Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 2419–2431 | Cite as

Comparison of changes in cellulose ultrastructure during different pretreatments of poplar

  • Qining Sun
  • Marcus Foston
  • Daisuke Sawada
  • Sai Venkatesh Pingali
  • Hugh M. O’Neill
  • Hongjia Li
  • Charles E. Wyman
  • Paul Langan
  • Yunqiao Pu
  • Art J. Ragauskas
Original Paper

Abstract

One commonly cited factor that contributes to the recalcitrance of biomass is cellulose crystallinity. The present study aims to establish the effect of several pretreatment technologies on cellulose crystallinity, crystalline allomorph distribution, and cellulose ultrastructure. The observed changes in the cellulose ultrastructure of poplar were also related to changes in enzymatic hydrolysis, a measure of biomass recalcitrance. Hot-water, organo-solv, lime, lime-oxidant, dilute acid, and dilute acid-oxidant pretreatments were compared in terms of changes in enzymatic sugar release and then changes in cellulose ultrastructure measured by 13C cross polarization magic angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance and wide-angle X-ray diffraction. Pretreatment severity and relative chemical depolymerization/degradation were assessed through compositional analysis and high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection. Results showed minimal cellulose ultrastructural changes occurred due to lime and lime-oxidant pretreatments, which at short residence time displayed relatively high enzymatic glucose yield. Hot water pretreatment moderately changed cellulose crystallinity and crystalline allomorph distribution, yet produced the lowest enzymatic glucose yield. Dilute acid and dilute acid-oxidant pretreatments resulted in the largest increase in cellulose crystallinity, para-crystalline, and cellulose-Iβ allomorph content as well as the largest increase in cellulose microfibril or crystallite size. Perhaps related, compositional analysis and Klason lignin contents for samples that underwent dilute acid and dilute acid-oxidant pretreatments indicated the most significant polysaccharide depolymerization/degradation also ensued. Organo-solv pretreatment generated the highest glucose yield, which was accompanied by the most significant increase in cellulose microfibril or crystallite size and decrease in relatively lignin contents. Hot-water, dilute acid, dilute acid-oxidant, and organo-solv pretreatments all showed evidence of cellulose microfibril coalescence.

Keywords

Biomass pretreatment Cellulose Ultrastructure Crystallinity Enzymatic hydrolysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Hybrid poplar samples were obtained through a collaborative agreement with the Bioenergy Science Center (BESC) located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This research is funded by the Genomic Science Program, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, U. S. Department of Energy, under FWP ERKP752 and US Department of Energy sponsored BioEnergy Science Center (BESC). Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Center for Structural Molecular Biology (CSMB) is supported by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (FWP ERKP291). A portion of this research was also conducted at the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, which is sponsored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory by the Scientific User Facilities Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U. S. Department of Energy. Q. S. is grateful for the financial support from the Paper Science & Engineering (PSE) fellowship program at Institute of Paper Science & Technology (IPST) at Georgia Institute of Technology.

References

  1. Arantes V, Saddler JN (2010) Access to cellulose limits the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis: the role of amorphogenesis. Biotechnol Biofuels 3Google Scholar
  2. Beguin P, Aubert JP (1994) The biological degradation of cellulose. FEMS Microbiol Rev 13:25–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boisset C, Fraschini C, Schulein M, Henrissat B, Chanzy H (2000) Imaging the enzymatic digestion of bacterial cellulose ribbons reveals the endo character of the cellobiohydrolase Cel6A from Humicola insolens and its mode of synergy with cellobiohydrolase Cel7A. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:1444–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosse N, Sannigrahi P, Ragauskas A (2009) Pretreatment of Miscanthus x giganteus using the ethanol organosolv process for ethanol production. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:8328–8334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner AM, Busov VB, Strauss SH (2004) Poplar genome sequence: functional genomics in an ecologically dominant plant species. Trends Plant Sci 9:49–56Google Scholar
  6. Bubner P, Plank H, Nidetzky B (2013) Visualizing cellulase activity. Biotechnol Bioeng 110:1529–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang VS, Burr B, Holtzapple MT (1997) Lime pretreatment of switchgrass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 63–5:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang VS, Nagwani M, Holtzapple MT (1998) Lime pretreatment of crop residues bagasse and wheat straw. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 74:135–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang VS, Nagwani M, Kim CH, Holtzapple MT (2001) Oxidative lime pretreatment of high-lignin biomass—poplar wood and newspaper. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 94:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen YM, Wang Y, Wan JQ, Ma YW (2010) Crystal and pore structure of wheat straw cellulose fiber during recycling. Cellulose 17:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chundawat SPS, Bellesia G, Uppugundla N, Sousa LD, Gao DH et al (2011) Restructuring the crystalline cellulose hydrogen bond network enhances its depolymerization rate. J Am Chem Soc 133:11163–11174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cullity BD, Stock SR (2001) Elements of X-ray diffraction, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis MW (1998) A rapid modified method for compositional carbohydrate analysis of lignocellulosics by high pH anion exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAEC/PAD). J Wood Chem Technol 18:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Debzi EM, Chanzy H, Sugiyama J, Tekely P, Excoffier G (1991) The Iα → Iβ transformation of highly crystalline cellulose by annealing in various mediums. Macromolecules 24:6816–6822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ding SY, Liu YS, Zeng YN, Himmel ME, Baker JO, Bayer EA (2012) How does plant cell wall nanoscale architecture correlate with enzymatic digestibility? Science 338:1055–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diniz J, Gil MH, Castro J (2004) Hornification—its origin and interpretation in wood pulps. Wood Sci Technol 37:489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foston M, Ragauskas AJ (2010) Changes in lignocellulosic supramolecular and ultrastructure during dilute acid pretreatment of Populus and switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1885–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foston M, Ragauskas AJ (2012) Biomass characterization: recent progress in understanding biomass recalcitrance. Ind Biotechnol 8:191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foston M, Hubbell CA, Davis M, Ragauskas AJ (2009) Variations in cellulosic ultrastructure of poplar. Bioenergy Res 2:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foston M, Hubbell CA, Samuel R, Jung S, Fan H, Ding SY, Zeng YN, Jawdy S, Davis M, Sykes R, Gjersing E, Tuskan GA, Kalluri U, Ragauskas AJ (2011) Chemical, ultrastructural and supramolecular analysis of tension wood in Populus tremula x alba as a model substrate for reduced recalcitrance. Energy Environ Sci 4:4962–4971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall M, Bansal P, Lee JH, Realff MJ, Bommarius AS (2010) Cellulose crystallinity—a key predictor of the enzymatic hydrolysis rate. FEBS J 277:1571–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu F, Ragauskas AJ (2012) Pretreatment and lignocellulosic chemistry. Bioenergy Res 5:1043–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hubbell CA, Ragauskas AJ (2010) Effect of acid-chlorite delignification on cellulose degree of polymerization. Bioresour Technol 101:7410–7415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hult EL, Larsson PT, Iversen T (2001) Cellulose fibril aggregation—an inherent property of kraft pulps. Polymer 42:3309–3314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ibbett R, Gaddipati S, Hill S, Tucker G (2013) Structural reorganisation of cellulose fibrils in hydrothermally deconstructed lignocellulosic biomass and relationships with enzyme digestibility. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ioelovich M, Leykin A, Figovsky O (2010) Study of cellulose paracrystallinity. BioResources 5:1393–1407Google Scholar
  27. Ishizawa CI, Jeoh T, Adney WS, Himmel ME, Johnson DK, Davis MF (2009) Can delignification decrease cellulose digestibility in acid pretreated corn stover? Cellulose 16:677–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klug HP, Alexander LE (1974) X-ray diffraction procedures for polycrystalline and amorphous materials, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar R, Mago G, Balan V, Wyman CE (2009) Physical and chemical characterizations of corn stover and poplar solids resulting from leading pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 100:3948–3962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar R, Hu F, Hubbell CA, Ragauskas AJ, Wyman CE (2013) Comparison of laboratory delignification methods, their selectivity, and impacts on physiochemical characteristics of cellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 130:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langan P et al (2014) Common processes drive the thermochemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Green Chem 16:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lloyd TA, Wyman CE (2005) Combined sugar yields for dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment of corn stover followed by enzymatic hydrolysis of the remaining solids. Bioresour Technol 96:1967–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maciel GE, Kolodziejski WL, Bertran MS, Dale BE (1982) Carbon-13 NMR and order in cellulose. Macromolecules 15:686–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin C, Klinke HB, Thomsen AB (2007) Wet oxidation as a pretreatment method for enhancing the enzymatic convertibility of sugarcane bagasse. Enzyme Microb Technol 40:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meng X, Foston M, Leisen J, DeMartini J, Wyman CE, Ragauskas AJ (2013) Determination of porosity of lignocellulosic biomass before and after pretreatment by using Simons’ stain and NMR techniques. Bioresour Technol 144:467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mosier N, Hendrickson R, Ho N, Sedlak M, Ladisch MR (2005a) Optimization of pH controlled liquid hot water pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96:1986–1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005b) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newman RH (2004) Carbon-13 NMR evidence for cocrystallization of cellulose as a mechanism for hornification of bleached kraft pulp. Cellulose 11:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oksanen T, Buchert J, Viikari L (1997) The role of hemicelluloses in the hornification of bleached kraft pulps. Holzforschung 51:355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ostlund A, Kohnke T, Nordstierna L, Nyden M (2010) NMR cryoporometry to study the fiber wall structure and the effect of drying. Cellulose 17:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pan XJ, Xie D, Yu RW, Saddler JN (2008) The bioconversion of mountain pine beetle-killed lodgepole pine to fuel ethanol using the organosolv process. Biotechnol Bioeng 101:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Park S, Baker JO, Himmel ME, Parilla PA, Johnson DK (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulose performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pu Y, Ziemer C, Ragauskas AJ (2006) CP/MAS C-13 NMR analysis of cellulase treated bleached softwood kraft pulp. Carbohydr Res 341:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Samuel R, Pu Y, Foston M, Ragauskas AJ (2010) Solid-state NMR characterization of switchgrass cellulose after dilute acid pretreatment. Biofuels 1:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sannigrahi P, Miller SJ, Ragauskas AJ (2010a) Effects of organosolv pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis on cellulose structure and crystallinity in loblolly pine. Carbohydr Res 345:965–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sannigrahi P, Ragauskas AJ, Miller SJ (2010b) Lignin structural modifications resulting from ethanol organosolv treatment of loblolly pine. Energy Fuels 24:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sannigrahi P, Ragauskas AJ, Tuskan GA (2010c) Poplar as a feedstock for biofuels: a review of compositional characteristics. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 4:209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sannigrahi P, Kim DH, Jung S, Ragauskas AJ (2011) Pseudo-lignin and pretreatment chemistry. Energy Environ Sci 4:1306–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Studer MH, DeMartini JD, Brethauer S, McKenzie HL, Wyman CE (2010) Engineering of a high-throughput screening system to identify cellulosic biomass, pretreatments, and enzyme formulations that enhance sugar release. Biotechnol Bioeng 105:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sturcova A, His I, Apperley DC, Sugiyama J, Jarvis MC (2004) Structural details of crystalline cellulose from higher plants. Biomacromolecules 5:1333–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. VanderHart DL, Atalla RH (1984) Studies of microstructure of native celluloses using solid-state 13 C NMR. Macromolecules 17:1465–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang ZY, Cheng JJ (2011) Lime pretreatment of coastal bermudagrass for bioethanol production. Energy Fuels 25:1830–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wickholm K, Larsson PT, Iversen T (1998) Assignment of non-crystalline forms in cellulose I by CP/MAS 13C NMR spectroscopy. Carbohydr Res 312:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wyman CE, Dale BE, Elander RT, Holtzapple M, Ladisch MR, Lee YY, Mitchinson C, Saddler JN (2009) Comparative sugar recovery and fermentation data following pretreatment of poplar wood by leading technologies. Biotechnol Prog 25:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xu JL, Cheng JJ (2011) Pretreatment of switchgrass for sugar production with the combination of sodium hydroxide and lime. Bioresour Technol 102:3861–3868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xu F, Ding H, Tejirian A (2009) Detrimental effect of cellulose oxidation on cellulose hydrolysis by cellulase. Enzyme Microb Technol 45:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xu JL, Cheng JJ, Sharma-Shivappa RR, Burns JC (2010) Lime pretreatment of switchgrass at mild temperatures for ethanol production. Bioresour Technol 101:2900–2903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhao HB, Kwak JH, Wang Y, Franz JA, White JM, Holladay JE (2006) Effects of crystallinity on dilute acid hydrolysis of cellulose by cellulose ball-milling study. Energy Fuels 20:807–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qining Sun
    • 1
  • Marcus Foston
    • 2
  • Daisuke Sawada
    • 3
  • Sai Venkatesh Pingali
    • 3
  • Hugh M. O’Neill
    • 3
  • Hongjia Li
    • 4
  • Charles E. Wyman
    • 4
  • Paul Langan
    • 3
  • Yunqiao Pu
    • 1
  • Art J. Ragauskas
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Institute of Paper Science and TechnologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical EngineeringWashington UniversitySaint LouisUSA
  3. 3.Center for Structural Molecular Biology, Biology and Soft Matter DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  4. 4.BioEnergy Science Center, Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Chemical and Environmental Engineering Department, Bourns College of EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations