Physical and chemical differences between one-stage and two-stage hydrothermal pretreated hardwood substrates for use in cellulosic ethanol production.

BACKGROUND: There are many different types of pretreatment carried out to prepare cellulosic substrates for fermentation. In this study, one- and two-stage hydrothermal pretreatment were carried out to determine their effects on subsequent fermentations. The two substrates were found to behave differently during fermentation. The two substrates were then characterized using physical and chemical parameters. RESULTS: The one-stage substrate was found to have higher carbohydrate content and lower lignin content. It exhibited a higher level of viscosity, a larger settled volume, and a slower settling time than the two-stage substrate. It also showed higher polarity and reduced crystallinity. Glycome profiling showed physical differences between the two substrates, specifically pointing toward higher levels of pectin and hemicellulose in the one-stage substrate (MS1112) as compared to the two-stage substrate (MS1107). CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that these physical and chemical differences between the substrates contribute to the differences seen during fermentation including: ethanol yield, ethanol titer, fermentation rate, fermentation completion time, mixing, and substrate solubilization. These findings can be used in optimizing pretreatment parameters to maximize ethanol conversion and overall process yield for hardwood substrates.

Changes in the enzymatic hydrolysis rate of Avicel cellulose with conversion.

The slow down in enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose with conversion has often been attributed to declining reactivity of the substrate as the more easily reacted material is thought to be consumed preferentially. To better understand the cause of this phenomenon, the enzymatic reaction of the nearly pure cellulose in Avicel was interrupted over the course of nearly complete hydrolysis. Then, the solids were treated with proteinase to degrade the cellulase enzymes remaining on the solid surface, followed by proteinase inhibitors to inactive the proteinase and successive washing with water, 1.0 M NaCl solution, and water. Next, fresh cellulase and buffer were added to the solids to restart hydrolysis. The rate of cellulose hydrolysis, expressed as a percent of substrate remaining at that time, was approximately constant over a wide range of conversions for restart experiments but declined continually with conversion for uninterrupted hydrolysis. Furthermore, the cellulose hydrolysis rate per adsorbed enzyme was approximately constant for the restart procedure but declined with conversion when enzymes were left to react. Thus, the drop off in reaction rate for uninterrupted cellulose digestion by enzymes could not be attributed to changes in substrate reactivity, suggesting that other effects such as enzymes getting "stuck" or otherwise slowing down may be responsible.