Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 476–485 | Cite as

Enzymatic Saccharification of Lignocelluloses Should be Conducted at Elevated pH 5.2–6.2

  • T. Q. Lan
  • Hongming Lou
  • J. Y. ZhuEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study revealed that cellulose enzymatic saccharification response curves of lignocellulosic substrates were very different from those of pure cellulosic substrates in terms of optimal pH and pH operating window. The maximal enzymatic cellulose saccharification of lignocellulosic substrates occurs at substrate suspension pH 5.26.2, not between pH 4.8 and 5.0 as exclusively used in literature using T. reesi cellulase. Two commercial cellulase enzyme cocktails, Celluclast 1.5L and CTec2 both from Novozymes, were evaluated over a wide range of pH. The optimal ranges of measured suspension pH of 5.2–5.7 for Celluclast 1.5L and 5.5–6.2 for CTec2 were obtained using six lignocellulosic substrates produced by dilute acid, alkaline, and two sulfite pretreatments to overcome recalcitrance of lignocelluloses (SPORL) pretreatments using both a softwood and a hardwood. Furthermore, cellulose saccharification efficiency of a SPORL-pretreated lodgepole pine substrate showed a very steep increase between pH 4.7 and 5.2. Saccharification efficiency can be increased by 80 % at cellulase loading of 11.3 FPU/g glucan, i.e., from approximately 43 to 78 % simply by increasing the substrate suspension pH from 4.7 to 5.2 (buffer solution pH from 4.8 to 5.5) using Celluclast 1.5L, or by 70 % from approximately 51 to 87 % when substrate suspension pH is increased from 4.9 to 6.2 (buffer solution pH from 5.0 to 6.5) using CTec2. The enzymatic cellulose saccharification response to pH is correlated to the degree of substrate lignin sulfonation. The difference in pH-induced lignin surface charge, and therefore surface hydrophilicity and lignin–cellulase electrostatic interactions, among different substrates with different lignin content and structure is responsible for the reported different enhancements in lignocellulose saccharification at elevated pH.

Keywords

Enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification Hydrolysis pH Pretreatment Biofuel and biorefinery Cellulase enzymes Cellulase binding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by a USDA Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase II project (contract number 2010-33610-21589) to Biopulping International, Inc. The financial support from this project made the visiting appointment of Lan at the US Forest Service (USFS), Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) possible. We acknowledge Fred Matt and Kolby Hirth (both USFS-FPL) for carrying out the carbohydrate and sulfur content analyses, respectively.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldemberg J (2007) Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Science 315:808–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Somerville C, Youngs H, Taylor C, Davis SC, Long SP (2010) Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Science 329(5993):790–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lynd LR, Laser MS, Bransby D, Dale BE, Davison B, Hamilton R et al (2008) How biotech can transform biofuels. Nature biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 26:169–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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):583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gao D, Chundawat SPS, Krishnan C, Balan V, Dale BE (2010) Mixture optimization of six core glycosyl hydrolases for maximizing saccharification of ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) pretreated corn stover. Bioresour Technol 101(8):2770–2781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin Z-X, Zhang H-M, Ji X-J, Chen J-W, Huang H (2011) Hydrolytic enzyme of cellulose for complex formulation applied research. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 164(1):23–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Selig M, Weiss N, Ji Y (2008) Enzymatic Saccharification of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP), NREL/TP-510-42629Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowe N, McMillan J (2001) SSF experimental protocols—lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysis and fermentation. Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP), NREL/TP-510-42630Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakagame S, Chandra RP, Saddler JN (2011) The influence of lignin on the enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated biomass substrates. In: Zhu JY, Zhang X, Pan XJ (eds) Sustainable production of fuels, chemicals, and fibers from forest biomass. American Chemical Society, Washington, pp 145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norde W (1986) Adsorption of proteins from solution at the solid–liquid interface. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 25(C):267–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mansfield SD, Mooney C, Saddler JN (1999) Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Prog 15:804–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sewalt VJH, Glasser WG, Beauchemin KA (1997) Lignin impact on fiber degradation.3. Reversal of inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis by chemical modification of lignin and by additives. J Agric Food Chem 45(5):1823–1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Kumar L, Chandra R, Saddler JN (2011) Influence of steam pretreatment severity on post-treatments used to enhance the enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated softwoods at low enzyme loadings. Biotechnol Bioeng 108(10):2300–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakagame S, Chandra RP, Kadla JF, Saddler JN (2011) Enhancing the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass by increasing the carboxylic acid content of the associated lignin. Biotechnol Bioeng 108(3):538–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wood TM, Bhat M (1988) Methods for measuring cellulase activities. In: Colowick SP, Kaplan NO (eds) Methods in enzymology, vol 160. Academic, New York, pp 87–112, Biomass(Part a, Cellulose and Hemicellulose)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhu JY, Luo X, Tian S, Gleisner R, Negrone J, Horn E (2011) Efficient ethanol production from beetle-killed lodgepole pine using SPORL technology and Saccharomyces cerevisiae without detoxification. TAPPI J 10(5):9–18Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Zhu W, Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Pan XJ (2010) On energy consumption for size-reduction and yield from subsequent enzymatic sacchrification of pretreated lodgepole pine. Bioresour Technol 101(8):2782–2792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu JY, Wang GS, Pan XJ, Gleisner R (2009) Specific surface to evaluate the efficiencies of milling and pretreatment of wood for enzymatic saccharification. Chem Eng Sci 64(3):474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis MW (1998) A rapid modified method for compositional carbohydrate analysis of lignocellulosics by high pH anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAEC/PAD). J Wood Chem Technol 18(2):235–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu H, Zhu JY, Chai XS (2011) In situ, rapid, and temporally resolved measurements of cellulase adsorption onto lignocellulosic substrates by UV-vis spectrophotometry. Langmuir 27(1):272–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bradford M (1976) A rapid and sensitive for the quantitation of microgram quantitites of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72(1–2):248–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakagame S, Chandra RP, Kadla JF, Saddler JN (2011) The isolation, characterization and effect of lignin isolated from steam pretreated Douglas-fir on the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Bioresour Technol 102(6):4507–4517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chirico WJ, Brown RD Jr (1987) Purification and characterization of a β-glucosidase from Trichoderma reesei. Eur J Biochem 165(2):333–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Medve J, Lee D, Tjerneld F (1998) Ion-exchange chromatographic purification and quantitative analysis of Trichoderma reesei cellulases cellobiohydrolase I, II and endoglucanase II by fast protein liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 808(1–2):153–165Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vinzant TB, Adney WS, Decker SR, Baker JO, Kinter MT, Sherman NE et al (2001) Fingerprinting Trichoderma reesei hydrolases in a commercial cellulase preparation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol A Enzym Eng Biotechnol 91–93:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Forest ServiceForest Products LaboratoryMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of Light Industry and Food SciencesSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.School of Chemistry and Chemical EngineeringSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations