ŞEKER PANCARI KÜSPESİ VE MISIR KOÇANININ ENZİMATİK HİDROLİZİNDE FARKLI FAKTÖRLERİN ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ: DENEY SONUÇLARININ İSTATİSTİKSEL ANALİZLERİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, lignince düşük bir biyokütle olarak şeker pancarı küspesinin (SBP) ve lignince yüksek bir biyokütle olarak mısır koçanının (CC) enzimatik hidrolizinden elde edilecek indirgen şeker veriminde, çeşitli değişkenlerin göstereceği etkiler araştırılmıştır. SBP hidrolizinde, çeşitli parametrelerin (substrat, pektinaz, selülaz ve hidroliz süresi) şeker verimi modeline önemini belirlemek için tepki yüzeyi metodolojisi (RSM) ve ANOVA kullanılmıştır. Önerilen ikinci dereceden model, tüm ana etkilerin ve bazı etkileşim etkilerinin önemini gösteren yeterli bir yaklaşıklık vermiştir (P < 0.05). Tasarım alanı içindeki maksimum verimler, %20 substrat yüklemesinde 300 µl Cellic Ctec3 ve 300 µl Pectinex Ultra SP-L enzimleri kullanılarak 18 saatlik hidrolizden sonra yaklaşık 87 g/L olarak bulunmuştur. Ön işleme tabi tutulmamış CC hidrolizinde ise, iyonik olmayan surfektanların (Tween 20 ve Tween 80) indirgeyici şeker verimine fark yaratacak şekilde bir artırma etkisi görülmemiştir.

Keywords

• enzimatik hidroliz
• şeker pancarı
• mısır koçanı
• istatiksel model
• şeker verimi

INVESTIGATION OF SEVERAL FACTORS ON ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS OF SUGAR BEET PULP AND CORN COB: STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Abstract

In this work, sugar beet pulp (SBP) as a lignin poor biomass and corn cob (CC) as a lignin rich biomass were subjected to enzymatic hydrolysis to see the effects of various variables on reducing sugar yield. In SBP hydrolysis, response surface methodology (RSM) and ANOVA were used to fit sugar yield and to determine significance of the parameters (substrate, pectinase, cellulase and hydrolysis time). The proposed quadratic model gave an adequate approximation indicating the significance of all main effects and some of the interaction effects (p < 0.05). The maximum yields within the design space were found approximately as 87 g/L after 18 h of hydrolysis, using 300 µl Cellic Ctec3 and 300 µl Pectinex Ultra SP-L at %20 substrate loading. In CC hydrolysis, the use of nonionic surfactants (Tween 20 and Tween 80) under unpretreated conditions did not necessarily increase the yield of reducing sugar from untreated CC.

Keywords

• enzymatic hydrolysis
• sugar beet
• corn cob
• statistical modeling
• sugar yield

References

1. Adaganti, S.Y., Yaliwal, V.S., Kulkarni, B.M., Desai, G.P. & Banapurmath, N.R. (2014). Factors Affecting Bioethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass (Calliandra calothyrsus). Waste and Biomass Valorization, 5, 963–971.
2. Arenas-Cárdenas, P., López-López, A., Moeller-Chávez, G.E. & León-Becerril, E. (2017). Current Pretreatments of Lignocellulosic Residues in the Production of Bioethanol. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8, 161–181.
3. Arumugam, A., Malolan, V.V. & Ponnusami, V. (2020). Contemporary Pretreatment Strategies for Bioethanol Production from Corncobs: A Comprehensive Review. Waste and Biomass Valorization. Springer Netherlands.
4. Astray, G., Gullón, B., Labidi, J. & Gullón, P. (2016). Comparison between developed models using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) with the purpose to optimize oligosaccharide mixtures production from sugar beet pulp. Industrial Crops and Products, 92, 290–299.
5. Atkinson, E.J. & Therneau, T.M. (2000). An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning Using the RPART Routines Basic steps needed to use rpart Rpart model options Plotting options. Nd.
6. Berlowska, J., Binczarski, M., Dziugan, P., Wilkowska, A., Kregiel, D. & Witonska, I. (2018). Sugar Beet Pulp as a Source of Valuable Biotechnological Products. Advances in Biotechnology for Food Industry. Elsevier Inc.
7. Cieciura-Włoch, W., Borowski, S. & Otlewska, A. (2020). Biohydrogen production from fruit and vegetable waste, sugar beet pulp and corn silage via dark fermentation. Renewable Energy, 153, 1226–1237.
8. Donkoh, E., Degenstein, J., Tucker, M. & Ji, Y. (2012). Optimization of Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Dilute Acid Pretreated Sugar Beet Pulp Using Response Surface Design. Journal of Sugarbeet Research.

9. Dyk, J.S. Van & Pletschke, B.I. (2012). A review of lignocellulose bioconversion using enzymatic hydrolysis and synergistic cooperation between enzymes-Factors affecting enzymes, conversion and synergy. Biotechnology Advances.
10. Eriksson, T., Börjesson, J. & Tjerneld, F. (2002). Mechanism of surfactant effect in enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Enzyme and Microbial Technology.
11. Ghose, T.K. (1987). Measurement of cellulase activities. Pure and Applied Chemistry.
12. Helle, S.S., Duff, S.J.B. & Cooper, D.G. (1993). Effect of surfactants on cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnology and Bioengineering.
13. Kaar, W.E. & Holtzapple, M.T. (1998). Benefits from Tween during enzymic hydrolysis of corn stover. Biotechnology and Bioengineering.
14. Karagöz, P., Rocha, I. V., Özkan, M. & Angelidaki, I. (2012). Alkaline peroxide pretreatment of rapeseed straw for enhancing bioethanol production by Same Vessel Saccharification and Co-Fermentation. Bioresource Technology.
15. Kinnarinen, T. & Häkkinen, A. (2014). Influence of enzyme loading on enzymatic hydrolysis of cardboard waste and size distribution of the resulting fiber residue. Bioresource Technology.
16. Leijdekkers, A.G.M., Bink, J.P.M., Geutjes, S., Schols, H.A. & Gruppen, H. (2013). Enzymatic saccharification of sugar beet pulp for the production of galacturonic acid and arabinose; a study on the impact of the formation of recalcitrant oligosaccharides. Bioresource Technology.
17. Li, G., Sun, Y., Guo, W. & Yuan, L. (2018). Comparison of various pretreatment strategies and their effect on chemistry and structure of sugar beet pulp. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 217–223.
18. Li, H., Kim, N.J., Jiang, M., Kang, J.W. & Chang, H.N. (2009). Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic residues pretreated with phosphoric acid-acetone for bioethanol production. Bioresource Technology.
19. Manisha & Yadav, S.K. (2017). Technological advances and applications of hydrolytic enzymes for valorization of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology.
20. Micard, V., Renard, C.M.G.C. & Thibault, J.F. (1996). Enzymatic saccharification of sugar-beet pulp. Enzyme and Microbial Technology.
21. Miller, G.L. (1959). Use of Dinitrosalicylic Acid Reagent for Determination of Reducing Sugar. Analytical Chemistry.
22. Nahar, N. & Pryor, S.W. (2012). Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of whole sugar beets for ethanol production. In: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2012, ASABE 2012.
23. Nahar, N. & Pryor, S.W. (2013). Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of crushed whole sugar beets. Biomass and Bioenergy, 59, 512–519.
24. Nahar, N., Rorick, R. & Pryor, S.W. (2014). Effects of enzyme and solids loading on sugar beet pulp hydrolysis. Biological Engineering Transactions.
25. Paulova, L., Patakova, P., Branska, B., Rychtera, M. & Melzoch, K. (2015). Lignocellulosic ethanol: Technology design and its impact on process efficiency. Biotechnology Advances.
26. Pocan, P., Bahcegul, E., Oztop, M.H. & Hamamci, H. (2018). Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Fruit Peels and Other Lignocellulosic Biomass as a Source of Sugar. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 9, 929–937.
27. Pointner, M., Kuttner, P., Obrlik, T., Jäger, A. & Kahr, H. (2014). Composition of corncobs as a substrate for fermentation of biofuels. Agronomy Research.
28. Pryor, S.W. & Nahar, N. (2015). β-glucosidase supplementation during biomass hydrolysis: How low can we go? Biomass and Bioenergy.
29. Qing, Q., Yang, B. & Wyman, C.E. (2010). Impact of surfactants on pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresource Technology.
30. Seo, D.J., Fujita, H. & Sakoda, A. (2011). Structural changes of lignocelluloses by a nonionic surfactant, Tween 20, and their effects on cellulase adsorption and saccharification. Bioresource Technology.
31. Sharma, H.K., Xu, C. & Qin, W. (2019). Biological Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Biofuels and Bioproducts: An Overview. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 10, 235–251.
32. Siddiqui, M.T.H., Nizamuddin, S., Mubarak, N.M., Shirin, K., Aijaz, M., Hussain, M. & Baloch, H.A. (2019). Characterization and Process Optimization of Biochar Produced Using Novel Biomass, Waste Pomegranate Peel: A Response Surface Methodology Approach. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 10, 521–532.
33. Yücel, Y. & Göycıncık, S. (2015). Optimization and Modelling of Process Conditions Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) for Enzymatic Saccharification of Spent Tea Waste (STW). Waste and Biomass Valorization, 6, 1077–1084.
34. Zhang, Y.H.P. (2008). Reviving the carbohydrate economy via multi-product lignocellulose biorefineries. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology.
35. Zheng, J., Choo, K., Bradt, C., Lehoux, R. & Rehmann, L. (2014). Enzymatic hydrolysis of steam exploded corncob residues after pretreatment in a twin-screw extruder. Biotechnology Reports, 3, 99–107.
36. Zheng, Y., Cheng, Y.S., Yu, C., Zhang, R., Jenkins, B.M. & VanderGheynst, J.S. (2012). Improving the efficiency of enzyme utilization for sugar beet pulp hydrolysis. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering.
37. Ziemiński, K. & Kowalska-Wentel, M. (2015). Effect of enzymatic pretreatment on anaerobic co-digestion of sugar beet pulp silage and vinasse. Bioresource Technology.