↓ Skip to main content

Alternative Low-Cost Additives to Improve the Saccharification of Lignocellulosic Biomass

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Alternative Low-Cost Additives to Improve the Saccharification of Lignocellulosic Biomass
Published in
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12010-018-2834-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariana G. Brondi, Vanessa M. Vasconcellos, Roberto C. Giordano, Cristiane S. Farinas

Abstract

A potential strategy to mitigate problems related to unproductive adsorption of enzymes onto lignin during the saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass is the addition of lignin-blocking agents to the hydrolysis reaction medium. However, there is a clear need to find more cost-effective additives for use in large-scale processes. Here, selected alternative low-cost additives were evaluated in the saccharification of steam-exploded sugarcane bagasse using a commercial enzymatic cocktail. The addition of soybean protein, tryptone, peptone, and maize zein had positive effects on glucose release during the hydrolysis, with gains of up to 36% when 8% (w/w) soybean protein was used. These improvements were superior to those obtained using bovine serum albumin (BSA), a much more expensive protein that has been widely reported for such an application. Moreover, addition of soybean protein led to a saving of 48 h in the hydrolysis, corresponding to a 66% decrease in the reactor operation time required. In order to achieve the same hydrolysis yield without the soybean additive, the enzyme loading would need to be increased by 50%. FTIR spectroscopy and nitrogen elemental analysis revealed that the additives probably acted to reduce unproductive binding of cellulolytic enzymes onto the lignin portion of the sugarcane bagasse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Master 7 18%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Chemistry 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,525,274
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#2,059
of 2,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,067
of 327,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,533 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.