The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do new cellulolytic enzyme preparations affect the industrial strategies for high solids lignocellulosic ethanol production?
Abstract
Production of ethanol from lignocellulosic materials has a promising market potential, but the process is still only at pilot/demonstration scale due to the technical and economical difficulties of the process. Operating the process at very high solids concentrations (above 20% dry matter—DM) has proven essential for economic feasibility at industrial scale. Historically, simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) was found to give better ethanol yields compared to separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), but data in literature are typically based on operating the process at low dry matter conditions. In this work the impact of selected enzyme preparation and processing strategy (SHF, presaccharification and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation—PSSF, and SSF) on final ethanol yield and overall performance was investigated with pretreated wheat straw up to 30% DM. The experiments revealed that an SSF strategy was indeed better than SHF when applying an older generation enzyme cocktail (Celluclast‐Novozym 188). In case of the newer product Cellic CTec 2, SHF resulted in 20% higher final ethanol yield compared to SSF. It was possible to close the mass balance around cellulose to around 94%, revealing that the most relevant products could be accounted for. One observation was the presence of oxidized sugar (gluconic acid) upon enzymatic hydrolysis with the latest enzyme preparation. Experiments showed gluconic acid formation by recently discovered enzymatic class of lytic polysaccharides monoxygenases (LPMO's) to be depending on the processing strategy. The lowest concentration was achieved in SSF, which could be correlated with less available oxygen due to simultaneous oxygen consumption by the yeast. Quantity of glycerol and cell mass was also depending on the selected processing strategy. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2014;111: 59–68. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wingren, A., Galbe, M., & Zacchi, G. (2008) · Biotechnology Progress · doi:10.1021/bp0340180 · Cited by 675
Cited by
Payne, C. M., Knott, B. C., Mayes, H. B., Hansson, H., Himmel, M. E., Sandgren, M., Ståhlberg, J., & Beckham, G. T. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500351c · Cited by 855
Zhang, B., Biswal, B. K., Zhang, J., & Balasubramanian, R. (2023) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00673 · Cited by 432
da Silva, A. S., Espinheira, R. P., Teixeira, R. S. S., de Souza, M. F., Ferreira-Leitão, V., & Bon, E. P. S. (2020) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/s13068-020-01697-w · Cited by 322
Lytic Polysaccharide Monooxygenases in Biomass Conversion
Hemsworth, G. R., Johnston, E. M., Davies, G. J., & Walton, P. H. (2015) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.09.006 · Cited by 314
Möllers, K. B., Cannella, D., Jørgensen, H., & Frigaard, N.-U. (2014) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/1754-6834-7-64 · Cited by 215
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cannella, D., & Jørgensen, H.
- Venue
- Biotechnology and Bioengineering
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-11
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-68
- ISSN
- 0006-3592 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0290
- OpenAlex
- W2116056926
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do new cellulolytic enzyme preparations affect the industrial strategies for high solids lignocellulosic ethanol production? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bit.25098
- The paper
- Cannella, D., & Jørgensen, H. (2014). Do new cellulolytic enzyme preparations affect the industrial strategies for high solids lignocellulosic ethanol production? Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25098
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.