Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Especially, the xylan conversion rate of native corncob by sequential hydrolysis (SH) reached 34.8%%.
Totally, the xylan conversion rates of native corncob were higher than those of native corn stover.
Similar(58)
As Table 3 shows the glucose can not be detected after hydrolysis of both native corncob and steam-exploded corn stover for 48 h.
The highest conversion rates of xylan on native corn stover, native corncob and steam-exploded corn stover were respectively 14.7, 16.8 and 59.1 %.
Moreover, the conversion rates of araban on native corn stover and native corncob reached 53.5 and 60.0%%, respectively.
One was that the lignocellulosic biomass (native corn stover or native corncob) was sequentially hydrolyzed (SH) by the enzyme of C. owensensis (the first step) and CTec2 (the second step).
Figure 3 shows that after sequential hydrolysis (SH) on native corn stover and native corncob by extra-enzyme and CTec2, the conversion rates of glucan were 31.2 and 37.9 %, which respectively were 1.7- and 1.9-fold of each control (hydrolyzed by CTec2 only).
Composition (glucan/xylan/araban/lignin content as percentage) of each lignocellulosic substrate was as follows: native corn stover (35.6/17.7/4.3/21.3), steam-exploded corn stover (45.3/2.2/0/29.6), native corncob (33.5/27.3/3.5/17.8) and steam-exploded corncob (43.7/5.5/0/23.4).
Namely, the higher xylose releasing (34.8%% from native corncob vs 11.8%% from native corn stover) led to a higher glucose releasing (37.9 % from native corncob vs 31.2 % from native corn stover).
The enzymes of C. owensensis had high ability for degrading hemicellulose of native corn stover and corncob with the conversion rates of xylan 16.7 % and araban 60.0%%.
The glucan conversion rates of native corn stover and corncob by SH were respectively 81.7 % and 95.7 % of those of the SE corn stover and SE corncob hydrolyzed by CTec2 (Fig. 4b).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com