| Literature DB >> 34202856 |
Jingyang Li1,2,3, Fei Liu1,2, Hua Yu1,2, Yuqi Li2, Shiguang Zhou1,2, Yuanhang Ai1,2, Xinyu Zhou1,2, Youmei Wang1,2, Lingqiang Wang1,4, Liangcai Peng1,2, Yanting Wang1,2.
Abstract
Banana is a major fruit crop throughout the world with abundant lignocellulose in the pseudostem and rachis residues for biofuel production. In this study, we collected a total of 11 pseudostems and rachis samples that were originally derived from different genetic types and ecological locations of banana crops and then examined largely varied edible carbohydrates (soluble sugars, starch) and lignocellulose compositions. By performing chemical (H2SO4, NaOH) and liquid hot water (LHW) pretreatments, we also found a remarkable variation in biomass enzymatic saccharification and bioethanol production among all banana samples examined. Consequently, this study identified a desirable banana (Refen1, subgroup Pisang Awak) crop containing large amounts of edible carbohydrates and completely digestible lignocellulose, which could be combined to achieve the highest bioethanol yields of 31-38% (% dry matter), compared with previously reported ones in other bioenergy crops. Chemical analysis further indicated that the cellulose CrI and lignin G-monomer should be two major recalcitrant factors affecting biomass enzymatic saccharification in banana pseudostems and rachis. Therefore, this study not only examined rich edible carbohydrates for food in the banana pseudostems but also detected digestible lignocellulose for bioethanol production in rachis tissue, providing a strategy applicable for genetic breeding and biomass processing in banana crops.Entities:
Keywords: banana; bioethanol fermentation; biomass pretreatments; cellulose crystallinity; enzymatic saccharification; pseudostem; rachis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34202856 PMCID: PMC8270323 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133870
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Variation of edible carbohydrates and lignocellulose compositions among 11 total banana samples. (a) Soluble sugars, (b) Starch, (c) Wall polymer composition. # As coefficient of variation/CV by calculating SD value divided by mean (n = 11).
Edible soluble sugars and starch and lignocellulose compositions (% dry matter) among 11 total banana samples.
| Samples | Soluble Sugar | Starch | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | Pectin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hexoses | Pentoses | ||||||
| PS-1 | 26.9 ± 0.6 | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.2 | 35.5 ± 0.7 | 11.9 ± 0.7 | 10.8 ± 0.7 | 5.9 ± 0.1 |
| PS-2 | 32.3 ± 1.5 | 3.2 ± 0.1 | 13.7 ± 0.5 | 27.5 ± 0.5 | 12.2 ± 0.4 | 7.9 ± 0.6 | 5.7 ± 0.1 |
| PS-3 | 9.2 ± 0.7 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 3.3 ± 0.3 | 38.7 ± 2.1 | 15.1 ± 0.3 | 12.6 ± 0.3 | 5.1 ± 0.2 |
| PS-4 | 21.3 ± 0.4 | 3.4 ± 0.1 | 6.9 ± 0.5 | 37.7 ± 0.9 | 13.9 ± 0.1 | 12.9 ± 0.4 | 3.4 ± 0.1 |
| PS-5 | 22.8 ± 0.2 | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 6.1 ± 0.5 | 37.2 ± 0.5 | 15.2 ± 0.1 | 10.9 ± 0.1 | 4.3 ± 0.1 |
| PS-6 | 8.5 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 7.4 ± 0.4 | 36.7 ± 2.4 | 14.2 ± 0.4 | 12.6 ± 0.3 | 3.9 ± 0.1 |
| PS-7 | 17.0 ± 0.5 | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 7.9 ± 0.4 | 32.6 ± 0.8 | 13.7 ± 0.2 | 14.9 ± 0.5 | 6.5 ± 0.4 |
| PS-8 | 16.4 ± 0.3 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 10.2 ± 0.1 | 35.1 ± 1.9 | 14.7 ± 0.2 | 15.6 ± 0.4 | 5.1 ± 0.2 |
| PS-9 | 14.6 ± 0.4 | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 6.6 ± 0.4 | 37.7 ± 2.1 | 15.7 ± 0.2 | 13.0 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.2 |
| RC-2 | 42.3 ± 0.2 | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | 24.1 ± 1.7 | 10.4 ± 0.1 | 9.3 ± 0.9 | 3.8 ± 0.1 |
| RC-3 | 3.3 ± 0.3 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 21.2 ± 2.2 | 12.8 ± 0.4 | 15.5 ± 0.2 | 3.9 ± 0.2 |
Data as means ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 2Variation of biomass enzymatic saccharification among 11 total banana samples after acid pretreatments (n = 11). (a) Hexoses yields released from enzymatic hydrolysis after 1% H2SO4 pretreatment; (b) total sugar yields (hexoses and pentoses) released from both enzymatic hydrolysis and 1% H2SO4 pretreatment; # As coefficient of variation.
Figure 3Variation of biomass enzymatic saccharification among 11 total banana samples after alkali pretreatments (n = 11). (a) Hexoses yields released from enzymatic hydrolysis after 1% NaOH pretreatment; (b) total sugar yields (hexoses and pentoses) released from both enzymatic hydrolysis and 1% NaOH pretreatment; (c) hexoses yields released from enzymatic hydrolysis after four concentrations of NaOH pretreatments with two banana samples; # As coefficient of variation. * and ** indicate significant differences between PS-2 and PS-4 by t-test at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 (n ± 3). Minus sign percentage was calculated by subtraction between PS-2 and PS-4 values divided by PS-2. Data as mean SD (n ± 3).
Figure 4Variation of biomass enzymatic saccharification among 11 total banana samples after liquid hot water (LHW) pretreatments (n = 11). (a) Hexoses yields released from enzymatic hydrolysis after a time course of LHW pretreatments; (b) total sugar yields (hexoses and pentoses) released from both enzymatic hydrolysis and a time course of LHW pretreatments; # As coefficient of variation.
Figure 5Variation of bioethanol production obtained from yeast fermentation among 8 total banana samples (n = 8). (a) Bioethanol yields using total hexoses released from enzymatic hydrolysis after 1% NaOH pretreatments; (b) Estimated total bioethanol yields using all hexoses and pentoses from soluble sugars, starch, and enzymatic hydrolysis after 1% NaOH pretreatments; (c) bioethanol yields using total hexoses released from enzymatic hydrolysis after 16 min LHW pretreatments; (d) estimated total bioethanol yields using all hexoses and pentoses from soluble sugars, starch, and enzymatic hydrolysis after 16 min LHW pretreatments; # As coefficient of variation.
Comparison of bioethanol yields achieved in this work and in the previous studies.
| Material | Pretreatment | Soluble Sugars & Starch | Enzymatic Hydrolysis | Estimated Total Ethanol Yield | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hexoses | Pentoses | Hexoses | Pentoses | ||||
| (% DM) | (% DM) | (% DM) | (% DM) | (% DM) | |||
| Banana (Refen1) Pseudostem (PS-2) | 1% NaOH | 42.4 | 5.3 | 22.8 | 9.2 | 38.4 | This study |
| LHW *, 200 °C, 16 min | 40.7 | 10.2 | 21.7 | 2.5 | 36.4 | ||
| Banana (Refen1)Rachis (RC-2) | 1% NaOH | 36.1 | 4.6 | 21.8 | 8.9 | 34.3 | |
| LHW, 200 °C, 16 min | 33.6 | 8.0 | 23.1 | 11.8 | 30.9 | ||
| Wheat straw | Subcritical water, 220 °C, 22 min | ND | 18.4 | 25.9 | 1.8 | 29.6 | [ |
| Corn straw | LHW, 200 °C, 20 min | 23.7 | 3.6 | 16.5 | 5.1 | 19.3 | [ |
| Sweet sorghum stalk | Supercritical carbon dioxide | ND | ND | 43.6 | ND | 22.3 | [ |
| Sugarcane bagasse | Sulfite-NaOH | 10.2 | 33.3 | 40 | 16.5 | 26.2 | [ |
| Miscanthus straw | Green liquor, 32%, 150 °C, 32 min | 0.1 | 15.1 | 34.2 | 15.1 | 17.1 | [ |
| Poplar stem | 8% NaOH | 5.7 | 3.2 | 31.8 | ND | 10.1 | [ |
* Liquid hot water, DM: Dry matter, ND: Not detected.
Figure 6Comparison of hexoses yields (% cellulose) released from enzymatic hydrolysis after chemical and LHW pretreatments between PS-2 and RC-2 samples; (a) 1% H2SO4 pretreatment; (b) 1% NaOH pretreatment; (c) LHW pretreatment; * and ** As significant differences between the RC-2and PS-2 by Student’s t-test at p < 0.05 and 0.01 (n = 3) with the increased (+) percentage of the RC-2 sample relative to the PS-2; Data as means ± SD (n = 3).
Cell wall composition (% total) in the PS-2 and RC-2 samples.
| Samples | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | Pectin | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS-2 | 51.5 ± 0.3 | 22.9 ± 0.3 | 14.9 ± 0.4 | 10.8 ± 0.1 | ||
| RC-2 | 50.7 ± 0.7 | 21.8 ± 0.1 | 19.6 ± 0.2 * | +31% # | 7.9 ± 0.1 * | −27% |
* As significant differences between the PS-2 and RC-2 samples by t-test at p < 0.05 (n = 3). # Percentage calculated by subtraction between the RC-2 and PS-2 values divided by PS-2. Data as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 7Comparison of major wall polymer features between PS-2 and RC-2 samples. (a) Cellulose CrI against dry matter; (b) CrI against cellulose level; (c–e) three lignin monomer ratios; (f,g) xylose and arabinose levels of hemicellulose; (h) xylose/arabinose ratios. ± was calculated by subtraction between PS-2 and PS-4 values divided by PS-2. Data as mean SD (n ± 3).