Journal of Forest and Environmental Science

Institute of Forest Science, kangwon National University (강원대학교 산림과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ethanol Fermentation of the Enzymatic Hydrolysates from the Products Pretreated using [EMIM]Ac and Its Co-Solvents with DMF

  • Han, Song-Yi (Institute of Forest Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Park, Chan-Woo (Institute of Forest Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Park, Jae-Bum (Institute of Forest Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Ha, Suk-Jin (Institute of Forest Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, Nam-Hun (Department of Forest Biomaterials and Engineering, College of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Hwan (Institute of Forest Science, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2020.02.28
  • Accepted : 2020.03.04
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Ethanol fermentation of the enzymatic hydrolysates from the products pretreated using 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium acetate ([EMIM]Ac) and its co-solvents with dimethylformamide (DMF) was conducted using Saccharomyces cerevisiae (D452-2). The optical density change due to the yeast cell growth, the consumption amount of monosugars (glucose, xylose), the concentration of acetate, and ethanol production yield were investigated. The co-solvent system lowered inhibition of the growth of the cells. The highest concentration of glucose (7.8 g/L) and xylose (3.6 g/L) was obtained from the enzymatic hydrolysates of the pretreated product by pure [EMIM]Ac. The initial concentration of both monosugars in the enzymatic hydrolysates was decreased with increasing fermentation time. Ethanol of Approximately 3 g/L was produced from the enzymatic hydrolysates by pure [EMIM]Ac and co-solvent with less than 50% DMF.

Keywords

References

  1. Almeida JR, Modig T, Petersson A, Hahn-Hagerdal B, Liden G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF. 2007. Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82: 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1676
  2. Alvira P, Tomas-Pejo E, Ballesteros M, Negro MJ. 2010. Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: a review. Bioresour Technol 101: 4851-4861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.093
  3. Brown TR, Brown RC. 2013. A review of cellulosic biofuel commercial‐ scale projects in the United States. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 7: 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1387
  4. Chang YH, Chang KS, Chen CY, Hsu CL, Chang TC, Jang HD. 2018. Enhancement of the efficiency of bioethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae via gradually batch-wise and fed-batch increasing the glucose concentration. Fermentation 4: 45-56. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation4020045
  5. Chu Q, Yang D, Li X, Ma B, Yu S, Yong Q. 2013. An integrated process to enhance ethanol production from steam-exploded corn stover. Fuel 107: 823-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.02.002
  6. Dadi AP, Schall CA, Varanasi S. 2007. Mitigation of cellulose recalcitrance to enzymatic hydrolysis by ionic liquid pretreatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 137: 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-007-9068-9
  7. Galbe M, Zacchi G. 2002. A review of the production of ethanol from softwood. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59: 618-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-1058-9
  8. Jensen JR, Morinelly JE, Gossen KR, Brodeur-Campbell MJ, Shonnard DR. 2010. Effects of dilute acid pretreatment conditions on enzymatic hydrolysis monomer and oligomer sugar yields for aspen, balsam, and switchgrass. Bioresour Technol 101: 2317-2325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.038
  9. Kang Q, Appels L, Tan T, Dewil R. 2014. Bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: current findings determine research priorities. ScientificWorldJournal 2014: 298153.
  10. Kumar AK, Sharma S. 2017. Recent updates on different methods of pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks: a review. Bioresour Bioprocess 4: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0137-9
  11. Lee YJ, Kwon DH, Park JB, Ha SJ. 2017. Isolation of mutant yeast strains having resistance to 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate through a directed evolutionary approach. Microbiol Biotechnol Lett 45: 51-56. https://doi.org/10.4014/mbl.1702.02005
  12. Li C, Knierim B, Manisseri C, Arora R, Scheller HV, Auer M, Vogel KP, Simmons BA, Singh S. 2010. Comparison of dilute acid and ionic liquid pretreatment of switchgrass: biomass recalcitrance, delignification and enzymatic saccharification. Bioresour Technol 101: 4900-4906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.066
  13. Lienqueo ME, Ravanal MC, Pezoa-Conte R, Cortinez V, Martinez L, Niklitschek T, Salazar O, Carmona R, Garcia A, Hyvarinen S, Maki-Arvela P, Mikkola JP. 2016. Second generation bioethanol from Eucalyptus globulus Labill and Nothofagus pumilio: Ionic liquid pretreatment boosts the yields. Ind Crops Prod 80: 148-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.11.039
  14. Menon V, Rao M. 2012. Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform chemicals & biorefinery concept. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38: 522-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.02.002
  15. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M. 2005. Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96: 673-686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.06.025
  16. Muhaji, Sutjahjo DH. 2018. The characteristics of bioethanol fuel made of vegetable raw materials. Mater Sci Eng 296: 012019.
  17. Pacini H, Strapasson A. 2012. Innovation subject to sustainability: the European policy on biofuels and its effects on innovation in the Brazilian bioethanol industry. J Contemp Eur Res 8: 367‐397. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v8i3.377
  18. Paulova L, Patakova P, Branska B, Rychtera M, Melzoch K. 2015. Lignocellulosic ethanol: technology design and its impact on process efficiency. Biotechnol Adv 33(6 Pt 2): 1091-1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.12.002
  19. Wiegel J. 1982. Ethanol from cellulose. Experientia 38: 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01945067