4.8 Article

Hydrothermal processing of a green seaweed Ulva sp. for the production of monosaccharides, polyhydroxyalkanoates, and hydrochar

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 318, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124263

Keywords

Biofuel; Polyhydroxyalkanoates; Seaweed; Ulva sp.; Biorefinery; Subcritical hydrolysis; Hydrochar; Glucose; Marine starch; Cellulose; Economic analysis

Funding

  1. Israeli Ministry of Energy, Infrastructures and Water Resources [219-11-138]
  2. TAU XIN Center
  3. Aaron Frenkel Air Pollution Initiative at Tel Aviv University
  4. Slovak Research and Development Agency [APVV-19-0544]
  5. Operational program Integrated Infrastructure within the project: Demand-driven research for the sustainable and innovative food [Drive4SIFood 313011V336]
  6. European Regional Development Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the fermentation and bioenergy industry, terrestrial biomass is usually fractionated and the collected components, such as starch, are processed separately. Such a separation has not been reported for seaweeds. In this work, the direct hydrothermal processing of the whole green seaweed Ulva sp. biomass is compared to processing of separated starch and cellulose, to find the preferable route for monosaccharide, hydrochar, and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) production. Glucose was the major released monosaccharide. A significant share of the glucose yield comes from the starch fraction. The highest hydrochar yield with the lowest ash content was obtained from the separated cellulose fraction. The highest PHA yield was obtained using a whole Ulva sp. hydrolysate fermentation with Haloferax mediterranei. Economic analysis shows the advantage of direct Ulva sp. biomass fermentation to PHA. The co-production of glucose and hydrochar does not add significant economic benefits to the process under plausible prices of the two outputs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available