| Literature DB >> 22888758 |
Xiaowen Chen1, Ling Tao, Joseph Shekiro, Ali Mohaghaghi, Steve Decker, Wei Wang, Holly Smith, Sunkyu Park, Michael E Himmel, Melvin Tucker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, acid pretreatment technology for the production of bio-ethanol from corn stover has required severe conditions to overcome biomass recalcitrance. However, the high usage of acid and steam at severe pretreatment conditions hinders the economic feasibility of the ethanol production from biomass. In addition, the amount of acetate and furfural produced during harsh pretreatment is in the range that strongly inhibits cell growth and impedes ethanol fermentation. The current work addresses these issues through pretreatment with lower acid concentrations and temperatures incorporated with deacetylation and mechanical refining.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22888758 PMCID: PMC3519810 DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-5-60
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Pretreatment conditions for corn stover in the 2011 techno-economic analysis report[4]
| Residence time | 5 minutes |
| Temperature | 158°C |
| Pressure | 5.5 atm |
| Total solids loading | 30 wt% |
Xylan mass closure of pretreatment at 150°C, 8 mg HSOper g of O.D. corn stover for 20 min
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 34 M95 | 62 | 21 | 2 | 18 | 103 |
| | 33B51 | 53 | 23 | 2 | 24 | 102 |
| Deacetylated | 34 M95 | 73 | 10 | 2 | 17 | 102 |
| 33B51 | 70 | 7 | 2 | 21 | 100 | |
Figure 1Effect of enzyme loading, deacetylation, and mechanical refining on the digestibility of washed substrates of pretreated corn stover; (a) Kramer 34 M95, (b) Kramer 33B51; ‘blue square symbol’glucose yield; ‘red square symbol’xylose yield; (CT10: 10 mg CTec1 + 1 mg Htec1 per gram of cellulose; CT20: 20 mg CTec2 + 2 mg Htec2 per gram of cellulose; CT40: 40 mg CTec2 + 4 mg Htec2 per gram of cellulose; CT60: 60 mg CTec2 + 6 mg Htec2 per gram of cellulose).
Figure 2High-solids enzymatic hydrolysis with washed solids; Enzyme is loaded as CT20; ‘blue square symbol’glucose yield, non-PFI refined; ‘red square symbol’xylose yield, non-PFI refined; ‘green square symbol’glucose yield, PFI refined; ‘purple square symbol’xylose yield, PFI refined.
Figure 3Particle size distribution of control and mechanically refined corn stover; ‘blue diamond symbol’control; ‘green triangle symbol’PFI refined.
Figure 4High-solids enzymatic hydrolysis with whole slurry (non-washed solids); Enzyme is loaded as CT20; ‘blue square symbol’glucose yield, non-PFI refined; ‘red square symbol’xylose yield, non-PFI refined; ‘green square symbol’glucose yield, PFI refined; ‘purple square symbol’xylose yield, PFI refined.
Figure 5Effect of deacetylation and mechanical refining on fermentation yield; ‘blue square symbol’control; ‘red square symbol’deacetylated; GU: glucose utilization; XU: xylose utilization; EY: ethanol yield.
Comparison of ethanol yield per dry ton of biomass for cases with and without washed solid process options, Ctrl = Control, DA = Deacetylated, MR = Mechanical Refining
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||||
| 2011design | 79.0 | | | | | | | |
| 34 M95 | 63.9 | 73.4 | 70.4 | 82.2 | 71.1 | 82.4 | 78.4 | 88.2 |