| Literature DB >> 23251086 |
Larissa Canilha1, Anuj Kumar Chandel, Thais Suzane dos Santos Milessi, Felipe Antônio Fernandes Antunes, Wagner Luiz da Costa Freitas, Maria das Graças Almeida Felipe, Silvio Silvério da Silva.
Abstract
Depleted supplies of fossil fuel, regular price hikes of gasoline, and environmental damage have necessitated the search for economic and eco-benign alternative of gasoline. Ethanol is produced from food/feed-based substrates (grains, sugars, and molasses), and its application as an energy source does not seem fit for long term due to the increasing fuel, food, feed, and other needs. These concerns have enforced to explore the alternative means of cost competitive and sustainable supply of biofuel. Sugarcane residues, sugarcane bagasse (SB), and straw (SS) could be the ideal feedstock for the second-generation (2G) ethanol production. These raw materials are rich in carbohydrates and renewable and do not compete with food/feed demands. However, the efficient bioconversion of SB/SS (efficient pretreatment technology, depolymerization of cellulose, and fermentation of released sugars) remains challenging to commercialize the cellulosic ethanol. Among the technological challenges, robust pretreatment and development of efficient bioconversion process (implicating suitable ethanol producing strains converting pentose and hexose sugars) have a key role to play. This paper aims to review the compositional profile of SB and SS, pretreatment methods of cane biomass, detoxification methods for the purification of hydrolysates, enzymatic hydrolysis, and the fermentation of released sugars for ethanol production.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23251086 PMCID: PMC3516358 DOI: 10.1155/2012/989572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol ISSN: 1110-7243
Figure 1Procedural flow diagram for the bioconversion of cane biomass into 2G ethanol.
Different feedstock cultivated in the Brazilian territory.
| Biomass | Planted area | Production of biomass |
|---|---|---|
| Wheat | 2,166.2 | 5,788.6 |
| Rice | 2,427.1 | 11,600.3 |
| Sorghum | 785.1 | 2,204.9 |
| Cassava | 1,787.5 | 24,524.3 |
| Soybean | 25,042.2 | 66,383.0 |
| Castor bean | 129.6 | 25.8 |
| Corn | 7,596.3 | 38,861.8 |
| Sugarcane | 8,527.8 | 602,178.8 |
| Barley | 88.4 | 305.1 |
Source: Conab [3, 4] and Embrapa [5].
Figure 2The sugarcane plant morphology. Adapted from [9].
Figure 3General composition of Sugarcane. Adapted from [13].
Chemical composition (% w/w, dry basis) of Brazilian SB reported in the literature.
| Component (%) | Reference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitarelo [ | da Silva et al. [ | Canilha et al. [ | Rocha et al. [ | Brienzo et al. [ | Rabelo et al. [ | |
| Cellulose | 41.1 | 38.8 | 45.0 | 45.5 | 42.4 | 38.4 |
| Hemicellulose | 22.7 | 26.0 | 25.8 | 27.0 | 25.2 | 23.2 |
| Lignin | 31.4 | 32.4# | 19.1 | 21.1 | 19.6 | 25.0 |
| Ash | 2.4 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
| Extractives | 6.8 | — | 9.1 | 4.6 | — | — |
| Others | — | — | — | — | — | — |
*Extractives-free basis.
#Lignin and others.
Extracting solvents: 1dichloromethane, ethanol : toluene (1 : 2), ethanol, and hot water; 2none; 3water and ethanol; 4ethanol; 5ethanol; 6none.
Chemical composition (% w/w, dry basis) of Brazilian SS reported in the literature.
| Component (%) | Reference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moriya [ | Pitarelo [ | Saad et al. [ | da Silva et al. [ | Luz et al. [ | Costa et al. [ | |
| Cellulose | 36.1 | 34.4 | 36.1 | 33.6 | 33.3 | 33.5 |
| Hemicellulose | 28.3 | 18.4 | 26.9 | 28.9 | 27.4 | 27.1 |
| Lignin | 26.2 | 40.7 | 26.2 | 31.8# | 26.1 | 25.8 |
| Ash | 2.1 | 11.7 | 2.1 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
| Extractives | 5.3 | 11.5 | 5.3 | — | — | — |
| Others | — | — | — | — | 10.6 | — |
*Extractives-free basis.
#Lignin and others.
Extracting solvents: 1ethanol; 2dichloromethane, ethanol : toluene (1 : 2), ethanol, and hot water; 3water; 4none; 5none; 6none.
Figure 4SEM of natural SB (a) and cellulignin obtained after dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment (b) [40].