| Literature DB >> 35329114 |
Sivabalan Kaniapan1, Jagadeesh Pasupuleti1, Kartikeyan Patma Nesan2, Haris Nalakath Abubackar3, Hadiza Aminu Umar4,5, Temidayo Lekan Oladosu5, Segun R Bello6, Eldon R Rene7.
Abstract
The impetus to predicting future biomass consumption focuses on sustainable energy, which concerns the non-renewable nature of fossil fuels and the environmental challenges associated with fossil fuel burning. However, the production of rice residue in the form of rice husk (RH) and rice straw (RS) has brought an array of benefits, including its utilization as biofuel to augment or replace fossil fuel. Rice residue characterization, valorization, and techno-economic analysis require a comprehensive review to maximize its inherent energy conversion potential. Therefore, the focus of this review is on the assessment of rice residue characterization, valorization approaches, pre-treatment limitations, and techno-economic analyses that yield a better biofuel to adapt to current and future energy demand. The pre-treatment methods are also discussed through torrefaction, briquetting, pelletization and hydrothermal carbonization. The review also covers the limitations of rice residue utilization, as well as the phase structure of thermochemical and biochemical processes. The paper concludes that rice residue is a preferable sustainable biomass option for both economic and environmental growth.Entities:
Keywords: bioenergy and biofuels; biomass pre-treatment; energy augmentation; renewable energy source; rice residues; rice residues valorization; sustainable development; techno-economic evaluation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35329114 PMCID: PMC8953080 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Rice residue utilization in various agronomy and material industries.
| Agronomy | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage | Industry | Year | References |
| Fertilizer | Agricultural | 2017 | [ |
| Bio-compost (mushroom cultivation) | Agricultural | 2014 | [ |
|
| |||
| Aluminium alloy/clay composite | Construction | 2021 | [ |
| Supercapacitor | Electronic | 2021 | [ |
| RH-based nano-silica catalyst | Acid reforming | 2021 | [ |
| Cement-based composite | Construction | 2021 | [ |
| Tableware (biodegradable cutlery) | Hotels, restaurants, etc. | 2019 | [ |
| Thermal Insulation | Power plants | 2019 | [ |
| Filaments for fused-deposition modelling | 3D Construction | 2019 | [ |
| Building blocks/bricks | Construction | 2016 | [ |
|
| |||
| Treatment | Wastewater | 2021 | [ |
| Bioethanol | Transportation/power generation | 2018 | [ |
| Biogas | Cooking/power generation | 2018 | [ |
| Energy feedstock | Power generation | 2011 | [ |
RH: rice husk.
Natural polymer constituents of selected biomass.
| Biomass Type | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | Silica (SiO) (wt.%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RH a | 25–35 | 18–21 | 26–31 | 15–17 | [ |
| RS a | 36.40 | 20.40 | 14.30 | 6.20 | [ |
| CC a | 45.80 | 39.40 | 11.30 | 1.13 | [ |
| WH b | 42.58 | 18.54 | 11.21 | NA | [ |
| SB b | 39.75 | 38.03 | 22.01 | NA | [ |
Note: NA (not available), RH (rice husk), RS (rice straw), CC (corn cobs), WH (wheat husk), SB (sugarcane bagasse); a as received; b dry ash free.
Proximate analysis of rice residues, corn cob, wheat husk and sugarcane bagasse.
| Proximate Analysis (wt.%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biomass Type | MC | VM | AC | FC | Ref. |
| RH b | 4.07–9.50 | 51.98–71.47 | 16.30–17.36 | 3.11–25.10 | [ |
| RS b | 8.53–13.06 | 66.75–70.20 | 6.90–9.22 | 10.97–14.57 | [ |
| CC a | 7.14–11.02 | 69.31–87.76 | 1.05–5.07 | 11.19–14.60 | [ |
| WH a | 4.40–8.45 | 65.59–69.19 | 4.99–12.11 | 12.72–20.97 | [ |
| SB a | 8.37–10.3 | 75.72–88.48 | 1.60–2.20 | 9.41–16.30 | [ |
Note: MC (moisture content), VM (volatile matter), AC (ash content) FC (fixed carbon); a dry; b as received.
Ultimate analysis of rice husk, rice straw, corn cob, wheat husk and sugarcane.
| Ultimate Analysis (DRY basis wt.%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biomass Type | C | H | O | N | S | HHV (MJ/kg) | Ref. |
| RH | 33.14–41.78 | 5.14–5.50 | 36.31–37.20 | 0.30–0.55 | 0.08–0.20 | 14.61–15.44 | [ |
| RS | 37.10–39.65 | 4.88–5.20 | 35.80–44.30 | 0.50–0.92 | 0.10–0.12 | 12.10–16.60 | [ |
| CC | 41.07–43.81 | 6.49–6.54 | 46.47–50.41 | 0.25–0.77 | 0.15–0.69 | 16.13–16.46 | [ |
| WH | 47.14–48.50 | 5.50–5.59 | 39.90–46.03 | 0.30–0.37 | 0.06–0.10 | 18.90–19.22 | [ |
| SB | 41.45–48.81 | 5.51–6.20 | 43.10–50.37 | 0.20–0.51 | 0.02–0.10 | 15.96–19.19 | [ |
RH: rice husk, RS: rice straw CC: corn cob, WH: wheat husk, SB: sugarcane bagasse, C: carbon, H: hydrogen, O: oxygen, N: nitrogen, S: sulphur, HHV: high heating value.
Overview of RR mechanical and thermal conversion processes and products.
| Parameters | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Treatment Technique | Temperature (°C) | Reaction Time (min) | By-Products | Advantages | Disadvantages | Ref. |
| I | 30–700 | 3–10 | CO, CO2, H2O and solid fuel | Higher compressibility strength | Requires | [ |
| II | 80–120 | - | CO2, water and other by-products | Sensitive for moisture | Does not | [ |
| III | 200–400 | 20–60 | Gaseous, aqueous chemicals and solid fuel (char) | Higher energy content, lower moisture content and hydrophobic | Torrefied fuel does not guarantee less | [ |
| IV | 180–280 | >20 | Gases, | Milder reaction temperature and pressure | Corrosion, coke and tar formation, and the | [ |
Note: I (briquetting), II (pelletization), III (torrefaction) and IV (hydrothermal carbonization).
Figure 1Rice husk and rice straw conversion through thermochemical and biochemical processes. Note: SOX (sulphur oxides), PM (particulate matter), NOX (nitrogen oxides), CO2 (carbon diox-ide), O2 (oxygen), N2 (nitrogen).
Overview of thermochemical processes, process conditions and products.
| Parameters | Pyrolysis | Gasification | Combustion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process Conditions | |||
| Temperature, (°C) | 300–600 | >600 | >700 |
| Reaction time | 1 s (fast pyrolysis), days (slow pyrolysis) | Several seconds to minutes | - |
| Equivalent ratio (ER) | 0 | 0 < ER < 1 | 1 |
|
| |||
| Gaseous | CO, CH4, CXHY, CO2, H2O, oils, N- and S-containing compounds | CO, H2, CO2, H2O, CH4, CXHY, tars, NHy, NOx, H2S, COS | CO2, H2O, CO, CXHY, NOX, SOX |
| Solid | C, (N, S), ash | Ash, (N, S) | Fly ash and bottom ash |
| Liquid | Bio-oil/liquid (tar) | - | - |
Stages in AD system.
| Stages of AD | Ref. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrolysis | ||||
| Substrate | Microbes | End Product | Specification | |
| Cellulose, starch, xylan, etc. | I | Simple sugar/monomers | Exo-enzymes inhibit the environmental fluctuations and toxins in the feedstocks. | [ |
|
| ||||
|
| II |
| Presence of acid-forming bacteria. | [ |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| III |
| The growth kinetic of acetogenesis is lower than that of acidogenesis. | [ |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| IV |
| Methanogens should be maintained at a stable condition with pH (6.5–7.5). | [ |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
Note: I (Clostridium sp., Acetivibrio cellulolyticus, Staphylococcus sp.); II (Eubacterium sp., Eschericia coli); III (Syntrophobacter wolinii, Syntrophomonas wolfei, Smithella propionica); IV (Methanothrix soehngenii, Methanobacterium bryantii, Methanobacterium formicicum).
Global biomass-to-liquid biofuel production.
| Year | In Billion Litres, (Bl) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Bioethanol | Biodiesel | Other Biofuels | |
| 2000 | 18.0 | 13.2 | 26.7 | 8.09 |
| 2005 | 38.4 | 26.7 | 3.66 | 8.09 |
| 2010 | 106 | 66.5 | 19.9 | 19.7 |
| 2015 | 128 | 79.4 | 30.0 | 19.0 |
| 2016 | 134 | 82.7 | 33.9 | 17.3 |
| 2017 | 138 | 85.1 | 36.1 | 16.4 |
Sources taken from (IEA, 2019).