4.7 Article

Feasible process development and techno-economic evaluation of paper sludge to bioethanol conversion: South African paper mills scenario

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 92, Issue -, Pages 333-345

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.017

Keywords

Paper sludge; Bioethanol; Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF); Fed-batch; Techno-economic analysis; Monte carlo analysis

Funding

  1. Paper Manufacturers Association of South Africa (PAMSA)
  2. Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Paper sludge samples collected from recycling mills exhibited high ash content in the range of 54.59% -65.50% and glucose concentrations between 21.97% and 31.11%. Washing the sludge reduced the total ash content to between 10.7% and 19.31% and increased the concentration of glucose, xylose and lignin. Samples were screened for ethanol production and fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) was optimised for the washed samples that resulted in highest and lowest ethanol concentrations. Maximum ethanol concentrations of 57.31 g/L and 47.72 g/I. (94.07% and 85.34% of the maximum theoretical yield, respectively) was predicted for high and low fermentative potential samples, respectively, and was experimentally achieved with 1% deviation. A generic set of process conditions were established for the conversion of high ash-containing paper sludge to ethanol. Techno-economic analysis based on three different revenue scenarios, together with Monte Carlo analysis revealed 95% probability of achieving IRR values in excess of 25% at a paper sludge feed rate of 15 t/d. Feed rates of 30 t/d and 50 t/d exhibited a cumulative probability of 100%. This study presents the technical feasibility and economic viability of paper mills expansion towards bioethanol production from paper sludge. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available