4.4 Article

Pretreatment of Sugarcane Bagasse from Cane Hybrids: Effects on Chemical Composition and 2G Sugars Recovery

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 1561-1570

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-017-0162-0

关键词

Sugarcane hybrids; Biomass characterization; Bagasse pretreatment; Enzymatic hydrolysis; Cellulosic sugars

资金

  1. University of Sao Paulo (USP)-Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) via USP-CAPES program
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP-BIOEN) [BIOEN: 08/57926-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell wall composition in lignocellulosic biomass varies depending on genetic origin, growth conditions, weather and soil conditions. Here, we have evaluated the chemical characterization, morphology and enzymatic hydrolysis efficiencies (after sequential dilute acid-base pretreatment) of sugarcane bagasse from five different hybrid varieties of sugarcane. On average, bagasse samples showed cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and ash compositions of 40.84, 24.07, 33.71 and 0.68%, respectively. Sequential acid-base pretreatment removed approximately 77 and 58% hemicellulose and lignin, respectively, leaving pulp samples rich in cellulose (up to 80%), which exhibited a maximum saccharification yields of 55.39% after enzymatic hydrolysis. We found average contents of cellulose (54.17 and 77.48%), hemicellulose (5.64 and 6.07%), lignin (37.28 and 15.40%) and ash (0.54 and 0.32%) in cellulignin and cellulosic pulp, respectively. Results showed that the genetic variability of sugarcane had no influence on the chemical composition and sugar recovery after saccharification of bagasse samples. Therefore, sugarcane bagasse from these new sugarcane varieties samples may be used for second generation sugars production. Cellulosic sugars may serve as primary building block for renewable fuels and chemicals production at commercial scale under biorefinery concept.

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