4.7 Article

Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 58, 期 16, 页码 9054-9062

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf100807b

关键词

Summative biomass compositional analysis; uncertainty; laboratory analytical procedure; LAP; corn stover; bagasse; lignocellulose

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most common procedures for characterizing the chemical components of lignocellulosic feedstocks use a two-stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis to fractionate biomass for gravimetric and instrumental analyses. The uncertainty (i.e., dispersion of values from repeated measurement) in the primary data is of general interest to those with technical or financial interests in biomass conversion technology. The composition of a homogenized corn stover feedstock (154 replicate samples in 13 batches, by 7 analysts in 2 laboratories) was measured along with a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference sugar cane bagasse, as a control, using this laboratory's suite of laboratory analytical procedures (LAPs). The uncertainty was evaluated by the statistical analysis of these data and is reported as the standard deviation of each component measurement. Censored and uncensored versions of these data sets are reported, as evidence was found for intermittent instrumental and equipment problems. The censored data are believed to represent the best case results of these analyses, whereas the uncensored data show how small method changes can strongly affect the uncertainties of these empirical methods. Relative standard deviations (RSD) of 1-3% are reported for glucan, xylan, lignin, extractives, and total component closure with the other minor components showing 4-10% RSD. The standard deviations seen with the corn stover and NIST bagasse materials were similar, which suggests that the uncertainties reported here are due more to the analytical method used than to the specific feedstock type being analyzed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据