing, which currently render many precision products 2-5 times more expensive than synthetic or agricultural counterparts.[196] Optimistic scenarios project fermentation capturing 10-20% of the protein market by 2035 through cost reductions via microbial strain optimization and continuous fermentation systems, but empirical data from pilot plants indicate yields must double for economic viability without subsidies.[197] In pharmaceuticals, fermentation-derived enzymes and biologics are expected to grow steadily at 5-7% CAGR, bolstered by established supply chains, yet regulatory hurdles for novel genetically modified organisms could delay approvals, as seen in EU restrictions on GMO foods.[198] Overall, while technological advances promise broader adoption, market penetration will depend on verifiable efficiency gains over chemical synthesis, with biofuels facing headwinds from electric vehicle transitions and biochemicals competing against cheaper petroleum derivatives.[199]| Segment | 2025 Market Size (USD Billion) | Projected 2030-2034 Size (USD Billion) | CAGR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fermentation Chemicals | 97.53 | 176.61 (2034) | 6.8 |
| Precision Fermentation | 4.31 | 54.04 (2032) | 43.5 |
| Advanced Biofuels (Fermentation-Related) | ~1.7 (est. from 2024 base) | Varies by policy | 13.9 |