| Literature DB >> 31052602 |
Shangyuan Tang1, Chunming Xu2, Linh Tran Khanh Vu3, Sicheng Liu4, Peng Ye5, Lingci Li6, Yuxuan Wu7, Mengyu Chen8, Yao Xiao9, Yue Wu10, Yining Wang11, Qiong Yan12, Xiyu Cheng13.
Abstract
In this study, effects of different pretreatment methods on the enzymatic digestibility of Pennisetum alopecuroides, a ubiquitous wild grass in China, were investigated to evaluate its potential as a feedstock for biofuel production. The stalk samples were separately pretreated with H2SO4, NaOH and FeCl3 solutions of different concentrations at 120 °C for 30 min, after which enzymatic hydrolysis was conducted to measure the digestibility of pretreated samples. Results demonstrated that different pretreatments were effective at removing hemicellulose, among which ferric chloride pretreatment (FCP) gave the highest soluble sugar recovery (200.2 mg/g raw stalk) from the pretreatment stage. In comparison with FCP and dilute acid pretreatment (DAP), dilute alkaline pretreatment (DALP) induced much higher delignification and stronger morphological changes of the biomass, making it more accessible to hydrolysis enzymes. As a result, DALP using 1.2% NaOH showed the highest total soluble sugar yield through the whole process from pretreatment to enzymatic hydrolysis (508.5 mg/g raw stalk). The present work indicates that DALP and FCP have the potential to enhance the effective bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass like P. alopecuroides, hence making this material a valuable and promising energy plant.Entities:
Keywords: Pennisetum alopecuroides; dilute alkaline pretreatment; enzymatic hydrolysis; ferric chloride pretreatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31052602 PMCID: PMC6539215 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24091715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Effect of DAP/DALP/FCP of Pennisetum alopecuroides biomass on its chemical composition.
| Different Pretreatment | Solid Yield (%) | Hemicellulose Content (%) | Cellulose Content (%) | Lignin Content (%) | Soluble Sugar from Pretreatment (mg/g RS) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | -- | 28.7 ± 0.4 | 41.8 ± 0.9 | 17.5 ± 0.6 | 20.0 ± 0.4 |
| DAP, 3% H2SO4 | 53.3 ± 1.7 | 15.0 ± 1.7 | 55.9 ± 2.3 | 17.1 ± 1.5 | 112.2 ± 2.0 |
| DALP, 1.0%NaOH | 58.2 ± 1.2 | 15.3 ± 0.1 | 64.1 ± 1.7 | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 86.7 ± 0.2 |
| FCP, 3.2% FeCl3 | 55.9 ± 1.8 | 11.9 ± 1.3 | 60.8 ± 1.3 | 16.4 ± 0.7 | 193.4 ± 8.7 |
1The soluble sugar yield in the pretreatment process was calculated based on per g raw stalk (RS). Values are means of triplicate ± standard deviation.
Figure 1SEM images of P. alopecuroides samples with and without pretreatments (500×): (a) untreated sample; (b) sample with DAP; (c) sample with DALP; (d) sample with FCP.
Figure 2Effect of DAP, DALP and FCP on enzymatic hydrolysis.
The effects of H2SO4/NaOH/FeCl3 concentrations during pretreatments of P. alopecuroides on its chemical composition.
| Different Pretreatment | H2SO4/NaOH/FeCl3 Concentrations (%) | Solid Yield (%) | Hemicellulose Content (%) | Cellulose Content (%) | Lignin Content (%) | Soluble Sugar from Pretreatment (mg/g RS) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | -- | -- | 28.7 ± 0.4 | 41.8 ± 0.9 | 17.5 ± 0.6 | 20.0 ± 0.4 |
| DAP with H2SO4 | 1% | 59.4 ± 1.0 | 16.9 ± 1.6 | 51.8 ± 1.9 | 15.7 ± 1.1 | 40.0 ± 1.3 |
| 2% | 55.0 ± 0.9 | 15.5 ± 1.3 | 55.0 ± 0.5 | 16.8 ± 1.2 | 69.5 ± 1.2 | |
| 3% | 53.3 ± 1.7 | 15.0 ± 1.7 | 55.9 ± 2.3 | 17.1 ± 1.5 | 112.2 ± 2.0 | |
| 4% | 52.6 ± 2.1 | 12.2 ± 0.2 | 56.5 ± 1.6 | 17.3 ± 1.4 | 119.3 ± 0.7 | |
| DALP with NaOH | 0.4% | 74.6 ± 2.5 | 22.0 ± 0.9 | 53.3 ± 0.3 | 14.5 ± 0.4 | 50.5 ± 0.2 |
| 0.6% | 64.7 ± 1.7 | 17.4 ± 0.9 | 59.0 ± 1.4 | 14.0 ± 0.1 | 63.4 ± 2.0 | |
| 0.8% | 59.4 ± 2.1 | 16.0 ± 0.2 | 63.2 ± 0.6 | 12.6 ± 0.1 | 83.5 ± 0.7 | |
| 1.0% | 58.2 ± 1.2 | 15.3 ± 0.1 | 64.1 ± 1.7 | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 86.7 ± 0.2 | |
| 1.2% | 53.9 ± 1.7 | 14.8 ± 0.3 | 68.0 ± 0.7 | 10.2 ± 0.8 | 107.3 ± 0.6 | |
| FCP with FeCl3 | 0.8% | 68.8 ± 3.1 | 15.2 ± 1.7 | 56.9 ± 1.6 | 18.0 ± 1.6 | 90.2 ± 2.2 |
| 1.6% | 60.8 ± 1.7 | 13.5 ± 1.5 | 60.7 ± 1.1 | 17.3 ± 0.1 | 163.6 ± 3.2 | |
| 3.2% | 55.9 ± 1.8 | 11.9 ± 1.3 | 60.8 ± 1.3 | 16.4 ± 0.7 | 193.4 ± 8.7 | |
| 4.8% | 53.1 ± 2.3 | 9.7 ± 1.7 | 62.7 ± 1.5 | 15.3 ± 1.5 | 200.2 ± 6.7 |
1 The soluble sugar yield in the pretreatment process was calculated based on per g raw stalk (RS). Values are means of triplicate ± standard deviation. RS: raw stalk.
Figure 3Effects of H2SO4/NaOH/FeCl3 concentrations during pretreatments on enzymatic hydrolysis.
Mass balance of the untreated and pretreated stalks.
| Different Methods | Solid Yield (%) | Soluble Sugar from Pretreatment (mg/g RS) | Soluble Sugar from Enzymatic Hydrolysis (mg/g PS) | Soluble Sugar from Enzymatic Hydrolysis (mg/g RS) | Total Soluble Sugar Yield (mg/g RS) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | -- | -- | -- | 134.8 | 134.8 |
| DAP | 52.6 | 119.3 | 336.4 | 176.9 | 296.2 |
| DALP | 53.9 | 107.3 | 744.4 | 401.2 | 508.5 |
| FCP | 53.1 | 200.2 | 279.3 | 148.4 | 348.6 |
1 The total soluble sugar yield through the whole process from pretreatment to enzymatic hydrolysis was calculated based on per g raw stalk. RS: raw stalk; PS: pretreated stalk.
Comparison of fermentable sugar recovery from different biomass.
| Biomass | Pretreatment Conditions | Sugar Yield (mg/g PS) 1 | Conversion Ratio (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.2% NaOH, 121 °C, 30 min | 744.4 | 85.4 | This study |
| Wild rice grass | 2% H2SO4, 121 °C, 60 min | 457 | 93.2 | [ |
| Bamboo | 1% NaOH, 3% Tween 80,121 °C, 60 min | 629 | 75.4 | [ |
| Bamboo | 1% H2SO4, 3% Tween 80,121 °C, 60 min | 153 | 24.7 | [ |
| Pine foliage | 1% C-TAB, 1% H2SO4, 121 °C, 60 min | 588 | 98.1 | [ |
| Pine foliage | 1% PEG-6000, 1% NaOH, 121 °C, 60 min | 477 | 88.4 | [ |
| Eucalyptus | 12.5% [TBA][OH], ultrasound irradiation (at a power of 360 W for 60 min) | 426.6 | 51.5 | [ |
| Eucalyptus | 2% NaOH, ultrasound irradiation (at a power of 360 W for 60 min) | 362.3 | 56.6 | [ |
|
| 0.5% NaOH, 90 °C, 60 min | (glucose yield: 245 mg/g RS) | NA | [ |
|
| 1.5% NaOH, 121 °C, 60 min | 146.9 | 24.7 | [ |
|
| 2% Ca(OH)2 or NaOH, 121 °C, 60 min | 324~5372 | 65.5~88.7 | [ |
1 Soluble sugar yields were calculated based on per g pretreated stalk. 2 Sugar yields and conversion ratios were calculated on the basis of the reported data of the cellulose/hemecellulose contents and glucose/xylose/reducing sugar yields in the corresponding references. RS: raw stalk; PS: pretreated stalk; Ref.: references; NA: not available.