4.4 Article

Eucalyptus globulus Stumps Bark: Chemical and Anatomical Characterization Under a Valorisation Perspective

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 1253-1265

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-020-01098-y

关键词

Eucalypt; Stumps; Lignin; Industrial residues; Extractives; Biorefinery

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [UIDB/00239/2020, DL 57/2016/CP1382/CT0007]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [DL 57/2016/CP1382/CT0007] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that industrial stump bark has higher ash content, while fresh stump bark contains more extractives, lignin, and polysaccharides. In addition, eucalyptus stump bark also contains abundant fatty acids, phytosterols, and phenolic compounds, with antioxidant activity.
The chemical and anatomical properties of Eucalyptus globulus stumps barks collected from fresh stumps (SB) and from industrial stumps bark piles (ISB) were determined. The stump bark showed similar anatomical structure to that of the stem bark, however with abundant prismatic crystals in the axial parenchyma cells. Stumps barks (ISB) presented a great amount of ashes (19.2%) that were incorporated during forest and mill processing, and lower content in extractives (4.1%), lignin (18.5%) and polysaccharides (48.5%). The non-polar (DCM) extracts were composed essentially by triterpenoids, fatty acids (C-8 to C-28), phytosterols (sterols and steroid ketones) and fatty alcohols (C-15 to C-28). The polar extracts (ethanol and water) were rich in phenolic compounds, condensed tannins and flavonoids, with higher values for the ethanol extracts and for SB. The antioxidant activity of ethanol extracts from SB was higher although only moderate (IC50 6.8). The lignin monomeric composition (H:G:S) was similar in SB (1:12:45) and in ISB (1:9:26). Sugar-derived compounds formed by Py-GC/MS included more low molecular compounds in ISB than in SB (45.5% vs.20.3%) indicative of a more degraded structure. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.4
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