| Literature DB >> 26636077 |
Adam L Healey1, David J Lee2, Agnelo Furtado1, Blake A Simmons3, Robert J Henry1.
Abstract
In order to meet the world's growing energy demand and reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion, renewable plant-based feedstocks for biofuel production must be considered. The first-generation biofuels, derived from starches of edible feedstocks, such as corn, create competition between food and fuel resources, both for the crop itself and the land on which it is grown. As such, biofuel synthesized from non-edible plant biomass (lignocellulose) generated on marginal agricultural land will help to alleviate this competition. Eucalypts, the broadly defined taxa encompassing over 900 species of Eucalyptus, Corymbia, and Angophora are the most widely planted hardwood tree in the world, harvested mainly for timber, pulp and paper, and biomaterial products. More recently, due to their exceptional growth rate and amenability to grow under a wide range of environmental conditions, eucalypts are a leading option for the development of a sustainable lignocellulosic biofuels. However, efficient conversion of woody biomass into fermentable monomeric sugars is largely dependent on pretreatment of the cell wall, whose formation and complexity lend itself toward natural recalcitrance against its efficient deconstruction. A greater understanding of this complexity within the context of various pretreatments will allow the design of new and effective deconstruction processes for bioenergy production. In this review, we present the various pretreatment options for eucalypts, including research into understanding structure and formation of the eucalypt cell wall.Entities:
Keywords: bioenergy; biotechnology; eucalypts; lignocellulosic biofuel; pretreatment
Year: 2015 PMID: 26636077 PMCID: PMC4653827 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Figure 1Component overview of lignocellulosic deconstruction, saccharification, and fermentation for biofuel production.
Summary and assessment of common pretreatment options for lignocellulose.
| Pretreatment | Summary | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grinding and milling | Mechanical disruption of biomass to increase surface area | No chemicals required | Energy inefficient |
| No degradation products generated | Lignin structure remains | ||
| Concentrated acid | Relatively complete hydrolysis of biomass with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid | Complete biomass hydrolysis | High cost and loss of acid |
| Low inhibitory product formation under low temperature conditions | High environmental impact | ||
| Phenolic release | |||
| Inhibition of fermentation | |||
| Dilute acid | Combination of acid and high temperature to solubilize hemicellulose | Low acid concentrations required (<1%) | Sugar degradation and loss |
| Short reaction times | Release of phenolics | ||
| Alkaline | Cleaves linkages within lignin and between hemicellulose and lignin | Swells biomass | High environmental impact |
| Established pulping practice | Low recovery | ||
| Works with various feedstocks | Requires neutralization | ||
| Low temperature, low pressure reaction | |||
| Organosolv | Aqueous/organic solvent at high temperatures break hemicellulose–lignin bonds | Allows intact lignin recovery | Organic solvents are expensive and inhibit fermentation |
| Works well across various feedstocks | High temperatures (250°C) required | ||
| Steam explosion | Biomass explosion of biomass by high temperature/pressure coupled with rapid decompression | Solubilization of hemicellulose and reduced cellulose crystallinity | High temperatures generate inhibitory products |
| Short reaction time | |||
| Autohydrolysis | Pressurized, high temperature water solubilizes hemicellulose with | No chemicals needed | Requires a low lignin feedstock to be efficient |
| Low environmental impact | High temperature and pressure required | ||
| Ionic liquids | Room-temperature organic liquid salts dissolve biomass | Selective precipitation of cellulose | High cost of chemicals |
| Lignin recovery | Inhibition of microbial fermentation | ||
| Stable, low volatility chemicals | |||
| Works well regardless of varying wood properties |
Hendriks and Zeeman (.
Advances in lignocellulosic biofuel production from eucalypt biomass.
| Reference | Strategy | Pretreatment and fermentation conditions | Conclusions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inoue et al. ( | Pretreatments without acids/bases/solvents are cheaper with fewer environmental impacts | Autohydrolysis + milling | Duel pretreatment required 10× less enzyme for saccharification | 70% sugar recovery |
| Yu et al. ( | Two-step liquid hot water hydrolysis of biomass | Autohydrolysis | Temperature affects degradation products formation | 96.6% sugar recovery; 81.5% saccharification |
| Short reaction times and low temperatures maximize recovery | ||||
| Çetinkol et al. ( | IL pretreatment of biomass | 1-Ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium acetate | Deacetylation of xylan | 5× glucose yield |
| Acetylation of lignin | ||||
| Increased S/G ratio | ||||
| Silva et al. ( | Hemicellulose deconstruction and fermentation from residual wood chips | Dilute sulfuric acid | Hemicellulose was separated from cellulose and lignin | 15.3 g/L ethanol (100 L/tonne biomass) |
| 28.7 g/L ethanol (obtained from solids) | ||||
| Muñoz et al. ( | Fermentation of tension and opposite wood | Organosolv | Tension wood required milder conditions to delignify | 35 g/L ethanol (290 L/tonne biomass) |
| SSF fermentation with | ||||
| McIntosh et al. ( | Optimization of acid concentration, temperature, and pretreatment time | Sulfuric acid | Hemicellulose solubilizes and degrades first | 18 g/L ethanol |
| Temperature contributes most to glucose release | ||||
| Santos et al. ( | Screened various woody feedstocks with varying for wood properties | Alkaline pretreatment | Lignin content, enzyme adsorbtion, and S/G ratio contribute most saccharification | |
| Papa et al. ( | Investigate effects of S/G ratio on IL pretreatment efficiency | 1-Ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium acetate | S/G ratio did not affect IL pretreatment efficiency | Glucose yield of 759–897 g/kg cellulose after 24 h saccharification |
| Yáñez-S et al. ( | SSF optimization of substrate loading, yeast concentration, and enzyme loading | Organosolv | Higher substrate loading and midrange enzyme loading maximize yield | 42 g/L ethanol (164 L/tonne of biomass) |
| Romaní et al. ( | SSF optimization of substrate and enzyme loading | Autohydrolysis and SSF reaction | 91% conversion of cellulose to ethanol | 67.4 g/L ethanol (291 L/tonne of biomass) |
| Romaní et al. ( | Optimization of temperature and pretreatment time | Steam explosion and SSF reaction | Maximum ethanol yield is achieved at 210°C for 10 min | 50.9 g/L ethanol (248 L/tonne of biomass) |
| Lima et al. ( | Optimization of pretreatment for | One/two-step acid/alkaline pretreatment | Single alkaline step recovered most glucose | 73.1% glucose recovery and 98.6% saccharification |
| Castro et al. ( | SSF fermentation with inhibitor-resistant cofermentation | Steam explosion + phosphoric acid | Sugar yield is primarily determined by pretreatment time and temperature | 240 g ethanol/kg biomass (304 L/tonne biomass) |
| SSF fermentation + cofermentation | ||||
| Rico et al. ( | Fungal laccases with mediator pretreatment | Laccase pretreatment + alkaline extraction | Preferential G unit removal | ~50% lignin reduction and 30% increase in saccharification |
| S unit oxidation | ||||
| Increased S/G ratio | ||||
| Martín-Sampedro et al. ( | Screening, isolation, and pretreatment with endophytic fungal laccases | Fungal pretreatment + autohydrolysis | Endophytic fungi outperformed white rot reference | 3.3 and 2.9× increase in total sugar release after pretreatment |
| Sykes et al. ( | RNAi downregulation of lignin genes | Hot water pretreatment | Transgenic lines had less lignin and underwent more efficient saccharification | |
| Transgenic plants were dwarfed | ||||
| Control (80% saccharification) | ||||
| Zhang et al. ( | IL pretreatment of eucalyptus bark | Pyrrolidinium acetate and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate | IL combinations had a synergistic effect on pretreatment | 91% enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose |
| Zheng et al. ( | ABE production without nutrients | Steam explosion and | Solids loading and glucose concentration are critical for microbial inhibition | 4.27 g/L acetone, 8.16 g/L butanol, and 0.643 g/L ethanol |
IL, ionic liquid; S, syringyl; G, guaiacyl; SSF, simultaneous saccharification fermentation; RNAi, RNA interference; C3H, ρ-coumarate 3-hydroxylase; C4H, cinnamate 4-hydroxylase; ABE, acetone/butanol/ethanol.