2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) bark composition and degradation by fungi: Potential substrate for bioremediation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
35
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
8
35
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is known that spruce wood is a complex substrate for the recovery of wood-degrading enzymes, since water-soluble constituents such as phenols, sugars, organic acids, xylo-oligosaccharides and proteins all act as inhibitors of hydrolytic enzymes (e.g., Lagaert et al, 2009; Kim et al, 2011). Nevertheless, the effect of wood extracts on enzyme recovery in this study was expected to be minimal as was previously reported by Valentín et al (2010). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…It is known that spruce wood is a complex substrate for the recovery of wood-degrading enzymes, since water-soluble constituents such as phenols, sugars, organic acids, xylo-oligosaccharides and proteins all act as inhibitors of hydrolytic enzymes (e.g., Lagaert et al, 2009; Kim et al, 2011). Nevertheless, the effect of wood extracts on enzyme recovery in this study was expected to be minimal as was previously reported by Valentín et al (2010). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…The lignin content was similar to the value of 33,7% reported by Miranda et al (2012) for P. sylvestris bark and to the 34,2 -33,2% for P. pinaster bark (Vázquez et al 1987a, Fradinho et al 2002, but higher than the 24,9% reported for P. densiflora bark (Kofujita et al 1999) to the 20-35 % for Pinus radiata bark (Moya-Villablanca et al 2013) and to the 25,5 % for Pinus brutia (Sahin and Arslan 2011). The holocellulose content obtained here was similar to the values of 37,6% and 40,1% reported for P. sylvestris bark (Miranda et al 2012, Valentín et al 2010) and 48,4% for P. pinaster bark (Fradinho et al 2002) and higher than the 25,0-32,1% reported by Vázquez et al (1987b) for P. pinaster bark, however for the P. brutia bark Sahin and Arslan (2011) refer to higher values of holocellulose 74,5 %. When stone pine bark was extracted with 1% NaOH about 42,4% of the bark material was solubilized.…”
Section: Bark Chemical Compositionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Per unit of dry matter, total N contents were 30.4 (RFM), 4.1 (RPB), and 14.5 (RCR) g kg −1 , mineral N contents were 1.3 (RFM), 0.02 (RPB), and 0.1 (RCR) g kg −1 , C/N ratios were 12 (RFM), 122 (RPB), and 28 (RCR), and dry matter contents were 0.36 (RFM), 0.50 (RPB), and 0.41 (RCR). Pine bark was assumed to be the most recalcitrant amendment due to its high C/N ratio and high cellulose and lignin contents (Valentín et al, 2010), while crop residues were assumed to be most easily decomposable due to their relatively low C/N ratio and unaltered plant tissue composition. Farmyard manure had a low C/N ratio but was assumed to be of medium decomposability due to stabilization processes that occur during the storage of manure (Eghball et al, 1997), which lasted 3 to 4 mo in the present study.…”
Section: Incubation Experiments Recent Amendment Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%