Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison Between Lime and Alkaline Hydrogen Peroxide Pretreatments of Sugarcane Bagasse for Ethanol Production

  • Published:
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pretreatment procedures of sugarcane bagasse with lime (calcium hydroxide) or alkaline hydrogen peroxide were evaluated and compared. Analyses were performed using 23 factorial designs, with pretreatment time, temperature, and lime loading and hydrogen peroxide concentration as factors. The responses evaluated were the yield of total reducing sugars (TRS) and glucose released from pretreated bagasse after enzymatic hydrolysis. Experiments were performed using the bagasse, as it comes from an alcohol/sugar factory and bagasse, in the size, range from 0.248 to 1.397 mm (12–60 mesh). The results show that, when hexoses and pentoses are of interest, lime should be the pretreatment agent chosen, as high TRS yields are obtained for non-screened bagasse using 0.40 g lime/g dry biomass at 70 °C for 36 h. When the product of interest is glucose, the best results were obtained with lime pretreatment of screened bagasse. However, the results for alkaline peroxide and lime pretreatments of non-screened bagasse are not very different.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fan, L. T., Lee, Y. H., & Gharpuray, M. M. (1982). Advances in Biochemical Engineering, 23, 157–187.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gharpuray, M. M., Lee, Y. H., & Fan, L. T. (1983). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 26, 426–433.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lynd, L. R., Elander, R. T., & Wyman, C. E. (1996). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 57/58, 741–761.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Laser, M., Schulman, D., Allen, S. G., Lichwa, J., Antal Jr., M. J., & Lynd, L. R. (2002). Bioresource Technology, 81, 33–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mosier, N., Wyman, C., Dale, B., Elander, R., Lee, Y. Y., Holtzapple, M., et al. (2005). Bioresource Technology, 96, 673–686.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, J. (1997). Journal of Biotechnology, 56, 1–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wyman, C. E., Dale, B. E., Elander, R. T., Holtzapple, M., Ladisch, M. R., & Lee, Y. Y. (2005a). Bioresource Technology, 96, 1959–1966.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wyman, C. E., Dale, B. E., Elander, R. T., Holtzapple, M., Ladisch, M. R., & Lee, Y. Y. (2005b). Bioresource Technology, 96, 2026–2032.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hinman, N. D., Schell, D. J., Riley, C. J., Bergeron, P. W., & Walter, P. J. (1992). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 34/35, 639–649.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Parisi, F. (1982). Advances in Biochemical Engineering, 38, 53–87.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kaar, W. E., & Holtzapple, M. T. (2000). Biomass Bioengineering, 18, 189–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gould, J. M. (1984). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 26, 46–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gould, J. M. (1985). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 27, 225–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gould, J. M. (1987). Int. CI. C 13K1/02. US, PI 4 649,113.

  15. Azzam, A. M. (1989). Journal of Environmental Science and Health B, 24(4), 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Amjed, M., Jung, H. G., & Donker, J. D. (1992). Journal of Animal Science, 70, 2877–2884.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Krishna, S. H., Prasanthi, K., Chowdary, G. V., et al. (1998). Process Biochemistry, 33, 825–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lesoing, G., Klopfenstein, T., Rush, I., & Ward, J. (1981). Journal of Animal Science, 51, 263.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Verma, M. L. (1983). In G. R. Pearce (Ed.), Canberra, ACT, Australia : Australian Government Publishing Service, pp 85–99.

  20. Playne, M. J. (1984). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 26, 426–433.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nagwani, M. (1992). M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University.

  22. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory–EUA). (1996)

  23. Chang, V. S., Burr, B., & Holtzapple, M. T. (1997). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 63–65, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang, V. S., Nagwani, M., & Holtzapple, M. T. (1998). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 74, 135–159.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Holtzapple, M. T., & Davison, R. R. (1999). Int. CI. C 13K1/02. US, PI 5,865,898.

  26. Kaar, W. E., & Holtzapple, M. T. (2000). Biomass Bioengineering, 18, 189–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim, S., & Holtzapple, M. T. (2005). Bioresource Technology, 96(18), 1994–2006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferraz, A., Baeza, J., Rodriguez, J., & Freer, J. (2000). Bioresource Technology, 74(3), 201–212.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin, Y. L., & Dence, C. W. (1992). Methods in lignin chemistry pp. 33–62. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Irick, T. J., West, K., Brownell, H. H., Schiwald, W., & Saddler, J. N. (1988). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 17, 137–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaar, W. E., & Brink, D. L. (1991). Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology, 11, 479–494.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaar, W. E., Gool, L. G., Merriman, M. M., & Brink, D. L. (1991). Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology, 11, 447–463.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Laver, M. L., & Wilson, K. P. (1993). Tappi Journal, 76/6, 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Szczodrak, J., & Fiedurek, J. (1996). Biomass and Bioenergy, 10(5/6), 367–375.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ghose, T. K. (1987). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 59(2), 257–268.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Adney, B., Baker, J. (1996). Chemical analysis and testing task—laboratory analytical procedure. LAP-006.

  37. Wood, T. M., & Bhat, K. M. (1988). Methods in enzymology pp. 160, 87–116. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Miller, G. L. (1959). Analytical Chemistry, 31(3), 426–428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Barros Neto, B., Scarmin, I. S, & Bruns, R. E. (2003), 2 ed. Campinas, SP: Editora da UNICAMP.

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge Capes for the financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Process, School of Chemical Engineering, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil

    Sarita C. Rabelo, Rubens Maciel Filho & Aline C. Costa

Authors
  1. Sarita C. Rabelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rubens Maciel Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aline C. Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aline C. Costa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rabelo, S.C., Filho, R.M. & Costa, A.C. A Comparison Between Lime and Alkaline Hydrogen Peroxide Pretreatments of Sugarcane Bagasse for Ethanol Production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 144, 87–100 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-007-8086-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-007-8086-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation