## 3 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of Wheat-Straw Enzymatic Hydrolysate  
The final C\({}_{5}\) and C\({}_{6}\) sugar yields from 280 \({}^{\circ}\)C-torrefied and raw wheat straw after O\({}_{3}\)/SAA pre-treatment and enzymatic hydrolysis were very similar and differed by 12.8% and 16.0%, respectively (Table 2). This suggests that the increased hydrophobicity of the torrefied biomass did not adversely impact a pre-treatment requiring swelling of  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Detected Compound** & **Formula** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Retention Time** \\ **(min)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Molecular Weight** \\ **(g mole\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Carbon Dioxide & CO\({}_{2}\) & 1.55 & 44 \\ Acetaldehyde & C\({}_{2}\)H\({}_{4}\)O & 1.872 & 44 \\
1-propen-2-ol acetate & & 1.761 & \\ Acetic acid & C\({}_{2}\)H\({}_{4}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 2.417 & 60 \\
2,3-Butanedione & & 2.085 & \\
2-Propanone, 1-hydroxy- & C\({}_{3}\)H\({}_{6}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 2.65 & 74 \\
1,2-ethanoloi, monocacetate & & 3.961 & \\ Butanediol & & 4.177 & \\ Propanoic acid, 2-oxo-, methyl ester & C\({}_{4}\)H\({}_{6}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 4.324 & 102 \\ Furfural & C\({}_{5}\)H\({}_{4}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 5.135 & 96 \\
2-Furanmethanol & C\({}_{5}\)H\({}_{6}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 5.734 & 98 \\
2-Propanone, 1-(acetyloxy)- & C\({}_{5}\)H\({}_{8}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 5.924 & 116 \\
1, 2-Cyclopentanedione, 3-methyl- & & 9.859 & 112 \\ Phenol, 2-methoxy- & C\({}_{7}\)H\({}_{8}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 11.291 & 124 \\ Pentanal/Cyclopropyl cabinol & & 11.619 & \\ Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-methyl- & C\({}_{8}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 13.815 & 138 \\ Benzofuran, 2,3-dihydro- & C\({}_{8}\)H\({}_{8}\)O & 14.63 & 120 \\ Phenol, 4-ethyl-2-methoxy- & C\({}_{9}\)H\({}_{12}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 15.82 & 152 \\
2-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol & C\({}_{9}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 16.632 & 150 \\ Phenol, 2,6-dimethoxy- & C\({}_{8}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 17.507 & 154 \\ Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)- & C\({}_{10}\)H\({}_{12}\)O\({}_{2}\) & 19.569 & 164 \\
5-tert-Butylpyrogallol & & 21.148 & \\
2-propanone, 1-(4-hydroxy-3-methanyphenyl-) & & 21.342 & \\
3,5-dimethoxyacetophenone & & 21.929 & \\ Phenol, 2,6-dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl)- & C\({}_{11}\)H\({}_{14}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 24.496 & 194 \\ ethanone, 1-(4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxyyphenyl-) & & 25.203 & \\ desaspidinol & & 25.855 & \\
3,5-dimethoxy-4-hydroxycinammaldehyde & & 29.457 & \\ Estra-1,3,5(10)-trien-17\(\delta\)-ol & C\({}_{18}\)H\({}_{24}\)O & 28.793 & 256 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Properties for compounds detected from py-GC MS.  
Figure 4: Py-GC MS spectra for raw (**a**) and 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C-torrefied 42–60 mesh (**b**) wheat-straw particles.  
the biomass and that enough hemicellulose remained after the torrefaction process to provide C\({}_{5}\) sugars. Instead of the conventional dilute sulfuric acid pre-treatment [44], the novel pre-treatment method involving O\({}_{3}\) and soaking aqueous NH\({}_{4}\)OH followed by enzymatic hydrolysis described herein provided the advantages of more economical, milder operating conditions, recyclable (NH\({}_{4}\))\({}_{2}\)(SO\({}_{4}\)) for algal cultivation, and a lower yield of growth-inhibiting compounds [10]. The acetate-buffered enzymatic hydrolysate contained 27.49 mg L\({}^{-1}\) glucose, 0.69 mg L\({}^{-1}\) arabinose, and 10.06 mg L\({}^{-1}\) xylose/mannose. \({}^{1}\)H NMR spectra of enzymatic wheat-straw hydrolysate depicted sugars in the 3-4 ppm region and not small molecules or growth inhibitors in the 6-10 ppm region (Figure 5). This study represents the first reported use of torrefaction to prepare biomass for subsequent biochemical pre-treatment and hydrolytic enzymatic processes.