4.3 Review

Combining technology with liquid-formulated lipases for in-spec biodiesel production

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 7-19

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bab.2074

关键词

enzymatic biodiesel; liquid lipase formulation; in‐ specification biodiesel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enzymatic biodiesel production offers significant environmental advantages and has the potential to be as effective as conventional chemically catalyzed biodiesel production. However, its widespread industrial adoption has been restricted due to higher capital cost, longer reaction time, and sensitivity of enzyme processes. Additionally, the lack of research on bringing biodiesel product into final specification has undermined industrial confidence. Further research on liquid lipase formulations could lead to improved enzymatic biodiesel production.
Enzymatic biodiesel production has been at the forefront of biofuels research in recent decades because of the significant environmental advantages it offers, while having the potential to be as effective as conventional chemically catalyzed biodiesel production. However, the higher capital cost, longer reaction time, and sensitivity of enzyme processes have restricted their widespread industrial adoption so far. It is also posited that the lack of research to bring the biodiesel product into final specification has scuppered industrial confidence in the viability of the enzymatic process. Furthermore, the vast majority of literature has focused on the development of immobilized enzyme processes, which seem too costly (and risky) to be used industrially. There has been little focus on liquid lipase formulations such as the Eversa Transform 2.0, which is in fact already used commercially for triglyceride transesterification. It is the objective of this review to highlight new research that focuses on bringing enzymatically produced biodiesel into specification via a liquid lipase polishing process, and the process considerations that come with it.

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

4.3
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