4.8 Review

Surfactants in biorefineries: Role, challenges & perspectives

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126477

关键词

Surfactants; Biomass-pretreatment; Enzymatic-hydrolysis; Fermentation; Bioproducts

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoa-mento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a` Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [16/10636-8]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvi-mento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses the potential of using surfactants to enhance lignocellulosic biomass processing, including their key role and mechanisms in biorefinery processes. The application of surfactants in pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation processes to increase the efficiency of bioproduct production and reduce production costs is explored.
The use of lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) as feedstock has received increasing attention as an alternative to fossilbased refineries. Initial steps such as pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis are essential to breakdown the complex structure of LCB to make the sugar molecules available to obtain bioproducts by fermentation. However, these steps increase the cost of the bioproduct and often reduces its competitiveness against synthetic products. Currently, the use of surfactants has shown considerable potential to enhance lignocellulosic biomass processing. This review addresses the main mechanisms and role of surfactants as key molecules in various steps of biorefinery processes, viz., increasing the removal of lignin and hemicellulose during the pretreatments, increasing enzymatic stability and enhancing the accessibility of enzymes to the polymeric fractions, and improving the downstream process during fermentation. Further, technical advances, challenges in application of surfactants, and future perspectives to augment the production of several high value-added bioproducts have been discussed.

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

4.8
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