4.7 Article

Towards a multi-scale understanding of dilute hydrochloric acid and mild 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate pretreatment for improving enzymatic hydrolysis of poplar wood

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 123-131

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.02.007

关键词

Populus nigra; Dilute acid pretreatment; Mild ionic liquids pretreatment; Enzymatic hydrolysis; Morphology; Topochemistry

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016 YFD 0600803]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sole pretreatment methods always have limitations in improving enzymatic hydrolysis of wood due to the multi scale biomass recalcitrance. Herein, dilute acid pretreatment (DAP) with 2% hydrochloric acid at 160 degrees C and mild ionic liquid pretreatment (MILP) with 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate at 90 degrees C were combined to increase cellulose accessibility in poplar wood. Additionally, the compositional, structural, and topochemical changes of wood during pretreatment and their effect on cellulose digestibility were comprehensively investigated and well understood. The sequential DAP and then MILP led to the highest yield of fermentable sugar (87.15%) after 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis when compared with the sole pretreatments and the sequential MILP and then DAP (21.31-73.64%). We suggested that the significant hemicellulose removal and cell wall deconstruction during first-step DAP exposed more cellulose fibrils to ionic liquid, thereby improving the efficacy of subsequent MILP to delignify wood and change cellulose crystal structure. The considerable removal of both hemicellulose and lignin, the damage of wood structure, and the crystal transformation from cellulose I to cellulose II dramatically improved the enzymatic hydrolysis of the DA + MIL sample. This study provides a better understanding of decomposition mechanism of cell walls during DAP and MILP, which can offer valuable insights into the development of promising pretreatment strategies.

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

4.7
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