MODEL-BASED EVALUATION OF ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS OF MICROALGAL CELLULOSE AND DIFFERENT CELLULOSIC MATERIALS
Source abstract
Abstract
"The development of a kinetic model for fermentable sugar production is a significant issue due to the complexity of the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. This study presents a proper mathematical model for the evaluation of enzymatic hydrolysis of microalgal cellulose and different cellulosic materials. The modeling results were compared with experimental results of enzymatic hydrolysis of microalgal cellulose and different cellulosic materials. Also, the results of the proposed modified model and another model from the literature were compared. The comparison indicated that the proposed modified model gives a more accurate prediction of the production of glucose, cellobiose, and cellulose consumption as a function of time, during enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic materials. The proposed modified model, with an average of equal to 38.15, is more accurate than the previously reported model, with an average of equal to 48.84."
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Biofuel production and bioconversion · Enzyme Catalysis and Immobilization · Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. "1 H. Shokrkar, M. Zamani and S. Ebrahimi, Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref., 16, 816 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.234210.1002/bbb.2342 ↗
2. 2 H. Shokrkar, M. Abbasabadi and S. Ebrahimi, Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref., 13, 11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.191810.1002/bbb.1918 ↗
3. 3 A. Allouache, A. Majda, A. Z. Toudert, A. Amrane and M. Ballesteros, Cellulose Chem. Technol., 55, 629 (2021), https://doi.org/10.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2021.55.5110.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2021.55.51 ↗
4. 4 S. Khan and P. Fu, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 62, 146 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.09.02010.1016/j.copbio.2019.09.020 ↗
5. 5 S. Anto, S. S. Mukherjee, R. Muthappa, T. Mathimani, G. Deviram et al., Chemosphere, 242, 125079 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.12507910.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125079 ↗
6. 6 S. Mushlihah, D. R. Husain, A. Langford and A. C. M. A. Tassakka, J. Clean. Prod., 265, 121763 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/en1507258210.3390/en15072582 ↗
7. 7 C. Girometta, A. Zeffiro, M. Malagodi, E. Savino, E. Doria et al., Cellulose, 24, 3803 (2017), https://doi.org/10.3390/su1101028110.3390/su11010281 ↗
8. 8 X. Tian, P. Lu, X. Song, S. Nie, Y. Liu et al., Cellulose, 24, 3929 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1382-y10.1007/s10570-017-1382-y ↗
9. 9 H. Niu, N. Shah and C. Kontoravdi, Biochem. Eng. J., 105, 455 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.10.01710.1016/j.bej.2015.10.017 ↗
10. 10 R. R. Singhania, R. Saini, M. Adsul, J. K. Saini, A. Mathur et al., Biochem. Eng. J., 102, 45 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.01.00210.1016/j.bej.2015.01.002 ↗
11. 11 A. A. Vaidya, K. D. Murton, D. A. Smith and G. Dedual, Biomass Convers. Bioref., 12, 5427 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02373-910.1007/s13399-022-02373-9 ↗
12. 12 S. D. de Oliveira Junior, E. A. Asevedo, J. S. de Araujo, P. B. Brito, C. L. dos Santos Cruz Costa, et al., Biomass Convers. Bioref., 12, 5515 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01020-510.1007/s13399-020-01020-5 ↗
13. 13 H. Shokrkar and A. Keighobadi, Energy, 241, 122804 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.12280410.1016/j.energy.2021.122804 ↗
14. 14 Y. Zheng, S. Zhang, S. Miao, Z. Su and P. Wang, J. Biotechnol., 166, 135 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.04.01810.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.04.018 ↗
15. 15 V. P. Soudham, B. Alriksson and L. J. Jönsson, J. Biotechnol., 155, 244 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.02610.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.026 ↗
16. 16 N. Szijártó, M. Siika-Aho, M. Tenkanen, M. Alapuranen, J. Vehmaanperä et al., J. Biotechnol., 136, 140 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.05.01010.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.05.010 ↗
17. 17 F. Hu, Y. Zhang, P. Wang, S. Wu, Y. Jin et al., Cellulose, 25, 1185 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1629-710.1007/s10570-017-1629-7 ↗
18. 18 R. Harun and M. K. Danquah, Chem. Eng. J., 168, 1079 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.01.08810.1016/j.cej.2011.01.088 ↗
19. 19 S. Peri, S. Karra, Y. Lee and M. N. Karim, Biotechnol. Progress, 23, 626 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1021/bp060322s10.1021/bp060322s ↗
20. 20 M. Imai, K. Ikari and I. Suzuki, Biochem. Eng. J., 17, 79 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-703X(03)00141-410.1016/S1369-703X(03)00141-4 ↗
21. 21 K. Movagharnejad and M. Sohrabi, Biochem. Eng. J., 14, 1 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-703X(02)00104-310.1016/S1369-703X(02)00104-3 ↗
22. 22 Y. Zheng, Z. Pan, R. Zhang and B. M. Jenkins, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 102, 1558 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.2219710.1002/bit.22197 ↗
23. 23 K. Sakimoto, M. Kanna and Y. Matsumura, Biomass Bioenerg., 99, 116 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.01610.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.016 ↗
24. 24 Z. Ye and R. E. Berson, Bioresour. Technol., 102, 11194 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.04410.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.044 ↗
25. 25 S. G. Desai and A. O. Converse, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 56, 650 (1997), https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19971220)56:6<650::AID-BIT8>3.0.CO;2-M ↗
26. 26 F. Gama, J. Teixeira and M. Mota, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 43, 381 (1994), https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26043050610.1002/bit.260430506 ↗
27. 27 A. A. Klyosov, Biochemistry, 29, 10577 (1990), https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00499a00110.1021/bi00499a001 ↗
28. 28 L. R. Lynd, P. J. Weimer, W. H. Van Zyl and I. S. Pretorius, Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., 66, 506 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.66.3.506-577.200210.1128/MMBR.66.3.506-577.2002 ↗
29. 29 P. Weimer, A. French and T. Calamari, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 57, 3101 (1991), https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.57.11.3101-3106.19910.1128/aem.57.11.3101-3106.1991 ↗
30. 30 K. L. Kadam, E. C. Rydholm and J. D. McMillan, Biotechnol. Progress, 20, 698 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1021/bp034316x10.1021/bp034316x ↗
31. 31 P. Reichert, Water Sci. Technol., 30, 21 (1994), https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1994.002510.2166/wst.1994.0025 ↗
32. 32 H. Shokrkar, S. Ebrahimi and M. Zamani, Fuel, 200, 380 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.03.09010.1016/j.fuel.2017.03.090 ↗
33. 33 H. Shokrkar and S. Ebrahimi, Energy, 148, 258 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.12410.1016/j.energy.2018.01.124 ↗
34. 34 L. Fan and Y. H. Lee, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 25, 2707 (1983), https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26025111510.1002/bit.260251115 ↗
35. 35 A. Gusakov, A. Sinitsyn and A. Klyosov, Enzyme Microb. Technol., 7, 346 (1985), https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0229(85)90114-010.1016/0141-0229(85)90114-0 ↗
36. "