4.7 Article

Oxidative depolymerization potential of biorefinery lignin obtained by ionic liquid pretreatment and subsequent enzymatic saccharification of eucalyptus

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 457-461

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.10.056

关键词

Ionic liquid pretreatment; Enzymatic saccharification; Lignin; Oxidative depolymerization; Vanillin; Syringaldehyde

资金

  1. Advanced Low Carbon Technology Research and Development Program (ALCA) from Japan Science and Technology Agency [2100040]
  2. Center of Innovation Science and Technology based Radical Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program (COIstream) from the Japan Science and Technology Agency
  3. Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program (SIP) from Japan Science and Technology Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the oxidative depolymerization potential between ionic liquid (IL)-pretreated/enzyme lignin, diluted acid (DA)-pretreated/enzyme lignin, and soda lignin of eucalyptus, by means of alkaline nitrobenzene or cupric oxide (CuO) oxidation which depolymerize lignin into phenolic aldehydes such as vanillin and syringaldehyde. Here, the IL-pretreated/enzyme lignin was prepared by 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate pretreatment and subsequent enzymatic saccharification. Upon the oxidative depolymerization of lignin sample by alkaline nitrobenzene oxidation, total yield of vanillin and syringaldehyde was 36.6% for untreated control eucalyptus. In contrast, the yield was enhanced upto 48.0% for IL-pretreated/enzyme lignin. As for the soda lignin prepared by alkali cooking, the yield was 29.0%. As for the DA-pretreated/enzyme lignin prepared by DA pretreatment and subsequent enzymatic saccharification, the yield was 39.5%. Therefore, it was found that the IL-pretreated/enzyme lignin showed the highest yield of phenolic aldehydes (vanillin and syringaldehyde) via alkaline oxidation, namely, highest oxidative depolymerization potential among the lignin tested.

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