4.7 Review

Reasons for processing of rice coproducts: Reality and expectations

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 240-256

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.032

关键词

Energy; Biorefinery; Rice husks; Rice straw; Biofuel; Lignocellulosic biomass

资金

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
  2. National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq)
  3. Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio Grande do Sul [FAPERGS: 16/2551-0000522-2, 17/2551-0000893-6]
  4. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing interest in reusing coproducts from rice crops, such as straw, husks, and bran, has motivated the writing of this review. The aim is to provide a critical and constructive overview of the main advantages and technological challenges for further processing such coproducts within the biorefinery concept. Current studies and applications are presented and discussed, which mainly include the use of such coproducts on energy and biofuel generations, production of building blocks, adsorption of recalcitrant substances, animal feeding and fertilization crops, extraction of bioactive compounds, and production of carbon-based and silica-based materials. Furthermore, the reality and expectations on processing steps (chemical, biochemical, and thermochemical routes), conventional and novel technologies and value-added products/derivatives with interest in several industrial fields are highlighted. As expectations, some companies and government projects are innovating and trying to use sub/supercritical water hydrolysis as a promising technology with high potential to decompose rice lignocellulosic biomass into small-chain sugars and bioproducts. Overall, as a future outlook for making most of the processing routes of rice coproducts more feasible, more infrastructure and scientific researches are needed to overcome some barriers and drawbacks that still exist in the subject presented in this review.

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