Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural features influential to enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose-solvent-based pretreated pinewood and elmwood for ethanol production

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dissolution of lignocelluloses in N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO or NMO) at moderate conditions, e.g., 120 °C for 3 h under atmospheric pressure, and regeneration with water, is among the most effective nonderivatization pretreatment for the improvement of enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol production. The effects of the pretreatment on two different types of wood, hardwood elm and softwood pine, were compared via physicochemical structural analyses, i.e., FTIR, XRD, SEM, TGA, and enzyme adsorption techniques, to relate their properties to the extent of enzymatic conversion. After the pretreatment, cellulose was highly recovered and characterized to be mainly cellulose II and amorphous cellulose, with lower cellulose crystallinity index, higher thermal stability, and more favorable surface features for hydrolysis, compared to native woods. Moreover, the strength of enzyme binding onto the lignocelluloses, which was directly related to the enzymatic hydrolysis rate, increased by 57% and 164% for pinewood and elmwood, respectively. The highest total reducing sugars yield for untreated pinewood was 9.8% (74 mg/g-substrate) and improved to 58.5% (330 mg/g-substrate) after the pretreatment, whereas the corresponding values for elmwood were 14.7% (104 mg/g-substrate) vs. 51.4% (274 mg/g-substrate). Furthermore, maximum ethanol theoretical yields of 63.5 and 41.4% were obtained from pinewood and elmwood by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Mucor indicus, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Himmel ME, Ding SY, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW (2007) Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315:804–807

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee J-E, Guragain YN, Bastola KP, Vadlani PV (2017) Innovative methods to generate clean sugar stream from biomass feedstocks for efficient fermentation. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 40(7):633–641

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson DL (1969) Compounds dissolved in cyclic amine oxides. Google Patents

  4. Goshadrou A, Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ (2013) Ethanol and biogas production from birch by NMMO pretreatment. Biomass Bioenergy 49:95–101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuo C, Lee C (2009) Enhancement of enzymatic saccharification of cellulose by cellulose dissolution pretreatments. Carbohydr Polym 77:41–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shafiei M, Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ (2010) Pretreatment of spruce and oak by N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) for efficient conversion of their cellulose to ethanol. Bioresour Technol 101(13):4914–4918

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kabir MM, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ, Horváth IS (2014) Biogas production from lignocelluloses by N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) pretreatment: Effects of recovery and reuse of NMMO. Bioresour Technol 161:446–450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shafiei M, Karimi K, Zilouei H, Taherzadeh MJ (2014) Enhanced ethanol and biogas production from pinewood by NMMO pretreatment and detailed biomass analysis. BioMed Res Int 2014:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yoo CG, Kim H, Lu F, Azarpira A, Pan X, Oh KK, Kim JS, Ralph J, Kim TH (2016) Understanding the physicochemical characteristics and the improved enzymatic saccharification of corn stover pretreated with aqueous and gaseous ammonia. BioEnergy Res 9(1):67–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Aldaeus F, Larsson K, Srndovic JS, Kubat M, Karlström K, Peciulyte A, Olsson L, Larsson PT (2015) The supramolecular structure of cellulose-rich wood pulps can be a determinative factor for enzymatic hydrolysability. Cellulose 22(6):3991–4002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang Q, Wei W, Li X, Sun J, He J, He M (2015) Comparative study of alkali and acidic cellulose solvent pretreatment of corn stover for fermentable sugar production. BioRes 11:482–491

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haghighi Mood S, Hossein Golfeshan A, Tabatabaei M, Salehi Jouzani G, Najafi GH, Gholami M, Ardjmand M (2013) Lignocellulosic biomass to bioethanol, a comprehensive review with a focus on pretreatment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:77–93

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui T, Li J, Yan Z, Yu M, Li S (2014) The correlation between the enzymatic saccharification and the multidimensional structure of cellulose changed by different pretreatments. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peciulyte A, Karlström K, Larsson PT, Olsson L (2015) Impact of the supramolecular structure of cellulose on the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meng X, Sun Q, Kosa M, Huang F, Pu Y, Ragauskas AJ (2016) Physicochemical structural changes of poplar and switchgrass during biomass pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 4(9):4563–4572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pihlajaniemi V, Sipponen MH, Liimatainen H, Sirvio JA, Nyyssola A, Laakso S (2016) Weighing the factors behind enzymatic hydrolyzability of pretreated lignocellulose. Green Chem 18(5):1295–1305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Satari B, Karimi K, Kumar R Cellulose solvents-based pretreatment for enhanced second-generation biofuels production: a review. Unpublished work, Submitted to Prog Energy Comb Sci

  18. Pielhop T, Amgarten J, von Rohr PR, Studer MH (2016) Steam explosion pretreatment of softwood: the effect of the explosive decompression on enzymatic digestibility. Biotechnol Biofuels 9:152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang L, Pu Y, Cort JR, Ragauskas AJ, Yang B (2016) Revealing the molecular structural transformation of hardwood and softwood in dilute acid flowthrough pretreatment. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4(12):6618–6628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Millati R, Purwandari FA, Sanjaya AP, Cahyanto MN, Horváth IS, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ (2012) Use of NMMO pretreatment for biogas production from oil palm empty fruit bunch. World Academy of Science, Eng Technol 6:1010–1014

    Google Scholar 

  21. Poornejad N, Karimi K, Behzad T (2013) Improvement of saccharification and ethanol production from rice straw by NMMO and [BMIM][OAc] pretreatments. Ind Crops Products 41:408–413

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sluiter AD, Hames B, Hyman D, Payne C, Ruiz RO, Scarlata CJ, Sluiter JB, Templeton DW, Wolfe J (2008) Determination of total solids in biomass and total dissolved solids in liquid process samples. NREL/TP-510-42621

  23. Adney B, Baker J (2008) Measurement of cellulase activities NREL/TP-510-42628

  24. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72(1–2):248–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ximenes EA, Felix CR, Ulhoa CJ (1996) Production of cellulases by Aspergillus fumigatus and characterization of one β-glucosidase. Curr Microbiol 32(3):119–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31(3):426–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Satari B, Karimi K, Zamani A (2016) Oil, chitosan, and ethanol production by dimorphic fungus Mucor indicus from different lignocelluloses. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 91(6):1835–1843

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Satari B, Palhed J, Karimi K, Lundin M, Taherzadeh JM, Zamani A (2017) Process optimization for citrus waste biorefinery via simultaneous pectin extraction and pretreatment. BioRes 12:1706–1722

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Satari B, Karimi K, Taherzadeh M, Zamani A (2016) Co-Production of fungal biomass derived constituents and ethanol from citrus wastes free sugars without auxiliary nutrients in airlift bioreactor. Int J Mol Sci 17:302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Noori MS, Karimi K (2016) Chemical and structural analysis of alkali pretreated pinewood for efficient ethanol production. RSC Adv 6(70):65683–65690

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sluiter AD, Hames B, Ruiz RO, Scarlata CJ, Sluiter JB, Templeton DW, D. C (2012) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. NREL/TP-510-42618

  32. Park S, Baker J, Himmel M, Parilla P, Johnson D (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-Ray diffractometer. Textile Res J 29(10):786–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cao Y, Tan H (2005) Study on crystal structures of enzyme-hydrolyzed cellulosic materials by X-ray diffraction. Enzyme Microb Technol 36(2–3):314–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kumar R, Wyman CE (2009) Cellulase adsorption and relationship to features of corn stover solids produced by leading pretreatments. Biotechnol Bioeng 103(2):252–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ (2016) A critical review of analytical methods in pretreatment of lignocelluloses: composition, imaging, and crystallinity. Bioresour Technol 200:1008–1018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gourlay K, Arantes V, Saddler J (2012) Use of substructure-specific carbohydrate binding modules to track changes in cellulose accessibility and surface morphology during the amorphogenesis step of enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Amiri H, Karimi K (2015) Improvement of acetone, butanol, and ethanol production from woody biomass using organosolv pretreatment. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 38(10):1959–1972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Grimaldi MP, Marques MP, Laluce C, Cilli EM, Sponchiado SRP (2015) Evaluation of lime and hydrothermal pretreatments for efficient enzymatic hydrolysis of raw sugarcane bagasse. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhang J, Feng L, Wang D, Zhang R, Liu G, Cheng G (2014) Thermogravimetric analysis of lignocellulosic biomass with ionic liquid pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 153:379–382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wan Daud WR, Kassim MHM, Mohamded MAS (2011) Cellulose phosphate from oil palm biomass as potential biomaterials. BioRes 6:1719–1740

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gao Q, Shen X, Lu X (2011) Regenerated bacterial cellulose fibers prepared by the NMMO·H2O process. Carbohydr Polym 83(3):1253–1256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wada M, Ike M, Tokuyasu K (2010) Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose I is greatly accelerated via its conversion to the cellulose II hydrate form. Polym Degradation Stab 95(4):543–548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Pingali SV, Urban VS, Heller WT, McGaughey J, O’Neill HM, Foston MB, Li H, Wyman CE, Myles DAA, Langan P, Ragauskas AJ, Davison BH, Evans BR (2016) Understanding multiscale structural changes during dilute acid pretreatment of switchgrass and poplar. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5(1):426–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kafle K, Shin H, Lee CM, Park S, Kim SH (2015) Progressive structural changes of Avicel, bleached softwood, and bacterial cellulose during enzymatic hydrolysis. Sci Rep 5:15102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Xu J, Zong M-H, Fu S-Y, Li N (2016) Correlation between physicochemical properties and enzymatic digestibility of rice straw pretreated with cholinium ionic liquids. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4(8):4340–4345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee SH, Doherty TV, Linhardt RJ, Dordick JS (2009) Ionic liquid-mediated selective extraction of lignin from wood leading to enhanced enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 102(5):1368–1376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ishola MM, Millati R, Syamsiah S, Cahyanto MN, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ (2012) Structural changes of oil palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) after fungal and phosphoric acid pretreatment. Molecules 17(12):14995–15002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Oh SY, Yoo DI, Shin Y, Kim HC, Kim HY, Chung YS, Park WH, Youk JH (2005) Crystalline structure analysis of cellulose treated with sodium hydroxide and carbon dioxide by means of X-ray diffraction and FTIR spectroscopy. Carbohydrate Res 340(15):2376–2391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Gao X, Kumar R, Singh S, Simmons BA, Balan V, Dale BE, Wyman CE (2014) Comparison of enzymatic reactivity of corn stover solids prepared by dilute acid, AFEX™, and ionic liquid pretreatments. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu Y, Zhong Q, Wang S, Cai Z (2011) Correlating physical changes and enhanced enzymatic saccharification of pine flour pretreated by N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide. Biomacromolecules 12(7):2626–2632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ (2016) A critical review on analysis in pretreatment of lignocelluloses: degree of polymerization, adsorption/desorption, and accessibility. Bioresour Technol 203:348–356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Strobel KL, Pfeiffer KA, Blanch HW, Clark DS (2015) Structural insights into the affinity of Cel7A carbohydrate-binding module for lignin. J Biol Chem 290(37):22818–22826

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Noori MS, Karimi K (2016) Detailed study of efficient ethanol production from elmwood by alkali pretreatment. Biochem Eng J 105:197–204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Nitsos CK, Choli-Papadopoulou T, Matis KA, Triantafyllidis KS (2016) Optimization of hydrothermal pretreatment of hardwood and softwood lignocellulosic residues for selective hemicellulose recovery and improved cellulose enzymatic hydrolysis. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4(9):4529–4544

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Torr KM, Love KT, Simmons BA, Hill SJ (2016) Structural features affecting the enzymatic digestibility of pine wood pretreated with ionic liquids. Biotechnol Bioeng 113(3):540–549

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Paye JMD, Guseva A, Hammer SK, Gjersing E, Davis MF, Davison BH, Olstad J, Donohoe BS, Nguyen TY, Wyman CE, Pattathil S, Hahn MG, Lynd LR (2016) Biological lignocellulose solubilization: comparative evaluation of biocatalysts and enhancement via cotreatment. Biotechnol Biofuels 9:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Leu S-Y, Zhu JY (2013) Substrate-Related factors affecting enzymatic saccharification of lignocelluloses: our recent understanding. BioEnergy Res 6(2):405–415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Rollin JA, Zhu Z, Sathitsuksanoh N, Zhang YHP (2011) Increasing cellulose accessibility is more important than removing lignin: a comparison of cellulose solvent-based lignocellulose fractionation and soaking in aqueous ammonia. Biotechnol Bioeng 108(1):22–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Sharifia M, Karimi K, Taherzadeh M (2008) Production of ethanol by filamentous and yeast-like forms of Mucor indicus from fructose, glucose, sucrose, and molasses. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 35(11):1253–1259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Lennartsson PR, Karimi K, Edebo L, Taherzadeh MJ (2009) Effects of different growth forms of Mucor indicus on cultivation on dilute-acid lignocellulosic hydrolyzate, inhibitor tolerance, and cell wall composition. J Biotechnol 143(4):255–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Karimi K, Zamani A (2013) Mucor indicus: biology and industrial application perspectives: a review. Biotechnol Adv 31(4):466–481

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran

    Behzad Satari, Keikhosro Karimi & Maryam Molaverdi

  2. Industrial Biotechnology Group, Research Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran

    Keikhosro Karimi

Authors
  1. Behzad Satari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keikhosro Karimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maryam Molaverdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keikhosro Karimi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 616 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Satari, B., Karimi, K. & Molaverdi, M. Structural features influential to enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose-solvent-based pretreated pinewood and elmwood for ethanol production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 41, 249–264 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-017-1863-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-017-1863-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation