Comparison of mechanistic models in the initial rate enzymatic hydrolysis of AFEX-treated wheat straw

Abstract

BackgroundDifferent mechanistic models have been used in the literature to describe the enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated biomass. Although these different models have been applied to different substrates, most of these mechanistic models fit into two- and three-parameter mechanistic models. The purpose of this study is to compare the models and determine the activation energy and the enthalpy of adsorption of Trichoderma reesei enzymes on ammonia fibre explosion (AFEX)-treated wheat straw. Experimental enzymatic hydrolysis data from AFEX-treated wheat straw were modelled with two- and three-parameter mechanistic models from the literature. In order to discriminate between the models, initial rate data at 49°C were subjected to statistical analysis (analysis of variance and scatter plots).ResultsFor three-parameter models, the HCH-1 model best fitted the experimental data; for two-parameter models Michaelis-Menten (M-M) best fitted the experimental data. All the three-parameter models fitted the data better than the two-parameter models. The best three models at 49°C (HCH-1, Huang and M-M) were compared using initial rate data at three temperatures (35°, 42° and 49°C). The HCH-1 model provided the best fit based on the F values, the scatter plot and the residual sum of squares. Also, its kinetic parameters were linear in Arrhenius/van't Hoff's plots, unlike the other models. The activation energy (Ea) is 47.6 kJ/mol and the enthalpy change of adsorption (ΔH) is -118 kJ/mol for T. reesei enzymes on AFEX-treated wheat straw.ConclusionAmong the two-parameter models, Michaelis-Menten model provided the best fit compared to models proposed by Humphrey and Wald. For the three-parameter models, HCH-1 provided the best fit because the model includes a fractional coverage parameter (ϕ) which accounts for the number of reactive sites covered by the enzymes.

Stochastic molecular model of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose for ethanol production

“…Second approach involves formulation of mechanistic models which attempt to model some of the underlying phenomenon with simplifying assumptions [20,22,27,31-37]. Rate expressions are generally described using Michaelis-Menten type enzyme kinetics with/without incorporating the effects of enzyme adsorption, temperature, pH, substrate and product inhibition.…”

Temperature Effects on Kinetic Parameters and Substrate Affinity of Cel7A Cellobiohydrolases

“…Their results suggested that E a for hydrolysis and inactivation was of comparable size (ϳ70 kJ/mol). Brown et al (27) tested a number of previously developed steady state models against a set of data based on lignocellulosic biomass and a fungal enzyme mixture. They concluded that a three-parameter model, which accounted for the number of reactive sites covered by the enzymes, represented their data well.…”

Bioconversion of Lignocellulose into Bioethanol: Process Intensification and Mechanism Research

“…Under certain conditions, these models fit the experimental data well and provide critical insights into the hydrolysis mechanisms; however, some still employ unrealistic assumptions. Brown et al [185] tested six different mechanistic models against the initial hydrolysis rate of AFEX-treated wheat straw. Among these two-and three-parameter models, the HCH-1 model best fit the experimental data.…”