4.7 Article

In-situ oxidation/reduction facilitates one-pot conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to bulk chemicals in alkaline solution

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 429, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.132365

关键词

Lignocellulose; Biomass; Conversion; Bulk chemicals; One-pot

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32071716, 31870559, 31901262]
  2. Outstanding Youth Funding of National Forestry and Grassland Administration [20201326005]
  3. Outstanding Youth Funding of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University [xjq201923]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article presents the development of one-pot oxidative and reductive processes for the high-yield conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to bulk chemicals. The cost analysis indicates the potential profitability of these processes in the petrochemical-dominated market.
Practical, high-yield conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to bulk chemicals is the goal of a profitable biorefinery. However, the development of current biorefining industries is highly restricted by process complexity and processing cost. In this article, we developed a one-pot oxidative process and a one-pot reductive process that allowed selective conversion of lignocellulosic biomass (e.g. hardwood) to multiple bulk chemicals such as monophenolics, diols, and organic acids in total yields of up to 96.8 wt%. Alkali was used to catalyze the disruption of biomass components via retro-aldol reactions to small active intermediate molecules, which were in-situ oxidized or reduced to stable products. As a result, monophenolics, which were derived from lignin, reached an unprecedented yield of 59.3 wt% (71.9 mol%, on the basis of lignin content). Organic acids also reached an unprecedented yield of 111.7 wt% (77.8 C%, on the basis of polysaccharide content). The diverse chemicals could meet broad needs of our society. Cost analysis indicates that the current processes could be profitable in the petrochemical-dominated market.

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