| Literature DB >> 29046722 |
Yang You1, Bo Wu1, Yi-Wei Yang1, Yan-Wei Wang1, Song Liu1, Qi-Li Zhu1, Han Qin1, Fu-Rong Tan1, Zhi-Yong Ruan2, Ke-Dong Ma3, Li-Chun Dai1, Min Zhang1, Guo-Quan Hu1, Ming-Xiong He1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental issues, such as the fossil energy crisis, have resulted in increased public attention to use bioethanol as an alternative renewable energy. For ethanol production, water and nutrient consumption has become increasingly important factors being considered by the bioethanol industry as reducing the consumption of these resources would decrease the overall cost of ethanol production. Biogas slurry contains not only large amounts of wastewater, but also the nutrients required for microbial growth, e.g., nitrogen, ammonia, phosphate, and potassium. Therefore, biogas slurry is an attractive potential resource for bioethanol production that could serve as an alternative to process water and nitrogen sources.Entities:
Keywords: Biogas slurry; Cellulosic ethanol; Enzymatic hydrolysis; NaOH pretreatment; Zymomonas mobilis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29046722 PMCID: PMC5644083 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0921-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Characteristics of corn straw
| Original corn straw | Corn straw pretreated with 100% biogas slurry | Corn straw pretreated with fresh water | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NDF, % dry matter | 52.78 ± 1.06 | 52.93 ± 0.51 | 51.84 ± 0.86 |
| ADF, % dry matter | 44.33 ± 1.26 | 43.83 ± 0.43 | 43.67 ± 1.14 |
| ADL, % dry matter | 21.15 ± 0.57 | 17.26 ± 0.53 | 17.43 ± 0.56 |
| Cellulose (= ADF − ADL) % dry matter | 23.18 ± 1.96 | 26.57 ± 0.35 | 26.24 ± 1.71 |
| Hemicellulose (= NDF − ADF) % dry matter | 8.45 ± 0.86 | 9.10 ± 0.89 | 8.17 ± 0.58 |
| Lignin (= ADL) % dry matter | 21.15 ± 0.57 | 17.26 ± 0.53 | 17.43 ± 0.56 |
| N, % dry matter | 1.08 ± 0.25 | 1.18 ± 0.72 | 1.24 ± 0.34 |
| C, % dry matter | 44.96 ± 2.34 | 34.38 ± 0.52 | 31.48 ± 1.56 |
All data are the average of triplicates with standard deviations of the means (n = 3) at α = 0.05
Concentrations of biogas slurry used in this study
| Concentration of biogas slurry (%) | Biogas slurry (mL) | Fresh water (mL) | NaOH (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 50 | 0.67 |
| 10 | 5 | 45 | 0.67 |
| 20 | 10 | 40 | 0.67 |
| 30 | 15 | 35 | 0.67 |
| 40 | 20 | 30 | 0.67 |
| 50 | 25 | 25 | 0.67 |
| 60 | 30 | 20 | 0.67 |
| 70 | 35 | 15 | 0.67 |
| 80 | 40 | 10 | 0.67 |
| 90 | 45 | 5 | 0.67 |
| 100 | 50 | 0 | 0.67 |
Characteristics of corn straw following pretreatment with different concentrations of biogas slurry
| Biogas slurry (%) | Cellulose (% dry matter) | Hemicellulose (% dry matter) | Lignin (% dry matter) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 26.24 | 8.17 | 17.43 |
| 10 | 12.66 | 4.31 | 15.22 |
| 20 | 12.03 | 3.78 | 15.81 |
| 30 | 15.47 | 4.89 | 15.29 |
| 40 | 23.44 | 9.02 | 18.43 |
| 50 | 24.24 | 9.68 | 17.65 |
| 60 | 27.55 | 9.53 | 18.81 |
| 70 | 29.76 | 9.27 | 16.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 90 | 28.09 | 9.47 | 16.15 |
| 100 | 26.57 | 9.10 | 17.26 |
The best results showed as italics
Concentrations of reducing sugar after pretreatment with different concentrations of biogas slurry
| Biogas slurry (%) | Glucose (g/L) | Xylose (g/L) | Arabinose (g/L) | Total reducing sugar (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.38 | 1.94 |
| 10 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.52 | 1.84 |
| 20 | 1.08 | 1.20 | 0.81 | 3.08 |
| 30 | 0.57 | 0.67 | 0.47 | 1.71 |
| 40 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.61 | 1.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 60 | 1.39 | 1.68 | 0.64 | 3.71 |
| 70 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.43 | 1.47 |
| 80 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 1.51 |
| 90 | 1.33 | 1.57 | 0.63 | 3.53 |
| 100 | 0.83 | 1.35 | 0.60 | 2.78 |
The best results showed as italics
Fig. 1Visualization of corn straw by tabletop microscopy (× 500). a Untreated corn straw, and b corn straw pretreated with biogas slurry, and c corn straw pretreated with fresh water for 6 h at 140 °C with 1.34% NaOH (w/v) and 100 g L−1 substrate concentration
Concentrations of reducing sugar after enzymatic hydrolysis of corn straw pretreated with biogas slurry
| Biogas slurry (%) | Glucose (g/L) | Xylose (g/L) | Cellobiose (g/L) | Total reducing sugar (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2.01 | 1.09 | 0.25 | 3.71 |
| 10 | 2.09 | 1.10 | 0.24 | 3.76 |
| 20 | 2.19 | 1.11 | 0.22 | 4.00 |
| 30 | 2.18 | 1.10 | 0.20 | 3.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 50 | 2.76 | 1.19 | 0.24 | 4.46 |
| 60 | 2.76 | 1.19 | 0.23 | 4.48 |
| 70 | 2.50 | 1.15 | 0.21 | 4.27 |
| 80 | 2.41 | 1.12 | 0.18 | 4.08 |
| 90 | 2.22 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 3.71 |
| 100 | 2.18 | 0.99 | 0.20 | 3.78 |
The best results showed as italics
Fig. 2Changes in reducing sugars, glucose, and xylose during continuous enzymolysis using 100% biogas slurry treated. All data are the average of triplicates
Fig. 3Bio-ethanol fermentation by Z. mobilis ZMT2 using continuous enzymatic hydrolysate of corn straw that had been pretreated with biogas slurry. a Growth curve of ZMT2. b CEH (Continuous Enzymatic Hydrolysate fermentation in the presence and absence of biogas slurry) and RM (control). All data are the average of triplicates
Fig. 4Ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, and nitrogen content in the pretreated, enzymatically hydrolyzed, and fermented solutions. a Ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen content. b Nitrogen content. All data are the average of triplicates
Cost of corn steep liquor and process water for use in cellulosic ethanol production
| 1a | 2a | 3a | 3 ha | 4a | 4 ha | 5 ha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of corn steep liquor (cents/gal ethanol) | 31.8 | 19.4 | 35.6 | 32.7 | 33.8 | 29.3 | 18.3 |
| Process water (gal/gal ethanol) | 16.5 | 10.1 | 8.2 | 7.5 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 5.1 |
| Cost of process water (cents/gal ethanol) | 110.06 | 67.37 | 54.69 | 50.03 | 21.34 | 18.01 | 34.02 |
| Total cost of corn steep liquor and process water (cents/gal ethanol) | 141.86 | 86.77 | 90.29 | 82.73 | 55.14 | 47.31 | 52.32 |
| Minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) in dollars per gallon ($/gallon) | 3.3 | 3.09 | 3.15 | 2.95 | 3.03 | 2.68 | 2.87 |
| Total cost of corn steep liquor and process water in Minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) (%) | 42.99 | 28.08 | 28.66 | 28.04 | 18.2 | 17.65 | 18.23 |
Data from Ref. [17]
Whole slurry coculture SSF (Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation); Separate xylose and glucose fermentation; 3, 3 h, 4, 4 h, 5 h, Separate solid and liquid processing dilution of solids with ethanol from xylose fermentation or water
aDifferent technologies used for converting cellulosic material into ethanol
Fig. 5Laboratory scale mass balance of conversion of corn straw into ethanol
Analysis of the main costs and energy balance of corn-to-ethanol in this study
| Fresh water | Biogas slurry | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount | Costs (RMB) | Energy (kJ/kg) | Amount | Costs (RMB) | Energy (kJ/kg) | |
| Main process inputs | ||||||
| Corn straw | 1000 kg | 300a | 16,350 | 1000 kg | 300a | 16,350 |
| NaOH | 134 kg | 335b | 148.91 | 134 kg | 335b | 148.91 |
| Process water | 10 m3 | 30c | 42.0 | 0 m3 | 0 | 0 |
| Biogas slurry | 0 m3 | 0 | 0 | 10 m3 | 0 | 0 |
| Nitrogen source | 18 kg | 180d | 753.48 | 0 kg | 0 | 0 |
| Total costs (RMB) | − 845 | − 635 | ||||
| Total energy input (MJ/kg corn straw) | − 17.29 | − 16.5 | ||||
| Main process outputs | ||||||
| Ethanol | 95.2 kg | 761.6e | 86.8 kg | 694.4e | ||
| Ethanol (Yuan/kg) | 8.88 | 7.32 | ||||
| Net profit (Yuan) | − 83.4 | 59.4 | ||||
| Total energy output (MJ/kg corn straw) | 2.83f | 2.58f | ||||
| Net energy value (MJ/kg corn straw) | − 14.46 | − 13.92 | ||||
a, b, c, dThe costs of corn straw, NaOH, process water, biogas slurry, and nitrogen source are calculated based on the fact of China
eThe output of ethanol is calculated as 8.0 Yuan/kg
fEnergy value based on lower heating value