4.6 Article

Cellulose Solvent-Based Biomass Pretreatment Breaks Highly Ordered Hydrogen Bonds in Cellulose Fibers of Switchgrass

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 521-529

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.22964

关键词

biomass; biofuels; cellulose accessibility; cellulose solvent-based pretreatment; crystallinity index; drying of cellulose; switchgrass

资金

  1. DOE BioEnergy Science Center (BESC)
  2. USDA Biodesign and Bioprocessing Research Center (BBRC)
  3. ICTAS
  4. DuPont Young Professor Award
  5. Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the DOE Office of Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The switchgrass (SG) samples pretreated by cellulose solvent- and organic solvent-based lignocellulose fractionation were characterized by enzymatic hydrolysis, substrate accessibility assay, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), cross polarization/magic angle spinning (CP/MAS) C-13 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Glucan digestibility of the pretreated SG was 89% at hour 36 at one filter paper unit of cellulase per gram of glucan. Crystallinity index (CrI) of pure cellulosic materials and SG before and after cellulose solvent-based pretreatment were determined by XRD and NMR. CrI values varied greatly depending on measurement techniques, calculation approaches, and sample drying conditions, suggesting that the effects of CrI data obtained from dried samples on enzymatic hydrolysis of hydrated cellulosic materials should be interpreted with caution. Fast hydrolysis rates and high glucan digestibilities for pretreated SG were mainly attributed to a 16.3-fold increase in cellulose accessibility to cellulase from 0.49 to 8.0 m(2)/g biomass, because the highly ordered hydrogen-bonding networks in cellulose fibers of biomass were broken through cellulose dissolution in a cellulose solvent, as evidenced by CP/MAS C-13-NMR and FTIR. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011; 108: 521-529. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.6
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