Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hierarchical model screening on enzymatic hydrolysis of microcrystalline cellulose

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though a large number of simple to complex models are theorized in the kinetic description of cellulose hydrolysis, the reason for their selection in specific studies remains obscure. Considering different combinations of substrate biodegradability-accessibility, hydrolysis step, and the fate of enzyme (adsorption/deactivation) in a hierarchical approach, 36 dynamic model structures of different complexity were tested in the present study for microcrystalline cellulose hydrolysis at different substrate/enzyme loadings. The quality of the candidate models was assessed based on R2, adjusted R2, Aike information criteria (AIC), and statistical analysis. The results suggest that consideration of substrate accessibility can influence model fitness only when the substrate is biodegradable. However, the selection of hydrolysis kinetics and enzyme fate is remained as significant. A simple 4-parameter model assuming complete biodegradable-accessible substrate, homogeneous Michaelis–Menten (MM), and enzyme deactivation is selected (R2 = 0.946, adj. R2 = 0.920), even though a few complex models offered marginally better R2. Further, dynamic relative sensitivity analysis revealed that reducing sugar profile was sensitive to the entire set of parameters. Though the complex models reveal the cellulose hydrolysis dynamics on a greater extent, such an attempt should be performed with caution unless experimental data on other process variables (apart from reducing sugar) are made available in regression. Estimation of parameters relevant to enzyme inactivation or biomass adsorption from independent batch experiments can be invaluable in deciphering complex hydrolysis kinetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Experimental data in this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Batista Meneses D, Montes de Oca-Vásquez G, Vega-Baudrit JR et al (2022) Pretreatment methods of lignocellulosic wastes into value-added products: recent advances and possibilities. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 12:547–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00722-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nill J, Karuna N, Jeoh T (2018) The impact of kinetic parameters on cellulose hydrolysis rates. Process Biochem 74:108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2018.07.006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Liang C, Gu C, Raftery J et al (2019) Development of modified HCH-1 kinetic model for long-term enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis and comparison with literature models. Biotechnol Biofuels 12:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1371-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciesielski PN, Pecha MB, Lattanzi AM et al (2020) Advances in multiscale modeling of lignocellulosic biomass. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8:3512–3531. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b07415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jeoh T, Cardona MJ, Karuna N et al (2017) Mechanistic kinetic models of enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis—a review. Biotechnol Bioeng 114:1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gan Q, Allen S, Taylor G (2003) Kinetic dynamics in heterogeneous enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: an overview, an experimental study and mathematical modelling. Process Biochem 38:1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(02)00220-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pratto B, de Souza RBA, Sousa R, da Cruz AJG (2016) Enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated sugarcane straw: kinetic study and semi-mechanistic modeling. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 178:1430–1444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1957-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan K, Ko C, Chang K, Leu S (2021) Construction of a structural enzyme adsorption/kinetics model to elucidate additives associated lignin–cellulase interactions in complex bioconversion system. Biotechnol Bioeng 118:4065–4075. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27883

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sin G, Meyer AS, Gernaey KV (2010) Assessing reliability of cellulose hydrolysis models to support biofuel process design—identifiability and uncertainty analysis. Comput Chem Eng 34:1385–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2010.02.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sousa R Jr, Carvalho ML, Giordano RLC, Giordano RC (2011) Recent trends in the modeling of cellulose hydrolysis. Braz J Chem Eng 28:545–564. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-66322011000400001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haldar D, Sen D, Gayen K (2018) Enzymatic hydrolysis of banana stems (Musa acuminata): optimization of process parameters and inhibition characterization. Int J Green Energy 15:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2018.1467834

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jain A, Jain R, Jain S (2020) Quantitative analysis of reducing sugars by 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNSA method). In: Basic Techniques in Biochemistry, Microbiology and Molecular Biology. Humana, New York, pp 181–183

  13. Lebaz N, Cockx A, Spérandio M, Morchain J (2015) Population balance approach for the modelling of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Can J Chem Eng 93:276–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.22088

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Myung JI, Pitt MA (2004) Model comparison methods. Methods Enzymol 383:351–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(04)83014-3

  15. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 19:716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Fieberg JR, Vitense K, Johnson DH (2020) Resampling-based methods for biologists. PeerJ 8:e9089. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9089

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Anane E, López CDC, Barz T et al (2019) Output uncertainty of dynamic growth models: effect of uncertain parameter estimates on model reliability. Biochem Eng J 150:107247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.107247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carvalho ML, Sousa R Jr, Rodríguez-Zúñiga UF et al (2013) Kinetic study of the enzymatic hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse. Braz J Chem Eng 30:437–447. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-66322013000300002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar D, Murthy GS (2013) Stochastic molecular model of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose for ethanol production. Biotechnol Biofuels 6:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tervasmäki P, Sotaniemi V, Kangas J et al (2017) A discretized model for enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose in a fed-batch process. Bioresour Technol 227:112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.054

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeh A-I, Huang Y-C, Chen SH (2010) Effect of particle size on the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 79:192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.07.049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kristensen JB, Felby C, Jørgensen H (2009) Yield-determining factors in high-solids enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Biotechnol Biofuels 2:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-2-11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Song M et al (2021) Combining Michaelis-Menten theory and enzyme deactivation reactions for the kinetic study of enzymatic hydrolysis by different pretreated sugarcane bagasse. Process Biochem 105:72–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2021.03.023

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Y, Xu J-L, Xu H-J et al (2010) Cellulase deactivation based kinetic modeling of enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-exploded wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 101:8261–8266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ye Z, Hatfield KM, Berson RE (2014) Relative extents of activity loss between enzyme–substrate interactions and combined environmental mechanisms. Bioresour Technol 164:143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.04.080

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liang L, Xue D (2017) Kinetics of cellulose hydrolysis by halostable cellulase from a marine Aspergillus niger at different salinities. Process Biochem 63:163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2017.09.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Joshi M, Seidel-Morgenstern A, Kremling A (2006) Exploiting the bootstrap method for quantifying parameter confidence intervals in dynamical systems. Metab Eng 8:447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2006.04.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors DH and BM are thankful to Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences (Deemed to be University), Coimbatore, India, for providing support for this study and to develop knowledge towards subsequent research works.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, 641114, India

    Dibyajyoti Haldar & Biswanath Mahanty

Authors
  1. Dibyajyoti Haldar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Biswanath Mahanty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The idea for the article was conceived by DH. First draft preparation and analysis was performed by BM. Both the authors critically revised the work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dibyajyoti Haldar or Biswanath Mahanty.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study does not involve any human participants, human data, or human tissue. Ethics approval is not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haldar, D., Mahanty, B. Hierarchical model screening on enzymatic hydrolysis of microcrystalline cellulose. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 14, 8503–8512 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02860-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02860-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation