title: Effects of pretreatment on morphology, chemical composition and enzymatic digestibility of eucalyptus bark: a potentially valuable source of fermentable sugars for biofuel production - part 1.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In recent years, the growing demand for biofuels has encouraged the search for different sources of underutilized lignocellulosic feedstocks that are available in sufficient abundance to be used for sustainable biofuel production. Much attention has been focused on biomass from grass. However, large amounts of timber residues such as eucalyptus bark are available and represent a potential source for conversion to bioethanol. In the present paper, we investigate the effects of a delignification process with increasing sodium hydroxide concentrations, preceded or not by diluted acid, on the bark of two eucalyptus clones: Eucalyptus grandis (EG) and the hybrid, E. grandis x urophylla (HGU). The enzymatic digestibility and total cellulose conversion were measured, along with the effect on the composition of the solid and the liquor fractions. Barks were also assessed using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), X-Ray diffraction, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compositional analysis revealed an increase in the cellulose content, reaching around 81% and 76% of glucose for HGU and EG, respectively, using a two-step treatment with HCl 1%, followed by 4% NaOH. Lignin removal was 84% (HGU) and 79% (EG), while the hemicellulose removal was 95% and 97% for HGU and EG, respectively. However, when we applied a one-step treatment, with 4% NaOH, higher hydrolysis efficiencies were found after 48 h for both clones, reaching almost 100% for HGU and 80% for EG, in spite of the lower lignin and hemicellulose removal. Total cellulose conversion increased from 5% and 7% to around 65% for HGU and 59% for EG. NMR and FTIR provided important insight into the lignin and hemicellulose removal and SEM studies shed light on the cell-wall unstructuring after pretreatment and lignin migration and precipitation on the fibers surface, which explain the different hydrolysis rates found for the clones.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results show that the single step alkaline pretreatment improves the enzymatic digestibility of Eucalyptus bark. Furthermore, the chemical and physical methods combined in this study provide a better comprehension of the pretreatment effects on cell-wall and the factors that influence enzymatic digestibility of this forest residue.
authors: Instituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 369, 13560-970, São Carlos, SP, Brazil. calabate@usp.br.
authors: Marisa A
authors: MA
authors: Lima
authors: Gabriela B
authors: GB
authors: Lavorente
authors: Hana Kp
authors: HK
authors: da Silva
authors: Juliano
authors: J
authors: Bragatto
authors: Camila A
authors: CA
authors: Rezende
authors: Oigres D
authors: OD
authors: Bernardinelli
authors: Eduardo R
authors: ER
authors: Deazevedo
authors: Leonardo D
authors: LD
authors: Gomez
authors: Simon J
authors: SJ
authors: McQueen-Mason
authors: Carlos A
authors: CA
authors: Labate
authors: Igor
authors: I
authors: Polikarpov
references: Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2003;54:519-46
references: 14503002
references: J Struct Biol. 2003 Jul;143(1):77-84
references: 12892728
references: Bioresour Technol. 2011 May;102(10):5896-904
references: 21392966
references: Carbohydr Res. 2010 May 7;345(7):965-70
references: 20307873
references: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008 May;35(5):367-375
references: 18180967
references: Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008 Dec 1;101(5):913-25
references: 18781690
references: Bioresour Technol. 2004 May;93(1):1-10
references: 14987714
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 15;100(8):4939-44
references: 12668766
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Nov;101(22):8706-12
references: 20634063
references: J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Aug 25;58(16):9054-62
references: 20669952
references: Bioresour Technol. 2011 Jan;102(2):1415-24
references: 20943378
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2011 Nov 28;4(1):54
references: 22122978
references: Bioresour Technol. 2007 Jan;98(2):422-8
references: 16473004
references: Biotechnol Prog. 2005 May-Jun;21(3):816-22
references: 15932261
references: Bioresour Technol. 2003 Jan;86(2):105-15
references: 12653274
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Jul;101(13):4936-9
references: 19815409
references: Biotechnol Prog. 2007 Nov-Dec;23(6):1333-9
references: 17973399
references: Bioresour Technol. 2002 Jan;81(2):163-5
references: 11762910
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Jul;101(13):4820-5
references: 20022746
references: Bioresour Technol. 2011 May;102(10):5938-46
references: 21450460
references: Materials (Basel). 2011 Nov 07;4(11):1985-2002
references: 28824119
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Jul;101(13):4895-9
references: 20004094
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Oct;62(10):3600-4
references: 8837414
references: Bioresour Technol. 2013 May;135:73-81
references: 23127831
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Jul;101(13):4992-5002
references: 19969450
references: Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2003 Spring;105 -108:615-28
references: 12721440
references: Bioresour Technol. 2010 Apr;101(8):2755-61
references: 20045313
references: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013 Jan 28;6(1):16
references: 23356676
references: Solid State Nucl Magn Reson. 1999 Oct;15(1):41-8
references: 10903083
references: J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Feb 25;57(4):1275-81
references: 19170631