| Literature DB >> 35424480 |
Shiying Li1,2, Jinfang Tan3, Yi Wang2, Peipei Li2, Desheng Hu2, Qiuzhe Shi2, Yanjun Yue4, Fang Li2, Yanlai Han2.
Abstract
Bio-solubilization of lignite is a promising technology to transform coal into humic acids (HAs) which are broadly used in agriculture. In this work, HAs were extracted from lignite using the cell-free filtrate (CFF) of Penicillium ortum MJ51. The extraction method was optimized using response surface methodology (RSM) based on the interactive effects of nitric acid concentrations, coal loading ratio, extraction temperature and time as input factors, and the absorbance of HAs at 450 nm wavelength as the output response. Under optimized conditions (lignite pretreated with 4.7 N HNO3, coal loading ratio of 4.9%, temperature of 77.3 °C and time of 8.6 hours), the absorbance at 450 nm peaked at 70.28, and the concentration and extraction yield of HAs were 31.3 g L-1 and 63.9%, respectively, which were dramatically higher than those observed for traditional biological methods (0.7 g L-1 and 14.1%, respectively). The qualities of HAs produced under optimized conditions were evaluated and compared with those extracted by the conventional chemical method. The optimized process resulted in better HA quality indices, including lower molecular mass; higher nitrogen; less aromatic carbon; more aliphatic and carboxylic carbon; and higher bioactivity for promoting plant growth. Moreover, the anti-flocculation ability was improved, thereby supporting its applicability in agriculture. Extraction of HAs from lignite using the CFF of P. ortum MJ51 provides a novel technological approach for the efficient conversion of lignite to bio-active HAs. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35424480 PMCID: PMC8696883 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra08019a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Different conditions for bio-solubilization experiment
| Group | Variables | Ranges | Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bio-solution type | A: culture solution inoculation with | 0.5% raw lignite, 30 °C, 160 rpm |
| B: CFF of | |||
| 2 | Incubation time | 0 h, 12 h, 24 h, 36 h, 48 h, 60 h, 72 h, 84 h, 96 h, 108 h, 120 h, 132 h, 144 h, 156 h, 168 h | 0.5% raw lignite, 30 °C, 160 rpm |
| 3 | Temperature | 30 °C, 45 °C, 60 °C, 75 °C, 90 °C | 0.5% raw lignite, 160 rpm |
| 4 | HNO3 concentration | 0 N, 0.5 N, 1 N, 2 N, 4 N, 6 N | 0.5% raw lignite, 75 °C, 160 rpm |
| 5 | Coal loading ratio | 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% | 4 N HNO3, 75 °C, 160 rpm |
Range of values for response surface variables
| Factor | Name | Units | Minimum | Maximum | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| HNO3 concentration | N | 2 | 6 | 4 |
|
| Temperature | oC | 60 | 90 | 75 |
|
| Coal loading ratio | % | 4 | 6 | 5 |
|
| Time | hours | 6 | 10 | 8 |
Box–Behnken design with four-factor and three-levela
| Run | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coded | Actual | Coded | Actual | Coded | Actual | Coded | Actual | ||
| 1 | 0 | 4 | −1 | 60 | 0 | 5 | −1 | 6 | 50.36 ± 0.56 |
| 2 | −1 | 2 | 0 | 75 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 26.34 ± 0.39 |
| 3 | −1 | 2 | −1 | 60 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 29.79 ± 0.40 |
| 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 68.61 ± 0.63 |
| 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 90 | −1 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 59.87 ± 1.31 |
| 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | −1 | 4 | −1 | 6 | 52.16 ± 0.84 |
| 7 | 0 | 4 | −1 | 60 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 55.65 ± 1.09 |
| 8 | −1 | 2 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 31.71 ± 0.32 |
| 9 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 75 | −1 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 54.90 ± 1.51 |
| 10 | −1 | 2 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 29.96 ± 0.72 |
| 11 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 1 | 6 | −1 | 6 | 49.77 ± 0.34 |
| 12 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | −1 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 61.73 ± 1.18 |
| 13 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 68.02 ± 1.31 |
| 14 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 67.49 ± 1.24 |
| 15 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 65.45 ± 1.67 |
| 16 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 57.11 ± 0.74 |
| 17 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 90 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 51.95 ± 0.70 |
| 18 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 75 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 50.92 ± 1.49 |
| 19 | −1 | 2 | 0 | 75 | −1 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 26.89 ± 0.68 |
| 20 | 0 | 4 | −1 | 60 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 45.96 ± 1.20 |
| 21 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 5 | −1 | 6 | 56.40 ± 1.38 |
| 22 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 54.94 ± 0.94 |
| 23 | 1 | 6 | −1 | 60 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 45.02 ± 0.71 |
| 24 | 0 | 4 | −1 | 60 | −1 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 51.26 ± 1.20 |
| 25 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | −1 | 6 | 52.20 ± 1.08 |
| 26 | −1 | 2 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | −1 | 6 | 28.60 ± 0.48 |
| 27 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 55.92 ± 1.25 |
| 28 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 66.49 ± 1.49 |
| 29 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 64.68 ± 1.31 |
Note: results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Fig. 1(a) Growth curve of Penicillium ortum MJ51 strain; (b) effect of bio-solution type (A: culture solution inoculation with P. ortum MJ51 for 0 hour; B: CFF of P. ortum MJ51 cultured to the 60th hour) on coal solubilization; (c) pH of the cell-free filtrate (CFF) with different culture time and lignite degradation in the CFF by P. ortum MJ51; (d) the relationship between pH of the CFF and the absorbance of HAs at 450 nm wavelength. Note: error bars indicate standard deviation.
Fig. 2Effect of different factors on coal solubilization. (a) Temperature, (b) HNO3 concentration, and (c) coal loading ratio. Note: error bars indicate standard deviation.
ANOVA of response surface quadratic model for humic acids production
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 4809.38 | 14 | 343.53 | 83.35 | <0.0001 |
|
| 1698.84 | 1 | 1698.84 | 412.20 | <0.0001 |
|
| 150.45 | 1 | 150.45 | 36.50 | <0.0001 |
|
| 60.44 | 1 | 60.44 | 14.66 | 0.0018 |
|
| 99.65 | 1 | 99.65 | 24.18 | 0.0002 |
|
| 20.16 | 1 | 20.16 | 4.89 | 0.0441 |
|
| 2.94 | 1 | 2.94 | 0.71 | 0.4124 |
|
| 3.15 | 1 | 3.15 | 0.76 | 0.3967 |
|
| 1.72 | 1 | 1.72 | 0.42 | 0.5292 |
|
| 2.24 | 1 | 2.24 | 0.54 | 0.4736 |
|
| 4.84 | 1 | 4.84 | 1.17 | 0.2968 |
|
| 2622.28 | 1 | 2622.28 | 636.26 | <0.0001 |
|
| 270.29 | 1 | 270.29 | 65.58 | <0.0001 |
|
| 408.95 | 1 | 408.95 | 99.23 | <0.0001 |
|
| 136.15 | 1 | 136.15 | 33.03 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 57.70 | 14 | 4.12 | ||
| Lack of fit | 51.39 | 10 | 5.14 | 3.26 | 0.1332 |
| Pure error | 6.31 | 4 | 1.58 | ||
| Cor total | 4867.08 | 28 | |||
| Coefficient of determination ( | |||||
Fig. 3Diagnostics of response surface quadratic model. (a) Normal plot of residuals, and (b) actual and predicted plot.
Fig. 4Contour plots and 3-D surface plots of different variables interaction on HA concentration. (a) HNO3 concentration and temperature; (b) HNO3 concentration and coal loading ratio; (c) HNO3 concentration and time; (d) temperature and coal loading ratio; (e) temperature and time; (f) coal loading ratio and time.
Concentration and extraction yield of humic acids under different conditionsa
| Extraction method | HNO3 concentration (N) | Temperature (°C) | Coal loading ratio (%) | Time (h) | CHAs (g L−1) | HA yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fermentation broth | 0 | 30 | 0.5 | 240 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 14.1 ± 0.9 |
| CFF | 4.7 | 77.3 | 4.9 | 8.6 | 31.3 ± 1.9 | 63.9 ± 2.8 |
| NaOH (0.1 M) | 0 | 77.3 | 4.9 | 8.6 | 28.8 ± 1.3 | 58.7 ± 2.4 |
| NaOH (0.1 M) | 4.7 | 77.3 | 4.9 | 8.6 | 32.5 ± 2.1 | 66.4 ± 3.1 |
Note: results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Fig. 5Quality evaluation of humic acids. (a) Elemental composition, atomic ratio, E4/E6, and flocculation limit, (b) HPSEC elution profile, (c) FTIR spectra, (d) solid-state CP/MAS 13C NMR spectroscopy and (e) plant physiological activity of humic acids. Note: HA-CFF, HA extracted by CFF; HA-control, HA extracted by NaOH. Error bars indicate standard deviation. Significant differences between treatments at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 levels are labeled with * and **, respectively. In the (d), CC represents carbonyl C; CCOO–H,R represents carboxyl C; CAr–O represents O-aromatic C; CAr–H,R represents aromatic C; CAlk–di-O represents di-O-alkyl C (anomeric); CAlk–O represents O-alkyl C; CAlk–O,N represents methoxyl and N-alkyl C; CAlk–H,R represents alkyl C.
The distribution of carbon in HAs as determined by solid-state CP/MAS 13C NMR spectroscopya
| ppm | 190–220 | 160–190 | 140–160 | 110–140 | 90–110 | 60–90 | 45–60 | 0–45 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C% | Carboxyl/carbonyl carbons | Aromatic carbons | Aliphatic carbons | |||||
| CC | CCOO–H,R | CAr–O | CAr–H,R | CAlk–di-O | CAlk–O | CAlk–O,N | CAlk–H,R | |
| HA-control | 2.0 | 8.8 | 10.0 | 26.9 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 32.9 |
| HA-CFF | 2.4 | 12.2 | 5.1 | 15.6 | 3.1 | 16.3 | 12.2 | 33.2 |
Note: CC represents carbonyl C; CCOO–H,R represents carboxyl C; CAr–O represents O-aromatic C; CAr–H,R represents aromatic C; CAlk–di-O represents di-O-alkyl C (anomeric); CAlk–O represents O-alkyl C; CAlk–O,N represents methoxyl and N-alkyl C; CAlk–H,R represents alkyl C.