4.7 Article

Utilization of agricultural residues for enhancement of cellulolytic enzyme production and enzymatic saccharification by Trichoderma harzianum KUC1716

Journal

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages 185-191

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.08.042

Keywords

Agricultural residue; Cellulase; Hydrolysis; Optimization; Response surface methodology (RSM); Trichoderma harzianum

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2017R1A2B4002071]
  2. project on survey and excavation of Korean indigenous species of National Institute of Biological Resources under the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea [NIBR 201701104]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Agricultural residues are a potentially economical and eco-friendly source for second -generation ethanol production. In the present study, efficient cellulolytic enzyme production was studied using agricultural residues as a carbon source. Four types of agricultural residues were evaluated as carbon sources for Trichoderma harzianum KUC1716. Barley straw was identified as the optimal carbon source for the fungus such that the highest enzyme activity occurred in these cultures compared to cultures that used empty fruit bunches (EFB), miscanthus, or rice straw sources. T. harzianum KUC1716 produced high levels of filter paperase (FPase) and cellobiohydrolase (CBH) under optimized medium conditions when a central composite design and response surface methodology were used. Furthermore, T. harzicmum KUC1716 fungal enzymes exhibited a significant hydrolysis yield for various types of agricultural residues compared to a commercial enzyme. Our study demonstrates that utilization of agricultural residues for both enzyme production and enzymatic saccharification will contribute to an increase in economical and eco-friendly production of biofuels and bio-based products.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available