Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 91, Issue 1–9, pp 35–49

Detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysates with ion-exchange resins

  • Nils-Olof Nilvebrant
  • Anders Reimann
  • Simona Larsson
  • Leif J. Jönsson
Article

Abstract

Lignocellulose hydrolysates contain fermentation inhibitors causing decreased ethanol production. The inhibitors include phenolic compounds, furan aldehydes, and aliphatic acids. One of the most efficient methods for removing inhibiting compounds prior to fermentation is treatment of the hydrolysate with ion-exchange resins. The performance and detoxification mechanism of three different resins were examined: an anion exchanger, a cation exchanger, and a resin without charged groups (XAD8). A dilute acid hydrolysate of spruce was treated with the resins at pH 5.5 and 10.0 prior to ethanolic fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In addition to the experiments with hydrolysate, the effect of the resins on selected model compounds, three phenolics (vanillin, guaiacol, and coniferyl aldehyde) and two furan aldehydes (furfural and hydroxymethyl furfural), was determined. The cation exchanger increased ethanol production, but to a lesser extent than XAD-8, which in turn was less effective than the an ion exchanger. Treatment at pH 10.0 was more effective than at pH 5.5. At pH 10.0, the anion exchanger efficiently removed both anionic and uncharged inhibitors, the latter by hydrophobic interactions. The importance of hydrophobic interactions was further indicated by a substantial decrease in the concentration of model compounds, such as guaiacol and furfural, after treatment with XAD-8.

Index Entries

Detoxification inhibition ethanol production Saccharomyces cerevisiae softwood ion exchange 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Larsson, S., Reimann, A., Nilvebrant, N.-O., and Jönsson, L. J. (1999), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 77–79, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsson, L. and Hahn-Hägerdal, B. (1996), Enzyme Microb. Technol. 18, 312–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchert, J., Niemelä, K., Puls, J., and Poutanen, K. (1990), Proc. Biochem. 25, 176–180.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tran, A. V. and Chambers, R. P. (1986), Enzyme Microb. Technol. 8, 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson, N. E., Prior, B. A., Lategan, P. M., and Lussi, M. (1984), Enzyme Microb. Technol. 6, 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rivard, C. J., Engel, R. E., Hayward, T. K., Nagle, N. J., Hatzis, C., and Philippidis, G. P. (1996), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 57/58, 183–191.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dominguez, J. M., Cao, N., Gong, C. S., and Tsao, G. T. (1997), Bioresour. Technol. 61, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singleton, V. L., Orhofer, R., and Lamuela-Raventos, R. M. (1999), Methods Enzymol. 299, 152–178.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsson, S., Palmqvist, E., Hahn-Hägerdal, B., Tengborg, C., Stenberg, K., Zacchi, G., and Nilvebrant, N.-O. (1999), Enzyme Microb. Technol. 24, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taherzadeh, M. J., Gustafsson, L., Niklasson, C., and Lidén, G. (1999), J. Biosci. Bioeng. 87, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palmqvist, E., Almeida, J. S., and Hahn-Hägerdal, B. (1999), Biotechnol. Bioeng. 62, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ragnar, M., Lindgren, C. T., and Nilvebrant, N.-O. (2000), J. Wood Chem. Technol. 20, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clark, T. A. and Mackie, K. L. (1984), J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 34B, 101–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils-Olof Nilvebrant
    • 1
  • Anders Reimann
    • 1
  • Simona Larsson
    • 2
  • Leif J. Jönsson
    • 2
  1. 1.STFISwedish Pulp and Paper Research InstituteStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Applied MicrobilogyLund University/Lund Institute of TechnologyLundSweden

Personalised recommendations