COMPARISON OF SACCHARIFICATION METHODS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION OF WHEAT BRAN
Pavel Diviš, Jaromír Pořízka, Jakub Nábělek, Vendula Hrabalová, Zuzana Slavíková
Pages: 96-102
Published: 13 Nov 2023
DOI: 10.62991/AF1996280132
Views: 280
Downloads: 31
Abstract: This study compares various methods used for the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic waste materials in terms of sugar yield and the content of inhibiting substances. Wheat bran was used as the lignocellulosic material, and the following hydrolysis methods were investigated: one-step alkaline hydrolysis, repeated alkaline hydrolysis, acid hydrolysis, and a combination of these methods with enzymatic hydrolysis. The combination of acid and enzymatic hydrolysis yielded the highest sugar yield, with a concentration of sugars in the hydrolyzate reaching up to 60 g/L and a yield of around 90%. The total concentration of phenolic substances, which can act as inhibitors during further biotechnological processing of the hydrolyzate, was approximately 270 mg/L GAE when using acid hydrolysis combined with enzymatic hydrolysis.
Keywords: wheat bran, lignocellulose, saccharification, hydrolysis, biorefinery, circular economy
Cite this article: Pavel Diviš, Jaromír Pořízka, Jakub Nábělek, Vendula Hrabalová, Zuzana Slavíková. COMPARISON OF SACCHARIFICATION METHODS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION OF WHEAT BRAN. Journal of International Scientific Publications: Agriculture & Food 11, 96-102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.62991/AF1996280132
Download full text
Back to the contents of the volume
© 2024 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This permission does not cover any third party copyrighted material which may appear in the work requested.
Disclaimer: The opinions and claims presented in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliated organizations, the publisher, editors, or reviewers.
