4.8 Article

Analysis of the routes for biomass processing towards sustainable development in the conceptual design step: Strategy based on the compendium of bioprocesses portfolio

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 350, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126852

关键词

Bioprocess; Sustainability; Conceptual design; Technological readiness level; Process contextualization

资金

  1. Universidad Nacional de Colombia -Sede Manizales
  2. Minisiterio de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion (Minciencias)
  3. Sistema General de Regalias [2020000100189]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a strategy to consider different processing routes for biomass towards sustainable development, by taking into account the chemical composition of the raw material and the context of biomass production and processing. The strategy aims to provide decision tools for designers to filter and reduce the options to be considered when proposing alternative biomass use.
Process sustainability has been one of the most challenging issues faced by process designers. Conceptual designed processes do not overcome this stage because aspects such as context and technological readiness level are left aside. This paper proposes a strategy to consider different processing routes for biomass (compendium of existing routes) towards sustainable development. The strategy comprises five stages where a supported bio-processes selection is made by considering the chemical composition of the raw material and the context where biomass is produced and processed. This strategy aims to give decision tools to designers to filter and reduce the number of options to be considered when proposing an alternative biomass use. The proposed strategy was applied to upgrade orange peel waste and sugarcane bagasse to demonstrate how it can be applied. In conclusion, selecting of bioprocesses and considering the proposed strategycould improve the biorefineries design. Even so, more bioprocesses must be included.

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