| Literature DB >> 32595656 |
Alexander M Jones1, Yadi Zhou2, Michael A Held2, Sarah C Davis1,3.
Abstract
Agave americana L. is a highly productive, drought-tolerant species being investigated as a feedstock for biofuel production.Entities:
Keywords: CAM; bioethanol; biofuel; crassulacean acid metabolism; energy; miscanthus; sorghum; switchgrass
Year: 2020 PMID: 32595656 PMCID: PMC7300260 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00654
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Flowchart outlining the composition analysis procedures for A. americana adapted from Sluiter and Sluiter (2011). Whole biomass sample is prepared, extracted with water to remove water-soluble carbohydrates (WSS), extracted with ethanol to remove inhibitors from residue containing holocellulose and lignin, which is then hydrolyzed to solubilize some lignin (ASL) and acid extractable carbohydrates (AEC) (i.e., structural carbohydrates) and leave a residue containing insoluble lignin (AIL) and minerals. Water soluble extract and holocellulose fraction undergo TFA hydrolysis and analyzed by HPAEC, and TFA insoluble is analyzed for cellulose content by phenol-sulfuric acid assay. Lignocellulosic grasses were only be analyzed for GH, WSS, and AEC. Procedure short titles are provided in non-shaded boxes, and biomass fraction name is provided in shaded ovals.
Composition analyses from experimental and literature values for dry untreated biomass for A. americana (Ag), M. x giganteus (Mi), S. bicolor (So), and P. virgatum (Sw). Water soluble saccharides (WSS), hemicellulose (Hc), cellulose, holocellulose (HoC), lignin, and carbon (C) are reported as a percentage of dry biomass.
| Species | %WSS | %Hc | %Cellulose | %HoC | %Lignin | %C |
| Ag | 43.95 | 5.63 | 5.55 | 11.18 | 9.06 | 38.86 |
| Mi | 0.25 | 24.53 | 32.43 | 56.96 | − | 45.59 |
| So | 1.14 | 21.84 | 19.66 | 41.50 | − | 42.38 |
| Sw | 0.28 | 24.22 | 22.51 | 46.73 | − | 42.99 |
Mean annual water input (MWI) in mm y–1, water-soluble saccharides (WSS) as % of dry biomass, WSS yield (Mg ha–1 y–1) calculated based on biomass yield reported in Davis et al. (2016), and WSS WUE (WUEWSS) expressed as WSS yield per MWI (kg WSS ha–1 mm–1) for A. americana.
| MWI1 (mm y–1) | %WSS | WSS Yield (Mg ha–1 y–1) | WUEWSS (kg WSS ha–1 mm–1) |
| 300 | 42.45 ± 6.08 | 1.70 ± 0.24 | 5.66 ± 0.81 |
| 460 | 46.49 ± 5.69 | 3.16 ± 0.39 | 6.87 ± 0.84 |
| 530 | 46.53 ± 3.67 | 4.33 ± 0.34 | 8.17 ± 0.64 |
| 780 | 45.37 ± 4.07 | 3.31 ± 0.30 | 4.25 ± 0.38 |
FIGURE 2Mean concentration of water soluble Glc, Fru and Suc as a percentage of dry biomass (A) and saccharides produced after TFA hydrolysis of water soluble extracts including Glc, Fru, Suc, and unknown sugars from oligosaccharides (B), for A. americana under different MWI (mm y–1). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean (n = 4). Letters indicate significant differences between species in Fru (p < 0.05) from one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test. No significant difference in the other sugars were observed between species (p > 0.05).
FIGURE 3Relationships between (A) dry biomass yield (Mg ha–1 y–1) and WSS (%), (B) WUE (kg ha–1 mm–1) and WSS (%), (C) dry biomass yield and WSS yield (Mg ha–1 y–1), (D) MWI (mm y–1) and WSS yield, (E) MWI and WUEWSS (kg WSS ha–1 mm–1), and (F) WUE and WUEWSS, for A. americana. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean; n = 4.
FIGURE 4Mean Glc, Fru and Suc as a percentage of dry biomass composition for miscanthus, sorghum, and switchgrass and then all feedstocks including A. americana at a different scale to show relative differences. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean (n = 16 for A. americana and n = 3 for grasses). All three sugar concentrations were significantly greater in A. americana than in the perennial grasses (p < 0.05) from one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test of differences between species within each sugar type, as indicated by lowercase letters.
FIGURE 5Relationships associated with MWI (mm y–1) and polysaccharide composition in dry biomass (%) from TFA hydrolysis and phenol-sulfuric acid hydrolysis of EFBM showing percent glucose, xylose, galactose, arabinose, rhamnose, uronic acid, and cellulose for A. americana. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean; n = 4. Lowercase letters above bars indicate significant differences in glucose (p < 0.05) from one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test. No significant difference in the other sugars were observed between species (p > 0.05).
FIGURE 6Polysaccharide composition of dry biomass (%) from TFA hydrolysis and phenol-sulfuric acid hydrolysis of EFBM showing mean percent total water-soluble carbohydrates, glucose, xylose, galactose, arabinose, rhamnose, uronic acid, and cellulose for A. americana, miscanthus, sorghum, and switchgrass (n = 16 for A. americana and n = 3 for grasses). Lowercase letters above bars indicate significant differences between species (p < 0.05) from one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test of each soluble sugar.
FIGURE 7Relationships associated with percentage structural carbohydrates per unit dry biomass (%) and GH for A. americana (▲), Miscanthus (■), Sorghum (∙), and switchgrass (◆). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean; n = 3 for GH; n for composition is reported in Supplementary Table 1.
FIGURE 8Sugars Glc (blue) and Xyl (red) released from low solids loading enzymatic hydrolysis, expressed in mg, for each of the four species A. americana (Agave), miscanthus, sorghum, and switchgrass. Error bars indicate standard error; n = 3. Lowercase italic letters indicate significant differences between species by sugar type as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
FIGURE 9Percent sugars Glc (blue) and Xyl (red) released from low solids loading enzymatic hydrolysis for each of the four species A. americana (Agave), miscanthus, sorghum, and switchgrass. Error bars indicate standard error; n = 3. Lowercase italic letters indicate significant differences between species by sugar type as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Biomass yield (dry) and calculated bioethanol (EtOH) yielda expressed in L (ha y)–1 for A. americana (Ag), miscanthus (Mi), sorghum (So), and switchgrass (Sw) with respect to water input (mm y–1), and water use efficiency (WUE) expressed in kg (ha mm)–1 showing fuel yield to water input (Fuel:H2O) ratio.
| Species | Biomass yield (Mg ha–1 y–1) | EtOH yield | Water input (mm y–1) | WUE (kg ha–1 mm–1) | Fuel:H2O (L ha–1 mm–1) |
| Ag | 9.31 | 6647 | 5301 | 17.55 | 12.54 |
| Mi | 23.42 | 8653 | 10302 | 22.72 | 8.40 |
| So | 22.03 | 5998 | 10193 | 21.59 | 5.89 |
| Sw | 10.02 | 3039 | 10302 | 10.10 | 2.95 |