4.7 Review

Software tools for microalgae biorefineries: Cultivation, separation, conversion process integration, modeling, and optimization

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.algal.2021.102597

关键词

Biorefinery; Microalgae; Software tools; Process integration; Modeling; Optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the importance of choosing the right software in biorefinery operations to enhance performance, reduce costs, and mitigate environmental impacts. The study introduces various software tools and discusses their advantages, disadvantages, and practical applications.
In the operation of biorefineries, performing a quantitative, economic, and environmental assessment of process equipment design without the use of related software, is time-consuming, difficult, and sometimes impossible due to the complexity and high volume of calculations. The wrong choice of software in simulation and modeling can cause a lot of damages and lead to inaccurate results. Therefore, choosing an integrated system and specialized software can be the most important tool to achieve the planned goals. This study is aimed to investigate how and when to make the right software choice to enhance the performance and profits and diminish the risks, operating costs, and environmental impacts. The software used in the stages of cultivation, harvesting, conversion of microalgae, process optimization, and environmental impact assessment of biorefineries are introduced in various sections of this study, and the advantages and disadvantages of each of them are given along with some practical examples. The software tools investigated in this study include Aspen plus, SuperPro Designer, BioSTEAM, IPSEpro, WinGEMS, Unisim Design, Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery (VSB) modeling software, Simapro, OpenLCA, and, etc., which can be used according to feed and process conditions and products. To our knowledge, we did not encounter any similar reviews or reports, and this review is the first of its kind on this topic.

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