Predicting the most appropriate wood biomass for selected industrial applications: comparison of wood, pulping, and enzymatic treatments using fluorescent-tagged carbohydrate-binding modules.

BACKGROUND

Lignocellulosic biomass will progressively become the main source of carbon for a number of products as the Earth's oil reservoirs disappear. Technology for conversion of wood fiber into bioproducts (wood biorefining) continues to flourish, and access to reliable methods for monitoring modification of such fibers is becoming an important issue. Recently, we developed a simple, rapid approach for detecting four different types of polymer on the surface of wood fibers. Named fluorescent-tagged carbohydrate-binding module (FTCM), this method is based on the fluorescence signal from carbohydrate-binding modules-based probes designed to recognize specific polymers such as crystalline cellulose, amorphous cellulose, xylan, and mannan.

RESULTS

Here we used FTCM to characterize pulps made from softwood and hardwood that were prepared using Kraft or chemical-thermo-mechanical pulping. Comparison of chemical analysis (NREL protocol) and FTCM revealed that FTCM results were consistent with chemical analysis of the hemicellulose composition of both hardwood and softwood samples. Kraft pulping increased the difference between softwood and hardwood surface mannans, and increased xylan exposure. This suggests that Kraft pulping leads to exposure of xylan after removal of both lignin and mannan. Impact of enzyme cocktails from (Celluclast 1.5L) and from sp. (Carezyme 1000L) was investigated by analysis of hydrolyzed sugars and by FTCM. Both enzymes preparations released cellobiose and glucose from pulps, with the cocktail from being the most efficient. Enzymatic treatments were not as effective at converting chemical-thermomechanical pulps to simple sugars, regardless of wood type. FTCM revealed that amorphous cellulose was the primary target of either enzyme preparation, which resulted in a higher proportion of crystalline cellulose on the surface after enzymatic treatment. FTCM confirmed that enzymes from had little impact on exposed hemicelluloses, but that enzymes from the more aggressive cocktail reduced hemicelluloses at the surface.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study indicates that treatment with enzymes from is appropriate for generating crystalline cellulose at fiber surface. Applications such as nanocellulose or composites requiring chemical resistance would benefit from this enzymatic treatment. The milder enzyme mixture from allowed for removal of amorphous cellulose while preserving hemicelluloses at fiber surface, which makes this treatment appropriate for new paper products where surface chemical responsiveness is required.