| Literature DB >> 33544343 |
Niyam Dave1, Thivaharan Varadavenkatesan2, Ram Sharan Singh3, Balendu Shekher Giri4, Raja Selvaraj5, Ramesh Vinayagam6.
Abstract
Green macroalgae comprise significant amount of structural carbohydrates for their conversion to liquid biofuels. However, it generally relies on species characteristics and the variability in seasonal profile to determine its route for bioprocessing. Hence, this study was conducted to analyze the indigenous marine macroalgal strain (Ulva prolifera) with respect to periodic trend and reducing sugar extraction. Consequently, in our investigation, the monthly variation in sugar profile and bioethanol yield was assessed between the monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, of which relatively high reducing sugar and fermentative bioethanol yield of about 0.152 ± 0.009 g/gdw and 6.275 ± 0.161 g/L was obtained for the October-month isolate (MITM10). Thereafter, the biochemical profile of this collected biomass (MITM10) revealed carbohydrate 34.98 ± 3.30%, protein 12.45 ± 0.49%, and lipid 1.93 ± 0.07%, respectively, on dry weight basis. Of these, the total carbohydrate fraction yielded the maximum reducing sugar of 0.156 ± 0.005 g/gdw under optimal conditions (11.07% (w/v) dosage, 0.9 M H2SO4, 121°C for 50 min) for thermal-acid hydrolysis. Furthermore, the elimination of polysaccharides was confirmed using the characterization techniques scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy. Therefore, the present thermochemical treatment method provides a species-specific novel strategy to breakdown the macroalgal cell wall polysaccharides that enhances sugar extraction for its utilization as an efficient bioenergy resource.Entities:
Keywords: Characterization techniques; Green macroalgae; Periodic trend; Structural carbohydrates; Sugar profile; Thermal-acid hydrolysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33544343 PMCID: PMC8541971 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-12609-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
CCD design and its response for reducing sugar extraction
| Experiment no. | TAH parameters | RSY (g/gdw) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Dosage (% w/v) | (B) Acid concentration (M) | (C) Hydrolysis time (min) | Experimental | Predicted | ||
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | (−1) 5 (+1) 15 (−1) 5 (+1) 15 (−1) 5 (+1) 15 (−1) 5 (+1) 15 (−2) 1.59 (+2) 18.41 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 | (−1) 0.3 (−1) 0.3 (+1) 1 (+1) 1 (−1) 0.3 (−1) 0.3 (+1) 1 (+1) 1 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (−2) 0.06 (+2) 1.24 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 (0) 0.65 | (−1) 20 (−1) 20 (−1) 20 (−1) 20 (+1) 50 (+1) 50 (+1) 50 (+1) 50 (0) 35 (0) 35 (0) 35 (0) 35 (−2) 9.77 (+2) 60.23 (0) 35 (0) 35 (0) 35 (0) 35 (0) 35 (0) 35 | 0.085 0.061 0.126 0.124 0.099 0.065 0.134 0.147 0.150 0.104 0.006 0.128 0.097 0.161 0.130 0.147 0.136 0.130 0.136 0.146 | 0.083 0.046 0.120 0.120 0.100 0.067 0.150 0.150 0.140 0.110 0.014 0.120 0.110 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 | |
Fig. 1Taxonomical identification of marine macroalgae Ulva prolifera O.F. Muell. MITM. a Herbarium preparation. b Cross-sectional analysis under × 20 objective
Fig. 2Evaluation of seasonal variation (August–November 2018) among the marine macroalgal specimens in terms of biochemical alterations. a Sugar content. b Bioethanol yield
Biochemical composition of U. prolifera O.F. Muell. MITM10
| Composition | Dry weight (%) * |
|---|---|
Carbohydrate Protein Lipid Ash | 34.98 ± 3.30 12.45 ± 0.49 1.93 ± 0.07 37.83 ± 0.23 |
*Mean ± standard deviation
Fig. 3Analysis of interaction effect using response surface plots
ANOVA for CCD model
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.026 | 9 | 2.883E-003 | 21.19 | < 0.0001 |
| A-Dosage | 1.132E-003 | 1 | 1.132E-003 | 8.33 | 0.0162 |
| B-Acid concentration | 0.013 | 1 | 0.013 | 97.77 | < 0.0001 |
| C-Hydrolysis time | 1.796E-003 | 1 | 1.796E-003 | 13.21 | 0.0046 |
| AB | 5.951E-004 | 1 | 5.951E-004 | 4.37 | 0.0630 |
| AC | 3.125E-006 | 1 | 3.125E-006 | 0.023 | 0.8825 |
| BC | 2.113E-005 | 1 | 2.113E-005 | 0.16 | 0.7018 |
| A2 | 2.155E-004 | 1 | 2.155E-004 | 1.58 | 0.2368 |
| B2 | 9.065E-003 | 1 | 9.065E-003 | 66.64 | < 0.0001 |
| C2 | 1.439E-004 | 1 | 1.439E-004 | 1.06 | 0.3280 |
| Residual | 1.360E-003 | 10 | 1.360E-004 | ||
| Lack of fit | 1.081E-003 | 5 | 2.162E-004 | 3.87 | 0.0820 |
| Pure error | 2.795E-004 | 5 | 5.590E-005 | ||
| Cor total | 0.027 | 19 |
Fig. 4Statistical terms for determining model adequacy. (a) Perturbation plot. (b) Normal plot of experimental residuals
Fig. 5Scanning electron micrograph of biomass (a) before TAH process and (b) after TAH process
Fig. 6FT-IR spectra of biomass (a) before treatment and (b) after treatment