Lactate production from lactose-rich wastewater: A comparative study on reactor configurations to maximize conversion rates and efficiencies

About 90 % of global lactate production is derived from bacterial fermentation of sugars via pure homofermentative cultures in batch mode. Acid whey, which is a lactose-rich wastewater from the yogurt industry, can be used as an alternative substrate for commercial lactate production. Operating reactor microbiomes reduces the lactate production costs by circumventing sterilization, while continuous operation with biomass retention achieves higher productivity at shorter production times. To find the best reactor configuration with biomass retention for lactate production from acid whey, we operated three different reactor configurations: (1) an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor; (2) an anaerobic filter reactor (AFR); and (3) an anaerobic continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) with a hollow-fiber membrane module. We operated at different hydraulic retention times (HRTs) to find the optimum production parameters at a temperature of 50 °C and a pH of 5.0. We did not use an inoculum but enriched the endogenous D-lactate-producing Lactobacillus spp. that later dominated the reactor microbiomes (> 90 % relative abundance). Undissociated lactic acid concentrations of more than 60 mmol C L<sup>-1</sup> inhibited the microbiomes. We alleviated the inhibition effect by shortening the HRT to 0.6 days and using diluted acid-whey substrate (1.67-fold dilution) to achieve almost complete conversion of the acid-whey sugars to lactate. At the 0.6-day HRT, the AFR and CSTR performed better than the UASB reactor due to their better cell retention abilities. During the period between Day 365-384, we experienced an error in the pH control of the CSTR system during which the pH value dropped to 4.3. After this pH-error period, the lactose and galactose-into-lactate (LG-into-LA) conversion efficiency for the CSTR considerably improved and surpassed the AFR. We achieved the highest lactate conversion rate of 1256 ± 46.3 mmol C L<sup>-1</sup> d<sup>-1</sup> (1.57 ± 0.06 g L<sup>-1</sup> h<sup>-1</sup>) at a LG-into-LA conversion efficiency of 82.2 ± 3.4 % (in mmol C), with a yield of 0.85 ± 0.02 mmol C mmol C<sup>-1</sup> (product per consumed substrate) for the CSTR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Water Research
Published
2025-02-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2025.123365
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.22
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lactate production from lactose-rich wastewater: A comparative study on reactor configurations to maximize conversion rates and efficiencies

Andrés E. Ortiz-Ardila, Largus Theodora Angenent, Joseph G. Usack, Richard Hegner et al.
4 citations
Water Research
Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
3.22
article

Lactate production from lactose-rich wastewater: A comparative study on reactor configurations to maximize conversion rates and efficiencies

Andrés E. Ortiz-Ardila, Largus Theodora Angenent, Joseph G. Usack, Richard Hegner, Monika Temovska
article en
4 citations

Abstract

About 90 % of global lactate production is derived from bacterial fermentation of sugars via pure homofermentative cultures in batch mode. Acid whey, which is a lactose-rich wastewater from the yogurt industry, can be used as an alternative substrate for commercial lactate production. Operating reactor microbiomes reduces the lactate production costs by circumventing sterilization, while continuous operation with biomass retention achieves higher productivity at shorter production times. To find the best reactor configuration with biomass retention for lactate production from acid whey, we operated three different reactor configurations: (1) an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor; (2) an anaerobic filter reactor (AFR); and (3) an anaerobic continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) with a hollow-fiber membrane module. We operated at different hydraulic retention times (HRTs) to find the optimum production parameters at a temperature of 50 °C and a pH of 5.0. We did not use an inoculum but enriched the endogenous D-lactate-producing Lactobacillus spp. that later dominated the reactor microbiomes (> 90 % relative abundance). Undissociated lactic acid concentrations of more than 60 mmol C L<sup>-1</sup> inhibited the microbiomes. We alleviated the inhibition effect by shortening the HRT to 0.6 days and using diluted acid-whey substrate (1.67-fold dilution) to achieve almost complete conversion of the acid-whey sugars to lactate. At the 0.6-day HRT, the AFR and CSTR performed better than the UASB reactor due to their better cell retention abilities. During the period between Day 365-384, we experienced an error in the pH control of the CSTR system during which the pH value dropped to 4.3. After this pH-error period, the lactose and galactose-into-lactate (LG-into-LA) conversion efficiency for the CSTR considerably improved and surpassed the AFR. We achieved the highest lactate conversion rate of 1256 ± 46.3 mmol C L<sup>-1</sup> d<sup>-1</sup> (1.57 ± 0.06 g L<sup>-1</sup> h<sup>-1</sup>) at a LG-into-LA conversion efficiency of 82.2 ± 3.4 % (in mmol C), with a yield of 0.85 ± 0.02 mmol C mmol C<sup>-1</sup> (product per consumed substrate) for the CSTR.

Water ResearchVol. 278
University of Georgia (US), Aarhus University (DK), University of Tübingen (DE)
Clean water and sanitation
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
3.22
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.