4.5 Article

High-throughput Analysis of Softwood Lignin Using Tetra-n-butylphosphonium Hydroxide (TBPH)

期刊

BIORESOURCES
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 9396-9406

出版社

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV DEPT WOOD & PAPER SCI
DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.4.9396-9406

关键词

Aqueous ionic liquid; Tetra-n-butylphosphonium hydroxide; Softwood; Lignin; Cellulose; Multi-sample analysis

资金

  1. SIP-Lignin project, technologies for creating next-generation agriculture forestry and fisheries cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program (SIP)
  2. Science and Technology Research Promotion Program for Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Food Industry [26052A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors developed a high-throughput method for analyzing softwood lignin using tetra-n-butylphosphonium hydroxide (TBPH). Wood meal, TBPH, and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) were introduced into a screw-capped glass test tube and allowed to react in a pressure cooker at 121 degrees C for 3 h to solubilize the wood meal. The solubilized polysaccharide was precipitated by the addition of a poor solvent such as methanol. After removal of the polysaccharide, the lignin concentration was measured via ultra-violet (UV) absorption spectroscopy. The series of operations performed was summarized as the TBPH method. The TBPH method was characterized as a simple and rapid procedure that used common equipment and was suitable for multiple-sample analysis. Softwood sample groups were prepared, and the lignin contents of these samples were measured by the TBPH method, the Klason method, and the acetyl bromide method to determine the accuracy of the proposed method. The TBPH method showed a high coefficient of determination (R-2 = 0.94) when compared to the Klason method. By contrast, the acetyl bromide method showed a comparatively low correlation (R-2 = 0.71) with the Klason method. This study revealed that the TBPH method presented high-throughput rapid analysis and good accuracy for soft wood lignin analysis.

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