Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Harvest Time and Switchgrass Cultivar on Sugar Release Through Enzymatic Hydrolysis

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is a native North American prairie grass being developed for bioenergy production in the central and eastern USA. The objective of this study was to identify the impacts of harvest time and switchgrass cultivar had on sugar release variables determined through enzymatic hydrolysis. Previously, we reported that delaying harvest of switchgrass until after frost and until after winter resulted in decreased yields of switchgrass but it reduced the amount of ash and nutrients in the biomass. The current study used near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to broaden an existing set of calibration equations designed to predict composition and sugar release variables of switchgrass. These updated calibrations were then applied to the full set of samples from a multi-year and multi-location switchgrass harvest-management study. Composition and processor sugar yields were significantly affected by location, year, cultivar, and harvest time, of which the time of harvest was the most important. Delaying the time of harvest until after frost or post-winter increased the concentration of structural carbohydrates from 500 to over 570 g kg−1 in the biomass and lignin content from 160 to over 200 g kg−1. Conversely, delaying harvest time lowered the amounts of ash and soluble sugars. The later harvest times also yielded more sugars following processing with yields increasing over 20% from the first harvest. Increased sugar yields are attributable to both increased concentration of sugars in the biomass upon harvest and reduced biomass recalcitrance. Based upon processed sugar yields, it is estimated that a biorefinery producing 76 million liters of ethanol per year would require 229–373 km2 of land cultivated with switchgrass.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Casler MD, Vogel KP (2014) Selection for biomass yield in upland, lowland, and hybrid switchgrass. Crop Sci 54(2):626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Humbird D, Davis, R., Tao, L., Kinchin, C., Hsu, D., Aden, A., Schoen, P., Lukas, J., Olthof, B., Worley, M., Sexton, D., Dudgeon, D (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol: dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover

  3. Himmel ME, Ding S-Y, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW, Foust TD (2007) Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315(5813):804–807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ishizawa CI, Davis MF, Schell DF, Johnson DK (2007) Porosity and its effect on the digestibility of dilute sulfuric acid pretreated corn stover. J Agric Food Chem 55(7):2575–2581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grethlein HE (1985) The effect of pore size distribution on the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic substrates. Nat Biotechnol 3(2):155–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee Y, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96(6):673–686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mosier N, Hendrickson R, Ho N, Sedlak M, Ladisch MR (2005) Optimization of pH controlled liquid hot water pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96(18):1986–1993

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dien BS (2010) Mass balances and analytical methods for biomass pretreatment experiments. In: Biomass to biofuels: strategies for global industries. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, pp. 213–231

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson EK, Parrish AS, Voigt TB, Owens VN, Hong C-H, Lee DK (2013) Nitrogen fertility and harvest management of switchgrass for sustainable bioenergy feedstock production in Illinois. Ind Crop Prod 48:19–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Parrish DJ, Fike JH (2005) The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(5–6):423–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gorlitsky LE, Sadeghpour A, Hashemi M, Etemadi F, Herbert SJ (2015) Biomass vs. quality tradeoffs for switchgrass in response to fall harvesting period. Ind Crop Prod 63:311–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gamble JD, Jungers JM, Wyse DL, Johnson GA, Lamb JA, Sheaffer CC (2014) Harvest time effects on biomass yield, moisture content, mineral concentration, and mineral export in switchgrass and native polycultures managed for bioenergy. BioEnerg Res 8(2):740–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cahill N, Popp M, West C, Rocateli A, Ashworth A, Farris R, Dixon B (2014) Switchgrass harvest time effects on nutrient use and yield: an economic analysis. J Agr Appl Econ 46:487–507

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kim Y, Mosier NS, Ladisch MR, Pallapolu VR, Lee YY, Garlock R, Balan V, Dale BE, Donohoe BS, Vinzant TB, Elander RT, Falls M, Sierra R, Holtzapple MT, Shi J, Ebrik MA, Redmond T, Yang B, Wyman CE, Warner RE (2011) Comparative study on enzymatic digestibility of switchgrass varieties and harvests processed by leading pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 102(24):11089–11096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Serapiglia MJ, Boateng AA, Lee DK, Casler MD (2016) Switchgrass harvest time management can impact biomass yield and nutrient content. Crop Sci 56:1970–1980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dien B, Jung H, Vogel K, Casler M, Lamb J, Iten L, Mitchell R, Sarath G (2006) Chemical composition and response to dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification of alfalfa, reed canarygrass, and switchgrass. Biomass Bioenerg 30(10):880–891

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vogel KP, Dien BS, Jung HG, Casler MD, Masterson SD, Mitchell RB (2011) Quantifying actual and theoretical ethanol yields for switchgrass strains using NIRS analyses. BioEnerg Res 4(2):96–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shenk JS, Westerhaus MO (1991) Population definition, sample selection, and calibration procedures for near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Sci 31(2):469–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. SAS Institute Inc. 2011. SAS® 9.3. Cary, NC

  20. Adler PR, Sanderson MA, Boateng AA, Weimer PJ, Jung H-JG (2006) Biomass yield and biofuel quality of switchgrass harvested in fall or spring. Agron J 98(6):1518

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tao L, Templeton DW, Humbird D, Aden A (2013) Effect of corn stover compositional variability on minimum ethanol selling price (MESP). Bioresour Technol 140:426–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Esbroeck GA, Hussey MA, Sanderson MA (2003) Variation between Alamo and Cave-in-Rock switchgrass in response to photoperiod extension. Crop Sci 43(2):639–643

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nichols NN, Dien BS, Cotta MA (2010) Fermentation of bioenergy crops into ethanol using biological abatement for removal of inhibitors. Bioresour Technol 101(19):7545–7550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hägerdal B (2000) Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. II: inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition. Bioresour Technol 74(1):25–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dien BS, O'Bryan PJ, Hector RE, Iten LB, Mitchell RB, Qureshi N, Sarath G, Vogel KP, Cotta MA (2013) Conversion of switchgrass to ethanol using dilute ammonium hydroxide pretreatment: influence of ecotype and harvest maturity. Environ Technol 34(13–14):1837–1848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bals B, Rogers C, Jin M, Balan V, Dale B (2010) Evaluateion of ammonia fibre expansion (AFEX) pretreatment for enzymatic hydrolysis of switchgrass harvested in different seasons and locations. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:1–11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Qing Q, Yang B, Wyman CE (2010) Xylooligomers are strong inhibitors of cellulose hydrolysis by enzymes. Bioresour Technol 101(24):9624–9630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harris PV, Xu F, Kreel NE, Kang C, Fukuyama S (2014) New enzyme insights drive advances in commercial ethanol production. Curr Opin Chem Biol 19:162–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant no. 2011-68005-30411. The authors thank Victoria Nguyen for the assistance with pretreatments and enzymatic hydrolysis. Appreciation is also extended to Jacob Karlen for his technical assistance and NIRS analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eastern Regional Research Center, USDA-ARS, Wyndmoor, PA, 19038, USA

    Michelle J. Serapiglia & Akwasi A. Boateng

  2. National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, USDA-ARS, Peoria, IL, 61604, USA

    Bruce S. Dien

  3. US Dairy Forage Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 1925 Linden Drive W, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Michael D. Casler

Authors
  1. Michelle J. Serapiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce S. Dien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Akwasi A. Boateng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael D. Casler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Casler.

Additional information

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Serapiglia, M.J., Dien, B.S., Boateng, A.A. et al. Impact of Harvest Time and Switchgrass Cultivar on Sugar Release Through Enzymatic Hydrolysis. Bioenerg. Res. 10, 377–387 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9803-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9803-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation