| Literature DB >> 29588662 |
Chang Dou1, Rick Gustafson1, Renata Bura1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the biofuel industry, land productivity is important to feedstock growers and conversion process product yield is important to the biorefinery. The crop productivity, however, may not positively correlate with bioconversion yield. Therefore, it is important to evaluate sugar yield and biomass productivity. In this study, 2-year-old poplar trees harvested in the first coppice cycle, including one low-productivity hybrid and one high-productivity hybrid, were collected from two poplar tree farms. Through steam pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, the bioconversion yields of low- and high-productivity poplar hybrids were compared for both sites.Entities:
Keywords: Biofuel system; Biorefinery; Economic analysis; Feedstock plantation; Integrated model; Poplar
Year: 2018 PMID: 29588662 PMCID: PMC5863363 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-018-1079-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Chemical composition of low-productivity and high-productivity hybrids from two plantation sites (shown as weight percentage)
| Site | Hybrid | Raw biomass composition (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucan | Xylan | Minor sugars | Total sugars | Lignin | Acetic acid | Ash | Extractives | ||
| Jefferson | Low-productivity | 33.2 | 11.9 | 4.4 | 49.5 | 26.8 | 6.1 | 3.4 | 16.7 |
| 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| High-productivity | 34.3 | 12.9 | 4.0 | 51.2 | 26.4 | 6.8 | 4.9 | 10.0 | |
| 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | ||
| Clarksburg | Low-productivity | 36.6 | 12.3 | 4.1 | 53.0 | 27.0 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 16.4 |
| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.9 | ||
| High-productivity | 37.5 | 12.5 | 3.6 | 53.6 | 27.5 | 6.2 | 2.7 | 14.5 | |
| 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.5 | ||
Standard deviations (SDs) are shown under each mean value
Composition and sugar recovery resulting from steam pretreated of coppice samples including WIF yield (expressed as recovered solids in kg/tonne), chemical composition of WIF (as percentages of the solid weight), and monomeric sugar yields in WSF samples (expressed as kg/tonne raw biomass)
| Site | Hybrid | WIF yield (kg/tonne) | Chemical composition of WIF (%) | Sugar recovered in WSF (kg/tonne) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucan | Xylan | Minor sugars | Total sugars | Lignin | Glucose | Xylose | Minor sugars | Total sugars | |||
| Jefferson | Low-productivity | 468.5 | 52.2 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 55.2 | 37.4 | 49.4 | 78.2 | 28.7 | 156.3 |
| 21.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 6.3 | ||
| High-productivity | 467.4 | 53.0 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 56.5 | 35.9 | 27.2 | 65.7 | 20.5 | 113.3 | |
| 5.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 2.6 | ||
| Clarksburg | Low-productivity | 508.5 | 55.3 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 58.7 | 37.6 | 62.2 | 80.4 | 30.4 | 173.0 |
| 9.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 6.1 | ||
| High-productivity | 529.0 | 54.4 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 57.7 | 36.8 | 53.4 | 72.0 | 27.1 | 152.4 | |
| 6.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 2.5 | 11.1 | ||
Standard deviations (SDs) are shown under each mean value. kg/tonne values refer to kg of sugar recovered per tonne of raw OD biomass
Fig. 196 h cellulose to glucose and xylan to xylose conversion of water-insoluble fraction (WIF) of steam pretreated coppice poplar samples. Error bars indicate standard deviation from triplicates
Fig. 2Overall sugar yield expressed as monomeric sugar per unit raw biomass (kg/tonne) of coppice poplar samples after pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Error bars indicate standard deviation from triplicates
Plantation economics: including land feedstock productivity, land needed to meet the capacity of a commercial-scale biorefinery, and additional revenue of selling surplus feedstock
| Site | Hybrid | Plantation economics | Biorefinery economics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land feedstock productivity | Land neededa | Additional revenuec | Ethanol conversion yield | Annual ethanol production | Annual ethanol revenue | ||
| (tonne/acre/year) | (MM acre/year)b | ($MM/year) | (liter/tonne) | (MM liter/year) | ($MM/year) | ||
| Jefferson | Low-productivity | 2.78 | 0.25 | – | 214 | 150 | 63 |
| High-productivity | 3.75 | 0.19 | 3.46 | 179 | 125 | 53 | |
| Clarksburg | Low-productivity | 1.59 | 0.44 | – | 223 | 156 | 66 |
| High-productivity | 1.78 | 0.39 | 2.53 | 205 | 143 | 60 | |
Biorefinery economics: including conversion efficiency, annual ethanol production, and annual ethanol revenue using different poplar hybrids from two sites
aLand area required to meet the biorefinery with feedstock capacity of 700,000 dry tonne/year
bMM stands for one million
cFeedstock grower additional revenue calculated based on selling surplus feedstock at the price of $53/tonne [19]
Land productivity in terms of sugar yield, ethanol output, and revenue
| Site | Hybrid | Integrated model economics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land sugar productivity | Land ethanol outputa | Land revenue | ||
| (tonne/acre/year) | (liter/acre/year) | ($/acre/year) | ||
| Jefferson | Low-productivity | 1.05 | 594 | 250 |
| High-productivity | 1.15 | 670 | 282 | |
| Clarksburg | Low-productivity | 0.63 | 355 | 149 |
| High-productivity | 0.64 | 365 | 153 | |
a Fermentation conversion calculated based on NREL 2011 biochemical conversion report [27]