Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 16, 2026.

Bioconversion of lignocellulose: inhibitors and detoxification

Leif J Jönsson, Björn Alriksson, Nils-Olof Nilvebrant

Biotechnology for Biofuels · 2013 · Review

doi:10.1186/1754-6834-6-16

Abstract

Bioconversion of lignocellulose by microbial fermentation is typically preceded by an acidic thermochemical pretreatment step designed to facilitate enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Substances formed during the pretreatment of the lignocellulosic feedstock inhibit enzymatic hydrolysis as well as microbial fermentation steps. This review focuses on inhibitors from lignocellulosic feedstocks and how conditioning of slurries and hydrolysates can be used to alleviate inhibition problems. Novel developments in the area include chemical in-situ detoxification by using reducing agents, and methods that improve the performance of both enzymatic and microbial biocatalysts.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 16, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Background

Lignocellulose provides an abundant renewable resource for production of biofuels, chemicals, and polymers. Biorefineries, in which lignocellulosic biomass is converted to various commodities, are likely to become increasingly important in future society as complement and alternative to the oil refineries of today. Commodities produced from renewable resources offer an alternative to products based on dwindling supplies of petroleum and permit a move towards improved energy security and decreased impact on the environment. Lignocellulosic feedstocks include residues from agriculture and forestry, energy crops, and residues from biorefineries and pulp mills. Lignocellulosic biomass can contribute significantly to the future global energy supply without competition with increasing food demand for existing arable land.

Liquid biofuels include bioalcohols, such as ethanol and butanol, and biodiesel. Ethanol is the most important liquid biofuel of today. Bioalcohols are manufactured in fermentation processes, in which microbial biocatalysts, yeasts or bacteria, convert sugars to alcohols. The ethanol that is used today is mainly manufactured from sugar or starch-based raw materials. However, very large-scale use of bioalcohols in the energy sector will require production from lignocellulosic feedstocks, which have the added benefit that they are not used for food. This review focuses on biocatalyst inhibitors formed during acidic thermochemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks, and how conditioning of slurries and hydrolysates can be used to alleviate inhibition problems connected with hydrolytic enzymes and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Lignocellulose and pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks

Lignocellulosic feedstocks mainly consist of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Cellulose is an unbranched homopolysaccharide consisting of D-glucopyranosyl units. Hemicelluloses are branched heteropolysaccharides consisting of both hexose and pentose sugar residues, which may also carry acetyl groups. The third main component, lignin, consists of phenylpropane units linked together by different types of interunit linkages of which ether bonds are the most common. Lignocellulose polysaccharides are hydrolyzed to provide the monosaccharides used by microbial biocatalysts in fermentation processes. The crystalline parts of the cellulose are more resistant to hydrolysis than are the amorphous parts. Compared to starch, the polysaccharides of lignocellulose are more resistant to hydrolysis. Furthermore, woody biomass is generally more resistant to degradation than other types of lignocellulose. Softwood is typically more difficult to hydrolyze than hardwood or agricultural residues.

Hydrolysis of cellulose can be catalyzed by using strong inorganic acids or hydrolytic enzymes, including cellulases. Acid hydrolysis of cellulose requires severe conditions. Enzymatic hydrolysis is often considered as the most promising approach for the future. Lignocellulosic biomass intended for production of liquid biofuels is typically pretreated in an acidic thermochemical process step to increase the susceptibility of the cellulose to enzymatic hydrolysis. The pretreatment usually degrades the hemicellulose leading to the formation of products such as pentose and hexose sugars, sugar acids, aliphatic acids (primarily acetic acid, formic acid and levulinic acid), and furan aldehydes [5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and furfural] (Figure 1). After hydrolysis of lignocellulose polysaccharides, lignin remains as a solid residue, although a minor part is degraded to phenolics and other aromatic compounds (Figure 1). Sugars derived from hemicelluloses will account for a substantial part of the total sugar and it is desirable that they are included in the subsequent fermentation step. The monosaccharides obtained through the hydrolysis process are then fermented by microbial catalysts to the desired product, most commonly ethanol produced with the yeast S. cerevisiae.

Hydrolysis and fermentation can be performed separately (separate hydrolysis and fermentation; SHF) or simultaneously (simultaneous saccharification and fermentation; SSF). Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) refers to a process in which the fermenting microorganism also contributes by producing cellulolytic enzymes.

Inhibitors of enzymatic and microbial biocatalysts

The generation of by-products from the pretreatment is strongly dependent on the feedstock and the pretreatment method. Substances that may act as inhibitors of microorganisms include phenolic compounds and other aromatics, aliphatic acids, furan aldehydes, inorganic ions, and bioalcohols or other fermentation products. Examples of inhibitory fermentation products are ethanol and butanol. As most microorganisms, S. cerevisiae is inhibited by butanol concentrations in the range 1-2% (v/v), but it is able to withstand much higher concentrations of ethanol. In high-gravity alcoholic fermentations, S. cerevisiae produces ethanol concentrations of 17% (v/v) or higher. Hydrolytic enzymes are inhibited by their products, i.e. sugars such as cellobiose and glucose, by fermentation products such as ethanol, and by phenolic compounds.

Aromatic compounds

A large number of different phenolic compounds are formed from lignin during acid-catalyzed hydrolysis or pretreatment of lignocellulose. Phenolic compounds and other aromatics are formed during pretreatment regardless of whether an acid catalyst is added to the reaction. Carboxylic acids formed during the pretreatment will contribute to the formation of an acidic environment. Furthermore, some extractives are phenolic compounds. Formation of phenolic compounds from sugars is another possibility, although the significance of this route remains to be investigated.

Different analytical techniques, primarily gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), have been used to identify specific aromatic compounds in acidic hydrolysates from various kinds of lignocellulosic feedstocks, such as corn stover, oak, pine, poplar, spruce, sugarcane bagasse, switchgrass, and willow. In addition, aromatic degradation products in hydrolysates produced by alkaline methods have been investigated. The large number and the diversity of the aromatic compounds found in different lignocellulose hydrolysates (Figure 1) make identification and quantification of separate compounds complicated. Group analysis of phenolic compounds offers an alternative approach. GC-MS has been used to estimate the total amount of phenols in lignocellulose hydrolysates. The total amount of phenols in a spruce wood hydrolysate was determined spectrophotometrically by using the Prussian Blue method. Persson et al. compared the Prussian Blue method with another spectrophotometric method, based on Folin-Ciocalteu's reagent, and found that the latter gave more reliable results with respect to analysis of phenolic compounds in the hydrolysate. A peroxidase-based biosensor was also tested, as an alternative to the spectrophotometric methods. Furthermore, a method for group analysis of phenols by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) has also been used. Although the Folin-Ciocalteu method is the most convenient approach to analyze the total phenolic contents in lignocellulose hydrolysates, it should be avoided in experiments with redox reagents (such as reduced sulfur compunds including dithionite, dithiothreitol, and sulfite), in which the HPLC method serves as a better option. It should also be noticed that phenol analysis using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent is related to the Lowry method for determination of the total protein content and that it is therefore sensitive to potential media components such as hydrolytic enzymes, cell extracts, and hydrolyzed protein.

The effects of phenolics and other aromatic compounds, which may inhibit both microbial growth and product yield, are very variable, and can be related to specific functional groups. In many cases, the mechanism of toxicity has not been elucidated. One possible mechanism is that phenolics interfere with the cell membrane by influencing its function and changing its protein-to-lipid ratio. S. cerevisiae can convert some inhibitory phenolics to less toxic compounds. For instance, coniferyl aldehyde is reduced to coniferyl alcohol and dihydroconiferyl alcohol.

The role of phenolic inhibitors has been investigated using enzymic catalysts that specifically affect phenolic compounds without changing the concentrations of other inhibitors, such as aliphatic acids and furan aldehydes. Enzymes, such as laccases and peroxidases, oxidize phenols to radicals that undergo coupling to larger molecules that are less toxic to fermenting microbes such as yeast.

Phenolic compounds are also investigated with regard to inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. Experiments with phenols suggest that one way in which they affect proteins is by inducing precipitation.

Aliphatic acids

Lignocellulose hydrolysates contain aliphatic acids, such as acetic acid, formic acid, and levulinic acid. Acetic acid is formed primarily by hydrolysis of acetyl groups of hemicellulose, while formic acid and levulinic acid arise as acid-catalyzed thermochemical degradation products from polysaccharides (Figure 1). Formic acid is a degradation product of furfural and HMF (5-hydroxymethylfurfural), while levulinic acid is formed by degradation of HMF. The pKa value of formic acid (3.75) is considerably lower than those of acetic acid (4.76) and levulinic acid (4.64). The toxic effect on S. cerevisiae is attributed to the undissociated form and increases in the order acetic acid < levulinic acid < formic acid. Inhibition of yeast was found to be apparent at concentrations exceeding 100 mM. However, lower concentrations than 100 mM gave higher ethanol yields than fermentations with no aliphatic acids included. The contents of aliphatic acids in slurries and hydrolysates vary strongly depending on the feedstock and the severity of the pretreatment. Feedstocks with high content of acetylated xylan, typically agricultural residues and hardwood, give higher concentrations of aliphatic acids than softwood. The total content of aliphatic acids in softwood hydrolysates is often below 100 mM and consequently beneficial for the ethanol yield rather than harmful.

Undissociated acids enter the cell through diffusion over the cell membrane and then dissociate due to the neutral cytosolic pH. The dissociation of the acid leads to a decrease in the intracellular pH, which may lead to cell death. Alternatively, it may lead to increased ethanol yield at the expense of biomass formation as a consequence of the cell's attempt to maintain a constant intracellular pH by pumping out protons through the plasma membrane ATPase.

A group of compounds that can be mentioned in this context are uncouplers, i.e. amphiphilic molecules that dissolve in the inner mitochondrial membrane of eukaryotic cells and that have the ability to transfer protons across the membrane. By disrupting the proton gradient over the inner mitochondrial membrane, they disconnect the linkage between the respiratory chain and the oxidative phosphorylation that regenerates ATP from ADP. This mechanism differs from that proposed for aliphatic acids like acetic acid, as it inhibits the regeneration of ATP in mitochondria rather than stimulate the consumption of ATP at the plasma membrane. Some aromatic carboxylic acids may act as uncouplers, as has been shown in experiments with plant cells and salicylic acid, a compound that is also found in lignocellulose hydrolysates. Another aromatic carboxylic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, which is common in lignocellulose hydrolysates, did not exhibit the uncoupling effect observed for salicylic acid.

Furan aldehydes

The furan aldehydes furfural and HMF, which also are commonly found in lignocellulose hydrolysates, are formed by dehydration of pentose and hexose sugars, respectively (Figure 1). Furfural and HMF inhibit the growth of yeast and decrease ethanol yield and productivity. Under anaerobic conditions, S. cerevisiae can convert furfural to furfuryl alcohol and HMF to 2,5-bis-hydroxymethylfuran. Reduction of furfural has been linked to the co-factor NADH, while reduction of HMF has been found to be associated with consumption of NADPH. A moderate addition of furfural to the growth medium was found to lead to increased ethanol yields for recombinant xylose-utilizing S. cerevisiae transformants. This can be explained by the reduction of furfural to furfuryl alcohol, which will lead to a decreased formation of the undesirable by-product xylitol and an increased formation of ethanol. Model fermentations with furan aldehydes added to the medium suggest that yeast can tolerate quite high concentrations of furan aldehydes. Martinez et al. noticed that it took an addition of three times the original concentrations of the furan aldehydes to restore the inhibition of E. coli by a detoxified bagasse hydrolysate. These observations suggest that the inhibition might be due to other inhibitors present in the hydrolysate, other yet unidentified compounds, or perhaps to synergistic effects involving furan aldehydes. The capability of the microorganism to reduce furan aldehydes to the less toxic corresponding alcohols during fermentation in a bioreactor is sometimes referred to as in-situ detoxification. The concept of biological in-situ detoxification is based on the presumption that it is the mere presence of the inhibitory substance that is the problem, rather than its bioconversion.

Inorganic compounds

Inorganic ions that are present in lignocellulose hydrolysates originate from the lignocellulosic feedstocks, from chemicals added during pretreatment, conditioning and hydrolysis, and possibly from process equipment. The addition of salts results in a higher osmotic pressure, which may result in inhibitory effects. At moderate concentrations, there is a possibility that inorganic ions enhance ethanol production in a similar way as moderate concentrations of aliphatic acids do. The proposed mechanism is increased demand of ATP due to increased transport over the plasma membrane. Extra ATP is acquired by an increased ethanol production at the expense of biomass formation.

S. cerevisiae is relatively salt tolerant compared to other yeasts, such as Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Scheffersomyces (Pichia) stipitis, but less tolerant than several Candida species. In glucose-based medium, S. cerevisiae is capable to grow in a 1.5 M solution of sodium chloride. However, a more important factor than the absolute concentration of sodium is the intracellular ratio of Na+/K+, which preferably should be kept low. Maiorella et al. investigated the effects of different salts on S. cerevisiae and found that the inhibition decreased in the following order: CaCl2, (NH4)2SO4 > NaCl, NH4Cl > KH2PO4 > MgCl2 > MgSO4 > KCl.

Other inhibitory effects

Ethanol generated during fermentation inhibits viability, growth, glucose transport systems, and proton fluxes of S. cerevisiae. The yeast plasma membrane is affected with respect to permeability, organization, and lipid composition. However, the ethanologenic microbes S. cerevisiae and Zymomonas mobilis can tolerate ethanol concentrations up to 18 and 12%, respectively. The engineering of microbes for improved resistance to bioalcohols and other biofuels has recently been reviewed.

Potential synergistic effects of inhibitors have been studied in experiments with yeast and bacteria. The results of these studies indicate synergistic effects of combinations of acids and furan aldehydes, as well as of combinations of different phenolics.

Strategies to counteract inhibition problems

Several alternative measures can be taken to avoid problems caused by inhibitors. The concentrations of inhibitors and sugars in hydrolysates depend on the feedstock as well as on the conditions during pretreatment and hydrolysis. Therefore, one possibility is to select less recalcitrant feedstocks and to utilize mild pretreatment conditions. However, it is desirable to utilize different varieties of lignocellulose if production of commodities from renewables should make a major impact on the market for fuels, chemicals, and materials. Furthermore, production of bulk chemicals is yield dependent, which implies that it is not reasonable to accept a poor sugar yield, and consequently a poor overall product yield, due to the use of insufficient pretreatment conditions.

It is also possible to design the fermentation process to avoid problems with inhibition, for example by using SSF to avoid inhibition of cellulolytic enzymes by sugars, or by using fed-batch or continuous cultivation rather than batch processes. High yield and productivity, high product titer, and possibilities to recirculate process water are, however, important aspects of the chosen design. Ethanol production from diluted hydrolysates with low sugar content is associated with a high operating cost due to a more expensive distillation process.

There is a variety of different chemical, biological and physical methods that can be used to detoxify slurries and hydrolysates. Approaches that have been studied include overliming and treatments with other chemicals, liquid-liquid extraction, liquid–solid extraction, heating and evaporation, and treatments with microbial and enzymatic biocatalysts (Table 1). Comparisons of different methods for detoxification, or conditioning, indicate that they differ significantly with respect to effects on hydrolysate chemistry and fermentability. A common objection against detoxification is based on the assumption that it would require a separate process step.

There are a number of strategies that concern the fermenting microorganism. The use of large inocula decreases inhibition problems. However, the use of large inocula is considered to be a less attractive solution in an industrial context. Using a large inoculum would be a possibility if the microorganism can be recirculated and reused at a reasonable cost. However, if the used fermentation broth contains a lot of solids, the separation of the microorganism could become a tedious task. This is the case in SSF processes, and as a consequence the use of fresh inocula is considered instead of recycling the microorganism.

Other possibilities that target the microorganism include selection of microbial species and strains that exhibit resistance to inhibitors. Adaptation of the microorganism to an inhibiting environment, possibly after inducing variation by mutagenesis, serves as an alternative option. Furthermore, genetic engineering can be employed to obtain transformed hyperresistant microbes. S. cerevisiae has been engineered for increased resistance to fermentation inhibitors by overexpression of enzymes conferring improved resistance to phenolics, furan aldehydes, and aliphatic acids. Furthermore, overexpression of a transcription factor, Yap1, and of multidrug-resistance proteins has also generated hyperresistant S. cerevisiae transformants. In some of these cases, hyperresistance to lignocellulose hydrolysates has also been demonstrated.

Most of the studies on inhibition have had focus on the fermenting microorganism, while strategies that decrease inhibition of enzymes so far have received relatively little attention. Since most enzymatic hydrolysis processes involve mixtures of a pretreatment liquid and a solid cellulosic material, there are good reasons to take enzyme inhibition into account. Chemical detoxification, a powerful strategy to deal with inhibitor problems which also addresses enzyme inhibition, will be considered in more detail below.

Chemical treatment

Although methods such as liquid-liquid extraction, ion exchange, and treatment with biocatalysts remain frequently studied options for detoxifying hydrolysates or slurries, the focus of this section will be detoxification by addition of alkali or other chemical agents. In comparisons of detoxification methods, treatment with calcium hydroxide (overliming) has emerged as one of the most efficient methods. In many cases, overliming also seems to be the most economical choice. Although biotechnical methods (reviewed in) are very promising in a longer perspective, they are seldom compared to conventional methods, such as alkaline detoxification. A comparison between the performance of a hyperresistant S. cerevisiae transformant overexpressing Yap1 and the effect of alkaline detoxification is shown in Figure 2. The result indicates that both approaches have a very clear positive impact, but only the fermentation after alkaline detoxification reaches a similar level as that of the reference fermentation.

Overliming of hydrolysates produced by pretreatment of lignocellulose with sulfuric acid results in the precipitation of calcium sulfate (gypsum). This keeps the concentration of soluble salts at a low level, which is favorable for the fermentation process. However, treatment of hydrolysates with other types of alkali, such as ammonium hydroxide, can result in a fermentability that is equal to or even better than that of hydrolysates treated with overliming.

Although the mechanism of overliming is still not completely elucidated, considerable progress has been made. Van Zyl et al. suggested that the detoxification effect of overliming was due to precipitation of toxic substances. Persson et al. collected and analyzed precipitated material as well as the chemical composition of alkali-treated hydrolysates and concluded that the detoxification effect was due to chemical conversion rather than to removal of precipitated inhibitors. Furthermore, a comparison of different types of alkali for treatment of hydrolysates showed that it was possible to obtain an excellent ethanol yield (better than in a reference fermentation with similar sugar content but without inhibitors) after treatment with sodium hydroxide. Since the treatment with sodium hydroxide did not give rise to any precipitate, this finding confirmed the conclusions drawn regarding the effects of alkaline treatment.

A problem associated with alkali detoxification is that not only inhibitors are affected by the treatment, but also the sugars, which could lead to reduced ethanol yields (Table 2). Nilvebrant et al. studied the effects of treatment time, temperature, and pH during alkali treatment of a spruce hydrolysate. During treatment with alkali, xylose was slightly more easily degraded than the other monosaccharides. Using similar conditions (time period, pH, and temperature), the effect of calcium hydroxide was larger than that of sodium hydroxide. More extensive sugar degradation during alkaline treatment by overliming can be attributed to the stabilisation of reactive enolate intermediates by calcium ions (Figure 3). The examples in Table 2 indicate that too harsh conditions result in extensive sugar degradation, which also has an adverse effect on ethanol production. However, it is also evident that a considerable improvement of the fermentability can be gained with a very small loss of sugar (about 1%) (Table 2) indicating that sugar loss is not always a valid objection to alkaline detoxification.

Ethanol production is often reported as the overall ethanol yield (OEY, i.e. the yield calculated on the sugar content of the hydrolysate prior to detoxification and given in percent of the maximum theoretical yield) (Table 2). However, OEY does not take the relative fermentation improvement and the fermentation rate into account. A high OEY can be achieved after an intolerably long fermentation time. Since it is difficult to evaluate the significance of the improvement in fermentability without having a reference fermentation to relate it to, it is highly recommended that reference fermentations without inhibitors should be included in detoxification studies. One possibility is to evaluate the treatment on basis of the balanced ethanol yield (BEY) (Table 2). BEY is the amount of ethanol produced divided by the total amount of fermentable sugars present in the hydrolysate prior to the detoxification given as percent of a reference fermentation of a sugar solution without inhibitors.

A new development in chemical detoxification is the possibility to perform the treatment in situ in the bioreactor by using reducing agents, such as sulfur oxyanions or sulfhydryl reagents. Reducing agents eliminate the need for an extra process step for detoxification. Furthermore, treatment with reducing agents also decreases problems with inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis. The mechanism behind treatment with sulfur oxyanions such as bisulfite and dithionite was studied by Cavka et al., who found that the effect was due to sulfonation of inhibitors, which rendered them unreactive and highly hydrophilic. The substances that are sulfonated by sulfur oxyanions include phenolics, which is noteworthy considering indications that phenolics play a role in the inhibition of enzymatic saccharification of cellulose.

Conclusions

Acid-catalyzed thermochemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks has several advantages: it is a simple and inexpensive approach for pretreatment that efficiently improves the susceptibility to cellulolytic enzymes, even for more recalcitrant types of lignocellulose. A drawback is the formation of by-products that inhibit enzymes and microorganisms in subsequent biocatalytic conversion steps. However, rapid progress in several areas, such as conditioning or detoxification of slurries and hydrolysates, fermentation technology, and microbial resistance to inhibitors, makes acid pretreatment into a highly competitive future alternative in the bioconversion of lignocellulosic feedstocks. Management of inhibition problems is likely to become more important in a development that favors flexibility with respect to feedstocks, processes based on high dry-matter content and high product concentrations, and recirculation of process water.

Competing interests

LJJ and BA are co-authors on patent applications on detoxification.

Authors’ contributions

LJJ conceptualized, researched and wrote most of the manuscript. BA researched and wrote parts of the manuscript. NON conceptualized and critically revised the manuscript, and made most of the figures. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References 102

  1. 1.

    Ragauskas AJ Williams CK Davison BH Britovsek G Cairney J Eckert CA Frederick WJ Jr Hallett JP Leak DJ Liotta CL Mielenz JR Murphy R Templer R Tschaplinski T The path forward for biofuels and biomaterialsScience2006 311484489

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1114736

  2. 2.

    Lynd LR Laser MS Bransby D Dale BE Davison B Hamilton R Himmel M Keller M McMillan JD Sheehan J Wyman CE How biotech can transform biofuelsNat Biotechnol2008 26169172

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt0208-169

  3. 3.

    Sims REH Mabee W Saddler JN Taylor M An overview of second generation biofuel technologiesBioresour Technol2010 10115701580

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.046

  4. 4.

    Metzger JO Hüttermann A Sustainable global energy supply based on lignocellulosic biomass from afforestation of degraded areasNaturwissenschaften2009 96279288

    Not in our library10.1007/s00114-008-0479-4

  5. 5.

    Wyman CE What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanolTrends Biotechnol2007 25153157

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.02.009

  6. 6.

    Sjöström E, Alén RAnalytical methods in wood chemistry, pulping, and papermaking1999 Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Rowell RM Handbook of wood chemistry and wood composites2012 2Boca Raton FL: CRC Press

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Mabee WE Gregg DJ Arato C Berlin A Bura R Gilkes N Mirochnik O Pan X Pye EK Saddler JN Updates on softwood-to-ethanol process developmentAppl Biochem Biotechnol2006 129-1325570

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:129:1:55

  9. 9.

    Galbe M Zacchi G Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials for efficient bioethanol productionAdv Biochem Eng Biotechnol2007 1084165

    Not in our library10.1007/10_2007_070

  10. 10.

    Cullis IF Mansfield SD Optimized delignification of wood-derived lignocellulosics for improved enzymatic hydrolysisBiotech Bioeng2010 106884893

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.22768

  11. 11.

    Shuai L Yang Q Zhu JY Lu FC Weimer PJ Ralph J Pan XJ Comparative study of SPORL and dilute-acid pretreatments of spruce for cellulosic ethanol productionBioresour Technol2010 10131063114

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.044

  12. 12.
  13. 13.

    Viikari L Alapuranen M Puranen T Vehmaanperä J Siika-Aho M Thermostable enzymes in lignocellulose hydrolysisAdv Biochem Eng Biotechnol2007 108121145

    Not in our library10.1007/10_2007_065

  14. 14.
  15. 15.

    Van Zyl WH Lynd LR den Haan R McBride JE Consolidated bioprocessing for bioethanol production using Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAdv Biochem Eng Biotechnol2007 108205235

    Not in our library10.1007/10_2007_061

  16. 16.
  17. 17.

    Teixeira MC Godinho CP Cabrito TR Mira NP Sá-Correia I Increased expression of the yeast multidrug resistance ABC transporter Pdr18 leads to increased ethanol tolerance and ethanol production in high gravity alcoholic fermentationMicrob Cell Fact2012 1198

    Not in our library10.1186/1475-2859-11-98

  18. 18.

    Andrić P Meyer AS Jensen PA Dam-Johansen K Reactor design for minimizing product inhibition during enzymatic lignocellulose hydrolysis: I. Significance and mechanism of cellobiose and glucose inhibition on cellulolytic enzymesBiotechnol Adv2010 28308324

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.01.003

  19. 19.

    Podkaminer KK Shao X Hogsett DA Lynd LR Enzyme inactivation by ethanol and development of a kinetic model for thermophilic simultaneous saccharification and fermentation at 50°C with Thermoanaerobacterium saccharolyticum ALK2Biotech Bioeng2011 10812681278

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.23050

  20. 20.

    Bezerra RMF Dias AA Enzymatic kinetic of cellulose hydrolysis - Inhibition by ethanol and cellobioseAppl Biochem Biotechnol2005 1264959

    Not in our library10.1007/s12010-005-0005-5

  21. 21.

    Ximenes E Kim Y Mosier N Dien B Ladisch M Inhibition of cellulases by phenolsEnzyme Microb Tech2010 46170176

    Not in our library10.1016/j.enzmictec.2009.11.001

  22. 22.

    Martín C Galbe M Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Comparison of the fermentability of enzymatic hydrolysates of sugarcane bagasse pretreated by steam explosion using different impregnating agentsAppl Biochem Biotechnol2002 98-100699716

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:98-100:1-9:699

  23. 23.

    Popoff T Theander O Formation of aromatic compounds from carbohydrates: Part III. Reaction of D-glucose and D-fructose in slightly acidic, aqueous solutionActa Chem Scand1976 30397402

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    Fenske JJ Griffin DA Penner MH Comparison of aromatic monomers in lignocellulosic biomass prehydrolysatesJ Ind Microbiol Biotechnol1998 20364368

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.jim.2900543

  25. 25.

    Chen SF Mowery RA Scarlata CJ Chambliss CK Compositional analysis of water-soluble materials in corn stoverJ Agric Food Chem2007 5559125918

    Not in our library10.1021/jf0700327

  26. 26.

    Du B Sharma LN Becker C Chen S-F Mowery RA van Walsum GP Chambliss CK Effect of varying feedstock-pretreatment chemistry combinations on the formation and accumulation of potentially inhibitory degradation products in biomass hydrolysatesBiotech Bioeng2010 107430440

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.22829

  27. 27.

    Tran AV Chambers RP Red oak derived inhibitors in the ethanol fermentation of xylose by Pichia stipitis CBS 5776Biotechnol Lett1985 7841845

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01025567

  28. 28.

    Clark TA Mackie KL Fermentation inhibitors in wood hydrolysates derived from the softwood Pinus radiataJ Chem Tech Biotechnol1984 34101110

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Tran AV Chambers RP Lignin and extractives derived inhibitors in the 2,3-butanediol fermentation of mannose-rich prehydrolysatesAppl Microbiol Biotechnol1986 23191197

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    Ando S Arai I Kiyoto K Hanai S Identification of aromatic monomers in steam-exploded poplar and their influences on ethanol fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeJ Ferment Technol1986 64567570

    Not in our library10.1016/0385-6380(86)90084-1

  31. 31.

    Burtscher E Bobleter O Schwald W Concin R Binder H Chromatographic analysis of biomass reaction products produced by hydrothermolysis of poplar woodJ Chromatogr1987 390401412

    Not in our library10.1016/s0021-9673(01)94391-2

  32. 32.

    Luo C Brink DL Blanch HW Identification of potential fermentation inhibitors in conversion of hybrid poplar hydrolysate to ethanolBiomass Bioenergy2002 22125138

    Not in our library10.1016/s0961-9534(01)00061-7

  33. 33.

    Larsson S Reimann A Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Comparison of different methods for the detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysates of spruceAppl Biochem Biotechnol1999 7791103

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:77:1-3:91

  34. 34.

    Persson P Larsson S Jönsson LJ Nilvebrant N-O Sivik B Munteanu F Thörneby L Gorton L Supercritical fluid extraction of a lignocellulosic hydrolysate of spruce for detoxification and to facilitate analysis of inhibitorsBiotech Bioeng2002 79694700

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.10324

  35. 35.

    Persson P Andersson J Gorton L Larsson S Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Effect of different forms of alkali treatment on specific fermentation inhibitors and on the fermentability of lignocellulose hydrolysates for production of fuel ethanolJ Agric Food Chem2002 5053185325

    Not in our library10.1021/jf025565o

  36. 36.

    Jönsson LJ Palmqvist E Nilvebrant N-O Hahn-Hägerdal B Detoxification of wood hydrolysates with laccase and peroxidase from the white-rot fungus Trametes versicolorAppl Microbiol Biotechnol1998 49691697

    Not in our library10.1007/s002530051233

  37. 37.

    Klinke HB Ahring BA Schmidt AS Thomsen AB Characterization of degradation products from alkaline wet oxidation of wheat strawBioresour Technol2002 821526

    Not in our library10.1016/s0960-8524(01)00152-3

  38. 38.

    Nilvebrant N-O Reimann A Larsson S Jönsson LJ Detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysates with ion-exchange resinsAppl Biochem Biotechnol2001 91-933549

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:91-93:1-9:35

  39. 39.

    Alriksson B Cavka A Jönsson LJ Improving the fermentability of enzymatic hydrolysates of lignocellulose through chemical in-situ detoxification with reducing agentsBioresour Technol2011 10212541263

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.037

  40. 40.

    Lowry GH Rosebrough NJ Farr AL Randall RJ Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagentJ Biol Chem1951 193265275

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Larsson S Quintana-Sáinz A Reimann A Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Influence of lignocellulose-derived aromatic compounds on oxygen-limited growth and ethanolic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAppl Biochem Biotechnol2000 84617632

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:84-86:1-9:617

  42. 42.

    Keweloh H Weyrauch G Rehm H-J Phenol-induced membrane changes in free and immobilized Escherichia coliAppl Microbiol Biotechnol1990 336671

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00170572

  43. 43.

    Martín C Galbe M Wahlbom CF Hahn-Hägerdal B Jönsson LJ Ethanol production from enzymatic hydrolysates of sugarcane bagasse using recombinant xylose-utilising Saccharomyces cerevisiaeEnzyme Microb Tech2002 31274282

    Not in our library10.1016/s0141-0229(02)00112-6

  44. 44.

    Chandel AK Kapoor RK Singh A Kuhad RC Detoxification of sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate improves ethanol production by Candida shehatae NCIM 3501Bioresour Technol2007 9819471950

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.047

  45. 45.

    Jurado M Prieto A Martínez-Alcalá A Martínez AT Martínez MJ Laccase detoxification of steam-exploded wheat straw for second generation bioethanolBioresour Technol2009 10063786384

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.049

  46. 46.

    Kim Y Ximenes E Mosier NS Ladisch MR Soluble inhibitors/deactivators of cellulase enzymes from lignocellulosic biomassEnzyme Microb Tech2011 48408415

    Not in our library10.1016/j.enzmictec.2011.01.007

  47. 47.

    Ulbricht RJ Sharon J Thomas J A review of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural HMF in parental solutionsFund Appl Toxicol1984 4843853

    Not in our library10.1016/0272-0590(84)90106-4

  48. 48.

    Larsson S Palmqvist E Hahn-Hägerdal B Tengborg C Stenberg K Zacchi G Nilvebrant N-O The generation of fermentation inhibitors during dilute acid hydrolysis of softwoodEnzyme Microb Tech1999 24151159

    Not in our library10.1016/s0141-0229(98)00101-x

  49. 49.

    Sárvári Horváth I Sjöde A Alriksson B Jönsson LJ Nilvebrant N-O Critical conditions for improved fermentability during overliming of acid hydrolysates from spruceAppl Biochem Biotechnol2005 121-12410311044

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:124:1-3:1031

  50. 50.

    Pampulha ME Loureiro-Dias MC Combined effect of acetic acid, pH and ethanol on intracellular pH of fermenting yeastAppl Microbiol Biotechnol1989 31547550

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00270792

  51. 51.

    Verduyn C Postma E Scheffers WA Van Dijken JP Physiology of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in anaerobic glucose-limited chemostat culturesJ Gen Microbiol1990 136305319

    Not in our library10.1099/00221287-136-3-395

  52. 52.

    Viegas CA Sá-Correia I Activation of plasma membrane ATPase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by octanoic acidJ Gen Microbiol1991 137645651

    Not in our library10.1099/00221287-137-3-645

  53. 53.

    Verduyn C Postma E Scheffers WA Van Dijken JP Effect of benzoic acid on metabolic fluxes in yeast: a continuous-culture study on the regulation of respiration and alcoholic fermentationYeast1992 8501517

    Not in our library10.1002/yea.320080703

  54. 54.

    Norman C Howell KA Millar AH Whelan JM Day DA Salicylic acid is an uncoupler and inhibitor of mitochondrial electron transportPlant Physiol2004 134492501

    Not in our library10.1104/pp.103.031039

  55. 55.

    Chung IS Lee YY Ethanol fermentation of crude acid hydrolyzate of cellulose using high-level yeast inoculaBiotech Bioeng1985 27308315

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.260270315

  56. 56.

    Liu ZL Slininger PJ Dien BS Berhow MA Kurtzman CP Gorsich SW Adaptive response of yeast to furfural and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and new chemical evidence for HMF conversion to 2,5-bis-hydroxymethylfuranJ Ind Microbiol Biotechnol2004 31345352

    Not in our library10.1007/s10295-004-0148-3

  57. 57.

    Diaz De Villegas ME Villa P Guerra M Rodríguez E Redondo D Martinez A Conversion of furfural into furfuryl alcohol by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeActa Biotechnol1992 12351354

    Not in our library10.1002/abio.370120420

  58. 58.

    Sárvári Horváth I Franzén CJ Taherzadeh MJ Niklasson C Lidén G Effects of furfural on the respiratory metabolism of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in glucose-limited chemostatsAppl Environ Microbiol2003 6940764086

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.69.7.4076-4086.2003

  59. 59.

    Taherzadeh MJ Gustafsson L Niklasson C Lidén G Physiological effects of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural on Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2000 53701708

    Not in our library10.1007/s002530000328

  60. 60.

    Wahlbom CF Hahn-Hägerdal B Furfural, 5-hydroxymethyl furfural, and acetoin act as external electron acceptors during anaerobic fermentation of xylose in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiaeBiotech Bioeng2002 78172178

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.10188

  61. 61.

    Cavka A Alriksson B Ahnlund M Jönsson LJ Effect of sulfur oxyanions on lignocellulose-derived fermentation inhibitorsBiotech Bioeng2011 10825922599

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.23244

  62. 62.

    Martinez A Rodriguez ME York SW Preston JF Ingram LO Effects of Ca(OH)2 treatments (“overliming”) on the composition and toxicity of bagasse hemicellulose hydrolysatesBiotech Bioeng2000 69526536

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0290(20000905)69:5<526::aid-bit7>3.0.co;2-e

  63. 63.

    Liu ZL Molecular mechanisms of yeast tolerance and in situ detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysatesAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2011 90809825

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-011-3167-9

  64. 64.

    Wadskog I Adler L Hohmann S, Mager WHIon homeostasis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae under NaCl stressYeast stress response2003 Berlin: Springer-Verlag201240

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Helle S Cameron D Lam J White B Duff S Effect of inhibitory compounds found in biomass hydrolysates on growth and xylose fermentation by a genetically engineered strain of S. cerevisiaeEnzyme Microb Tech2003 33786792

    Not in our library10.1016/s0141-0229(03)00214-x

  66. 66.

    Maiorella BL Blanch HW Wilke CR Feed component inhibition in ethanolic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeBiotech Bioeng1984 2611551166

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.260261004

  67. 67.

    Alexandre H Charpentier C Biochemical aspects of stuck and sluggish fermentation in grape mustJ Ind Microbiol Biot1998 202027

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.jim.2900442

  68. 68.

    Lin Y Tanaka S Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: current state and prospectsAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2006 69627642

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-005-0229-x

  69. 69.

    Palmqvist E Grage H Meinander NQ Hahn-Hägerdal B Main and interaction effects of acetic acid, furfural, and p-hydroxybenzoic acid on growth and ethanol productivity of yeastsBiotech Bioeng1999 634655

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0290(19990405)63:1<46::aid-bit5>3.0.co;2-j

  70. 70.

    Zaldivar J Ingram LO Effect of organic acids on the growth and fermentation of ethanologenic Escherichia coli LY01Biotech Bioeng1999 66203210

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0290(1999)66:4<203::aid-bit1>3.0.co;2-#

  71. 71.

    Klinke HB Olsson L Thomsen AB Ahring BK Potential inhibitors from wet oxidation of wheat straw and their effect on ethanol production of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: wet oxidation and fermentation by yeastBiotech Bioeng2003 81738747

    Not in our library10.1002/bit.10523

  72. 72.
  73. 73.

    Pienkos PT Zhang M Role of pretreatment and conditioning processes on toxicity of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysatesCellulose2009 16743762

    Not in our library10.1007/s10570-009-9309-x

  74. 74.

    Parawira W Tekere M Biotechnological strategies to overcome inhibitors in lignocellulose hydrolysates for ethanol production: reviewCrit Rev Biotechnol2011 312031

    Not in our library10.3109/07388551003757816

  75. 75.

    Cantarella M Cantarella L Gallifuoco A Spera A Alfani F Comparison of different detoxification methods for steam-exploded poplar wood as a substrate for the bioproduction of ethanol in SHF and SSFProc Biochem2004 3915331542

    Not in our library10.1016/s0032-9592(03)00285-1

  76. 76.

    Alriksson B Sjöde A Sárvári Horváth I Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Ammonium hydroxide detoxification of spruce acid hydrolysatesAppl Biochem Biotechnol2005 121-124911922

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:124:1-3:0911

  77. 77.

    Alriksson B Sjöde A Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Optimal conditions for alkaline detoxification of dilute-acid lignocellulose hydrolysatesAppl Biochem Biotechnol2006 129-132599611

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:130:1:599

  78. 78.

    Ranatunga TD Jervis J Helm RF McMillan JD Wooley RJ The effect of overliming on the toxicity of dilute acid pretreated lignocellulosics: The role of inorganics, uronic acids and ether-soluble organicsEnzyme Microb Tech2000 27240247

    Not in our library10.1016/s0141-0229(00)00216-7

  79. 79.

    Zhu J Yong Q Xu Y Yu S Detoxification of corn stover prehydrolyzate by trialkylamine extraction to improve the ethanol production with Pichia stipitis CBS 5776Bioresour Technol2011 10216631668

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.083

  80. 80.

    Parajó JC Dominguez H Domínguez JM Improved xylitol production with Debaryomyces hansenii Y-7426 from raw or detoxified wood hydrolysatesEnzyme Microb Tech1997 211824

    Not in our library10.1016/s0141-0229(96)00210-4

  81. 81.

    Sárvári Horváth I Sjöde A Nilvebrant N-O Zagorodni A Jönsson LJ Selection of anion exchangers for detoxification of dilute-acid hydrolysates from spruceAppl Biochem Biotechnol2004 114525538

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:114:1-3:525

  82. 82.

    Björklund L Larsson S Jönsson LJ Reimann A Nilvebrant N-O Treatment with lignin residue - a novel method for detoxification of lignocellulose hydrolysatesAppl Biochem Biotechnol2002 98-100563575

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:98-100:1-9:563

  83. 83.

    López MJ Nichols NN Dien BS Moreno J Bothast RJ Isolation of microorganisms for biological detoxification of lignocellulosic hydrolysatesAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2004 64125131

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-003-1401-9

  84. 84.

    Nichols NN Sharma LN Mowery RA Chambliss CK van Walsum GP Dien BS Iten LB Fungal metabolism of fermentation inhibitors present in corn stover dilute acid hydrolysateEnzyme Microb Tech2008 42624630

    Not in our library10.1016/j.enzmictec.2008.02.008

  85. 85.

    Palmqvist E Hahn-Hägerdal B Szengyel Z Zacchi G Rèczey K Simultaneous detoxification and enzyme production of hemicellulose hydrolysates obtained after steam pretreatmentEnzyme Microb Tech1997 20286293

    Not in our library10.1016/s0141-0229(96)00130-5

  86. 86.

    Okuda N Soneura M Ninomiya K Katakura Y Shioya S Biological detoxification of waste house wood hydrolysate using Ureibacillus thermosphaericus for bioethanol productionJ Biosci Bioeng2008 106128133

    Not in our library10.1263/jbb.106.128

  87. 87.

    Wingren A Galbe M Zacchi G Techno-economic evaluation of producing ethanol from softwood: comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of bottlenecksBiotechnol Prog2003 1911091117

    Not in our library10.1021/bp0340180

  88. 88.

    Wingren A Galbe M Roslander C Rudolf A Zacchi G Effect of reduction in yeast and enzyme concentrations in a simultaneous-saccharification-and-fermentation-based bioethanol processAppl Biotechnol Biochem2005 122485500

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:122:1-3:0485

  89. 89.

    Larsson S Cassland P Jönsson LJ Development of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain with enhanced resistance to phenolic fermentation inhibitors in lignocellulose hydrolysates by heterologous expression of laccaseAppl Environ Microbiol2001 6711631170

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.67.3.1163-1170.2001

  90. 90.

    Larsson S Nilvebrant N-O Jönsson LJ Effect of overexpression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Pad1p on the resistance to phenylacrylic acid and lignocellulose hydrolysates under aerobic and oxygen-limited conditionsAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2001 57167174

    Not in our library10.1007/s002530100742

  91. 91.

    Petersson A Almeida JRM Modig T Karhumaa K Hahn-Hägerdal B Gorwa-Grauslund MF Lidén G A 5-hydroxymethyl furfural reducing enzyme encoded by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae ADH6 gene conveys HMF toleranceYeast2006 23455464

    Not in our library10.1002/yea.1370

  92. 92.

    Gorsich SW Dien BS Nichols NN Slininger PJ Liu ZL Skory CD Tolerance to furfural-induced stress is associated with pentose phosphate pathway genes ZWF1, GND1, RPE1, and TKL1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2006 71339349

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-005-0142-3

  93. 93.
  94. 94.

    Hasunuma T Sung K Sanda T Yoshimura K Matsuda F Kondo A Efficient fermentation of xylose to ethanol at high formic acid concentrations by metabolically engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAppl Microbiol Biotechnol2011 909971004

    Not in our library10.1007/s00253-011-3085-x

  95. 95.

    Alriksson B Sárvári Horváth I Jönsson LJ Overexpression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcription factor and multidrug resistance genes conveys enhanced resistance to lignocellulose-derived fermentation inhibitorsProc Biochem2010 45264271

    Not in our library10.1016/j.procbio.2009.09.016

  96. 96.

    Nevoigt E Progress in metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeMicrobiol Mol Biol Rev2008 72379412

    Not in our library10.1128/mmbr.00025-07

  97. 97.

    Martinez A Rodriguez ME Wells ML York SW Preston JF Ingram LO Detoxification of dilute acid hydrolysates of lignocellulose with limeBiotechnol Progr2001 17287293

    Not in our library10.1021/bp0001720

  98. 98.

    Van Zyl C Prior BA Du Preez JC Production of ethanol from sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose hydrolyzate by Pichia stipitisAppl Biochem Biotechnol1988 17357369

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02779170

  99. 99.

    Nilvebrant N-O Persson P Reimann A de Sousa F Gorton L Jönsson LJ Limits for alkaline detoxification of dilute-acid lignocellulose hydrolysatesAppl Biochem Biotechnol2003 105-108615628

    Not in our library10.1385/abab:107:1-3:615

  100. 100.

    Millati R Niklasson C Taherzadeh MJ Effect of pH, time and temperature of overliming on detoxification of dilute-acid hydrolyzates for fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeProc Biochem2002 38515522

    Not in our library10.1016/s0032-9592(02)00176-0

  101. 101.

    Mohagheghi A Ruth M Schnell DJ Conditioning hemicellulose hydrolysates for fermentation: effects of overliming pH on sugar and ethanol yieldsProc Biochem2006 4118061811

    Not in our library10.1016/j.procbio.2006.03.028

  102. 102.

    Soudham VP Alriksson B Jönsson LJ Reducing agents improve enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic substrates in the presence of pretreatment liquidJ Biotechnol2011 155244250

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.026

Cited by papers we hold 9

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.