Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Research article Special Issues

Pretreatment and Fractionation of Wheat Straw for Production of Fuel Ethanol and Value-added Co-products in a Biorefinery

  • An integrated process has been developed for a wheat straw biorefinery. In this process, wheat straw was pretreated by soaking in aqueous ammonia (SAA), which extensively removed lignin but preserved high percentages of the carbohydrate fractions for subsequent bioconversion. The pretreatment conditions included 15 wt% NH4OH, 1:10 solid:liquid ratio, 65 oC and 15 hours. Under these conditions, 48% of the original lignin was removed, whereas 98%, 83% and 78% of the original glucan, xylan, and arabinan, respectively, were preserved. The pretreated material was subsequently hydrolyzed with a commercial hemicellulase to produce a solution rich in xylose and low in glucose plus a cellulose-enriched solid residue. The xylose-rich solution then was used for production of value-added products. Xylitol and astaxanthin were selected to demonstrate the fermentability of the xylose-rich hydrolysate. Candida mogii and Phaffia rhodozyma were used for xylitol and astaxanthin fermentation, respectively. The cellulose-enriched residue obtained after the enzymatic hydrolysis of the pretreated straw was used for ethanol production in a fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) process. In this process, a commercial cellulase was used for hydrolysis of the glucan in the residue and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which is the most efficient commercial ethanol-producing organism, was used for ethanol production. Final ethanol concentration of 57 g/l was obtained at 27 wt% total solid loading.

    Citation: Xiu Zhang, Nhuan P. Nghiem. Pretreatment and Fractionation of Wheat Straw for Production of Fuel Ethanol and Value-added Co-products in a Biorefinery[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1(1): 40-52. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2014.1.40

    Related Papers:

    [1] Nhuan P. Nghiem, Clyde W. Ellis, Jr., Justin Montanti . The effects of ethanol on hydrolysis of cellulose and pretreated barley straw by some commercial cellulolytic enzyme products. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(4): 441-453. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.4.441
    [2] Adam B Fisher, Stephen S Fong . Lignin biodegradation and industrial implications. AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1(2): 92-112. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2014.2.92
    [3] Nhuan P. Nghiem, Justin Montanti, David B. Johnston . Sorghum as a renewable feedstock for production of fuels and industrial chemicals. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(1): 75-91. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.1.75
    [4] Egidio Viola, Francesco Zimbardi, Vito Valerio, Antonio Villone . Effect of Ripeness and Drying Process on Sugar and Ethanol Production from Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.). AIMS Bioengineering, 2015, 2(2): 29-39. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.2.29
    [5] Karthikeyan D. Ramachandriya, Dimple K. Kundiyana, Ashokkumar M. Sharma, Ajay Kumar, Hasan K. Atiyeh, Raymond L. Huhnke, Mark R. Wilkins . Critical factors affecting the integration of biomass gasification and syngas fermentation technology. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(2): 188-210. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.2.188
    [6] Thatiane Rodrigues Mota, Dyoni Matias de Oliveira, Rogério Marchiosi, Osvaldo Ferrarese-Filho, Wanderley Dantas dos Santos . Plant cell wall composition and enzymatic deconstruction. AIMS Bioengineering, 2018, 5(1): 63-77. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2018.1.63
    [7] Ronald C. Sims, Sean K. Bedingfield, Reese Thompson, Judith L. Sims . Bioenergy from wastewater-based biomass. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(1): 103-124. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.1.103
    [8] Kevyn Melo Lotas, Raissa Sayumy Kataki Fonseca, Joice Camila Martins da Costa, Ana Claudia Alves Cortez, Francisca das Chagas do Amaral Souza, Márcio Rodrigues Barreto, Lívia Melo Carneiro, João Paulo Alves Silva, Eveleise Samira Martins Canto, Flávia da Silva Fernandes, João Vicente Braga de Souza, Érica Simplício de Souza . Optimization of laccase production by Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq.) P. Kumm. using agro-industrial residues: a comparative study on peels of tucumã (Astrocaryum aculeatum G. Mey.) and pupunha (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) fruits. AIMS Bioengineering, 2024, 11(4): 561-573. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2024025
    [9] Mohamed Neifar, Rim Chatter, Habib Chouchane, Raya Genouiz, Atef Jaouani, Ahmed Slaheddine Masmoudi, Ameur Cherif . Optimization of enzymatic saccharification of Chaetomorpha linum biomass for the production of macroalgae-based third generation bioethanol. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(3): 400-411. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.3.400
    [10] Ana Paula Guedes Pinheiro, Augusto Bücker, Ana Cláudia Cortez, John Edward Hallsworth, João Vicente Braga de Souza, Érica Simplício de Souza . Vinegar production from Theobroma grandiflorum SCHUM (cupuassu). AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(4): 257-266. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021022
  • An integrated process has been developed for a wheat straw biorefinery. In this process, wheat straw was pretreated by soaking in aqueous ammonia (SAA), which extensively removed lignin but preserved high percentages of the carbohydrate fractions for subsequent bioconversion. The pretreatment conditions included 15 wt% NH4OH, 1:10 solid:liquid ratio, 65 oC and 15 hours. Under these conditions, 48% of the original lignin was removed, whereas 98%, 83% and 78% of the original glucan, xylan, and arabinan, respectively, were preserved. The pretreated material was subsequently hydrolyzed with a commercial hemicellulase to produce a solution rich in xylose and low in glucose plus a cellulose-enriched solid residue. The xylose-rich solution then was used for production of value-added products. Xylitol and astaxanthin were selected to demonstrate the fermentability of the xylose-rich hydrolysate. Candida mogii and Phaffia rhodozyma were used for xylitol and astaxanthin fermentation, respectively. The cellulose-enriched residue obtained after the enzymatic hydrolysis of the pretreated straw was used for ethanol production in a fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) process. In this process, a commercial cellulase was used for hydrolysis of the glucan in the residue and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which is the most efficient commercial ethanol-producing organism, was used for ethanol production. Final ethanol concentration of 57 g/l was obtained at 27 wt% total solid loading.


    Wheat crop (Triticum asativium L.) is the most important nutrient cereal crop in the world [1]. Several types of abiotic stress causes reduction in production of many agricultural crops over the world [2],[3]. Salinity is mainly restricted problem to wheat grow; 20% of cultivated area and 50% of irrigated area are suffer from salinization process [4]. Plants grown under saline conditions are affected in many ways such as reduced water potential in root zone causing water deficit, phytotoxicity of ions such as Na+ and Cl–, nutrient imbalance depressing uptake and transport of nutrients and oxidative stress [5],[6]. The competition between nutrient elements like Na+ and K+ for binding sites causing physiological problems essential for cellular functions [7]. All of these effects caused reduction in net yield of wheat and destruction of soil properties.

    Several traditional methods are used to avoid these problems like using tolerant genotypes and some agriculture practice to reduce the negative effect of salinity on wheat plants. In recent study was used number of useful rhizosphere microbes to increase the ability of salinity tolerance. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) is beneficial plant-associated bacteria which enhance nutrition and help to cope biotic and abiotic stress [8][11]. The beneficial traits of plant growth promoting bacteria that alleviate salinity stress by enhancement plant growth via various mechanisms like nitrogen fixation, indole acetic acid (IAA) production, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase production, solubilization of phosphates and siderophores production [12][14].

    PGPR inoculation was reported for its role in reducing the effects of salinity stress in various crops wheat, onion, chickpea, wheat, maize, tomato and groundnut etc. [15],[16]. Some of these PGPR belong to genera Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Erwinia, Enterobacter, Flavobacterium, Micrococcus, Pseudomonas and Serratia etc. have been shown to enhance tolerance of salt in several crops [17],[18].

    The main purpose for this research is using a biological option to ameliorate wheat under two different salinity levels in natural soil by pot experiments. Therefore, the present research was designed to study plant growth-promoting traits including Nitrogen fixation, production of indole acetic acid (IAA), swimming and swarming motility and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase. Furthermore, under different treatments growth, physiological and genetic parameters of six wheat genotypes were measured.

    For observing salt tolerance strains, bacteria were grown on nutrient agar (NA) amended with different concentrations of NaCl (1–10%, w/v) and were incubated for 7 days at 28 °C [19].

    The bacterial colonies were inoculated on N-free malate (NFB) solid medium at 28°C for 7 days as described by [20]. The media content were adjusted to pH 7 before autoclaved (121 °C for 20 minutes). Nitrogen fixation was Further confirmed by PCR amplification of partial nifH. For this purpose, a nifH gene was amplified by using two universal primers., 19F (5′-GCIWTYTAYGGIAAR GGIGG-3′) and 407R (5′-AAICCRCCRCAIACIACRTC-3′) which was described by [21].

    All strains were screened for their ability to use ACC as the sole nitrogen source in (DF) minimal salt medium according to the method of [22]. ACC deaminase production was further confirmed by PCR amplification by using the primers AccF 5′-ATGAATCTGAATCGTTTTGAAC-3′ and 5′-TCAGCCGTTGCGGAACAG-3′ were used to amplify acdS gene which was described by [23].

    For the indole acetic acid (IAA) produced by bacterial strains, it was determined by [24].

    Swimming and swarming motility was carried out using the method by [25]. The motility for Swimming and swarming were calculated after 48h by measuring the swarm and swim diameter and expressed in mm.

    The experiments were carried out at green house and laboratories of Agriculture Botany department, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia governorate, Egypt during 2018/2019. Six wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes namely; Line404 (V1), Line356 (V2), Line420 (V3), Line432 (V4), Sakha 93 (V5) and Line 380 (V6) obtained from ICARDA, Syria except Sakha93 was obtained from Agric. Res. Cent., Egypt. The treatments consisted of two bacterial strains Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 (B1) and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 (B2) under two levels of saline solutions 4.69 ds m−1 or 3000 ppm and 7.81 ds m−1 or 5000 ppm were prepared with mixing NaCl and KCl and the osmotic potential of the solutions were determined with a conductivity meter. Tap water served as a control. Wheat seeds were surface sterilized by 2% sodium hypochlorite solution for 6 min then washed with 3 times by deionized sterilized water. The sterilized seeds were treated with a prepared bacterial suspension of Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 (B1) and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 (B2) for 3h. Seeds for each variety were sown in plastic pots (40 cm diameter and 50cm depth) and each pot was filled with a mixture of sand and farm yard manure in the proportion of 2:1 by volume which was mixed well with bacterial culture (108 CFU ml−1). The chemical characters of soil are presented in Table 1 and temperature range and relative humidity range (Figure 1) by [26]. Each pot was planted with 20 seeds and pots were irrigated once every 5 days in average with saline solution or tap water (control). To estimate salinity concentrations with bacterial strains effects on seed germination and seedling growth of six bread wheat cultivars a randomized complete block design was used with a factorial arrangement of treatments (cultivars and salinity levels with bacterial strains) with four replicates.

    Germination percentage, the data on germination was taken at 10 and 15 days after sowing and the relative percentage of germination was calculated from the following equation number of germinated Seeds / Total number of seeds ×00. After 60 days the shoot length (cm), root length (cm) were recorded and the shoot and root dry weights of five plants were taken after drying the samples from each genotype in each treatment in electric oven for 72 h at 70 °C. Root / shoot ratio: This ratio was calculated for weights by dividing root values by shoots. Chlorophyll SPAD value: SPAD values (The SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter) (Minolta Co., Ltd., Japan), a portable, self-calibrating, convenient, and nondestructive device which can be used for measuring the amount of chlorophyll present in plant leaves at the flowering stage [27]. Peroxidase (POD) activity was assayed by taking samples from leaves (0.5 g) of five plants in each treatment for each variety. POD activity was determined as described by [28]. One unit of POD activity was defined as an absorbance change of mg fresh weight per min. Changes in absorbance of the reaction solution were determined at 470 nm every 30 sec. K+ and Na+ (mg/g) were measured using standard flame photometer procedure [29]. The ratio K+/Na+ was calculated.

    Table 1.  Chemical properties of the experimental soil.
    CaCO3 % pH Cations meq/L
    Anions meq/L
    Ca+ Mg+ Na+ K+ Cl So42− HCO3
    0.52 7.15 5.1 3.6 19.4 0.70 15 8.1 2.1

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  Average temperature range and relative humidity range during experimental planting period.

    Data were arranged and statically observed through two-ways of analysis of variance (ANOVA) [30]. Treatments mean variation under different salinity treatments were observed by using least significant difference (LSD) at the 0.05 level of significance.

    Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variability, heritability in broad sense and genetic advance (GA) were determined by the formula given by [31]. Computer program software TNAUSTAT-Statistical package was used for estimating genetic parameters [32].

    where,

    σ2p = phenotypic variance

    σ2g = genotypic variance

    x = grand mean of a character.

    Estimation of heritability in broad sense: Broad sense heritability (h 2) expressed as the percentage 154 of the ratio of the genotypic variance (σ2 g) to the phenotypic variance (σ2p) and was estimated on 155 genotype mean basis as described by[33] as:

    where,

    h 2 B = Heritability in Broad sense

    σ2p = phenotypic variance.

    σ2g = genotypic variance.

    Estimation of genetic advance: Genetic advance (GA) and percent of the mean (GAM), assuming selection of superior 5% of the genotypes was estimated in accordance with the methods illustrated 164 by [34] as:

    where,

    GA = expected genetic advance

    k = the standardized selection differential at 5% selection intensity (K = 2.063)

    σ2p = phenotypic variance

    σ2g = genotypic variance.

    The four strains were tested in vitro for abiotic stress at elevated salt concentration (1–10%). The results revealed that the four strains could be able to tolerate salinity levels up to 3% NaCl while the strains Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 grow on NA media supplemented with 6% NaCl.

    These selected strains were screened in vitro to their ability to produce IAA, nitrogen fixation, and ACC deaminase activity. The results of four strains showed different PGP traits. All tested strains were able to synthesize IAA in the absence of L-tryptophan. Out of the 4 strains, Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 produced ACC deaminase. Only strain Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC14160 could produce ammonia as evidenced by clear blue coloration. Furthermore, it has nifH gene amplification, producing an amplified fragment of about 360 bp (Figure 2). Amplifications of acds gene was observed (1kb) in both strains (Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308) which confirmed the presence of acds gene (Figure 2).Results disagree with research, which confirmed the inability of Pseudomonas spp. to fix nitrogen [35][37]. However, Results agree with research has confirmed that Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 have the capability to fix nitrogen. Pseudomonas have been widely reported as NFB of nonlegumes [38],[39]. Previous studies have shown that plant growth promoting bacteria are able to not only fix nitrogen but also produce IAA and ACC deaminase [40],[41].

    Bacterial swimming and swarming motility has been shown quantitatively. After 48h incubation, the four strains showed positivity for swimming motility. Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 showed the greatest swimming motility 58 mm while Serratia liquefaciens ATCC 27592 showed the least swimming motility 33 mm. All the strains showed positivity for swarming motility except Serratia liquefaciens ATCC 27592. Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 showed the least swarming motility with swarm diameter up to 23 mm. On the other hand, Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 exhibited greater swarming motility 48 mm as compared with the other strains (Table 2).

    Figure 2.  Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 positive for nifH gene amplification (A) while Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 strains showed the amplification of acdS gene fragment (B) in Agarose gel photograph.
    Table 2.  Results of swimming and swarming motilities of bacterial strains.
    Bacterial strains Swimming motility Swarming motility
    Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 58 48
    Serratia liquefaciens ATCC 27592 33 -
    Bacillus subtilis SBMP4 55 42
    Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308 49 23

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Analysis of variance was carried out for all morphological and physiological characters as illustrated in Table 3. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between treatments (salinity levels and bacterial strains), genotypes and their interaction between genotypes × treatments for all the characters except shoot dry weight, root dry weight and root/shoot ratio at significant level p < 0.05.

    Mean performance for morphological and physiological characters for all genotypes under salinity and bacterial strain are given in Tables 35 and 6. All characters of the studied genotypes were affected by salinity stress; increasing salinity levels caused reduction in the mean performance for all traits except the activity of peroxidase enzyme (POD).

    Germination percentage trait is considered the first indicator for screening and differentiates between tolerance and sensitive genotype. Studying wheat genotypes showed difference responses for control, 3000 ppm and 5000 ppm treatments. Results showed that high levels of salinity caused decreasing in germination percent reach to 30% at 5000 ppm. While Sakha93 and line 432 have the highest mean values under all saline and non-saline conditions. These results accepted with [42] revealed to gradual reduction in germination percent and inhibition of seedling growth in studied cultivars of wheat related with increasing of salinity concentrations. The bacterial strains B1 and B2 treatments gave increasing in mean values for all genotypes compared with their corresponding and Sakha93 had the maximum value (89.56) followed by line 432 (87.47) under normal and salinity stress conditions (Table 4). Fluorescent pseudomonad strains that possess ACC deaminase activity have the selective advantage over other bacteria during biotic [43] and abiotic stress conditions [44],[45] which have positive effect on embryo germination.

    Mean values of shoot and root length are presented in Table (4) indicated that shoot length (SL) of various genotypes under different treatments ranged from 24.53 (cm) for line 404 to 27.35 (cm) for Sakha 93 genotype. Increasing salinity levels decreased shoot length significantly than control; plant uses this shorting mechanism to keep the highest amount of water in its tissues and decreasing the transpiration process. However, the genotypes were treated with the bacterial strains B1 and B2 gave the highest values for shoot length compared with their corresponding under different salinity levels. According to root length, early and rapid elongation of root is important indication of salinity tolerance. In the present investigation, the root length also significantly declined with increased external salinity concentration (Table 4) and consequently, all treatments caused a decreasing in root elongation in all genotypes compared to their controls. These results agreement with [46], [47]. The genotypes with the bacterial strains B1 and B2 gave the highest values for root length compared with their corresponding under different salinity levels. In all the stress conditions the mean root length for all genotypes varied from 12.72 cm (line 404) to 14.10 cm (Sakha93). Previous studies have shown the ability of PGPR had to generate IAA has been related to improve wheat growth under saline conditions [48],[49] and it is similar to previous data was recorded by several workers who confirmed that inoculation with PGPR (Pseudomonas and Bacillus) to wheat improved plant production, yield, and physiological attributes [50],[51]. Our results agreement with [52],[53] who found that Bacteria containing ACC deaminase activity would act to reduce the level of stress ethylene and thus could resistance to various stresses and insignificant improvement in plant growth characters was observed in Ps. Fluorescens strain TDK1 possessing ACC deaminase treatment against saline stress. The use of PGPR with nitrogen fixing capability is considered a good strategy for boosting salt-sensitive plant growth [54].

    Salinity has negative effect on weight of plants, which cause many difficult of water and nutrients absorption from soil subsequently delayed in growth and decreasing in rate of cell divisions [55]. Some studied genotypes showed high effect with sever salinity level reached to 60% like line 404 and line 356 for root dry weight while Sakha93 and line 380 have slight effect with sever condition (Table 4). B1 and B2 caused reduction of salinity effects and increase dry weight for some studied lines of wheat this increasing reach to 20% over plants of control condition in Sakha93 and 10–15% in other studied lines (Table 5). Using of plant growth-promoting fluorescent pseudomonads which decrease the damage to plants that occurs under saline stress conditions is a potentially important adjuvant to agricultural practice in locales where salinity is a major constraint [56].

    Table 3.  Analysis of variance for the studied traits in six wheat genotypes in response to water salinity stress.
    Source D.F Ger.% Shoot length Root length Shoot dry Root dry weight Root/shoot ratio Chlorophyll POD activity Na K K/Na
    Varieties (V) 5 ** ** ** Ns Ns Ns ** ** ** ** **
    Treatments(T) 8 ** ** ** Ns Ns ** ** ** ** ** **
    V×T 40 ** * Ns Ns Ns Ns ** ** ** ** **

    NS = not significant *=significant **= highly significant

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Effect of inoculation with two bacterial strains, Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308, on germination%, shoot and root length (cm) in six wheat genotypes under different salinity levels.
    Germination%
    Line 404 Line 356 Line 420 Line 432 Sakha 93 Line 380 Mean
    Con Control 93.87 ± 1.73 90.73 ± 1.2 90.73 ± 1.2 98.00 ± 2.1 96.00 ± 1.2 90.73 ± 1.2 93.34
    B1 95.00 ± 0.75 98.04 ± 0.75 98.04 ± 0.75 96.56 ± 1.84 98.04 ± 0.75 98.04 ± 1.75 97.29
    B2 98.04 ± 1.8 93.87 ± 0.99 93.87 ± 0.86 96.81 ± 2.06 96.00 ± 0.89 93.87 ± 1.8 95.41
    3000 Control 84.48 ± 0.5 84.48 ± 0.60 84.48 ± 0.45 84.48 ± 0.63 87.26 ± 0.98 84.48 ± 1.80 84.94
    B1 90.37 ± 1.14 90.37 ± 1.14 90.37 ± 1.14 96.00 ± 1.73 90.73 ± 1.14 90.37 ± 1.14 91.37
    B2 87.26 ± 0.68 87.26 ± 0.68 87.26 ± 0.68 87.26 ± 0.68 90.37 ± 0.68 87.26 ± 1.68 87.78
    5000 Control 65.00 ± 1.6 65.00 ± 0.67 76.22 ± 1.7 65.00 ± 1.4 81.67 ± 1.4 65.00 ± 1.9 69.65
    B1 81.48 ± 2.56 81.48 ± 2.56 77.03 ± 1.93 81.48 ± 2.56 84.48 ± 2.56 81.48 ± 2.565 81.24
    B2 81.67 ± 1.53 81.67 ± 1.53 68.69 ± 1.28 81.67 ± 1.53 81.48 ± 1.53 81.67 ± 1.5 79.48
    Mean 86.35 85.88 85.19 87.47 89.56 85.88
    L.S.D 0.05 V= 1.13 T= 2.16 V×T=340
    Short length
    Con Control 28.70 ± 1 27.83 ± 0.58 28.83 ± 1.7 28.50 ± 1.4 30.50 ± 1.47 28.43 ± 1.15 28.80
    B1 29.34 ± 1.53 28.83 ± 1.12 29.50 ± 1.53 29.17 ± 2.08 33.83 ± 1.56 30.17 ± 1.73 30.14
    B2 28.17 ± 1.4 28.50 ± 1.53 28.83 ± 3.36 28.50 ± 1.53 31.34 ± 1.76 28.86 ± 1.53 29.03
    3000 Control 24.50 ± 3.06 22.23 ± 2.65 23.83 ± 0.58 22.50 ± 0.56 26.83 ± 1.12 23.50 ± 3.2 23.90
    B1 27.50 ± 2.28 27.50 ± 3.51 27.88 ± 0.84 27.83 ± 1.3 29.33 ± 1.56 28.10 ± 1.58 28.02
    B2 26.83 ± 2.16 27.17 ± 2.8 26.90 ± 1.53 27.83 ± 1.56 28.17 ± 2 27.70 ± 1.78 27.43
    5000 Control 14.07 ± 2 16.17 ± 1.48 15.83 ± 1.2 16.83 ± 2 18.17 ± 1.24 17.50 ± 1.6 16.43
    B1 21.50 ± 2.4 22.83 ± 1.53 21.51 ± 0.98 22.90 ± 1.5 24.50 ± 1.52 21.83 ± 2.01 22.51
    B2 20.17 ± 0.91 22.20 ± 0.63 20.39 ± 1.5 22.50 ± 2.08 23.50 ± 1.57 20.77 ± 2.77 21.59
    Mean 24.53 24.81 24.83 25.17 27.35 25.21
    L.S.D 0.05 V= 1.12 T= 1.15 V×T=1.39
    Root length
    Con Control 14.67 ± 1.4 15.33 ± 0.68 15.60 ± 1.18 16.30 ± 1.2 16.33 ± 1.6 15.00 ± 1.15 15.54
    B1 16.60 ± 1.72 16.30 ± 1.1 17.10 ± 1.70 17.00 ± 1.53 17.67 ± 1.14 17.33 ± 1.73 17.00
    B2 15.50 ± 1.56 16.00 ± 0.88 16.40 ± 2.36 16.50 ± 1.50 16.00 ± 1.21 15.33 ± 1.53 15.96
    3000 Control 11.33 ± 3.06 11.20 ± 2.65 12.30 ± 0.81 12.00 ± 1.5 13.50 ± 1 13.00 ± 3.21 12.22
    B1 14.20 ± 2.16 14.20 ± 3 15.00 ± 0.84 15.37 ± 1.15 15.50 ± 0.58 14.50 ± 1.53 14.80
    B2 13.60 ± 2.28 13.90 ± 2.52 14.80 ± 1.53 15.20 ± 2 15.00 ± 2 13.70 ± 1.80 14.37
    5000 Control 7.60 ± 2 8.33 ± 1.53 8.80 ± 1.20 8.45 ± 1.3 9.60 ± 1.4 9.20 ± 1.58 8.66
    B1 10.67 ± 2.1 10.90 ± 1.53 11.80 ± 1.35 11.40 ± 1.53 11.67 ± 1.58 11.33 ± 2.77 11.30
    B2 10.33 ± 1.9 10.50 ± 3.06 10.89 ± 1.8 11.00 ± 1.53 11.60 ± 2.65 11.10 ± 2 10.90
    Mean 12.72 12.96 13.63 13.69 14.10 13.39
    L.S.D 0.05 V= 1.14 T= 1.17 V×T=2.43

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Effect of inoculation with two bacterial strains, Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308, on Shoot dry weight (g), Root Dry weight (g) and Root/ shoot Dry weight in six wheat genotypes under different salinity levels.
    Shoot dry weight
    Line 404 Line 356 Line 420 Line 432 Sakha Line 380 mean
    Con Control 0.213 ± 0.01 0.200 ± 0.16 0.212 ± 0.20 0.200 ± 0.01 0.221 ± 0.02 0.210 ± 0.01 0.209
    B1 0.225 ± 0.02 0.214 ± 0.20 0.220 ± 0.24 0.210 ± 0.01 0.270 ± 0.02 0.230 ± 0.02 0.228
    B2 0.217 ± 0.01 0.210 ± 0.17 0.250 ± 0.20 0.210 ± 0.02 0.249 ± 0.01 0.223 ± 0.02 0.227
    3000 Control 0.155 ± 0.22 0.147 ± 0.21 0.150 ± 0.22 0.140 ± 0.01 0.199 ± 0.01 0.174 ± 0.04 0.161
    B1 0.213 ± 0.20 0.189 ± 0.19 0.200 ± 0.14 0.200 ± 0.01 0.210 ± 0.01 0.200 ± 0.02 0.202
    B2 0.200 ± 0.19 0.180 ± 0.20 0.182 ± 0.18 0.180 ± 0.01 0.191 ± 0.02 0.188 ± 0.01 0.187
    5000 Control 0.112 ± 0.21 0.108 ± 0.24 0.111 ± 0.14 0.106 ± 0.02 0.137 ± 0.02 0.120 ± 0.01 0.116
    B1 0.19 ± 0.20 0.144 ± 0.17 0.146 ± 0.19 0.134 ± 0.01 0.190 ± 0.01 0.170 ± 0.03 0.156
    B2 0.147 ± 0.20 0.141 ± 0.16 0.144 ± 0.15 0.133 ± 0.02 0.177 ± 0.03 0.169 ± 0.02 0.152
    Mean 0.181 0.17 0.179 0.168 0.205 0.187
    L.S.D 0.05 V= 0.015 T=0.019 V×T=0.046
    Root Dry weight
    Con Control 0.145 ± 0.01 0.140 ± 0.01 0.148 ± 0.04 0.137 ± 0.01 0.162 ± 0.01 0.156 ± 0.01 0.148
    B1 0.156 ± 0.02 0.131 ± 0.01 0.159 ± 0.01 0.150 ± 0.01 0.190 ± 0.01 0.166 ± 0.02 0.159
    B2 0.150 ± 0.01 0.129 ± 0.01 0.150 ± 0.01 0.143 ± 0.01 0.171 ± 0.01 0.159 ± 0.01 0.150
    3000 Control 0.106 ± 0.03 0.092 ± 0.02 0.110 ± 0.01 0.100 ± 0.01 0.130 ± 0.01 0.116 ± 0.01 0.109
    B1 0.141 ± 0.01 0.136 ± 0.03 0.143 ± 0.01 0.134 ± 0.01 0.157 ± 0.01 0.151 ± 0.01 0.144
    B2 0.137 ± 0.01 0.134 ± 0.02 0.136 ± 0.01 0.133 ± 0.02 0.148 ± 0.02 0.142 ± 0.01 0.138
    5000 Control 0.072 ± 0.02 0.065 ± 0.01 0.080 ± 0.01 0.074 ± 0.01 0.091 ± 0.01 0.081 ± 0.01 0.077
    B1 0.104 ± 0.02 0.078 ± 0.01 0.109 ± 0.01 0.100 ± 0.01 0.116 ± 0.01 0.100 ± 0.03 0.101
    B2 0.101 ± 0.01 0.074 ± 0.03 0.102 ± 0.01 0.090 ± 0.01 0.110 ± 0.02 0.091 ± 0.02 0.095
    Mean 0.124 0.109 0.126 0.118 0.142 0.129
    L.S.D 0.05 V= 0.03 T= 0.04 V×T=0.09
    Con Control 0.68 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.01 0.76 ± 0.01 0.71 ± 0.02 0.68 ± 0.02 0.70
    B1 0.67 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.01 0.71 ± 0.02 0.57 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.02 0.60
    B2 0.68 ± 0.01 0.63 ± 0.01 0.68 ± 0.04 0.67 ± 0.02 0.70 ± 0.01 0.67 ± 0.01 0.67
    3000 Control 0.59 ± 0.02 0.71 ± 0.03 0.68 ± 0.01 0.92 ± 0.01 0.71 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.03 0.71
    B1 0.62 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.03 0.64 ± 0.01 0.50 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.01 0.63
    B2 0.68 ± 0.01 0.63 ± 0.03 0.67 ± 0.02 0.60 ± 0.01 0.67 ± 0.02 0.70 ± 0.01 0.66
    5000 Control 0.71 ± 0.02 0.71 ± 0.01 0.57 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.01 0.68 ± 0.02 0.60 ± 0.01 0.60
    B1 0.65 ± 0.01 0.68 ± 0.01 0.68 ± 0.01 0.63 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.01 0.67 ± 0.03 0.67
    B2 0.70 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.03 0.60 ± 0.01 0.64 ± 0.02 0.69 ± 0.03 0.67 ± 0.02 0.67
    Mean 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.63 0.66 0.66
    L.S.D 0.05 V = 0.75 T = 0.92 V×T = 2.244

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Chlorophyll is one of the most important chloroplast components for photosynthesis, because it harvests the light and produces reducing powers; however, Chlorophyll is susceptible to salt stress and may affect plant yield and quality. The previous research found a significant positive relationship between SPAD values and the grain yield under salinity stress [57],[58]. Results showed sever reduction in chlorophyll content for all studied genotypes of wheat under salinity stress (Table 6). Sakha93 showed the lowest reduction followed by line 404 and line 420. The inhibitory effects of salt stress on chlorophyll pigments could be due to suppression of specific enzymes responsible for the synthesis of the green pigments, or due to increased chlorophyllase activity in wheat mustard respectably [59][61]. In this research B1 and B2 treatments showed induction effect by enhancement enzymes of photosynthesis in plants of wheat. Tolerant genotypes had minimum reduction in chlorophyll content as compared to susceptible cultivars and the cumulative effect of these changes lead to amelioration of salinity stress tolerance in them [62]. High salinity decreased net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance whereas salt-sensitive cultivars had the lowest net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance [63].

    Table 6.  Effect of inoculation with two bacterial strains, Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308, on Chlorophyll and POD activity in six wheat genotypes under different salinity levels.
    Chlorophyll
    Line 404 Line 356 Line 420 Line 432 Sakha Line 380 Mean
    Con Control 61.97 ± 5.65 57.6 ± 3.27 62.23 ± 2.47 60.69 ± 2.15 65.1 ± 4.77 60.98 ± 5.06 61.43
    B1 63.57 ± 5.44 58.3 ± 4.50 63.52 ± 2.03 63.5 ± 3 70.1 ± 3.20 64.27 ± 4.84 63.88
    B2 61.63 ± 2.49 57.83 ± 2.05 63.18 ± 4.64 62.23 ± 3.25 67.23 ± 3.48 61.01 ± 3.86 62.19
    3000 Control 53.83 ± 2.86 50.43 ± 6.39 51.22 ± 3.77 50.21 ± 3.12 54 ± 1.52 49.63 ± 2.39 51.55
    B1 59.5 ± 2.02 55.57 ± 3.58 59.23 ± 2.92 58.73 ± 3.89 63.87 ± 2.78 59.39 ± 2.75 59.38
    B2 59.1 ± 1.76 54.95 ± 5.44 57.22 ± 3.17 57.7 ± 4.20 61.67 ± 4.07 55.7 ± 2.14 57.72
    5000 Control 44.5 ± 1.5 36.72 ± 4.70 39.1 ± 1.38 37.74 ± 1.98 46.5 ± 3.47 39.73 ± 2.05 40.72
    B1 55.37 ± 5.83 49.76 ± 1.22 50.55 ± 1.71 51 ± 3.50 52.63 ± 2.75 49.5 ± 3.55 51.47
    B2 55.3 ± 4.90 47.06 ± 2.02 49.64 ± 1.41 48.86 ± 1.50 56.7 ± 2.67 49.49 ± 4.77 51.18
    Mean 57.2 52.02 55.1 54.52 59.76 54.41
    L.S.D 0.05 V = 1.13 T = 2.16 V×T=2.42
    POD activity
    Con Control 45.41 ± 0.33 32.98 ± 0.42 35.95 ± 0.52 46.43 ± 1.74 44.14 ± 0.51 44.96 ± 1.99 41.64
    B1 36.33 ± 0.15 24.79 ± 0.88 32.81 ± 0.64 32.72 ± 1.25 32.81 ± 0.25 45.06 ± 1.80 34.08
    B2 40.38 ± 1.03 32.41 ± 0.90 34.49 ± 0.84 39.13 ± 2.86 42.96 ± 0.84 49.68 ± 1.39 39.84
    3000 Control 56.07 ± 1.93 40.82 ± 0.11 61.45 ± 0.57 57.81 ± 1.26 53.83 ± 0.13 60.26 ± 0.75 55.04
    B1 50.05 ± 1.63 34.47 ± 0.70 41.29 ± 1.54 52.25 ± 0.84 51.02 ± 0.77 51.19 ± 0.62 46.71
    B2 52.9 ± 1.16 36.92 ± 0.81 54.87 ± 1.08 53.36 ± 0.64 52.88 ± 0.18 53.95 ± 0.93 50.81
    5000 Control 64.36 ± 1.83 53.82 ± 1.64 73.06 ± 0.74 67.77 ± 1.86 69.49 ± 0.38 73.06 ± 0.74 66.93
    B1 60.69 ± 0.93 44.78 ± 1.14 62.38 ± 0.58 62.14 ± 1.05 62.59 ± 0.40 64.61 ± 1.02 59.53
    B2 62.07 ± 1.03 48.5 ± 1.85 68.58 ± 1.5 63.89 ± 1.28 64.78 ± 0.64 68.58 ± 1.5 62.73
    Mean 52.03 38.83 51.65 52.83 52.72 56.81
    L.S.D 0.05 V = 1.23 T = 1.50 V×T = 3.45

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  Effect of inoculation with two bacterial strains, Pseudomonas fluorescens NBRC 14160 and Bacillus megaterium NBRC 15308, on Na (mg g−1 DW), K (mg g−1 DW) and K/Na in six wheat genotypes under different salinity levels.
    Na (mg g−1 DW)
    Line 404 Line 356 Line 420 Line 432 Sakha Line 380 Mean
    Con Control 47.57 ± 1.23 46.51 ± 1.36 46.45 ± 5.41 46.01 ± 1.75 49.17 ± 1.79 49.38 ± 3.14 47.52
    B1 40.12 ± 2.12 43.73 ± 2.50 43.50 ± 5.18 43.30 ± 2.14 42.12 ± 1.95 41.12 ± 2.26 42.32
    B2 41.30 ± 1.27 44.93 ± 1.93 44.99 ± 6 45.18 ± 1.30 45.47 ± 1.51 43.61 ± 2.58 44.25
    3000 Control 66.77 ± 5.20 65.00 ± 1.5 69.52 ± 5.69 65.43 ± 1.52 65.17 ± 1.24 70.92 ± 3.46 67.14
    B1 57.87 ± 4.01 58.23 ± 2.90 63.04 ± 5.22 56.30 ± 2.54 63.13 ± 1.43 61.65 ± 4.73 60.04
    B2 64.00 ± 5.49 63.24 ± 3.59 63.90 ± 4.27 58.23 ± 1.35 63.93 ± 1.69 70.35 ± 3.31 63.94
    5000 Control 77.20 ± 4.06 74.38 ± 3.14 77.90 ± 1.22 74.47 ± 1.80 72.13 ± 1.77 80.46 ± 5.33 76.09
    B1 73.43 ± 3.50 72.34 ± 3.50 73.12 ± 1.92 69.93 ± 1.32 70.94 ± 1.32 76.73 ± 5.26 72.75
    B2 74.13 ± 1.27 73.38 ± 3.14 76.26 ± 1.86 70.27 ± 1.68 71.27 ± 1.59 76.82 ± 5.01 73.69
    Mean 60.27 60.19 62.08 58.79 60.37 63.45
    L.S.D 0.05 V = 0.13 T = 0.16 V × T = 1.40
    K (mg g−1 DW)
    Con Control 40.60 ± 0.71 40.37 ± 1.15 43.36 ± 3.52 42.63 ± 2.24 46.63 ± 2.11 47.10 ± 2.20 43.45
    B1 40.57 ± 0.40 39.78 ± 1.5 41.90 ± 2.27 38.80 ± 3.75 39.70 ± 1.27 39.75 ± 2.04 40.08
    B2 39.84 ± 0.81 41.42 ± 1.84 41.16 ± 2.39 42.23 ± 1.94 42.84 ± 1.80 42.14 ± 2.37 41.60
    3000 Control 56.00 ± 1.49 54.46 ± 1.63 44.80 ± 2.99 33.20 ± 1.15 57.79 ± 1.31 48.73 ± 1.46 49.16
    B1 46.73 ± 1.25 51.96 ± 1.46 41.17 ± 1.44 40.37 ± 1.46 60.85 ± 3.30 48.03 ± 1.17 48.19
    B2 53.39 ± 1.10 53.62 ± 1.64 43.50 ± 2.84 40.00 ± 1.53 54.27 ± 1.64 47.95 ± 2.30 48.79
    5000 Control 47.27 ± 0.32 57.46 ± 2.89 41.50 ± 1.05 44.30 ± 1.57 62.05 ± 1.37 49.49 ± 2.31 50.35
    B1 53.91 ± 0.90 53.43 ± 1.78 42.40 ± 1.11 41.44 ± 1.54 57.24 ± 1.66 48.52 ± 3.29 49.49
    B2 40.90 ± 0.95 55.01 ± 2.27 52.28 ± 1.68 43.77 ± 1.57 61.06 ± 1.68 49.38 ± 2.35 50.40
    Mean 46.58 49.72 43.56 40.75 53.60 46.79
    L.S.D 0.05 V = 2.12 T = 2.15 V × T = 1.38
    Con Control 0.850 ± 0.97 0.870 ± 0.76 0.930 ± 2.46 0.930 ± 3.5 0.950 ± 1.95 0.950 ± 2.17 0.910
    B1 1.010 ± 2.76 0.910 ± 1.5 0.960 ± 2.22 0.900 ± 2.95 0.940 ± 1.11 0.970 ± 3.15 0.950
    B2 0.960 ± 1.04 0.920 ± 1.39 0.910 ± 2.69 0.930 ± 1.62 0.940 ± 0.66 0.970 ± 2.47 0.940
    3000 Control 0.840 ± 3.25 0.840 ± 1.06 0.640 ± 2.34 0.510 ± 0.84 0.890 ± 0.77 0.690 ± 2.96 0.730
    B1 0.730 ± 3.62 0.820 ± 1.2 0.640 ± 2.33 0.690 ± 0.44 0.950 ± 2.37 0.680 ± 2.95 0.750
    B2 0.920 ± 3.29 0.920 ± 2.12 0.690 ± 2.55 0.710 ± 0.50 0.860 ± 1.17 0.780 ± 2.80 0.810
    5000 Control 0.610 ± 2.19 0.770 ± 1.02 0.530 ± 1.13 0.590 ± 1.19 0.860 ± 1.57 0.620 ± 2.32 0.660
    B1 0.730 ± 2.20 0.740 ± 2.69 0.580 ± 1.02 0.590 ± 1.43 0.810 ± 1.49 0.630 ± 2.28 0.680
    B2 0.550 ± 1.11 0.750 ± 2.71 0.690 ± 1.77 0.620 ± 1.13 0.860 ± 1.13 0.640 ± 2.68 0.680
    Mean 0.800 0.840 0.730 0.720 0.900 0.770
    L.S.D 0.05 V = 0.02 T = 0.03 V × T = 0.07

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Peroxidase activity (POD) enzyme is an important physiological repair mechanisms or process in living cells, which eliminate or scavenging the reactive oxygen species (ROS). The sources of these ROS from secondary metabolism process and from some types of stress like salinity. ROS destroy the vital component in living cell like proteins membranes and DNA [64],[65]. Results showed (Table 6) increasing in POD activity values by increasing the levels of salinity and the response of lines are differed; line 380 has high mean value while the lowest mean value showed in line 356. Indicated that line 380 have more ability to salinity tolerance. This finding agree with [66][68] who found increasing in activity of peroxidase under salinity treatments in tolerant cultivars. Using B1 and B2 treatments caused decreasing in POD activity especially line 356.

    These elements are very important for plant life and production. Na element activates several metabolic processes in plant and the excess amount can cause toxicity in plant cell. The tolerant genotype has low content of Na; Sakha93 cultivars and line 432 showed the lowest mean values of Na content under all treatments. B1 and B2 treatments caused reduction in mean values of Na content comparing with control plants (Table 7). Sakha93 and line 356 showed increasing of potassium content with increasing the levels of salinity and they have the high mean value over other studied lines which are considered more tolerant plants (Table 7). Using B1 and B2 treatments caused decreasing in potassium content under saline and non-saline conditions (Table 7). Potassium element considered transporter in plant cell and activator for many enzymes. The deficiency of this element caused plant day and considerable reduction in quality and quantity of yield. K/Na ratio trait; Sakha93 showed high percent under most treatments followed by Line 356 while Line 432 and line 420 were showed the lowest values. The using B1 and B2 treatments caused increasing in K/Na ratio. These results agree with [47] showed that concentration of Na+ was increased with increasing concentration of salinity and mineral ion concentration including K+ in the leaves gradually decreased by increasing salinity levels to reach their lowest values at the greatest level of salinity. The inoculation by B. subtilis strain GB03 decreased gradually Na accumulation in bread wheat with improved K /Na ratio [69].

    Some genetic parameters are estimated in this study; phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variability, heritability in broad sense and genetic advance; PCV, GCV, h2 and GA respectively for some growth and physiological traits of wheat were presented in Table 8. Results showed that values of PCV were higher than GCV values for studied traits illustrate the role of environmental factors on these traits. Salinity stress was compared with normal condition which showed increasing in values of heritability. Germination percent, shoot length and potassium content traits had high values of heritability and genetic advance so these traits might use in selection of plant breeding programs for salinity tolerance. These Finding accepted with [70] in wheat under saline condition. Bacterial treatments comparing with normal condition showed low values of genetic parameters such as germination percent, root length and potassium content; but when it accompanied with salinity treatment caused increasing in values of genetic parameters for most traits.

    Table 8.  Genetic parameters: phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variability (PCV and GCV), heritability in broad sense (h2) and genetic advance (GA) for growth and physiological traits under normal and stress conditions.
    Traits Genetic parameters Con Con + B1 Con + B2 Stress con Stress + B1 Stress + B2
    Ger% PCV 3.4 1.35 1.93 10.61 2.95 6.58
    GCV 3.36 1.26 1.88 10.61 2.95 6.56
    h2 98.17 87.27 94.59 98.97 99.84 97.57
    GA 6.41 2.37 3.59 15.27 4.95 10.73
    Shoot length PCV 3.44 6.35 4.09 8.39 6.09 6.37
    GCV 2.99 6.14 4 8.35 5.58 6.35
    h2 75.52 93.42 95.6 96.19 90.91 93.61
    GA 1.54 3.69 2.34 2.85 0.03 2.86
    Root length PCV 4.84 3.62 3.72 7.45 35.12 3.97
    GCV 3.92 2.46 2.1 7.4 34.19 3.77
    h2 65.49 46.04 31.72 93.63 94.79 90.03
    GA 1.02 0.59 0.39 1.34 1.63 0.82
    Chl. Spad PCV 4.01 5.9 4.97 9.43 4.77 7.46
    GCV 3.95 5.86 4.92 9.42 3.78 7.45
    h2 96.74 98.6 97.88 97.84 63 99.82
    GA 4.91 7.66 6.24 7.95 3.19 7.89
    Na content PCV 3.27 3.95 3.59 3.61 2.52 3.49
    GCV 3.22 3.91 3.52 3.61 2.5 3.49
    h2 96.51 98.15 96.56 95.67 98.42 99.79
    GA 4.74 6.08 5.26 3.16 2.44 3.19
    K content PCV 6.74 2.75 2.71 18.54 13.11 12.3
    GCV 6.66 2.53 2.51 18.54 13.11 12.3
    h2 97.84 84.82 85.56 92.99 99.98 98.98
    GA 5.91 1.93 1.99 18.87 13.43 12.42

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The present study illustrates the Four PGPR strains possess some growth promoting .The selected strains were used to study their reflection in vivo on their ability to reduce the negative effects of high salinity on wheat plants growth. The production of ACC deaminase and other PGP traits by these strains improve plant growth under both non-saline and saline soils. In the future the selected PGPR strains could be used commercially to increase the productivity of wheat and other crops under saline conditions.

    [1] FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2014. Available from: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/QC/E.
    [2] Kim S, Dale BE (2004) Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenerg 26: 361-375. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.002
    [3] Padgitt M, Newton D, Penn R, et al. (2013). Production Practices for Major Crops in U.S. Agriculture, 1990-97, USDA Economic Research Service. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb-statistical-bulletin/sb969.aspx#.U7rDCrH5eYc.
    [4] Drapcho CM, Nghiem NP, Walker TH (2008) Biofuels Engineering Process Technology, New York: McGraw-Hill, 69-103.
    [5] Saha BC, Iten LB, Cotta MA, et al. (2005) Dilute acid pretreatment, enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of wheat straw to ethanol. Process Biochem 40: 3693-3700. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.04.006
    [6] Saha BC, Cotta MA (2006) Ethanol production from alkaline peroxide pretreated enzymatically saccharified wheat straw. Biotechnol Prog 22: 449-453. doi: 10.1021/bp050310r
    [7] Ballesteros I, Negro MJ, Oliva JM, et al. (2006) Ethanol production from steam-exploded wheat straw. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 130: 496-508. doi: 10.1385/ABAB:130:1:496
    [8] Hongzhang C, Liying L (2007) Unpolluted fractionation of wheat straw by steam explosion and ethanol extraction. Bioresource Technol 98: 666-676. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.029
    [9] Zhu S, Wu Y, Yu Z, et al. (2006) Production of ethanol from microwave-assisted alkali pretreated wheat straw. Process Biochem 41: 869-873. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.10.024
    [10] Klinke HB, Olsson L, Thomsen AB, et al. (2003) Potential inhibitors from wet oxidation of wheat straw and their effect on ethanol production of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Wet oxidation and fermentation by yeast. Biotechnol Bioeng 81: 738-747. doi: 10.1002/bit.10523
    [11] Kim TH, Taylor F, Hicks KB (2008) Bioethanol production from barley hull using SAA (soaking in aqueous ammonia) pretreatment. Bioresource Technol 99: 5694-5702. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.055
    [12] Nghiem NP, Kim TH, Yoo GC, et al. (2013) Enzymatic fractionation of pretreated barley straw for production of fuel ethanol and astaxanthin as a value-added co-product. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 171: 341-351. doi: 10.1007/s12010-013-0374-0
    [13] Nghiem NP, Kim TH, Hicks KB (2012) Method for improving the bioavailability of polysaccharides in lignocellulosic materials. US Patent 8,202,970.
    [14] Kim TH, Lee YY (2005) Pretreatment of corn stover by soaking in aqueous ammonia. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 124: 1119-1132. doi: 10.1385/ABAB:124:1-3:1119
    [15] Kim TH, Lee YY (2007) Pretreatment of corn stover by soaking in aqueous ammonia at moderate temperatures. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 137: 81-92.
    [16] Leathers TD (2003) Bioconversions of maize residues to value-added coproducts using yeast-like fungi. FEMS Yeast Res 3: 133-140. doi: 10.1016/S1567-1356(03)00003-5
    [17] Todd Lorenz R, Cysewski GR (2000) Commercial potential for Haematococcus microalgae as a natural source of astaxanthin. Trends Biotechnol 18: 160-167. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(00)01433-5
    [18] Guerin M, Huntley ME, Olaizola M (2003) Haematococcus astaxanthin: applications for human health and nutrition. Trends Biotechnol 21: 210-216. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(03)00078-7
    [19] Higuera-Ciapara I, Felix-Valenzuela L, Goycoolea FM (2007) Astaxanthin: A review of its chemistry and applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutrition 46: 185-196.
    [20] Nghiem NP, Montanti J, Johnston DB (2009) Production of astaxanthin from corn fiber as a value-added co-product of fuel ethanol fermentation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 154: 48-58. doi: 10.1007/s12010-008-8399-5
    [21] Prakasham RS, Rao RS, Hobbs PJ (2009) Current trends in biotechnological production of xylitol and future prospects. Curr Trends Biotechnol Pharm 3: 8-36.
    [22] Granström TB, Izumori K, Leisola M (2007) A rare sugar xylitol. Part II: biotechnological production and future applications of xylitol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 74: 273-276.
    [23] Rivas B, Torre P, Dominguez JM, et al. (2009) Maintenance and growth requirements in the metabolism of Debaryomyces hansenii performing xylose-to-xylitol bioconversion in corncob hemicellulose hydrolysate. Biotechnol Bioeng 102: 1062-1073. doi: 10.1002/bit.22155
    [24] Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, et al. (2011) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. Technical report NREL/TP-510-42618. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/42618.pdf
    [25] Yoo GC, Nghiem NP, Hicks KB, et al. (2013) Maximum production of fermentable sugars from barley straw using optimized soaking in aqueous ammonia (SAA) pretreatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 2430-2441. doi: 10.1007/s12010-013-0154-x
    [26] Tochampa W, Sirisansaneeyakul S, Vanichsriratana W, et al. (2005) A model of xylitol production by the yeast Candida mogii. Bioprocess Biosys Eng 28: 175-183. doi: 10.1007/s00449-005-0025-0
    [27] Collura MA, Luyben WL (1988) Energy-saving distillation designs in ethanol production, Ind Eng Chem Res 27: 1686-1696.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Nhuan P. Nghiem, Justin Montanti, Tae Hyun Kim, Pretreatment of Dried Distiller Grains with Solubles by Soaking in Aqueous Ammonia and Subsequent Enzymatic/Dilute Acid Hydrolysis to Produce Fermentable Sugars, 2016, 179, 0273-2289, 237, 10.1007/s12010-016-1990-2
    2. Nhuan P. Nghiem, Gerard E. Senske, Tae Hyun Kim, Pretreatment of Corn Stover by Low Moisture Anhydrous Ammonia (LMAA) in a Pilot-Scale Reactor and Bioconversion to Fuel Ethanol and Industrial Chemicals, 2016, 179, 0273-2289, 111, 10.1007/s12010-016-1982-2
    3. Muhammad Irfan, Umar Asghar, Muhammad Nadeem, Rubina Nelofer, Quratulain Syed, Hafiz Abdullah Shakir, Javed Iqbal Qazi, Statistical Optimization of Saccharification of Alkali Pretreated Wheat Straw for Bioethanol Production, 2016, 7, 1877-2641, 1389, 10.1007/s12649-016-9540-2
    4. W. J. Orts, C. M. McMahan, Biorefinery Developments for Advanced Biofuels from a Sustainable Array of Biomass Feedstocks: Survey of Recent Biomass Conversion Research from Agricultural Research Service, 2016, 9, 1939-1234, 430, 10.1007/s12155-016-9732-4
    5. Csaba Fehér, Novel approaches for biotechnological production and application of L-arabinose, 2018, 37, 0732-8303, 251, 10.1080/07328303.2018.1491049
    6. Qing Jin, Liangcheng Yang, Nicholas Poe, Haibo Huang, Integrated processing of plant-derived waste to produce value-added products based on the biorefinery concept, 2018, 74, 09242244, 119, 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.02.014
    7. Tuan-Dung Hoang, Nhuan Nghiem, Recent Developments and Current Status of Commercial Production of Fuel Ethanol, 2021, 7, 2311-5637, 314, 10.3390/fermentation7040314
    8. Akinola David Olugbemide, Ana Oberlintner, Uroš Novak, Blaž Likozar, Lignocellulosic Corn Stover Biomass Pre-Treatment by Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES) for Biomethane Production Process by Bioresource Anaerobic Digestion, 2021, 13, 2071-1050, 10504, 10.3390/su131910504
    9. Soledad Mateo, Giacomo Fabbrizi, Alberto J. Moya, Lignin from Plant-Based Agro-Industrial Biowastes: From Extraction to Sustainable Applications, 2025, 17, 2073-4360, 952, 10.3390/polym17070952
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2014 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7974) PDF downloads(1331) Cited by(9)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog