4.6 Article

Using low temperature to balance enzymatic saccharification and furan formation during SPORL pretreatment of Douglas-fir

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 466-473

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2013.12.017

关键词

Low temperature pretreatment; Enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification; Sugar degradation/inhibitor formation; Kinetics; Combined severity/hydrolysis factor; Woody biomass

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) [2011-68005-30416]
  2. USDA NIFA
  3. Chinese Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparing analytical results for Sulfite Pretreatment to Overcome the Recalcitrance of Lignocelluloses (SPORL) of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) at two different temperatures shows that the apparent activation energy of sugar degradation is higher than that of hemicellulose hydrolysis, approximately 161 kJ/mole versus 100 kJ/mole. Thus, one can balance the production of degradation products against hemicellulose hydrolysis and therefore the enzymatic saccharification efficiency of the resultant substrate by changing pretreatment temperature and duration. Specifically, pretreatment at 165 degrees C for 75 min significantly reduced furan formation compared with the pretreatment at 180 degrees C for 30 min while maintaining the same pretreatment severity and therefore the same substrate enzymatic digestibility (SED). Obtaining high SED with Douglas-fir is also limited by lignin content. Fortunately, the bisulfite in SPORL provides delignification activity. By combining kinetic models for hemicelluloses hydrolysis, sugar degradation, and delignification, the performance of pretreatment can be optimized with respect to temperature, duration, acid, and bisulfite loading. The kinetic approach taken in this study is effective to design viable low temperature pretreatment processes for effective bioconversion of lignocelluloses. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.6
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