Hydration and saccharification of cellulose Iβ, II and IIII at increasing dry solids loadings
- 555 Downloads
Crystalline cellulose Iβ (Avicel) was chemically transformed into cellulose II and IIII producing allomorphs with similar crystallinity indices (ATR-IR and XRD derived). Saccharifications by commercial cellulases at arrayed solids loadings showed cellulose IIII was more readily hydrolysable and less susceptible to increased dry solids levels than cellulose Iβ and II. Analysis by dynamic vapor sorption revealed cellulose II has a distinctively higher absorptive capacity than cellulose I and IIII. When equally hydrated (g water/g cellulose), low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF-NMR) relaxometry showed that cellulose II, on average, most constrained water while cellulase IIII left the most free water. LF-NMR spin–spin relaxation time distribution profiles representing distinct water pools suggest cellulose IIII had the most restricted pool and changes in water distribution during enzymatic saccharification were most dramatic with respect to cellulose IIII compared to celluloses Iβ and II.
KeywordsCellulose Crystalline allomorph High solids Hydration Saccharification
We would like to thank Peter Westh and the laboratory at the University of Roskilde for their instruction and permission to use their DVS system.
- Chundawat SPS, Bellesia G, Uppugundla N, Sousa LC, Gao D, Cheh AM, Agarwal UP, Bianchetti CM, Phillips GM, Langan P, Balan V, Gnanakaran S, Dale BE (2011) Restructuring the crystalline cellulose hydrogen bond network enhances its depolymerization rate. J Am Chem Soc 133:11163–11174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mittal A, Katahira R, Himmel ME, Johnson DK (2011) Effects of alkaline or liquid-ammonia treatment on crystalline cellulose: Changes in morphology, crystallinity index, and enzymatic digestibility. Biotechnol Biofuels 4(41):1–16Google Scholar
- Park S, Baker JO, Himmel ME, Johnson DK (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3(10):1–11Google Scholar