| Literature DB >> 32992745 |
Pasi Korkalo1, Risto Korpinen2, Egbert Beuker3, Tytti Sarjala4, Jarkko Hellström5, Janne Kaseva6, Ulla Lassi7, Tuula Jyske2.
Abstract
This study aims to promote comprehensive utilization of woody biomass by providing a knowledgebase on the utility of aspen bark as a new alternative source for fossil-based chemicals. The research focused on the analysis of clonal variation in: (1) major chemical components, i.e., hemicelluloses, cellulose, and lignin; (2) extraneous materials, i.e., bark extractives, and suberic acid; (3) condensed tannins content and composition; and (4) screening differences in antioxidative properties and total phenolic content of hot water extracts and ethanol-water extracts of hybrid aspen bark. Results of this study, the discovery of clonal variation in utilizable chemicals, pave the way for further research on added-value potential of under-utilized hybrid aspen and its bark. Clonal variation was found in notable part of chemicals with potential for utilization. Based on the results, an appropriate bark raw material can be selected for tailored processing, thus improving the resource efficiency. The results also indicate that by applying cascade processing concepts, bark chemical substances could be more efficiently utilized with more environmentally friendly methods.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidative capacity; bark; cascade; clonal variation; condensed tannin; extractive; hybrid aspen; lignocellulosic biomass; suberic acid
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32992745 PMCID: PMC7583925 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25194403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Content of lignin (a–c); hemicellulose (d–f); and cellulose (g–i) in the bark of hybrid aspen.
Figure 2Content of (a–c) hydrophilic extractives; (d–f) lipophilic extractives; (g–i) suberic acid and (j–l) ash.
Figure 3Hybrid aspen clone bark; (a–c) condensed tannins (CT) contents (d–f) average degree of polymerization (DP) for total flavan-3-ols and percentage value of prodelphinidins (PD, %), i.e., (epi)gallocatechin subunits in condensed tannins (g–i).
Figure 4Hot water extract antioxidative capacity (a–c) ORAC µmol TE/g; (d–f) FRAP µmol/g Fe(II) eq.; (g–i) H2O2 scavenging H2O2 inh % per 100 g; (j–l) Total phenolic content mg GAE/g.
Figure 5Ethanol extract antioxidative capacity (a–c) ORAC µmol TE/g; (d–f) FRAP µmol/g Fe(II) eq.; (g–i) H2O2 scavenging H2O2 inh % per 100 g; (j–l) Total phenolic content mg GAE/g.
Characteristics of the sample trees
| Clone No. | National Register Id 1 | H (dm) 2 | LTL (dm) 3 | D 1.3 (mm) 4 | D 5.0 (mm) 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | C05-99-24 | 188 ± 18 | 57 ± 5 | 153 ± 12 | 129 ± 12 |
| 4 | C05-99-34 | 189 ± 21 | 52 ± 19 | 141 ± 12 | 118 ± 13 |
| 5 | C05-99-14 | 180 ± 38 | 52 ± 18 | 124 ± 16 | 104 ± 28 |
1 The national list of approved basic forest reproductive material, kept by the Finnish Food Authority [38], 2 H dm = tree height, 3 LTL = Height of Living Treetop Line measured from ground level, 4,5 1.3 m and 5.0 m sample discs cross length measured in north-south orientation.
Pulverized bark sample particle-size distribution.
| Particle-Size Distribution | |
|---|---|
| <0.063 mm | 11.7% |
| 0.063–0.2 mm | 20.1% |
| 0.2–0.5 mm | 42.3% |
| 0.5–1.25 mm | 25.2% |
| 1.25–2.0 mm | 0.6% |