| Literature DB >> 28353158 |
Farrukh Raza Amin1,2,3, Habiba Khalid1, Han Zhang1,2, Sajid U Rahman1, Ruihong Zhang4, Guangqing Liu1, Chang Chen5.
Abstract
Agricultural residues, such as lignocellulosic materials (LM), are the most attractive renewable bioenergy sources and are abundantly found in nature. Anaerobic digestion has been extensively studied for the effective utilization of LM for biogas production. Experimental investigation of physiochemical changes that occur during pretreatment is needed for developing mechanistic and effective models that can be employed for the rational design of pretreatment processes. Various-cutting edge pretreatment technologies (physical, chemical and biological) are being tested on the pilot scale. These different pretreatment methods are widely described in this paper, among them, microaerobic pretreatment (MP) has gained attention as a potential pretreatment method for the degradation of LM, which just requires a limited amount of oxygen (or air) supplied directly during the pretreatment step. MP involves microbial communities under mild conditions (temperature and pressure), uses fewer enzymes and less energy for methane production, and is probably the most promising and environmentally friendly technique in the long run. Moreover, it is technically and economically feasible to use microorganisms instead of expensive chemicals, biological enzymes or mechanical equipment. The information provided in this paper, will endow readers with the background knowledge necessary for finding a promising solution to methane production.Entities:
Keywords: Biodegradation; Biogas; Lignocellulose; Microaerobic; Microbial community; Pretreatment
Year: 2017 PMID: 28353158 PMCID: PMC5371168 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-017-0375-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Lignocellulose composition: cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin
Different pretreatment methods and their methane yields
| Pretreatment method | Pretreatment type | Pretreatment conditions | Composition changed | Gas generating capacity mL/gVS | Increased methane yield (%) | Observations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical methods | Mechanical pulverization | Pulverization, particle sizes of 33 to 6 mm | Cellulose, hemicellulose | – | 11–13 | Energy cost is high; particle diameter should be 6 mm for high methane yield | (Herrmann et al. |
| Physicochemical methods | Steam explosion | Pretreating silage straw 2.5 MPa, 90 s | Hemicellulose, lignin | 334.8 | 56 | Gas generating speed increased | (Guizhuan et al. |
| Microwave radiation | Frequency 2.45 GHz, power 680 W, time 24 min | Lignin | 332.3 | – | Gas generating speed is fast | (Weiwei et al. | |
| Chemical methods | H2SO4 | 2%, pretreated 7 days | Cellulose, hemicellulose | 175.6 CH4 | 74.6 | Toxic, corrosive and expensive handling | (Song et al. |
| HCl | 2%, pretreated 7 days | Cellulose, hemicellulose | 163.4 CH4 | 62.4 | Toxic, corrosive and expensive handling | (Song et al. | |
| CH3COOH | 4%, pretreated 7 days | Cellulose, hemicellulose | 145.1 CH4 | 44.2 | Toxic, corrosive and expensive handling | (Song et al. | |
| NaOH | 2%, pretreated 3 days | Hemicellulose, lignin | 220.0 CH4 | 73.4 | Toxic and hard to recycle | (Zheng et al. | |
| KOH | 2.5%, pretreated 1 day | Hemicellulose, lignin | 295.0 CH4 | 95.6 | Effective but expensive | (Li et al. | |
| Ca(OH)2 | 2.5%, pretreated 1 day | Hemicellulose, lignin | 210.71 CH4 | 39.7 | Cheap but hard to dissolve | (Li et al. | |
| KOH + Ca(OH)2 | 0.5 and 2%, pretreated 1 day | Hemicellulose, lignin | 271.38 CH4 | 79.9 | Cheap and effective | (Li et al. | |
| H2O2 | 3%, pretreated 7 days | Hemicellulose, lignin | 216.7 CH4 | 115.4 | Cheap but longer pretreatment time | (Song et al. | |
| Biological methods | Mixed microorganism | XDC-2, pretreated for 16 days | Hemicellulose | 294.9 CH4 | 87. 9 | Long pretreatment time and low efficiency | (Yuan et al. |
| Adding manure | Cow dung: corn straw (1:1, w/w) pretreated for 20 days | Hemicellulose | 450.0 | 40. 7 | Highly dependent on manure type | (Zhou et al. | |
| Microaerobic pretreatment | Pretreated up to complete O2 consumption by microbes | Hemicellulose, lignin | 325.7 CH4 | 16.24 | Efficient pretreatment and cost effective | (Fu et al. |
Fig. 2Schematic diagram of the pretreatment of lignocellulosic material for biogas production
Microaerobic pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass
| Conditions for feedstock | Conditions for inoculum | Pretreatment process | O2 Conc. (mL/gVS) | Digestion process/Temp (°C) | Gas yield (mL/gVS) | Improved yield (%) | Reference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | TS (%) | VS (%) | Type | TS (%) | VS (%) | ||||||
| Corn straw | 92.4 | 93.4 | Biogas slurry | 6.64 | 70.62 | TMP | 5 | Batch/37 | 325.7 CH4 | 16.24 | (Fu et al. |
| Corn straw | 91.9 | 89.5 | Active sludge | 2.6 | 52.7 | TMP | 0.45/day | Batch/55 | 216.8 CH4 | 16.5 | (Fu et al. |
| Corn straw | 92.4 | 93.4 | Biogas slurry | 6.1 | 73.05 | Secondary TMT | 10 | Batch/37 | 380.6 CH4 | 28.4 | (Fu et al. |
| Corn straw | 91.25 | 91.8 | Biogas slurry | 1.25 | 0.75 | Micro-aerobic | 0.28/day | Batch/35 | 41.6 H2 | 43 | (Li et al. |
| Sugarcane bagasse | 29.6 | 96.2 | Anaerobic sludge | 4.6 | 70.6 | TMP | 10 | Batch/37 | 229.6 CH4 | 29.28 | (Fu et al. |