, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 6377–6393 | Cite as

Optimization of dilute acid pretreatment of barley husk and oat husk and determination of their chemical composition

  • Fadime Demirel
  • Mustafa Germec
  • Hasan Bugra Coban
  • Irfan TurhanEmail author
Original Paper


The pretreatment of renewable resources is the first step to make them metabolically available for microorganisms for generation of value-added products by fermentation. In this research, barley husk (BH) and oat husk (OH) were used as renewable resources to study the optimization of dilute acid pretreatment conditions by using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Temperature (T, 110–130 °C), solid-to-liquid ratio (S:L, 1:8–1:16 w/v), dilute sulfuric acid concentration (DSA, 1–5%, v/v), and pretreatment time (t, 30–90 min) were selected as independent variables. Their levels were specified by one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) method according to statistically significance level (p = 0.05). OFAT results indicated that the independent variables for optimization of acid pretreatment conditions of the renewable resources were T (120–130 °C), S:L (1:8–1:12 w/v), and DSA (1–3% v/v) for BH; T (120–130 °C), S:L (1:8–1:12 w/v), and t (10–30 min) for OH. Optimum pretreatment values were 130 °C, 1:8 (w/v), 1.86% (v/v), and 30 min for BH and 130 °C, 1:8 (w/v), 1% (v/v), and 19 min for OH by using Box-Behnken RSM. Under optimal conditions, fermentable sugar concentration, total phenolics, and extract yield were determined to be 76.28, 1.12 g/L, and 55% for BH and 59.63 g/L, 0.70 g/L, and 56% for OH, respectively. Additionally, the chemical composition of hydrolysates was also evaluated in terms of maltose, glucose, xylose, arabinose, mannose, galactose, phenolics, 5-hydroxymthylfurfural, 2-furaldehyde (2-F), formic acid, and acetic acid. Catalytic efficiency values of sulfuric acid for BH and OH were 21.58 and 8.35 g/g, respectively. Consequently, this study clearly indicates that the hydrolysates from the renewable resources can be used as feedstocks for the production of value-added products by biotechnological processes.

Graphical abstract


Barley husk Oat husk Dilute acid pretreatment Response surface methodology Chemical composition Catalytic efficiency 



This study was supported by the Akdeniz University Research Foundation (Grant Number# FYL-2016–1774).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors in this study mutually agree for submitting our manuscript to Cellulose and declare that they have no conflict of interest in the publication.


  1. Bezerra MA, Santelli RE, Oliveira EP, Villar LS, Escaleira LA (2008) Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 76:965–977. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaud LCS, Silva DDVD, Mattos RTD, Felipe MDGDA (2012) Evaluation of oat hull hemicellulosic hydrolysate fermentability employing Pichia stipitis. Braz Arch Biol Technol 55:771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ecaterina DP, Ionut SA, Gabriela GC, Domnica C (2014) Fodder yeast development optimisation using as main carbon source barley husks hydrolysed Romanian. Biotechnol Lett 19:9085–9095Google Scholar
  4. FAOSTAT (2016) Accessed on 23 Sept 2016
  5. Forbes JC, Watson D (1992) Plants in agriculture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrote G, Cruz JM, Domínguez H, Parajó JC (2008) Non-isothermal autohydrolysis of barley husks: product distribution and antioxidant activity of ethyl acetate soluble fractions. J Food Eng 84:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Germec M, Turhan I (2018) Ethanol production from acid-pretreated and detoxified rice straw as sole renewable resource. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Germec M, Turhan I, Karhan M, Demirci A (2015) Ethanol production via repeated-batch fermentation from carob pod extract by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae in biofilm reactor. Fuel 161:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Germec M et al (2016a) Ethanol production from rice hull using Pichia stipitis and optimization of acid pretreatment and detoxification processes. Biotechnol Prog 32:872–882CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Germec M, Tarhan K, Yatmaz E, Tetik N, Karhan M, Demirci A, Turhan I (2016b) Ultrasound-assisted dilute acid hydrolysis of tea processing waste for production of fermentable sugar. Biotechnol Prog 32:393–403CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Germec M, Turhan I, Demirci A, Karhan M (2016c) Effect of media sterilization and enrichment on ethanol production from carob extract in a biofilm reactor. Energy Sources Part A Recov Util Environ Effects 38:3268–3272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Germec M, Turhan I, Yatmaz E, Tetik N, Karhan M (2016d) Fermentation of acid-pretreated tea processing waste for ethanol production using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sci Bull Ser F Biotechnol 20:269–274Google Scholar
  13. Germec M, Demirel F, Tas N, Ozcan A, Yilmazer C, Onuk Z, Turhan I (2017a) Microwave-assisted dilute acid pretreatment of different agricultural bioresources for fermentable sugar production. Cellulose 24:4337–4353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Germec M, Ozcan A, Yilmazer C, Tas N, Onuk Z, Demirel F, Turhan I (2017b) Ethanol fermentation from microwave-assisted acid pretreated raw materials by Scheffersomyces stipitis. AgroLife Sci J 6:112–118Google Scholar
  15. Germec M, Yatmaz E, Karahalil E, Turhan I (2017c) Effect of different fermentation strategies on β-mannanase production in fed-batch bioreactor system. 3 Biotech 7:77CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Germec M, Bader NB, Turhan I (2018) Dilute acid and alkaline pretreatment of spent tea leaves to determine the potential of carbon sources. Biomass Conversat Biorefinery. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomez-Tovar F, Celis LB, Razo-Flores E, Alatriste-Mondragón F (2012) Chemical and enzymatic sequential pretreatment of oat straw for methane production. Bioresour Technol 116:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta A, Verma JP (2015) Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:550–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Idrees M, Adnan A, Qureshi FA (2014) Comparison of acid and alkali catalytic efficiency during enzymatic saccharification of corncob and lactic acid production. Pak J Agric Sci 51:1049–1058Google Scholar
  20. Jiang Y et al (2017) State of the art review of biofuels production from lignocellulose by thermophilic bacteria. Bioresour Technol 245:1498–1506. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kačuráková M, Capek P, Sasinková V, Wellner N, Ebringerová A (2000) FT-IR study of plant cell wall model compounds: pectic polysaccharides and hemicelluloses. Carbohydr Polym 43:195–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim TH, Taylor F, Hicks KB (2008) Bioethanol production from barley hull using SAA (soaking in aqueous ammonia) pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 99:5694–5702CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Köten M, Ünsal S, Atlı A (2013) Evaluation of barley as human food. Turk J Agric Food Sci Technol 1:51–55Google Scholar
  24. Lavarack BP, Griffin GJ, Rodman D (2002) The acid hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose to produce xylose, arabinose, glucose and other products. Biomass Bioenergy 23:367–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawford HG, Rousseau JD, Tolan JS (2001) Comparative ethanol productivities of different Zymomonas recombinants fermenting oat hull hydrolysate. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 91:133–146CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Marriott PE, Gómez LD, McQueen-Mason SJ (2016) Unlocking the potential of lignocellulosic biomass through plant science. New Phytol 209:1366–1381CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Menon V, Rao M (2012) Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform chemicals and biorefinery concept. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38:522–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31:426–428. CrossRefGoogle 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. Naik S, Goud VV, Rout PK, Jacobson K, Dalai AK (2010) Characterization of Canadian biomass for alternative renewable biofuel. Renewable Energy 35:1624–1631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliveira LA, Porto AL, Tambourgi EB (2006) Production of xylanase and protease by Penicillium janthinellum CRC 87M-115 from different agricultural wastes. Bioresour Technol 97:862–867CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmarola-Adrados B, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2005) Pretreatment of barley husk for bioethanol production. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 80:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Przybysz Buzała K, Kalinowska H, Małachowska E, Przybysz P (2017) The utility of selected kraft hardwood and softwood pulps for fuel ethanol production. Ind Crops Prod 108:824–830. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrıguez-Chong A, Ramírez JA, Garrote G, Vázquez M (2004) Hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse using nitric acid: a kinetic assessment. J Food Eng 61:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross T (1996) Indices for performance evaluation of predictive models in food microbiology. J Appl Microbiol 81:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross T (1999) Predictive food microbiology models in the meat industry. Meat and Livestock Australia, North SydneyGoogle Scholar
  37. Ross T, Dalgaard P, Tienungoon S (2000) Predictive modelling of the growth and survival of Listeria in fishery products. Int J Food Microbiol 62:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sasmal S, Goud VV, Mohanty K (2012) Characterization of biomasses available in the region of North-East India for production of biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 45:212–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sedlak M, Ho NW (2004) Production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass hydrolysates using genetically engineered Saccharomyces yeast capable of cofermenting glucose and xylose. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth symposium on biotechnology for fuels and chemicals held May 4–7, 2003, Breckenridge, CO. Springer, pp 403–416Google Scholar
  40. Singleton VL, Orthofer R, Lamuela-Raventos RM (1999) Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of folin-ciocalteu reagent. Methods Enzymol 299:152–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sipponen MH, Pastinen OA, Strengell R, Hyötyläinen JM, Heiskanen IT, Laakso S (2010) Increased water resistance of CTMP fibers by oat (Avena sativa L.) husk lignin. Biomacromolecules 11:3511–3518CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Skandamis PN, Nychas G-JE (2000) Development and evaluation of a model predicting the survival of Escherichia coli O157: H7 NCTC 12900 in homemade eggplant salad at various temperatures, pHs, and oregano essential oil concentrations. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:1646–1653CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Soleimani M, Tabil L (2014) Evaluation of biocomposite-based supports for immobilized-cell xylitol production compared with a free-cell system. Biochem Eng J 82:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun Y, Cheng J (2002) Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review. Bioresour Technol 83:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Telli-Okur M, Eken-Saraçoğlu N (2008) Fermentation of sunflower seed hull hydrolysate to ethanol by Pichia stipitis. Bioresour Technol 99:2162–2169CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Turhan I (2014) Relationship between sugar profile and D-pinitol content of pods of wild and cultivated types of carob bean (Ceratonia siliqua L.). Int J Food Prop 17:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turhan I, Bialka KL, Demirci A, Karhan M (2010a) Enhanced lactic acid production from carob extract by Lactobacillus casei using invertase pretreatment. Food Biotechnol 24:364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turhan I, Bialka KL, Demirci A, Karhan M (2010b) Ethanol production from carob extract by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour Technol 101:5290–5296CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Urrutia C, Rubilar O, Tortella G, Diez M (2013) Degradation of pesticide mixture on modified matrix of a biopurification system with alternatives lignocellulosic wastes. Chemosphere 92:1361–1366CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Yadav MP, Hicks KB (2015) Isolation of barley hulls and straw constituents and study of emulsifying properties of their arabinoxylans. Carbohydr Polym 132:529–536CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Yatmaz E, Karahalil E, Germec M, Ilgin M, Turhan İ (2016) Controlling filamentous fungi morphology with microparticles to enhanced β-mannanase production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 39:1391–1399CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food EngineeringAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey
  2. 2.Izmir International Biomedicine and Genome InstituteIzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Izmir International Biomedicine and Genome CenterIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations