Table 3.
Optimal enzyme loadings for enzymatic hydrolysis of four harvests of switchgrass.
| CIR: July | CIR: October | Alamo: July | Alamo: October | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accelerasea | 5.0 | 6.4 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Novozymea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Monomer xylanasea | 5.0 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Monomer pectinasea | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Predicted sugarsb | 523 | 411 | 409 | 557 |
| Actual sugarsc | 521 | 410 | 410 | 445 |
| Sugar yield (%) | 89.0% | 60.9% | 64.0% | 68.9% |
| Glucose yieldc | 321 | 223 | 210 | 237 |
| Xylose yieldc | 200 | 187 | 201 | 208 |
| R2 | 81.3% | 76.5% | 81.5% | 64.9% |
aAll values are in mg enzyme per g dry switchgrass; bmonomeric sugars released (g/kg switchgrass) after 72 h of hydrolysis as predicted by the model; cactual monomeric sugars released (g/kg switchgrass) after 72 h of hydrolysis.
CIR = Cave-in-Rock.