4.8 Article

Tween-80 is effective for enhancing steam-exploded biomass enzymatic saccharification and ethanol production by specifically lessening cellulase absorption with lignin in common reed

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 175, 期 -, 页码 82-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.104

关键词

Reed; Steam explosion; Biomass saccharification; Tween-80; Cellulose features; Ethanol production

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universitiesn of China [2662015PY018]
  2. 111 Project of Ministry of Education of China [B08032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, eight physical and chemical pretreatments were compared in terms of their enhancements on biomass enzymatic saccharification in reed. Despite 8% NaOH pretreatment could result in 100% biomass enzymatic digestion while co-supplied with 1% Tween-80, it only produced bioethanol at 10% (% dry matter). By comparison, 10% Cab pretreatment with Tween-80 is a relatively low-cost biomass conversion with ethanol yield at 12%. Notably, the steam-explosion pretreatment with 1% Tween-80 could cause a complete biomass enzymatic hydrolysis with bioethanol yield at 17%. The sequential 5% CaO pretreatment with the steam-exploded residues could lead to the highest ethanol yield at 19% with an almost complete sugar-ethanol conversion rate. Due to much low-DP cellulose and less noncellulosic polymers (lignin, hemicelluloses) that increase biomass surfaces, the steam-exploded residues were specifically effective for Tween-80 either to block lignin absorbing with cellulases or to disassociate hemicelluloses, leading to an efficient lignocellulose enzymatic digestion. Compared with previously reported pretreatments in other C4-grasses (Miscanthus, corn, sweet sorghum, switchgrass), to our knowledge, this study has therefore provided three more applicable approaches for high ethanol production with relatively low cost, less contaminate release and efficient biomass conversion rates in reed. (C) 2016 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

4.8
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