Advertisement

Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 163, Issue 1, pp 90–101 | Cite as

Evaluation of Target Efficiencies for Solid–Liquid Separation Steps in Biofuels Production

  • Vadim Kochergin
  • Keith MillerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Development of liquid biofuels has entered a new phase of large scale pilot demonstration. A number of plants that are in operation or under construction face the task of addressing the engineering challenges of creating a viable plant design, scaling up and optimizing various unit operations. It is well-known that separation technologies account for 50–70% of both capital and operating cost. Additionally, reduction of environmental impact creates technological challenges that increase project cost without adding to the bottom line. Different technologies vary in terms of selection of unit operations; however, solid–liquid separations are likely to be a major contributor to the overall project cost. Despite the differences in pretreatment approaches, similar challenges arise for solid–liquid separation unit operations. A typical process for ethanol production from biomass includes several solid–liquid separation steps, depending on which particular stream is targeted for downstream processing. The nature of biomass-derived materials makes it either difficult or uneconomical to accomplish complete separation in a single step. Therefore, setting realistic efficiency targets for solid–liquid separations is an important task that influences overall process recovery and economics. Experimental data will be presented showing typical characteristics for pretreated cane bagasse at various stages of processing into cellulosic ethanol. Results of generic material balance calculations will be presented to illustrate the influence of separation target efficiencies on overall process recoveries and characteristics of waste streams.

Keywords

Solid–liquid separations Ethanol production Lignocellulosic biomass 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by DOE award (DE-FG36-08GO88151). This support does not constitute an endorsement by DOE of the views expressed in this article.

We would like to thank our colleagues from Audubon Sugar Institute, Dr. Don Day and Dr. Giovanna DeQueiroz, for their useful technical discussions and Iryna Tishechkina for helping in the experimental work.

References

  1. 1.
    Laser, M., Schulman, D., Allen, S. G., Lichwa, J., Antal, M. J., & Lynd, L. R. (2002). Bioresource Technology, 81, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schultz, T. P., Blermann, C. J., & McGinnis, G. D. (1983). Ind Eng Chem Prod RD, 22, 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Playne, M. J. (1984). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 26, 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holtzapple, M., Lundeen, J., Sturgis, R., Lewis, J., & Dale, B. (1992). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 34–35, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chundawat, S. P. S., Venkatesh, B., & Dale, B. E. (2007). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 96, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sendich, E., Laser, M., Kim, S., Alizadeh, H., Laureano-Perez, L., Dale, B., et al. (2008). Bioresource Technology, 99, 8429–8435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, V. S., Burr, B., & Holtzapple, M. (2007). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 63–65, 3–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torget, R., Himmel, M., Wright, J., & Grohmann, K. (1988). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 17, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aden, A., Ruth, M., Ibsen, K., Jechura, J., Neeves, K., Sheehan, J., et al. (2002), Lignoscellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover., National Renewable Energy Labaratory, Golden, CO, NREL/TP-510-32438.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuzens, J. C., & Miller, J. R. (1997). Renewable Energy, 10, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kochergin, V., Kearney, M., Herbst, R. S., Mann, N. R., Garn, T. G., & Hess, J. R. (2004). Challenges for membrane filtration of biomass derived solutions. Houston: AIChE Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Monavari, S., Galbe, M., & Zacchi, G. (2009). Biotechnology for Biofuels, 2, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Queiroz, G. A., & Stradi, B. (2007). Dilute Ammonia Process for the Treatment of Lignocellulosic Materials, PCT/033173/US2009Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kochergin, V., Olmstead, S., & Jacob, W. (2001). Zuckerindustrie, 126, 376–379.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sluiter, A., Hames, B., Scarlata, C., Sluiter, J., & Templeton, D. (2005). Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass: NREL laboratory analytical procedure. Golden: NREL.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saska, M., & Gray, M. (2006). Pre-treatment of sugarcane leaves and bagasse pith with lime-impregnation and steam explosion for enzymatic conversion to fermentable sugars. 28th Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prior, B. A., & Day, D. F. (2008). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 146, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Queiroz, G. A., Stradi, B., Vazan, V., & Ramachandran, T. (2009). Ethanol Production from Sugarcane Bagasse by an Ammonia Process. Bioresource Technology. In Review.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glasser, W. G., & Wright, R. S. (1998). Biomass and Bioenergy, 14, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Audubon Sugar InstituteSaint GabrielUSA

Personalised recommendations