Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
Review
Biosurfactants in
food industry
M. Nitschkea,*
and S.G.V.A.O. Costab
a
Department of Microbiology,
EMBRAPA Food Technology, Av. das Américas,
29501, Rio de Janeiro, RJ CEP 23020-470, Brazil
(Tel.: D55 21 24109590; fax: D55 21 24101090;
e-mail: nitschke@ctaa.embrapa.br)
b
Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology,
Institute of Biological Sciences,
UNESP/Rio Claro, Av. 24-A, 1515,
CEP 13506-900, C.Postal 199,
Rio Claro- SP, Brazil
The increasing environmental concern about chemical surfac-
tants triggers attention to microbial-derived surface-active
compounds essentially due to their low toxicity and biode-
gradable nature. At present, biosurfactants are predominantly
used in remediation of pollutants; however, they show poten-
tial applications in many sectors of food industry. Associated
with emulsion forming and stabilization, antiadhesive and an-
timicrobial activities are some properties of biosurfactants,
which could be explored in food processing and formulation.
Potential applications of microbial surfactants in food area and
the use of agroindustrial wastes as alternative substrates for
their production are discussed.
Introduction
Surfactants are amphiphilic compounds containing both
hydrophobic (nonpolar) and hydrophilic (polar) moieties
that confer ability to accumulate between fluid phases
such as oil/water or air/water, reducing the surface and in-
terfacial tensions and forming emulsions (Desai & Banat,
1997). The surface activity properties make surfactants
one of the most important and versatile class of chemical
products, used on a variety of applications in household,
industry and agriculture (Deleu & Paquot, 2004).
* Corresponding author.
0924-2244/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2007.01.002
Biosurfactants (bioemulsifiers) are a structurally diverse
group of surface-active molecules synthesized by microor-
ganisms. Rhamnolipids from Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
surfactin from Bacillus subtilis, emulsan from Acineto-
bacter calcoaceticus and sophorolipids from Candida
bombicola are some examples of microbial-derived surfac-
tants. Originally, biosurfactants attracted attention as hydro-
carbons dissolution agents, but the interest in these
molecules have been increasing considerably in the past
five decades as alternative to chemical surfactants (carboxy-
lates, sulphonates and sulphate acid esters) specially in
food, pharmaceutical and oil industry (Banat, Makkar, &
Cameotra, 2000; Desai & Banat, 1997). The main reasons
for the spreading interest in biosurfactants are their environ-
mental friendly nature, since they are easily biodegradable
(Mohan, Nakhla, & Yanful, 2006) and have low toxicity
(Flasz, Rocha, Mosquera, & Sajo, 1998), and their unique
structures which provide new properties that classical
surfactants may lack.
Most work on biosurfactants applications has been
focusing on bioremediation of pollutants (Mulligan, 2005);
however, these microbial compounds exhibit a variety of
useful properties for the food industry specially as emulsi-
fiers, foaming, wetting, solubilizers (Banat et al., 2000),
antiadhesive and antimicrobial agents (Singh & Cameotra,
2004). Moreover, an increasing consciousness among con-
sumers demands for reducing the use of artificial or chem-
ically synthesized compounds by replacing it for more
natural food ingredients and additives (Shepherd, Rockey,
Sutherland, & Roller, 1995). Despite the advantages
demonstrated by biosurfactants, few reports are available
regarding their use on food products and food processing.
This paper discusses the properties and applications of
microbial surfactants which can be of interest for food
and food-related industries, providing also an overview of
the emerging fields for their employment and considering
the exploitation of agroindustrial wastes as alternative
substrates for biosurfactant production.
Classification of biosurfactants
Microbial surfactants are categorized by their chemical
composition and microbial origin. Rosenberg and Ron
(1999) suggested that biosurfactants can be divided into
low-molecular-mass molecules, which efficiently lower
surface and interfacial tension, and high-molecular-mass
polymers, which are more effective as emulsion stabilizing
 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259 253

agents. The major classes of low-mass surfactants include Surfactin from B. subtilis can reduce ST of water to
glycolipids, lipopeptides and phospholipids, whereas high 25 mN/m and IT water/hexadecane to <1 mN/m (Cooper,
mass includes polymeric and particulate surfactants. MacDonald, Duff, & Kosaric, 1981). The rhamnolipids
Most biosurfactants are either anionic or neutral and the from P. aeruginosa decreased ST of water to 26 mN/m
hydrophobic moiety is based on long-chain fatty acids or and IT water/hexadecane to value <1 mN/m (Syldatk,
fatty acids derivatives whereas the hydrophilic portion Lang, & Wagner, 1985) however, some rhamnolipid homo-
can be a carbohydrate, aminoacid, phosphate or cyclic pep- logues have demonstrated lower values (Nitschke, Costa, &
tide. Table 1 shows the major biosurfactant classes and the Contiero, 2005). The sophorolipids from C. bombicola
microorganisms involved; note that bacteria are the pre- were reported to reduce ST to 33 mN/m and IT to 5 mN/m
dominant group of surfactant-producing organisms how- (Cooper & Paddock, 1984). In general, biosurfactants are
ever some yeast species are also involved. Bodour et al. more effective and efficient and their CMC (critical micelle
(2004) have recently described a new class of biosur- concentration) is about 10e40 times lower than chemical
factants named flavolipids produced by a soil isolated surfactants, i.e., less surfactant is necessary to get a maximal
Flavobacterium sp. The new surfactant showed strong decrease on ST (Desai & Banat, 1997).
surface activity and emulsifying ability, and exhibits a polar
moiety that features citric acid. Temperature, pH and ionic strength tolerance
Many biosurfactants and their surface activity are not af-
Properties of biosurfactants fected by environmental conditions such as temperature and
The main distinctive features of microbial surfactants pH. McInerney, Javaheri, and Nagle (1990) reported that li-
that can be of interest for food processing are related to chenysin from Bacillus licheniformis JF-2 was not affected
their surface activity; tolerance to pH, temperature and by temperature (up to 50  C), pH (4.5e9.0) and by NaCl
ionic strength; biodegradability; low toxicity; emulsifying and Ca concentrations up to 50 and 25 g/L, respectively.
and demulsifying ability and antimicrobial activity. These A lipopeptide from B. subtilis LB5a was stable after auto-
topics are discussed below. clave (121  C/20 min) and after 6 months at 18  C; the
surface activity did not change from pH 5 to pH 11 and
Surface and interface activity NaCl concentrations up to 20% (Nitschke & Pastore,
A good surfactant can lower surface tension (ST) of 2006). The Antarctic psychrophilic strain Arthrobacter pro-
water from 72 to 35 mN/m and the interfacial tension (IT) tophormiae produced a biosurfactant that was thermostable
water/hexadecane from 40 to 1 mN/m (Mulligan, 2005). (30e100  C) and pH (2e12) stable (Pruthi & Cameotra,
1997). Industrial processes frequently involve exposure to
extremes of temperature, pressure, pH and ionic strength,
Table 1. Major types of microbial surfactants hence there is a continuous need to isolate new microbe-
Surfactant class Microorganism derived products able to function under these conditions
Glycolipids (Cameotra & Makkar, 1998). The production of surfactants
Rhamnolipids Pseudomonas aeruginosa from extremophiles microorganisms, has gained attention
Trehalose lipids Rhodococcus erithropolis, in last years once the unique properties of these compounds
Arthobacter sp. are of considered commercial interest.
Sophorolipids Candida bombicola, Candida
apicola
Mannosylerythritol lipids Candida antartica Biodegradability
Lipopeptides Unlike synthetic surfactants, microbial-produced com-
Surfactin/iturin/fengycin Bacillus subtilis pounds are easily degraded (Mohan et al., 2006) and partic-
Viscosin Pseudomonas fluorescens ularly suited for environmental applications such as
Lichenysin Bacillus licheniformis
bioremediation (Deleu & Paquot, 2004; Mulligan, 2005).
Serrawettin Serratia marcescens
Phospholipids Acinetobacter sp., The increasing environmental concern among consumers
Corynebacterium lepus and the regulatory rules imposed by governments forcing
Fatty acids/neutral lipids industry to search for alternative products such as biosur-
Corynomicolic acids Corynebacterium insidibasseosum factants (Cameotra & Makkar, 1998).
Polymeric surfactants
Emulsan Acinetobacter calcoaceticus
Alasan Acinetobacter radioresistens Low toxicity
Liposan Candida lipolytica Although few data are available in literature regarding
Lipomanan Candida tropicalis the toxicity of microbial surfactants, they are generally con-
Particulate biosurfactants sidered low or non-toxic products and therefore, appropri-
Vesicles Acinetobacter calcoaceticus
ate for pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food uses. Poremba,
Whole microbial cells Cyanobacteria
Gunkel, Lang, and Wagner (1991a) reported that a synthetic
Adapted from Deleu and Paquot, 2004; Desai and Banat, 1997; anionic surfactant (Corexit) displayed a LC50 (concentra-
and Rosenberg and Ron, 1999.
tion lethal to 50% of test species) against Photobacterium
254 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
phosphoreum 10 times lower than rhamnolipids, demon-
strating the higher toxicity of the chemical-derived surfac-
tant. When comparing the toxicity of six biosurfactants,
four synthetic surfactants and two commercial dispersants,
Poremba, Gunkel, Lang, and Wagner (1991b) found that
most biosurfactants were degraded faster, except for a syn-
thetic sucrose-stearate that showed structure homology to
glycolipids and was degraded more rapidly than the bio-
genic glycolipids (rhamnolipids, trehalose lipids, sophorose
lipids). These authors also reported that biosurfactants
showed higher EC50 (effective concentration to decrease
50% of test population) values than synthetic dispersants.
A biosurfactant from P. aeruginosa was compared with
a synthetic surfactant (Marlon A-350) widely used in indus-
try in terms of toxicity and mutagenic properties. Both as-
says indicated the higher toxicity and mutagenic effect of
the chemical-derived surfactant whereas biosurfactant was
considered slightly to non-toxic and non-mutagenic (Flasz
et al., 1998). The comparison of acute and chronic toxicity
of three synthetic surfactants (Corexit, 9500, Triton X-100,
PSE-61) and three microbiological derived surfactants
(rhamnolipid, emulsan, biological cleanser PES-51) com-
monly used in oil spill remediation revealed that PES-61
(synthetic surfactant) and Emulsan (biosurfactant) were
the least toxic whereas Triton X-100 (synthetic) was the
most toxic (Edwards, Lepo, & Lewis, 2003).
Rhamnolipid surfactants are presently produced at
commercial scale by Jeneil Biosurfactant Corp. (www.
biosurfactant.com) which offers diverse formulations for
different purposes. Recently, they developed a biofungicide
formulation to prevent plant pathogenic fungi that was
considered of low acute mammalian toxicity and non-
mutagenic and was approved by FDA for use in fruit,
vegetables and legume crops. Additionally, the greater con-
sumer awareness of adverse allergic effects caused by arti-
ficial products stimulates the development of alternative
ingredients, thus opening an excellent opportunity to
expand the use of natural surfactants of microbial origin
(Cameotra & Makkar, 1998).
Emulsion forming and emulsion breaking
An emulsion is a heterogeneous system, consisting of at
least one immiscible liquid intimately dispersed in another
in the form of droplets, whose diameter in general exceeds
0.1 mm. Emulsions have an internal or dispersed and an ex-
ternal or continuous phase, so there are generally two types:
oil-in-water (o/w) or water-in-oil (w/o) emulsions. Such
systems possess a minimal stability, which may be accentu-
ated by additives such as surface-active agents (surfac-
tants). Thus, stable emulsions can be produced with a life
span of months and years (Velikonja & Kosaric, 1993).
Biosurfactants may stabilize (emulsifiers) or destabilize
(de-emulsifiers) the emulsion. High-molecular-mass biosur-
factants are in general better emulsifiers than low-molecular-
mass biosurfactants. Sophorolipids from Torulopsis bombicola
have been shown to reduce surface and interfacial tension
but not to be good emulsifiers (Cooper & Paddock,
1984). By contrast, liposan has been shown not to reduce
surface tension but used successfully to emulsify edible
oils (Cirigliano & Carman, 1985). Polymeric surfactants
offer additional advantages because they coat the droplets
of oil, thereby forming very stable emulsions that never
coalesce. This property is especially useful for making oil/
water emulsions for cosmetics and food. In dairy products
(soft cheese and ice creams) the addition of emulsifiers im-
proves the texture and creaminess. This quality is of special
value for low-fat products (Rosenberg & Ron, 1999).
Evaluation of emulsifying ability of biosurfactants is in
general related to hydrocarbons such as kerosene because
of their potential in environmental applications. Few at-
tempts have been made to evaluate emulsion forming
by biosurfactants with oils and fats used in food industry.
A lipopeptide obtained from B. subtilis was able to form
stable emulsions with soybean oil and coconut fat, suggest-
ing its potential as emulsifying agent in foods (Nitschke &
Pastore, 2006).
A manoprotein from Kluyveromyces marxianus was able
to form emulsions with corn oil that were stable for 3
months; the yeast was cultivated on whey-based medium
suggesting potential application as food bioemulsifier
(Lukondeh, Ashbolh, & Rogers, 2003). The extracellular
carbohydrate-rich compound from Candida utilis was
successfully used as emulsifying agent in salad dressing
formulations (Shepherd et al., 1995). The use of yeast for
production of biosurfactant is interesting because these or-
ganisms are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and they
are already present in many food manufacturing processes,
on the contrary, products derived from bacteria such as the
opportunistic P. aeruginosa, still face some resistance con-
cerning their use as food ingredients.
In some case, the emulsion, which is generated in one
part of the process, may have to be destabilized in a sub-
sequent operation to develop a certain functional property
to the final product. De-emulsification can be of interest
in food processing specially when related to fat and oil
products as well as in waste treatment (Kachholz &
Schlingmann, 1987).
Antimicrobial activity
Several biosurfactants have shown antimicrobial action
against bacteria, fungi, algae and viruses. The lipopeptide
iturin from B. subtilis showed potent antifungal activity
(Besson, Peypoux, Michel, & Delcambe, 1976). A signifi-
cative reduction on the mycoflora present in stored grains
of corn, peanuts and cottonseeds was observed at iturin
concentration of 50e100 ppm (Klich, Arthur, Lax, &
Bland, 1994). Inactivation of enveloped virus such as
herpes and retrovirus was observed with 80 mM of sur-
factin (Vollenbroich, Özel, Vater, Kamp, & Pauli, 1997).
Rhamnolipids inhibited the growth of harmful bloom
algae species Heterosigma akashivo and Protocentrum
dentatum at concentration ranging from 0.4 to 10.0 mg/L
 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
(Wang et al., 2005). A rhamnolipid mixture obtained from
P. aeruginosa AT10 showed inhibitory activity against the
bacteria Escherichia coli, Micrococcus luteus, Alcaligenes
faecalis (32 mg/mL), Serratia marcescens, Mycobacterium
phlei (16 mg/mL) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (8 mg/
mL); excellent antifungal properties against Aspergillus
niger (16 mg/mL), Chaetonium globosum, Penicillium
crysogenum, Aureobasidium pullulans (32 mg/mL) and the
phytopathogenic Botrytis cinerea and Rhizoctonia solani
(18 mg/mL) (Abalos et al., 2001). Sophorolipids and rham-
nolipids were found to be effective antifungal agents
against plant and seed pathogenic fungi. Mycelial growth
of Phytophthora sp. and Pythium sp. was 80% inhibited
by 200 mg/L of rhamnolipids and 500 mg/L of sophoro-
lipids (Yoo, Lee, & Kim, 2005). The mannosylerythritol
lipid (MEL), a glycolipid surfactant from Candida antar-
tica has demonstrated antimicrobial activity particularly
against Gram-positive bacteria (Kitamoto et al., 1993). Be-
sides their antimicrobial activity new biological applica-
tions of biosurfactants have been found and some reviews
concerning the potential uses of microbial surfactants in
biomedical sciences were recently published (Rodrigues,
Banat, Teixeira, & Oliveira, 2006; Singh & Cameotra,
2004).
Potential food applications
Although biosurfactants can be explored for several food
processing applications, in this section we emphasize their
potential as food formulation ingredients and antiadhesive
agents.
Food formulation ingredients
Apart from their obvious role as agents that decrease
surface and interfacial tension, thus promoting the forma-
tion and stabilization of emulsions, surfactants can have
several other functions in food. For example to control
the agglomeration of fat globules, stabilize aerated systems,
improve texture and shelf-life of starch-containing prod-
ucts, modify rheological properties of wheat dough and
improve consistency and texture of fat-based products
(Kachholz & Schlingmann, 1987).
In bakery and ice cream formulations biosurfactants act
controlling consistency, retarding staling and solubilizing
flavor oils; they are also utilized as fat stabilizer and anti-
spattering agent during cooking of oil and fats (Kosaric,
2001). An improvement of dough stability, texture, volume
and conservation of bakery products was obtained by the
addition of rhamnolipid surfactants (Van Haesendonck &
Vanzeveren, 2004). The authors also suggested the use of
rhamnolipids to improve properties of butter cream, crois-
sants and frozen confectionery products. Recently, a bio-
emulsifier isolated from a marine strain of Enterobacter
cloacae was described as a potential viscosity enhancement
agent of interest in food industry especially due to the good
viscosity observed at acidic pH allowing its use in products
containing citric or ascorbic acid (Iyer, Mody, & Jha, 2006).
255
L-Rhamnose has a considerable potential as precursor
for flavorings. It is already used industrially as precursor
of high-quality flavor components like Furaneol (trademark
of Firmenich SA, Geneva). There is great interest in obtain-
ing rhamnose lipids to provide a source of L-rhamnose,
which already has an industrial application. L-Rhamnose
is obtained by hydrolyzing rhamnolipid surfactants pro-
duced by P. aeruginosa (Linhardt, Bakhit, Daniels, Mayerl,
& Pickenhagen, 1989).
Antiadhesive agents
A biofilm is described as a group of bacteria that have
colonized a surface. The biofilm not only includes the bac-
teria, but it also describes all of the extracellular material
produced at the surface and any material trapped within
the resulting matrix (Hood & Zottola, 1995). The first
step on biofilm establishment is bacterial adherence which
is affected by factors including microorganism species,
hydrophobicity of surface and electrical charges involved,
environmental conditions and ability of microorganisms
to produce extracellular polymers that help cells to anchor
to surfaces (Zottola, 1994). Bacterial biofilms present in
food industry surfaces are potential sources of contamina-
tion, which may lead to food spoilage and disease transmis-
sion (Hood & Zottola, 1995). Due to the fact that food
processors have a zero tolerance levels for pathogens like
Salmonella and also (in most countries) for Listeria mono-
cytogenes, a single adherent cell may be as significant as
a well developed biofilm; thus controlling the adherence
of microorganisms to food contact surfaces is an essential
step in providing safe and quality products to consumers
(Hood & Zottola, 1995).
The involvement of biosurfactants in microbial adhesion
and detachment from surfaces has been investigated. A sur-
factant released by Streptococcus thermophilus has been
used for fouling control of heat-exchanger plates in pasteur-
izers as it retards the colonization of other thermophilic
strains of Streptococcus responsible for fouling (Busscher,
van der Kuij-Booij, & van der Mei, 1996).
The bioconditioning of surfaces through the use of micro-
bial surfactants have been suggested as a new strategy to
reduce adhesion. Pre-treatment of silicone rubber with
S. thermophilus surfactant inhibited by 85% the adhesion of
Candida albicans (Busscher, van Hoogmoed, Geertsema-
Doornbusch, van der Kuij-Booij, & van der Mei, 1997)
whereas surfactants from Lactobacillus fermentum and Lac-
tobacillus acidophilus adsorbed on glass, reduced by 77%
the number of adhering uropathogenic cells of Enterococcus
faecalis (Velraeds, van der Mei, Reid, & Busscher, 1996).
Lately, the biosurfactant from L. fermentum was reported
to inhibit Staphylococcus aureus infection and adherence
to surgical implants (Gan, Kim, Reid, Cadieux, & Howard,
2002). The use of biosurfactants released by Lactobacilli
strains is very promising once these microorganisms are nat-
urally present in human flora and have also a probiotic effect
(Singh & Cameotra, 2004). Much more research is needed
256 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
however, to understand the contribution of lactobacilli sur-
factants in preventing pathogen colonization, the biochemi-
cal aspects of biosynthesis and their structural characterization.
Surfactin decreased the amount of biofilm formation by
Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella enterica, E. coli and
Proteus mirabilis in PVC plates and vinyl urethral catheters
(Mireles, Toguchi, & Harshey, 2001). Irie, o’Toole, and
Yuk (2005) demonstrated the disruption of Bordetella bron-
chiseptica biofilms by rhamnolipids and recently, it was
found that silicone rubber conditioned with rhamnolipids
reduced the adhesion rates of Streptococcus salivarius and
Candida tropicalis by 66%. The number of adhered cells
of S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. salivarius and C. tropicalis
was reduced by 48% and the perfusion of biosurfactant to
adhered cells produced a high detachment (96%) of micro-
organisms (Rodrigues, Banat, van der Mei, Teixeira, &
Oliveira, 2006).
The use of biosurfactants, which disrupts biofilms and
reduce adhesion, in combination with antibiotics could rep-
resent a novel antimicrobial strategy, once antibiotics are in
general less effective against biofilms than planktonic cells;
the disruption of biofilm by biosurfactant can facilitate the
antibiotic access to the cells (Irie et al., 2005).
The promising results of these works, with medical focus,
suggest a potential application of biosurfactants for surface
conditioning in food industry, since both the surface
materials and microorganisms involved are of common
interest.
An interesting work regarding the use of biosurfactants
to inhibit the adhesion of the pathogen L. monocytogenes
in two types of surfaces classically used in food industry
has been conducted by the group of Meylheuc, van Oss,
and Bellon-Fontaine (2001). The preconditioning of stain-
less steel and PTFE surfaces with a biosurfactant obtained
from Pseudomonas fluorescens inhibits the adhesion of
L. monocytogenes L028 strain. A significant reduction
(>90%) was attained in microbial adhesion levels in stain-
less steel whereas no significant effect was observed in
PTFE. Further work demonstrated that the prior adsorp-
tion of P. fluorescens surfactant in stainless steel also fa-
vored the bactericidal effect of disinfectants (Meylheuc,
Renault, & Bellon-Fontaine, 2006). The ability of ad-
sorbed biosurfactants obtained from Gram-negative
(P. fluorescens) and Gram-positive (Lactobacillus helveti-
cus) bacteria isolated from foodstuffs, in inhibiting the ad-
hesion of L. monocytogenes to stainless steel was recently
investigated. Adhesion tests showed that both biosurfac-
tants were effective by decreasing strongly the level of
contamination of the surface. The antiadhesive biologic
coating reduced either the total adhering flora and the vi-
able/cultivable adherent L. monocytogenes on stainless
steel surfaces (Meylheuc et al., 2006). Preliminary studies
regarding the corrosion effect of P. fluorescens surfactant
in stainless steel suggested that it has also a good potential
as corrosion inhibitor (Dagbert, Meylheuc, & Bellon-
Fontaine, 2006).
Considering the interesting properties demonstrated by
biosurfactants we can think on their future utilization as
multipurpose ingredients, which exhibit emulsifier, anti-
adhesive, and antimicrobial activities simultaneously and
thus, suitable for many food applications. Food processors
however, does not yet use biosurfactants on a large scale as
many regulations regarding the approval of new food ingre-
dients are required by governmental agencies, and this pro-
cess could be quite long. Nevertheless, an increasing
number of patents have been issued on biosurfactant (bio-
emulsifier) claiming their use as additives for food, cos-
metics and pharmaceutical products (Shete, Wadhawa,
Banat, & Chopade, 2006), demonstrating the crescent inter-
est in using these microbial-derived products.
Biosurfactant production from food and
agroindustrial wastes
Another interesting approach for food industries, is to
take advantage of their by-products or residues as substrates
for biosurfactant production. Currently, the main factor that
works against the widespread use of biosurfactants is the
economics of their production (Makkar & Cameotra, 2002).
An important point that should be considered for develop-
ment of cheaper processes is the selection of inexpensive
medium components which account for 10e30% of overall
costs (Cameotra & Makkar, 1998). To this end, good com-
ponents seem to be agroindustrial by-products or wastes,
once these residues generally contain high levels of carbo-
hydrates or lipids to support growth and surfactant synthe-
sis; moreover, the treatment and disposal costs for these
residues are significant to industries which are invariably
searching for alternatives to reduce, reuse, recycle and
valorize their wastes.
The advantages of wastes materials are the huge sur-
pluses and the possibility of production in regions with
temperate to tropical climates (Mercade & Manresa,
1994). Thus, the research on alternative low-cost substrates
is mainly centered on tropical agroindustrial crops and res-
idues. Some attempts at using wastes for biosurfactant pro-
duction and only a few types of surfactant produced from
wastes have been published. The main alternative sources
for biosurfactant production comprise oily residues, milk
and distillery wastes, and carbohydrate-rich residues.
Oils and fats
Most oils and fats are used in the food industry, which
generates great quantities of wastes and so, their disposal
is a growing problem. Candida antarctica and Candida api-
cola synthesized surfactants (glycolipids) in a cultivation
medium supplemented with oil refinery waste, either with
soapstock (5e12% v/v) or post-refinery fatty acids (from
2 to 5% v/v). The efficiency of glycolipids synthesis was
from 7.3 to 13.4 g/L and from 6.6 to 10.5 g/L in the me-
dium supplemented with soapstock and post-refinery fatty
acids, respectively (Bednarski, Adamczak, Tomasik, &
Plaszczyk, 2004).
 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
The meat processing industry is seeking new applica-
tions for abundantly available, inexpensive animal’s fats.
Sophorolipid production by C. bombicola was studied as
a model of fat utilization for biosurfactant production. In
a pH controlled fermenter, 120 g/L of sophorolipid was ob-
tained and the cells at the end of fermentation contained
37% of protein and 14% lipids (Deshpande & Daniels,
1995).
Frying oils is produced in large quantities for use both
in the food industry and at the domestic scale. Haba, Es-
puny, Busquets, and Manresa (2000) studied a screening
process for the selection of microorganism’s strains able
to grow on frying oils (sunflower and olive) and accumu-
late surface-active compounds in the culture media. P. aer-
uginosa 47T2 was selected, showing a final production of
rhamnolipid of 2.7 g/L and a production yield of 0.34 g
rhamnolipid/g substrate. Sunflower oil soapstock was as-
sayed as the carbon source for rhamnolipid production
by P. aeruginosa LBI strain, giving a final surfactant
concentration of 12 g/L in shaker and 16 g/L in bioreactor
experiments (Benincasa, Contiero, Manresa, & Moraes,
2002). Equally Nitschke et al. (2005) evaluated edible oil
soapstocks as alternative low-cost substrates for the pro-
duction of rhamnolipids by P. aeruginosa LBI strain.
Wastes obtained from soybean, cottonseed, babassu, palm
and corn oil refinery were tested. The soybean soapstock
waste was the best substrate, generating 11.7 g/L of rham-
nolipids and a production yield of 75%. Vegetable oils and
residues from vegetable oil refinery are among the most
used low-cost substrates for rhamnolipids production
(Nitschke et al., 2005).
Whey milk and distillery wastes
The disposal of cheese whey is a continuing and growing
problem to the dairy industry. A two-step batch cultivation
process was developed to produce sophorolipids from whey
by C. bombicola and Cryptococcus curvatus. In the first
step, C. curvatus was grown on deproteinized whey concen-
trates (DWC); the cultivation broth was disrupted with
a glass bead mill and it served a medium for growth and
sophorolipid production by C. bombicola (Daniel, Otto,
Binder, Reuss, & Syldatk, 1999).
Dubey and Juwarkar (2001) reported biosurfactant pro-
duction from synthetic medium and industrial wastes such
as distillery and whey by a sludge isolate P. aeruginosa
BS2. The wastes were good substrates for growth and pro-
liferation of bacteria and biosurfactant production in distill-
ery and whey wastes reached maximal amounts of 0.9 and
0.92 g/L, respectively, after 96 h of incubation.
Rodrigues, Moldes, Teixeira, and Oliveira (2006) per-
formed a screening for Lactobacillus strains able to produce
surfactants. The acid lactic bacteria Lactobacillus casei,
Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus pentosus and
Lactobacillus coryniformis torquens were selected as
surfactant-producing organisms with L. pentosus been
257
considered the most promising strain and whey as a poten-
tial alternative substrate.
Carbohydrate-rich residues
Fox and Bala (2000) demonstrated that potato process-
ing effluent was suitable alternative carbon source to gener-
ate surfactant from B. subtilis ATCC 21332. B. subtilis
expresses an a-amylase which permits the utilization of
a starch-rich potato waste as substrate for biosurfactant pro-
duction (Thompson, Fox, & Bala, 2000). Cassava waste-
water is a carbohydrate-rich residue generated at large
amounts during the processing of cassava flour. This resi-
due proved to be an appropriate substrate for biosurfactant
biosynthesis, providing not only bacterial growth and prod-
uct accumulation but also a surfactant that has interesting
and useful properties with potential for many industrial
applications (Nitschke & Pastore, 2003, 2004).
Molasses is a by-product of the sugar industry that is low
in price compared to other conventional sugar sources like
sucrose or glucose and is rich in other nutrients such as
minerals and vitamins (Makkar & Cameotra, 2002). Two
B. subtilis strains were able to produce lipopeptide surfac-
tants using minimal medium supplemented with molasses
as carbon source (Makkar & Cameotra, 1997). Molasses
and corn steep liquor were used as the primary carbon
and nitrogen sources for production of rhamnolipid biosur-
factants by P. aeruginosa GS3; the interfacial tension of
culture medium against crude oil was reduced from 21 to
0.47 mN/m (Patel & Desai, 1997).
Future trends
Biosurfactants show several properties which could be
useful in many fields of food industry; recently, their anti-
adhesive activity has attracted attention as a new tool to
inhibit and disrupt the biofilms formed in food contact
surfaces. The combination of particular characteristics
such as emulsifying, antiadhesive and antimicrobial activi-
ties presented by biosurfactants suggests potential applica-
tion as multipurpose ingredients or additives.
Scant information regarding toxicity, combined with
high production costs seems to be the major cause for the
limited uses of biosurfactants in food area. However, the
use of agroindustrial wastes can reduce the biosurfactants
production costs as well as the waste treatment expends,
and also renders a new alternative for food and food-related
industries not only for valorizing their wastes but also to
becoming microbial surfactant producers. Biosurfactants
obtained from GRAS microorganisms like Lactobacilli
and yeasts are of great promise for food and medicine
applications though, much more research is already required
on this field. The prospect of new types of surface-active
compounds from microorganisms can contribute for the de-
tection of different molecules in terms of structure and prop-
erties, but the toxicological aspects of new and current
biosurfactants should be emphasized in order to certify the
safe of these compounds for food utilization.
258 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
With the emphasis on the construction of a sustainable
society in harmony with the environment, the introduction
of green technology in all fields of industry is one of the
most important challenges. Considering the social and tech-
nological backgrounds, utilization of biosurfactants, which
are environmentally friendly and highly functional, have
become more and more important.
Acknowledgements
We thank Fundaç~ao de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado
de S~ao Paulo (FAPESP) for scholarship and Embrapa for
providing us the facilities for this work.
References
Abalos, A., Pinazo, A., Infante, M. R., Casals, M., Garcı́a, F., &
Manresa, A. (2001). Physicochemical and antimicrobial properties
of new rhamnolipids produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa
AT10 from soybean oil refinery wastes. Langmuir, 17(5), 1367e
1371.
Banat, I. M., Makkar, R. S., & Cameotra, S. S. (2000). Potential
commercial applications of microbial surfactants. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 53, 495e508.
Bednarski, W., Adamczak, M., Tomasik, J., & Plaszczyk, M. (2004).
Application of oil refinery waste in the biosynthesis of glycolipids
by yeast. Bioresource Technology, 95, 15e18.
Benincasa, M., Contiero, J., Manresa, M. A., & Moraes, I. O. (2002).
Rhamnolipid production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa LBI growing
on soapstock as the sole carbon source. Journal of Food
Engineering, 54, 283e288.
Besson, F., Peypoux, F., Michel, G., & Delcambe, L. (1976).
Characterization of iturin A in antibiotics from various strains of
Bacillus subtilis. Journal of Antibiotics, 29(10), 1043e1049.
Bodour, A. A., Guerrero-Barajas, C., Jiorle, B. V., Malcomson, M. E.,
Paull, A. K., Somogyi, A., et al. (2004). Structure and character-
ization of flavolipids, a novel class of biosurfactants produced by
Flavobacterium sp. strain MTN11. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 70(1), 114e120.
Busscher, H. J., van Hoogmoed, C. G., Geertsema-Doornbusch, G. I.,
van der Kuij-Booij, M., & van der Mei, H. C. (1997). Streptococcus
thermophilus and its biosurfactants inhibit adhesion by Candida
spp. on silicone rubber. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
63, 3810e3817.
Busscher, H. J., van der Kuij-Booij, M., & van der Mei, H. C. (1996).
Biosurfactants from thermophilic dairy streptococci and their
potential role in the fouling control of heat exchanger plates.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 16(1),
15e21.
Cameotra, S. S., & Makkar, R. S. (1998). Synthesis of biosurfactants in
extreme conditions. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 50,
520e529.
Cirigliano, M. C., & Carman, G. M. (1985). Purification and charac-
terization of liposan, a bioemulsifier from Candida lipolytica.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 50, 846e850.
Cooper, D. G., MacDonald, C. R., Duff, S. J. B., & Kosaric, N. (1981).
Enhanced production of surfactin from B. subtilis by continuous
product removal and metal cation additions. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 42, 408e412.
Cooper, D. G., & Paddock, D. A. (1984). Production of a biosurfactant
from Torulopsis bombicola. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 47, 173e176.
Dagbert, C., Meylheuc, T., & Bellon-Fontaine, M. N. (2006). Corrosion
behavior of AISI 304 stainless steel in presence of a biosurfactant
produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens. Electrochimica Acta, 51,
5221e5227.
Daniel, H. J., Otto, R. T., Binder, M., Reuss, M., & Syldatk, C. (1999).
Production of sophorolipids of whey: development of a two-stage
process with Cryptococcus curvatus ATCC 20509 and Candida
bombicola ATCC 22214 using deproteinized whey concentrates
as substrates. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 51,
40e45.
Deleu, M., & Paquot, M. (2004). From renewable vegetables resources
to microorganisms: new trends in surfactants. Comptes Rendus
Chimie, 7, 641e646.
Desai, J. D., & Banat, I. M. (1997). Microbial production of surfactants
and their commercial potential. Microbiological Molecular
Reviews, 61, 47e64.
Deshpande, M., & Daniels, L. (1995). Evaluation of sophorolipid
biosurfactant production by Candida bombicola using animal fat.
Bioresource Technology, 54, 143e150.
Dubey, K., & Juwarkar, A. (2001). Distillery and curd whey wastes as
viable alternative sources for biosurfactant production. World
Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 17, 61e69.
Edwards, K. R., Lepo, J. E., & Lewis, M. A. (2003). Toxicity comparison
of biosurfactants and synthetic surfactants used in oil spill
remediation to two estuarine species. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
46(10), 1309e1316.
Flasz, A., Rocha, C. A., Mosquera, B., & Sajo, C. (1998). A
comparative study of the toxicity of a synthetic surfactant and one
produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 55925. Medical
Science Research, 26(3), 181e185.
Fox, S. L., & Bala, G. A. (2000). Production of surfactant from Bacillus
subtilis ATCC 21332 using potato substrates. Bioresource
Technology, 75, 235e240.
Gan, B. S., Kim, J., Reid, G., Cadieux, P., & Howard, J. C. (2002).
Lactobacillus fermentum RC-14 inhibits Staphylococcus aureus
infection of surgical implants in rats. Journal of Infectious Diseases,
185(9), 1369e1372.
Haba, E., Espuny, M. J., Busquets, M., & Manresa, A. (2000).
Screening and production of rhamnolipids by Pseudomonas
aeruginosa 47T2 NCBI 40044 from waste frying oils. Journal of
Applied Microbiology, 88, 379e387.
Hood, S. K., & Zottola, E. A. (1995). Biofilms in food processing. Food
Control, 6(1), 9e18.
Irie, Y., O’Toole, G. A., & Yuk, M. H. (2005). Pseudomonas aeruginosa
rhamnolipids disperse Bordetella bronchiseptica biofilms. FEMS
Microbiology Letters, 250, 237e243.
Iyer, A., Mody, K., & Jha, B. (2006). Emulsifying properties of a marine
bacterial exopolysaccharide. Enzyme and Microbial Technology,
38, 220e222.
Kachholz, T., & Schlingmann, M. (1987). Possible food and
agricultural applications of microbial surfactants: an assessment.
In N. Kosaric, W. L. Carns, & N. C. C. Gray (Eds.), Biosurfactants
and biotechnology (pp. 183e210). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Kitamoto, D., Yanagishita, H., Shinbo, T., Nakane, T., Kamisawa, C., &
Nakahara, T. (1993). Surface active properties and antimicrobial
activities of mannosylerythritol lipids as biosurfactants
produced by Candida antarctica. Journal of Biotechnology,
29, 91e96.
Klich, M. A., Arthur, K. S., Lax, A. R., & Bland, J. M. (1994). Iturin A:
a potential new fungicide for stored grains. Mycopathologia,
127(2), 123e127.
Kosaric, N. (2001). Biosurfactants and their application for soil bio-
remediation. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 39(4), 295e304.
Linhardt, R. J., Bakhit, R., Daniels, L., Mayerl, F., & Pickenhagen, W.
(1989). Microbially produced rhamnolipid as a source of
rhamnose. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 33, 365e368.
Lukondeh, T., Ashbolh, N. J., & Rogers, P. L. (2003). Evaluation of
Kluyveromyces marxianus FII 510700 grown on a lactose-based
 M. Nitschke, S.G.V.A.O. Costa / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 252e259
medium as a source of natural bioemulsifier. Journal of Industrial
Microbiology & Biotechnology, 30, 715e720.
Makkar, R. S., & Cameotra, S. S. (1997). Utilization of molasses for
biosurfactant production by two Bacillus strains at thermophilic
conditions. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 74,
887e889.
Makkar, R. S., & Cameotra, S. S. (2002). An update to the use of
unconventional substrates for biosurfactant production and their
new applications. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 58,
428e434.
McInerney, M. J., Javaheri, M., & Nagle, D. P. (1990). Properties of the
biosurfactant produced by Bacillus liqueniformis strain JF-2.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 5,
95e102.
Mercade, M. E., & Manresa, M. A. (1994). The use of agroindustrial
by-products for biosurfactant production. Journal of the American
Oil Chemists’ Society, 71, 61e64.
Meylheuc, T., Methivier, C., Renault, M., Herry, J. M., Pradier, C. M., &
Bellon-Fontaine, M. N. (2006). Adsorption on stainless steel
surfaces of biosurfactants produced by gram-negative and
gram-positive bacteria: consequence on the bioadhesive behaviour
of Listeria monocytogenes. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces,
52, 128e137.
Meylheuc, T., Renault, M., & Bellon-Fontaine, M. N. (2006).
Adsorption of a biosurfactant on surfaces to enhance the
disinfection of surfaces contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 109, 71e78.
Meylheuc, T., van Oss, C. J., & Bellon-Fontaine, M. N. (2001).
Adsorption of biosurfactant on solid surfaces and consequences
regarding the bioadhesion of Listeria monocytogenes LO 28.
Journal of Applied Microbiology, 91, 822e832.
Mireles II, J. P., Toguchi, A., & Harshey, R. M. (2001). Salmonella
enterica serovar typhimurium swarming mutants with altered
biofilm-forming abilities: surfactin inhibits biofilm formation.
Journal of Bacteriology, 183(20), 5848e5854.
Mohan, P. K., Nakhla, G., & Yanful, E. K. (2006). Biokinetics of
biodegradability of surfactants under aerobic, anoxic and
anaerobic conditions. Water Research, 40, 533e540.
Mulligan, C. N. (2005). Environmental applications for biosurfactants.
Environmental Pollution, 133, 183e198.
Nitschke, M., Costa, S. G. V. A. O., & Contiero, J. (2005). Rhamnolipid
surfactants: an update on the general aspects of these remarkable
biomolecules. Biotechnology Progress, 21(6), 1593e1600.
Nitschke, M., Costa, S. G. V. A. O., Haddad, R., Gonçalves, L. A. G.,
Eberlin, M. N., & Contiero, J. (2005). Oil wastes as unconven-
tional substrates for rhamnolipid biosurfactant production by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa LBI. Biotechnology Progress, 21(5),
1562e1566.
Nitschke, M., & Pastore, G. M. (2003). Cassava flour wastewater as
a substrate for biosurfactant production. Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology, 105e108, 295e301.
Nitschke, M., & Pastore, G. M. (2004). Biosurfactant production by
Bacillus subtilis using cassava processing effluent. Applied
Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 112, 163e172.
Nitschke, M., & Pastore, G. M. (2006). Production and properties of
a surfactant obtained from Bacillus subtilis grown on cassava
wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 97, 336e341.
Patel, R. M., & Desai, A. J. (1997). Biosurfactant production by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa GS3 from molasses. Letters in Applied
Microbiology, 25, 91e94.
Poremba, K., Gunkel, W., Lang, S., & Wagner, F. (1991a). Marine bio-
surfactants, III. Toxicity testing with marine microorganisms and
comparison with synthetic surfactants. Zeitschrift fur
Naturforschung, 46, 210e216.
259
Poremba, K., Gunkel, W., Lang, S., & Wagner, F. (1991b). Toxicity
testing of synthetic and biogenic surfactants on marine microor-
ganisms. Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality, 6(2),
157e163.
Pruthi, V., & Cameotra, S. S. (1997). Production, properties of a
biosurfactant synthesized by Arthrobacter protophormiae e an
Antartic strain. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology,
13, 137e139.
Rodrigues, L., Banat, I. M., Teixeira, J., & Oliveira, R. (2006).
Biosurfactants: potential applications in medicine. Journal of
Antimicrobial and Chemotherapy, 57(4), 609e618.
Rodrigues, L., Moldes, A., Teixeira, J., & Oliveira, R. (2006). Kinetic
study of fermentative biosurfactant production by Lactobacillus
strains. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 28, 109e116.
Rodrigues, L. R., Banat, I. M., van der Mei, H. C., Teixeira, J. A., &
Oliveira, R. (2006). Interference in adhesion of bacteria and yeasts
isolated from explanted voice prostheses to silicone rubber by
rhamnolipid biosurfactants. Journal of Applied Microbiology,
100(3), 470e480.
Rosenberg, E., & Ron, E. Z. (1999). High- and low-molecular-mass
microbial surfactants. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,
52, 154e162.
Shepherd, R., Rockey, J., Sutherland, I. W., & Roller, S. (1995). Novel
bioemulsifiers from microorganisms for use in foods. Journal of
Biotechnology, 40, 207e217.
Shete, A. M., Wadhawa, G., Banat, I. M., & Chopade, B. A. (2006).
Mapping of patents on bioemulsifier and biosurfactant: a
review. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 65(2),
91e115.
Singh, P., & Cameotra, S. S. (2004). Potential applications of microbial
surfactants in biomedical sciences. Trends in Biotechnology, 22(3),
142e146.
Syldatk, C., Lang, S., & Wagner, F. (1985). Chemical and physical
characterization of four interfacial-active rhamnolipids from
Pseudomonas sp. DSM 2874 grown on alkanes. Zeitschrift fur
Naturforschung C, 40, 51e60.
Thompson, D. N., Fox, S. L., & Bala, G. A. (2000). Biosurfactants from
potato process effluents. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology,
84e86, 917e929.
Van Haesendonck, I. P. H., & Vanzeveren, E. C. A. (2004). Rhamno-
lipids in bakery products. W.O. 2004/040984, International
application patent (PCT).
Velikonja, J., & Kosaric, N. (1993). Biosurfactants in food applications.
In N. Kosaric (Ed.), Biosurfactants: Production, properties and
applications (pp. 419e446). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Velraeds, M. M. C., van der Mei, H. C., Reid, G., & Busscher, H. J.
(1996). Inhibition of initial adhesion of uropathogenic
Enterococcus faecalis by biosurfactants from Lactobacillus
isolates. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 62(6), 1958e
1963.
Vollenbroich, D., Özel, M., Vater, J., Kamp, R. M., & Pauli, G.
(1997). Mechanism of inactivation of enveloped viruses by the
biosurfactant surfactin from Bacillus subtilis. Biologicals, 25(3),
289e297.
Wang, X., Gong, L., Liang, S., Han, X., Zhu, C., & Li, Y. (2005).
Algicidal activity of rhamnolipid biosurfactants produced by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Harmful Algae, 4, 433e443.
Yoo, D. S., Lee, B. S., & Kim, E. K. (2005). Characteristics of microbial
biosurfactant as an antifungal agent against plant pathogenic
fungus. Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 15(6), 1164e
1169.
Zottola, E. A. (1994). Microbial attachment and biofilm formation:
a new problem in the food industry? Food Technology, 48,
107e114.