Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 362–370 | Cite as

Comparison of Dilute Acid and Sulfite Pretreatment for Enzymatic Saccharification of Earlywood and Latewood of Douglas fir

  • Chao Zhang
  • Xiaochun Lei
  • C. Tim Scott
  • J.Y. Zhu
  • Kecheng Li
Article

Abstract

This study applied dilute acid (DA) and sulfite pretreatment to overcome the recalcitrance of lignocelluloses (SPORL) to deconstruct earlywood and latewood cell walls of Douglas fir for fermentable sugars production through subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. DA pretreatment removed almost all the hemicelluloses, while SPORL at initial pH = 4.5 (SP-B) removed significant amount of lignin between 20 and 25 %. But both are not sufficient for effective enzymatic saccharification. SPORL at low initial pH = 2 (SP-AB) combines the advantage of both DA and SPORL-B to achieve approximately 90 % hemicellulose removal and delignification of 10–20 %. As a result, SP-AB effectively removed recalcitrance and thereby significantly improved enzymatic saccharification compared with DA and SP-B. Results also showed that earlywood with significantly lower density produced less saccharification after DA pretreatment, suggesting that wood density does not contribute to recalcitrance. The thick cell wall of latewood did not limit chemical penetration in pretreatments. The high lignin content of earlywood limited the effectiveness of DA pretreatment for enzymatic saccharification, while hemicellulose limits the effectiveness of high pH pretreatment of SP-B. The higher hemicellulose content in the earlywood and latewood of heartwood reduced saccharification relative to the corresponding earlywood and latewood in the sapwood using DA and SP-AB.

Keywords

Cell walls Pretreatment Enzymatic hydrolysis, earlywood and latewood Recalcitrance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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 substrate chemical composition analysis. We also would like to acknowledge Gevan Marrs of Weyerhaeuser NR Company for providing the Douglas wood disk for the study. The financial support from USDA NIFA and the Chinese Scholarship Council made the visiting appointment of Zhang at the USDA Forest Products Laboratory possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Perlack RD, Stokes BJ: DOE. 2011. U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. In. Oak Ridge: Oakridge National Laboratory; 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu JY, Pan XJ (2010) Woody biomass pretreatment for cellulosic ethanol production: technology and energy consumption evaluation. Bioresour Technol 101:4992–5002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertaud F, Holmbom B (2004) Chemical composition of earlywood and latewood in Norway spruce heartwood, sapwood and transition zone wood. Wood Sci Technol 38(4):245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu JY, Scott CT, Scallon KL, Myers GC (2007) Effects of plantation density on wood density and anatomical properties of red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait). Wood Fiber Sci 39(3):502–512Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mansfield SD, Mooney C, Saddler JN (1999) Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Prog 15:804–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leu SY, Zhu JY (2013) Substrate-related factors affecting enzymatic saccharification of lignocelluloses: our recent understanding. Bioenerg Res 6(2):405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Pan XJ, Arato C, Gilkes N, Gregg D, Mabee W, Pye K, Xiao ZZ, Zhang X, Saddler J (2005) Biorefining of softwoods using ethanol organosolv pulping: preliminary evaluation of process streams for manufacture of fuel-grade ethanol and co-products. Biotechnol Bioeng 90(4):473–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iakovlev M, van Heiningen A (2012) Efficient fractionation of spruce by SO2–ethanol–water treatment: closed mass balances for carbohydrates and sulfur. ChemSusChem 5(8):1625–1637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeMartini JD, Wyman CE (2011) Changes in composition and sugar release across the annual rings of Populus wood and implications on recalcitrance. Bioresour Technol 102(2):1352–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Scott CT, Luo XL, Tian S (2011) High titer ethanol production from simultaneous enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of aspen at high solids: a comparison between SPORL and dilute acid pretreatments. Bioresour Technol 102(19):8921–8929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tian S, Luo XL, Yang XS, Zhu JY (2010) Robust cellulosic ethanol production from SPORL-pretreated lodgepole pine using an adapted strain S. cerevisiae without detoxification. Bioresour Technol 101:8678–8685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lan TQ, Gleisner R, Zhu JY, Dien BS, Hector RE (2013) High titer ethanol production from SPORL-pretreated lodgepole pine by simultaneous enzymatic saccharification and combined fermentation. Bioresour Technol 127:291–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leu S-Y, Gleisner R, Zhu JY, Sessions J, Marrs G: Robust enzymatic saccharification of a Douglas-fir forest harvest residue by SPORL. biomass and bioenergy (submitted) 2013.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood TM, Bhat M: Methods for measuring cellulase activities. In: In: Colowick SP, Kaplan NO, editors Methods in Enzymology, Vol 160, Biomass (Part A, Cellulose and Hemicellulose) Vol editors: Wood WA, Kellogg ST New York: Academic, Inc, p 87–112. 1988: 87–112.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang C, Houtman CJ, Zhu JY: Using low temperature to balance enzymatic saccharification and furan formation in SPORL pretreatment of Douglas-fir. AIChE J (submitted) 2013.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang C, Houtman CJ, Zhu JY: Using low temperature to balance enzymatic saccharification and furan formation in SPORL pretreatment of Douglas-fir. Bioresource Technology (submitted) 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo X, Gleisner R, Tian S, Negron J, Horn E, Pan XJ, Zhu JY (2010) Evaluation of mountain beetle infested lodgepole pine for cellulosic ethanol production by SPORL pretreatment. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(17):8258–8266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lou H, Zhu JY, Lan TQ, Lai H, Qiu X (2013) pH-induced lignin surface modification to reduce nonspecific cellulase binding and enhance enzymatic saccharification of lignocelluloses. ChemSusChem 6(5):919–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lan TQ, Lou H, Zhu JY (2013) Enzymatic saccharification of lignocelluloses should be conducted at elevated pH 5.2–6.2. Bioenerg Res 6(2):476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. B, Graystone JA: Wood coatings: theory and practice. Elsevier; 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vahey DW, Zhu JY, Scott CT: Method for characterizing the density and cross-section morphology of trees. US Patent 2011, 7, 945, 098 B2.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cowling EB, Kirk TK (1976) Properties of cellulose and lignocellulosic materials as substrates for enzymatic conversion processes. Biotechnol bioeng symp 6:95–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Donohoe BS, Selig MJ, Viamajala S, Vinzant TB, Adney WS, Himmel ME (2009) Detecting cellulase penetration into corn stover cell walls by immuno-electron microscopy. Biotechnol Bioeng 103(3):480–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang QQ, He Z, Zhu Z, Zhang Y-HP, Ni Y, Luo XL, Zhu JY (2012) Evaluations of cellulose accessibilities of lignocelluloses by solute exclusion and protein adsorption techniques. Biotechnol Bioeng 109(2):381–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luo X, Zhu JY (2011) Effects of drying-induced fiber hornification on enzymatic saccharification of lignocelluloses. Enzyme Microb Technol 48(1):92–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ding SY, Liu YS, Zeng Y, Himmel ME, Baker JO, Bayer EA (2012) How does plant cell wall nanoscale architecture correlate with enzymatic digestibility? Science 338(6110):1055–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panshin AJ, de Zeeuw C (1980) Textbook of wood technology 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang ZJ, Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Chen KF (2012) Ethanol production form poplar wood the rough enzymatic saccharification and fermentation by dilute acid and SPORL pretreatments. Fuel 95:606–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhu W, Houtman CJ, Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Chen KF (2012) Quantitative predictions of bioconversion of aspen by dilute acid and SPORL pretreatments using a unified combined hydrolysis factor (CHF). Process Biochem 47:785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang DS, Yang Q, Zhu JY, Pan XJ (2013) Sulfite (SPORL) pretreatment of switchgrass for enzymatic saccharification. Bioresour Technol 129:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bromley JR, Busse-Wicher M, Tryfona T, Mortimer JC, Zhang Z, Brown DM, Dupree P (2013) GUX1 and GUX2 glucuronyltransferases decorate distinct domains of glucuronoxylan with different substitution patterns. Plant J 74(3):423–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaochun Lei
    • 3
  • C. Tim Scott
    • 2
  • J.Y. Zhu
    • 2
  • Kecheng Li
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Chemical Engineering and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Forest Products LaboratoryMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations