A comparison of various lignin-extraction methods to enhance the accessibility and ease of enzymatic hydrolysis of the cellulosic component of steam-pretreated poplar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".