4.6 Article

Techno-Economic-Environmental Analysis of Sophorolipid Biosurfactant Production from Sugarcane Bagasse

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 60, 期 27, 页码 9833-9850

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c00069

关键词

-

资金

  1. FAPESP (Sao Paulo State Research Funding Agency, Brazil) [2016/10636-8, 2016/14852-7, 2019/15851-2, 2020/15450-5, 2017/13349-2]
  2. CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior.Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research proposed two processes for producing biosurfactants from sugarcane bagasse, with the second process showing superior economic and environmental performance. Global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses indicated the need to focus on the performance and scaleup of bioreactors and ultrafiltration processes.
In a carbon-neutral economy, biorefineries may replace oil refineries, providing materials and molecules. One of these products are biosurfactants (BSs), which can be produced from sugarcane bagasse. Two different processes for BS production were proposed and evaluated from a technoeconomic environmental perspective. Global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses (GSA and UA) assessed the most influential variables and the uncertainties regarding the minimum BS selling price (MBSSP), together with several environmental metrics. Both processes presented positive economic performance. The analysis showed that the second scenario (using liquid hot water pretreatment without detoxification and BS recovery by two steps of ultrafiltration) presented superior economic and environmental performance. The second scenario had a 59.7% probability of having a MBSSP below 20 $/kg, against 47.1% for the first one. GSA showed that effort should be focused on decreasing uncertainty regarding the bioreactor performance and scaleup (for both scenarios) and the ultrafiltration performance (for the second scenario).

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

4.6
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