Literature DB >> 24022674

Do new cellulolytic enzyme preparations affect the industrial strategies for high solids lignocellulosic ethanol production?

David Cannella1, Henning Jørgensen.   

Abstract

Production of ethanol from lignocellulosic materials has a promising market potential, but the process is still only at pilot/demonstration scale due to the technical and economical difficulties of the process. Operating the process at very high solids concentrations (above 20% dry matter-DM) has proven essential for economic feasibility at industrial scale. Historically, simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) was found to give better ethanol yields compared to separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), but data in literature are typically based on operating the process at low dry matter conditions. In this work the impact of selected enzyme preparation and processing strategy (SHF, presaccharification and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation-PSSF, and SSF) on final ethanol yield and overall performance was investigated with pretreated wheat straw up to 30% DM. The experiments revealed that an SSF strategy was indeed better than SHF when applying an older generation enzyme cocktail (Celluclast-Novozym 188). In case of the newer product Cellic CTec 2, SHF resulted in 20% higher final ethanol yield compared to SSF. It was possible to close the mass balance around cellulose to around 94%, revealing that the most relevant products could be accounted for. One observation was the presence of oxidized sugar (gluconic acid) upon enzymatic hydrolysis with the latest enzyme preparation. Experiments showed gluconic acid formation by recently discovered enzymatic class of lytic polysaccharides monoxygenases (LPMO's) to be depending on the processing strategy. The lowest concentration was achieved in SSF, which could be correlated with less available oxygen due to simultaneous oxygen consumption by the yeast. Quantity of glycerol and cell mass was also depending on the selected processing strategy.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GH61; LPMO; SHF; SSF; bioethanol; high dry matter

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24022674     DOI: 10.1002/bit.25098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng        ISSN: 0006-3592            Impact factor:   4.530


  37 in total

1.  Enhancement of Penicillium echinulatum glycoside hydrolase enzyme complex.

Authors:  Patrícia dos Santos Costa; Fernanda Büchli; Diogo Robl; Priscila da Silva Delabona; Sarita Candida Rabelo; José Geraldo da Cruz Pradella
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2016-02-27       Impact factor: 3.346

2.  Structural and functional characterization of a conserved pair of bacterial cellulose-oxidizing lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases.

Authors:  Zarah Forsberg; Alasdair K Mackenzie; Morten Sørlie; Åsmund K Røhr; Ronny Helland; Andrew S Arvai; Gustav Vaaje-Kolstad; Vincent G H Eijsink
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Engineered pentafunctional minicellulosome for simultaneous saccharification and ethanol fermentation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Youyun Liang; Tong Si; Ee Lui Ang; Huimin Zhao
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Enhancement of the enzymatic cellulose saccharification by Penicillium verruculosum multienzyme cocktails containing homologously overexpressed lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase.

Authors:  Margarita V Semenova; Alexander V Gusakov; Pavel V Volkov; Veronika Yu Matys; Vitaly A Nemashkalov; Vadim D Telitsin; Aleksandra M Rozhkova; Arkady P Sinitsyn
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.316

5.  Overcoming factors limiting high-solids fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol.

Authors:  Thanh Yen Nguyen; Charles M Cai; Rajeev Kumar; Charles E Wyman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Effect of lignin-blocking agent on enzyme hydrolysis of acid pretreated hemp waste.

Authors:  Daehwan Kim; Chang Geun Yoo; Jurgen Schwarz; Sadanand Dhekney; Robert Kozak; Craig Laufer; Drew Ferrier; Skylar Mackay; Madyson Ashcraft; Richard Williams; Sinyeon Kim
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 4.036

7.  Cellobiohydrolase and endoglucanase respond differently to surfactants during the hydrolysis of cellulose.

Authors:  Chia-Wen C Hsieh; David Cannella; Henning Jørgensen; Claus Felby; Lisbeth G Thygesen
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 6.040

8.  Effects of production and market factors on ethanol profitability for an integrated first and second generation ethanol plant using the whole sugarcane as feedstock.

Authors:  Stefano Macrelli; Mats Galbe; Ola Wallberg
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 6.040

9.  Cyanobacterial biomass as carbohydrate and nutrient feedstock for bioethanol production by yeast fermentation.

Authors:  K Benedikt Möllers; David Cannella; Henning Jørgensen; Niels-Ulrik Frigaard
Journal:  Biotechnol Biofuels       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 6.040

10.  Combining the effects of process design and pH for improved xylose conversion in high solid ethanol production from Arundo donax.

Authors:  Benny Palmqvist; Gunnar Lidén
Journal:  AMB Express       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 3.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.