scholarly journals Unrevealing model compounds of soil conditioners impacts on the wheat straw autohydrolysis efficiency and enzymatic hydrolysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinxing Wu ◽  
Wei Tang ◽  
Chen Huang ◽  
Caoxing Huang ◽  
Chenhuan Lai ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinxing Wu ◽  
Wei Tang ◽  
Chen Huang ◽  
Caoxing Huang ◽  
Chenhuan Lai ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Soil-derived exogenous ash (EA) poses a challenge toward lignocellulosics autohydrolysis due to its buffering capacity. Previous works focusing on this phenomenon have failed to also investigate the role that soluble salts, and organic matter plays in this system. Herein, sodium phosphate and sodium humate were employed as model buffering compounds representing soluble salts and organic matter and dosed into a de-ashed wheat straw (DWS) autohydrolysis process to show the potential impacts of WS attached soil conditioners on the WS autohydrolysis efficiency which would further affect the enzymatic digestibility of autohydrolyzed WS.Results: Results showed that with the increasing loadings of sodium phosphate and sodium humate resulted in elevated pH values (from 4.0 to 5.1 and from 4.1 to 4.7, respectively). Meanwhile, the reductions of xylan removal yields from ~84.3-61.4% to 72.3-53.0% by loading (1~30 g/L) sodium phosphate and sodium humate during WS autohydrolysis lead to a significant decrease of cellulose accessibilities which finally lead to a reduction of the enzymatic digestibility of autohydrolyzed WS from ~75.4-77.2% to 47.3-57.7%.Conclusion: The existence of different types soil conditioner model compounds result in various component fractions from autohydrolyzed WS in the process of autohydrolysis. A lack of sufficient xylan removal was found to drive the significant decrease in enzymatic accessibility. The results demonstrated the various effects of two typical tested soil conditioners on WS autohydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinxing Wu ◽  
Wei Tang ◽  
Chen Huang ◽  
Caoxing Huang ◽  
Chenhuan Lai ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Soil-derived exogenous ash (EA) poses a challenge toward lignocellulosics autohydrolysis due to its buffering capacity. Previous works focusing on this phenomenon have failed to also investigate the role that soluble salts, and organic matter plays in this system. Herein, sodium phosphate and sodium humate were employed as model buffering compounds representing soluble salts and organic matter and dosed into a de-ashed wheat straw (DWS) autohydrolysis process to show the potential impacts of WS attached soil conditioners on the WS autohydrolysis efficiency which would further affect the enzymatic digestibility of autohydrolyzed WS.Results: Results showed that with the increasing loadings of sodium phosphate and sodium humate resulted in elevated pH values (from 4.0 to 5.1 and from 4.1 to 4.7, respectively). Meanwhile, the reductions of xylan removal yields from ~ 84.3–61.4% to 72.3–53.0% by loading (1 ~ 30 g/L) sodium phosphate and sodium humate during WS autohydrolysis lead to a significant decrease of cellulose accessibilities which finally lead to a reduction of the enzymatic digestibility of autohydrolyzed WS from ~ 75.4–77.2% to 47.3–57.7%.Conclusion: The existence of different types soil conditioner model compounds result in various component fractions from autohydrolyzed WS in the process of autohydrolysis. A lack of sufficient xylan removal was found to drive the significant decrease in enzymatic accessibility. The results demonstrated the various effects of two typical tested soil conditioners on WS autohydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis.


2010 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roozbeh Alinia ◽  
Samyar Zabihi ◽  
Feridun Esmaeilzadeh ◽  
Jamshid Fathi Kalajahi

2012 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 1280-1285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greta Radeva ◽  
Ivo Valchev ◽  
Stoiko Petrin ◽  
Eva Valcheva ◽  
Petya Tsekova

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (9) ◽  
pp. 1291-1297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Alvira ◽  
María José Negro ◽  
Felicia Sáez ◽  
Mercedes Ballesteros

2018 ◽  
Vol 102 (22) ◽  
pp. 9831-9842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengjie Wu ◽  
Hongyu Liu ◽  
Junyuan Guo ◽  
Chunping Yang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document