Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 4677–4694 | Cite as

Effects of pretreatment and enzyme cocktail composition on the sugars production from oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (OPEFBF)

  • Pei-Ling Tang
  • Peer Mohamed Abdul
  • Nurul Sakinah Engliman
  • Osman Hassan
Original Paper

Abstract

This research was conducted to investigate the interaction effects of pretreatment (steam, acetic acid–steam, acetic acid–glycerol) and enzyme cocktail composition [cellulases C:V:N (Celluclast® 1.5 L: Viscozyme® L: Novozyme® 188), cellulase–hemicellulase CC:CH (Cellic® Ctec 2: Cellic® Htec 2)] on the sugars (xylose, glucose) production from oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (OPEFBF). The mix ratio of enzyme cocktails which led to optimum enzymatic saccharification of different pretreated OPEFBs were determined through Simplex Lattice mixture design. By using a cocktail of cellulolytic enzyme C:N at the ratio of 7.8:2.2, about 563.34 mg sugars g−1 carbohydrate was recovered from the acetic acid–glycerol pretreated OPEFBF. However, about 696.92 mg sugars g−1 carbohydrate was successfully produced from acetic acid–steam pretreated OPEFBF by using a cocktail of cellulase–hemicellulase enzyme (CC:CH = 6.3:3.7). Upon optimization using RSM, about 96% of xylose (960.47 ± 102.53 mg xylose g−1 xylan) and 85% of glucose (845.75 ± 55.91 mg glucose g−1 glucan) have been recovered from 3% (w/v) glucan of acetic acid–steam pretreated OPEFBF by adding 1.39% (v/v) CC:CH enzyme cocktail (35.19 mg protein g−1 glucan loading) in a 48-h reaction. CC:CH enzyme cocktail has been proved to be the best enzyme cocktail to use in OPEFBF saccharification for high sugars hydrolysate production.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (OPEFBF) Enzymatic saccharification Cellulase Hemicellulase Pretreatment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the financial support of this research from Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) under grant 10-05-MGI-GMB001.

References

  1. AbduL PM, Jahim JM, Harun S, Markom M, Lutpi NA, Hassan O, Balan V, Dale BE, Nor MTM (2016) Effects of changes in chemical and structural characteristic of ammonia fibre expansion (AFEX) pretreated oil palm empty fruit bunch fibre on enzymatic saccharification and fermentability for biohydrogen. Bioresour Technol 211:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal R, Satlewal A, Gaur R, Mathur A, Kumar R, Gupta RP, Tuli DK (2015) Pilot scale pretreatment of wheat straw and comparative evaluation of commercial enzyme preparations for biomass saccharification and fermentation. Biochem Eng J 102:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee S, Mudliar S, Sen R, Giri B, Satpute D, Chakrabarti T, Pandey RA (2010) Comercializing lignocellulosic bioethanol: technology bottlenecks and possible remedies. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 4:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behera S, Arora R, Nandhagopal N, Kumar S (2014) Importance of chemical pretreatment for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 36:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannella D, Jorgensen H (2014) Do new cellulolytic enzyme preparations affect the industrial strategies for high solids lignocellulosic ethanol production? Biotechnol Bioeng 111:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannella D, Hsieh CC, Felby C, Jorgensen H (2012) Production and effect of aldonic acids during enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose at high dry matter content. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen HZ, Liu ZH (2016) Enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass from low to high solids loading. Eng Life Sci 17:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen BY, Chen SW, Wang HT (2012) Use of different alkaline pretreatments and enzyme models to improve low cost cellulosic biomass conversion. Biomass Bioenergy 39:182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chylenski P, Forsberg Z, Stahlberg J, Varnai A, Lersch M, Bengtsson O, Saebo S, Horn SJ, Eijsink VGH (2017) Development of minimal enzyme cocktails for hydrolysis of sulfite-pulped lignocellulosic biomass. J Biotechnol 246:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du S, Su X, Yang W, Wang Y, Kuang M, Ma L, Fang D, Zhou D (2016) Enzymatic saccharification of high pressure assist-alkali pretreated cotton stalk and structural characterization. Carbohydr Polym 140:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eijsink VGH, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Varum KM, Horn SJ (2008) Towards new enzymes for biofuels: lessons from chitinase research. Trends Biotechnol 26:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frandsen KEH, Leggio LL (2016) Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases: a crystallographer’s view on a new class of biomass-degrading enzymes. IUCrJ 3:448–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghose TK (1987) Measurement of cellulase activities. Pure Appl Chem 59:257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghose TK, Bisaria BS (1987) Measurement of hemicellulose activities. Part 1: xylanase. Pure Appl Chem 59:1739–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goh CS, Tan KT, Lee KT, Bhatia S (2010) Bio-ethanol from lignocellulose: status, perspectives and challenges in Malaysia. Bioresource Technol 101:4834–4841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gruno M, Valjamae P, Pettersson G, Johansson G (2004) Inhibition of the Trichoderma reesei cellulases by cellobiose is strongly dependent on the nature of the substrate. Biotechnol Bioeng 86:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han Y, Chen H (2008) Characterization of β-glucosidase from corn stover and its application in simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Bioresoure Technol 99:6081–6087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong JY, Kim YS, Oh KK (2013) Fractionation and delignification of empty fruit bunches with low reaction severity for high sugar recovery. Bioresour Technol 146:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horn SJ, Sikorski P, Cederkvist JB, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Sorlie M, Synstad B, Vriend G, Varum KM, Eijsink VGH (2006) Costs and benefits of processivity in enzymatic degradation of recalcitrant polysaccharides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:18089–18094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horn SJ, Vaaje-Kolstad G, Westereng B, Eijsink VGH (2012) Novel enzymes for the degradation of cellulose. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jorgensen H, Kristensen JB, Felby C (2007) Enzymatic conversion of lignocellulose into fermentable sugars: challenges and opportunities. Biofuels. Bioprod Bioref 1:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kristensen JB (2008) Enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Substrate interactions and high solids loadings. Forest and Landscape Research No. 42-2008. Forest and Landscape Denmark, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  23. Kristensen JB, Thygesen LG, Felby C, Jorgensen H, Elder T (2008) Cell-wall structural changes in wheat straw pretreated for bioethanol production. Biotechnol Biofuels 1:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhad RC, Mehta G, Gupta R, Sharma KK (2010) Fed batch enzymatic saccharification of newspaper cellulosics improves the sugar content in the hydrolysates and eventually the ethanol fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1189–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar A, Gupta R, Shrivastava B, Khasa YP, Kuhad RC (2012) Xyalanase production from an alkalophilic actinomycete Isolate Streptomyces sp. RCK-2010, its characterization and application in saccharification of second generation biomass. J Mol Catal B Enzym 74:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamsal BP, Shrestha P, Khanal SK (2010) Enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. In: Khanal SK, Surampalli RY, Zhang TC, Lamsal BP, Tyagi RD, Kao CM (eds) Bioenergy and biofuel from biowastes and biomass. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li X, Zheng Y (2017) Lignin-enzyme interaction: mechanism, mitigation approach, modeling and research prospects. Biotechnol Adv 35:466–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mohtar SS, Busu TNZTM, Noor AMM, Shaari N, Mat H (2017) An ionic liquid treatment and fractionation of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin from oil palm empty fruit bunch. Carbohydr Polym 166:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mood SH, Golfeshan AH, Tabatabaei M, Jouzani GS, Najafi GH, Gholami M, Ardjmand M (2013) Lignocellulosic biomass to bioethanol, a comprehensive review with a focus on pretreatment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohara H (2003) Biorefinery. Appl. Microbio. Biotechnol. 62:474–477Google Scholar
  32. Or KH, Putra A, Selamat MZ (2017) Oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber as sustainable acoustic absorber. Appl Acoust 119:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osman H, Tang PL, Mohamad YM, Rosli MI, Khairiah B, Jamaliah J, Nor MM (2013) Optimization of pretreatments for the hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (EFBF) using enzyme mixtures. Biomass Bioenergy 56:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palamae S, Dechatiwongse P, Choorit W, Chisti Y, Prasertsan P (2017) Cellulose and hemicellulose recovery from oil palm empty fruit bunch (EFB) fibers and production of sugars from the fibers. Carbohydr Polym 155:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peng L, Chen Y (2011) Conversion of paper sludge to ethanol by separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1600–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramos LP (2003) The chemistry involved in the steam treatment of lignocellulosic materials. Qium Nova 26:863–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosgaard L, Pedersen S, Langston J, Akerhielm D, Cherry JR, Meyer AS (2008) Evaluation of minimal Trichoderma reesei cellulase mixtures on differently pretreated barley straw substrates. Biotechnol Prog 23:1270–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saini JK, Saini R, Tewari L (2015) Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production: concepts and recent developments. 3. Biotechnology 5:337–353Google Scholar
  39. Sannigrahi P, Miller SJ, Ragauskas AJ (2010) Effects of organosolv pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis on cellulose structure and crystallinity in Loblolly pine. Carbohydr Res 345:965–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shuit SH, Tan KT, Lee KT, Kamaruddin AH (2009) Oil palm biomass as a sustainable energy source: a Malaysian case study. Energy 34:1225–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Crocker (2012) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. Technical report NREL/TP-510-42618. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  42. Suga K, Van Dedem G, Moo-Young M (1975) Degradation of polysaccharides by endo and exo-enzymes: a theoretical analysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 17:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sumathi S, Chai SP, Mohamed AR (2008) Utilization of oil palm as a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 12:2404–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun FF, Hong J, Hu J, Saddler JN, Fang X, Zhang Z, Shen S (2015) Accessory enzymes influence cellulase hydrolysis of the model substrate and the realistic lignocellulosic biomass. Enzyme Microb Technol 79–80:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Talebnia F, Karakashev D, Angelidaki I (2010) Production of bioethanol from wheat straw: an overview on pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation. Bioresour Technol 101:4744–4753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tang PL, Osman H, Khairiah B, Mohammad YM, Wan AWM (2013) Sugar recovery of enzymatic hydrolysed oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber by chemical pretreatment. Cellulose 20:3191–3203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thota SP, Badiya PK, Yerram S, Vadlani PV, Pandey M, Golakoti NR, Belliraj SK, Dandamudi RB, Ramamurthy SS (2017) Macro-micro fungal cultures synergy for innovative cellulase enzymes production and biomass structural analyses. Renew Energy 103:766–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Triwahyuni E, Muryanto Sudiyani Y, Abimanyu H (2015) The effect of substrate loading on simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process for bioethanol production from oil palm empty fruit bunches. Energy PRO 68:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang Z, Winestrand S, Gillgren T, Jonsson LJ (2018) Chemical and structural factors influencing enzymatic saccharification of wood from aspen, birch and spruce. Biomass Bioenergy 109:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yoshida M, Liu Y, Uchida S, Kawarada K, Ukagami Y, Ichinose H, Kaneko S, Fukuda K (2008) Effects of cellulose crystallinity, hemicellulose and lignin on the enzymatic hydrolysis of Miscanthissinensis to monosaccharides. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 72:805–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yu Z, Jameel H, Chang HM, Park S (2011) The effect of delignification of forest biomass on enzymatic hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol 102:9083–9089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhu L (2015) Biorefinery as a promising approach to promote microalgae industry: an innovation framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1376–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioscience, Faculty of Applied SciencesTunku Abdul Rahman University CollegeSetapakMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built EnvironmentUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Chemical Sciences and Food Technology, Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations