Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 105, Issue 1–3, pp 115–125 | Cite as

Effect of sulfuric and phosphoric acid pretreatments on enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover



The pretreatment of corn stover with H2SO4 and H3PO4 was investigated. Pretreatments were carried out from 30 to 120 min in a batch reactor at 121°C, with acid concentrations ranging from 0 to 2% (w/v) at a solid concentration of 5% (w/v). Pretreated corn stover was washed with distilled water until the filtrate was adjusted to pH 7.0, followed by surfactant swelling of the cellulosic fraction in a 0–10% (w/v) solution of Tween-80 at room temperature for 12 h. The dilute acid treatment proved to be a very effective method in terms of hemicellulose recovery and cellulose digetibility. Hemicellulose recovery was 62–90%, and enzymatic digestibility of the cellulose that remained in the solid was >80% with 2% (w/v) acid. In all cases studied, the performance of H2SO4 pretreatment (hemicellulose recovery and cellulose digestibility) was significantly better than obtained with H3PO4. Enzymatic hydrolysis was more effective using surfactant than without it, producing 10–20% more sugar. Furthermore, digestibility was investigated as a function of hemicellulose removal. It was found that digestibility was more directly related to hemicellulose removal than to delignification.

Index Entries

Corn stover enzymatic hydrolysis H3PO4 pretreatment H2SO4 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Parajo, J. C., Alonoso, J. L., and Santos, V. (1996), J. Wood Chem. Technol. 16(1), 61–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wyman, C. E. (1996), Handbook on Bioethanol: Production and Utilization, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fan, L. T., Gharpuray, M. M., and Lee, Y. H. (1987), Cellulose Hydrolysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schell, D. J., Walter, P. J., and Johnson, D. K. (1992), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 23/35, 659–663.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Philippidis, G. P., Smith, T. K., and Wyman, C. E. (1993), Biotechnol. Bioeng. 41, 846–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, S. B., Um, B. H., and Park, S. C. (2001), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 91/93, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaar, W. E. and Holtzapple, M. T. (1998), Biotechnol. Bioeng. 59, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castanon, M. and Wilke, C. R. (1981), Biotechnol. Bioeng. 23, 1365–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knappert, D., Grethlein, H., and Converse, A. (1980), Biotechnol. Bioeng. 22, 1449–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    (1996), NREL Chemical Analysis and Testing Standard Procedure, No. 001–005, 009, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Um, B. H. (2002), MS thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Himmel, M. E., Baker, J. O., and Overend, R. P. (1994), Enzymatic Conversion of Biomass for Fuel Production, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hernandez-Soto, A. (2002), Inhibitory Effects of Acetic Acid and Furfural on Ethanol Fermentation by Zymomonas mobilis C25. MS report, Department of Chemical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tengborg, C., Stenberg, K., Gable, M., Zacchi, G., Larsson, S., Palmqvist, E., and Hahn-Hagerdal, B. (1998), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 70/72, 3–15.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramos, L. P., Breuil, C., and Saddler, J. N. (1992), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 34/35, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mooney, C. A., Mansfield, S. D., Touhy, M. G., and Saddler, J. N. (1998), Bioresour. Technol. 64, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byung-Hwan Um
    • 1
  • M. Nazmul Karim
    • 1
  • Linda L. Henk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort Collins

Personalised recommendations