| Literature DB >> 33207746 |
Igor Lomovskiy1, Aleksey Bychkov1, Oleg Lomovsky1, Tatiana Skripkina1.
Abstract
In recent years, we have witnessed an increasing interest in the application of mechanochemical methods for processing materials in biomass refining techniques. Grinding and mechanical pretreatment are very popular methods utilized to enhance the reactivity of polymers and plant raw materials; however, the choice of devices and their modes of action is often performed through trial and error. An inadequate choice of equipment often results in inefficient grinding, low reactivity of the product, excess energy expenditure, and significant wear of the equipment. In the present review, modern equipment employing various types of mechanical impacts, which show the highest promise for mechanochemical pretreatment of plant raw materials, is examined and compared-disc mills, attritors and bead mills, ball mills, planetary mills, vibration and vibrocentrifugal mills, roller and centrifugal roller mills, extruders, hammer mills, knife mills, pin mills, disintegrators, and jet mills. The properly chosen type of mechanochemical activation (and equipment) allows an energetically and economically sound enhancement of the reactivity of solid-phase polymers by increasing the effective surface area accessible to reagents, reducing the amount of crystalline regions and the diffusion coefficient, disordering the supramolecular structure of the material, and mechanochemically reacting with the target substances.Entities:
Keywords: biorefining; energy consumption; mechanical pretreatment; mechanochemistry; plant raw materials; scaling
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33207746 PMCID: PMC7696896 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25225345
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Schematic showing the principle of action (a) and schematic representation of a disc mill (b). Reproduced with permission from Roland Nied, Handbook of Powder Technology; published by Elsevier, 2007 [32].
Figure 2Schematic showing the principle of action (a) and a real-world example of an attritor designed at the Institute of Solid State Chemistry and Mechanochemistry, SB RAS (b).
Figure 3A real-world example (a), the effect of forces (b) and the types of motion of grinding bodies in a ball mill: (c)—rolling over; (d)—falling; (e)—rolling.
Figure 4A planetary mill: (a) the flow diagram of a planetary mill; (b) photograph of the real-world equipment manufactured by Retsch GmbH. The photo was made by Skripkina T.S, 2020.
Figure 5A vibration mill: (a) flow diagram; (b) photograph of the real-world K-50 equipment manufactured by NPO Novic Ltd. [60] (1—mechanochemical reactor; 2—the milling bodies); the photo was taken by Skripkina T.S, 2019.
Figure 6A vibrocentrifugal mill: (a) schematic cross-sectional view; (b) an example of the real-world equipment designed by the engineering department of the Institute of Solid State Chemistry and Mechanochemistry, SB RAS.
Figure 7Schematic of a centrifugal nutation mill. Modified from Hoyer DI, Hills P. Centrifugal grinding mills. Patent US 7,070,134 B1, 2006.
Figure 8A roller mill: (a) schematic showing the principle of action; (b) an example of the real-world roller mill (VRM200), reproduced with permission from A. Boehm, P. Meissner, T. Plochberger, International Journal of Mineral Processing; published by Elsevier, 2015. [66].
Figure 9A centrifugal roller mill: (a) schematic; (b) an example of the real-world grinder designed by the engineering department of the Institute of Solid State Chemistry and Mechanochemistry, SB RAS.
Figure 10Schematic view of the (a) extruder and (b) kneader. Reproduced with permission from Y. Shibata, M. Fujii, Y.Sugamura, R. Yoshikawa, S. Fujimoto, S. Nakanishi, Y. Motosugi, N. Koizumi, M. Yamada, K. Ouchi, and Y. Watanabe, International Journal of Pharmaceutics; published by Elsevier, 2009 [68].
Figure 11A hammer mill: (a) schematic of the mill; (b) an example of the real-world hammer mill.
Figure 12An example of the real-world disintegrator (a) and a schematic showing the motion of particles in the disintegrator (b).
Figure 13Schematic of a jet mill: (a) side view; (b) top view. Modified from Smith LS, Mastalski HT. A fluidized bed jet mill, EP Patent 0488637 A2, 1991.
The examples of the use of various equipment for the purpose of mechanical (size reduction, amorphization) and mechanochemical processing.
| Material | Equipment | Effect | Specific Energy Requirement, kWht−1 | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose: Size Reduction and/or Amorphization | ||||
| Hardwood, | Disc Mills | Size reduction from 19.05 to 1.6 mm−1 | 200–400 | [ |
| Hardwood, | Vibration mill | from 22 to 0.15 mm | 800 | [ |
| Hardwood, | Hammer mill | from 22.4 to 1.6 mm | 130 | [ |
| from 22.4 to 2.5 mm | 120 | |||
| from 22.4 3.2 mm | 115 | |||
| from 22.4 to 6.35 mm | 95 | |||
| Knife mill | from 22.4 to 1.6 mm | 130 | ||
| from 22.4 to 2.5 mm | 80 | |||
| from 22.4 3.2 mm | 50 | |||
| from 22.4 to 6.35 mm | 25 | |||
| from 22.4 to 9.5 mm | 15 | |||
| from 22.4 to 12.7 mm | 8 | |||
| Corn stover, | Hammer mill | from 7.15 to 0.8 mm | 22.1 | [ |
| from 7.15 to 1.6 mm | 14.8 | |||
| Corn stover, | from 7.15 to 0.8 mm | 34.3 | ||
| from 7.15 to 1.6 mm | 19.9 | |||
| Corn stover, | Hammer mill | from 22.4 to 1.6 mm | 14.0 | [ |
| from 22.4 to 3.2 mm | 6 | |||
| Knife mill | from 22.4 to 3.2 mm | 20.0 | ||
| from 22.4 to 6.3 mm | 15.0 | |||
| from 22.4 to 9.5 mm | 3.2 | |||
| from 19.05 to 3.0 mm | 12.0 | [ | ||
| Wheat straw, | Hammer mill | from 19.05 to 1.6 mm | 42 | [ |
| from 19.05 to 2.5 mm | 29 | |||
| from 19.05 to 3.2 mm | 21 | |||
| Knife mill | from 22.4 to 1.6 mm | 7.5 | ||
| from 22.4 to 2.5 mm | 6.4 | |||
| from 22.4 to 6.3 mm | 5.5 | |||
| Wheat straw, | Planetary ball mill, 2 min | Size reduction from 0.24 mm to 0.19 mm, | About 150 * | [ |
| Planetary ball mill, 10 min | Size reduction from 0.24 mm to 0.015 mm, | About 750 * | ||
| Centrifugal Roller Mill, activation mode 600 rpm | Size reduction from 0.24 mm to 0.17 mm, | 23 | ||
| Centrifugal Roller Mill, activation mode 1200 rpm | Size reduction from 0.24 mm to 0.038 mm, | 87 | ||
|
| ||||
| Lignin-rich plant biomass (reed biomass) | Attritor, 10 ℃, 20 min, 600 rpm | The yield of enzymatic hydrolysis increasing from 13.1 ± 0.3 to 20.8 ± 0.4, | - | [ |
| Attritor, 180 ℃, 20 min, 600 rpm | The yield of enzymatic hydrolysis increasing from 13.1 ± 0.3 to 14.8 ± 0.4, | - | ||
| Rice straw | Wet disc milling, 1 round | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 39.3 ± 0.1 | 83.3 | [ |
| Wet disc milling, 3 round | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 43.1 ± 5.2 | 250 | ||
| Wet disc milling, 5 round | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 51.3 ± 5.3 | 639 | ||
| Wet disc milling, 10 round | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 67.5 ± 5.1 | 1500 | ||
| Vibration mill, 1700 rpm, 5 min | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 67.5 ± 5.1 | 2500 | ||
| Vibration mill, 1700 rpm, 15 min | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 67.5 ± 5.1 | 7500 | ||
| Vibration mill, 1700 rpm, 30 min | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 67.5 ± 5.1 | 15,000 | ||
| Vibration mill, 1700 rpm, 60 min | Sugar yields, % increasing from 22.5 ± 1.3 to 67.5 ± 5.1 | 30,000 | ||
| Bagasse sugarcane | Vibration mill, 1 h | glucose yields of 69.8 %, | 11,720 | [ |
| Vibration mill, 3 h | glucose yields of 95.2%, | 25,340 | ||
| Ball mill, 24 h | glucose yields of 55.2%, | 19,540 | ||
| Ball mill, 72 h | glucose yields of 75.2%, | 53,650 | ||
| Centrifugal mill screen size of 0.12 0.5 mm | glucose yields of 38.2%, | 1050 | ||
| Centrifugal mill, screen size of 0.12 mm | glucose yields of 53.9%, | 4980 | ||
| Jet mill, 4000 rpm, 15 min | glucose yields of 60.0%, | 66,780 | ||
| Jet mill, 5000 rpm, 15 min | glucose yields of 61%, | 66,850 | ||
| Twin-screw extruder | straw hydrolysis yield of 68.2%, | 5600–8500 | [ | |
| Twin-screw extruder, alkali-combine pretreatment combined with ionic liquids | Glucose yields of 90% | - | [ | |
|
| ||||
| Bay leaves (Laurus nobilis L.) | Planetary ball mill, 400 rpm, 10 min | The total extraction time—an reduction of more than 10-fold | - | [ |
| Platycodon grandiflorum | Planetary ball mill | Extraction time and temperature reduction, the yield of platycodin D increasing (7.16 ± 0.14 compared to 4.18 ± 0.11 mg/g), water instead of organic solvent | - | [ |
* Calculated by the authors of the review based on the average consumption of the mill for a load of 20 g.