4.8 Article

Elucidating the inhibiting mechanism of pseudo-lignin on the enzymatic digestibility of cellulose by surface plasmon resonance

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 370, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128510

关键词

Pseudo-lignin; Holocellulose; Dilute acid pretreatment; Enzymatic digestibility; Surface plasmon resonance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the interaction mechanism between pseudo-lignin (PL) and cellulase, as well as its impact on cellulose hydrolysis. PLs were extracted from pretreated bamboo holocellulose (HC) using different organic solvents, and the real-time interaction of PL and cellulase was analyzed using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). The results demonstrated that the extraction effect of tetrahydrofuran and 1,4-dioxane/water solution on PL was more effective than ethanol/water solution. Furthermore, PL obtained from higher temperature pretreatment had a lower dissociation rate after adsorption with cellulase.
To explore the interaction mechanism of pseudo-lignin (PL) with cellulase and its influence on cellulose hy-drolysis, different PLs were extracted from pretreated bamboo holocellulose (HC) using different organic sol-vents. Meanwhile, the real-time interaction of PL and cellulase was analyzed using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). The results showed that the extraction effect of the tetrahydrofuran and 1, 4-dioxane/water solution on PL was more effective than the ethanol/water solution. The inhibition of PL fraction obtained from HC by acid pretreatment with higher temperature showed less effect on Avicel's enzymatic hydrolysis. SPR analysis revealed that PL formed at higher pretreatment temperature had a lower dissociation rate after adsorption with cellulase. Besides, the binding affinity of PL (160 degrees C) to cellulase was much greater than that of PL obtained from 180 degrees C, indicating PL extracted at higher temperature treated biomass is more easily dissociated from cellulase after binding.

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