Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 659–665 | Cite as

Dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment of corn stover at high solids concentrations

Scientific note
  • Daniel J. Schell
  • Pamela J. Walter
  • David K. Johnson
Session 4 Bioengineering Research

Conclusions

The enzymatic digestibility of a pretreated substrate is enhanced by increasing the severity of the pretreatment conditions, apparently because a greater fraction of the hemicellulose sheath surrounding the cellulose is dissolved. This allows the enzyme greater access to the cellulose. However, optimizing enzymatic digestibility will not optimize the production of ethanol. Although increasing the severity of the pretreatment conditions will decrease the remaining xylan, it will also result in the conversion of xylose to furfural. This is a loss of a potential carbon source for conversion to ethanol. The more severe conditions also result in the conversion of more of the cellulose to glucose and subsequent conversion to 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). Although the digestibility of the pretreated material may be enhanced by the more severe conditions, the conversion of this material to ethanol by yeast may be poor because of the higher levels of furfural and HMF, which are toxic to yeast. The best pretreatment conditions are those that produce the highest ethanol yields, which is influenced by the enzymatic digestibility of the pretreated substrate, the xylose yield, and the production of toxic byproducts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wright, J. D. (1988),Chem. Eng. Prog. 84, No. 8, 62–74.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah, R. B., Clausen, E. C., and Gaddy, J. L. (1984),CEP Newsl. Jan., 76–80.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grohmann, K., Torget, R., and Himmel, M. (1986),Biot. Bioeng. Symp. 17, 135–151.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torget, R., Himmel, M., Wright, J. D., and Grohmann, K. (1988),Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 17, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clausen, E. and Gaddy, J. L. (1984),Proc. 1984 Ann. Meeting Amer. Solar Energy Soc., 101–105.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knappert, D., Grethlein, H., and Converse, A. (1980),Biot. Bioeng. 22, 1449–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wayman, M., Seagrave, C., Parekh, S. R. (1987),Process Biochem. 22, No. 2, 55–59.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mes-Hartree, M., Hogan, C., Hayes, R. D., and Saddler, J. N. (1983),Biot. Letters 5, No. 2, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris, J., Baker, A., Conner, A., Jeffries, T., Minor, J., Pettersen, R., Scott, R., Springer, E., Wegner, T., and Zerbe, J. (1985),Two-Stage Dilute Sulfuric Acid Hydrolysis of Wood, General Technical Report FPL-45, US Department of Agriculture, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Theander, O. (1991),Animal Feed Science and Technology 32, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sitton, O. C., Foutch, G. L., Book, N. L., and Gaddy, J. L. (1979),Proc. Biochem. 14, No. 9, 7–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Schell
    • 1
  • Pamela J. Walter
    • 1
  • David K. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.Biotechnology Research BranchFuels and Chemicals Research and Engineering Division, National Renewable Energy LaboratoryGolden
  2. 2.Chemical Conversion BranchFuels and Chemicals Research and Engineering Division, National Renewable Energy LaboratoryGolden

Personalised recommendations