4.4 Article

Kinetics of Enzymatic High-Solid Hydrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass Studied by Calorimetry

期刊

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 163, 期 5, 页码 626-635

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-010-9068-z

关键词

Cellulase kinetics; High solid; Isothermal calorimetry; Saccharification; Lignocellulose; Biomass

资金

  1. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation [2104-07-0028]
  2. Carlsberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enzymatic hydrolysis of high-solid biomass (> 10% w/w dry mass) has become increasingly important as a key step in the production of second-generation bioethanol. To this end, development of quantitative real-time assays is desirable both for empirical optimization and for detailed kinetic analysis. In the current work, we have investigated the application of isothermal calorimetry to study the kinetics of enzymatic hydrolysis of two substrates (pretreated corn stover and Avicel) at high-solid contents (up to 29% w/w). It was found that the calorimetric heat flow provided a true measure of the hydrolysis rate with a detection limit of about 500 pmol glucose s(-1). Hence, calorimetry is shown to be a highly sensitive real-time method, applicable for high solids, and independent on the complexity of the substrate. Dose-response experiments with a typical cellulase cocktail enabled a multidimensional analysis of the interrelationships of enzyme load and the rate, time, and extent of the reaction. The results suggest that the hydrolysis rate of pretreated corn stover is limited initially by available attack points on the substrate surface (< 10% conversion) but becomes proportional to enzyme dosage (excess of attack points) at later stages (> 10% conversion). This kinetic profile is interpreted as an increase in polymer end concentration (substrate for CBH) as the hydrolysis progresses, probably due to EG activity in the enzyme cocktail. Finally, irreversible enzyme inactivation did not appear to be the source of reduced hydrolysis rate over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据