4.7 Article

Comparative study of alkaline extraction process of hemicelluloses from pear pomace

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 254-264

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.12.022

关键词

Pear pomace; Alkaline extraction; Hemicelluloses; Value-addition; Delignification; Cellulose

资金

  1. Walloon Region of Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hemicelluloses were produced from pear pomace using direct alkaline extraction (sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide) and two-step extraction with delignification pretreatment (acidified sodium chlorite/sodium hydroxide). The aim of the study was to compare the extraction yield, composition and physicochemical characteristics of isolated hemicelluloses by size exclusion chromatography, FTIR and thermogravimetric analyses. Solid residues were analysed in order to evaluate the effect of processes on co-products (lignins and cellulose). Delignification of material (up to 995.4 g kg(-1) of original lignins) during the direct alkaline hydrogen peroxide and two-step acidified sodium chlorite/sodium hydroxide processes improved the hemicellulose extraction yield attaining up to 945.3 g kg(-1). Hemicelluloses were mainly composed of xylans (xylose/glucose ratio of 4.6-16.2) and had low lignin content (53.5-61.0 g kg-1 dry matter). Those from direct sodium hydroxide extraction were composed of xylans and glucans (xylose/glucose ratio of 1.5) with high content of lignins (149.3 g kg(-1) dry matter). All isolated fractions were a mixture of polymers and oligomers with a molecular mass ranging from 1710 g mol(-1) to 8 870 000 g mol(-1). The two-step process gave the most pure cellulose residue (799.2 g kg(-1) dry matter). According to results, the direct alkaline extraction with hydrogen peroxide was a promising process for the production of pure xylose-rich hemicelluloses from pear pomace solubilizing 802.2 g kg(-1) of the original hemicelluloses but induced fragmentation of hemicelluloses. (C) 2013 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