| Literature DB >> 34164381 |
Jinyu Tan1,2, Yan Li1, Xiang Tan1, Hongguo Wu1, Hu Li1, Song Yang1.
Abstract
Straw biomass is an inexpensive, sustainable, and abundant renewable feedstock for the production of valuable chemicals and biofuels, which can surmount the main drawbacks such as greenhouse gas emission and environmental pollution, aroused from the consumption of fossil fuels. It is rich in organic content but is not sufficient for extensive applications because of its natural recalcitrance. Therefore, suitable pretreatment is a prerequisite for the efficient production of fermentable sugars by enzymatic hydrolysis. Here, we provide an overview of various pretreatment methods to effectively separate the major components such as hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin and enhance the accessibility and susceptibility of every single component. This review outlines the diverse approaches (e.g., chemical, physical, biological, and combined treatments) for the excellent conversion of straw biomass to fermentable sugars, summarizes the benefits and drawbacks of each pretreatment method, and proposes some investigation prospects for the future pretreatments.Entities:
Keywords: enzymatic hydrolysis; fermentation; pretreatment; saccharification; straw biomass
Year: 2021 PMID: 34164381 PMCID: PMC8215366 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.696030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
FIGURE 1Summary of different methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass.
FIGURE 2Structural arrangement of straw biomass. Reproduced with permission from Machineni et al. (2019).
Chemical components of diverse straw biomass (% dry basis).
| Source | Cellulose (%) | Hemicellulose (%) | Lignin (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mustard straw | 32.7–48.3 | 14.7–29.6 | 17.7–24.6 |
|
| Corn stover | 30–38 | 26–26.1 | 11–19 |
|
| Corn stalk | 29.08–35.3 | 24.1–25.99 | 13.6–15.04 |
|
| Rice straw | 32–47 | 19–27 | 5–24 | Bhaskar et al. (2016) |
| Cotton straw | 38.7 | 23.5 | 23.5 |
|
| Wheat straw | 35–45 | 20–30 | 8–15 |
|
|
| 40–60 | 20–40 | 10–30 |
|
| Sugarcane peel | 41.11 | 26.4 | 24.31 |
|
| Sweet sorghum | 45 | 27 | 21 |
|
| Rapeseed straw | 35.5–36.6 | 22.9–24.1 | 15.6–16.8 |
|
| Barley straw | 35.4 | 28.7 | 13.1 |
|
| Rye | 42.38 | 27.86 | 6.51 |
|
| Sunflower | 34.06 | 5.18 | 7.72 |
|
FIGURE 3Schematic illustration of biomass pretreatment. Reproduced with permission from Lee et al. (2014).
FIGURE 4Generation of diverse valuable chemicals and biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass. Reproduced with permission from Satari et al. (2019).
Influence of different concentrations of H3PO4 on the treatment of different feedstocks.
| Feedstock | Dry matter (%) | Acid concentration | Temperature (°C) | Time (min) | Saccharification efficiency (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corn stover | 5 | 2% H3PO4 | 121 | 120 | 56 |
|
| 12.5 | 85% H3PO4–acetone | 50 | 60 | 67.9 |
| |
| 8 | 85% H3PO4 | 40 | 60 | 48.7 |
| |
| 15 | 84% H3PO4 | 50 | 45 | 75 | Zhang et al. (2007) | |
| Rapeseed straw | 12 | 1% H3PO4 | 200 | 15 | 93.9 |
|
| Sugarcane bagasse | 5 | 0.2% H3PO4 | 186 | 8 | 56.4 |
|
| Sweet sorghum bagasse | 12.5 | 85% H3PO4 | 50 | 30 | 79 |
|
| Wheat straw | 15 | 1.75% H3PO4 | 190 | 15 | 86 |
|
|
| 12.5 | 75% H3PO4 | 60 | 60 | 86.2 |
|
|
| 12.5 | 75% H3PO4 | 60 | 60 | 82.2 |
|
FIGURE 5Common DESs are used for biomass treatment and conversion. Adapted with permission from Chen and Mu (2019).
General formula for the classification of DESs (Satlewal et al., 2018).
| Type | Components | General formula | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Metal salt + organic salt | Cat+ X− zMClx | M = Zn, Sn, Fe, Al, Ga, In |
| II | Metal salt hydrate + organic salt | Cat+ X− zMClx. yH2O | M = Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, Fe |
| III | HBD + organic salt | Cat+ X− zRZ | Z = CONH2, COOH, OH |
| IV | Zinc/aluminum chloride + HBD | MClx + RZ = MClx-1 +, RZ + MCl−x+1 | M = Al, Zn & Z = CONH2, OH |
Notes: Cat+, any ammonium, phosphonium, or sulfonium cation; X, a Lewis base, generally a halide anion; Y, a Lewis or Brønsted acid; z, the number of y molecules that interact with the anion.
FIGURE 6Common structures of hydrogen bond donors and halide salts are utilized in the formation of DESs. Adapted with permission from Zhang et al. (2012).
FIGURE 7Pressure–temperature phase diagram of a compressible fluid with solid–liquid–gas phase and supercritical region. Pc: critical pressure; Tc: critical temperature. Reproduced with permission from Li et al. (2020).
FIGURE 8Mechanism of prevention of enzyme agglomeration and depolymerization of lignocellulose using sonication. Reproduced with permission from Gogate (2013).
Sc-CO2 combined with conventional treatment methods for biomass pretreatment.
| Methods | Feedstocks | Pretreatment conditions | Conditions of conventional method | Glucose yield/reducing sugar yield (%) | Ref(s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water content (%) | CO2 method | Conventional method | Both methods | Unpretreated biomass | |||||
| Steam | Wheat straw | 190°C, 120 bar, 60 min | 200°C, 15 min | 23 | — | — | −/60.1 | — |
|
| Acetic acid/steam | Wheat straw | 180°C, 180 bar, 45 min | 180°C, 10 min (steam) | 50 | — | — | 175e/- | — |
|
| 180°C, 180 bar, 45 min | 180°C, 45 min, 2 bar | 50 | — | — | 275e/- | — |
| ||
| Autohydrolysis | Wheat straw | 210°C, 60 bar | — | — | 2.62 CO2 mol-1 | — | 92 | — |
|
| AFEX | Rice straw | 175°C, 7.5 bar, 30 min | 15% NH4 | — | 46.75 | 96.00 | 99.04/- | — | Yin et al. (2014) |
| 165°C, 20 bar, 70 min | 14.3% NH4 | — | — | — | 93.6 | — |
| ||
| Lime | Rice straw | pH 6 | CaCO3 | 10 | — | — | 74 | — | Silveira et al. (2015) |
| Ultrasound | Corn cob | 170°C, 200 bar, 30 min | 20 kHz, 600 W, 80°C, 6 h | 50 | 31.0/62.0 | — | 42.0/87.0 | 10.0/12.5 |
|
| Corn stalk | 170°C, 200 bar, 30 min | 20 kHz, 600 W, 80°C, 8 h | 50 | 14.0 | — | 16.0/30.0 | 13.5/16.6 |
| |
| Ultrasound | Sugarcane bagasse | 80°C, 65 bar, 120 min | 40 kHz, 154 W, 30°C, 8 h | 65 | -/380 ± 9 | -/350e | -/300e | -/127 ± 16 |
|
| 180°C, 206 bar, 60 min | 35°C, 4 h | 80 | 61.3/- | 20.2/- | 97.8/- | 13.4/- |
| ||
| Alkaline/(H2O2/NaOH) | Sugarcane bagasse | 180°C, 206 bar, 60 min | 0.6% H2O2, 60°C, 9 h, CO2-assisted conventional methods | 80 | 61.3/- | 22.9/- | 65.8/- | 13.4/- |
|
| Co-solvent (1-butanol/H2O) | Sugarcane bagasse | 190°C, 70 bar, 105 min | 60% 1-butanol | 40 | — | — | 94.5 | — |
|
CO2 explosion was performed after steam explosion.
Conditions: 160°C, 50 min, 15 bar.
Conditions: 160°C, 50 min, 10% ammonia concentration.
CO2 treatment at 170°C and 200 bar of CO2 pressure for 1 h.
Units of g·kg−1 of dry biomass.
Units of delignification.
Advantages and disadvantages of diverse treatment approaches.
| Treatment approaches | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical pretreatment | CO2 explosion pretreatment | Low cost, low temperature, high solid loading, enhances the accessible surface area, and does not form toxic compounds | High pressure, high requirement of equipment |
| Oxidative pretreatment | Removes lignin effectively, environmental-friendly, less side products | High cost, difficult to separate the solvents | |
| Steam explosion pretreatment | Applies no chemicals and less H2O, low cost, and low environmental pollution | High pressure and temperature | |
| Supercritical fluid pretreatment | Uses green solvents, does not degrade sugars, and suitable for mobile biomass processor | High cost | |
| SO2 explosion pretreatment | The solubilization of hemicellulose through adding the external acid provides partial cellulose hydrolysis and requires low temperature | Stringent equipment and inhibitory compounds when using acids | |
| Ammonia fiber explosion | Removes lignin efficiently, enhances enzyme accessibility, reduces the formation of inhibitors, and needs fewer enzymes | Expensive separation and recycle, not efficient for biomass with high lignin content | |
| Liquid hot water | Obtains pure hemicellulose, does not add chemicals or catalyst, hydrolyzes hemicellulose, achieves a high yield of sugars, and does not require washing, recovery, and detoxifying | Requires high energy | |
| Alkali pretreatment | Low temperature and pressure, low carbohydrate degradation, low corrosion, lignin removal, low cost | Longer residence times, generation of salt needs to neutralize and recycle, high consumption energy | |
| Acid pretreatment | Concentrated acid: high hemicellulose solubility, positive effect on cellulose enzyme digestion, and high yields of glucose. Dilute acid: low cost, effective, does not require recycling acid, and high enzymatic digestibility | Highly toxic, corrosive, high temperature and pressure, produces inhibitors, requires expensive materials, catalyst recovery problem, environmental problem, needs neutralization and detoxification | |
| Ionic liquid pretreatment | Less energy, easy to operate, conducted in pilot scale | Expensive, high viscosity, high cost of recovery and recycling | |
| Deep eutectic solvents | Green solvents, biodegradable and biocompatible, highly tunable, convenient synthesis | Hygroscopicity, instability, and high viscosity | |
| Natural deep eutectic solvents | Green solvents, consist of certain natural compounds, environment friendly | High viscosity | |
| Organosolv pretreatment | Hydrolyzes hemicellulose and lignin and achieves high-purity lignin | High cost of recovery and reuse, high inhibitors, environmentally unfriendly, low biomass recovery rate | |
| Sulfite pretreatment | Removes lignin, energy-efficient | Reduces biomass size | |
| Physical pretreatment | Microwave pretreatment | Short time, energy-efficient, simple operation, non-polluting, selective degradation of hemicellulose and lignin | High cost and long reaction time leading to slow production |
| Electron beam irradiation | Mainly effective on depolymerizing cellulose, improves the surface area, does not form inhibitors, cost-effective | Does not affect hemicellulose and lignin, high pressure, less efficient | |
| Ultrasonic pretreatment | Enhances reactivity and accessibility of cellulose | Having a negative impact on enzymatic hydrolysis | |
| Pyrolysis pretreatment | Degrades cellulose quickly | High cost, low yield | |
| High-energy electron radiation pretreatment | Decreases cellulose polymerization degree | High cost | |
| Mechanical comminution | Decreases cellulose crystallinity and particle size and does not form inhibitors | Cannot remove hemicellulose and lignin, high energy, and low conversion efficiency | |
| Biological pretreatment | Degrades hemicellulose and lignin selectively, low-energy input, does not add catalyst or chemicals, does not form toxic compounds, cost-effective, environment friendly | Low enzyme digestion, long incubation time, slow reaction process, low downstream yields, high sensitivity to inhibition | |
| Combined pretreatment | Reveals combined actions on saccharification and fermentation processes | Need to overcome the drawbacks of every single treatment | |