Effects of pretreatment and enzyme cocktail composition on the sugars production from oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (OPEFBF)
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.
KeywordsOil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (OPEFBF) Enzymatic saccharification Cellulase Hemicellulase Pretreatment
We are grateful for the financial support of this research from Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) under grant 10-05-MGI-GMB001.
- 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
- 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
- Ohara H (2003) Biorefinery. Appl. Microbio. Biotechnol. 62:474–477Google Scholar
- 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
- 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