Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 231–238 | Cite as

Effects of ultrasonic vibration-assisted pelleting of cellulosic biomass on sugar yield for biofuel manufacturing

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Ultrasonic vibration-assisted (UV-A) pelleting can increase the bulk density of cellulosic biomass, thus reduce the feedstock transportation cost in cellulosic biofuel manufacturing. UV-A pelleting can also increase the biomass sugar yield in enzymatic hydrolysis. There are two major processes in the sugar conversion of cellulosic biomass: pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Sugar yield definition used in reported UV-A pelleting studies is enzymatic hydrolysis sugar yield. This definition is based on enzymatic hydrolysis this single process without considering the pretreatment process. In fact, converting cellulosic biomass into fermentable sugar (glucose) is the combined effort of pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. There are no papers in the literature investigating whether UV-A pelleting could increase the total sugar yield when both pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis are considered. This paper reports the first study using total sugar yield to investigate the effects UV-A pelleting on biomass sugar yield. Experimental results show that, for all the four types of cellulosic biomass (wheat straw, corn stover, switchgrass, and sorghum stalk) used in this study, total sugar yield of biomass processed with UV-A pelleting was 30 to 43 % higher than that of biomass not processed with UV-A pelleting.

Keywords

Biofuel Cellulosic biomass Enzymatic hydrolysis Pretreatment Sugar yield Ultrasonic vibration-assisted (UV-A) pelleting 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the U.S. NSF for providing funding (Award Number 0970112) for this research and China Scholarship Council for providing scholarships for the first two authors. The authors also acknowledge Mr. Ke Zhang and Dr. Feng Xu in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at Kansas State University for their assistance in sugar analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    US Energy Information Administration (2012) Annual energy review 2011. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
  2. 2.
    US Energy Information Administration (2011) Short-term energy outlook. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
  3. 3.
    Greene DL, Schafer A (2011) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. transportation. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/reducing-transportation-ghg.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
  4. 4.
    US Department of Energy (2010) Environmental benefits. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/printable_versions/environmental.html. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
  5. 5.
    RFA (2011) Ethanol facts: environment. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-environment. Accessed 20 Dec 2012
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Zhu JY, Wang GS, Pan XJ, Gleisner R (2009) Specific surface to evaluate the efficiencies of milling and pretreatment of wood for enzymatic saccharification. Chem Eng Sci 64:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu JY, Pan XJ, Wang GS, Gleisner R (2009) Sulfite pretreatment (SPORL) for robust enzymatic saccharification of spruce and red pine. Bioresour Technol 100:2411–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhu W, Zhu JY, Gleisner R, Pan XJ (2010) On energy consumption for size-reduction and yields from subsequent enzymatic saccharification of pretreated lodgepole pine. Bioresour Technol 101:2782–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Von Sivers M, Zacchi G (1996) Ethanol from lignocellulosics: a review of the economy. Bioresour Technol 56:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubin EM (2008) Genomics of cellulosic biofuels. Nature 454:841–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    US Department of Energy (2005) Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda. http://genomicscience.energy.gov/biofuels/b2bworkshop.shtml. Accessed 20 Dec 2012
  13. 13.
    Huber GW (2008) Breaking the chemical and engineering barriers to lignocellulosic biofuels: next generation hydrocarbon biorefineries. In: Huber GW (ed) University of Massachusetts Amherst, National Science Foundation, Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Division, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falk D (1985) Pelleting cost center. In: McEllhiney MM (ed) Feed manufacturing technology, 3rd edn. American Feed Industry Association, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hess JR, Wright CT, Kenney KL (2007) Cellulosic biomass feedstocks and logistics for ethanol production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 1(3):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sokhansanj S, Turhollow AF (2004) Biomass densification—cubing operations and costs for corn stover. Appl Eng Agric 20(4):495–499Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song XX, Zhang M, Pei ZJ, Deines T (2010) Ultrasonic-vibration-assisted pelleting of cellulosic biomass: effects of moisture content. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (MSEC)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cong W, Pei Z, Zhang P, Qin N, Deines T, Lin B (2011) Ultrasonic-vibration-assisted pelleting of switchgrass: effects of ultrasonic vibration. Transactions of Tianjin University 17:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang PF, Deines TW, Nottingham D, Pei ZJ, Wang D, Wu X (2010) Ultrasonic vibration-assisted pelleting of biomass: a designed experimental investigation on pellet quality and sugar yield. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (MSEC)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seino T, Yoshioka A, Fujiwara M, Chen KL, Erata T, Tabata M, Takai M (2001) ESR studies of radicals generated by ultrasonic irradiation of lignin solution. An application of the spin trapping method. Wood Science and Technology 35(1):97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chuanyun D, Bochu W, Huan Z, Conglin H, Chuanren D, Wangqian L, Toyama Y, Sakanishi A (2004) Effect of low frequency ultrasonic stimulation on the secretion of siboflavin produced by Ecemothecium Ashbyii. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 34(1):7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yaldagard M, Mortazavi SA, Tabatabaie F (2008) The effect of ultrasound in combination with thermal treatment on the germinated barley’s alpha-amylase activity. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 25(3):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toma M, Bandow H, Vinatoru M, Maeda Y (2006) Ultrasonically assisted conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. Proceeding of the AIChE annual meeting. http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/prost/proceedings/aiche-2006/data/papers/P70141.pdf Accessed 22 Feb 2013
  24. 24.
    Ninomiya K, Kamide K, Takahashi K, Shimizu N (2012) Enhanced enzymatic saccharification of kenaf powder after ultrasonic pretreatment in ionic liquids at room temperature. Bioresour Technol 103(1):259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Velmurugan R, Muthukumar K (2012) Ultrasound-assisted alkaline pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for fermentable sugar production: optimization through response surface methodology. Bioresour Technol 112:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang PF, Pei ZJ, Wang D, Wu X, Cong WL, Zhang M, Deines TW (2011) Ultrasonic vibration-assisted pelleting of cellulosic biomass for biofuel manufacturing. J Manuf Sci Eng 133: 011012–1–011012–7Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sluiter A, Hames B, Hyman D, Payne C, Ruiz R (2008) Determination of total solids in biomass and total dissolved solids in liquid process samples. NREL Laboratory Analytical Procedure Technical Report No. NREL/TP-510–42621Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hu G, Heitmann JA, Rojas OJ (2008) Feedstock pretreatment strategies for producing ethanol from wood, bark, and forest residues. Bioresources 3(1):270–294Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu F, Theerarattananoona K, Wu X, Pena L, Shi Y, Staggenborg S, Wang D (2011) Process optimization for ethanol production from photoperiod-sensitive sorghum: focus on cellulose conversion. Ind Crop Prod 34(1):1212–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Donohoe BS, Decker SR, Tucker MP, Himmel ME, Vinzant TB (2008) Visualizing lignin coalescence and migration through maize cell walls following thermochemical pretreatment. Biotechnol Bioeng 101(5):913–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tang YJ, Zhang PF, Liu DF, Pei ZJ (2012) Effects of pellet weight in ultrasonic vibration-assisted pelleting for cellulosic biofuel manufacturing. Int J Manuf Res 7:397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang Q, Zhang PF, Deines T, Pei ZJ, Wang D, Wu X, Pritchett G (2010) Ultrasonic vibration-assisted pelleting of sorghum stalks: effects of pressure and ultrasonic power. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (MSEC)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang PF, Zhang Q, Pei ZJ, Pei L (2011) An experimental investigation on cellulosic biofuel manufacturing: effects of biomass particle size on sugar yield. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Theerarattananoon K, Xu F, Wilson J, Staggenborg S, McKinney L, Vadlani P, Pei Z, Wang D (2012) Effects of the pelleting conditions on chemical composition and sugar yield of corn stover, big bluestem, wheat straw, and sorghum stalk pellets. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems EngineeringKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations