4.5 Article

Strategies for Fermentable Sugar Production by Using Pressurized Acid Hydrolysis for Rice Husks

期刊

RICE SCIENCE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 319-330

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2019.08.006

关键词

biorefinery; multivariate design; pressurized acid hydrolysis; rice husk; sugar

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council of Technological and Scientific Development
  2. Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio Grande do Sul [001897-25.51/13S-I4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the use of leftover biomass (rice husks) as the raw material for the biotechnological production of platform chemicals and biopolymers. Following the biorefinery concept, different acid hydrolysates were studied and resulted into a wide range of treatment strategies. Chemometrics were applied throughout the procedures in multivariate experimental conditions. By using the best hydrolytic conditions of 6.0% H3PO4, 135 degrees C (45 MPa) and reaction time of 62 min, 21.0 g/L sugar hydrolysates were produced; by using the best hydrolytic condition of 4.5% HNO3, 135 degrees C/35 min, 16.1 g/L sugar hydrolysates were produced; and with the hydrolysates use of 1.5% H2SO4 and 1.5% HCl, 135 degrees C/62 min, 18.2 and 17.8 g/L sugar hydrolysates were produced, respectively. The highest productivity, in terms of fermentable sugars, reached 68% of integral cellulose/hemicellulose fraction and surpassed those found in the literature, with regard to the processing of rice husks, by considering just one step process. Sulfuric hydrolysate, detoxified with active carbon, was used to prove this proposal viability, resulting in a fermentation substrate for A. terreus (ATCC10020) and R. radiobacter (LMG196) strains (natural producers of bioproducts), which certified the feasibility of the proposal. The production of fermentable sugars from leftover biomass should encourage a search for new bioconversion routes, which can result in economic and environmental benefits and a spread of knowledge.

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

4.5
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