| Literature DB >> 26819628 |
Sune T Thomsen1, Jorge E G Londoño1, Morten Ambye-Jensen2, Stefan Heiske1, Zsofia Kádár1, Anne S Meyer1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of lignocellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy production in developing countries demands competitive but low-tech conversion routes. White-rot fungi (WRF) inoculation and ensiling are two methods previously investigated for low-tech pretreatment of biomasses such as wheat straw (WS). This study was undertaken to assess whether a combination of forced ensiling with Lactobacillus buchneri and WRF treatment using a low cellulase fungus, Ceriporiopsis subvermispora, could produce a relevant pretreatment effect on WS for bioethanol and biogas production.Entities:
Keywords: Biogas; Ceriporiopsis subvermispora; Ensiling; Ethanol; Lignocellulose; Pretreatment; White rot
Year: 2016 PMID: 26819628 PMCID: PMC4728756 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-016-0437-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1Wheat straw after ensiling and fungal pretreatment: a w WS F (visually similar to EWS F and w WS F), b w EWS F
Soluble carbohydrates, acids and phenols in water extracts of the differently pretreated samples (the contents of xylitol and formic acid were below 0.1 g/100 g TS in all samples, data not shown)
| g/100 g TS | WS | EWS | w WS | w EWS | WS F | EWS F | w WS F | w EWS F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free Sugars | ||||||||
| Glucose | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.14 | 0.24 ± 0.02 |
| Xylose | 0.07 ± 0.06 | 2.10 ± 0.04 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.95 ± 0.05 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 1.89 ± 0.13 | 0.08 ± 0.08 | 0.01 ± 0.02 |
| Arabinose | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| Oligomers | ||||||||
| Glucan | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.49 | 0.45 |
| Xylan | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.97 | 1.89 |
| Arabinan | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.23 | 0.53 |
| Acids | ||||||||
| Lactic acid | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 2.10 ± 0.08 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.60 ± 0.02 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 1.91 ± 0.04 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| Acetic acid | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 1.49 ± 0.04 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 0.37 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.02 | 1.22 ± 0.09 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.00 |
| Total phenols | 0.41 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.57 ± 0.05 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.57 ± 0.05 | 0.14 ± 0.02 |
Standard deviations are presented when applicable
Composition of ensiled and WRF-pretreated biomasses and controls
| g/100 g TS | Glucan | Xylan | Arabinan | Lignin | Ash | Extractives | Sum | G/G + X + A + L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WS | 38.0 ± 1.1c | 20.1 ± 0.5b | 2.4 ± 0.3cd | 20.7 ± 0.2ab | 5.0 ± 0.1a | 3.4 ± 2.1b | 89.5 | 0.47 |
| EWS | 36.0 ± 1.7cd | 20.1 ± 0.6b | 2.6 ± 0.2bc | 19.5 ± 0.6ab | 3.6 ± 0.2ab | 7.1 ± 1.4a | 89.0 | 0.46 |
| w EWS | 47.8 ± 1.5ab | 26.4 ± 1.0a | 3.3 ± 0.3a | 19.5 ± 0.4ab | 3.3 ± 0.2ab | 1.3 ± 2.5b | 101.7 | 0.49 |
| w WS | 49.5 ± 0.3a | 25.1 ± 0.5a | 3.1 ± 0.3ab | 20.3 ± 1.1ab | 3.7 ± 0.2ab | 3.0 ± 1.4b | 104.8 | 0.51 |
| WS F | 34.1 ± 3.0cd | 17.0 ± 1.9cd | 2.0 ± 0.3de | 20.5 ± 0.3ab | 4.9 ± 0.4ab | 2.6 ± 0.9b | 81.1 | 0.46 |
| EWS F | 31.6 ± 3.0d | 17.1 ± 1.2cd | 2.1 ± 0.2cde | 19.3 ± 0.3b | 4.2 ± 0.8ab | 5.9 ± 2.8ab | 80.1 | 0.45 |
| w WS F | 32.3 ± 0.3d | 15.4 ± 0.1d | 1.6 ± 0.0e | 21.8 ± 1.3a | 4.2 ± 0.5ab | 3.6 ± 1.2b | 79.0 | 0.45 |
| w EWS F | 43.6 ± 1.4b | 19.1 ± 0.7bc | 2.1 ± 0.3cde | 13.5 ± 0.6c | 3.4 ± 0.9b | 8.3 ± 1.3a | 90.1 | 0.56 |
Data are given as average values ± standard deviation. Different roman superscript letters indicate significantly different average values in the same column (p < 0.05). G/G + X + A + L is an estimate of relative glucan enrichment of the biomass, calculated from the g/100 g TS values as Glucan/(Glucan + Xylan + Arabinan + Lignin)
Fig. 2Enzymatic convertibility of carbohydrates of WRF-pretreated material in triplicates (a, b and c) and raw material. Dark grey glucan, light grey: xylan, arabinan were below 0.5 g/100 g TS in all samples. The results are grouped according to significance (p = 0.05 %), where ‘a’ is significantly higher than ‘b’ and so forth. Error bars represents standard deviations
Fig. 3Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of pretreated materials and controls. The results are grouped according to significance (p = 0.05 %), where ‘a’ is significantly higher than ‘b’ and so forth. Error bars represents standard deviations
Fig. 4a BMP of pretreated samples and controls. b Biogas production rate first week of production. The results are grouped according to significance (p = 0.05 %), where ‘a’ is significantly higher than ‘b’ and so forth. Error bars represents standard deviations