4.8 Article

Removal of enzymatic and fermentation inhibitory compounds from biomass slurries for enhanced biorefinery process efficiencies

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 17, Pages 7850-7859

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.05.043

Keywords

Lignocelluosic biomass; Electrodeionization; Polyelectrolytes; Detoxification; Biorenewables

Funding

  1. USDA NIFA [2010-65504-20372]
  2. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
  3. US Department of Energy, Office of the Biomass
  4. US Department of Energy Office of Science laboratory [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  5. NIFA [2010-65504-20372, 581309] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  6. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh
  7. Directorate For Engineering [0832549] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Within the biorefinery paradigm, many non-monomeric sugar compounds have been shown to be inhibitory to enzymes and microbial organisms that are used for hydrolysis and fermentation. Here, two novel separation technologies, polyelectrolyte polymer adsorption and resin-wafer electrodeionization (RW-EDI), have been evaluated to detoxify a dilute acid pretreated biomass slurry. Results showed that detoxification of a dilute acid pretreated ponderosa pine slurry by sequential polyelectrolyte and RW-EDI treatments was very promising, with significant removal of acetic acid, 5-hydroxymethyl furfural, and furfural (up to 77%, 60%, and 74% removed, respectively) along with > 97% removal of sulfuric acid. Removal of these compounds increased the cellulose conversion to 94% and elevated the hydrolysis rate to 0.69 g glucose/L/h. When using Saccharomyces cerevisiae D(5)A for fermentation of detoxified slurry, the process achieved 99% of the maximum theoretical ethanol yield and an ethanol production rate nearly five-times faster than untreated slurry. (C) 2011 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available