journal article·2024-03-15Open access

CHARACTERIZATION OF PINEAPPLE LEAF FIBER FOLLOWING ENZYMATIC DEGUMMING

College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China, YINGHUA TIAN, LIQIAN TENG, College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China, JIAQI YANG, College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China, HAIYAN JIN, College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China, HONGWEN GUO, College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China, HONGYAN WU, College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China, CHUANG LI, College of Food and Bioengineering, Qiqihar University, 161006 Qiqihar, P. R. China

Cellulose Chemistry and Technology· Volume 58· Issue 1-2

Abstract

Pineapple leaves are a rich resource of fiber with excellent properties. To overcome the processing bottleneck, the enzymatic degumming conditions with compound enzymes, comprising laccase and xylanase, on low-concentration alkaline-pretreated pineapple leaf fiber (PALF), were investigated. The cellulose content and fiber splitting degree were used as optimization indicators. Treated PALF characteristics were determined using microscopic morphology, XRD, and FTIR analysis techniques. The optimal conditions were found as: 0.5% laccase, 0.3% xylanase, bath ratio of 1:50, pH 4.6–5.0, and incubation at 50–55 °C for 4 h. Following enzymatic degumming, the cellulose content increased from 57.22 to 74.46%, the lignin and hemicelluloses contents decreased, a large number of colloidal impurities were hydrolyzed, and free fibers with smooth surfaces were released. The crystalline cellulose remained type I, and crystallinity increased from 36.46 to 46.73%. Low-concentration alkaline solutions, combined with compound enzymes that effectively hydrolyze colloids, resulted in mild enzymatic degumming that caused less damage to cellulose.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Pineapple and bromelain studies · Enzyme-mediated dye degradation

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (39)

Show source-provided references
1. "1 W. S. Sun, Q. S. Wu and G. M. Sun, Chin. Trop. Agric., 52, 3 (2013), https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-0658.2013.03.008
2. 2 A. P. Kumar, in "Pineapple Leaf Fibers. Green Energy and Technology", edited by M. Jawaid, M. Asim, P. Tahir and M. Nasir, Springer, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1416-6_1510.1007/978-981-15-1416-6_15 ↗
3. 3 J. Y. He, M. F. Li, W. W. Lian, T Huang et al., J. Text. Res., 42, 9 (2021), https://doi.org/10.13475/j.fzxb.20201006608
4. 4 S. Jose, R. Salim and L. Ammayappan, J. Nat. Fibers, 13, 3 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2015.102919410.1080/15440478.2015.1029194 ↗
5. 5 S. R. Chiliveri, S. Koti and V. R. Linga, SpringerPlus, 1, 5 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2173-x10.1186/s40064-016-2173-x ↗
6. 6 B. Lipp-Symonowicz, B. Tańska, A. Woukanis and H. Wrzosek, Fibres Text. East. Eur., 12, 1 (2004), https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2004.366.371
7. 7 X. Zhang, J. Guo, Y. Ma, L. Lyu, Y. Ji et al., ACS Omega, 6, 50 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c0583110.1021/acsomega.1c05831 ↗
8. 8 X. Zhao, L. Zhang and D. Liu, Biofuel Bioprod. Bioref., 4, 6 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.133110.1002/bbb.1331 ↗
9. 9 K. Panyasart, N. Chaiyut, T. Amornsakchai and O. Santawitee, Energ. Proc., 56, 406 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.17310.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.173 ↗
10. 10 A. K. Chandel and O. V. Singh, Appl. Microbiol. Biot., 89, 5 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-3057-610.1007/s00253-010-3057-6 ↗
11. 11 W. Wang, Z. S. Cai and J. Y. Yu, J. Eng. Fiber. Fabr., 2, 3 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1108/0955622081089891710.1108/09556220810898917 ↗
12. 12 R. F. H. Dekker, in "Biosynthesis and Biodegradation of Wood Components", edited by T. Higuchi, Academic Press, 1985, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-347880-1.50022-210.1016/B978-0-12-347880-1.50022-2 ↗
13. 13 M. J. John and R. D. Anandjiwala, Polym. Compos., 29, 2 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.2046110.1002/pc.20461 ↗
14. 14 R. M. Sheltami, I. Abdullah, I. Ahmad, A. Dufresne et al., Carbohyd. Polym., 88, 2 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.01.06210.1016/j.carbpol.2012.01.062 ↗
15. 15 R. Moya and D. Camacho, in "Biomass and Bioenergy", edited by K. Hakeem, M. Jawaid and U. Rashid, Springer, Cham, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07641-6_710.1007/978-3-319-07641-6_7 ↗
16. 16 G. Gebino and N. Muhammed, Curr. Trends in Fash. Technol. Text. Eng., 4, 4 (2018), https://doi.org/10.19080/CTFTTE.2018.04.555644
17. 17 S. Banik, D. Nag and S. Debnath, Indian J. Fibre Text., 36, 2 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2010.11.00610.1016/j.dyepig.2010.11.006 ↗
18. 18 D. Hazarika, N. Gogoi, S. Jose, R. Das et al., J. Clean Prod., 141, 10 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.09210.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.092 ↗
19. 19 B. M. Cherian, A. L. Leão, S. Souza, L. Costa et al., Carbohyd. Polym., 86, 4 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.07.00910.1016/j.carbpol.2011.07.009 ↗
20. 20 D. E. Azevedo, A. R. Marvila, M. T. Antunes, M. L. P. Rangel et al., Waste Biomass Valorif., 12, 12 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01374-510.1007/s12649-021-01374-5 ↗
21. 21 E. W. Gaba, B. O. Asimeng, E. E. Kaufmann, S. K. Katu et al., Fibers, 8, 9 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/fib908005110.3390/fib9080051 ↗
22. 22 Y. Yusof, A. S. Yahya and A. Adam, Procedia CIRP, 26, 1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.16010.1016/j.procir.2014.07.160 ↗
23. 23 M. Asim, M. Jawaid, K. Abdan and M. Nasir, IOP Conference, 209, 1 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/290/1/01203010.1088/1757-899X/290/1/012030 ↗
24. 24 T. Shu, Y. Bai, Y. W. Wang, H. H. Wang et al., J. Clean Prod., 276, 2 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12421710.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124217 ↗
25. 25 Y. Ren, H. Y. Lin, J. X. Gong, Z. Li et al., Ind. Crop. Prod., 183, 9 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.11498610.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114986 ↗
26. 26 P. Lyu, Y. Zhang, X. Wang and C. Hurren, Ind. Crop. Prod., 174, 15 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.11415810.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114158 ↗
27. 27 G. Jie, G. Hong, W. Xin and Z. Bo, Dye Finish. Technol., 41, 6 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-9350.2019.06.008
28. 28 L. Segal, J. J. Creely, A. E. Martin and C. M. Conrad, Text. Res. J., 29, 10 (1959), https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175590290100310.1177/004051755902901003 ↗
29. 29 Y. Song, X. B. Li, G. T. Han, Y. M. Zhang et al., J. Nat. Fibers, 18, 1 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.161230110.1080/15440478.2019.1612301 ↗
30. 30 N. D. Yilmaz, J. Text. Inst. 104, 4 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2012.73670710.1080/00405000.2012.736707 ↗
31. 31 E. Syafri, A. Kasim, H. Abral and A. Asben, J. Nat. Fibers, 16, 8 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2018.145507310.1080/15440478.2018.1455073 ↗
32. 32 P. Garside and P. Wyeth, Stud. Conserv., 48, 4 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.2003.48.4.26910.1179/sic.2003.48.4.269 ↗
33. 33 I. D. Rosa, J. M. Kenny, D. Puglia, C. Santulli et al., Compos. Sci. Technol., 70, 1 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.09.01310.1016/j.compscitech.2009.09.013 ↗
34. 34 E. Abraham, B. Deepa, L. A. Pothan, M. Jacob et al., Carbohyd. Polym., 86, 4 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.06.03410.1016/j.carbpol.2011.06.034 ↗
35. 35 X. Yang, F. Han, C. Xu, S. Jiang et al., Ind. Crop. Prod., 109, 12 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.08.03210.1016/j.indcrop.2017.08.032 ↗
36. 36 T. Shu, Y. Bai, Y. W. Wang, H. H. Wang et al., J. Clean Prod., 276, 2 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro
37. 37 F. Fan, M. Zhu and Y. Yang, Cellulose Chem. Technol., 56, 123 (2022), https://doi.org/10.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2022.56.1110.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2022.56.11 ↗
38. 38 Y. Yang, D. Fu, Y. Wu, Y. Yang, Y. Zhang et al., Cellulose Chem. Technol., 57, 419 (2023), https://doi.org/10.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2023.57.3710.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2023.57.37 ↗
39. "