4.8 Article

Bacterial cellulose production from cotton-based waste textiles: Enzymatic saccharification enhanced by ionic liquid pretreatment

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 503-508

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.028

关键词

Bacterial cellulose; Ionic liquid; Cotton-based waste textiles; Enzymatic saccharification; Biorefinery

资金

  1. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [11230700600, 08520750200]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [09ZZ68]
  3. 111 Project [B07024]
  4. State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibers and Polymer Materials (Donghua University)
  5. Swedish Research Council [348-2006-6705]
  6. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cotton-based waste textiles were explored as alternative feedstock for production of bacterial cellulose (BC) by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. The cellulosic fabrics were treated with the ionic liquid (IL) 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([AMIM]Cl). [AMIM]Cl caused 25% inactivation of cellulase activity at a concentration as low as of 0.02 g/mL and decreased BC production during fermentation when present in concentrations higher than 0.0005 g/mL. Therefore, removal of residual IL by washing with hot water was highly beneficial to enzymatic saccharification as well as BC production. IL-treated fabrics exhibited a 5-7-fold higher enzymatic hydrolysis rate and gave a seven times larger yield of fermentable sugars than untreated fabrics. BC from cotton cloth hydrolysate was obtained at an yield of 10.8 g/L which was 83% higher than that from the culture grown on glucose-based medium. The BC from G. xylinus grown on IL-treated fabric hydrolysate had a 79% higher tensile strength than BC from glucose-based culture medium which suggests that waste cotton pretreated with [AMIM]Cl has potential to serve as a high-quality carbon source for BC production. (C) 2011 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

4.8
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