Biomass and Bioenergy 83 (2015) 322e327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Short communication

Comparison of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose contents for

biofuels utilization among 4 types of lignocellulosic crops
Suk-Jun Jung, Seung-Hyun Kim, Ill-Min Chung*
Department of Applied Bioscience, College of Life and Environmental Science, Konkuk University, Seoul, 143-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Lignocellulose crops serve as an excellent feedstock for biofuels because of their reduced costs and net
Received 8 February 2013 carbon emission, and higher energy efficiency. To estimate more suitable lignocellulosic crops, we
Received in revised form compared the contents of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose in miscanthus, switchgrass, sorghum, and
24 July 2015
reed (from 14 accessions according to the collection site) in the leaves and stems and expressed these as
Accepted 9 October 2015
Available online xxx
% content based on dry weight. This study shows that miscanthus, switchgrass, and sorghum are valuable
lignocellulosic crops owing to the significantly lower lignin content than that in reed, among both whole
crops as well as specific plant parts. Although switchgrass has been reported to possess the highest
Keywords:
Biofuels
polysaccharide content among the crops examined; our results showed no difference at a 5% significance
Cellulose level. Our study also showed that Miscanthus sacchariflorus possesses lower lignin and higher poly-
Hemicellulose saccharide content in its leaves and stalks compared to the other Miscanthus species. Furthermore,
Lignin M. sacchariflorus also showed lower lignin and higher polysaccharide contents than those in switchgrass.
Lignocellulosic biomass It is possible that M. sacchariflorus is a better resource than switchgrass, although these content assays
showed no differences at the 5% significance level. M. sacchariflorus plants collected in Hacheonri, Jejudo,
Korea (MFJH), contained 14.12% lignin and 64.23% holocellulose, indicating that Korean miscanthus is a
competitive bioenergy crop compared to foreign crops such as switchgrass, which is widely used in the
United States.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Our society has been highly dependent on fossil fuels since the
industrial revolution. However, the amount of available fossil fuels
worldwide is limited and its extraction leads to environmental
problems including greenhouse gas emission. In response to these
impending problems on fossil fuel resourcing, European countries,
the United States, and Brazil have now focused on identifying
alternative energy resources, including the study of biomass as a
source of biofuels. The United States and Brazil are currently
equipped for bulk production of bioethanol from corn and sugar
cane [1]. However, these plant-based biofuel generation processes
are not economically competitive with fossil fuels because of the
efficiency, price and availability [2]. Lignocellulosic crops such as
miscanthus and switchgrass were more suitable for biofuel pro-
duction because of their capacity to adapt to barren land; these
crops are available even in non-agricultural land. The use of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: imcim@konkuk.ac.kr (I.-M. Chung).
lignocellulosic crops has also been associated with high input/
output energy efficiency and competitive handling cost. It has been
reported that these crops have high amounts of lignin and cellulose
[3e5]. In Europe, perennial C4 grasses such as miscanthus,
switchgrass, and sorghum have been investigated for their poten-
tial as biofuel resources based on their comparatively high biomass
potentials [3]. The Miscanthus species currently considered for
bioenergy resourcing include Miscanthus sinensis and Miscanthus
sacchariflorus. Of equal interest is Miscanthus x giganteus, an inter-
specific hybrid of tetraploid M. sacchariflorus and diploid
M. sinensis. M. x giganteus, which has been studied in Europe and
the United States [4].
Plant biomass resources are complex materials that generally
consist of 3 major organic fractions: lignin, cellulose, and hemi-
cellulose. Lignin is a complex, high-molecular-weight structure
containing cross-linked polymers of phenolic monomers. Lignin in
the primary cell wall provides structural support, impermeability,
and resistance against microbial attack [7]. Cellulose is the main
structural constituent in plant cell walls and is composed of long
chains of cellobiose units that are linked to D-glucose subunits

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.10.007
0961-9534/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S.-J. Jung et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 83 (2015) 322e327 323

through b-(1,4)-glycosidic bonds. These linkage bonds are broken
by hydrolysis, which are catalyzed by cellulase or acids [6,7].
Hemicellulose consists of branches of short lateral mono-
saccharides such as pentose (xylose, rhamnose, and arabinose),
hexose (glucose, mannose, and galactose), and uronic acid [8].
Cellulose in cell walls are packed into microfibrils by the long-chain
cellulose polymers linked by hydrogen and van der Waals bonds,
which are protected by hemicellulose and lignin [7]. The features of
these structural components thus increase the cost of processing
lignocellulosic crops [9]. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic crops has
been designed to break the lignin seal and disrupt the crystalline
structure of cellulose [10e12].
Based on the structural features of lignin, the industrial
bioconversion of lignocellulosic crops to biofuel has become quite
challenging; therefore, materials with low lignin and high cellulose
and hemicellulose contents are now considered more valuable for
biofuel production [9,13]. This study aimed to compare the lignin,
cellulose, and hemicellulose contents among the lignocellulosic
crops such as miscanthus, switchgrass, sorghum, and reed, as well
as determine the differences in the contents of these substances
between plant parts such as leaves and stems. We also examined
content levels in 3 Miscanthus species, namely, M. sinensis,
M. sacchariflorus, and M. x giganteus.
2. Materials and methods
2.2.1. Sample preparations
The raw plant materials were oven-dried at a temperature
below 45
C for at least 3 days until a constant weight was recorded.
The dried materials were ground to a particle size of 1e3 mm and
strained using a standard testing sieve (aperture size, 1.40 mm).
2.2.2. Preparation of extractive-free samples
Extractive-free samples were prepared using the Soxhlet
extraction method, according to the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) standard D-1105-96 [13e15]. The extraction
solvents consisted of ethanol-toluene (1:2) solution, ethanol, and
water. The extraction began with 3 gm of the sample placed in the
thimble filter of the Soxhlet apparatus and incubated in the
extraction solvent mixed with toluene and ethanol (2:1) for 4 h. The
sample was then transferred to a Büchner funnel for filtration, and
the excess solvent was removed by aspiration. The thimble filter
and sample were washed with alcohol to remove the toluene. The
sample was returned to the extractor, and ethanol extraction was
continued for 4 h or longer, if necessary, until the ethanol in the
siphon was colorless. The sample was removed from the thimble,
spread out as a thin layer, and air-dried until it was free of alcohol.
The extraction procedure was repeated using distilled water. The
sample was filtered on a Buchner Funnel, washed with 500 mL of
boiling distilled water, and oven-dried at 100
C.

2.1. Raw materials

Fourteen plants were examined in this study, consisting of 8
miscanthus (4 M. sinensis, 3 M. sacchariflorus, and 1 M. x giganteus),
3 switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), 2 sorghum (Sorghum bicolor
L.), and 1 reed grass (Phragmites australis) plants. The plants were
collected from local sites in Korea, America, India, Nigeria, and
Sudan, and they were cultivated in a field in Kangwon University,
Korea. Each plant was separated into leaves and stalks for experi-
mentation (Table 1).
2.2. Experimental procedures
The schematic diagram for the determination of lignin, cellu-
lose, and hemicellulose content is shown in Fig. 1.
2.2.3. Determination of lignin content
AIL was estimated according to the modified Klason lignin
determination procedure by using the extractive-free sample
[13,14,16]. Approximately 3 mL of 72% sulfuric acid was added to
150 mg of the extractive-free sample in an Erlenmeyer flask. The
sample was incubated for 1 h in a 30
C water bath and stirred every
14 min to complete wetting and mixing. Subsequently, 84 mL of
deionized water was added to the sample and autoclaved for
45 min at 123
C. The autoclaved sample was rapidly cooled and
filtered using No. 1 Whatman filter paper. The residue in the filter,
which was the AIL, was washed with distilled water and oven-dried
at 105
C until a constant weight was recorded. The dried AIL was
then subjected to gravimetric analysis. Calculations were per-
formed as follows:

Table 1
Contents of structural components of 4 lignocellulosic plants.

Plant type Cultivar Collection site Abbreviationy Extractives Lignin Holocellulose

Cellulose Hemicellulose Total

Miscanthus M. sinensis Bangdongri, Injegun, Korea MSIBa 20.9 14.7 30.5 29.9 60.4yy
Nammyeon, Injegun, Korea MSJNa 19.2 24.7 31.8 24.6 56.4
Geumbyeongsan, Chuncheonsi, Korea MSCGa 21.6 16.5 33.4 25.5 58.9
Malli, West-Bengal, India MSIa 20.4 19.0 32.4 21.3 53.8
M. sacchariflorus Yangpyeong, Gyeonggido, Korea MFGYb 25.5 18.1 31.7 22.3 54.1
Andeokmyeon, Jejudo, Korea MFJAb 17.6 17.6 34.6 28.9 63.5
Hacheonri, Jejudo, Korea MFJHb 18.2 14.1 36.1 28.2 64.2
M. x giganteus Illinois, USA MGINc 24.2 17.2 33.2 23.3 56.5
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum L. Illinois, USA SGINAd 16.9 21.1 35.8 21.5 57.3
Illinois, USA SGINBd 17.0 19.6 37.8 25.2 63.0
Illinois, USA SGINCd 24.8 13.9 29.5 27.4 56.9
Sorghum Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench Nigeria SBNGe 23.7 17.9 31.4 23.4 54.8
Sudan SBSDe 20.2 20.7 35.3 23.6 58.9
Reed Phragmites australis Deokduwonri, Chuncheonsi, Korea RGCDf 20.3 26.2 30.0 23.8 53.9
CV(%) 3.2 3.8 2.2 2.2 1.6
LSD(0.05) 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.5

a, Miscanthus sinensis; b, Miscanthus sacchariflorus; c, Miscanthus x giganteus; d, switchgrass; e, sorghum; and f, reed.
y
Abbreviations are derived from the plant type and the site from which it was collected.
yy
The data in the table show the mean values (n ¼ 3, except cellulose and hemicellulose n ¼ 2; standard deviation < 3) and appear as % based on dry weight. Statistical
significance was analyzed by the least significant difference (LSD).
324 S.-J. Jung et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 83 (2015) 322e327
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the organic fraction extraction.
Wafter
AIL ¼  100
Wbefore
AIL ¼ acid-insoluble lignin content (%)
Wafter ¼ oven-dried weight of the residue in the filter (g)
Wbefore ¼ oven-dried weight of extractive-free sample (g)
ASL was determined using the UV spectroscopic method
described in the “Chemical analysis and testing task laboratory
analytical procedure #004” [15,18]. Approximately 2 mL of 3%
sulfuric acid was added to 2 mL of the filtrate, the solution was then
filtered, and the mixture was analyzed using a UV spectropho-
tometer (Mecasys Co., Ltd., Korea) at a wavelength of 205 nm.
Calculations were conducted as follows:
CV
ASL ¼  100
1000  Wbefore
ASL ¼ acid-soluble lignin content (%).
C ¼ concentration of soluble lignin in the filtrate (g/mL).
V ¼ total volume of the filtrate (mL).
Wbefore ¼ oven-dried weight of extractive-free sample (g).
C, the concentration of ASL, was calculated as follows:
A V
C¼  final
110 Vinitial
A ¼ absorbance at 205 nm.
Vfinal ¼ final volume of the solution (mL).
Vinitial ¼ initial volume of the solution (mL).
2.2.4. Preparation of holocellulose
Holocellulose from extractive-free samples was isolated using a
delignification process, which involves sodium chlorite treatment
with some modifications [17]. Approximately 200 mg of sodium
chlorite was added to 500 mg of the extractive-free sample in a 50-
mL conical tube. Approximately 30 mL of water and 0.04 mL of 10%
peracetic acid (pH 3.5) was then added to the sample and incubated
in a 85
C water bath for 30 min [18]. After incubation, 200 mg of
sodium chlorite and 0.04 mL of 10% peracetic acid was added; this
step was repeated 7e8 times [17]. The sample was then filtered
through a No. 1 Whatman filter paper placed in a Buchner funnel
and washed with hot water. The sample was collected on the filter
paper was then oven-dried at 100
C.
2.2.5. Determination of cellulose and hemicellulose
The cellulose content in holocellulose was determined accord-
ing to the method: KS M 7044, “Testing method for alpha, beta and
gamma cellulose in pulp” [13,19]. Approximately 3 mL of 17.5%
 S.-J. Jung et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 83 (2015) 322e327
sodium hydroxide was added to 300 mg of the holocellulose
sample in a beaker. The sample was then uniformly wet for 3.5 min.
Next, the sample was mashed with a glass rod for 5 min, and then
the flattened sample was incubated in a 20
C water bath for
20 min. After incubation, 3 mL of distilled water was added and the
sample was stirred for 1 min and left to stand for 5 min. The sample
was passed through a Buchner funnel within 1 min, vacuum-
filtered using a vacuum evaporator (EYELA; Tokyo Rikakikai Co.
Ltd., Japan) and then rinsed with 54 mL of distilled water. Subse-
quently, 2.4 mL of 10% acetic acid was added while the vacuum
evaporator was turned off for 4 min, and then the sample was
washed with hot distilled water. The sample was then oven-dried at
100
C until a constant weight was recorded. The final weight was
then considered as the cellulose weight. Hemicellulose weight was
calculated by subtracting the weight of holocellulose from the
weight of cellulose.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose contents
The content levels of specific plant structural components in 14
plants are shown in Table 1. The values are expressed as % based on
dry weight and statistical significance was analyzed by least sig-
nificant difference (LSD) (p < 0.05). Extractives content ranged from
16.9 to 25.5%, lignin content ranged from 13.9 to 26.2%, cellulose
content ranged from 29.5 to 37.8%, hemicellulose content ranged
from 21.3 to 29.9%, and holocellulose content ranged from 53.8 to
64.2%. The reed collected from the Chuncheonsi Deokduwonri
(RGCD) showed the highest lignin content (26.2%), whereas
switchgrass from Illinois C (SGINC) showed the lowest lignin con-
tent (13.9%). Switchgrass from Illinois B (SGINB) showed the
highest cellulose content (37.8%), whereas that from Illinois C
(SGINC) showed the lowest cellulose content (29.5%). Miscanthus
from Injegun Bangdongri (MSIB) showed the highest hemicellulose
content (29.9%), whereas that from India (MSID) showed the lowest
(21.3%). Miscanthus from Jejudo Hacheonri (MFJH) showed the
highest holocellulose content (64.2%); a low lignin content was
observed in switchgrass from Illinois C (SGINC) (13.9%).
The amount of holocellulose, which consists of cellulose and
hemicellulose, was significantly higher than the combined amount
of extractives and lignin, at the 5% significance level. This result was
consistent with the holocellulose content reported by Hwangbo,
who performed the pretreatment after removing extractives using
a Soxhlet extractor; the reported range of holocellulose in general
herbage was 52e65% [14].
The combined content of lignin and holocellulose was signifi-
cantly higher than that observed in extractives. Among the tested
crops, M. sacchariflorus had the highest (25.5%) and switchgrass had
the lowest (16.9%) levels of extractives. Similarly, switchgrass had
the highest (37.8%) and reed had the lowest (30.0%) cellulose con-
tent, while M. sinensis had the highest (29.9%) and switchgrass had
the lowest (21.5%) hemicellulose content. These results fall within
previously reported content ranges for lignin (12e20%), cellulose
(35e50%), and hemicellulose (20e35%) [6,20]. However, it has also
been reported that herbage tends to show a lower cellulose content
than that of wood (25e40%) [21]. The lignin (B) content in reed was
26.2%, which was higher than other crops and this difference was
shown at 5% significance level. This difference may be attributable
to the photosynthetic system used by the plants; miscanthus,
switchgrass, and sorghum are C4 plants, whereas reed is a C3 plant.
Our results are similar to a previous study that showed miscanthus
and switchgrass with higher cellulose content than reed; however,
our results on lignin content were in contrast, in which the lignin
content in reed was lower than that in miscanthus and switchgrass
325
[22]. The results shown in Table 1 are similar to the findings of
previous studies, including 22.0% lignin, 36.8% cellulose, and 24.1%
hemicellulose in miscanthus [13,23]; our results on content ranges
for lignin (14.1e24.7%), cellulose (30.5e36.1%), hemicellulose
(23.3e29.9%) were similar to that in a variety of switchgrass plants
as reported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
[24]. Also, the cellulose content of sorghum is similar to that
observed in various sorghum plants of a previous report, although
our reported lignin content (14.2e2.7%) was higher [25,26]. This
difference may be attributable to the variations in methods, ma-
terials, collection sites, and climatic conditions of the study. A
higher amount of extractives was observed in M. x giganteus (5%
significance level). However, lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose
showed no significant differences among M. sinensis,
M. sacchariflorus, and M. x giganteus, although M. sacchariflorus was
the lowest in lignin and the highest in cellulose and hemicellulose.
Our results are similar to a previous report [13].
3.2. Comparison of the amounts of plant structural components in
the leaves and stalks of various plants
Comparative analysis of the amounts of extractives, lignin, and
holocellulose content in leaves and stalks of miscanthus, switch-
grass, sorghum, and reed are presented in Table 2. The data were
expressed as % based on dry weight; statistical significance was
analyzed by the least significant difference (LSD) at a 5% signifi-
cance level. The amount of extractives in leaves was shown to be
significantly higher than that observed in stalks; holocellulose
content of stalks was higher than that in leaves. Extractives content
ranged from 22.8% to 27.2% in leaves and from 13.4% to 18.9% in
stalks. Lignin content ranged from 16.9% to 25.2% in leaves and from
15.3% to 27.1% in stalks. The lignin content in leaves and stalks
showed no significant difference, although of the level of lignin in
stalks was slightly higher compared to that in leaves. This differ-
ence may be attributable to various metabolic mechanisms occur-
ring between the leaves and stems [13,24,25,27]. Cellulose content
ranged from 25.7% to 31.8% in leaves and from 34.4% to 37.0% in
stalks. Hemicellulose content ranged from 22.1% to 26.0% in leaves
and from 22.0% to 26.9% in stalks. Holocellulose content ranged
from 47.8% to 57.7% in leaves and from 57.7% to 63.5% in stalks.
Extractives are generally higher in leaves than in stalks, whereas
lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose tend to be higher in stalks than
in leaves [18,24,25,27].
In our study, Reed showed the highest lignin content (25.2%),
whereas switchgrass showed a cellulose content (31.8%) higher
than that of reed (25.7%). No differences were observed in terms of
hemicellulose content. Reed showed the highest lignin content in
the stalks (27.1%), whereas cellulose and hemicellulose contents
were not significantly different (Table 2). Reed showed the highest
lignin content in both leaves and stalks. Miscanthus, switchgrass,
and sorghum are thus more valuable than reed as lignocellulosic
crops.
The stalks of 3 Miscanthus species showed lower extractives
content than leaves, whereas the stalks showed higher lignin, cel-
lulose, and hemicellulose contents than that in leaves; this trend
was similar to that of the 4 crop types. Our results are similar to
those of a previous study [13]. The levels of extractives among 3
Miscanthus species in leaves ranged from 23.6% to 25.7%, with no
significant difference at the 5% significance level; extractives con-
tent in the stalks ranged from 15.6% to 23.3%, and M. x giganteus
showed a higher content than the other species with a significant
difference at the 5% significance level (Table 2). In terms of lignin,
cellulose, and hemicellulose contents in the leaves and stalks, no
significant differences were observed at the 5% significance level,
although M. sacchariflorus showed the lowest lignin content and
326 S.-J. Jung et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 83 (2015) 322e327

Table 2
Comparison of levels of plant components per plant part among various lignocellulosic plantsy.

Crop type Part Extractives Lignin Holocellulose

% %
Cellulose Hemicellulose Total
% % %

M. sinensis Leaves 25.5 ± 1.8a 17.9 ± 4.9a 28.5 ± 1.2a 25.1 ± 3.6a 53.6 ± 3.3az
M. sacchariflorus Leaves 23.6 ± 3.7a 16.9 ± 2.7a 31.7 ± 3.5a 26.0 ± 3.0a 57.7 ± 5.8a
M. x giganteus Leaves 25.7 ± 0.8a 19.06 ± 0.6a 30.8 ± 0.0a 24.5 ± 0.2a 55.3 ± 0.2a
Panicum virgatum L. Leaves 22.8 ± 4.0a 17.8 ± 3.1b 31.8 ± 3.8a 24.6 ± 3.9a 56.4 ± 4.9a
Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench Leaves 25.0 ± 0.6a 19.2 ± 0.9b 30.1 ± 1.6ab 23.3 ± 0.1a 53.4 ± 1.2ab
Phragmites australis Leaves 27.2 ± 2.8a 25.2 ± 0.9a 25.7 ± 1.2b 22.1 ± 0.6a 47.8 ± 2.2b

M. sinensis Stalks 15.6 ± 0.7b 19.5 ± 3.8a 35.6 ± 1.5a 25.6 ± 3.5a 61.1 ± 2.6az
M. sacchariflorus Stalks 17.3 ± 5.2b 16.3 ± 1.7a 36.6 ± 1.0a 26.9 ± 4.2a 63.5 ± 5.5a
M. x giganteus Stalks 23.3 ± 1.2a 15.3 ± 0.8a 35.7 ± 2.2a 22.0 ± 0.3a 57.7 ± 1.8a
Panicum virgatum L. Stalks 16.4 ± 5.5a 18.6 ± 4.4b 37.0 ± 5.0a 24.8 ± 2.8a 61.8 ± 2.6a
Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench Stalks 18.9 ± 5.6a 19.4 ± 3.0b 36.6 ± 3.9a 23.7 ± 0.3a 60.3 ± 4.5a
Phragmites australis Stalks 13.4 ± 0.8a 27.1 ± 0.8a 34.4 ± 1.4a 25.6 ± 0.3a 59.9 ± 1.5a
y
The data in the table appear as % based on dry weight and show the mean ± standard deviation (n ¼ 3) of plant materials that belong to each lignocellulosic crop.
z
Mean values with different letters in the row indicate significant difference at p < 0.05, by the least significant difference (LSD).

the highest cellulose and hemicellulose contents (Table 2). This of extractives were 13.4%e27.8%; lignin, 13.1%e27.1%, and hol-
result is similar to that of a previous study, although our findings ocellulose, 47.8%e67.1%. It is also showed that stalks contained
showed no significant differences at the 5% significance level. higher levels of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose, and a lower
M. sacchariflorus has been reported to be the most valuable among amount of extractives than leaves.
the Miscanthus species [13]. The levels of specific plant structural
components in 14 plant materials are presented in Table 3. The data 4. Conclusion
in the table was expressed as % based on dry weight, and statistical
significance was analyzed by the LSD method (p < 0.05). The levels This study showed that miscanthus, switchgrass, and sorghum
are valuable lignocellulosic crops, as determined from the signifi-
cant differences in lignin content of these plants compared to reed.
Table 3 Although switchgrass was recorded to have the highest poly-
Comparison of the levels of structural components per plant part among various
saccharide content among the crops examined, the values were not
plants.
significantly different at the 5% significance level. Among the 3
Plant material Part Extractives Lignin Holocellulose Miscanthus species, M. sacchariflorus was found to be the most
Cellulose Hemicellulose Total valuable in terms of the levels of structural components in both
MSIBa Leaves 26.8 13.1 27.4 29.2 56.6y
leaves and stalks. Furthermore, M. sacchariflorus showed a lower
Stalks 15.1 16.4 33.7 30.5 64.2 lignin and a higher polysaccharide content compared to that in
MSJNa Leaves 22.9 24.4 28.6 24.2 52.8 switchgrass; these differences were not significant. In particular,
Stalks 15.5 24.9 34.9 25.1 60.0 M. sacchariflorus collected from Hacheonri, Jejudo, Korea (MFJH)
MSCGa Leaves 26.6 15.7 30.2 25.5 55.7
showed the highest levels of structural components. Lignin and
Stalks 16.6 17.2 36.6 25.5 62.1
MSIa Leaves 25.6 18.4 27.9 21.5 49.4 holocellulose contents in plants collected from domestic and
Stalks 15.1 19.6 37.0 21.2 58.2 foreign sites showed no significant differences at the 5% signifi-
MFGYb Leaves 27.8 18.6 27.8 23.2 51.0 cance level. The results of this study thus suggest that Korean
Stalks 23.2 17.7 35.6 21.5 57.1 miscanthus is a competitive bioenergy crop compared to those of
MFJAb Leaves 21.1 18.4 32.8 28.2 60.9
Stalks 14.2 16.8 36.5 29.6 66.1
foreign countries, such as switchgrass from the United States.
MFJHb Leaves 21.9 13.8 34.5 26.8 61.3 However, as in any study, ours may have limitation, including
Stalks 14.5 14.4 37.6 29.5 67.2 variations in the methods and materials used, the collection sites
MGINc Leaves 25.1 19.1 30.8 24.5 55.3 selected, and the prevailing climatic conditions during the study.
Stalks 23.3 15.3 35.7 22.0 57.7
Therefore, additional investigations on other lignocellulosic crops
SGINAd Leaves 21.8 20.2 31.9 20.6 52.5
Stalks 11.9 21.9 39.6 22.4 62.0 for biofuel production are warranted.
SGINBd Leaves 19.3 18.8 35.5 26.4 61.9
Stalks 14.7 20.3 40.2 24.1 64.2
References
SGINCd Leaves 27.2 14.2 27.9 27.0 54.9
Stalks 22.4 13.5 31.2 27.8 59.0
[1] C. Somerville, H. Youngs, C. Taylor, S.C. Davis, S.P. Long, Feedstocks for
SBNGe Leaves 24.6 18.5 29.0 23.5 52.5
lignocellulosic biofuels, Science 329 (2010) 790e792.
Stalks 22.9 17.3 33.8 23.3 57.1
[2] C. Schubert, Can biofuels finally take center stage? Nat. Biotechnol. 27 (7)
SBSDe Leaves 25.4 19.8 31.2 23.0 54.2 (2006) 777e784.
Stalks 14.9 21.5 39.4 24.1 63.5 [3] I. Lewandowski, A. Heinz, Delayed harvest of Miscanthus e influences on
RGCDf Leaves 27.2 25.2 25.7 22.1 47.8 biomass quantity and quality and environmental impacts of energy produc-
Stalks 13.4 27.1 34.4 25.6 59.9 tion, Eur. J. Agron. 19 (2003) 45e63.
CV(%) 4.7 5.4 3.0 3.1 2.3 [4] I. Lewandowski, J.C. Clifton-Brown, J.M.O. Scurlock, W. Huisman, Miscanthus:
LSD(0.05) 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.2 European experience with a novel energy crop, Biomass Bioenergy 19 (2000)
209e227.
Plant material of a, Miscanthus sinensis; b, Miscanthus sacchariflorus; c, Miscanthus x [5] E.A. Heaton, F.G. Dohleman, S.P. Long, Meeting US biofuel goals with less land:
giganteus; d, switchgrass; e, sorghum; and f, reed. the potential of Miscanthus, Glob. Change Biol. 14 (2008) 2000e2014.
y
The data in the table show the mean value (n ¼ 3, except cellulose and hemicel- [6] C.E. Wyman, Biomass ethanol: technical progress, opportunities, and com-
lulose n ¼ 2; standard deviation < 3) and appear as % based on dry weight. Statistical mercial challenges, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 24 (1999) 189e226.
significance was analyzed by the least significant difference (LSD). [7] J. Perez, J. Munoz-Dorado, T. De La Rubia, J. Martinez, Biodegradation and
 S.-J. Jung et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 83 (2015) 322e327
biological treatments of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin: an overview, Int.
Microbiol. 5 (2002) 53e63.
[8] R.C. Kuhad, A. Singh, K.E. Eriksson, Microorganisms and enzymes involved in
the degradation of plant fiber cell walls, Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 57
(1997) 45e125.
[9] S. Banerjee, S. Mudliar, R. Sen, B. Giri, D. Satpute, T. Chakrabarti, R.A. Pandey,
Commercializing lignocellulosic bioethanol: technology bottlenecks and
possible remedies, Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 4 (2010) 77e93.
[10] N. Mosier, C. Wyman, B. Dale, R. Elander, Y.Y. Lee, M. Holtzapple, M. Ladisch,
Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic
biomass, Bioresour. Technol. 96 (2005) 673e686.
[11] L.R. Lynd, R.T. Elander, C.E. Wyman, Likely features and costs of mature
biomass ethanol technology, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. Part A Enzyme Eng.
Biotechnol. 57e58 (1996) 741e761.
[12] P. Kumar, D.M. Barrett, M.J. Delwiche, P. Stroeve, Methods for pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 3713e3729.
[13] S.J. Kim, M.Y. Kim, S.J. Jeong, M.S. Jang, I.M. Chung, Analysis of the biomass
content of various Miscanthus genotypes for biofuel production in Korea, Ind.
Crops Prod. 38 (2012) 46e49.
[14] J.K. Hwangbo, J.K. Seo, Y.S. Kwak, The pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass
for bioethanol production, RIST 23 (2) (2009) 126e131.
[15] ASTM. Standard test method for preparation of extractive-free wood. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards D 1105-96 2007; 04.10: Wood (CD-ROM). West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International. 2 p.
[16] NREL, Determination of Acid-insoluble Lignin in Biomass, Laboratory
Analytical Procedure #003, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1995.
[17] H. Rabemanolontsoa, S. Saka, Holocellulose determination in biomass, in:
T. Yao (Ed.), Zero-carbon Energy Kyoto 2011, Springer, Japan, 2012, pp.
135e140.
327
[18] D.V. Evtuguin, J. Tomas, A.S. Silva, C.P. Neto, Characterization of an acetylated
heteroxylan from Eucalyptus globulus Labill, Carbohydr. Res. 338 (2003)
597e604.
[19] Korean Standards Association, Testing method for alpha, beta, gamma cellu-
lose in pulp (KS M 7044 method), Korean Agency for Technology and Stan-
dards, 1995. ICS code 85.040.
[20] B.C. Saha, Hemicellulose bioconversion, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 30 (2003)
279e291.
[21] R. Kumar, S. Singh, O.V. Singh, Bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass:
biochemical and molecular perspectives, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35
(2008) 377e391.
[22] C. Ververis, K. Georghiou, N. Christodoulakis, P. Santas, R. Santas, Fiber di-
mensions, lignin and cellulose content of various plant materials and their
suitability for paper production, Ind. Crops Prod. 19 (2004) 245e254.
[23] A. Sorensen, P.J. Teller, T. Hilstrom, B.K. Ahring, Hydrolysis of Miscanthus for
bioethanol production using dilute acid presoaking combined with wet ex-
plosion pre-treatment and enzymatic treatment, Bioresour. Technol. 99
(2008) 6602e6607.
[24] D.R. Keshwani, J.J. Cheng, Switchgrass for bioethanol and other value-added
applications: a review, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) 1515e1523.
[25] I. Dolciotti, S. Mambelli, S. Grandi, G. Venturi, Comparison of two Sorghum
genotypes for sugar and fiber production, Ind. Crops Prod. 7 (1998) 265e272.
[26] D. Nagaiah, R. Srinivasa, R.S. Prakasham, A. Uma, K. Radhika, Y. Barve,
A.V. Umakanth, High biomass sorghum as a potential raw material for bio-
hydrogen production: a preliminary evaluation, Curr. Trends Biotechnol.
Pharm. 6 (2012) 183e189.
[27] S. Amaducci, A. Monti, G. Venturi, Non-structural carbohydrates and fibre
components in sweet and fibre sorghum as affected by low and normal input
techniques, Ind. Crops Prod. 20 (2004) 111e118.