Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 29–34 | Cite as

Solid residues from Ruminococcus cellulose fermentations as components of wood adhesive formulations

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Residues from the fermentation of cellulose by the anaerobic bacteria Ruminococcus albus (strain 7) or Ruminococcus flavefaciens (strains FD-1 or B34b) containing residual cellulose, bacterial cells and their associated adhesins, were examined for their ability to serve as components of adhesives for plywood fabrication. The residues contained differing amounts of protein (0.4–4.2% of dry weight), but the ratios of monosaccharides recovered following two-stage treatment of the residue with detergent (pH 7) and TFA were similar for all three strains (0.71 glucose:0.18 xylose:0.08 mannose:0.02 galactose), suggesting similarities in exopolysaccharide composition. Three-ply aspen panels prepared with fermentation residues (FR) displayed better shear strength and wood failure under dry conditions than following a vacuum/pressure/soak/dry treatment, but adhesive properties were inferior to those prepared with conventional phenol-formaldehyde (PF) adhesives. However, panels prepared by incorporating the R. albus 7 FR into PF formulation, at 73% by weight of the total adhesive, exhibited shear strength and wood failure similar to that obtained with PF adhesive alone. Use of residues from fermentations by these bacteria as components of adhesives may add value to biomass fermentations aimed primarily at producing ethanol and other chemical products.

Keywords

Fermentation Shear Strength Neutral Detergent Fiber Cellulosic Biomass Wood Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Brandon and C.L. Odt for technical assistance. We also thank C.R. Frihart, D. Galloway, W.R. Kenealy, R.G. Koegel and J. Wescott for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, through CRIS Project 3655-41000-003-00D.

References

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (1999) Standard practice for estimating the percentage of wood failure in adhesive bonded joints. ASTM D-5266-99. American society for testing and materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.Google Scholar
  2. 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 72:248–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chemical Marketing Reporter (2002) Chemical profiles online. Schnell Publishing Company, Reed-Elsevier, New York, N.Y., http://www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfile.htm. Cited 27 May 2002Google Scholar
  4. Conner AH, River BH, Lorenz LF (1986) Carbohydrate modified phenol-formaldehyde resins. J Wood Chem Technol 6:591–613Google Scholar
  5. Dubois M, Giles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugar and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–356Google Scholar
  6. Feigley DA Jr (1959) Method of improving color in phenol-aldehyde resins by adding a reducing sugar. US Patent 2,868,743Google Scholar
  7. Fukushima RS, Weimer PJ, Kunz DA (2002) Photocatalytic interaction of resazurin N-oxide with cysteine optimizes preparation of anaerobic culture media. Anaerobe 8:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis: apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications. Agricultural Handbook No. 379, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Hatfield RD, Weimer PJ (1995) Degradation characteristics of isolated and in situ cell wall lucerne pectic polysaccharides by mixed ruminal microbes. J Sci Food Agric 69:185–196Google Scholar
  10. Hungate RE (1966) The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Kudo H, Cheng K-J, Costerton JW (1987) Electron microscopic study of the methylcellulose-mediated detachment of cellulolytic rumen bacteria from cellulose fibers. Can J Microbiol 33:267–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambuth AL (1994) Protein adhesives for wood. In: Pizzi A, Mittal KL (eds) Handbook of adhesive technology. Dekker, New York, pp 259–282Google Scholar
  13. Loetscher EC (1934) Water-soluble resins of the phenol formaldehyde group. US Patent No. 1,959,433Google Scholar
  14. Lynd LR, Wyman CE, Gerngross TU (1999) Biocommodity engineering. Biotechnol Prog 15:777–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS (2002) Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Revs 66:506–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miron J, Ben-Ghedalia D, Morrison M (2001) Adhesion mechanisms of rumen cellulolytic bacteria. J Dairy Sci 84:1294–1309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Morrison M, Mackie RI, Kistner A (1990) 3-Phenylpropanoic acid improves the affinity of Ruminococcus albus for cellulose in continuous culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:3220–3222Google Scholar
  18. National Institute for Standards and Technology (1995) Voluntary product standard PS 1–95 for construction and industrial plywood. National Institute for Standards and Technology, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. Pavlostathis SG, Miller TL, Wolin MJ (1988) Fermentation of insoluble cellulose by continuous cultures of Ruminococcus albus. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:2655–2659Google Scholar
  20. SAS Institute (1998) SAS user's guide: statistics ver 7.0 edn. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  21. Schaefer DM, Davis CL, Bryant MP (1980) Ammonia saturation constants of predominant species of rumen bacteria. J Dairy Sci 63:1248–1263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Weimer PJ (1996) Why don't ruminal bacteria digest cellulose faster? J Dairy Sci 79:1496–1502Google Scholar
  23. Weimer PJ, Odt CL (1995) Cellulose degradation by ruminal microbes: physiological and hydrolytic diversity among ruminal cellulolytic bacteria. Adv Chem Ser 618:291–304Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Dairy Forage Research Center, Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of Agriculture MadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BacteriologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Forest Products Laboratory, Forest ServiceUnited States Department of AgricultureMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations