| Literature DB >> 29250553 |
Raquel Martín-Sampedro1, Juan Carlos López-Linares2, Úrsula Fillat1, Guillermo Gea-Izquierdo1, David Ibarra1, Eulogio Castro2, María E Eugenio1.
Abstract
Olive tree pruning, as one of the most abundant lignocellulosic residues in Mediterranean countries, has been evaluated as a source of sugars for fuel and chemicals production. A mild acid pretreatment has been combined with a fungal pretreatment using either two endophytes (Ulocladium sp. and Hormonema sp.) or a saprophyte (Trametes sp. I-62). The use of endophytes is based on the important role that some of them play during the initial stages of wood decomposition. Without acid treatment, fungal pretreatment with Ulocladium sp. provided a nonsignificant enhancement of 4.6% in glucose digestibility, compared to control. When a mild acid hydrolysis was carried out after fungal pretreatments, significant increases in glucose digestibility from 4.9% to 12.0% (compared to control without fungi) were observed for all fungal pretreatments, with maximum values yielded by Hormonema sp. However, despite the observed digestibility boost, the total sugar yields (taking into account solid yield) were not significantly increased by the pretreatments. Nevertheless, based on these preliminary improvements in digestibility, this work proves the potential of endophytic fungi to boost the production of sugar from olive tree pruning, which would add an extra value to the bioeconomy of olive crops.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29250553 PMCID: PMC5698607 DOI: 10.1155/2017/9727581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Composition of liquid fractions collected after fungal pretreatment, alkali extraction, and acid hydrolysis expressed in g L−1. Consistency of fungal, mild alkali, and acid hydrolysis treatments was 20%, 5%, and 17%, respectively. Glc: glucose; Xyl: xylose; Ara: arabinose; AcH: acetic acid; GOS: glucooligosaccharides; XOS: xylooligosaccharides; AOS: arabinooligosaccharides; HMF: hydroxymethyl furfural; Furf: furfural.
| Sample | Glc | Xyl | Ara | AcH | GOS | XOS | AOS | HMF | Furf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fungal treatment | |||||||||
| Control | 4.12 | 1.50 | 7.58 | 2.95 | 3.03 | 0.56 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| | 0.98 | 2.48 | 6.80 | 2.44 | 1.50 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| | 1.02 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 2.71 | 1.96 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
| | 0.46 | 0.55 | 4.26 | 2.60 | 1.76 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.00 |
| Mild alkali treatment | |||||||||
| Control | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.53 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Acid hydrolysis treatment | |||||||||
| Control | 1.10 | 0.13 | 1.78 | 0.31 | 7.40 | 2.50 | 3.95 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
| | 0.98 | 0.16 | 1.02 | 0.22 | 4.11 | 1.73 | 4.42 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| | 0.95 | 0.09 | 0.59 | 0.18 | 3.51 | 1.35 | 2.20 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| | 0.91 | 0.20 | 1.69 | 0.29 | 2.09 | 2.48 | 2.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Composition of solid fractions obtained after fungal pretreatment (followed by alkali extraction) and a subsequent, or not, acid hydrolysis (acid hydrolysis and nonacid hydrolysis, resp.). Data are expressed in % (w/w).
| Sample | Ethanol extractives | Klason lignin | Acid soluble lignin | Total lignin | Glucan | Xylan | Arabinan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonacid hydrolysis | |||||||
| Control | 4.6 ± 0.2 | 18.9 ± 0.1 | 4.2 ± 0.0 | 23.1 ± 0.1 | 31.3 ± 0.4 | 16.9 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.4 |
| | 4.8 ± 0.1 | 21.2 ± 0.8 | 4.2 ± 0.0 | 25.4 ± 0.8 | 29.6 ± 0.5 | 15.5 ± 0.3 | 3.4 ± 0.0 |
| | 5.0 ± 0.2 | 21.8 ± 0.1 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 25.9 ± 0.1 | 30.9 ± 0.8 | 15.5 ± 0.6 | 2.3 ± 0.1 |
| | 4.0 ± 0.2 | 21.2 ± 0.1 | 4.3 ± 0.0 | 25.5 ± 0.1 | 29.9 ± 0.1 | 17.2 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 0.1 |
| Acid hydrolysis | |||||||
| Control | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 26.6 ± 0.2 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 30.6 ± 0.2 | 31.1 ± 0.3 | 16.8 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.0 |
| | 3.2 ± 0.2 | 26.6 ± 0.4 | 3.9 ± 0.0 | 30.5 ± 0.4 | 31.0 ± 0.4 | 17.0 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.2 |
| | 2.5 ± 0.2 | 26.3 ± 0.1 | 4.1 ± 0.0 | 30.4 ± 0.1 | 30.6 ± 0.6 | 17.6 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 26.1 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.0 | 29.7 ± 0.6 | 33.8 ± 0.6 | 18.6 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
Figure 1(a) Glucose digestibility (DG) and (b) xylose digestibility (DX) achieved after 168 h of enzymatic hydrolysis of OTP samples subjected to fungal pretreatment (followed by alkali extraction) and a subsequent, or not, acid hydrolysis (acid hydrolysis and nonacid hydrolysis, resp.). Means were calculated from three replicates within each group. Different letters represent significant differences at α > 0.05 using contrasts and the best models from Tables 3 and 4.
Model results for glucose digestibility (DG) and differences between factors tested. Factors = factors included in model i; # = number of parameters in model i; hydrol = sequential treatment type (with or without acid hydrolysis); p values for model i were calculated using analysis of deviance compared to a χ2 distribution calculated between model i and model i − 1.
| Model | Factors | # | Deviance |
| AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | — | 3 | 148.6 | — | 154.6 |
| (2) | Hydrol | 4 | 117.1 | <0.001 | 125.1 |
| (3) | Fungi + hydrol | 7 | 108.5 | 0.037 | 122.7 |
| (4) | Hydrol + fungi + hydrol × fungi | 10 | 53.4 | <0.001 | 73.4 |
| (5) | Model M4 without random effect | 9 | 53.4 | 0.999 | 71.4 |
Model (see (2)) results for xylose digestibility and differences between factors tested. Factors = factors included in model i; # = number of parameters in model i; hydrol = sequential treatment type (with or without acid hydrolysis); p values for model i were calculated using analysis of deviance compared to a χ2 distribution calculated between model i and model i − 1.
| Model | Factors | # | Deviance |
| AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | — | 3 | 146.8 | — | 152.8 |
| (2) | Hydrol | 4 | 88.0 | <0.001 | 96.0 |
| (3) | Fungi + hydrol | 7 | 62.7 | <0.001 | 76.7 |
| (4) | Hydrol + fungi + hydrol × fungi | 10 | 54.1 | 0.034 | 74.1 |
| (5) | Model M4 without random effect | 9 | 54.1 | 0.999 | 72.1 |
Global solid recovery yield of all sequential treatments (i.e., nonacid hydrolysis: fungal treatment + alkali extraction; acid hydrolysis: fungal treatment + alkali extraction + acid hydrolysis) and total sugar yield reported as g of solid material (solid yield) or g of sugars (sugar yield) per 100 g of initial untreated OTP biomass.
| Sample | Pretreatments global yield | Total sugar yield |
|---|---|---|
| Nonacid hydrol | ||
| Control | 89.8 ± 0.4 | 14.4 ± 0.2 |
| | 80.9 ± 0.3 | 12.2 ± 0.4 |
| | 75.2 ± 0.4 | 12.5 ± 0.5 |
| | 75.3 ± 0.3 | 10.5 ± 0.2 |
| Acid hydrolysis | ||
| Control | 72.9 ± 0.5 | 13.8 ± 0.0 |
| | 68.2 ± 0.6 | 13.6 ± 0.1 |
| | 66.5 ± 0.5 | 13.0 ± 0.2 |
| | 64.2 ± 0.4 | 13.1 ± 0.1 |