Enhancing the Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulosic Materials Using Simultaneous Ball Milling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the limiting factors restricting the effective and efficient bioconversion of softwood-derived lignocellulosic residues is the recalcitrance of the substrate following pretreatment. Consequently, the ensuing enzymatic process requires relatively high enzyme loadings to produce monomeric carbohydrates that are readily fermentable by ethanologenic microorganisms. In an attempt to circumvent the need for larger enzyme loadings, a simultaneous physical and enzymatic hydrolysis treatment was evaluated. A ball-mill reactor was used as the digestion vessel, and the extent and rate of hydrolysis were monitored. Concurrently, enzyme adsorption profiles and the rate of conversion during the course of hydrolysis were monitored. alpha-Cellulose, employed as a model substrate, and SO2-impregnated steam-exploded Douglas-fir wood chips were assessed as the cellulosic substrates. The softwood-derived substrate was further posttreated with water and hot alkaline hydrogen peroxide to remove >90% of the original lignin. Experiments at different reaction conditions were evaluated, including substrate concentration, enzyme loading, reaction volumes, and number of ball beads employed during mechanical milling. It was apparent that the best conditions for the enzymatic hydrolysis of alpha-cellulose were attained using a higher number of beads, while the presence of air-liquid interface did not seem to affect the rate of saccharification. Similarly, when employing the lignocellulosic substrate, up to 100% hydrolysis could be achieved with a minimum enzyme loading (10 filter paper units/g of cellulose), at lower substrate concentrations and with a greater number of reaction beads during milling. It was apparent that the combined strategy of simultaneous ball milling and enzymatic hydrolysis could improve the rate of saccharification and/or reduce the enzyme loading required to attain total hydrolysis of the carbohydrate moieties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".