4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Hydrogen production by Clostridium thermocellum 27405 from cellulosic biomass substrates

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1496-1503

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.06.015

关键词

Clostridium thermocellum; biohydrogen; dark fermentation; cellulose; cellobiose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen (H(2)) and end-product synthesis by Clostridium thermocellum were investigated in batch cultures using cellulosic sources (a-cellulose, shredded filter paper, and delignified wood fibers (DLWs)) and cellobiose at low (0.1 g l(-1)), medium (1.1 g l(-1)), and high (4.5 g l(-1)) added substrate concentrations. Cellulosic substrates produced higher total amounts of H(2) in high substrate concentration cultures, but better H(2) yields at both low and medium substrate concentrations. DLW was shown to be an effective substrate providing an average yield of 1.6 mol H(2) mol(-1) glucose. Acetate, ethanol, lactate, and formate were the primary fermentation end products. Acetate yields per mole hexose were highest in low substrate concentration cultures and yields shifted toward increased lactate at high substrate concentrations. On average, the ratio of acetate to ethanol (4:3) stayed roughly constant under all growth conditions tested, while lactate, which was a minor product at the end of fermentation under low and medium sugar concentrations, represented > 30% of the organic end products at the end of the fermentation in the presence of high levels of substrate. Since these were unstirred cultures, development of H(2) supersaturation may help explain this shift. At low and medium substrate concentrations, H(2) production and yields were similar or greater in cultures containing cellulosic substrates compared with cellobiose. Overall, delignified wood was found to be the best candidate for H(2) production. (c) 2006 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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