4.6 Article

Novel Single-step Pretreatment of Steam Explosion and Choline Chloride to De-lignify Corn Stover for Enhancing Enzymatic Edibility

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 273-281

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2020.04.036

关键词

Choline chloride; Enzymatic Edibility; Steam explosion; Untreated Corn Stover

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFB1503800]
  2. Transformational Technologies for Clean Energy and Demonstration (Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) [XDA 21060300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is important to develop efficient and economically feasible pretreatment methods for lignocellulosic biomass, to increase annual biomass production. A number of pretreatment methods were introduced to promote subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass for green energy processes. Pretreatment with steam explosion removes the only xylan at high severity but increases lignin content. In this study, corn stover soaked in choline chloride solution before the steam explosion is economically feasible as it reduced cost. Enzymatic hydrolysis of delignified corn stover is enhanced by combinatorial pretreatments of steam explosion and choline chloride. Corn stover pretreated with choline chloride at the ratio of 1:2.2 (w/w), 1.0 MPa, 184 degrees C, for 15 min efficiently expelled 84.7% lignin and 78.9% xylan. The residual solid comprised of 74.59% glucan and 7.51% xylan was changed to 84.2% glucose and 78.3% xylose with enzyme stacking of 10FPU/g. This single-step pretreatment had similar to 4.5 and 6.4 times higher glucose yield than SE-pretreated and untreated corn stover, respectively. Furthermore, SEM, XRD and FTIR indicated the porosity, crystalline changes, methoxy bond-cleavage respectively due to the lignin and hemicellulose expulsion. Thus, the released acetic acid during this process introduced this novel strategy, which significantly builds the viability of biomass in short pretreatment time.

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