4.8 Article

An In-Depth Understanding of Biomass Recalcitrance Using Natural Poplar Variants as the Feedstock

期刊

CHEMSUSCHEM
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 139-150

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cssc.201601303

关键词

biomass recalcitrance; cellulose; crystallinity; degree of polymerization; lignin

资金

  1. UT-Battelle, LLC [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy
  3. Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the DOE Office of Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In an effort to better understand the biomass recalcitrance, six natural poplar variants were selected as feedstocks based on previous sugar release analysis. Compositional analysis and physicochemical characterizations of these poplars were performed and the correlations between these physicochemical properties and enzymatic hydrolysis yield were investigated. Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) and C-13 solid state NMR were used to determine the degree of polymerization (DP) and crystallinity index (CrI) of cellulose, and the results along with the sugar release study indicated that cellulose DP likely played a more important role in enzymatic hydrolysis. Simons' stain revealed that the accessible surface area of substrate significantly varied among these variants from 17.3 to 33.2 mg g(biomass)(-1) as reflected by dye adsorption, and cellulose accessibility was shown as one of the major factors governing substrates digestibility. HSQC and P-31 NMR analysis detailed the structural features of poplar lignin variants. Overall, cellulose relevant factors appeared to have a stronger correlation with glucose release, if any, than lignin structural features. Lignin structural features, such as a phenolic hydroxyl group and the ratio of syringyl and guaiacyl (S/G), were found to have a more convincing impact on xylose release. Low lignin content, low cellulose DP, and high cellulose accessibility generally favor enzymatic hydrolysis; however, recalcitrance cannot be simply judged on any single substrate factor.

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