INTRODUCTION
366
www.soci.org
www.soci.org
A
Lignocellulosic
biomass
B
Lignocellulosic
biomass
Lignin
cellulose
hydrolysis
Cellulose carbohydrates
hydrolysis
Fermentation
Ethanol to
purification
C
Lignocellulosic
biomass
Chemical or
physical
pretreatments
cellulose
Cellulase
production
cellulase
Cellulose Ethanol to
hydrolysis purification
and
fermentation
D
Lignocellulosic
biomass
Chemical or cellulose
physical
pretreatments
Ethanol to
purification
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
367
Figure 1. Possible schemes for conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. (A) and (B) are the entirely microbial processes considered in this study.
Scheme (C) is SSCF, scheme (D) is CBP. See text for denitions of abbreviations. Not all the material ows are shown in the schemes and cellulose also
includes hemicellulose.
www.soci.org
D Dionisi et al.
Table 1. Approximate composition (% of dry weight) for various lignocellulosic materials. Minor components such as ash, proteins, etc are not
included in the table
Cellulose and hemicelluloses
Material
Lignin
glucose
Corn stover
Wheat straw
Rice straw
Leaves
Paper
Newspaper
Switchgrass
Poplar
Eucaliptus
Pine
Spruce
Angiosperms
Conifers
21
15
10
0
015
1830
23
29
28
28
28
1824
2732
40
32
41
xylose
22
3540
15
3
48
5
other carbohydrates
1
48
2
8599
20
15
11
6
7
1226
510
LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS
368
The main components of lignocellulosic biomass are lignin, cellulose and hemicelluloses. Lignin is an aromatic polymer in which
105
106,107
45
106
106
6080
32
40
50
45
45
4252
4346
Ref
106
95100
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
arabinose
4
1
<1
2
1
0.50.6
0.52
<1
2
2
14
15
24
914
105
105
108
108
109
110
110
the substituents are connected by ether and carbon-carbon linkages. The main building blocks in lignin are p-coumaryl alcohol
(p-hydroxyphenyl propanol), coniferyl alcohol (guaiacyl propanol)
and sinapyl alcohol (syringyl propanol).20 The molecular weight
of lignin is variable but is typically very high, 6001000 kDa.21
Cellulose is a polysaccharide composed of (14) linked D-glucose
units, with molecular weight up to >500 kDa.22 Hemicellulose is
a polysaccharide composed of various carbohydrate monomers,
mainly xylan, arabinose, mannose and glucose, present in dierent
ratios in the various materials. The molecular weight of hemicelluloses is usually lower than that of cellulose.23 The composition
of various lignocellulosic materials, potential feedstock for ethanol
production, is reported in Table 1. Values in Table 1 are to be considered as orientative values only, because the measured lignin
content in a given biomass species is highly dependent on the
biomass history and on the measurement method used.24
The hemicellulose content in the feedstock is important due
to the fact that hemicellulose hydrolysis generates monosaccharides other than glucose, which need to be converted to
ethanol in order to avoid yield loss in the process. The conversion of non-glucose sugars to ethanol poses signicant challenges as discussed later in this paper. However, hemicellulose
hydrolysis is not considered to be a signicant challenge, since
hemicellulose is hydrolysed more easily than cellulose,25 and it
is expected that a mixed microbial culture that hydrolyses cellulose would also be able to hydrolyse hemicelluloses.9 Therefore, in this paper only the hydrolysis of lignin and cellulose is
discussed.
MICROBIAL DEGRADATION
OF LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS
The aim of this section is to identify, on the basis of the existing
literature, whether there are microorganisms that are able to
catalyse the various steps required for lignocellulosic biomass
conversion to ethanol, i.e. lignin hydrolysis, cellulose hydrolysis
and sugars fermentation to ethanol. Both pure culture and mixed
cultures of naturally existing microorganisms and genetically
modied microorganisms are considered. The rates of microbial processes are reported and compared with the rates of the
alternative chemical-physical processes.
www.soci.org
Lignin
Anaerobic conditions
High molecular weight lignin is generally considered to be nonbiodegradable, or only biodegradable at insignicant rates, in the
absence of oxygen,21,26,27 even though there is some evidence to
the contrary.28,29 On the other hand, there is enough evidence
to suggest that the various lignin building blocks, constituted
by the various aromatic compounds as monomers or oligomers,
are readily metabolized under anaerobic conditions.30,31 The very
limited evidence of anaerobic lignin biodegradation reported in
the literature can be attributed21 to non-lignin components or
to low-molecular weight materials (<600 Da). However, Benner
et al.29 using mixed cultures, reported anaerobic lignin biodegradation rates of up to 37% of the aerobic rates, for several lignocellulosic marine or wetland plants. Silanikove and Brosh28 reported
4558% anaerobic metabolization of lignin in wheat-straw, by the
rumen bacteria in the goats gastrointestinal tract.
Only very recently, convincing evidence of lignin degradation under anaerobic conditions has been presented.32 The
authors observed that the majority (85%) of insoluble switchgrass
biomass, that had not previously been chemically treated, was
converted at 78 C by the anaerobic bacterium Caldicellulosiruptor bescii. Interestingly, the glucose/xylose/lignin ratio did not
substantially change over the incubation period (3 successive
cycles of 5 days each) providing an indication that the three
major biomass components, including lignin, were solubilized
and/or metabolized at comparable rates. A mass balance revealed
that lignin was not assimilated, only carbohydrates served as
carbon and energy sources. Lignin degradation was conrmed
by gas-chromatographymass spectrometry analyses which
revealed the presence of lignin-derived aromatic compounds,
such as syringylglycerol, guaiacylglycerol, and phenolic acids, in
the spent culture broth.
Indirect evidence of lignin degradation/hydrolysis under anaerobic conditions can be obtained observing anaerobic digestion
studies, which are always carried out using open mixed microbial
cultures, with lignocellulosic materials as feedstock (Table 2). In
general, methane production has been reported with many lignocellulosic materials, even though the possible lignin degradation
and its extent are not usually measured. Methane production has
been reported even with feedstocks with high lignin content, such
as Mirabilis and Ipomoea stulosa leaves33 and woody biomass
such as poplar.34 Several studies investigated the eect of lignin
content on the anaerobic degradability of lignocellulosic biomass.
Triolo et al.35 observed that the higher the lignin content in the raw
material the lower the methane production. However, Tong et al.36
found only a poor correlation between the lignin content of various lignocellulosic substrates and their methane production rate.
This indicates that biodegradation of lignocellulosic substrates is
not only aected by the lignin content, but also by other factors
such degree of association between lignin and carbohydrates, cellulose crystallinity and others.37 According to Turick et al.,34 one of
the reasons why many investigators observed only poor methane
production from woody or other highly lignied biomass is that
the time length of the tests is not long enough. These authors
carried out tests for 100 days and observed substantial methane
production from woody biomass. Interestingly, they observed that
most of the methane production occurred after more than 50 days
from the start of the test, and they explained this behaviour by
the need of the microorganisms to become able to degrade lignin,
making the cellulosic materials initially shielded by lignin available.
Overall, even though so far only limited evidence for anaerobic
lignin metabolization or solubilization is available, it is apparent
that a signicant fraction of the cellulose or hemicellulose carbohydrates in lignocellulosic materials becomes available during anaerobic digestion, and this indicates that lignin hydrolysis probably
occurs under anaerobic conditions.
Aerobic conditions
In contrast to anaerobic conditions, there is wide literature evidence that lignin is biodegraded under aerobic conditions. Various
species of bacteria and fungi have been reported to biodegrade
lignin (Table 3). Fungi, in particular white-rot fungi, have been studied more extensively than bacteria for their lignin biodegradation
ability, and they are generally considered more interesting than
bacteria as a pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials at industrial
scale.38 Aerobic biodegradation of lignin has also been reported
Feedstock
8.6
10
11
20
25
17
10
27
Time
(days)
Measure of degradation
0.180.22 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS, 3070% neutral detergent bres reduction
0.160.25 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS, 2638% cellulose reduction
0.240.36 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS, 3448% cellulose reduction
0.290.34 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS, 3439% cellulose reduction
0.390.43 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS, 4247% cellulose reduction
0.13 (average) m3 CH4 kg-1 VS
0.250.33 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS
0.300.33 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS (7078% of TBMP)
0.36 m3 CH4 /kg VS (84% of TBMP)
0.29 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS (66% of TBMP)
0.270.31 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS (7080% of cellulose control)
0.270.29 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS (7074% of cellulose control)
0.27 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS (70% of cellulose control)
0.32 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS (82% of cellulose control)
0.190.21 m3 CH4 kg-1 VS
65 days
8 weeks
8 weeks
8 weeks
8 weeks
25 weeks
1736 days
70 days
70 days
70 days
100 days
100 days
100 days
100 days
Ref
49
33
33
33
33
111
112
36
36
36
34
34
34
34
113
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
369
Lignin content in
the feedstock
(% of dry weight)
www.soci.org
D Dionisi et al.
Substrate
Kraft lignin
Poplar wood
Poplar wood
Poplar wood
Wood our
Wood our
Indulin lignin
Indulin lignin
Barley straw
Barley straw
Cotton stalks
Cotton stalks
Cotton stalks
Bamboo culms
Bamboo culms
Bamboo culms
Bamboo culms
Synthetic lignin
Red pine
Red pine
Red pine
Time (days)
Ref
39
4757
4052
3948
80
20
34
34
2952
3648
52
30
30
30
4060
4060
35
35
21
21
114
40
60
28
24
924
519
516
Up to 38
13
15
12
30
30
14
28
28
42
115
115
115
41
41
116
116
27
48
42
47
43
43
43
43
40
35
56
56
56
45
45
45
% lignin (initial)
12
20
11
6
2327
25
10
370
in mixed culture studies, usually carried out in composting environments (Table 4). While substantial lignin degradation has been
reported for a wide range of lignocellulosic substrates, usually
the treatment times are quite long and lignin degradation is not
complete.
The literature evidence so far indicates that lignin cannot be
used as a sole carbon and energy source, but requires an additional
substrate to support microbial growth.21 The growth substrate can
be the glucose or carbohydrates units contained in the cellulose
or hemicellulose inside the lignin matrix,39 or can be externally
added. This is important from the process point of view, since it is
expected that microbial lignin depolymerization may require the
use of part of the cellulose and hemicellulose as growth substrate
for the microorganisms, making it not available for conversion to
ethanol. However, in a mixed culture environment with real lignocellulosic biomass as feedstock, other carbon and energy sources
than polysaccharides may be available (e.g. proteins) and so the
loss of carbohydrates for ethanol production may be avoided.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
Measure of degradation
727% lignin degradation
1243% lignin degradation
17% lignin degradation
83% lignin degradation
CO2 evolution 1040% of the maximum
37% lignin degradation
25% lignin degradation
26% lignin degradation
70% lignin degradation
80% straw degradation
Time (days)
45
47
154
224
4569
135
45
50
90
9
Ref
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
102
Eect of pH
The optimum pH for aerobic lignin degradation by fungi is approx.
4.04.5 and signicantly lower biodegradation rates are observed
when the pH is lower than 4 or above 5.21,40 pH in the range 45
is considered the optimum for the growth of most white-rot fungi.
For bacteria, no dierence in lignin degradation rate was observed
in the pH range 5.37.8, for a mixed culture.41 These studies
seem to indicate that the optimum pH for lignin biodegradation
coincides with the usual optimum pH for microorganism growth
on carbon substrates.
Eect of feedstock particle size
The biodegradation of lignin occurs extracellularly and by decreasing the particle size it is expected that the surface to volume
ratio of lignocellulosic biomass increases, so an increase in lignin
biodegradation rate is expected. Limited experimental investigation has been carried out, however, on the eect of feedstock
www.soci.org
Table 5. Lignin degradation rates, calculated by the authors of this paper based on literature data
Microorganism
Substrate
Irpex lacteus
Irpex lacteus
Trametes versicolor MrP 1
Trametes versicolor MrP 1
Streptomyces cyaneus
Thermonospora mesophila
Pleurotus ostreatus
Phanerochaete chrysosporium
Echinodontium taxodii 2538
Trametes versicolor G20
Ganoderma sp En3
Phanerochaete chrysosporium
Acinetobacter spp.
Ref
126
0.007
0.014
0.004
0.020
0.0045
0.004
0.05
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.040.06
0.00010.0002
126
126
126
48
48
42
42
43
43
43
47
115
Table 6. Rates of lignin degradation with non-biological pretreatments reported in the literature 7
Pretreatment technology
Pretreatment conditions
Temperature ( C)
Chemical loading
Reaction time (min)
Lignin degradation rate (g L-1 h-1 )
Dilute acid
140
1% H2 SO4
40
4.8
SO2 -enhanced
steam explosion
180
0.05 gSO2 g-1 biomass
10
22
particle size on lignin biodegradation and usually studies are carried out with a single feedstock size, which is in the mm42 44 or
cm45,46 range or not reported.47 Zimmerman and Broda48 observed
higher lignin degradation for straw pre-treated with a vibratory
ball mill (particle size 25 m) than for straw ground with a blender
(particle size 0.51 mm). Even though still limited, investigation
of the eect of particle size has been carried out in the area of
anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass. Mshandete et al.49
observed that total bre degradation during anaerobic digestion
to methane increased from 31% to 70% when the feedstock was
ground to 2 mm bres compared with untreated bres (larger than
100 mm). Sharma et al.33 observed that the quantity of biogas produced increased when the feedstock particle size was reduced. The
range of sizes in their study was 0.130 mm. However, they did not
specically investigate lignin degradation.
200
None
10
23
Aqueous
ammonia
Lime
160
15% NH4 OH
60
11.9
120
1 gCa(OH)2 + 100 psi O2
240
1.6
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
371
Liquid hot
water
www.soci.org
D Dionisi et al.
Microorganism
Extent of
degradation (%)
Substrate
Ruminococcus albus
Clostridium thermocellum
Ruminococcus avefaciens
Clostridium cellulolyticum
Clostridium thermocellum
Caldicellulosiruptor bescii
Bacteroides succinogenes + Selenomonas ruminantium
Clostridium thermocellum + Clostridium thermohydrosulfuricum
Clostridium thermocellum + Clostridium thermohydrosulfuricum
Fibrobacter Succinogenes
Avicel PH-105
MN300
Sigmacell 20
MN301
MN300
Switchgrass
Ball milled Whatman no.1 Filter paper
SW40
MN300
Sigmacell 20
3070
100
5487
2075
45
85
100
80
100
5479
Time
(days)
0.52.5
4
0.32
0.53
4
15
NR
5
5
0.53
Ref
127
128
55
129
130
32
131
132
132
56
Measure of degradation
99% (as CH4 production compared to glucose)
100% (as CH4 production compared to glucose)
62% reduction in cellulose
68% reduction in cellulose
80% reduction in cellulose
3858% reduction in cellulose
Anaerobic conditions
Table 7 summarizes bacteria and fungi that have been reported
to hydrolyse cellulose under anaerobic conditions. Unlike lignin,
complete cellulose hydrolysis can be obtained under anaerobic
conditions, provided that the contact or residence time is adequate. Table 8 reports literature evidence for cellulose degradation
by mixed cultures under anaerobic conditions, conrming that virtually complete cellulose hydrolysis is possible. Most of the data in
Table 8 refer to batch tests with an unacclimated inoculum, and
this explains the long time required for cellulose degradation.
The enzyme groups responsible for cellulose hydrolysis are very
similar under anaerobic and aerobic conditions but the spatial
arrangement of the enzymes can be dierent.9 Under anaerobic
conditions cellulolytic enzymes are often bound to the external
membrane of the cell, even though in some cases they are present
as free enzymes in the liquid medium. Under aerobic conditions
the enzymes are usually excreted in the liquid medium and are not
attached to the cell membrane.
Time (days)
133
69
13
9 (HRT)
20
5
Ref
36
36
133
134
135
136
Shi and Weimer55 found an optimum pH of 6.5 for cellulose hydrolysis with Ruminococcus avefaciens, and Weimer56 with Fibrobacter succinogenes found very little inuence of pH on cellulose
hydrolysis in the pH range 6.16.8. Using ruminal microbes under
anaerobic conditions Hu et al.57,58 found no cellulose hydrolysis at
pH < 5.5 and a very low rate at pH < 6.0, the optimum pH being
7.07.5. Berquist et al.59 reviewed various cellulolytic thermophilic
bacteria, employing either aerobic or anaerobic conditions, and
reported an optimum pH in the range 7.08.1 in most cases. This
reported evidence is consistent with a study60 on the anaerobic
hydrolysis of organic waste, partially composed of lignocellulosic
biomass, where an approximately 3-fold increase in the hydrolysis
rate was observed when the pH was increased from 5 to 7.
372
Aerobic conditions
Table 9 summarizes microorganisms that have been reported to
hydrolyse cellulose under aerobic conditions. Consistent with ndings for anaerobic conditions, virtually complete cellulose hydrolysis can be obtained under aerobic conditions. Similar evidence is
obtained for mixed cultures studies (Table 10), which usually refer
to composting environments. An interesting observation is that
usually the rate of cellulose hydrolysis is comparable under anaerobic and aerobic conditions.9 In terms of maximizing the rate of
cellulose hydrolysis, this means that no preference should be given
to aerobic compared with anaerobic conditions.
Eect of pH
For anaerobic and aerobic bacteria the optimum pH for cellulose
hydrolysis is usually in the range 6.58.0. For anaerobic bacteria,
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
www.soci.org
Substrate
Bacteria
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Cellulomonas fermentans
Cytophaga sp. LX-7
Fungi
Trichoderma viride
Trichoderma reesei
Avicel
Solka-Floc
CC31 (Whatman)
Filter paper (Whatman no 1)
MN300
Amorphous cellulose
Whatman for Chromatography
MN300
Whatman CF11
Ball milled wood cellulose (BW 200)
Solka Floc 200
Substrate
Avicel
Avicel
Cellulose
Avicel
Avicel
Cellulose lter paper
Filter paper
Measure of degradation
97% of theoretical CO2
84% of theoretical CO2
87% of initial cellulose
83% of initial cellulose
95% of theoretical cellulose
100% of initial cellulose
79% weight loss
Time
(days)
47
45
3
100
70
72
4
Ref
142
143
144
145
146
147
102
Ref
15
20
30
35
45
75
70
60
100
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
28
4
137
5075
100
0.51.2
7
140
137
137
137
137
137
137
138
139
141
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
373
Time (days)
www.soci.org
D Dionisi et al.
Table 11. Cellulose degradation rates calculated by the authors of the present paper on the basis of literature data
Microorganism
Substrate
Clostridium thermocellum
Rumen microorganisms
Rumen microorganisms
Cellulomonas fermentans
Fibrobacter succinogenes
Ruminococcus avefaciens
Clostridium straminisolvens
Clostridium thermocellum + Clostridium thermohydrosulfuricum
Clostridium thermocellum
Trichoderma reesei
Clostridium cellulolyticum
Trichoderma viride
Cellulomonas uda JC3
Ruminococcus albus
Mixed culture
Clostridium thermocellum
MN300
Avicel PH102
Avicel PH101
MN300
Sigmacell 20
Sigmacell 20
Avicel
MN300
MN300
Solka Floc 200
MN301
BW200
CC31
Avicel
Solka Floc
Filter paper Whatman no. 1
MN300
Whatman for chromatography
Avicel PH105
Avicel
Filter paper
Avicel
Enzyme loading
15 FPU g-1 cellulose
17.6E-3 IU mL-1
60 FPU g-1 cellulose
Cellulose hydrolysis
rate (g L-1 h-1 )
0.23
0.08
1.3
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Degradation
rate (g L-1 h-1 )
0.005
0.12
0.05
0.005
0.050.20
0.060.27
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.30
0.030.05
0.120.33
0.05
0.04
0.044
0.055
0.105
0.25
0.160.33
0.001
0.0025
0.10
Ref
128
58
57
138
56
55
148
132
130
141
129
140
137
127
149
150
in the liquid medium. However, much less focus has been given to
the mixed culture fermentation to ethanol. In the next sections, the
available information on the eect of process operating conditions
on the anaerobic fermentation of glucose to ethanol is reviewed.
Ref
151
152
153
374
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
Aerobic/anaerobic
www.soci.org
Glucose
(24 e-eq/mol)
Butyrate
(20 e-eq/mol)
2 x Ethanol
(12 e-eq/mol)
2 x Lactate
(12 e-eq/mol)
2 x H2
(2 e-eq/mol)
2/3 x
2x
2 x Acetate
(8 e-eq/mol)
2x
4x
4 x H2
(2 e-eq/mol)
2x
4/3 x Propionate
(14 e-eq/mol)
4/3 x
4x
Acetate
4 x H2
(2 e-eq/mol)
(8 e-eq/mol)
CH4
(8 e-eq/mol)
Figure 2. Possible products of anaerobic fermentation of glucose in a mixed culture environment with associated electron ow. Electron equivalents
(e-eq) represent the moles of electrons which would be released upon complete oxidation.
was produced and acetate and butyrate were the main fermentation products. However, in this study the dilution rate at pH 45.5
was also dierent from the one at pH 6.258.5 and this could also
have aected the results. In general agreement with their ndings, Zoetemeyer et al.79 found that acetate and ethanol were the
main products of anaerobic fermentation at pH 8.0, while at pH values below 7, the main product became butyrate. In a chemostat
study in the pH range 58,80 the highest ethanol concentration
was found at pH 8, but in this study ethanol was a minor fermentation product, the main ones being acetate and propionate.
Overall, analysis of the literature indicates that further study is
needed to address the eect of pH on ethanol yield from anaerobic
fermentation of glucose.
Microorganism
Glucose to ethanol
Clostridium thermocellum
Clostridium thermohydrosulfuricum
Thermoanaerobium brockii
Sarcina ventriculi
Thermoanaerobacter ethanolicus
Ruminococcus albus
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Zymomonas mobilis
Aspergillus spp.
Fusarium spp.
Penicillum spp.
Schizosaccharomyces pombe
Kluyveromyces marxianus
Ethanol to organic acids
Desulfotomaculum nigricans
Pelobacter acetylenicus
Desulfovibrio spp.
Desulfobulbus propionicus
Pelobacter propionicus
Microorganism
type
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Yeast
Bacterium
Fungus
Fungus
Fungus
Yeast
Yeast
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
375
Eect of temperature. The eect of temperature on glucose fermentation to ethanol by mixed cultures is potentially particularly
interesting. In general, the rates of all microorganism-mediated
processes increase with temperature, up to the maximum temperature which is tolerable by the microorganisms. Microorganisms used in anaerobic fermentations can be classied as either
mesophilic (optimum temperature <45 C) or thermophilic (optimum temperature >45 C). An interesting advantage of thermophilic over mesophilic bacteria when using mixed cultures for
ethanol production is that among thermophilic bacteria there are
many microorganisms that are able to convert glucose to ethanol
but only very few that are able to oxidise ethanol to acetate
or other organic acids.81 Therefore, it is expected that higher
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
www.soci.org
ethanol yields and rates might be obtained under thermophilic
than mesophilic conditions.
Other advantages of thermophilic conditions (adapted from
Wiegel)81 are the following:
(a) lower use of the substrate for biomass production, therefore
increasing ethanol yield;
(b) pathogens do not grow at temperature higher than 60 C;
(c) since microbial processes generate heat, higher temperatures
may be easier to maintain than lower ones;
(d) ethanol can be continuously distilled from the fermentation
vessel by using a moderate vacuum.
On the other hand, thermodynamic calculations82 show that
at higher temperatures the reactions that generate hydrogen
become more favourable. Since glucose oxidation to acetate or
butyrate and ethanol oxidation to acetate generate hydrogen,
these reactions become more favourable at higher temperatures,
potentially leading to higher ethanol loss.
The most comprehensive study on the eect of temperature on
the acidogenic fermentation of glucose has been carried out by
Zoetemeyer et al.83 The authors operated a chemostat at pH 5.8
in the temperature range 2060 C. At temperatures up to 50 C,
butyrate and acetate were the main products, and the ethanol
yield was quite low (0.100.20 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose). At
55 C, on the other hand, ethanol was the main fermentation
product, with a yield of 0.8 mol mol-1 glucose.
In general, analysis of the literature shows that the eect of
temperature on anaerobic fermentation to ethanol is potentially
very important and deserves further investigation.
376
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
D Dionisi et al.
partial pressure from 0.5 to 0.05 atm increased the rate of hydrogen production by more than 50%, however very little eect was
observed on the composition of the liquid euent, the main products being acetic and butyric acids, with much lower amounts of
ethanol.
Eect of solids retention time. The solids retention time is a critical
parameter for glucose fermentation with mixed cultures. It is well
known that the end-product of glucose fermentation by mixed
cultures is methane, if the digestion time or residence time is long
enough.74,87,88 Therefore, glucose fermentation to ethanol has to
be carried out at relatively short residence times. However, within
the region of relatively short residence times, little systematic
study has been carried out to investigate whether the residence
time aects the distribution of fermentation products. Zoetemeyer
et al.79 investigated the eect of residence time in the range
1.510 h (at 30 C) and they reported ethanol proles for pH values
of 5.69 and 6.44. They found that ethanol yield tended to increase
with longer residence times at pH 5.69 (up to 0.3 mol mol-1 ), while
it tended to increase with shorter residence times at pH 6.44 (up to
approx 0.2 mol mol-1 ).
Rates and yields. Table 14 summarizes ethanol production rates
and yields in glucose fermentation studies with mixed cultures.
Only studies where the main target was ethanol or acids production are considered here. It is evident that with mixed cultures ethanol yields up to 0.8 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose have
been obtained. The maximum theoretical yield of ethanol on glucose is 2 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose, assuming that all glucose is
fermented to ethanol. However, this maximum yield achievable
in practice is lower than this, owing to the fact that some glucose is inevitably used for biomass growth. For the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae the ethanol yield on glucose is typically in the
range 1.61.9 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose.89 The lower ethanol yield
obtained with mixed cultures is because part of the glucose is fermented to other products, mainly acetate and in some cases other
acids such as propionate and butyrate. In order to develop commercial processes for ethanol production with mixed cultures, the
challenge is to determine process conditions that direct glucose
fermentation to ethanol, minimizing both glucose and ethanol
conversion to organic acids. In this regard, it is important to understand the causes for the observed variability in ethanol yield
under similar process conditions. As an example, at a residence
time of 8 h, 30 C, pH 6.25, Temudo et al.13 observed an ethanol
yield on glucose higher than 0.6 mol mol-1 , while under similar
conditions (residence time about 7 h, 30 C, pH 6.44) Zoetemeyer
et al.79 found negligible ethanol yield. The reasons for the dierent
behaviour could be the presence or absence of nitrogen sparging,
the use of dierent inocula, the start-up procedure, the glucose
concentration in the feed, etc.
In terms of ethanol productivity, high ethanol production rates
up to 1.5 g L-1 h-1 have been reported with mixed cultures. This
value is lower than ethanol productivity on glucose for Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 318 g L-1 h-1 .89 However, considering that the
literature studies reported in Table 14 were not specically aimed
at maximizing ethanol productivity, and that ethanol productivity
could easily be increased simply by increasing glucose concentration in the feed, it seems that, with more lab- or pilot-scale investigation, ethanol productivity from glucose with mixed cultures
could reach the same or higher productivities currently obtained
with industrial processes.
www.soci.org
pH
6.258.5
8
47
8
5
5.8
Ethanol yield
(mol/mol glucose)
Temp. ( C)
30
37
36
30
35
20-60
Ethanol rate
(g L-1 h-1 )
0.550.70
0.10.25
0.080.17
0.7
0.18
0.1-0.8
0.070.09
0.020.08
0.0250.05
0.5
0.02
1.5
Other main
productsa
acetate
acetate, propionate
acetate, butyrate
acetate
acetate
acetate, butyrate
Ref
13
80
77
79
78
83
In all the studies the main products in the gas phase were hydrogen and carbon dioxide
Fermentation of xylose
Fermentation of xylose is much less well known than glucose fermentation, in particular as far as mixed cultures are concerned.
In principle, the spectrum of substrates that can be obtained by
anaerobic fermentation of xylose is similar to that which can be
obtained from glucose (Fig. 2), even though the quantitative distribution of the products and the microbial species involved may
be dierent. The stoichiometry of xylose conversion to ethanol is
the following:90
C5 H10 O5 1.67CH3 CH2 OH + 1.67CO2
The theoretical maximum yield of ethanol from xylose is 1.67 mol
ethanol mol-1 xylose, i.e. virtually the same yield as glucose if
expressed in mass terms (0.51 g ethanol g-1 xylose).
Table 15 reports several species of microorganisms that have
been reported to convert xylose into ethanol. Certain microbial
species are able to produce ethanol from xylose with almost
maximum yield, while others always generate other co-products,
mainly acetate.91,92 In terms of the process considered with mixed
cultures, operating conditions have to be found that maximize
ethanol yield, minimizing the formation of other fermentation
by-products. However, while several recent studies have investigated the eect of operating conditions on xylose fermentation
to hydrogen,93 96 the only study that has investigated xylose conversion to ethanol by mixed cultures is the one by Temudo et al.97
They compared chemostat cultures grown on xylose or glucose
as only carbon sources comparing ethanol and acids production
with the two substrates. They observed that the culture grown on
xylose produced much less ethanol than the one grown on glucose
(0.05 mol ethanol mol-1 xylose vs. 0.24 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose),
the other main products being in both cases acetate and butyrate.
However, interestingly, ethanol yield on xylose increased very signicantly when xylose concentration in the feed was increased
from 4 to 10 g L-1 , from 0.05 to 0.69 mol ethanol mol-1 xylose (the
yield of butyrate was correspondingly much lower), but the reason
for this is not known. The authors also observed that the mixed
culture grown solely on xylose was immediately able to metabolize glucose when this substrate was added, indicating that in
a mixed culture with complex substrates such as real wastes, the
same microorganisms may be able to metabolize both glucose and
xylose.
Microorganism
Microorganism type
Bacillus macerans
Clostridium thermohydrosulfuricum
Thermoanaerobacter ethanolicus
Aerobacter aerogenes
Fusarium oxysporum
Aeromonas hydrophila
Bacillus polymixa
Aerobacter indologenes
Brettanomyces spp.
Candida shehatae
Pachysolen tannophilus
Pichia stipitis
Monilia spp.
Mucor spp.
Neurospora spp.
Paecilomyces spp.
Polyporus spp.
Rhizopus spp.
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Fungus
Bacterium
Bacterium
Bacterium
Yeast
Yeast
Yeast
Yeast
Fungus
Fungus
Fungus
Fungus
Fungus
Fungus
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
377
www.soci.org
D Dionisi et al.
Table 16. Glucose and xylose fermentation to ethanol by genetically modied microorganisms
Microorganism
Glucose
Erwinia sp. SR38
Klebsiella oxytoca M5A1
Lactobacillus casei 686
Lactobacillus plantarum
Xylose
Klebsiella oxytoca M5A1
Klebsiella oxytoca M5A1
Escherichia coli LY160
Saccharomyces cerevisiae 424A
Saccharomyces cerevisiae MA-R5
Saccharomyces cerevisiae DA24-16
Saccharomyces cerevisiae ADAP8
pH
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
Temp. ( C)
30
30
37
37
1.9
2.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
2.1
0.18
0.02
30
30
37
30
30
30
30
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.11.4
2.0
1.3
0.9
0.13
0.50
1.3
0.030.07
native strain on glucose.19 So far the maximum ethanol productivity obtained for recombinant S. cerevisiae on xylose is 0.5 g L-1 h-1
(lab scale study). Table 16 reports ethanol production rates and
yields from glucose and xylose by genetically modied microorganisms in selected literature studies. In general, volumetric
productivities of up to 2 g ethanol L-1 h-1 and almost quantitative
conversions of glucose and xylose to ethanol have been obtained,
so indicating the success of genetic engineering in generating
microorganisms able to convert multiple sugars to ethanol at high
rate and yield.
378
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
Ref
160
98
161
100
98
162
99
163
164
165
166
www.soci.org
introduction of the lignin hydrolysis capability into microorganisms that are naturally able to hydrolyse cellulose, or, as opposite
strategy, introduction of the cellulose hydrolysis capability into
microorganisms that are naturally able to hydrolyse lignin;
improvement in the ability to hydrolyse crystalline cellulose
with microorganisms that are native ethanol producers;
increase in the ethanol yield for microorganisms that are naturally able to hydrolyse cellulose.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has reviewed the existing literature on microbial processes for lignin hydrolysis, cellulose hydrolysis and glucose fermentation to ethanol. The main evidence from this study is the
following:
there is a wide range of microorganisms that can perform each
of the three steps required for lignocellulosic biomass conversion into ethanol, i.e. lignin hydrolysis, cellulose hydrolysis and
glucose, or xylose, fermentation to ethanol;
while there are many reported fungi species that are able to
hydrolyse lignin under aerobic conditions, there is only one
recent study in the literature giving clear evidence of lignin
hydrolysis under anaerobic conditions. However, many mixed
culture studies give indirect evidence that lignin can be at least
partially degraded under anaerobic conditions. In principle,
if anaerobic lignin hydrolysis can be achieved, a single-stage
process with mixed microbial cultures including lignin and
cellulose hydrolysis and glucose fermentation to ethanol can be
envisaged;
cellulose and hemicelluloses hydrolysis can be carried out by
many dierent microbial species, both under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Interestingly, the literature evidence collected
so far indicates no signicant dierences in the cellulose hydrolysis rate under aerobic or anaerobic conditions;
regarding anaerobic fermentation of sugars to ethanol, literature studies with mixed cultures specically targeted at ethanol
production have been very limited and they have reported a
maximum yield of 0.8 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose, compared
with the 2 mol ethanol mol-1 glucose which is the theoretical
maximum yield;
metabolic engineering has been successful in generating
microorganisms able to convert a wider range of sugars to
ethanol with high yields, however, much more limited success
has been obtained by engineering microorganisms in order to
combine cellulose hydrolysis and high ethanol yield.
An integrated (or consolidated) process converting untreated
lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol can, at least in principle, be
conceived according to two dierent approaches: use of open
mixed cultures of existing microorganisms or use of a pure culture
of a genetically modied microorganism. Regarding the use of
open mixed cultures, the main challenges to be overcome are: low
rates of lignin and cellulose hydrolysis, control of the anaerobic
fermentation of sugars to ethanol and co-existence of dierent
microbial populations in the same reactor. Possible research areas
that can help address these challenges are: enrichment studies
with microbial adaptation to the lignocellulosic substrate, investigation of the eect of particle size reduction on the hydrolysis
rates and investigation of the eect of reactor conguration and
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
379
www.soci.org
operating parameters. Regarding the use of genetically modied
microorganisms the main challenges are the development of
microorganisms able to hydrolyse lignin and crystalline cellulose
and convert the sugars produced to ethanol.
REFERENCES
380
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
D Dionisi et al.
23 Prez J, Munoz-Dorado J, De la Rubia T and Martinez J, Biodegradation and biological treatments of cellulose, hemicellulose and
lignin: an overview. Int Microbiol 5:5363 (2002).
24 Hateld R and Fukushima RS, Can lignin be accurately measured?
Crop Sci 45:832839 (2005).
25 Brigham J, Adney W and Himmel M, Hemicelluloses: diversity and
applications. Handbook on Bioethanol: Production and Utilization,
/ed by Wyman CE. Taylor and Francis, pp. 119142 (1996).
26 Field JA, Limits of anaerobic biodegradation. Wat Sci Technol 45:918
(2002).
27 Zimmermann W, Degradation of lignin by bacteria. J Biotechnol
13:119130 (1990).
28 Silanikove N and Brosh A, Lignocellulose degradation and subsequent metabolism of lignin fermentation products by the desert
black bedouin goat fed on wheat straw as a single-component
diet. Br J Nutr 62:509520 (1989).
29 Benner R, Maccubin AE and Hodson RE, Anaerobic biodegradation
of the lignin and polysaccharide components of lignocellulose
and synthetic lignin by sediment microora. Appl Environ Microbiol
47:9981004 (1984).
30 Chen W, Ohmiya K, Shimizu S and Kawakami H, Degradation of
dehydrovanillin by anaerobic bacteria from cow rumen uid. Appl
Environ Microbiol 54:12541257 (1985).
31 Fuchs G, Anaerobic metabolism of aromatic compounds. Ann N Y
Acad Sci 1125:8299 (2008).
32 Kataeva I, Foston MB, Yang S, Pattathil S, Biswal AK, Poole FL,
Basen M, Rhaesa AM, Thomas TP and Azadi P, Carbohydrate and
lignin are simultaneously solubilized from unpretreated switchgrass by microbial action at high temperature. Energy Environ Sci
6:21862195 (2013).
33 Sharma SK, Mishra IM, Sharma MP and Saini JS, Eect of particle
size on biogas generation from biomass residues. Biomaterials
17:251263 (1988).
34 Turick CE, Peck MW, Chynoweth DP, Jerger DE, White EH, Zsua L
and Andy Kenney W, Methane fermentation of woody biomass.
Bioresource Technol 37:141147 (1991).
35 Triolo JM, Sommer SG, Moller HB, Weisbjerg MR and Jiang XY, A
new algorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during
anaerobic digestion: inuence of lignin concentration on methane
production potential. Bioresource Technol 102:93959402 (2011).
36 Tong X, Smith LH and McCarty PL, Methane fermentation of selected
lignocellulosic materials. Biomaterials 21:239255 (1990).
37 Nallathambi Gunaseelan V, Anaerobic digestion of biomass for
methane production: a review. Biomater Bioeng 13:83114 (1997).
38 Malherbe S and Cloete TE, Lignocellulose biodegradation: fundamentals and applications. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 1:10514
(2002).
39 Leonowicz A, Matuszewska A, Luterek J, Ziegenhagen D,
Wojtas-Wasilewska M, Cho N, Hofrichter M and Rogalski J,
Biodegradation of lignin by white rot fungi. Fung Gen Biol
27:175185 (1999).
40 Kirk TK, Schultz E, Connors W, Lorenz L and Zeikus J, Inuence
of culture parameters on lignin metabolism by Phanerochaete
chrysosporium. Arch Microbiol 117:277285 (1978).
41 Srensen H, Decomposition of lignin by soil bacteria and complex
formation between autoxidized lignin and organic nitrogen compounds. J Gen Microbiol 27:2134 (1962).
42 Kerem Z, Friesem D and Hadar Y, Lignocellulose degradation during
solid-state fermentation: Pleurotus ostreatus versus Phanerochaete
chrysosporium. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:11211127 (1992).
43 Zhang X, Yu H, Huang H and Lio Y, Evaluation of biological pretreatment with white rot fungi for the enzymatic hydrolysis of bamboo
culms. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 60:159164 (2007).
44 Keller FA, Hamilton JE and Nguyen QA, Microbial pretreatment of
biomass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 105:2741 (2003).
45 Lee J, Gwak K, Park J, Park M, Choi D, Kwon M and Choi I, Biological
pretreatment of softwood pinus densiora by three white rot
fungi. J Microbiol 45:485491 (2007).
46 Hwang SS, Lee SJ, Kim HK, Ka JO, Kim KJ and Song HG, Biodegradation and saccharication of wood chips of Pinus strobus and
Liriodendron tulipifera by white rot fungi. J Microbiol Biotechnol
18:18191825 (2008).
47 Shi J, Chinn MS and Sharma-Shivappa RR, Microbial pretreatment of
cotton stalks by solid state cultivation of Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Bioresource Technol 99:65566564 (2008).
www.soci.org
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
381
www.soci.org
382
95 Calli B, Schoenmaekers K and van broekhoven KLD, Dark fermentative H2 production from xylose and lactose-eects of on-line pH
control. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32:522530 (2008).
96 Lo YC, Chen WM, Hung CH, Chen SD and Chang JS, Dark H2 fermentation from sucrose and xylose using H2 producing indigenous bacteria: feasibility and kinetic studies. Water Res 42:827842 (2008).
97 Temudo MF, Mato T, Kleerebezem R and van Loosdrecht MC, Xylose
anaerobic conversion by open-mixed cultures. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 82:231239 (2009).
98 Ohta K, Beall D, Mejia J, Shanmugam K and Ingram L, Metabolic
engineering of Klebsiella oxytoca M5A1 for ethanol production
from xylose and glucose. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:28102815
(1991).
99 Yomano L, York S, Zhou S, Shanmugam K and Ingram L,
Re-engineering Escherichia coli for ethanol production. Biotechnol
Lett 30:20972103 (2008).
100 Liu S, Nichols NN, Dien BS and Cotta MA, Metabolic engineering of a
Lactobacillus plantarum double ldh knockout strain for enhanced
ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33:17 (2006).
101 Hahn-Hgerdal B, Wahlbom CF, Grdonyi M, van Zyl WH, Otero RRC
and Jnsson LJ, Metabolic Engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
for Xylose Utilization. Springer, pp. 5384 (2001).
102 Haruta S, Cui Z, Huang Z, Li M, Ishii M and Igarashi Y, Construction
of a stable microbial community with high cellulose-degradation
ability. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:529534 (2002).
103 Brethauer S and Studer MH, Consolidated bioprocessing of lignocellulose by a microbial consortium. Energy Environ Sci 7:14461453
(2014).
104 Olson DG, McBride JE, Joe Shaw A and Lynd LR, Recent progress
in consolidated bioprocessing. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:396405
(2012).
105 Esteghlalian A, Hashimoto AG, Fenske JJ and Penner MH, Modelling
and optimization of the dilute sulfuric-acid pretreatment of corn
stover, poplar and switchgrass. Bioresource Technol 59:129136
(1997).
106 Sun Y and Cheng J, Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol
production: a review. Bioresource Technol 83:111 (2002).
107 Sun R, Lawther JM and Banks W, Fractional and structural characterization of wheat straw hemicelluloses. Carbohydr Polym
29:325331 (1996).
108 Hamelinck CN, van Hooijdonk G and Faaij APC, Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in short-, middleand long-term. Biomater Bioenergy 28:384410 (2005).
109 Galbe M and Zacchi G, Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials
for ecient bioethanol production, in Biofuels. Springer, Berlin,
pp. 4165 (2007).
110 Timell TE, Recent progress in the chemistry of wood hemicelluloses.
Wood Sci Technol 1:4570 (1967).
111 Shiralipour A and Smith PH, Conversion of biomass into methane gas.
Biomater 6:8592 (1984).
112 Badger D, Bogue M and Stewart D, Biogas production from crops
and organic wastes. 1. Results of batch digestions. New Zeal J Sci
22:1120 (1979).
113 Chynoweth D, Turick C, Owens J, Jerger D and Peck M, Biochemical
methane potential of biomass and waste feedstocks. Biomater
Bioenergy 5:95111 (1993).
114 Forney LJ and Reddy CA, Bacterial degradation of kraft lignin. Devel
Ind Microbiol 20:163175 (1980).
115 Odier E, Janin G and Monties B, Poplar lignin decomposition
by gram-negative aerobic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol
41:337341 (1981).
116 Giroux H, Vidal P, Bouchard J and Lamy F, Degradation of kraft indulin
lignin by Streptomyces viridosporus and Streptomyces badius. Appl
Environ Microbiol 54:30643070 (1988).
117 Horwath W and Elliott LF, Ryegrass straw component decomposition
during mesophilic and thermophilic incubations. Biol Fert Soils
21:227232 (1996).
118 Waksam SA, Cordon T and Hulpoi N, Inuence of temperature upon
the microbiological population and decomposition processes in
composts of stable manure. Soil Sci 47:83114 (1939).
119 Franzluebbers A, Arshad M and Ripmeester J, Alterations in canola
residue composition during decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem
28:12891295 (1996).
120 Robinson CH, Dighton J, Frankland JC and Roberts J, Fungal communities on decaying wheat straw of dierent resource qualities. Soil
Biol Biochem 26:10531058 (1994).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
D Dionisi et al.
121 Tuomela M, Hatakka A, Raiskila S, Vikman M and Itvaara M, Biodegradation of radiolabelled synthetic lignin (14C-DHP) and mechanical pulp in a compost environment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
55:492499 (2001).
122 Jouraiphy A, Amir S, El Gharous M, Revel J and Hadi M, Chemical
and spectroscopic analysis of organic matter transformation during composting of sewage sludge and green plant waste. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 56:101108 (2005).
123 Yu H, Zeng G, Huang H, Xi X, Wang R, Huang D, Huang G and Li
J, Microbial community succession and lignocellulose degradation during agricultural waste composting. Biodegrad 18:793802
(2007).
124 Huang D, Zeng G, Feng C, Hu S, Lai C, Zhao M, Su F, Tang L and
Liu H, Changes of microbial population structure related to lignin
degradation during lignocellulosic waste composting. Bioresource
Technol 101:40624067 (2010).
125 Tomati U, Galli E, Pasetti L and Volterra E, Bioremediation of olive-mill
wastewaters by composting. Waste Manage Res 13:509518
(1995).
126 Hwang SS, Lee SJ, Kim HK, Ka JO, Kim KJ and Song HG, Biodegradation and saccharication of wood chips of Pinus strobus and
Liriodendron tulipifera by white rot fungi. J Microbiol Biotechnol
18:18191826 (2008).
127 Pavlostathis SG, Miller TL and Wolin MJ, Fermentation of insoluble cellulose by continuous cultures of Ruminococcus albus. Appl Environ
Microbiol 54:26552659 (1988).
128 Ng T, Weimer P and Zeikus J, Cellulolytic and physiological properties
of Clostridium thermocellum. Arch Microbiol 114:17 (1977).
129 Desvaux M, Guedon E and Petitdemange H, Carbon ux distribution and kinetics of cellulose fermentation in steady-state continuous cultures of Clostridium cellulolyticum on a chemically dened
medium. J Bacteriol 183:119130 (2001).
130 Weimer P and Zeikus J, Fermentation of cellulose and cellobiose
by Clostridium thermocellum in the absence and presence of
Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum. Appl Environ Microbiol
33:289297 (1977).
131 Scheinger C and Wolin MJ, Propionate formation from cellulose and
soluble sugars by combined cultures of Bacteroides succinogenes
and Selenomonas ruminantium. Appl Microbiol 26:789795 (1973).
132 Ng TK, Ben-Bassat A and Zeikus J, Ethanol production by thermophilic
bacteria: fermentation of cellulosic substrates by cocultures of
Clostridium thermocellum and Clostridium thermohydrosulfuricum.
Appl Environ Microbiol 41:13371343 (1981).
133 Siegert I and Banks C, The eect of volatile fatty acid additions on
the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors.
Process Biochem 40:34123418 (2005).
134 Yang Y, Tsukahara K, Yagishita T and Sawayama S, Performance of
a xed-bed reactor packed with carbon felt during anaerobic
digestion of cellulose. Bioresource Technol 94:197201 (2004).
135 OSullivan CA, Burrell PC, Clarke WP and Blackall LL, Structure of a cellulose degrading bacterial community during anaerobic digestion.
Biotechnol Bioeng 92:871878 (2005).
136 Ueno Y, Kawai T, Sato S, Otsuka S and Morimoto M, Biological production of hydrogen from cellulose by natural anaerobic microora. J
Ferment Bioeng 79:395397 (1995).
137 de Coninck-Chosson J, Aerobic degradation of cellulose and adsorp
tion properties of cellulases in Cellulomonas uda JC3: eects of
crystallinity of substrate. Biotechnol Bioeng 31:495501 (1988).
138 Bagnara C, Gaudin C and Belaich JP, Physiological properties of Cellulomonas fermentans, a mesophylic cellulolytic bacterium. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 26:170176 (1987).
139 Li X and Gao P, Isolation and partial properties of
cellulose-decomposing strain of Cytophaga sp. LX-7 from soil.
J Appl Microbiol 82:7380 (1997).
140 Peitersen N. Continuous cultivation of Trichoderma viride on cellulose.
Biotechnol Bioeng 19:337348 (1977).
141 Velkovska S, Marten MR and Ollis DF, Kinetic model for batch cellulase
production by Trichoderma reesei RUT C30. J Biotechnol 54:8394
(1997).
142 Degli-Innocenti F, Tosin M and Bastioli C, Evaluation of the biodegradation of starch and cellulose under controlled composting conditions. J Environ Pollut Degrad 6:197202 (1998).
143 Pagga U, Beimborn D, Boelens J and De Wilde B, Determination of
the aerobic biodegradability of polymeric material in a laboratory
controlled composting test. Chemosphere 31:44754487 (1995).
www.soci.org
144 Hurwitz E, Beck A, Sakellariou E and Krup M, Degradation of cellulose by activated sludge treatment. J Water Pollut Control Fed
33:10701075 (1961).
145 Mezzanotte V, Bertani R, Degli Innocenti F and Tosin M, Inuence of
inocula on the results of biodegradation tests. Polym Degrad Stab
87:5156 (2005).
146 Bellia G, Tosin M, Floridi G and Degli-Innocenti F, Activated vermiculite, a solid bed for testing biodegradability under composting
conditions. Polym Degrad Stab 66:6579 (1999).
147 Mohee R, Unmar G, Mudhoo A and Khadoo P, Biodegradability of
biodegradable/degradable plastic materials under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Waste Manage 28:16241629 (2008).
148 Kato S, Haruta S, Cui ZJ, Ishii M and Igarashi Y, Eective cellulose
degradation by a mixed-culture system composed of a cellulolytic
clostridium and aerobic non-cellulolytic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 51:133142 (2004).
149 Lo YC, Bai MD, Chen WM and Chang JS, Cellulosic hydrogen production with a sequencing bacterial hydrolysis and dark fermentation
strategy. Bioresource Technol 99:82998303 (2008).
150 Lynd LR, Grethlein HE and Wolkin RH, Fermentation of cellulosic substrates in batch and continuous culture by Clostridium thermocellum. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:31313139 (1989).
151 Yang B and Wyman CE, BSA treatment to enhance enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose in lignin containing substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng
94:611617 (2006).
152 Huang X and Penner MH, Apparent substrate inhibition of the Trichoderma reseei cellulase system. J Agric Food Chem 39:20962100
(1991).
153 Yang B, Willies DM and Wyman CE, Changes in the enzymatic hydrolysis rate of Avicel cellulose with conversion. Biotechnol Bioeng
94:11221128 (2006).
154 Claassen P, Van Lier J, Lopez Contreras A, Van Niel E, Sijtsma L, Stams
A, De Vries S and Weusthuis R, Utilisation of biomass for the supply
of energy carriers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 52:741755 (1999).
155 Kdr Z, Szengyel Z and Rczey K, Simultaneous saccharication
and fermentation (SSF) of industrial wastes for the production of
ethanol. Ind Crops Prod 20:103110 (2004).
383
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb