Abstract
AbstractFor second‐generation (2G) bioethanol refineries, the feedstock supply is one of the important parameters in terms of cost and consistency. Biorefineries are in most cases designed for a specific type of feedstock. For some biorefineries, the use of multiple feedstocks is an option, but how would such feedstocks perform when used in a process designed and optimized for a specific feedstock? There is no “one‐size‐fits‐all” processing package, due to variations in composition and structure of different feedstock types, but due to the size of commercial biorefineries, only minor adjustments of the processing parameters are practically feasible. In this study, 16 alternative feedstocks were characterized and compared to the benchmark feedstock wheat straw under identical processing conditions. The alternative feedstocks studied were as follows: barley straw, rye straw, grass straw, oat straw, Norway spruce sawdust, mixed softwood sawdust, oat wrap, biogas fiber, deep litter, washed deep litter, ryegrass fiber, lucerne fiber, ryegrass chaff, mixed grain chaff, rapeseed press cake, and beer production mash. These biomasses varied in carbohydrate content and accessibility after hydrothermal pretreatment. Applying a hydrothermal pretreatment under identical conditions, the subsequent enzymatic convertibility of these biomasses ranged from 0.5% to complete conversion based on their glucan content. Water retention value was determined and correlated with enzymatic convertibility, which provided a simple method for indirect measurement of biomass recalcitrance. Ethanol potentials were estimated based on carbohydrate release from enzymatic hydrolysis, and yeast toxicity test was performed on liquid fractions from hydrothermal pretreatment. Furthermore, a number of key processing indicators, including market price, logistics and availability, were taken into consideration based on a proposed full‐scale 2G ethanol plant in Denmark. The overall results show that while some feedstocks had inferior performance compared to wheat straw, identical or even superior performance was observed from barley, oat, and ryegrass feedstocks.
Highlights
Some agricultural areas are dominated heavily by one crop type, such as maize in the corn belt of the United States
Last but not the least, a number of key processing indicators were taken into consideration based on a proposed full‐scale 2G ethanol plant in Denmark
Monosaccharides (D‐glucose, D‐xylose, and L‐arabinose) released from enzymatic hydrolysis, toxicants generated from pretreatment, and ethanol produced from fermentation were measured on an Ultimate 3000 HPLC system (Dionex, CA, USA) fitted with a Phenomenex Resex ROA column at 80°C with 5 mM H2SO4 as eluent at a flow rate of 0.6 ml/ min
Summary
Some agricultural areas are dominated heavily by one crop type, such as maize in the corn belt of the United States In such a scenario, the second‐generation (2G) bioethanol refineries will be optimized for these crops. Adjacent fields vary greatly in crop types, as, for example, in most of Europe This imposes challenges for proposed 2G ethanol refineries, since the unit operations vary for different agricultural residues, as there is no “one‐size‐fits‐all” for pretreatment and enzymatic deconstruction of lignocellulosic plant cell walls. Scientific studies assessing compatibility alternative feedstocks to the processing conditions of the most abundant local biomass type have not been undertaken so far. In the context of 2G bioethanol industrialization, we aim at understanding a range of alternative feedstocks from a chemical/biological perspective, assessing compatibility to a wheat straw‐based biorefinery. Last but not the least, a number of key processing indicators were taken into consideration based on a proposed full‐scale 2G ethanol plant in Denmark
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
