Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 978–988 | Cite as

Fractionation of Forest Residues of Douglas-fir for Fermentable Sugar Production by SPORL Pretreatment

  • Chao Zhang
  • J. Y. ZhuEmail author
  • Roland Gleisner
  • John Sessions
Article

Abstract

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest residues were physically fractionated through sieving. The bark and wood were separated for large-sized fractions (>12.7 mm), and their contents were determined. The chemical compositions of the large fractions were calculated based on the contents and chemical compositions of the bark and wood. The chemical compositions of the fine fractions were analyzed. The bark and wood content in the fine fractions was calculated based on the measured glucan and lignin contents in each fraction. It was found that fractionation by particle/chip size can effectively fractionate bark and wood and therefore lignin from carbohydrates. The large-sized fractions (>12.7 mm) represent approximately 60 % of the collected forest residues but only contain approximately 37 % of the total bark and 35 % of the total ash, or a selectivity over bark and ash of 1.6 and 1.7, respectively. Pretreatment of forest residues by sulfite pretreatment to overcome recalcitrance of lignocelluloses and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis revealed the presence of 14.3 % bark can reduce substrate enzymatic digestibilities (SED) 16 % compared with that from a bark-free sample. The SED of a bark is 41 % compared with 73 % for wood when pretreated under the same conditions. Separating pretreatment of bark from wood is beneficial for producing a more enzymatically digestible substrate. The results from the present study could have significant implications for harvesting forest residues.

Keywords

Forest residues Size fractionation/sieving Bark Pretreatment Enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work, as part of the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA), was funded by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68005-30416 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). We would also like to acknowledge Novozymes North America for their constant support by complementary providing cellulase enzymes. We would also like to thank Fred Matt of USDA Forest Products Laboratory for conducting detailed chemical composition analysis. The financial support from NIFA and the Chinese Scholarship Council made the visiting appointment of Zhang at the USDA Forest Products Laboratory possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Kirschbaum MUF (2003) To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass Bioenerg 24(4–5):297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gan J, Smith CT (2006) Availability of logging residues and potential for electricity production and carbon displacement in the USA. Biomass Bioenergy 30(12):1011–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83:37–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu JY, Zhuang XS (2012) Conceptual net energy output for biofuel production from lignocellulosic biomass through biorefining. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38(4). doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.007
  5. 5.
    Koch P (1980) Harvesting energy chips from forest residues-some concepts for the southern pine region. General Technical Report SO-33. USDA Forest Service, Pineville, LAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whittaker C, Mortimer N, Murphy R, Matthews R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of the use of forest residues for bioenergy production in the UK. Biomass Bioenergy 35(11):4581–4594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eisenbies MH, Vance ED, Aust WM, Seiler JR (2009) Intensive utilization of harvest residues in southern pine plantations: quantities available and implications for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity. BioEnerg Res 2:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu JY, Pan XJ, Zalesny RS Jr (2010) Pretreatment of woody biomass for biofuel production: energy efficiency, technologies and recalcitrance. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87:847–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    David C, Atarhouch T (1987) Utilization of waste cellulose. VIII. Enzymatic hydrolysis of spruce bark by cellulases of Trichoderma viride. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 16:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim KH, Tucker M, Nguyen Q (2005) Conversion of bark-rich biomass mixture into fermentable sugar by two-stage dilute acid-catalyzed hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol 96(11):1249–1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torget R, Himmel ME, Grohmann K (1991) Dilute sulfuric-acid pretreatment of hardwood bark. Bioresour Technol 35(3):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harkin JM, Rowe JW (1971) Bark and its possible use. Research Note FPL-091. USDA Forest Service, Madison, WI. pp 1–55Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pan XJ, Zhang X, Gregg DJ, Saddler JN (2004) Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-exploded Douglas fir wood by alkali-oxygen post-treatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 113–16:1103–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhu JY, Pan XJ, Wang GS, Gleisner R (2009) Sulfite pretreatment (SPORL) for robust enzymatic saccharification of spruce and red pine. Bioresour Technol 100(8):2411–2418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu JY, Zhu W, OBryan P, Dien BS, Tian S, Gleisner R et al (2010) Ethanol production from SPORL-pretreated lodgepole pine: preliminary evaluation of mass balance and process energy efficiency. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86(5):1355–1365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luo X, Gleisner R, Tian S, Negron J, Horn E, Pan XJ et al (2010) Evaluation of mountain beetle infested lodgepole pine for cellulosic ethanol production by SPORL pretreatment. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(17):8258–8266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tian S, Luo XL, Yang XS, Zhu JY (2010) Robust cellulosic ethanol production from SPORL-pretreated lodgepolep pine using an adapted strain S. cerevisiae without detoxification. Bioresour Technol 101:8678–8685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wood TM, Bhat M (1988) Methods for measuring cellulase activities. In: Colowick SP, Kaplan NO (eds) Methods in enzymology, vol 160, Biomass (Part A, cellulose and hemicellulose). Academic, New York, pp 87–112Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perlack RD, Stokes BJ (2011) DOE. 2011. U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Oakridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murphy GE, Pilkerton SJ (2011) Seasonal impacts on bark loss for Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine harvested on the Pacific Northwest Coast of the USA. Int J For Eng 22(1):35–41Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hakkila P (1989) Utilization of residual forest biomass. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang GS, Pan XJ, Zhu JY, Gleisner R (2009) Sulfite pretreatment to overcome recalcitrance of lignocellulose (SPORL) for robust enzymatic saccharification of hardwoods. Biotechnol Prog 25(4):1086–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robinson J, Keating JD, Boussaid A, Mansfield SD, Saddler JN (2002) The influence of bark on the fermentation of Douglas-fir whitewood pre-hydrolysates. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59(4–5):443–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schowalter TD, Morrell JJ (2002) Nutritional quality of Douglas-fir wood: effect of vertical and horizontal position on nutrient levels. Wood Fiber Sci 34(1):158–164Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Y. Zhu
    • 2
    Email author
  • Roland Gleisner
    • 2
  • John Sessions
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Chemical Engineering and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.USDA Forest ServiceForest Products LaboratoryMadisonUSA
  3. 3.College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations