| Literature DB >> 24860617 |
Heng Zhang1, Lisbeth G Thygesen1, Kell Mortensen2, Zsófia Kádár3, Jane Lindedam4, Henning Jørgensen5, Claus Felby1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomass recalcitrance is affected by a number of chemical, physical and biological factors. In this study we looked into the differences in recalcitrance between two major anatomical fractions of wheat straw biomass, leaf and stem. A set of twenty-one wheat cultivars was fractionated and illustrated the substantial variation in leaf-to-stem ratio between cultivars. The two fractions were compared in terms of chemical composition, enzymatic convertibility, cellulose crystallinity and glucan accessibility. The use of water as a probe for assessing glucan accessibility was explored using low field nuclear magnetic resonance and infrared spectroscopy in combination with hydrogen-deuterium exchange.Entities:
Keywords: Wheat straw anatomical fractions; cellulose crystallinity; glucan accessibility; recalcitrance; water
Year: 2014 PMID: 24860617 PMCID: PMC4031911 DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-7-74
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Distribution of major anatomical fractions of twenty-one winter wheat straw cultivars
| 48 | 48 | 4 | 1.00 | |
| 43 | 50 | 7 | 0.86 | |
| 36 | 62 | 3 | 0.58 | |
| 35 | 61 | 5 | 0.57 | |
| 32 | 65 | 2 | 0.49 | |
| 37 | 56 | 7 | 0.66 | |
| 33 | 65 | 2 | 0.51 | |
| 30 | 68 | 1 | 0.44 | |
| 36 | 62 | 2 | 0.59 | |
| 42 | 56 | 2 | 0.76 | |
| 39 | 56 | 5 | 0.68 | |
| 35 | 60 | 5 | 0.59 | |
| 31 | 67 | 5 | 0.47 | |
| 34 | 61 | 4 | 0.56 | |
| 42 | 54 | 4 | 0.77 | |
| 41 | 54 | 5 | 0.77 | |
| 26 | 63 | 11 | 0.42 | |
| 36 | 62 | 2 | 0.58 | |
| 39 | 52 | 9 | 0.75 | |
| 38 | 59 | 3 | 0.64 | |
| 46 | 53 | 1 | 0.88 | |
| Average | 37 (5) | 59 (5) | 4 (2) | 0.65 (0.15) |
| Max | 48 | 68 | 11 | 1.00 |
| Min | 26 | 48 | 1 | 0.42 |
Samples were harvested at Tystofte, Denmark in 2006. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviation (n = 21). aLeaf = leaf blade and sheath; bStem = culm nodes and internodes.
Proportion of tested compounds in untreated and HT-treated leaves and stems
| | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated leaf | 3 (0.2) | 1 (0.0) | 35 (1.0) | 21 (0.9) | 19 (1.2) | 9 | 88 |
| Untreated stem | 2 (0.1) | 1 (0.0) | 41 (0.3) | 21 (0.5) | 22 (0.7) | 5 | 92 |
| Treated leaf | 2 (0.1) | 1 (0.0) | 41 (1.1) | 18 (1.0) | 28 (1.2) | 5 (0.6) | 95 |
| Treated stem | 1 (0.0) | - | 46 (0.6) | 21 (0.5) | 27 (0.5) | 1 (0.1) | 96 |
Data presented as mean value of triplicates. Standard deviations are given in parentheses (n = 3).
'–' indicates the compound is not detected.
Glucose and xylose yield of leaves and stems
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated leaf | 0.33 (0.04) | 0.09 (0.01) | 0.32 (0.03) | 0.11 (0.01) |
| Untreated leaf + xylanase | 0.38 (0.01) | 0.30 (0.01) | 0.43 (0.03) | 0.34 (0.02) |
| Untreated stem | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.25 (0.03) | 0.10 (0.01) |
| Untreated stem + xylanase | 0.24 (0.01) | 0.20 (0.01) | 0.26 (0.03) | 0.22 (0.02) |
| HT leaf | 0.36 | 0.53 (0.01) | 0.53 | 0.66 |
| HT leaf + xylanase | 0.47 (0.02) | 0.68 (0.06) | 0.53 (0.06) | 0.66 (0.08) |
| HT stem | 0.33 (0.01) | 0.53 (0.01) | 0.33 (0.05) | 0.44 (0.07) |
| HT stem + xylanase | 0.36 (0.02) | 0.60 (0.03) | 0.46 (0.02) | 0.61 (0.03) |
Enzymatic hydrolysis condition: 5% dry matter, 5 filter paper units (FPU) g−1 dry matter, 800 rpm, 72 h. Reaction volume: 2 mL. Data presented as mean value of triplicates. Standard deviations are given in parentheses (n = 3). Standard deviations are not stated if the values are lower than 0.001. aGlucose yield and xylose yield were calculated by the ratio of determined sugar concentration to the theoretical sugar content. HT, hydrothermally treated.
Figure 1Correlation between xylose and glucose yields of untreated and hydrothermally (HT)-treated leaves and stems. (A) 24-h hydrolysis. (B) 72-h hydrolysis. Enzymatic hydrolysis conditions: 5% dry matter (DM), 5 filter paper units (FPU) g−1 DM, 800 rpm. Sugar yield was calculated as the ratio of released sugar to theoretical sugar (g/g).
Crystallinity index (CI) of untreated, HT treated and enzymatically hydrolyzed leaves and stems
| Untreated leaf | 33.5 (5.2) | 53.0 (6.9) |
| HT-treated leaf | 37.9 (1.04) | 43.5 (1.7) |
| Hydrolyzed HT leaf | 33.5 (5.27) | 45.0 (0.7) |
| Untreated stem | 30.5 (0.97) | 45.0 (1.2) |
| HT-treated stem | 28.5 (0.53) | 46.8 (1.3) |
| Hydrolyzed HT stem | 52.6 (5.4) | 39.9 (7.4) |
| Avicel | 79.3 (0.08) | 60.4 (1.2) |
Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations (n = 3). HT, hydrothermally treated.
Figure 2WAXD curves of untreated, hydrothermally (HT) treated and enzymatically hydrolyzed leaves and stems. 2 theta is the scattering angle.
Figure 3Low field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF-NMR) T relaxation time distributions of untreated and hydrothermally (HT) treated leaves and stems.
Hydrogen-deuterium exchange of untreated and hydrothermally (HT) treated leaves and stems
| Untreated leaf | 0.59 | 0.92 | 1.26 | +∞ |
| Untreated stem | 0.65 | 0.90 | 1.13 | 0.98 |
| HT-treated leaf | 0.58 | 0.88 | 1.11 | 1.06 |
| HT-treated stem | 0.62 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 1.07 |
Data presented as the average of four replicates. AR is the ratio of peak area at OD-stretching (2,800 to 2,159 cm−1) to the total hydroxyl-stretching (2,800 to 2,159 cm−1 and 3,700 to 3,000 cm−1). IR is the ratio of peak intensity at 2,478 cm−1 to 2,362 cm−1.
Figure 4Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectra of hydrogen-deuterium exchange of untreated and hydrothermally (HT) treated leaves and stems. (A) 20 h incubation time. (B) 240 h incubation time.
Figure 5Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectra. Avicel, wheat arabinoxylan and lignin were incubated above water or deuterium water for 20 h.