4.8 Article

Evaluation of agave bagasse recalcitrance using AFEX™, autohydrolysis, and ionic liquid pretreatments

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 211, Issue -, Pages 216-223

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.103

Keywords

Agave bagasse; Comparison; Biomass pretreatment; Autohydrolysis; AFEX; Ionic liquid; Characterization

Funding

  1. Office of Biological end Environmental research in the DOE Office of Science through the Joint BioEnergy Institute [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. National Science Foundation [1355438]
  3. Universidad Autonoma de Nayarit (Autonomous University of Nayarit)
  4. PROMEP project [103.5/13/6595]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DEFC02-07ER64494]
  6. AgBioresearch at Michigan State University
  7. USDA NIFA program
  8. CONACYT Mexico [65774]
  9. Office Of The Director
  10. Office of Integrative Activities [1355438] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparative analysis of the response of agave bagasse (AGB) to pretreatment by ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX (TM)), autohydrolysis (AH) and ionic liquid (IL) was performed using 2D nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, wet chemistry, enzymatic saccharification and mass balances. It has been found that AFEX pretreatment preserved all carbohydrates in the biomass, whereas AH removed 62.4% of xylan and IL extracted 25% of lignin into wash streams. Syringyl and guaiacyl lignin ratio of untreated AGB was 4.3, whereas for the pretreated biomass the ratios were 4.2, 5.0 and 4.7 for AFEX, AH and IL, respectively. Using NMR spectra, the intensity of beta-aryl ether units in aliphatic, anomeric, and aromatic regions decreased in all three pretreated samples when compared to untreated biomass. Yields of glucose plus xylose in the major hydrolysate stream were 42.5, 39.7 and 26.9 kg per 100 kg of untreated AGB for AFEX, IL and AH, respectively. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available