4.7 Article

Evaluation of bio-hydrogen production using rice straw hydrolysate extracted by acid and alkali hydrolysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 47, 期 88, 页码 37385-37393

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.12.177

关键词

Anaerobic fermentation; Bio-hydrogen; Dark fermentation; Hydrolysis; Rice straw

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea
  3. [20188550000540]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the properties of hydrolysates obtained from acid and alkali hydrolysis for bio-hydrogen production. Results showed that 1.0% H2SO4 hydrolysate had the highest hydrogen production efficiency, while hydrogen production and metabolite distribution depended on the sugars and by-product composition in the hydrolysate.
This study was conducted to investigate the properties of hydrolysates obtained from acid and alkali hydrolysis and to evaluate the feasibility of employing them for bio-hydrogen production. High sugar concentrations of 16.8 g/L and 13.3 g/L were present in 0.5% and 1.0% H2SO4 hydrolysates, respectively. However, H2SO4 hydrolysis resulted in large amounts of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and furan derivatives, which were removed by detoxification. In bio-hydrogen production, 1.0% H2SO4 hydrolysate showed a 55.6 mL of highest hydrogen production and 1.14 mol-H2/mol-hexose equivalentadded of hydrogen yield. In control and 1.0% NaOH hydrolysate, 29.7 mL and 36.9 mL of hydrogen were pro-duced, respectively. Interestingly, relatively high acetate and butyrate production resulted in lactate reduction. Also, NH4OH hydrolysate produced less than 10 mL of hydrogen. Thus, these results indicate that hydrogen production and metabolite distribution can vary depending on the sugars and by-product composition in the hydrolysate. (c) 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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