Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 87, Issue 3, pp 847–857 | Cite as

Pretreatment of woody biomass for biofuel production: energy efficiency, technologies, and recalcitrance

Mini-Review

Abstract

This mini review discusses several key technical issues associated with cellulosic ethanol production from woody biomass: energy consumption for woody biomass pretreatment, pretreatment energy efficiency, woody biomass pretreatment technologies, and quantification of woody biomass recalcitrance. Both total sugar yield and pretreatment energy efficiency, defined as the total sugar recovery divided by total energy consumption for pretreatment, should be used to evaluate the performance of a pretreatment process. A post-chemical pretreatment wood size-reduction approach was proposed to significantly reduce energy consumption. The review also emphasizes using a low liquid-to-wood ratio (L/W) to reduce thermal energy consumption for any thermochemical/physical pretreatment in addition to reducing pretreatment temperature.

Keywords

Recalcitrance Cellulosic ethanol Woody/Forest biomass SPORL Enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification Pretreatment 

References

  1. Alig RJ, Plantinga AJ, Ahn S, Kline JD (2003) Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-587. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station p 92Google Scholar
  2. Ares A, Terry T, Harrington C, Devine W, Peter D, Bailey J (2007) Biomass removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control effects on five-year growth of Douglas-fir in coastal Washington. Forest Science 53:600–610Google Scholar
  3. Balan V, da Costa SL, Chundawat SPS, Marshall D, Sharma LN, Chambliss CK, Dale BE (2009) Enzymatic digestibility and pretreatment degradation products of AFEX-treated hardwoods. Biotechnol Prog 25:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broak R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boocock DBG, Balatineez JJ (1992) Alcell lignin modification and use in adhesives. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc 203:106-CellGoogle Scholar
  6. Borjesson J, Peterson R, Tjerneld F (2007) Enhanced enzymatic conversion of softwood lignocellulose by poly(ethylene glycol) addition. Enzyme Microb Technol 40(4):754–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cullis IF, Saddler JN, Mansfield SD (2004) Effect of initial moisture content and chip size on the bioconversion efficiency of softwood lignocellulosics. Biotechnol Bioeng 85(4):413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eriksson T, Borjesson J, Tjerneld F (2002) Mechanism of surfactant effect in enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Enzyme Microb Technol 31(3):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewanick SM, Bura R, Saddler JN (2007) Acid-catalyzed steam pretreatment of lodgepole pine and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation to ethanol. Biotechnol Bioeng 98(1):737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox TR (2000) Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations. For Ecol Manage 138:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gable M, Zacchi G (2002) A review of the production of ethanol from softwood. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gable M, Zacchi G (2007) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials for efficient bioethanol production. Adv Biochem Engin/Biotechnol 108:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gladstone WT, Ledig FT (1990) Reducing pressure on natural forests through high-yield forestry. For Ecol Manage 35:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta R, Lee YY (2009) Pretreatment of hybrid poplar by aqueous ammonia. Biotechnol Prog 25:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall RB (2008) Woody bioenergy systems in the United States, p 18. In: Biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts from sustainable agricultural and forest crops: proceedings of the Short Rotation Crops International Conference. Zalesny RS Jr, Mitchell R, Richardson J (eds). General Technical Report NRS-GTR-P-31. Newtown Square, PA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station p 76Google Scholar
  16. Hansen EA (1993) Soil carbon sequestration beneath hybrid poplar plantations in the north central United States. Biomass Bioenergy 5:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris EE, Beglinger E (1946) Madison wood sugar process. Ind Eng Chem 38(9):890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hepditch MM, Thring RW (1997) Alkaline cupric oxide and nitrobenzene oxidation of Alcell (R) lignin. Can J Chem Eng 75:1108–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:11206–11210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Himmel ME, Ding SY, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW, Foust TD (2007) Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315(5813):804–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Isebrands JG, Karnosky DF (2001) Environmental benefits of poplar culture, Part A, Ch 6. In: Poplar culture in North America. Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds). NRC Research Press pp 207-218Google Scholar
  22. Johnson JMF, Coleman MD, Gesch R, Jaradat A, Mitchell R, Reicosky D, Wilhelm WW (2007) Biomass–Bioenergy crops in the United States: a changing paradigm. American J Plant Sci Biotechnol 1:1–28Google Scholar
  23. Jorgensen H, Kristensen JB, Felby C (2007) Enzymatic conversion of lignocellulose into fermentable sugars: challenges and opportunities. Biofpr 1:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joslin JD, Schoenholtz SH (1997) Measuring the environmental effects of converting cropland to short-rotation woody crops: a research approach. Biomass Bioenergy 13:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kubo S, Kadla JF (2004) Poly(ethylene oxide)/organosolv lignin blends: relationship between thermal properties, chemical structure, and blend behavior. Macromolecules 37:6904–6911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar P, Barrett DM, Delwiche MJ, Stroeve P (2009) Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysuis and biofuel production. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:3713–3729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee SH, Doherty TV, Linhardt RJ, Dordick JS (2009) Ionic liquid-mediated selective extraction of lignin from wood leading to enhanced enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 102(5):1368–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu Y, Carriero S, Pye K, Argyropoulos DS (2000) A comparison of the structural changes occurring in lignin during Alcell and kraft pulping of hardwoods and softwoods. In: Lignin: historical, biological, and materials perspectives. Ed:p 447-464Google Scholar
  29. Liu H, Zhu JY, Fu SY (2010) Effect of lignin–metal complexation on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose. J Agri Food Chem. Accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  30. Lora JH, Goyal GC, Raskin M (1993) Characterization of residual lignins after Alcell pulping. In: Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Wood and Pulping Chemistry, vol. 1. Beijing, pp 327-336Google Scholar
  31. Lubowski RN, Vesterby M, Bucholtz S, Baez A, Roberts MJ (2006) Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. Economic Information Bulletin No. 14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service p 47Google Scholar
  32. Luo XL, Gleisner R, Tian S, Negron J, Horn E, Pan XJ, Zhu, JY (2010) Evaluation of mountain beetle infested lodgepole pine for cellulosic ethanol production by SPORL pretreatment. Ind Eng Chem Res. Accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynd LR (1996) Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass: technology, economics, the environment, and policy. Annu Rev Energy Environ 21:403–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynd LR, Laser MS, Bransby D, Dale BE, Davison B, Hamilton R, Himmel M, Keller M, McMillan JD, Sheehan J et al (2008) How biotech can transform biofuels. Nat Biotechnol 26:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mansfield SD, Mooney C, Saddler JN (1999) Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Prog 15:804–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monavari S, Gable M, Zacchi G (2009a) Impact of impregnation time and chip size on sugar yield in pretreatment of softwood for ethanol production. Bioresour Technol 100:6312–6316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monavari S, Gable M, Zacchi G (2009b) The influence of solid/liquid separation techniques on the sugar yield in two-step dilute acid hydrolysis of softwood followed by enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnology for Biofuels 2:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moser BW, Pipas MJ, Witmer GW, Engeman RM (2002) Small mammal use of hybrid poplar plantations relative to stand age. Northwest Science 76:158–165Google Scholar
  39. Ooshima H, Burns DS, Converse AO (1990) Adsorption of cellulase from Trichoderma reesei on cellulose and lignacious residue in wood pretreated by dilute sulfuric acid with explosive decompression. Biotechnol Bioeng 36:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pan XJ (2008) Role of functional groups in lignin inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose to glucose. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 2:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pan XJ, Zhang X, Gregg DJ, Saddler JN (2004) Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-exploded Douglas fir wood by alkali–oxygen post-treatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 113–16:1103–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pan XJ, Arato C, Gilkes N, Gregg DJ, Mabee W, Pye EK, Xiao Z, Zhang X, Saddler JN (2005a) Biorefining of softwoods using ethanol organosolv pulping—preliminary evaluation of process streams for manufacture of fuel-grade ethanol and co-products. Biotechnol Bioeng 90:473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pan XJ, Xie D, Gilkes N, Gregg DJ, Saddler JN (2005b) Strategies to enhance the enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated softwood with high residual lignin content. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 121:1069–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pan XJ, Gilkes N, Kadla J, Pye K, Saka S, Ehara K, Gregg D, Xie D, Lam SJN (2006a) Bioconversion of hybrid poplar to ethanol and co-products using an organosolv fractionation process: optimization of process yields. Biotechnol Bioeng 94:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pan XJ, Ehara K, Kadla JF, Gilkes N, Saddler JN (2006b) Organosolv ethanol lignin from poplar as radical scavenger: relationship between lignin structure, extracting condition and antioxidant activity. J Agric Food Chem 54:5806–5813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pan XJ, Xie D, Yu R, Lam D, Saddler JN (2007) Pretreatment of lodgepole pine killed by mountain pine beetle using organosolv ethanol process: fractionation and process optimization. Ind Eng Chem Res 46:2609–2617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pan XJ, Xie D, Yu R, Saddler JN (2008) The bioconversion of mountain pine beetle killed lodgepole pine to fuel ethanol using the organosolv process. Biotechnol Bioeng 101(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow A, Graham RL, Stokes B, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Dept. of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  49. Powers RF, Scott DA, Sanchez FG, Voldseth RA, Page-Dumroese D, Elioff JD, Stone DM (2005) The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: findings from the first decade of research. For Ecol Manage 220:31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pye EK, Lora JH (1991) The Alcell process—a proven alternative to kraft pulping. Tappi J 74:113–118Google Scholar
  51. Rummer B (2008) Assessing the cost of fuel reduction treatments: a critical review. Forest Policy and Economics 10:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sassner P, Martensson CG, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2008) Steam pretreatment of H2SO4-impregnated Salix for the production of bioethanol. Bioresour Technol 99(1):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schell DJ, Harwood C (1994) Milling of lignocellulosic biomass: results of pilot-scale testing. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 45–46:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sewalt VJH, Glasser WG, Beauchemin KA (1997) Lignin impact on fiber degradation. 3. Reversal of inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis by chemical modification of lignin and by additives. J Agric Food Chem 45(5):1823–1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shuai L, Yang Q, Zhu JY, Lu F, Weimer P, Ralph J, Pan XJ (2010) Comparative study of SPORL and dilute acid pretreatments of softwood spruce for cellulose ethanol production. Bioresour Technol 101:3106–3114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sierra R, Granda C, Holtzaaple MT (2009) Short term lime pretreatment of poplar wood. Biotechnol Prog 25:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith W, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest resources of the United States, 2007 General Technical Report WO-GTR-78. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office p 336Google Scholar
  58. Soderstrom J, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2004) Effects of washing on yield in one- and two-step steam pretreatment of softwood for production of ethanol. Biotechnol Prog 20:744–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stanturf JA, Zhang D (2003) Plantation forests in the United States of America: past, present, and future. XII World Forestry Congress, 2003, Québec City, Canada. Available online at www.fao.org/forestry/docrep/wfcxii/index_result.asp?strlang=en; last accessed February 18, 2010
  60. Stockburger P (1993) An overview of near-commercial and commercial solvent-based pulping processes. TAPPI J 76:71–74Google Scholar
  61. Sun N, Rahman M, Qin Y, Maxim ML, Rodriguez H, Rogers RD (2009) Complete dissolution and partial delignification of wood in the ionic liquid 1-ethyl-3-methlimidazolium acetate. Green Chem 11:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thring RW, Vanderlaan MN, Griffin SL (1997) Polyurethanes from Alcell (R) lignin. Biomass Bioenergy 13:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tu MB, Zhang X, Paice M, McFarlane P, Saddler JN (2009) Effect of surfactants on separate hydrolysis fermentation and simultaneous saccharification fermentation of pretreated lodgepole pine. Biotechnol Prog 25:1122–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. U.S. DOE (2005) Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda. A research road map resulting from the biomass to biofuel workshop sponsored by The Dept of Energy. December 7-9, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  65. Vance ED, Maguire D, Zalesny RS Jr. (2010) Productivity research gap analysis for intensively managed forests. Journal of Forestry (in press)Google Scholar
  66. Wang GS, Pan XJ, Zhu JY, Gleisner R (2009) Sulfite pretreatment to overcome recalcitrance of lignocellulose (SPORL) for robust enzymatic saccharification of hardwoods. Biotech Prog 25(4):1086–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wear DN, Greis JG (2002) Southern forest resource assessment. General Technical Report SRS-GTR-53. Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station p 635Google Scholar
  68. Wegner TH, Jones EP (2009) A fundamental review of the relationships between nanotechnology and lignocellulosic biomass. In: Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (eds) The nanoscience and technology of renewable biomaterials. Wiley, UK, pp 10–11Google Scholar
  69. Williamson PN (1988) Repaps-alcell-process—new demonstration facility shows how pulpmills can be cheaper. Sven Papp Tidn Nord Cellul 91:21–23Google Scholar
  70. Wyman CE, Dale BE, Elander RT, Holtzapple M, Ladisch MR, Lee YY, Mitchinson C, Saddler JN (2009) Comparative sugar recovery and fermentation data following pretreatment of poplar wood by leading technologies. Biotechnol Prog 25:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yanai RD, Currie WS, Goodale CL (2003) Soil carbon dynamics after forest harvest: an ecosystem paradigm reconsidered. Ecosystems 6:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang B, Wyman CE (2006) BSA treatment to enhance enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose in lignin containing substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 94(4):611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang B, Wyman CE (2008) Pretreatment: the key to unlocking low-cost cellulosic ethanol. Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining 2:26–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yang B, Boussaid A, Mansfield SD, Gregg DJ, Saddler JN (2002) Fast and efficient alkaline peroxide treatment to enhance the enzymatic digestibility of steam-exploded softwood substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 77:678–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yu Q, Zhuang X, Yuan Z, Wang Q, Qia W, Wang W, Zhang Y, Xu J, Xu H (2010) Two-step liquid hot water pretreatment of Eucalyptus grandis to enhance sugar recovery and enzymatic digestibility of cellulose. Bioresour Technol 101(13):4895–4899. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB, Zalesny JA, McMahon BG, Berguson WE, Stanosz GR (2009) Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of Populus energy crops in the midwestern United States. BioEnergy Res 2:106–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhao YL, Wang Y, Zhu JY, Ragauskas A, Deng YL (2008) Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of spruce by alkaline pretreatment at low temperature. Biotechnol Bioeng 99(6):1320–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zheng Y, Pan Z, Zhang R, Wang D, Jenkins B (2008) Non-ionic surfactants and non-catalytic protein treatment on enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated creeping wild ryegrass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 146:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhu JY, Pan XJ (2010) Woody biomass pretreatment for cellulosic ethanol production: technology and energy consumption evaluation. Bioresour Technol 100(13):4992–5002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhu JY, Pan XJ, Wang GS, Gleisner R (2009a) Sulfite pretreatment (SPORL) for robust enzymatic saccharification of spruce and red pine. Bioresour Technol 100(8):2411–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zhu JY, Wang GS, Pan XJ, Gleisner R (2009b) Specific surface to evaluate the efficiencies of milling and pretreatment of wood for enzymatic saccharification. Chem Eng Sci 64(3):474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhu JY, Zhu W, OBryan P, Dien BS, Tian S, Gleisner R, Pan XJ (2010a) Ethanol production from SPORL-pretreated lodgepole pine: preliminary evaluation of mass balance and process energy efficiency. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86(5):1355–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhu W, Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Pan XJ (2010b) On energy consumption for size-reduction and yield from subsequent enzymatic sacchrification of pretreated lodgepole pine. Bioresour Technol 101(8):2782–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Y. Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xuejun Pan
    • 2
  • Ronald S. ZalesnyJr.
    • 3
  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceForest Products LaboratoryMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationRhinelanderUSA

Personalised recommendations