Advertisement

Techno-economic Assessment of Bioethanol Production from Major Lignocellulosic Residues Under Different Process Configurations

  • Pornkamol Unrean
Chapter

Abstract

Technological and economical potentials of integrated biomass-to-ethanol conversion process is investigated using process flowsheeting simulation for an estimation of the minimal ethanol selling price (MESP). Implementing optimal process configuration with yeast consortium for efficient C5/C6 co-fermentation, fed-batch high-solid operation for high-ethanol-titer, on-site enzymes together with enzyme synergism for low enzyme demand and efficient saccharification could potentially lower the MESP of integrated cellulosic ethanol production process to meet economic feasibility for industrialization. Techno-economic study provides an economically viable prototype for high-ethanol-titer process via fed-batch SSF using yeast consortium and on-site enzymes production which offer better economic value for the successful commercialization of lignocellulosic ethanol production process. Such process platform is an important strategy for the development of low-cost biorefinery industry that can outperform the current starch- or sugar-based process for the production of biofuels.

Keywords

Techno-economic analysis High-solid lignocellulosic bioprocess High-ethanol-titer fed-batch Yeast consortium On-site enzymes Cellulase and hemicellulase synergism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks financial support from the Thailand Research Fund and the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Thailand (Grant No. P-15-51025).

References

  1. Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J, Wallace B (2002) Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barta Z, Kovacs K, Reczey K, Zacchi G (2010) Process design and economics of on-site cellulase production on various carbon sources in a softwood-based ethanol plant. Enzyme Res 2010:734182CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertilsson M, Olofsson K, Liden G (2009) Prefermentation improves xylose utilization in simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation of pretreated spruce. Biotechnol Biofuels 2:8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezerra TL, Ragauskas AJ (2016) A review of sugarcane bagasse for second-generation bioethanol and biopower production. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buaban B, Inoue H, Yano S, Tanapongpipat S, Ruanglek V, Champreda V, Pichyangkura R, Rengpipat S, Eurwilaichitr L (2010) Bioethanol production from ball milled bagasse using an on-site produced fungal enzyme cocktail and xylose-fermenting Pichia stipitis. J Biosci Bioeng 110:18–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Canilha L, Santos VT, Rocha GJ, Almeida e Silva JB, Giulietti M, Silva SS, Felipe MG, Ferraz A, Milagres AM, Carvalho W (2011) A study on the pretreatment of a sugarcane bagasse sample with dilute sulfuric acid. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 38:1467–1475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandel AK, Singh OV (2011) Weedy lignocellulosic feedstock and microbial metabolic engineering: advancing the generation of ‘biofuel’. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 89:1289–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng C, Almario MP, Kao KC (2015) Genome shuffling to generate recombinant yeasts for tolerance to inhibitors present in lignocellulosic hydrolysates. Biotechnol Lett 37:2193–2200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chovau S, Degrauwe D, Bruggen BV (2013) Critical analysis of techno-economic estimates for the production cost of lignocellulosic bio-ethanol. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 26:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FitzPatrick M, Champagne P, Cunningham MF, Whitney RA (2010) A biorefinery processing perspective: treatment of lignocellulosic materials for the production of value-added products. Bioresour Technol 101:8915–8922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gao Y, Xu J, Yuan Z, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Liang C (2014) Optimization of fed-batch enzymatic hydrolysis from alkali-pretreated sugarcane bagasse for high-concentration sugar production. Bioresour Technol 167:41–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Georgieva TI, Hou XR, Hilstrom T, Ahring BK (2008) Enzymatic hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation of high dry matter wet-exploded wheat straw at low enzyme loading. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 148:35–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Geraili A, Sharma P, Romagnoli JA (2014a) Technology analysis of integrated biorefineries through process simulation and hybrid optimization. Energy 73:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geraili A, Sharma P, Romagnoli JA (2014b) A modeling framework for design of nonlinear renewable energy systems through integrated simulation modeling and metaheuristic optimization: Applications to biorefineries. Comput Chem Eng 61(11):102–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gírio FM, Fonseca C, Carvalheiro F, Duarte LC, Marques S, Bogel-Lukasik R (2010) Hemicelluloses for fuel ethanol: a review. Bioresour Technol 101:4775–4800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta R, Kumar S, Gomes J, Kuhad RC (2012) Kinetic study of batch and fed-batch enzymatic saccharification of pretreated substrate and subsequent fermentation to ethanol. Biotechnol Biofuels 20:5–16Google Scholar
  17. He Y, Zhang L, Zhang J, Bao J (2014) Helically agitated mixing in dry dilute acid pretreatment enhances the bioconversion of corn stover into ethanol. Biotechnol Biofuels 7:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong Y, Nizami AS, Pourbafrani M, Saville BA, MacLean HL (2013) Impact of cellulase production on environmental and financial metrics for lignocellulosic ethanol. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 7:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoyer K, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2009) Production of fuel ethanol from softwood by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation at high dry matter content. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 84:570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden Colorado. Technical Report NREL/TP-5100e47764Google Scholar
  21. Kazi FK, Fortman J, Anex R, Hsu D, Aden A, Dutta A, Kothandaraman G (2010) Techno-economic comparison of process technologies for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover. Fuel 89:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khajeeram S, Unrean P (2017) Techno-economic assessment of high-solid simultaneous saccharification and fermentation and economic impacts of on-site enzyme production and yeast consortium technologies. Energy 122:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koppram R, Tomás-Pejó E, Xiros C, Olsson L (2014) Lignocellulosic ethanol production at high-gravity: challenges and perspectives. Trends Biotechnol 32:46–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kovacs K, Szakacs G, Zacchi G (2009) Comparative enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated spruce by supernatants, whole fermentation broths and washed mycelia of Trichoderma reesei and Trichoderma atroviride. Bioresour Technol 100:1350–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kristensen JB, Felby C, Jorgensen H (2009) Yield-determining factors in high-solids enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Biotechnol Biofuel. 2:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar R, Wyman CE (2009) Effect of xylanase supplementation of cellulase on digestion of corn stover solids prepared by leading pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 100:4203–4213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lever M, Ho G, Cord-Ruwisch R (2010) Ethanol from lignocellulose using crude unprocessed cellulase from solid-state fermentation. Bioresour Technol 101:7094–7098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Li Y, Sun Z, Ge X, Zhang J (2016) Effects of lignin and surfactant on adsorption and hydrolysis of cellulases on cellulose. Biotechnol Biofuels 9:20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu G, Zhang J, Bao J (2016) Cost evaluation of cellulase enzyme for industrial-scale cellulosic ethanol production based on rigorous Aspen Plus modeling. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 39:133–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Merino ST, Cherry J (2007) Progress and challenges in enzyme development for biomass utilization. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 108:95–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Morales-Rodriguez R, Meyer AS, Gernaey KV, Sin G (2011) Dynamic model-based evaluation of process configurations for integrated operation of hydrolysis and co-fermentation for bioethanol production from lignocellulose. Bioresour Technol 102:1174–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmqvist B, Wiman M, Lidén G (2011) Effect of mixing on enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-pretreated spruce: a quantitative analysis of conversion and power consumption. Biotechnol Biofuels 24:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmqvist B, Kadić A, Hägglund K, Petersson A, Lidén G (2015) Scale-up of high-solid enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-pretreated softwood: the effects of reactor flow conditions. Biomass Convers Biorefinery, 1–8Google Scholar
  34. Puseenam A, Tanapongpipat S, Roongsawang N (2015) Co-expression of endoxylanase and endoglucanase in Scheffersomyces stipitis and its application in ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 177:1690–1700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2008) Techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol production from three different lignocellulosic materials. Biomass Bioenerg 32:422–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sluiter AD, Hames BR, Ruiz RO, Scarlata C, Sluiter JB, Templeton DW, Crocker D (2008) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass: laboratory analytical procedure (LAP). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-510-42618Google Scholar
  37. Soderstrom J, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2005) Separate versus simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of two-step steam pretreated softwood for ethanol production. J Wood Chem Technol 25:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suriyachai N, Laosiripojana N, Champreda V, Unrean P (2013) Optimized simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation of rice straw for ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Scheffersomyces stipitis co-culture using design of experiments. Bioresour Technol 142:171–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Szakacs G, Tengerdy R, Nagy V (2006) Cellulases. In: Pandey A, Webb C, Soccol C, Larroche C (eds) Enzyme technology. Asia tech Publishers, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  40. Tabka M, Herpoel-Gimbert G, Monod I, Asther F, Sigoillot JC (2006) Enzymatic saccharification of wheat straw for bioethanol production by a combined cellulase xylanase and feruloyl esterase treatment. Enzyme Microb Technol 39:897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Takimura O, Yanagida T, Fujimoto S, Minowa T (2013) Estimation of bioethanol production cost from rice straw by on-site enzyme production. J JPA Petrol Inst 56:150–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tao L, Chen X, Aden A, Kuhn E, Himmel M (2012) Improved ethanol yield and reduced minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) by modifying low severity dilute acid pretreatment with deacetylation and mechanical refining: 2) Techno-economic analysis. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Trinh CT, Unrean P, Srienc F (2008) Minimal Escherichia coli cell for the most efficient production of ethanol from hexoses and pentoses. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:3634–3643CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Unrean P, Franzen CJ (2015) Dynamic flux balancing elucidates NAD(P)H production as limiting response to furfural inhibition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biotechnol J 10:1248–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Unrean P, Khajeeram S, Laoteng K (2016) Systematic optimization of fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process based on enzyme hydrolysis and dynamic metabolic model of S. cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:2459–2470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Vicari KJ, Tallam SS, Shatova T, Joo KK, Scarlata CJ, Humbird D, Wolfrum EJ, Beckham GT (2012) Uncertainty in techno-economic estimates of cellulosic ethanol production due to experimental measurement uncertainty. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Wallace-Salinas V, Gorwa-Grauslund MF (2013) Adaptive evolution of an industrial strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for combined tolerance to inhibitors and temperature. Biotechnol Biofuels 26:151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wingren A, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2003) Techno-economic evaluation of producing ethanol from softwood: comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of bottlenecks. Biotechnol Prog 19:1109–1117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wingren A, Galbe M, Roslander C, Rudolf A, Zacchi G (2005) Effect of reduction in yeast and enzyme concentrations in a simultaneous-saccharification-and-fermentation-based bioethanol process: technical and economic evaluation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 122:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wingren A, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2008) Energy considerations for a SSF-based softwood ethanol plant. Bioresour Technol 99:2121–2131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang J, Viikari L (2014) Impact of xylan on synergistic effects of xylanases and cellulases in enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocelluloses. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 174:1393–1402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang J, Chu D, Huang J, Yu Z, Dai G, Bao J (2010) Simultaneous saccharification and ethanol fermentation at high corn stover solids loading in a helical stirring bioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 105:718–728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang J, Fang Z, Deng H, Zhang X, Bao J (2013) Cost analysis of cassava cellulose utilization scenarios for ethanol production on flowsheet simulation platform. Bioresour Technol 134:298–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Zheng Y, Pan Z, Zhang R, Jenkins BM (2009) Kinetic modeling for enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated creeping wild ryegrass. Biotechnol Bioeng 102:1558–1569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhou J, Wang Y-H, Chu J, Luo Z, Zhuang P, Zhang S (2009) Optimization of cellulase mixture for efficient hydrolysis of steam-exploded corn stover by statistically designed experiments. Bioresour Technol 100:819–825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhou J, Ouyang J, Xu Q, Zheng Z (2016) Cost-effective simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of l-lactic acid from bagasse sulfite pulp by Bacillus coagulans CC17. Bioresour Technol 222:431–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhu Y, Xin F, Zhao Y, Chang Y (2014) An integrative process of bioconversion of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber to ethanol with on-site cellulase production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 37:2317–2324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhuang J, Marchant MA, Nokes SE, Strobel HJ (2004a) Economic analysis of cellulase production methods for bio-ethanol. Appl Eng Agric 23:679–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhuang J, Marchant MA, Nokes SE, Strobel HJ (2004b) Economic analysis of cellulase production methods for bio-ethanol. Appl Eng Agric 23:679–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)Klong LuangThailand

Personalised recommendations