Abstract
Here we explore the utilization of Eichhornia crassipes, commonly known as water hyacinth, as a competitive source of biomass for conversion to fuel. Ecologically, E. crassipes is the most undesirable of a class of noxious and invasive aquatic vegetation. Water hyacinth grows rapidly on the surface of waterways, forming a dense mat which depletes the surrounding environment of essential nutrients. These properties, rarely encountered in other plant systems, are features of an ideal feedstock for renewable biomass. The high characteristic water content limits the range over which the material can be transported; however it also makes E. crassipes a natural substrate for rapid microbial metabolism that can be employed as a potentially effective biological pretreatment technology. We show through a life cycle analysis that water hyacinth is a competitive feedstock with the potential to be produced at a cost of approximately $40 per ton of dry mass.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to Simberloff et al. [3] an average annual cost of $2.7 million was spent to manage 13,400 ha of water hyacinth mixed with water lettuce. The cost was adjusted for inflation using the CPI inflation calculator.
References
Abraham M, Kurup M (1996) Bioconversion of tapioca (Manihot esculenta) waste and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)—influence of various physico-chemical factors. J Ferment Bioeng 82:259–263
Bagnall LO (1982) Bulk mechanical properties of waterhyacinth. J Aquat Plant Manage 20:49–53
Battle JM, Mihuc TB (2000) Decomposition dynamics of aquatic macrophytes in the lower Atchafalaya, a large floodplain river. Hydrobiologia 418:123–136
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of Florida, and the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2003). Plant management in Florida waters (http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/mechcons.html#meccertain)
Chanakya HN, Borgaonkar S, Rajan MGC, Wahi M (1992) Two-phase anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth or urban garbage. Bioresour Technol 42(2):123–131
Chen M, Xia L, Xue P (2007) Enzymatic hydrolysis of corncob and ethanol production from cellulosic hydrolysate. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 59:85–89
Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator (2007). (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)
DeBusk TA, Bierberg FE (1984) Effect of nitrogen and fiber content on the decomposition of the waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms). Hydrobiologia 118:199–204
Dias De Oliveira ME, Vaughan BE, Rykiel EJ (2005) Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint. Bioscience 55:593–602
EERE (2007) Biomass feedstocks. US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/biomass_feedstocks.html)
Gamage NPD, Asaeda T (2005) Decomposition and mineralization of Eichhornia crassipes litter under aerobic conditions with and without bacteria. Hydrobiologia 541:13–27
Gaur S, Singhal P, Hasija SK (1992) Relative contributions of bacteria and fungi to water hyacinth decomposition. Aquat Bot 43:1–15
Goyal S, Dhull SK, Kapoor KK (2005) Chemical and biological changes during composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity. Bioresour Technol 96:1584–1591
Gunnarsson CC, Peterson CM (2007) Water hyacinths as a resource in agriculture and energy production: a literature review. Waste Manage 27:117–129
Gupta MK, Shrivastava P, Singhal PK (1996) Decomposition of young water hyacinth leaves in lake water. Hydrobiologia 335:33–41
Isarankura-Na-Ayudhya C, Tantimongcolwat T, Kongpanpee T, Prabkate P, Prachayasittikul V (2007) Appropriate technology for the bioconversion of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) to liquid ethanol: future prospects for community strengthening and sustainable development. EXCLI J 6:167–176
Ismail A, Abdel-Naby M, Abdel-Fattah A (1995) Utilization of water hyacinth cellulose for production of cellobiase rich preparation by Aspergillus niger 1. Microbios 83:191–198
Karim A (1948) Microbiological decomposition of water hyacinth. Soil Sci 66:401–416
Keller FA, Hamilton JE, Nguyen QA (2003) Microbial pretreatment of biomass: potential for reducing severity of thermochemical biomass pretreatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 105(1):27–41
Liverpool Water Witch Marine and Engineering Co. Ltd. (2007) Liverpool Water Witch Waterway Maintenance Solutions. (http://www.waterwitch.com/waterwitch)
Lynd LR (1996) Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass: technology, economics, the environment, and policy. Annu Rev Energy Environ 21:403–465
Lynd LR, Wyman CE, Gerngross TU (1999) Biocommodity engineering. Biotechnol Progr 15(5):777–793
Malik A (2007) Environmental challenge vis a vis opportunity: the case of the water hyacinth. Environ Int 33:122–138
McAloon A, Taylor F, Yee W, Ibsen K, Wooley R (2000) Determining the cost of producing ethanol from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks. NREL/TP-580-28893, US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Energy
Mishima D et al (2007) Ethanol production from candidate energy crops: water… Bioresour. Technol. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.04.056
Mukherjee R, Ghosh M, Nandi B (2004) Improvement of dry matter digestibility of water hyacinth by solid state fermentation using white rot fungi. Indian J Exp Biol 42:837–843
Nigam JN (2002) Bioconversion of water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) hemicellulose acid hydrolysate to motor fuel ethanol by xylose-fermenting yeast. J Biotechnol 97:107–116
Penfound WT, Earle TT (1948) The biology of the water hyacinth. Ecol Monogr 18:447–472
Petrell R, Smerage L (1991) Physical description of water hyacinth mats to improve harvester design. J Aquat Plant Manage 29:45–50
Reddy KR, Sutton DL (1984) Waterhyacinths for water quality improvement and biomass production. J Environ Quality 13:1–8
Sheehan J, Dunahay T, Benemann J, Roessler P (1998) A look back at the US Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program—Biodiesel from Algae, NREL/TP-580-24190
Simberloff D, Schmitz C, Brown C (1997) Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, DC
Solomon BD, Barnes JR, Halvorsen KE (2007) Grain and cellulosic ethanol: history, economics, and energy policy. Biomass Bioenergy 31:416–425
Turhollow A (1994) The economics of energy crop production. Biomass Bioenergy 6(3):229–241
Ulrich D, Vasudevan T (2004) Chemical engineering process design and economics: a practical guide. Ulrich Publishing, Ann Arbor, pp 409–435
US Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Flail choppers. (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/apishelp.htm)
US Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Harvesting. (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/apishelp.htm)
US DOE (2006) Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda, DOE/SC-0095, US Department of Energy Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (http://www.doegenomestolife.org/biofuels/)
Wooley R, Ruth M, Glassner D, Sheehan J (1999) Process design and costing of bioethanol technology: a tool for determining the status and direction of research and development. Biotechnol Progr 15(5):794–803
Wyman CE (2003) Potential synergies and challenges in refining cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, and power. Biotechnol Progr 19:254–262
Xie Y, Qin H, Yu D (2004) Nutrient limitation to the decomposition of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Hydrobiologia 529:105–112
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the National Science Foundation, NSF-DGE-0504361, for financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
JIMB 2008: BioEnergy—special issue.
Appendices
Appendix A
Crop | ||||
A | Lake area covered | 300 (acres) | Parameter | |
G | Annual plant growth | 100 (tons DM/ha per year) | Parameter | |
M T | Plants grown on lake annually | 2.20E+08 (kg/year) | \( M_{\rm T} =\frac{{\rm AG}\left({907} \right)\left({0.404} \right)}{1-R_{\rm w,in}}\) | Eq. 1 |
r A | Plant areal density | 14 (kg/m2) | Parameter | [29] |
t yr | Days/year working | 310 (days/year) | Parameter | |
M D | Mass that can be harvested/day | 7.09E+05 (kg/day) | \(M_{\rm D} =\frac{M_{\rm T}}{T_{\rm yr}}\) | Eq. 2 |
Harvest | ||||
w cut | Cut width | 3.5 (m) | Parameter | |
v cut | Cut speed | 45 (m/min) | Parameter | [20] |
A H | Area harvested hourly | 9,450 (m2/h) | \( A_{\rm H} =w_{\rm cut} v_{\rm cut}\left({60} \right)\) | Eq. 4 |
T D | Hours harvested/day | 8 (h) | Parameter | |
A DH | Daily harvest per harvester | 75,600 (m2/day) | ADH = AHtD | Eq. 5 |
M H | Mass plants harvested per harvester | 1.06E+06 (kg/day) | MH = ADHρA | Eq. 6 |
N H | Whole number harvesters required | 1 | \(N_{\rm H}=\frac{M_{\rm D}}{M_{\rm H}}\) | Eq. 7 a |
A D | Total acres per day harvested | 18.7 (acres) | \( A_{\rm D} =\frac{A_{\rm DH}N_{\rm H}}{4046}\) | Eq. 8 |
f H | Re-growth rate required to maintain | 24 (days) | \( f_{\rm H} =\frac{A\left({4046} \right)\rho _{\rm A}}{M_{\rm D}}\) | Eq. 3 |
P H | Harvester energy requirements (each) | 100 (kW) | Parameter | [20] |
Transportation from lake to storage | ||||
C M | Connectivity of hyacinth mats | 100 (Pa) | Parameter | [29] |
v M | Speed of pulling mat in | 2 (m/s) | Parameter | |
r | Plant density | 167 (kg/m3) | Parameter | [2] |
l M | Estimated length of hyacinth mats | 180 (m) | \( l_{\rm M} =\frac{C_{\rm M} \left({600} \right)}{v_{\rm m} \rho}\) | Eq. 9 |
M M | Estimated weight of hyacinth mats | 8.80E+03 (kg) | MM = lMwcutρA | Eq. 10 |
N M | Number of mats pulled daily | 81 (mats/day) | \(N_{\rm M} =\frac{M_{\rm D}}{M_{\rm M}}\) | Eq. 11 |
P RB | Row boat energy requirements | 5 (hp) | Parameter | |
N RB | Number of operators required | 3 | \( N_{\rm RB} = \frac{{N_{\rm M}}}{{t_{\rm D}} \left({4} \right)}\) | Eq. 12 a |
Storage/decomposition | ||||
M D | Mass of plant material entering | 7.09E+05 (kg/day) | ||
R W,in | % Water in material | 0.95 (mass %) | Parameter | [14] |
M W,in | Total mass water in entering material | 6.74E+05 (kg/day) | Mw,in = Rw,inMD | Eq. 13 |
M B,in | Total mass fiber in enetering material | 3.55E+04 (kg/day) | \(M_{\rm B,in} =\left({1-R_{\rm w,in}} \right)M_{\rm D} \) | Eq. 14 b |
R W,rem | Total water removal desired | 0.97 (mass %) | Parameter | –c |
M P,HR | Mass of plant material processed per hour | 2.96E+04 (kg/h) | \( M_{\rm P,hr} =\frac{M_{\rm D}}{24}\) | Eq. 15 d |
M W,rem | Mass of desired water removed | 2.72E+04 (kg/h) | \( M_{\rm w,rem} =\frac{M_{\rm w,in} R_{\rm w,rem}}{24}\) | Eq. 16 |
M T,out | Total mass leaving presses | 2.32E+03 (kg/h) | \(M_{\rm T,out} =M_{\rm P,hr} -M_{\rm w,rem} \) | Eq. 17 |
M W,out | Mass water remaining in biomass | 8.42E+02 (kg/h) | \( M_{\rm w,out} =\frac{M_{\rm w,in}}{24}-M_{\rm w,rem}\) | Eq. 18 |
\(M_{\rm B, out}\) | Mass biomass leaving presses | 1.48E+03 (kg/h) | \( M_{\rm B,out} =\frac{M_{\rm B,in}}{24}\) | Eq. 19 |
\(R_{\rm W, out}\) | Percent water leaving presses | 36.31% (mass %) | \(R_{\rm w,out} =\frac{M_{\rm w,out}}{M_{\rm T,out}}\) | Eq. 20 |
\(R_{\rm B, out}\) | Percent biomass leaving presses | 63.69% (mass %) | \(R_{\rm B,out} =\frac{M_{\rm B,out}}{M_{\rm T,out}}\) | Eq. 21 |
N P | # of presses required to achieve % | 6 | Parameter | –c |
P P | Energy used by each press | 29.3 (hp) | \( P_{\rm P} =\left({18\,\hbox{hp-hr/ton}} \right)\left({\frac{M_{\rm P,hr} }{907}} \right)\left({1-R_{\rm w,in}} \right)\) | Eq. 22 e |
P PT | Total energy used | 175. 9 (hp) | PPT = NPPP | Eq. 23 |
Appendix B
Capital | ||||
C S | Site | $1,000,000 | Parameter | |
C E | Equipment | $192,000 | Parameter | |
C fix | Fixed capital costs | $1,192,000 | CS + CE | |
C W | Working capital | $119,200 | 0.1C fix | [35] |
C T | Total capital costs | $1,311,200 | CW + Cfix | |
Manpower | ||||
MH H | Harvesting | 8 (Manhours/day) | T D M H | |
MH T | Transporting | 24 (Manhours/day) | T D N RB | |
MH P | Pressing/digestion | 8 (Manhours/day) | Parameter | |
C wage | Wage + benefits | $13.00 ($/Manhour) | Parameter | |
C wage,T | Total, per year | $161,200.00 ($/year) | \((MH_{\rm H}+MH_{\rm T}+MH_{\rm P})C_{\rm wage}t_{\rm yr}\) | |
C wage,S | Supervisory labor, per year | $16,120.00 ($/year) | 0.1C wage,T | [35] |
Maintenance and operation | ||||
C fuel,H | Fuel for harvester | $22,320 ($/year) | tyrtD [3 ($/gal)] ([NHPH 1,000 (W/kW) 3600 (s/hr)]/[43E6 (J/kg)]) [264.172 (gal/m3)/737.22 (kg/m3)] | |
C fuel,RB | Transport power required | $2,498 ($/year) | tyrtD [3 ($/gal)] ([NRBPRB 1000 (W/kW) 3,600 (s/hr)]/[43E6 (J/kg)]) [264.172 (gal/m3)/737.22 (kg/m3)] | |
C P | Mill press power | $146,473 ($/year) | [N P P P0.746 (kW/hp)] 0.15 ($/kWh) 24 (hr/day)t yr | |
C MR | Maintenance and repairs | $19,200 ($/year) | 0.1C E | [35] |
C OS | Operating supplies | $1,920 ($/year) | 0.1C MR | [35] |
C O | Overhead | $49,130 ($/year) | 0.25(C wage,T + C wage,S + C MR) | [35] |
C LT | Local taxes | $11,920 ($/year) | 0.01C fix | [35] |
C I | Insurance | $23,840 ($/year) | 0.02C fix | [35] |
C Admin | Administrative costs | $12,283 ($/year) | 0.25C O | [35] |
C MO | Total maintenance and operation costs | $466,903 ($/year) | \(C_{\rm wage,T}+C_{\rm wage,S}+C_{\rm fuel,H}+C_{\rm fuel,RB}+C_{\rm P}+C_{\rm MR}+C_{\rm OS}+C_{\rm O}+C_{\rm LT}+C_{\rm I}+C_{\rm Admin}\) | |
Depreciation | ||||
C D | Straight-line depreciation | $59,600 ($/year) | 0.05C fix | |
Credit | ||||
C cred | Water hyacinth removal credit | $130 ($/acre) | Parameter | |
C total,yr | Total annual cost | $487,503 ($/year) | CMO + CD−(CcredA) | |
Biomass production | ||||
M biomass | Bioimass produced annual | 1.21E+04 (ton/year) | [M B,out/907.18 (kg/ton)] [24(hr/day)]t yr | |
C Final | Price per ton to produce | $40.22 ($/ton) | Ctotal,yr/Mbiomass |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hronich, J.E., Martin, L., Plawsky, J. et al. Potential of Eichhornia crassipes for biomass refining. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 35, 393–402 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-008-0333-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-008-0333-x