| Literature DB >> 29209369 |
Yong-Chao Lu1, Yao Lu2,3, Zhao-Lin Lu2, Xian-Yong Wei3.
Abstract
Componential analysis of extractives is important for better understanding the structure and utilization of biomass. In this investigation, wheat straw (WS) was extracted with petroleum ether (PE) and carbon disulfide (CS2) sequentially, to afford extractable fractions EFPE and EFCS2, respectively. Detailed componential analyses of EFPE and EFCS2 were carried out with Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS), and electron probe microanalysis (EPMA). Total extractives were quantified 4.96% by weight compared to the initial WS sample. FTIR and GC/MS analyses results showed that PE was effective for the extraction of ketones and waxes derived compounds; meanwhile CS2 preferred ketones and other species with higher degrees of unsaturation. Steroids were enriched into EFPE and EFCS2 with considerable high relative contents, namely, 64.52% and 79.58%, respectively. XPS analysis showed that most of the C atoms in extractives were contained in the structures of C-C, C-COOR, and C-O. TEM-EDS and EPMA analyses were used to detect trace amount elements, such as Al, Si, P, S, Cl, and Ca atoms. Detailed characterization of extractable species from WS can provide more information on elucidation of extractives in biomass.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29209369 PMCID: PMC5676445 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7305682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt.%) of WS.
| Proximate analysis | Ultimate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| C | H | O | N | S |
|
| |||||||
| 8.0 | 8.2 | 70.2 | 42.3 | 6.6 | 50.2 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
By difference: Mad, moisture on air dried basis; Ad, ash on dry basis; Vdaf, volatile matter on dry and ash-free basis.
Figure 1FTIR analysis of WS, EFC4, EFPE, and EFCS2.
Figure 2TICs of EFPE from WS.
Figure 3TICs of EFCS2 from WS.
Figure 4The relationship between DBE and carbon number for compounds identified in EFPE and EFCS2.
Figure 5Relative contents of classes of compounds identified in EFPE.
Figure 6Relative contents of classes of compounds identified in EFCS2.
Figure 7XPS analysis of EFPE. ((a) survey scan of the sample; (b) peak fitting of the C 1s; and (c) peak fitting of the Si 2p.)
Chemical statuses of C and Si atoms in EFPE analyzed with XPS.
| Chemical bond | BE (eV) | FWHM (eV) | Area | Atomic (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-C | 284.9 | 1.01 | 34722.3 | 48.54 |
| C-COOR | 285.3 | 0.98 | 18089.1 | 25.29 |
| C-O | 286.4 | 1.42 | 8333.9 | 11.66 |
| -C=O | 287.9 | 1.13 | 1899.8 | 2.66 |
| O-C=O | 289.1 | 1.01 | 1779.9 | 2.49 |
| Si-O | 102.1 | 0.91 | 166.8 | 0.38 |
| 102.7 | 85.1 | 0.01 |
TEM-EDS analysis of elements and their percentages of weight (wt.%) in EFPE.
| Areas | Data points | Al (K) | Si (K) | P (K) | S (K) | Cl (K) | Ca (K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 32.64 | Nd | 28.54 | 30.67 | 8.12 | Nd |
| 2 | 3.11 | 4.78 | Nd | Nd | Nd | 92.09 | |
| 3 | 3.60 | 16.91 | Nd | 0.36 | Nd | 79.11 | |
| 4 | 10.72 | 15.50 | Nd | Nd | Nd | 73.77 | |
| 5 | Nd | 75.96 | 10.70 | Nd | 13.32 | Nd | |
| 6 | Nd | 61.01 | 6.53 | 11.06 | 21.39 | Nd | |
| Average | 8.35 | 29.03 | 7.63 | 7.02 | 7.14 | 40.83 | |
|
| |||||||
| 2 | 1 | 3.65 | 16.96 | Nd | 38.71 | 5.43 | 35.22 |
| 2 | Nd | 4.85 | 0.33 | 46.20 | Nd | 48.60 | |
| 3 | Nd | 47.59 | 49.64 | Nd | Nd | 2.76 | |
| 4 | Nd | 49.74 | 9.59 | 19.68 | 9.20 | 11.76 | |
| 5 | 13.09 | Nd | Nd | 37.81 | Nd | 49.08 | |
| 6 | Nd | 61.88 | 21.15 | 16.96 | Nd | Nd | |
| Average | 2.79 | 30.17 | 13.45 | 26.56 | 2.44 | 24.57 | |
Nd: not detected.