Open Access
Review
Table 2
Main research works for increasing lipid recovery from Y. lipolytica.
| Y. lipolytica strain | Technology | Extraction process | Lipid yield | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATCC 20460 | Conventional solvent extraction | 3 g of wet yeast biomass with 10 mL chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v); 30 min maceration, constant stirring at room temperature | 6.23 ± 0.51 g/100 g of dry weight (dw) | Easy to conduct Reproducible Easy to scale up |
Limited diffusion due to strong cell walls Lower extraction yields compared to the other treatments |
(Meullemiestre et al., 2016) |
| Ultrasound assisted-extraction | 10 g of wet biomass with 50 mL chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) placed in a double jacket reactor; 30 min sonication at 300 W, 20 °C | 8.10 ± 0.24 g/100 g of dw | Higher extraction yields compared to conventional solvent extraction | Degradation of DAG into FFAs Change in FAs profile: higher proportion of palmitic acid C16 compared to the other methods |
||
| Bead milling | 3 g of wet biomass with 10 mL chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) placed in 20 mL tube with 20 g ceramic beads; 30 min treatment | 13.16 ± 0.68 g/100 g of dw | Efficient for cell disruption Higher extraction yields compared to conventional solvent extraction |
– | ||
| Microwave-assisted extraction | 10 g of wet biomass with 50 mL chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) placed in a Teflon microwave reactor; 30 min treatment at 100 W, 110 °C | 7.13 ± 0.45 g/100 g of dw | Higher extraction yields compared to solvent extraction | Degradation of DAG into FFAs | ||
| Cold drying under reduced pressure pretreatment | Biomass placed in a reactor; 48 h, −80 °C, −20 mbar. Then, maceration in chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) | 13.56 ± 0.24 g/100 g of dw | – | Increase in processing time and energy High emission of carbon dioxide |
||
| Freezing/defrosting pretreatment | Biomass frozen for 48 h at −20 °C then placed for 12 h at 4 °C. The process is repeated 3 times followed by oil extraction in chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) | 5.53 ± 0.43 g/100 g of dw | Decrease in the use of solvents | High energy consumption High emission of carbon dioxide |
||
| Bead milling pretreatment | 3 g of wet biomass with 10 mL chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) placed in 20 mL tube with 20 g ceramic beads; 30 min treatment, 4000 rpm. Then, oil extraction in chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) | 12.73 ± 0.41 g/100 g of dw | Decrease in the use of solvents Low energy consumption |
– | ||
| Microwave pretreatment | 10 g of biomass placed in a Teflon microwave reactor and heated; 15 min, 45 °C, 20 W. Then, oil extraction in chloroform:methanol (1:2, v/v) | 8.18 ± 0.67 g/100 g of dw | Decrease in the use of solvents | – | ||
| JMY 5289 | High pressure homogenization (HPH) pretreatment | 1 kg of 15% DM cell suspension preteated with HPH (5 passes, 1500 bar). Then, oil extraction from dry biomass (after lyophilization) in n-hexane, at room temperature, 1 h, liquid/solid ratio of 10:1 (v:w), agitation 700 rpm | 100% | High extraction yields | High energy consumption during the drying process | (Drévillon et al., 2018) |
| 1 kg of 15% DM cell suspension preteated with HPH (5 passes, 1500 bar). Then, oil extraction from wet biomass in n-hexane (ratio 1:2 (w:w)) using high-speed disperser (40 min, 1000 rpm) | 79.9 ± 11.5% | Low extraction yields | Lower energy consumption compared to the dry route | |||
| JMY5578 | Mechanical expression pretreatment | 85 g yeast suspension placed in the pressing chamber; 45 min at 5.105 Pa | ≈ 25 ± 0.5% | – | Lowest extraction yields compared to the tested pretreatment techniques | (Drévillon et al., 2019) |
| High pulsed electric field pretreatment | 200 g of yeast cell suspension (15% DM) placed in treatment chamber (500 pulses, 20 Kv/cm); lyophilization; oil extraction in n-hexane (ratio 1:10, w/v), 1 h, at room temperature with agitation at 700 rpm | 29.4 ± 3% | Additional release of oil compared to the untreated cells | – | ||
| High voltage electrical discharges pretreatment | 200 g of yeast cell suspension (15% DM) placed in treatment chamber (500 pulses, 2 = 40 Kv/cm); lyophilization; oil extraction in n-hexane (ratio 1:10, w/v), 1 h, room temperature with agitation at 700 rpm | 31.7 ± 6.5% | Additional release of oil compared to the untreated cells | Degradation of the oil Significant changes in FAs composition compared to the other treatments except for C14:0, C18:0 and C18:2 |
||
| Ultrasound pretreatment | 300 g yeast cells (15% DM) placed in US reactor (1 h, 400 W, 293 k); lyophilization; oil extraction in n-hexane (ratio 1:10, w/v), 1 h, room temperature with agitation at 700 rpm | 35.5 ± 6.1% | Increase in extraction yields compared to the untreated cells (control) No significant change in FAs profile |
– | ||
| HPH pretreatment | Cell suspension (600 g, 15% DM) pretreated with HPH (298 K, 20 passes, 1500 × 105 Pa) | 83.9 ± 4.8% | Highest extraction yields compared to the tested pretreatment techniques | Change in FAs profile | ||
| JMY5289 | HPH and bead milling pretreatment | Cell suspension (600 g, 15% DM) pretreated with HPH (25 °C, 5 passes, 1500 bar) followed by bead milling in chloroform:methanol (2:1, v:v) (stainless steel beads of 4.9 mm, and during 3 × 30 s) | 99.6% | Available for large scale processing Short processing time No change in FAs profile |
– | (Imatoukene et al., 2020) |
| QU21 | Liquid nitrogen with sonication | Liquid nitrogen added to biomass, then sonication 10 times for 30 s each in distilled water followed by maceration in 20 mL chloroform and methanol (2:1, v:v) for oil extraction | 26.5% | Increase in the extraction yields compared to conventional maceration (14.3%) | – | (Poli et al., 2013) |
| Po1g | Sub-critical water treatment | 1 g biomass dissolved in 20 mL water and treated at 175 °C for 20 min | 42.69% | Environmentally friendly technique Very similar FAs profile from untreated and sub-critical water treated samples |
– | (Tsigie et al., 2012) |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.