4.5 Article

Comparing the Recalcitrance of Eucalyptus, Pine, and Switchgrass Using Ionic Liquid and Dilute Acid Pretreatments

期刊

BIOENERGY RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 14-23

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12155-012-9220-4

关键词

Pine; Eucalyptus; Switchgrass; Ionic liquid; Dilute acid; Enzymatic saccharification

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research between Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pine, eucalyptus, and switchgrass were evaluated for the production of fermentable sugars via ionic liquid and dilute acid pretreatments and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. The results show that among the three feedstocks, switchgrass has the highest sugar yields and faster hydrolysis rates for both pretreatment technologies by achieving 48 (dilute acid) and 96 % (ionic liquid) sugar yields after 24 h. Of the two wood species, eucalyptus has a higher and faster sugar recovery after ionic liquid pretreatment than pine (93 vs. 62 % in 24 h) under 160 A degrees C for 3 h with [C(2)mim][OAc]. Pretreatment of pine and eucalyptus is observed to be ineffective under 1.2 % dilute acid condition and 160 A degrees C for 15 min, indicating that further enhancement of reaction temperature or acid concentration is necessary to increase the digestibility of pretreated materials. Raman spectroscopy data show that the extent of lignin depolymerization that occurs during pretreatment also varies for the three different feedstocks. Under similar hemicellulose removal conditions, lignin removal in ionic liquid pretreatment can help improve cellulose conversion. This finding may help explain the observed variation in the saccharification yields and kinetics. These results indicate that ionic liquid pretreatment not only improved saccharification over dilute acid for all three feedstocks but also better dealt with the differences among them, suggesting better tolerance to feedstock variability.

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