Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 845–852 | Cite as

Effects of Surfactant on the Enzymatic Degradation of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch (OPEFB)

  • Noratiqah Kamsani
  • Madihah Md. Salleh
  • Siti Aisyah Basri
  • Shaza Eva Mohamad
  • Suraini Abd Aziz
  • Kamarulzaman Kamaruddin
Original Paper
  • 230 Downloads

Abstract

Various pretreatments have been employed to pretreat oil palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) to improve sugars production via enzymatic degradation reaction. However, less attention has been paid to investigate the effects of surfactant addition in the OPEFB degradation process. Therefore, the effects of surfactants on degradation of pretreated OPEFB by Aspergillus niger EFB1 crude cellulase were studied. Tween 80 was the most effective surfactant tested. When 0.25% (v/v) Tween 80 was added, the production of reducing sugar increased 63% (from 0.49 to 0.8 g/L). This was the optimum yield recorded. It also improved cellobiose, glucose and xylose production by two folds, seven folds and one fold higher than that without Tween 80, respectively. Tween 80 reduced the loss of cellulases activities where more than 17% of the original cellulases activities were retained after 7 days of degradation. Nonetheless, Tween 80 did not improve the protein concentration consistently. Supplementation of Tween 80 increased lignin removal by 23%. Observations using SEM revealed that, with Tween 80, the presence of pores and surface cracks were more pronounced on the surface of degraded OPEFB fibers. As a whole, the reported effects showed an improved production of reducing sugars in the presence of Tween 80. Thus, Tween 80 addition appeared as a promising method in enhancing the bioconversion of OPEFB into value-added co-products.

Keywords

Tween 80 Biodegradation Cellulose Lignin Sugar Cellulase activity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology & Environment of Malaysia (MOSTI) (Project No. 73717). The authors also acknowledge Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for providing necessary laboratory equipment and facilities important to this work. Noratiqah Kamsani would like to thank Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for awarding her the MyBrain 15 (MyPhD) scholarship.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen, M., Zhao, J., Xia, L.: Enzymatic hydrolysis of maize straw polysaccharides for the production of reducing sugars. Carbohydr. Polym. 71(3), 411–415 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jørgensen, H., Olsson, L.: Production of cellulases by Penicillium brasilianum IBT 20888—Effect of substrate on hydrolytic performance. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 38(3), 381–390 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cara, C., Ruiz, E., Oliva, J.M., Sáez, F., Castro, E.: Conversion of olive tree biomass into fermentable sugars by dilute acid pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification. Bioresour. Technol. 99(6), 1869–1876 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vani, S., Sukumaran, R.K., Savithri, S.: Prediction of sugar yields during hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass using artificial neural network modeling. Bioresour. Technol. 188, 128–135 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daorattanachai, P., Viriya-empikul, N., Laosiripojana, N., Faungnawakij, K.: Effects of Kraft lignin on hydrolysis/dehydration of sugars, cellulosic and lignocellulosic biomass under hot compressed water. Bioresour. Technol. 144, 504–512 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guo, G.-L., Hsu, D.-C., Chen, W.-H., Chen, W.-H., Hwang, W.-S.: Characterization of enzymatic saccharification for acid-pretreated lignocellulosic materials with different lignin composition. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 45(2), 80–87 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saritpongteeraka, K., Chaiprapat, S., Boonsawang, P., Sung, S.: Solid state co-fermentation as pretreatment of lignocellulosic palm empty fruit bunch for organic acid recovery and fiber property improvement. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 100, 172–180 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ying, T.Y., Teong, L.K., Abdullah, W.N.W., Peng, L.C.: The effect of various pretreatment methods on oil palm empty fruit bunch (EFB) and kenaf core fibers for sugar production. Procedia Environ. Sci. 20, 328–335 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rahman, S., Choudhury, J., Ahmad, A., Kamaruddin, A.: Optimization studies on acid hydrolysis of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber for production of xylose. Bioresour. Technol. 98(3), 554–559 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahman, S., Choudhury, J., Ahmad, A.: Production of xylose from oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber using sulfuric acid. Biochem. Eng. J. 30(1), 97–103 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zanirun, Z., Bahrin, E.K., Lai-Yee, P., Hassan, M.A., Abd-Aziz, S.: Enhancement of fermentable sugars production from oil palm empty fruit bunch by ligninolytic enzymes mediator system. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 105, 13–20 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui, X., Zhao, X., Zeng, J., Loh, S.K., Choo, Y.M., Liu, D.: Robust enzymatic hydrolysis of formiline-pretreated oil palm empty fruit bunches (EFB) for efficient conversion of polysaccharide to sugars and ethanol. Bioresour. Technol. 166, 584–591 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shamsudin, S., Shah, U.K.M., Zainudin, H., Abd-Aziz, S., Kamal, S.M.M., Shirai, Y., Hassan, M.A.: Effect of steam pretreatment on oil palm empty fruit bunch for the production of sugars. Biomass Bioenergy 36, 280–288 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Börjesson, J., Engqvist, M., Sipos, B., Tjerneld, F.: Effect of poly (ethylene glycol) on enzymatic hydrolysis and adsorption of cellulase enzymes to pretreated lignocellulose. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 41(1), 186–195 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ouyang, J., Dong, Z., Song, X., Lee, X., Chen, M., Yong, Q.: Improved enzymatic hydrolysis of microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel PH101) by polyethylene glycol addition. Bioresour. Technol. 101(17), 6685–6691 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang, M., Zhang, J., Kuittinen, S., Vepsäläinen, J., Soininen, P., Keinänen, M., Pappinen, A.: Enhanced sugar production from pretreated barley straw by additive xylanase and surfactants in enzymatic hydrolysis for acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 189, 131–137 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eriksson, T., Börjesson, J., Tjerneld, F.: Mechanism of surfactant effect in enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 31(3), 353–364 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jeya, M., Nguyen, N.P.T., Moon, H.J., Kim, S.H., Lee, J.K.: Conversion of woody biomass into fermentable sugars by cellulase from Agaricus arvensis. Bioresour. Technol. 101(22), 8742–8749 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menegol, D., Scholl, A.L., Fontana, R.C., Dillon, A.J.P., Camassola, M.: Increased release of fermentable sugars from elephant grass by enzymatic hydrolysis in the presence of surfactants. Energy Convers. Manage. 88, 1252–1256 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou, Y., Chen, H., Qi, F., Zhao, X., Liu, D.: Non-ionic surfactants do not consistently improve the enzymatic hydrolysis of pure cellulose. Bioresour. Technol. 182, 136–143 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tu, M., Zhang, X., Paice, M., McFarlane, P., Saddler, J.N.: Effect of surfactants on separate hydrolysis fermentation and simultaneous saccharification fermentation of pretreated lodgepole pine. Biotechnol. Progr. 25(4), 1122–1129 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Monschein, M., Reisinger, C., Nidetzky, B.: Dissecting the effect of chemical additives on the enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 169, 713–722 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Medina, J.D.C., Woiciechowski, A., Zandona Filho, A., Noseda, M.D., Kaur, B.S., Soccol, C.R.: Lignin preparation from oil palm empty fruit bunches by sequential acid/alkaline treatment–A biorefinery approach. Bioresour. Technol. 194, 172–178 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kristensen, J.B., Börjesson, J., Bruun, M.H., Tjerneld, F., Jørgensen, H.: Use of surface active additives in enzymatic hydrolysis of wheat straw lignocellulose. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 40(4), 888–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Basri, S.A.M.: Degradation of Oil Palm Lignocellulosic Biomass to Cellobiose Through Enzymatic Systems. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noratiqah, K., Madihah, M., Aisyah, B.S., Eva, M.S., Suraini, A., Kamarulzaman, K.: Statistical optimization of enzymatic degradation process for oil palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) in rotary drum bioreactor using crude cellulase produced from Aspergillus niger EFB1. Biochem. Eng. J. 75, 8–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Di Blasi, C., Signorelli, G., Di Russo, C., Rea, G: Product distribution from pyrolysis of wood and agricultural residues. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38(6), 2216–2224 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mandels, M., Weber, J.: The production of cellulases. Adv. Chem. Ser. 95, 391–414 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller, G.L.: Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal. Chem. 31(3), 426–428 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wood, T.M., Bhat, K.M.: Methods for measuring cellulase activities. Methods Enzymol. 160, 87–112 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L., Randall, R.J.: Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193(1), 265–275 (1951)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goering, H.K., Van Soest, P.J.: Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, prcedures, and some applications). U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook, Washington D.C (1970)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yao, R., Qi, B., Deng, S., Liu, N., Peng, S., Cui, Q.: Use of surfactants in enzymatic hydrolysis of rice straw and lactic acid production from rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Bioresources 2(3), 389–398 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ang, S.K., Yahya, A., Abd-Aziz, S., Md. Salleh, M.: Potential uses of xylanase-rich lignocellulolytic enzymes cocktail for oil palm trunk (OPT) degradation and lignocellulosic ethanol production. Energy Fuels 29(8), 5103–5116 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, H.Y., Fan, B., Li, C.H., Liu, S., Li, M.: Effects of rhamnolipid on the cellulase and xylanase in hydrolysis of wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 6515–6521 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kumar, R., Wyman, C.E.: Effect of additives on the digestibility of corn stover solids following pretreatment by leading technologies. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 102(6), 1544–1557 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kumar, R., Wyman, C.: Effect of enzyme supplementation at moderate cellulase loadings on initial glucose and xylose release from corn stover solids pretreated by leading technologies. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 102(2), 457–467 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Qing, Q., Yang, B., Wyman, C.E.: Impact of surfactants on pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresour. Technol. 101(15), 5941–5951 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Qi, B., Chen, X., Wan, Y.: Pretreatment of wheat straw by nonionic surfactant-assisted dilute acid for enhancing enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 101(13), 4875–4883 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaar, W.E., Holtzapple, M.T.: Benefits from Tween during enzymic hydrolysis of corn stover. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 59(4), 419–427 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nlewem, K.C., Thrash, M.E.: Comparison of different pretreatment methods based on residual lignin effect on the enzymatic hydrolysis of switchgrass. Bioresour. Technol. 101(14), 5426–5430 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim, W., Gamo, Y., Sani, Y.M., Wusiman, Y., Ogawa, S., Karita, S., Goto, M.: Effect of Tween 80 on hydrolytic activity and substrate accessibility of carbohydrolase I (CBH I) from Trichoderma viride. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 19(5), 684 (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shuo, C., Giovanna, M.A.: Enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol yields of combined surfactant and dilute ammonia treated sugarcane bagasse. Bioresour. Technol. 131, 357–364 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Castoldi, R., Bracht, A., de Morais, G.R., Baesso, M.L., Correa, R.C.G., Peralta, R.A., Moreira, R.d.F.P.M., de Moraes, M.d.L.T., de Souza, C.G.M., Peralta, R.M.: Biological pretreatment of Eucalyptus grandis sawdust with white-rot fungi: Study of degradation patterns and saccharification kinetics. Chem. Eng. J. 258, 240–246 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Qi, B., Chen, X., Shen, F., Su, Y., Wan, Y.: Optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis of wheat straw pretreated by alkaline peroxide using response surface methodology. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48(15), 7346–7353 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noratiqah Kamsani
    • 1
  • Madihah Md. Salleh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Siti Aisyah Basri
    • 1
  • Shaza Eva Mohamad
    • 3
  • Suraini Abd Aziz
    • 4
  • Kamarulzaman Kamaruddin
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Biosciences and Medical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor Darul TakzimMalaysia
  2. 2.ENVBIO Research Group, Resource SustainabilityUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor Darul TakzimMalaysia
  3. 3.Malaysia-Japan International Institute of TechnologyUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia Kuala LumpurKuala LumpurMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of Bioprocess Technology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular SciencesUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia
  5. 5.National Nanotechnology Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology and InnovationPutrajayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations