| Literature DB >> 21904671 |
Arindam Kuila1, Mainak Mukhopadhyay, D K Tuli, Rintu Banerjee.
Abstract
In the present investigation, Bambusa bambos was used for optimization of enzymatic pretreatment and saccharification. Maximum enzymatic delignification achieved was 84%, after 8 h of incubation time. Highest reducing sugar yield from enzyme-pretreated Bambusa bambos was 818.01 mg/g dry substrate after 8 h of incubation time at a low cellulase loading (endoglucanase, β-glucosidase, exoglucanase, and xylanase were 1.63 IU/mL, 1.28 IU/mL, 0.08 IU/mL, and 47.93 IU/mL, respectively). Enzyme-treated substrate of Bambusa bambos was characterized by analytical techniques such as Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The FTIR spectrum showed that the absorption peaks of several functional groups were decreased after enzymatic pretreatment. XRD analysis indicated that cellulose crystallinity of enzyme-treated samples was increased due to the removal of amorphous lignin and hemicelluloses. SEM image showed that surface structure of Bambusa bambos was distorted after enzymatic pretreatment.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21904671 PMCID: PMC3166577 DOI: 10.4061/2011/805795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Enzyme Res ISSN: 2090-0414
Experimental design (conditions and responses) for enzymatic pretreatment of Bambusa bambos in terms of coded factor.
| Run order |
|
|
|
|
| Delignification (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | ||||||
| (1) | −1 (6.5) | −1 (35) | −1 (2) | −1 (400) | +1 (8) | 75.33 | 73.807 |
| (2) | +1 (7.5) | −1 (35) | −1 (2) | −1 (400) | −1 (6) | 62.41 | 63.282 |
| (3) | −1 (6.5) | +1 (45) | −1 (2) | −1 (400) | −1 (4) | 43.36 | 41.834 |
| (4) | +1 (7.5) | +1 (45) | −1 (2) | −1 (400) | +1 (8) | 45.13 | 44.381 |
| (5) | –1 (6.5) | –1 (35) | +1 (6) | −1 (400) | −1 (4) | 82.64 | 82.938 |
| (6) | +1 (7.5) | −1 (35) | +1 (6) | −1 (400) | +1 (8) | 38.7 | 39.775 |
| (7) | –1 (6.5) | +1 (45) | +1 (6) | −1 (400) | +1 (8) | 41.73 | 40.843 |
| (8) | +1 (7.5) | +1 (45) | +1 (6) | +1 (600) | −1 (4) | 51.78 | 52.852 |
| (9) | +1 (7.5) | −1 (35) | −1 (2) | +1 (600) | +1 (8) | 63.29 | 64.066 |
| (10) | −1 (6.5) | +1 (45) | −1 (2) | +1 (600) | +1 (8) | 55.53 | 54.345 |
| (11) | +1 (7.5) | +1 (45) | −1 (2) | +1 (600) | −1 (4) | 50.69 | 50.392 |
| (12) | −1 (6.5) | −1 (35) | +1 (6) | +1 (600) | +1 (8) | 35.6 | 36.239 |
| (13) | +1 (7.5) | −1 (35) | +1 (6) | +1 (600) | −1 (4) | 83.1 | 84.626 |
| (14) | −1 (6.5) | +1 (45) | +1 (6) | +1 (600) | −1 (4) | 80.19 | 79.318 |
| (15) | +1 (7.5) | +1 (45) | +1 (6) | +1 (600) | +1 (8) | 62.34 | 62.68 |
| (16) | −1 (6.5) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 68.2 | 73.255 |
| (17) | +1 (7.5) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 71.09 | 66.477 |
| (18) | 0 (7) | −1 (35) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 82.37 | 78.707 |
| (19) | 0 (7) | +1 (45) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 73.41 | 77.515 |
| (20) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | −1 (2) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 63.11 | 66.744 |
| (21) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | +1 (6) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 81.9 | 78.709 |
| (22) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | −1 (400) | 0 (6) | 63.4 | 65.84 |
| (23) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | +1 (600) | 0 (6) | 80.2 | 78.203 |
| (24) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | −1 (4) | 45.12 | 44.92 |
| (25) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | +1 (8) | 80.72 | 82.234 |
| (26) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 82.6 | 80.736 |
| (27) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 74.7 | 80.736 |
| (28) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 80.05 | 80.736 |
| (29) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 81.9 | 80.736 |
| (30) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 83.44 | 80.736 |
| (31) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 84.1 | 80.736 |
| (32) | 0 (7) | 0 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (500) | 0 (6) | 81.0 | 80.736 |
Experimental design (conditions and responses) for enzymatic saccharification of pretreated Bambusa bambos in terms of coded factor.
| Run order |
|
|
|
| Reducing sugar (mg/g of substrate) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | |||||
| (1) | −1 (4) | −1 (40) | −1 (16) | +1 (8) | 671.21 | 671.15 |
| (2) | +1 (8) | −1 (40) | −1 (16) | −1 (6) | 691.45 | 698.26 |
| (3) | −1 (4) | +1 (60) | −1 (16) | −1 (4) | 621.67 | 632.60 |
| (4) | +1 (8) | +1 (60) | –1 (16) | +1 (8) | 639.10 | 656.21 |
| (5) | −1 (4) | −1 (40) | +1 (20) | −1 (4) | 695.47 | 683.00 |
| (6) | +1 (8) | −1 (40) | +1 (20) | +1 (8) | 697.92 | 691.63 |
| (7) | −1 (4) | +1 (60) | +1 (20) | +1 (8) | 700.13 | 705.95 |
| (8) | +1 (8) | +1 (60) | +1 (20) | −1 (4) | 701.25 | 705.95 |
| (9) | +1 (8) | –1 (40) | −1 (16) | +1 (8) | 698.32 | 693.32 |
| (10) | −1 (4) | +1 (60) | −1 (16) | +1 (8) | 702.23 | 692.28 |
| (11) | +1 (8) | +1 (60) | −1 (16) | −1 (4) | 657.13 | 647.90 |
| (12) | −1 (4) | −1 (40) | +1 (20) | +1 (8) | 667.27 | 675.42 |
| (13) | +1 (8) | −1 (40) | +1 (20) | −1 (4) | 741.71 | 750.58 |
| (14) | −1 (4) | +1 (60) | +1 (20) | −1 (4) | 696.09 | 696.60 |
| (15) | +1 (8) | +1 (60) | +1 (20) | +1 (8) | 660.43 | 659.35 |
| (16) | −1 (4) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 734.01 | 735.68 |
| (17) | +1 (8) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 767.35 | 751.44 |
| (18) | 0 (6) | −1 (40) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 798.66 | 798.65 |
| (19) | 0 (6) | +1 (60) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 801.12 | 786.90 |
| (20) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | −1 (16) | 0 (6) | 758.24 | 747.63 |
| (21) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | +1 (20) | 0 (6) | 782.41 | 778.79 |
| (22) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 801.23 | 808.36 |
| (23) | 0(6) | 0(50) | 0 (18) | 0(6) | 797.39 | 808.36 |
| (24) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | −1 (4) | 808.56 | 805.25 |
| (25) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | +1 (8) | 809.72 | 805.61 |
| (26) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 801.43 | 808.36 |
| (27) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 795.12 | 808.36 |
| (28) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 811.06 | 808.36 |
| (29) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 810.06 | 808.36 |
| (30) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 802.62 | 808.36 |
| (31) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 817.31 | 808.36 |
| (32) | 0 (6) | 0 (50) | 0 (18) | 0 (6) | 803.08 | 808.36 |
ANOVA analysis of RSM model for enzymatic pretreatment of Bambusa bamboos and saccharification of pretreated Bambusa bambos.
| Source | DFa | Seq SSb | Adj SSb | Adj MSc |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretreatment of | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Regression | 20 | 7547.10 | 7547.10 | 502.796 | 22.07 | <0.001 |
| Linear | 5 | 1115.70 | 1395.38 | 375.443 | 16.32 | <0.001 |
| Square | 5 | 2592.68 | 3959.72 | 473.038 | 46.32 | <0.001 |
| Interaction | 10 | 3838.72 | 3838.72 | 383.872 | 22.45 | <0.001 |
| Residual error | 11 | 188.05 | 188.05 | 17.096 | ||
| Lack-of-fit | 5 | 128.62 | 128.62 | 25.724 | 2.60 | 0.138 |
| Pure error | 6 | 59.44 | 57.44 | 9.906 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Total | 32 | 7735.16 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Saccharification of pretreated | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Regression | 14 | 116738 | 116737.6 | 8338.4 | 64.72 | <0.001 |
| Linear | 4 | 6116 | 22570.9 | 5642.7 | 43.80 | <0.001 |
| Square | 4 | 103427 | 98888.2 | 24722.0 | 191.90 | <0.001 |
| Interaction | 6 | 7195 | 7194.6 | 1199.1 | 9.31 | < 0.001 |
| Residual error | 17 | 2190 | 2190.1 | 128.8 | ||
| Lack-of-fit | 9 | 1788 | 1788.0 | 198.7 | 3.95 | 0.033 |
| Pure error | 8 | 402 | 402.1 | 50.3 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Total | 32 | 118928 | ||||
|
| ||||||
aDegrees of freedom.
bSum of squares.
cMean squares.
Figure 1RSM plot showing (a) the effect of pH and liquid : solid ratio and (b) the effect of pH and incubation time on enzymatic pretreatment of Bambusa bambos.
Figure 2RSM plot showing (a) the effect of substrate concentration and pH and (b) substrate concentration and incubation time on saccharification of enzyme-pretreated Bambusa bambos.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of control and enzyme-pretreated Bambusa bambos.
Figure 4XRD diagram of control and enzyme-pretreated Bambusa bambos.
Figure 5SEM view of (a) control and (b) enzyme-pretreated sample of Bambusa bambos.