4.4 Article

Optimizing Dilute-Acid Pretreatment of Rapeseed Straw for Extraction of Hemicellulose

Journal

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 161, Issue 1-8, Pages 22-33

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-009-8898-z

Keywords

Rapeseed straw; Response surface methodology (RSM); Sulfuric acid; Pretreatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biological conversion of biomass into fuels and chemicals requires hydrolysis of the polysaccharide fraction into monomeric sugars prior to fermentation. Hydrolysis can be performed enzymatically or with mineral acids. In this study, dilute sulfuric acid was used as a catalyst for the pretreatment of rapeseed straw. The purpose of this study is to optimize the pretreatment process in a 15-mL bomb tube reactor and investigate the effects of the acid concentration, temperature, and reaction time. These parameters influence hemicellulose removal and production of sugars (xylose, glucose, and arabinose) in the hydrolyzate as well as the formation of by-products (furfural, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, and acetic acid). Statistical analysis was based on a model composition corresponding to a 3(3) orthogonal factorial design and employed the response surface methodology to optimize the pretreatment conditions, aiming to attain maximum xylan, mannan, and galactan (XMG) extraction from hemicellulose of rapeseed straw. The obtained optimum conditions were: H2SO4 concentration of 1.76% and temperature of 152.6 A degrees C with a reaction time of 21 min. Under these optimal conditions, 85.5% of the total sugar was recovered after acid hydrolysis (78.9% XMG and 6.6% glucan). The hydrolyzate contained 1.60 g/L glucose, 0.61 g/L arabinose, 10.49 g/L xylose, mannose, and galactose, 0.39 g/L cellobiose, 0.94 g/L fructose, 0.02 g/L 1,6-anhydro-glucose, 1.17 g/L formic acid, 2.94 g/L acetic acid, 0.04 g/L levulinic acid, 0.04 g/L 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, and 0.98 g/L furfural.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available