4.8 Article

Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technologies

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 96, 期 18, 页码 1959-1966

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.01.010

关键词

corn stover; pretreatment; hydrolysis; sugars; enzymatic digestion; biomass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the first time, a single source of cellulosic biomass was pretreated by leading technologies using identical analytical methods to provide comparative performance data. In particular, ammonia explosion, aqueous ammonia recycle, controlled pH, dilute acid, flowthrough, and time approaches were applied to prepare corn stover for subsequent biological conversion to sugars through a Biomass Refining Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation (CAFI) among Auburn University, Dartmouth College, Michigan State University, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Purdue University, and Texas A&M University. An Agricultural and Industrial Advisory Board provided guidance to the project. Pretreatment conditions were selected based on the extensive experience of the team with each of the technologies, and the resulting fluid and solid streams were characterized using standard methods. The data were used to close material balances, and energy balances were estimated for all processes. The digestibilities of the solids by a controlled supply of cellulase enzyme and the fermentability of the liquids were also assessed and used to guide selection of optimum pretreatment conditions. Economic assessments were applied based on the performance data to estimate each pretreatment cost on a consistent basis. Through this approach, comparative data were developed on sugar recovery from hemicellulose and cellulose by the combined pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis operations when applied to corn stover. This paper introduces the project and summarizes the shared methods for papers reporting results of this research in this special edition of Bioresource Technology. (c) 2005 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

4.8
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