• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Lignocellulosic ethanol: Technology design and its impact on process efficiency

L. Paulova, P. Patakova, B. Branska, M. Rychtera, K. Melzoch,

. 2015 ; 33 (6 Pt 2) : 1091-107. [pub] 20141206

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc16021020

This review provides current information on the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass, with the main focus on relationships between process design and efficiency, expressed as ethanol concentration, yield and productivity. In spite of unquestionable advantages of lignocellulosic biomass as a feedstock for ethanol production (availability, price, non-competitiveness with food, waste material), many technological bottlenecks hinder its wide industrial application and competitiveness with 1st generation ethanol production. Among the main technological challenges are the recalcitrant structure of the material, and thus the need for extensive pretreatment (usually physico-chemical followed by enzymatic hydrolysis) to yield fermentable sugars, and a relatively low concentration of monosaccharides in the medium that hinder the achievement of ethanol concentrations comparable with those obtained using 1st generation feedstocks (e.g. corn or molasses). The presence of both pentose and hexose sugars in the fermentation broth, the price of cellulolytic enzymes, and the presence of toxic compounds that can inhibit cellulolytic enzymes and microbial producers of ethanol are major issues. In this review, different process configurations of the main technological steps (enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation of hexose/and or pentose sugars) are discussed and their efficiencies are compared. The main features, benefits and drawbacks of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with delayed inoculation (dSSF), consolidated bioprocesses (CBP) combining production of cellulolytic enzymes, hydrolysis of biomass and fermentation into one step, together with an approach combining utilization of both pentose and hexose sugars are discussed and compared with separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) processes. The impact of individual technological steps on final process efficiency is emphasized and the potential for use of immobilized biocatalysts is considered.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16021020
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20160722121507.0
007      
ta
008      
160722s2015 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.12.002 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.12.002 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)25485865
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Paulova, Leona $u Department of Biotechnology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technicka 5, CZ16628 Prague 6, Czech Republic. Electronic address: leona.paulova@vscht.cz.
245    10
$a Lignocellulosic ethanol: Technology design and its impact on process efficiency / $c L. Paulova, P. Patakova, B. Branska, M. Rychtera, K. Melzoch,
520    9_
$a This review provides current information on the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass, with the main focus on relationships between process design and efficiency, expressed as ethanol concentration, yield and productivity. In spite of unquestionable advantages of lignocellulosic biomass as a feedstock for ethanol production (availability, price, non-competitiveness with food, waste material), many technological bottlenecks hinder its wide industrial application and competitiveness with 1st generation ethanol production. Among the main technological challenges are the recalcitrant structure of the material, and thus the need for extensive pretreatment (usually physico-chemical followed by enzymatic hydrolysis) to yield fermentable sugars, and a relatively low concentration of monosaccharides in the medium that hinder the achievement of ethanol concentrations comparable with those obtained using 1st generation feedstocks (e.g. corn or molasses). The presence of both pentose and hexose sugars in the fermentation broth, the price of cellulolytic enzymes, and the presence of toxic compounds that can inhibit cellulolytic enzymes and microbial producers of ethanol are major issues. In this review, different process configurations of the main technological steps (enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation of hexose/and or pentose sugars) are discussed and their efficiencies are compared. The main features, benefits and drawbacks of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with delayed inoculation (dSSF), consolidated bioprocesses (CBP) combining production of cellulolytic enzymes, hydrolysis of biomass and fermentation into one step, together with an approach combining utilization of both pentose and hexose sugars are discussed and compared with separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) processes. The impact of individual technological steps on final process efficiency is emphasized and the potential for use of immobilized biocatalysts is considered.
650    _2
$a biotechnologie $x metody $7 D001709
650    _2
$a ethanol $x metabolismus $7 D000431
650    _2
$a fermentace $7 D005285
650    _2
$a hydrolýza $7 D006868
650    _2
$a lignin $x metabolismus $7 D008031
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Patakova, Petra $u Department of Biotechnology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technicka 5, CZ16628 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Branska, Barbora $u Department of Biotechnology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technicka 5, CZ16628 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Rychtera, Mojmir $u Department of Biotechnology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technicka 5, CZ16628 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Melzoch, Karel $u Department of Biotechnology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technicka 5, CZ16628 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00000793 $t Biotechnology advances $x 1873-1899 $g Roč. 33, č. 6 Pt 2 (2015), s. 1091-107
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25485865 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20160722 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20160722121721 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1155690 $s 945548
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 33 $c 6 Pt 2 $d 1091-107 $e 20141206 $i 1873-1899 $m Biotechnology advances $n Biotechnol Adv $x MED00000793
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20160722

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...