4.2 Article

Characterization of lignocellulose of Erianthus arundinaceus in relation to enzymatic saccharification efficiency

期刊

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 25-35

出版社

JAPANESE SOC PLANT CELL & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.12.1127a

关键词

Enzymatic saccharification; Erianthus arundinaceus; lignin; lignocellulose

资金

  1. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO)
  2. Japan Society for Promotion of Science [20380102, 23658144]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20380102] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lignin is a major component of the secondary cell walls of vascular plants, and an obstacle in the conversion of plant cell wall polysaccharides into biofuels. Erianthus spp. are large gramineous plants of interest as potential energy sources. However, lignocelluloses of Erianthus spp. have not been chemically characterized. In this study, we analysed lignins, related compounds, enzymatic saccharification efficiencies, and minerals in the ash of the inner and outer parts of the internode, leaf blade and leaf sheath of Erianthus arundinaceus. Lignins in four organs consisted of guaiacyl, syringyl, and p-hydroxyphenyl units. The ratios of syringyl to guaiacyl lignins and lignin contents ranged from 0.43 to 0.79 and 20 to 28%, respectively, with values highest in the outer part of the internode. The amounts of ferulic acid were similar (7.3-11.8 mg g(-1) dry weight of cell-wall material) in all four organs, while there was more p-coumaric acid in the inner part of the internode (44.7 mg g(-1) dry weight of cell-wall material) than in other organs (25.7-28.8 mg g(-1) dry weight of cell-wall material). The enzymatic saccharification efficiency (24 h reaction time) of the leaf blade was 21.6%, while those of the other organs ranged from 10.0 to 15.2%. The leaf blade had the highest ash content (17.1%); the main inorganic element was silicon. This paper provides the first fundamental knowledge of E. arundinaceus lignins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据