Optimization of Acid and Steam Explosion Pretreatment of Cogon Grass for Improved Cellulose Enzymatic Saccharification
Acid-impregnation and its combination with steam explosion were evaluated and optimized using Response Surface Methodology. At 10% solid-liquid ratio, cogon was impregnated with diluted H2SO4 solution (0 to 3%, w/w) at different ranges of temperature (40 to 120 °C) and varied time (0 to 130 min). Impregnated samples were then subjected to enzymatic saccharification using 60 FPU/g Accelerase 1500™. After enzymatic saccharification, the concentration of reducing sugar released was measured using Dinitrosalicylic (DNS) Colorimetric Method. Based on the results, Response Surface Model (RSM) showed that the optimum condition, predicting 7.18% Reducing Sugar Yield (RSY), was impregnation of cogon using 1.9% H2SO4 at 91.8 °C for 56 min. Experimental verification of optimum condition, done in triplicates, showed 6.35 + 0.05% RSY. Acid-impregnated cogon was subjected to steam explosion to improve saccharifiability. Factors varied were temperature (137 to 222 °C) and exposure time (17 to 582 s). Steam-exploded samples were saccharified and RSY was determined. RSM indicated that the best steam explosion condition, predicting 7.91% RSY, was 179 °C and 500 s. Experimental verification of optimum condition showed 8.78 + 0.02% RSY. Using RSY as basis, steam explosion improved saccharifiability of H2SO4-impregnated cogon by 38%, thus, increasing production of reducing sugars for potential bioethanol production.
(1). IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
(2). Y. Zheng, J. Zhao, F. Xu, Y. Li, Prog. Energ. Combust. 42 (2014) 35–53. Crossref
(3). P. Kumar, D. Barrett, M. Delwiche, P. Stroeve, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 3713–3729. Crossref
(4). R. Gonzales, P. Sivagurunathan, S. Kim, Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 41 (2016) 21678–21684. Crossref
(5). K. Rajan, D. Carrier, Biomass Bioenerg. 62 (2014) 222–227. Crossref
(6). A. Duque, P. Manzanares, I. Ballesteros, M. Ballesteros, Biomass Fractionation Technologies for a Lignocellulosic Feedstock Based Biorefinery (2016) 349–368. Crossref
(7). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2008). Chemical Analysis and Testing – Laboratory Analytical Procedures Manual. Golden, Colorado
(8). M. Somogyi, J. Biol. Chem. 95 (1) (1952) 19– 23. PMID: 14938350
(9). Y. Sun, J. Cheng, Bioresource Technol. 83 (2002) 1–11. Crossref
(10). Y. Pu, F. Hu, F. Huang, B. Davison, A. Ragauskas, Biotechnol. Biofuels 6 (2013) 15. Crossref
(11). N. Gil, S. Ferreira, M. E. Amaral, F.C. Domingues, A.P. Duarte, Ind. Crop. Prod. 32 (2010) 29–35. Crossref
(12). R. Hsu, G. Guo, W. Chen, W. S. Hwang, Bioresource Technol. 101 (2010) 4907–4913. Crossref
(13). R. Pielhop, J. Amgarten, P. Rohr, M. Studer, Biotechnol. Biofuels 9 (2016) 152. Crossref
(14). N. Jacquet, G. Maniet, C. Vanderghem, A. Richel, F. Delvigne, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54 (2010) 2593–2598. Crossref
(15). P. Lam, S. Sokhansanj, X. Bi, C. Lim, S. Melin, Energ. Fuels 25 (2011) 1521–1528. Crossref
(16). W. Grous, A. Converse, H. Grethlein, Enzyme Microb. Techn. 8 (1986) 274–280. Crossref
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.