MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2680080861 · doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0846-5

A comparison of various lignin-extraction methods to enhance the accessibility and ease of enzymatic hydrolysis of the cellulosic component of steam-pretreated poplar

2017· article· en· W2680080861 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology for Biofuels · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemicelluloseOrganosolvLigninCelluloseChemistrySteam explosionEnzymatic hydrolysisCellulaseCellulosic ethanolHydrolysisOrganic chemistryLignocellulosic biomassPulp and paper industryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current single-stage delignification-pretreatment technologies to overcome lignocellulosic biomass recalcitrance are usually achieved at the expense of compromising the recovery of the polysaccharide components, particularly the hemicellulose fraction. One way to enhance overall sugar recovery is to tailor an efficient two-stage pretreatment that can pre-extract the more labile hemicellulose component before subjecting the cellulose-rich residual material to a second-stage delignification process. Previous work had shown that a mild steam pretreatment could recover >65% of the hemicellulose from poplar while limiting the acid-catalysed condensation of lignin. This potentially allowed for subsequent lignin extraction using various lignin solvents to produce a more accessible cellulosic substrate. RESULTS: A two-stage approach using steam and/or solvent pretreatment was assessed for its ability to separate hemicellulose and lignin from poplar wood chips while providing a cellulose-rich fraction that could be readily hydrolysed by cellulase enzymes. An initial steam-pretreatment stage was performed over a range of temperatures (160-200 °C) using an equivalent severity factor of 3.6. A higher steam temperature of 190 °C applied over a shorter residence time of 10 min effectively solubilized and recovered 75% of the hemicellulose while enhancing the ability of various solvents [deep eutectic solvent (DES), ethanol organosolv, soda/anthraquinone (soda/AQ) or a hydrotrope] to extract lignin in a second stage. When the second-stage treatments were compared, the mild DES treatment (lactic acid and betaine) at 130 °C, removed comparable amounts of lignin with higher selectivity than did the soda/AQ and organosolv pretreatments at 170 °C. However, the cellulose-rich substrates obtained after the second-stage organosolv and soda/AQ pretreatments showed the highest cellulose accessibility, as measured by the Simon's staining technique. They were also the most susceptible to subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. CONCLUSIONS: The second-stage pretreatments varied in their ability to solubilize and extract the lignin component of steam-pretreated poplar while enhancing the enzymatic hydrolysis of the resulting cellulose-rich residual fractions. Although DES extraction was more selective in extracting lignin from the steam-pretreated substrates, the organosolv and soda/AQ post treatments disrupted the cellulose structure to a greater extent while enhancing the ease of enzymatic hydrolysis. Graphical abstractEffective hemicellulose removal via steam pretreatment followed by subsequent lignin extraction under acidic, alkaline or solvolytic conditions results in a highly accessible, more readily hydrolysed cellulose fraction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it