System for fermentation of biomass for the production of ethanol

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8815552
  • Patent Number
    8,815,552
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, March 3, 2010
    14 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 26, 2014
    9 years ago
Abstract
A biorefinery and a system for producing a fermentation product from biomass are disclosed. The biorefinery comprises a preparation system to prepare the biomass into prepared biomass; a pre-treatment system to pre-treat the prepared biomass with a dilute acid for separation into a first component from which pentose can accessed for fermentation and a second component from which hexose can be made available for fermentation; a first treatment system to treat the first component into a treated first component by removing removed components from the first component; a first fermentation system to produce a first fermentation product from the pentose; a distillation system to recover ethanol from the first fermentation product; and a treatment system to process removed components. The biomass comprises lignocellulosic material, which comprises at least one of corn cobs, corn plant husks, corn plant leaves and corn plant stalks.
Description
FIELD

The present invention relates to a system for fermentation of biomass in the production of ethanol. The present invention also relates to a system for fermentation of biomass that has been pre-treated and separated into a first component and a second component. The present invention further relates to a system for fermentation of a first component of biomass using an ethanologen capable of fermenting xylose into ethanol.


BACKGROUND

Ethanol can be produced from grain-based feedstocks (e.g. corn, sorghum/milo, barley, wheat, soybeans, etc.), from sugar (e.g. from sugar cane, sugar beets, etc.), and from biomass (e.g. from lignocellulosic feedstocks such as switchgrass, corn cobs and stover, wood or other plant material).


Biomass comprises plant matter that can be suitable for direct use as a fuel/energy source or as a feedstock for processing into another bioproduct (e.g., a biofuel such as cellulosic ethanol) produced at a biorefinery (such as an ethanol plant). Biomass may comprise, for example, corn cobs and stover (e.g., stalks and leaves) made available during or after harvesting of the corn kernels, fiber from the corn kernel, switchgrass, farm or agricultural residue, wood chips or other wood waste, and other plant matter (grown for processing into bioproducts or for other purposes). In order to be used or processed, biomass will be harvested and collected from the field and transported to the location where it is to be used or processed.


In a conventional ethanol plant producing ethanol from corn, ethanol is produced from starch. Corn kernels are cleaned and milled to prepare starch-containing material for processing. (Corn kernels can also be fractionated to separate the starch-containing material (e.g. endosperm) from other matter (such as fiber and germ).) The starch-containing material is slurried with water and liquefied to facilitate saccharification where the starch is converted into sugar (e.g. glucose) and fermentation where the sugar is converted by an ethanologen (e.g. yeast) into ethanol. The product of fermentation (i.e. fermentation product) is beer, which comprises a liquid component containing ethanol and water and soluble components, and a solids component containing unfermented particulate matter (among other things). The fermentation product is sent to a distillation system. In the distillation system, the fermentation product is distilled and dehydrated into ethanol. The residual matter (e.g. whole stillage) comprises water, soluble components, oil and unfermented solids (i.e. the solids component of the beer with substantially all ethanol removed that can be dried into dried distillers grains (DDG) and sold as an animal feed product). Other co-products, for example syrup (and oil contained in the syrup), can also be recovered from the stillage. Water removed from the fermentation product in distillation can be treated for re-use at the plant.


In a biorefinery configured to produce ethanol from biomass, ethanol is produced from lignocellulosic material. Lignocellulosic biomass typically comprises cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Cellulose (a type of glucan) is a polysaccharide comprising hexose (C6) sugar monomers such as glucose linked in linear chains. Hemicellulose is a branched chain polysaccharide that may comprise several different pentose (C5) sugar monomers (such as xylose and arabinose) and small amounts of hexose (C6) sugar monomers in branched chains.


The biomass is prepared so that sugars in the lignocellulosic material (such as glucose from the cellulose and xylose from the hemicellulose) can be made accessible and fermented into a fermentation product from which ethanol can be recovered. After fermentation the fermentation product is sent to the distillation system, where the ethanol is recovered by distillation and dehydration. Other bioproducts such as lignin and organic acids may also be recovered as by-products or co-products during the processing of biomass into ethanol. Determination of how to more efficiently prepare and treat the biomass for production into ethanol will depend upon the source and type or composition of the biomass. Biomass of different types or from different sources is likely to vary in properties and composition (e.g. relative amounts of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and other components). For example the composition of wood chips will differ from the composition of corn cobs or switchgrass.


It would be advantageous to provide for a system for treatment of biomass to facilitate the production of ethanol. It would also be advantageous to provide for a system to fermenting biomass for the production of ethanol. It would further be advantageous to provide for a system that provided one or more of features to facilitate improvement in the efficiency and yield of cellulosic ethanol from biomass.


SUMMARY

The present invention relates to a method for producing a fermentation product in a fermentation system from biomass that has been pre-treated and separated into a first component and a second component. The method comprises the steps of supplying the first component to the fermentation system; providing an ethanologen to the fermentation system; maintaining the first component and ethanologen in the fermentation system at a temperature of between about 26 and about 37 degrees Celsius and at a pH of between about 4.5 and about 6.0 for a time of no less than 18 hours; and recovering the fermentation product from the fermentation system. The ethanologen is supplied to the fermentation system in a concentration of less than 150 grams of ethanologen on a dry basis per liter of first component. The biomass comprises lignocellulosic material; the lignocellulosic material comprises at least one of corn cobs, corn plant husks, corn plant leaves and corn plant stalks. The first component comprises pentose; the pentose comprises xylose. The ethanologen is capable of fermenting xylose into ethanol.


The present invention also relates to a fermentation system configured to produce a fermentation product from biomass that has been pre-treated and separated into a first component and a second component. The system comprises a first vessel configured to receive the first component and an ethanologen and a second vessel configured to propagate the ethanologen for supply to the first vessel. The first vessel is configured to maintain the first component and ethanologen at a temperature of between about 31 and about 34 degrees Celsius and at a pH of between about 5.2 and about 5.8 for a time of no less than 18 hours. The biomass comprises lignocellulosic material; the lignocellulosic material comprises at least one of corn cobs, corn plant husks, corn plant leaves and corn plant stalks. The first component comprises pentose; the pentose comprises xylose.


The present invention further relates to a biorefinery for producing a fermentation product from biomass. The biorefinery comprises a preparation system to prepare the biomass into prepared biomass; a pre-treatment system to pre-treat the prepared biomass with a dilute acid for separation into a first component from which pentose can accessed for fermentation and a second component from which hexose can be made available for fermentation; a first treatment system to treat the first component into a treated first component by removing removed components from the first component; a first fermentation system to produce a first fermentation product from the pentose by supplying an ethanologen and maintaining the first component and ethanologen at a temperature of between about 26 and about 37 degrees Celsius and at a pH of between about 4.5 and about 6.0 for a time of no less than 18 hours; a distillation system to recover ethanol from the first fermentation product; and a treatment system to process removed components. The biomass comprises lignocellulosic material; the lignocellulosic material comprises at least one of corn cobs, corn plant husks, corn plant leaves and corn plant stalks.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES AND TABLES


FIG. 1A is a perspective view of a biorefinery comprising a cellulosic ethanol production facility.



FIG. 1B is a perspective view of a biorefinery comprising a cellulosic ethanol production facility and a corn-based ethanol production facility.



FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a system for receipt and preparation of biomass for a cellulosic ethanol production facility.



FIG. 3 is a schematic block diagram of a system for the production of ethanol from biomass.



FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C are schematic block diagrams of systems for treatment and processing of components from the production of ethanol from biomass.



FIGS. 5A and 5B are schematic diagrams of the process flow for systems for the production of ethanol from biomass.



FIG. 6A is a schematic block diagram of apparatus used for preparation, pre-treatment and separation of biomass.



FIG. 6B is a perspective view of apparatus used to pre-treat and separate the biomass.



FIGS. 7A and 7B are schematic block diagrams of a treatment system and fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIG. 8A is a schematic block diagram of a system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIG. 8B is a schematic block diagram of a fermentation system and treatment system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIGS. 9A and 9B are perspective view of fermentation system according to exemplary embodiments.



FIGS. 10A through 10D are diagrams of operating conditions for the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIG. 11 is a graph of results obtained through the use of the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIGS. 12A and 12B are a graph of results obtained through the use of the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIGS. 13A and 13B are a graph of results obtained through the use of the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.



FIG. 14 is a graph of results obtained through the use of the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.





TABLES 1A and 1B list the composition of biomass comprising lignocellulosic plant material from the corn plant according to exemplary and representative embodiments.


TABLES 2A and 2B list the composition of the liquid component of pre-treated biomass according to exemplary and representative embodiments.


TABLES 3A and 3B list the composition of the solids component of pre-treated biomass according to exemplary and representative embodiments.


TABLES 4 through 7 provide data and results relating to the use of the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment.


DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Referring to FIG. 1A, a biorefinery configured to produce ethanol from biomass is shown.


According to an exemplary embodiment, the biorefinery is configured to produce ethanol from biomass in the form of a lignocellulosic feedstock such as plant material from the corn plant (e.g. corn cobs and corn stover). Lignocellulosic feedstock such as lignocellulosic material from the corn plant comprises cellulose (from which C6 sugars such as glucose can be made available) and/or hemicellulose (from which C5 sugars such as xylose and arabinose can be made available).


As shown in FIG. 1A, the biorefinery comprises an area where biomass is delivered and prepared to be supplied to the cellulosic ethanol production facility. The cellulosic ethanol production facility comprises apparatus for preparation, pre-treatment and treatment of the biomass into treated biomass suitable for fermentation into fermentation product in a fermentation system. The facility comprises a distillation system in which the fermentation product is distilled and dehydrated into ethanol. As shown in FIG. 1A, the biorefinery may also comprise a waste treatment system (shown as comprising an anaerobic digester and a generator). According to other alternative embodiments, the waste treatment system may comprise other equipment configured to treat, process and recover components from the cellulosic ethanol production process, such as a solid/waste fuel boiler, anaerobic digester, aerobic digester or other biochemical or chemical reactors.


As shown in FIG. 1B, according to an exemplary embodiment, a biorefinery may comprise a cellulosic ethanol production facility (which produces ethanol from lignocellulosic material and components of the corn plant) co-located with a corn-based ethanol production facility (which produces ethanol from starch contained in the endosperm component of the corn kernel). As indicated in FIG. 1B, by co-locating the two ethanol production facilities, certain plant systems may be shared, for example, systems for dehydration, storage, denaturing and transportation of ethanol, energy/fuel-to-energy generation systems, plant management and control systems, and other systems. Corn fiber (a component of the corn kernel), which can be made available when the corn kernel is prepared for milling (e.g. by fractionation) in the corn-based ethanol production facility, may be supplied to the cellulosic ethanol production facility as a feedstock. Fuel or energy sources such as methane or lignin from the cellulosic ethanol production facility may be used to supply power to either or both co-located facilities. According to other alternative embodiments, a biorefinery (e.g. a cellulosic ethanol production facility) may be co-located with other types of plants and facilities, for example an electric power plant, a waste treatment facility, a lumber mill, a paper plant or a facility that processes agricultural products.


Referring to FIG. 2, a system for preparation of biomass delivered to the biorefinery is shown. The biomass preparation system may comprise apparatus for receipt/unloading of the biomass, cleaning (i.e. removal of foreign matter), grinding (i.e. milling, reduction or densification), and transport and conveyance for processing at the plant. According to an exemplary embodiment, biomass in the form of corn cobs and stover may be delivered to the biorefinery and stored (e.g. in bales, piles or bins, etc.) and managed for use at the facility. According to a preferred embodiment, the biomass may comprise at least 20 to 30 percent corn cobs (by weight) with corn stover and other matter. According to other exemplary embodiments, the preparation system of the biorefinery may be configured to prepare any of a wide variety of types of biomass (i.e. plant material) for treatment and processing into ethanol and other bioproducts at the plant.


Referring to FIG. 3, a schematic diagram of the cellulosic ethanol production facility is shown. According to a preferred embodiment, biomass comprising plant material from the corn plant is prepared and cleaned at a preparation system. After preparation, the biomass is mixed with water into a slurry and is pre-treated at a pre-treatment system. In the pre-treatment system, the biomass is broken down (e.g. by hydrolysis) to facilitate separation into a liquid component (e.g. a stream comprising the C5 sugars) and a solids component (e.g. a stream comprising cellulose from which the C6 sugars can be made available). In one embodiment, the pretreatment comprises pre-treating the biomass with an aqueous composition comprising an acid having a concentration of about 0.05 to about 2.0 percent by weight at a temperature of about 130° to about 170° C. for a period of time sufficient to produce a solids component and an aqueous component, which aqueous component contains xylose. According to exemplary embodiments, an acid such as sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, acetic acid, etc. (or a formulation/mixture of acids) can be applied to the biomass. Pre-treatment under these conditions results in maximal xylose yield with a suitably low level of inhibitor production. Inhibitors may include, for example, furfural, hydroxymethylfurfural, or organic acids. The C5-sugar-containing liquid component (C5 stream) and C6-sugar-containing solids component (C6 stream) can be treated (as may be suitable) and fermented in a fermentation system. Fermentation product from the fermentation system is supplied to a distillation system where the ethanol is recovered.


As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4A, removed components from treatment of the C5 stream can be treated or processed to recover by-products, such as organic acids and furfural. As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4B, removed components from treatment of the C6 stream, such as lignin or other components, can be treated or processed into bioproducts or into fuel (such as lignin for a solid fuel boiler or methane produced by treatment of residual/removed matter such as acids and lignin in an anaerobic digester). As shown in FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, components removed during treatment and production of ethanol from the biomass from either or both the C5 stream and the C6 stream (or at distillation) may be processed into bioproducts (e.g. by-products or co-products) or recovered for use or reuse. As shown in FIG. 4C, removed components from the distillation system (such as stillage or removed solids) or from the treatment of the fermentation product before distillation (e.g. removed solids and particulate matter, which may comprise residual lignin, etc.) can be treated or processed into bioproducts or fuel (e.g. methane produced in an anaerobic digester).


According to a preferred embodiment, the biomass comprises plant material from the corn plant, such as corn cobs, husks and leaves and stalks (e.g. at least upper half or three-quarters portion of the stalk); the composition of the plant material (i.e. cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin) will be approximately as indicated in TABLES 1A and 1B (i.e. after at least initial preparation of the biomass, including removal of any foreign matter). According to a preferred embodiment, the plant material comprises corn cobs, husks/leaves and stalks; for example, the plant material may comprise (by weight) up to 100 percent cobs, up to 100 percent husks/leaves, approximately 50 percent cobs and approximately 50 percent husks/leaves, approximately 30 percent cobs and approximately 50 percent husks/leaves and approximately 20 percent stalks, or any other combinations of cobs, husks/leaves and stalks from the corn plant. See TABLE 1A. According to an alternative embodiment, the lignocellulosic plant material may comprise fiber from the corn kernel (e.g. in some combination with other plant material). TABLE 1B provides typical and expected ranges believed to be representative of the composition of biomass comprising lignocellulosic material from the corn plant. According to exemplary embodiments, the lignocellulosic plant material of the biomass (from the corn plant) will comprise (by weight) cellulose at about 30 to 55 percent, hemicellulose at about 20 to 50 percent, and lignin at about 10 to 25 percent; according to a particularly preferred embodiment, the lignocellulosic plant material of the biomass (i.e. cobs, husks/leaves and stalk portions from the corn plant) will comprise (by weight) cellulose at about 35 to 45 percent, hemicellulose at about 24 to 42 percent, and lignin at about 12 to 20 percent. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, pre-treatment of the biomass will yield a liquid component that comprises (by weight) xylose at no less than 1.0 percent and a solids component that comprises (by weight) cellulose (from which glucose can be made available) at no less than 45 percent.


Referring to FIGS. 5A and 5B, exemplary embodiments of systems for the production of ethanol from biomass are shown. As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, biomass is pre-treated in a pre-treatment system and then separated into a liquid component and a solids component.


According to a preferred embodiment, in the pre-treatment system an acid will be applied to the prepared biomass to facilitate the break down of the biomass for separation into the liquid component (C5 stream from which fermentable C5 sugars can be recovered) and the solids component (C6 stream from which fermentable C6 sugars can be accessed). According to a preferred embodiment, the acid can be applied to the biomass in a reaction vessel under determined operating conditions (i.e. acid concentration, pH, temperature, time, pressure, solids loading, flow rate, supply of process water or steam, etc.) and the biomass can be agitated/mixed in the reaction vessel to facilitate the break down of the biomass. According to exemplary embodiments, an acid such as sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, acetic acid, etc. (or a formulation/mixture of acids) can be applied to the biomass. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, sulfuric acid will be applied to the biomass in pre-treatment.


The liquid component (C5 stream) comprises water, dissolved sugars (such as xylose, arabinose and glucose) to be made available for fermentation into ethanol, acids and other soluble components recovered from the hemicellulose. (TABLE 2B provides typical and expected ranges believed to be representative of the composition of biomass comprising lignocellulosic material from the corn plant.) According to an exemplary embodiment, the liquid component may comprise approximately 5 to 7 percent solids (i.e. suspended/residual solids such as partially-hydrolyzed hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin). According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the liquid component will comprise at least 2 to 4 percent xylose (by weight); according to other exemplary embodiments, the liquid component will comprise no less than 1 to 2 percent xylose (by weight). TABLES 2A and 2B list the composition of the liquid component of pre-treated biomass (from prepared biomass as indicated in TABLES 1A and 1B) according to exemplary and representative embodiments.


The solids component (C6 stream) comprises water, acids and solids such as cellulose from which sugar, such as glucose, can be made available for fermentation into ethanol, and lignin. (TABLE 3B provides typical and expected ranges believed to be representative of the composition of biomass comprising lignocellulosic material from the corn plant.) According to an exemplary embodiment, the solids component may comprise approximately 10 to 40 percent solids (by weight) (after separation); according to a particularly preferred embodiment, the solids component will comprise approximately 20 to 30 percent solids (by weight). According to a preferred embodiment, the solids in the solids component comprise no less than 30 percent cellulose and the solids component may also comprise other dissolved sugars (e.g. glucose and xylose). TABLES 3A and 3B list the composition of the solids component of pre-treated biomass (from prepared biomass as indicated in TABLES 1A and 1B) according to exemplary and representative embodiments.


During pre-treatment, the severity of operating conditions (such as pH, temperature and time) may cause formation of components that are inhibitory to fermentation. For example, under some conditions, the dehydration of C5 sugars (such as xylose or arabinose) may cause the formation of furfural and/or hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). Acetic acid may also be formed, for example when acetate is released during the break down of cellulose in pre-treatment. Sulfuric acid, which may be added to prepared biomass to facilitate pre-treatment, if not removed or neutralized, may also be inhibitory to fermentation. According to an exemplary embodiment, by adjusting pre-treatment conditions (such as pH, temperature and time), the formation of inhibitors can be reduced or managed; according to other exemplary embodiments, components of the pre-treated biomass may be given further treatment to remove or reduce the level of inhibitors (or other undesirable matter).


Referring to FIGS. 5A and 5B, after pre-treatment and separation the C5 stream and the C6 stream are processed separately; as shown, the C5 stream and the C6 stream may be processed separately prior to co-fermentation (C5/C6 fermentation as shown in FIG. 5A) or processed separately including separate fermentation (separate C5 fermentation and C6 fermentation as shown in FIG. 5B).


Treatment of the C5 stream (liquid component) of the biomass may be performed in an effort to remove components that are inhibitory to efficient fermentation (e.g. furfural, HMF, sulfuric acid and acetic acid) and residual lignin (or other matter) that may not be fermentable from the C5 sugar component so that the sugars (e.g. xylose, arabinose, as well as other sugars such as glucose) are available for fermentation. The C5 sugars in the C5 stream may also be concentrated to improve the efficiency of fermentation (e.g. to improve the titer of ethanol for distillation).


Treatment of the C6 stream (solids component) of the biomass may be performed to make the C6 sugars available for fermentation. According to a preferred embodiment, hydrolysis (such as enzyme hydrolysis) may be performed to access the C6 sugars in the cellulose; treatment may also be performed in an effort to remove lignin and other non-fermentable components in the C6 stream (or to remove components such as residual acid or acids that may be inhibitory to efficient fermentation).


According to an exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 5A, after pre-treatment and separation the C5 stream and the C6 stream can be treated separately and subsequently combined after treatment (e.g. as a slurry) for co-fermentation in the fermentation system to produce a C5/C6 fermentation product from the available sugars (e.g. xylose and glucose); the C5/C6 fermentation product can (after treatment, if any) be supplied to the distillation system for recovery of the ethanol (e.g. through distillation and dehydration). According to an exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 5B, the C5 stream and the C6 stream can each be separately processed through fermentation and distillation (after treatment, if any) to produce ethanol. According to any preferred embodiment, a suitable fermenting organism (ethanologen) will be used in the fermentation system; the selection of an ethanologen may be based on various considerations, such as the predominant types of sugars present in the slurry. Dehydration and/or denaturing of the ethanol produced from the C5 stream and the C6 stream may be performed either separately or in combination.



FIGS. 6A and 6B show the apparatus used for preparation, pre-treatment and separation of lignocellulosic biomass according to an exemplary embodiment. As shown, biomass is prepared in a grinder (e.g. grinder or other suitable apparatus or mill). Pre-treatment of the prepared biomass is performed in a reaction vessel (or set of reaction vessels) supplied with prepared biomass and acid/water in a predetermined concentration (or pH) and other operating conditions. As shown in FIG. 6B, the pre-treated biomass can be separated in a centrifuge into a liquid component (C5 stream comprising primarily liquids with some solids) and a solids component (C6 stream comprising liquids and solids such as lignin and cellulose from which glucose can be made available by further treatment).


Referring to FIGS. 7A and 7B, a treatment system and fermentation system for the liquid component (C5 stream or hydrolysate) of the pre-treated biomass is shown. As shown in FIG. 7B, according to an exemplary embodiment, the treatment system can comprise filtration of the C5 stream to remove inhibitors (such as furfural and acetic acid) and concentration of the C5 stream to facilitate the efficient fermentation of sugars (e.g. xylose and glucose). As shown in FIG. 8A, according to an exemplary embodiment, the fermentation system can comprise the fermentation of the C5 stream by the application of an ethanologen (i.e. an organism shown as yeast cells) and agents (such as nutrients) for the ethanologen to yield a fermentation product.


According to an exemplary embodiment, the fermentation product is produced in the fermentation system by application of the ethanologen to convert the sugars in the C5 stream (hydrolysate of the pre-treated biomass) into ethanol. According to a preferred embodiment, the ethanologen for the fermentation system may comprise an organism (i.e. yeast) selected for efficient fermentation of the xylose and glucose that is present in the C5 stream. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the ethanologen for the C5 stream may be a genetically modified organism as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,622,284, assigned to Royal Nedalco B. V. According to an alternative embodiment, the ethanologen may comprise a formulation or combination of organisms (e.g. one type of yeast selected for fermentation of C5 sugars such as xylose and one type of yeast selected for fermentation of C6 sugars such as glucose). According to exemplary embodiments, the amount or loading (dose) of ethanologen (i.e. yeast cells) may be varied in the operation of the fermentation system. Agents supplied with the ethanologen may include antibiotics, supplemental or accessory enzymes, urea, salts (such as zinc or magnesium salts), or other component providing nutritional or other benefit to the organism.


Referring to FIGS. 9A and 9B, the fermentation system may operate in a batch, fed batch, continuous flow, or other arrangement. According to an exemplary embodiment, the fermentation system will comprise at least one fermentation tank. According to the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 9A, the fermentation system comprises a set of tanks into which the treated C5 stream (i.e. treated hydrolysate from pre-treated biomass, in a slurry) is supplied, along with the ethanologen and nutrients (as needed). As shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B, ethanologen (shown as yeast) is supplied from a yeast propagation system comprising a tank (maintained under operating conditions suitable for growth of a suitable quantity of yeast/organism from seed or source). Fermentation is conducted under operating conditions selected to facilitate the efficient conversion of the sugars in the C5 stream/hydrolysate into ethanol. Operating conditions for the fermentation system will comprise time, temperature, pH, solids loading and ethanologen loading.


According to an exemplary embodiment using batch fermentation, as shown in FIG. 9A, the fermentation system comprises multiple tanks and is configured so that fermentation can be conducted simultaneously in multiple fermentation tanks. The slurry (treated hydrolysate/C5 stream), ethanologen and nutrients will be supplied to each of the fermentation tanks according to a sequence. Fermentation will be performed for a designated period of time under the designated operating conditions for each particular tank; after fermentation has been completed in the particular tank, the tank will then be emptied of fermentation product and cleaned. According to a preferred embodiment, one tank will be available to receive and be filled with slurry as it is produced; fermentation will be taking place in at least one other tank; and another tank in which fermentation has been completed may be being emptied and readied to be filled and used for another fermentation. The operating conditions for fermentation (as well as samples of the slurry being fermented) may be monitored and controlled in each fermentation tank.


According to an exemplary embodiment using continuous fermentation, as shown in FIG. 9B, the fermentation system comprises multiple tanks in a cascade arrangement. The fermentation system is configured so that the slurry (treated hydrolysate/C5 stream) and ethanologen/nutrients are initially supplied to a first tank. As fermentation proceeds in the tank, partially-fermented slurry in the process of being fermented is flowed into the next tank in sequence; when emptied from the final tank, the slurry has been completely fermented into fermentation product. The operating conditions for fermentation (as well as samples of the slurry being fermented) may be monitored and controlled in each fermentation tank.


The fermentation product (which may also be referred to as beer or fermentation broth, or as comprising beer or fermentation broth) will comprise ethanol and water, as well as unfermented matter (e.g. any unfermented sugars) and non-fermentable matter (e.g. residual lignin and other solids). The fermentation product will also comprise in the form of particulate matter the ethanologen (i.e. yeast cells) that was used to produce ethanol, as well as other components produced by the fermentation system, for example, such as glycerol (a product of fermentation) and acetic acid.


As shown in FIG. 8B, according to an exemplary embodiment, a treatment system for the fermentation product may also be provided. The treatment system can comprise separation of the fermentation product into a liquid component (i.e. a treated fermentation product, which will comprise substantially ethanol and water) and a solids component (which will comprise substantially solids matter such as the ethanologen/yeast cells). According to a preferred embodiment, as shown in FIG. 8B, the separation of the fermentation product into the liquid component and solids component can be performed on a centrifuge; according to other exemplary embodiments, the separation may be performed in other apparatus (or other equipment configured to separate solids and liquids). As shown in FIG. 8B, the solids component from treatment comprising the yeast cells can be supplied to and re-used in the fermentation system (i.e. recycled for use in a fermentation tank) along with additional or fresh yeast cells (if necessary).


As shown in FIGS. 2, 5A and 5B, the liquid component (or treated fermentation product) from the treatment system can be supplied to the distillation system, for distillation and dehydration to allow recovery of ethanol.



FIGS. 10A through 10D show operating conditions for subject parameters of the fermentation system according to an exemplary embodiment of the system (configured for the fermentation of the treated liquid component/C5 stream of biomass in the form of corn cobs and stover, following acid pre-treatment and separation); operating conditions are shown in the form of nested ranges comprising an acceptable operating range (the outer/wide range shown), a preferred operating range (the middle range shown), and a particularly preferred operating range (the inner/narrow range shown) for each subject condition or parameter.



FIG. 10A shows the temperature ranges for operation of a fermentation system according to exemplary embodiments. According to an exemplary embodiment, the operating temperature range is about to about 37 degrees Celsius. According to a preferred embodiment, the operating temperature is from about 30 to about 34 degrees Celsius. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the operating temperature is from about 31 to about 34 degrees Celsius.



FIG. 10B shows the pH ranges for operation of a fermentation system according to exemplary embodiments. According to an exemplary embodiment, the pH range is about 3.7 to about 6.5. According to a preferred embodiment, the pH is from about 4.5 to about 6.0. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the pH is from about 5.4 to about 5.6.



FIG. 10C shows the yeast loading (in grams of dry yeast per liter of hydrolysate) for operation of a fermentation system according to exemplary embodiments (for example, a genetically modified yeast derived from the organism disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,622,284, incorporated by reference, assigned to Royal Nedalco, B. V.). According to an exemplary embodiment, the yeast loading is about 0.05 to about 35 grams per liter. According to a preferred embodiment, the yeast loading is from about 5 to about 20 grams per liter. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the yeast loading is from about 10 to about 15 grams per liter.



FIG. 10D shows the time for operation of a batch fermentation system according to exemplary embodiments (excluding of time to fill and empty the fermentation tank). According to an exemplary embodiment, the fermentation time is about 12 to 144 hours. According to a preferred embodiment, the fermentation time is about 18 to 96 hours. According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the fermentation time is about 24 to 48 hours.


According to other alternative embodiments, for example, using a different form or type of biomass or a different ethanologen, the operating conditions for the fermentation system may be varied as necessary to achieve efficient fermentation.


A series of examples were conducted according to an exemplary embodiment of the fermentation system (as shown in FIGS. 11 through 14) in an effort to evaluate efficacy for fermentation of sugars from the C5 stream (e.g. liquid component from separation of pre-treated biomass). The ethanologen used in the examples was a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast altered to convert xylose and glucose to ethanol (a genetically modified yeast derived from an organism as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,622,284 by Royal Nedalco B. V., for example strain No. RWB218 and strain No. RN1001). Data from the examples is shown in TABLES 4 through 7. The biomass comprised corn cobs and stover.


Example 1

The fermentation system was used in Example 1 to evaluate the effect of ethanologen loading on the efficacy of the ethanologen in the fermentation of xylose into ethanol, as indicated in FIG. 11. The ethanologen was yeast (strain No. RWB218.) A sample was prepared having an initial xylose concentration of about 4.7 percent (by weight). The sample was divided into subsamples, which were supplied with a yeast loading between about 0.05 and 30 grams per liter (of sample) in a fermentation system to produce a fermentation product. The fermentation was conducted at approximately 32 degrees Celsius and approximately pH 5.5 for approximately 48 hours. The subsamples were analyzed for xylose concentration and ethanol concentration. It was observed that at least about 5 grams per liter of yeast was needed for sufficient fermentation of xylose to ethanol under the operating conditions. The results are shown in FIG. 11 and TABLE 4.


Example 2A

The fermentation system was used in Example 2A to evaluate the efficacy of the ethanologen in the fermentation of xylose in a hydrolysate from the liquid component (i.e. C5 stream) of pre-treated biomass at varying levels of initial loading (i.e. yeast concentration), as indicated in FIGS. 12A and 12B. The ethanologen was yeast (strain No. RWB218.) A sample of the hydrolysate was prepared including about 4.7 percent xylose (by weight). The sample was divided into subsamples, which were supplied with a yeast loading between about 0.5 and 30 grams per liter (of sample) in a fermentation system to produce a fermentation product. The fermentation was conducted at approximately 32 degrees Celsius and approximately pH 5.5 for approximately 72 hours. The subsamples were analyzed for xylose concentration and ethanol concentration at 24 hours, 48 hours and about 72 hours (the end of fermentation). It was observed that at least about 5 grams per liter of yeast was needed for sufficient fermentation of xylose to ethanol and that efficient fermentation could be achieved at about 10 grams per liter under the operating conditions. The results are shown in FIGS. 12A and 12B and TABLES 5A and 5B.


Example 2B

The fermentation system was used in Example 2B to evaluate the efficacy of the ethanologen in the fermentation of xylose in a hydrolysate from the liquid component (i.e. C5 stream) of pre-treated biomass at varying levels of initial loading (i.e. yeast concentration), as indicated in FIGS. 13A and 13B. The ethanologen was yeast (strain No. RN1001.) A sample of the hydrolysate was prepared comprising about 3.1 to 3.2 percent xylose (by weight) and less than 3800 PPM of acetic acid. The sample was divided into subsamples, which were supplied with a yeast loading between about 0.1 and 30 grams per liter (of sample) in a fermentation system to produce a fermentation product. The fermentation was conducted at approximately 32 degrees Celsius and approximately pH 5.5 for approximately 72 hours. The subsamples were analyzed for xylose concentration and ethanol concentration at 6 hours, 12 hours, 18 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours and about 72 hours (the end of fermentation). It was observed that at least about 1 gram per liter of yeast was needed for sufficient fermentation of xylose to ethanol under the operating conditions. The results are shown in FIGS. 13A and 13B and TABLE 6.


Example 3

The fermentation system was used in Example 3 to evaluate the effect of xylose concentration on the efficacy (and xylose tolerance) of the ethanologen in the fermentation of xylose into ethanol, as indicated in FIG. 14. The ethanologen was yeast (strain No. RWB218.) A sample was prepared using a sterile medium comprising 1 gram per liter (of sample) yeast extract and 1 gram per liter (of sample) soy peptone and an initial yeast loading (inoculation rate) of about 0.59 grams per liter (of sample). The sample was divided into subsamples and supplied to a fermentation system to produce a fermentation product; subsamples were fermented with initial xylose concentrations between about 2.3 percent and 17.6 percent (by weight). The fermentation was conducted at approximately 32 degrees Celsius and approximately pH 5.5 for approximately 72 hours. The subsamples were analyzed for xylose concentration and ethanol concentration at 72 hours (the end of fermentation). It was observed that the yeast was able to convert xylose to ethanol at a xylose concentration at and below approximately 11.3 percent (by weight), but was no longer efficient at a xylose concentration at or above approximately 13.6 percent (by weight) under the operating conditions. The results are shown in FIG. 14 and TABLE 7.


The embodiments as disclosed and described in the application (including the FIGURES and Examples) are intended to be illustrative and explanatory of the present inventions. Modifications and variations of the disclosed embodiments, for example, of the apparatus and processes employed (or to be employed) as well as of the compositions and treatments used (or to be used), are possible; all such modifications and variations are intended to be within the scope of the present inventions.









TABLE 1A







Biomass Composition













Husks/

Cellulose
Hemicellulose

















Cob
Leaves
Stalk
(Glucan)
Xylan
Arabinan
Acetate
Composite
Lignin
Ash


(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)



















100
0
0
36.0
33.3
3.6
3.0
39.9
14.9
2.2


0
100
0
37.2
25.6
4.9
2.2
32.7
13.0
7.7


0
0
100
41.7
22.5
2.4
2.6
27.5
18.3
3.7


50
0
50
38.8
27.9
3.0
2.8
33.7
16.6
3.0


50
50
0
36.6
29.5
4.2
2.6
36.3
14.0
5.0


30
50
20
37.7
27.3
4.0
2.5
33.8
14.6
5.3
















TABLE 1B







Biomass


Typical and Expected Composition












Cellulose






(Glucan)
Hemicellulose
Lignin
Ash



(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)



(approx.)
(approx.)
(approx.)
(approx.)















Typical Range
35-45
24-42
12-20
2-8 


Expected Range
30-55
20-50
10-25
1-10
















TABLE 2A







Pre-Treated Biomass


Liquid Component Composition














Husks/







Cob
Leaves
Stalk
Glucose
Xylose
Arabinose
Acetic Acid


(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)
















100
0
0
0.4
4.8
0.5
6090


0
100
0
0.4
2.7
0.5
3400


0
0
100
0.4
4.2
0.4
6180


50
0
50
0.4
4.5
0.4
6135


30
50
20
0.4
3.6
0.5
4763
















TABLE 2B







Pre-Treated Biomass


Liquid Component


Typical and Expected Composition












Glucose
Xylose
Arabinose
Acetic Acid



(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)



(approx.)
(approx.)
(approx.)
(approx.)















Typical Range
0-1
2-6
0-1
3000-6400


Expected Range
0-1
1-8
0-1
2000-8000
















TABLE 3A







Pre-Treated Biomass


Solids Component Composition













Husks/

Cellulose
Hemicellulose

















Cob
Leaves
Stalk
(Glucan)
Xylan
Arabinan
Acetate
Composite
Lignin
Ash


(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)



















100
0
0
60.2
9.5
0.9
0.3
10.7
26.7
1.2


0
100
0
54.4
1.3
0.7
0.7
10.4
23.8
9.7


0
0
100
51.1
1.4
1.0
1.0
15.4
27.3
3.1


50
0
50
55.7
5.5
0.9
0.6
13.1
27.0
2.2


50
50
0
57.3
5.4
0.8
0.5
10.6
25.2
5.4


30
50
20
55.5
3.8
0.8
0.6
11.5
25.4
5.8
















TABLE 3B







Pre-Treated Biomass


Solids Component


Typical and Expected Composition












Cellulose






(Glucan)
Hemicellulose
Lignin
Ash



(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)



(approx.)
(approx.)
(approx.)
(approx.)















Typical Range
48-62
8-17
22-30
1-10


Expected Range
45-65
5-20
20-32
1-10


















TABLE 4





Yeast Loading
Ethanol
Residual Xylose


(g/L*)
(percent)
(percent)

















0.05
0.00
4.50


0.1
0.00
4.48


0.5
0.10
4.49


1
0.31
4.23


5
1.95
1.45


10
2.66
0.29


30
2.71
0.24





*grams per Liter of medium















TABLE 5A









Ethanol (percent)












Time (h)
0.5 g/L
1.0 gL
5.0 g/L
10.0 g L
30.0 g/L















0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


23
0.10
0.30
1.10
2.31
2.79


47
0.10
0.31
1.95
2.66
2.71


71
0.09
0.30
2.18
2.55
2.48


















TABLE 5B









Residual xylose (percent)












Time (h)
0.5 g/L
1.0 gL
5.0 g/L
10.0 g L
30.0 g/L















0
4.74
4.74
4.74
4.74
4.74


23
4.50
4.42
3.07
1.07
0.24


47
4.49
4.23
1.45
0.29
0.24


71
4.33
4.05
0.78
0.25
0.23

















TABLE 6







Yeast Cell Loading 0.1 g/L
Yeast Cell Loading 0.5 g/L
















Time
Ethanol
Xylose
Glucose
Acetic Acid
Time
Ethanol
Xylose
Glucose
Acetic Acid


(hr)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)
(hr)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)





0
0.00
3.16
0.25
3628
0
0.01
3.16
0.24
3619


6
0.02
3.13
0.20
3647
6
0.22
2.99
0.04
3625


12
0.02
3.06
0.19
3632
12
0.32
2.61
0.00
3554


18
0.02
3.07
0.18
3610
18
0.55
2.09
0.00
3440


24
0.04
3.12
0.17
3682
24
1.01
1.31
0.00
3364


48
0.12
2.87
0.05
3394
48
1.29
0.11
0.03
2612


72
0.32
2.27
0.02
2869
72
1.14
0.05
0.03
2097











Yeast Cell Loading 1.0 g/L
Yeast Cell Loading 5.0 g/L
















Time
Ethanol
Xylose
Glucose
Acetic Acid
Time
Ethanol
Xylose
Glucose
Acetic Acid


(hr)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)
(hr)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)





0
0.03
3.15
0.23
3621
0
0.16
3.13
0.11
3689


6
0.40
2.63
0.00
3635
6
1.53
0.91
0.00
3939


12
0.70
1.94
0.00
3630
12
1.88
0.13
0.00
4073


18
1.14
1.07
0.00
3566
18
1.85
0.05
0.00
4201


24
1.55
0.24
0.02
3532
24
1.81
0.06
0.00
4560


48
1.30
0.05
0.03
3193
48
1.41
0.05
0.04
6232


72
1.11
0.04
0.04
2532
72
0.91
0.05
0.04
8382











Yeast Cell Loading 10 g/L
Yeast Cell Loading 30 g/L
















Time
Ethanol
Xylose
Glucose
Acetic Acid
Time
Ethanol
Xylose
Glucose
Acetic Acid


(hr)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)
(hr)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(PPM)





0
0.29
3.10
0.04
3691
0
0.47
3.23
0.00
3782


6
1.97
0.22
0.00
4094
6
2.23
0.09
0.04
4218


12
1.89
0.03
0.00
4447
12
2.21
0.06
0.07
4984


18
1.78
0.03
0.01
4703
18
2.17
0.06
0.08
5369


24
1.63
0.05
0.04
5045
24
2.08
0.06
0.07
5740


48
1.15
0.05
0.06
6440
48
1.68
0.06
0.09
7255


72
0.89
0.05
0.06
7563
72
1.54
0.05
0.09
9061



















TABLE 7







Xylose
Ethanol



(%)
(%)



















2.30
1.28



4.53
2.64



6.76
3.93



9.06
4.98



11.30
6.12



13.60
0.16



15.80
0.00



17.60
0.00









Claims
  • 1. A method for producing a fermentation product in a fermentation system from a biomass comprising the steps of: (i) pre-treating the biomass with an aqueous composition comprising an effective concentration of acid for reducing formation of inhibitors at a temperature of about 130° C. to about 170° C. for a period of time sufficient to produce a solids component and an aqueous component, which aqueous component comprises xylose and acetic acid;(ii) supplying the aqueous component to the fermentation system;(iii) providing yeast to the fermentation system in a concentration in the range from 5 to less than 150 grams of yeast on a dry basis per liter of the aqueous component, wherein the yeast can ferment the xylose into the fermentation product;(iv) maintaining the aqueous component and yeast in the fermentation system at a temperature of between about 26° C. and about 37° C. and at a pH of between about 4.5 and about 6.0 for a time of no less than 18 hours; and(v) recovering the fermentation product from the fermentation system;wherein the biomass comprises lignocellulosic material.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the lignocellulosic material consists essentially of corn cobs, corn plant husks, corn plant leaves and corn stalks.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the aqueous component comprises xylose at about 2 to 5 percent by weight.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the aqueous component further comprises glucose and the yeast is capable of fermenting both the xylose and glucose into ethanol.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the yeast comprises Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
  • 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the fermentation product comprises at least 1.5 percent ethanol by volume.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the fermentation product comprises at least 2.0 percent ethanol by volume.
  • 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the fermentation product comprises ethanol and wherein at least 75 percent of the xylose has been converted into ethanol by fermentation.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of treating the aqueous component to increase the concentration of xylose.
  • 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the lignocellulosic-material comprises cellulose and lignin.
  • 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of maintaining the aqueous component and yeast in the fermentation system is for a time of no less than 24 hours.
  • 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the lignocellulosic material comprises at least one of corn cobs, corn plant husks, corn plant leaves and corn plant stalks.
  • 13. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of (vii) supplying the solids component to the fermentation system;wherein the solids component comprises hexose.
  • 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the acid concentration is between about 0.8 and 1.1 percent by weight.
  • 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the acid concentration is between about 0.05 and 0.5 percent by weight.
  • 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the acetic acid is present in the aqueous component in an amount in the range from 3,000 to 6,400 parts per million.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application claims priority to and incorporates by reference each of the following applications: (a) U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/157,140, titled Process for Fermenting Pentose in Biomass, filed on Mar. 3, 2009; (b) U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/157,142, titled Continuous Fermentation of a Liquid Hydrolysate Containing Pentose, filed on Mar. 3, 2009; and (c) U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/157,137, titled Concentration of Pentose Liquor, filed on Mar. 3, 2009. The present application relates to and incorporates by reference the following applications: (a) U.S. application Ser. No. 12/716,984, titled System for Pre-Treatment of Biomass for the Production of Ethanol, filed on Mar. 3, 2010; (b) U.S. application Ser. No. 12/716,989, titled System for Treatment of Biomass to Facilitate the Production of Ethanol, filed on Mar. 3, 2010; and (c) U.S. application Ser. No. 12/717,002, titled System for Management of Yeast to Facilitate the Production of Ethanol, filed on Mar. 3, 2010.

US Referenced Citations (220)
Number Name Date Kind
2440925 Boeckeler May 1948 A
3212932 Hess et al. Oct 1965 A
3940492 Ehnstrom Feb 1976 A
4009074 Walon Feb 1977 A
4014743 Black Mar 1977 A
4029515 Kiminki et al. Jun 1977 A
4092434 Yoshizumi et al. May 1978 A
4152197 Lindahl et al. May 1979 A
4168988 Riehm et al. Sep 1979 A
4243750 Muller et al. Jan 1981 A
4279747 Chen Jul 1981 A
4287303 Dahlberg et al. Sep 1981 A
4309254 Dahlstrom et al. Jan 1982 A
4316956 Lutzen Feb 1982 A
4342831 Faber et al. Aug 1982 A
4358536 Thorsson et al. Nov 1982 A
4361651 Keim Nov 1982 A
4376163 Ehnstrom Mar 1983 A
4425433 Neves Jan 1984 A
4427453 Reitter Jan 1984 A
4432805 Nuuttila et al. Feb 1984 A
4460687 Ehnstrom Jul 1984 A
4461648 Foody Jul 1984 A
4474883 Yamamoto et al. Oct 1984 A
4490469 Kirby et al. Dec 1984 A
4514496 Yoshizumi et al. Apr 1985 A
4522920 Thorsson et al. Jun 1985 A
4529699 Gerez et al. Jul 1985 A
4530846 Nagodawithana et al. Jul 1985 A
4540663 Witt Sep 1985 A
4552616 Kauppi Nov 1985 A
4591560 Kainuma et al. May 1986 A
4612286 Sherman et al. Sep 1986 A
4618579 Dwiggins et al. Oct 1986 A
4668340 Sherman May 1987 A
4716218 Chen et al. Dec 1987 A
4727026 Sawada et al. Feb 1988 A
4752579 Arena et al. Jun 1988 A
4760025 Estell et al. Jul 1988 A
4863864 Ashikari et al. Sep 1989 A
4876196 Salzbrunn et al. Oct 1989 A
4908098 DeLong et al. Mar 1990 A
4933279 Carroll et al. Jun 1990 A
4941944 Chang Jul 1990 A
4997488 Gould et al. Mar 1991 A
5061497 Thacker et al. Oct 1991 A
5084385 Ashikari et al. Jan 1992 A
5087417 Dumbroff et al. Feb 1992 A
5125977 Grohmann et al. Jun 1992 A
5171592 Holtzapple et al. Dec 1992 A
5177008 Kampen Jan 1993 A
5177009 Kampen Jan 1993 A
5180669 Antrim Jan 1993 A
5221357 Brink Jun 1993 A
5231017 Lantero et al. Jul 1993 A
5250182 Bento et al. Oct 1993 A
5260089 Thornberg Nov 1993 A
RE34606 Estell et al. May 1994 E
5322778 Antrim et al. Jun 1994 A
5328562 Rafferty et al. Jul 1994 A
5338366 Grace et al. Aug 1994 A
5364770 Berka et al. Nov 1994 A
5366558 Brink Nov 1994 A
5370999 Stuart Dec 1994 A
5411594 Brelsford May 1995 A
5424417 Torget et al. Jun 1995 A
5498766 Stuart et al. Mar 1996 A
5536325 Brink Jul 1996 A
5545543 Zinnamosca et al. Aug 1996 A
5559031 Zinnamosca et al. Sep 1996 A
5562777 Farone et al. Oct 1996 A
5580389 Farone et al. Dec 1996 A
5597714 Farone et al. Jan 1997 A
5628830 Brink May 1997 A
5652127 Mitchinson et al. Jul 1997 A
5688674 Choi et al. Nov 1997 A
5693296 Holtzapple et al. Dec 1997 A
5705369 Torget et al. Jan 1998 A
5711817 Titmas Jan 1998 A
5721127 Deweer et al. Feb 1998 A
5721128 Deweer et al. Feb 1998 A
5726046 Farone et al. Mar 1998 A
5733758 Nguyen Mar 1998 A
5736375 Deweer et al. Apr 1998 A
5736499 Mitchinson et al. Apr 1998 A
5756714 Antrim et al. May 1998 A
5769934 Ha et al. Jun 1998 A
5782982 Farone et al. Jul 1998 A
5817498 Deweer et al. Oct 1998 A
5820687 Farone et al. Oct 1998 A
5824532 Barnett et al. Oct 1998 A
5849549 Barnett et al. Dec 1998 A
5865898 Holtzapple et al. Feb 1999 A
5879463 Proenca Mar 1999 A
5916780 Foody et al. Jun 1999 A
5932452 Mustranta et al. Aug 1999 A
5932456 Van Draanen et al. Aug 1999 A
5958739 Mitchinson et al. Sep 1999 A
5972118 Hester et al. Oct 1999 A
5975439 Chieffalo et al. Nov 1999 A
5981237 Meagher et al. Nov 1999 A
6022419 Torget et al. Feb 2000 A
6074854 Deweer et al. Jun 2000 A
6090595 Foody et al. Jul 2000 A
6136576 Diaz-Torres et al. Oct 2000 A
6171817 Berka et al. Jan 2001 B1
6228177 Torget May 2001 B1
6313328 Ulrich et al. Nov 2001 B1
6379504 Miele et al. Apr 2002 B1
6419788 Wingerson Jul 2002 B1
6423145 Nguyen et al. Jul 2002 B1
6451063 Clarkson et al. Sep 2002 B1
6509180 Verser et al. Jan 2003 B1
6538182 Thompson et al. Mar 2003 B1
6555350 Ahring et al. Apr 2003 B2
6616948 Gustavsson et al. Sep 2003 B2
6620292 Wingerson Sep 2003 B2
6660506 Nguyen et al. Dec 2003 B2
6664095 Suryanarayan et al. Dec 2003 B1
6692578 Schmidt et al. Feb 2004 B2
6709527 Fechter et al. Mar 2004 B1
6770168 Stigsson Aug 2004 B1
6774284 Thompson et al. Aug 2004 B1
6803218 Seyfried et al. Oct 2004 B1
6849439 Henson et al. Feb 2005 B2
6849782 Thompson et al. Feb 2005 B2
6855529 Thompson et al. Feb 2005 B2
6867237 Taylor et al. Mar 2005 B1
6878860 Thompson et al. Apr 2005 B1
7198925 Foody Apr 2007 B2
7238242 Pinatti et al. Jul 2007 B2
7344876 Levine Mar 2008 B2
7354743 Vlasenko et al. Apr 2008 B2
7455997 Hughes Nov 2008 B2
7501025 Bakker et al. Mar 2009 B2
7503981 Wyman et al. Mar 2009 B2
7579177 Olsen et al. Aug 2009 B2
7585652 Foody et al. Sep 2009 B2
7604967 Yang et al. Oct 2009 B2
7622284 Op Den Camp et al. Nov 2009 B2
7649086 Belanger et al. Jan 2010 B2
7666637 Nguyen Feb 2010 B2
7670813 Foody et al. Mar 2010 B2
7709042 Foody et al. May 2010 B2
7754456 Penttila et al. Jul 2010 B2
7754457 Foody et al. Jul 2010 B2
7807419 Hennessey et al. Oct 2010 B2
7815741 Olson Oct 2010 B2
7815876 Olson Oct 2010 B2
7819976 Friend et al. Oct 2010 B2
7875444 Yang et al. Jan 2011 B2
7901511 Griffin et al. Mar 2011 B2
7919291 Lewis et al. Apr 2011 B2
8057639 Pschorn et al. Nov 2011 B2
8057641 Bartek et al. Nov 2011 B2
8123864 Christensen et al. Feb 2012 B2
8288600 Bartek et al. Oct 2012 B2
8450094 Narendranath et al. May 2013 B1
20020192774 Ahring et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030134395 Shetty et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030134396 Shetty et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030180900 Lanteo Sep 2003 A1
20030203454 Chotani et al. Oct 2003 A1
20040023349 Bisgaard-Frantzen et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040043117 Cope et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040060673 Phillips et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040063184 Grichko Apr 2004 A1
20040080923 Janisch Apr 2004 A1
20040091983 Veit et al. May 2004 A1
20040115779 Olsen et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040157301 Chotani et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040192896 Finch Sep 2004 A1
20040197409 Iyer et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040219649 Olsen et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040234649 Lewis et al. Nov 2004 A1
20050026261 Otto et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050042737 Vikso-Nielsen et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050069998 Ballesteros Perdices et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050100996 Lantero, Jr. et al. May 2005 A1
20050136525 Baldwin et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050208623 Baldwin et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050233030 Lewis et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050239181 Lewis et al. Oct 2005 A1
20060051847 Gunnarsson et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060246563 Eroma et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060281157 Chotani et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070178567 Lewis Aug 2007 A1
20070196907 Lewis Aug 2007 A1
20070202214 Lewis et al. Aug 2007 A1
20080032373 Bhargava Feb 2008 A1
20080277082 Pschorn et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080295981 Shin et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090053793 Lefebvre et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090308383 Shin et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100003733 Foody et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100041116 Lewis et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100144001 Horton Jun 2010 A1
20100151549 Bhargava Jun 2010 A1
20100159552 Benson et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100196980 Smith et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100227369 Narendranath Sep 2010 A1
20100233771 McDonald Sep 2010 A1
20100285553 Delmas et al. Nov 2010 A1
20110070618 Lewis et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110079219 McDonald et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110094505 Bulla et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110097446 Lewis et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110111085 Lewis et al. May 2011 A1
20110171708 Larsen Jul 2011 A1
20110250312 Lewis Oct 2011 A1
20110269202 Taron et al. Nov 2011 A1
20120129234 McDonald et al. May 2012 A1
20120138246 Christensen et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120201947 Stuart Aug 2012 A1
20120309069 Bell et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130065289 Carlson Mar 2013 A1
20130143290 Narendranath Jun 2013 A1
20130337521 Carlson et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140024826 Narendranath et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140065700 Narendranath et al. Mar 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (74)
Number Date Country
1143677 Mar 1983 CA
267508 May 1989 DE
0 044 658 Jan 1982 EP
0 098 490 Jan 1984 EP
0138428 Apr 1985 EP
0 140 410 May 1985 EP
0 159 795 Oct 1985 EP
0 171 218 Feb 1986 EP
0 884 391 Dec 1998 EP
1 259 466 Nov 2002 EP
2 397 486 Feb 1979 FR
2 609 046 Jul 1988 FR
2089836 Dec 1981 GB
58-005145 Jan 1983 JP
59-179093 Oct 1984 JP
2001103 Oct 1993 RU
2127760 Mar 1999 RU
WO 9103543 Mar 1991 WO
WO-9103543 Mar 1991 WO
WO 9220777 Nov 1992 WO
WO 9408027 Apr 1994 WO
WO 9429475 Dec 1994 WO
WO 9508648 Mar 1995 WO
WO 9513362 May 1995 WO
WO 9727047 Jul 1997 WO
WO 9814270 Apr 1998 WO
WO 9856958 Dec 1998 WO
WO 9906133 Feb 1999 WO
WO 0014120 Mar 2000 WO
WO 0061858 Oct 2000 WO
WO 0073221 Dec 2000 WO
WO 0132715 May 2001 WO
WO 0160752 Aug 2001 WO
WO 0214598 Feb 2002 WO
WO 0224882 Mar 2002 WO
WO 0238786 May 2002 WO
WO 0238787 May 2002 WO
WO 02051561 Jul 2002 WO
WO 02067691 Sep 2002 WO
WO 02070753 Sep 2002 WO
WO 02074895 Sep 2002 WO
WO 03013714 Feb 2003 WO
WO 03018766 Mar 2003 WO
WO 03062430 Jul 2003 WO
WO 03066816 Aug 2003 WO
WO 03066826 Aug 2003 WO
WO 03068976 Aug 2003 WO
WO 03071025 Aug 2003 WO
WO 03078644 Sep 2003 WO
WO-2004080923 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2004080923 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2004081193 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2004106533 Dec 2004 WO
WO-2004106533 Dec 2004 WO
WO 2005052148 Jun 2005 WO
WO 2005082155 Sep 2005 WO
WO 2005099854 Oct 2005 WO
WO 2006032282 Mar 2006 WO
WO 2006034590 Apr 2006 WO
WO 2006056838 Jun 2006 WO
WO 2007009463 Jan 2007 WO
WO 2008095098 Aug 2008 WO
WO 2008131229 Oct 2008 WO
2008144878 Dec 2008 WO
WO 2009045651 Apr 2009 WO
WO 2009108773 Sep 2009 WO
WO 2010113129 Oct 2010 WO
WO 2010113130 Oct 2010 WO
WO 2011116317 Sep 2011 WO
WO 2011159915 Dec 2011 WO
WO 2012042497 Apr 2012 WO
WO 2012042498 Apr 2012 WO
WO 2012103281 Aug 2012 WO
WO 2012131665 Oct 2012 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (159)
Entry
Taherzadeh et al., Int. J. Mol. Sci., 9(9), 1621-1651, 2008.
De Mancilha et al., “Evaluation of Ion Exchange Resins for Removal of Inhibitory Compounds from Corn Stover Hydrolyzate for Xylitol Fermentation”, Biotechnology Progress, 2003, vol. 19, pp. 1837-1841.
Gulati et al., “Assessment of Ethanol Production Options for Corn Products”, Bioresource Technology, 1996, vol. 58, pp. 253-264.
Jeffries et al., “Fermentation of Hemicellulosic Sugars and Sugar Mixtures by Candida shehatae”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1988, vol. 31, pp. 502-506.
Nigam et al., “Enzyme and microbial systems involved in starch processing”, Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 1995, vol. 17, pp. 770-778.
Nilvebrandt et al., “Detoxification of Lignocellulose Hydrolysates with Ion-Exchange Resins”, Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vols. 91-93, 2001, pp. 35-49.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/716,989, filed Mar. 3, 2010, Kwiatkowski.
Abouzied et al., “Direct fermentation of potato starch to ethanol by cocultures of Aspergillus niger and Saccharomyces cerevisiae”, Appl Environ Microbiol, 1986, 52(5):1055-9.
Aden et al., “Lignocellulolsic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover”, NREL, NREL-TP-510-32438, 2002, pp. 1-88 and Appendices A-G.
Aldrich, “New enzymes lower ethanol production fuel costs”, BridgeNews, Kansas City, 2004.
Allison et al., “Transformation of the thermophilic fungus humicola grisea var. thermoidea and overproduction of humicola glucoamylase”, Curr Genet, 1992, 21:225-229.
Argus Leader.Com., Web Page—Business—Broin Goes to Court, Printed Jun. 27, 2006, pp. 1-3.
Ashikari et al., “rhizopus raw-starch-degrading glucoamylase: its cloning and expression in yeast”, Agric. Bio. Chem., 1986, 50(4):957-964.
Bardini et al., “Continuous clarification of grape must by flotation,” Vini d'italia, 1992, 34(1):31-38, Abstract.
Belya et al., “Composition of corn and distillers dried grains with solubles from dry grind ethanol processing”, Bioresource Technology, 2004, 94:293-298.
Berven, “The Making of Broin Project”, Ethanol Producer Magazine, Feb. 2005, pp. 66-71.
Biotimes: The enzyme e-zine, “Fuel Ethanol Products” (Jan. 2003).
Biswas et al., “Analysis of Headspace Compounds of Distillers Grains using SPME in Conjunction with GC/MS and TGA”, Journal of Cereal Science, 2001, 33:223-229.
Boel et al., “Glucoamylases G1 and G2 from Aspergillus niger are synthesized from two different but closely related mRNAs”, The EMBO Journal, 1984, 3(5):1097-1102.
Bothast, “Ethanol research facility one of a kind,” Industrial Oil Products Article, 2004, 15(8):518-519.
Brown et al., “The effect of temperature on the ehtanol tolerance of the yeast, Saccharomyces uvarum”, Biotechnology Letters, 1982, 4(4):269-274.
Bryan, “Changing the Game”, Ethanol Producer Magazine, Aug. 2005, pp. 58-63.
Casey et al., “Reevaluation of Alcohol Synthesis and Tolerance on Brewer's Yeast”, American Society of Brewing Chemists, Inc., 1985, 43(2):75-83.
Chen et al., “Comparison of four different chemical pretreatments of corn stover for enhancing enzymatic digestibility.” Biomass and Bioenergy, 2009, 33:1381-1385.
Chen et al., “Effect of replacing helical glycine residues with alanines on reversible and irreversible stability and production of Aspergillus awamori glucoamylase”, Protein Engineering, 1996, 9(6):499-505.
Chi et al., “High-concentration alcoholic production from hydrolysate of raw ground corn by a tetraploid yeast strain”, Biotechnolgy Letters, 1993, 15(8):877-882.
Civil Docket for Case No. 4:04-cv-04202-LLP printed Jun. 23, 2006.
District Court Civil Docket No. 54: Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6); Motion for a More Definite Statement Pursuant to FRCP 12(e) and Supporting Brief, by Genencor International, Inc., Entered: Feb. 14, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 61: Response to Motion regarding Docket No. 53, Motion for Discovery, Requiring Plaintiff to Specify Trade Secrets Prior to Commencement of Discovery and Supporting Brief, filed by Broin and Associates, Inc., Entered: Feb. 28, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 62: Reply to Motion Response regarding Docket No. 16, First Motion to Expedite Discovery and Supporting Brief, filed by Broin and Associates, Inc., Entered: Mar. 1, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 67: Reply to Motion Response regarding Docket No. 53, Motion for Discovery, Requiring Plaintiff to Specify Trade Secrets Prior to Commencement of Discovery and Supporting Brief, filed by Genencor International, Inc. Entered: Mar. 2, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 68: Form 35 Report of parties Planning Meeting and Scheduling Information, Entered: Mar. 3, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 77: Memorandum in Opposition regarding Docket No. 54, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6); Motion for a More Definite Statement Pursuant to FRCP 12(e) and Supporting Brief, filed by Broin and Associates, inc. Entered: Mar. 9, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 90: Response to Docket No. 87 Brief, Regarding Genencor's Objections to Broin's Identification of Trade Secrets, filed by Broin and Associates, inc., Entered: Apr. 11, 2005.
District Court Civil Docket No. 95: Form 35 Report of Parties Planning Meeting and Scheduling information, Entered: Apr. 18, 2005.
Dong et al., “The Neutral Detergent Fiber, Acid Detergent Fiber, Crude Fiber, and Lignin Contents of Distillers' Dried Grains with Solubles”, Journal of Food Science, 1987, 52(2):403-405.
Donohoe et al., “Detecting cellulase penetration into corn stover cell walls by immuno-electron microscopy”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2009, 103(3):480-489.
Elander et al., “Summary of findings from the Biomass Refining Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation (CAFI): corn stover pretreatment”, Cellulose, 2009, 16:649-659.
Fujio et al., “Alcohol Fermentation of Raw Cassava Starch by Rhizopus koji without cooking”, Biotechonolgy and Bioengineering, 1984, 26:315-319.
Fujio et al., “Ethanol Fermentation of Raw Cassava Starch with Rhizopus koji in a Gas Circulation Type Fermentor”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1985, 27:1270-1273.
GCOR Lantero patent application search USPTO site.May 17, 2005.
Genencor Inventor Search, Oct. 3, 2005.
Hamdy et al., “Effects of virginiamycin on fermentation rate by yeast”, Biomass and Bioenergy, 1996, 11(1):1-9.
Hamelinck et al., “Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long term”, Biomass and Bioenergy, 2005, 28:384-410.
Han et al., “Saccharification and Ethanol Fermentation from Uncooked Starch Using Aspergillus niger koji”, Korean J. Food Sci. Technol., 1985, 17(4):258-264.
Han et al., “Amylolysis of Raw Corn by Aspergillus niger for Simultaneous Ethanol Fermentation”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1987, 30:225-232.
Hayashida et al., “High Concentration-Ethanol Fermantation of Raw Ground Corn”, Agric. Biol. Chem., 1982, 46(7):1947-1950.
Hayashida et al., “Molecular cloning of Glucoamylase 1 Gene of Aspergillus awamori var. kawachi for Localization of the Raw-starch-affinity Site”, Agric. Biol. Chem., 1989, 53(4):923-929.
Hayashida et al., “Raw Starch-digestive Glucoamulase Productivity of Protease-less Mutant from Asoergukkys awaniru var. kawachi”, Agric. Biol. Chem., 1981, 45(12):2675-2681.
Islam et al., “Stability of virginiamycin and penicillin during alcohol fermentation”, Biomass and Bioenergy, 1999, 17: 369-376.
Iwata et al. “Purification and Characterization of Rice α-glucosidase, a key enzyme for Alcohol Fermentation of Rice Polish”, Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2003, 95(1):106-108.
Jacques et al., The Alcohol Textbook, 3rd Edition, A reference for the beverage, fuel and industrial alcohol industries, Nottingham University Press 1999, Alltech Inc. 1999 (386 pages).
Jacques et al., The Alcohol Textbook, 4th Edition, A reference for the beverage, fuel and industrial alcohol industries, Nottingham University Press 2003 Alltech Inc. 2003 (446 pages).
Jensen et al., “Purification of extracellular amylolytic enzymes from the thermophilic fungus Thermomyces lanuginosus”, Can. J. Microbiol., 1988, 34:218-223.
Jones, “review: Biological principles for the effects of ethanol”, Enzyme Microb. Technol., 1989, 11:130-153.
Joutsjoki et al., “A Novel Glucoamylase Preparation for Grain Mash Saccharification”, Biotechnology Letters, 1993, 15(3):227-282.
Kang et al., “Effect of Initiation Factor eIF-5A Depletion on Protein Synthesis and Proliferation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae”, J. Biol. Chem., 1994, 269(6):3934-3940.
Knott et al., “Effects of the Nutrient Variability of Distiller's Solubles and Grains within Ethanol Plants and the Amount of Distiller's Solubles Blended with Distiller's Grains on Fat, Protein and Phosphorus Content of DDGS”, 2004.
Knott et al., “Variation in Particle Size and Bulk Density of Distiller's Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) Produced by “New Generation” Ethanol Plants in Minnesota and South Dakota”, 2004.
Kuyper et al., “Evolutionary engineering of mixed-sugar utilization by a xylose-fermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain”, FEMS Yeast Research, 2005, 5:925-934.
Lang et al., “Recycle Bioreactor for Bioethanol Production from Wheat Starch II. Fermentation and Economics”, Energy Sources, 2001, 23:427-436.
Makarov et al., “Quality improvement of table wines following continuous clarification treatments,” Kharachova Promislovist, 1976, Abstract only.
Matsumoto et al., “Industrialization of a Noncooking System for Alcoholic Fermantation from Grains”, Agric. Biol. Chem., 1982, 46(6):1549-1558.
Matsuoka et al., “Alcoholic Fermentation of Sweet Potato without Cooking”, J. Ferment. Technol., 1982, 60(6):599-602.
McAloon et al., “Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks”, Technical Report NRELTP-580-28893, 2000, www.doe.gov/bridge.
McLean et al., “Fluorometric Method for Measuring Yeast Metabolic Activity”, Technical Report, 2002, 3:5-25.
McLean et al., “A Novel Method for Quantitation of Active Yeast Cells”, Technical Report, 2001, 2:1-5.
Mikuni et al., “Alcohol Fermentation of Corn Starch Digested by Chalara paradoxa Amylase without Cooking”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1987, 29:729-732.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ethanol Production in Minnesota. Air Quality/ General #1.20/ Oct. 2002, pp. 1-4.
Morris et al., “AFM Images of Complexes between Amylose and Aspergillus niger Glucoamylase Mutants, Native and Mutant Starch Binding Domains: A Model for the Action of glucoamylase”, Starch/Starke, 2005, 57:1-7.
Naidu et al., “Effects of Particle Size Reduction on Saccharification in Dry Grind Corn Processing”, Department of Agriculture of Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Poster Presentation 2002 or later.
Narendranath et al., “Acetic Acid Lactic Acid Inhibition of Growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiac b Different Mechanisms”, American Society of Brewing Chemists, Inc., 2001, 59(4):187-194.
Narendranath et al., “Effect of yeast inoculation rate on the metabolism of contaminating lactobailli during fermentation of corn mash”, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2004, 31:581-584.
Narendranath et al., “Effects of acetic acid and lactic acid on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in minimal medium”, Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 2001, 26:171-177.
Narendranath et al., “Effects of Lactobacilli on Yeast-Catalyzed Ethanol Fermentations”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1997, 60(11):4158-4163.
Narendranath et al., “Relationship between pH and Medium Dissolved Solids in Terms of Growth and Metabolism of Lactobacilli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae during Ethanol Production”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2005, 71(5):2239-2243.
Narendranath et al., “Urea Hydrogen Peroxide Reduces the Number of Laactobacilli, Nourishes Yeast, and Leaves No Residues in the Ethanol Fermentation”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2000, 66(10):4187-4192.
Narita et al., “Efficient Production of L-(+)-Lactic Acid from Raw Starch by Streptococcus bovis 148”, Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2004, 97(6):423-425.
Neal St. Anthony, Columnists, “More profit, less waste from ethanol,” Star & Tribune, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota, Date Unknown.
Porter et al., “Variability in Soy Flour Composition”, JAOCS, 2003, 80(6):557-562.
Pourbafrani et al., “Production of biofuels, limonene and pectin from citrus wastes”, Bioresource Technology, 2010, 101:4246-4250.
Rosentrater, “Understanding Distillers Grain Storage, Handling and Flowability Challenges”, Distillers Grain Quarterly, First Quarter 2006, pp. 18-21.
Saha et al., “Raw Starch Absorption, Elution and Digestion Behavior of Glucoamylase of Rhizopus niveus”, J. Ferment. Technol., 1983, 61(1):67-72.
Schnier et al., “Translation Initiation Factor 5A and its Hypusine Modification are Essential for Cell Viability in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae”, Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1991, 11(6):3105-3114.
Shibuya et al., “Molecular Cloning of the Glucoamylase Gene of Aspergillus shirousami and its Expression in Aspergillus oryzae”, Agric. Biol. Chem., 1990, 54(8):1905-1914.
Shurson, “Overview of Swine Nutrition Research on the Value and Application of Distiller's Dried Grains with Solubles Produced by Minnesota and South Dakota Ethanol Plants”, pp. 1-40 (Internet Mar. 2003).
Shurson, “The Effect of Nutrient Variability of Corn on Estimated Nutrient Variability of DDGS” University of Minnesota, Date Unknown.
Shurson, “The Value of High-Protein Distillers Coproducts in Swine Feeds”, Distillers Grains Quarterly, First Quarter 2006, pp. 22.
Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play”, Scientific American, 2002, pp. 83-87.
Singleton et al., Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, 1991. John Wiley and Sons. p. 964, col. I, II. 45-48.
SpringerLink-Article, Web Page—Article—Natural Resources Research—“Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics, and Enviornmental Impacts Are Negative”, Printed Jul. 5, 2005, pp. 1-2.
Suresh et al., “Production of ethanol by raw starch hydrolysis and fermentation of damaged grains of wheat and sorghum”, Bioprocess Engineering, 1999, 21:165-168.
Swanson, Company Spotlight, “Partnering in Progress”, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 2004, pp. 62-64, 66-68.
Taylor et al., “Dry-Grind Process for Fuel Ethanol by Continuous Fermentation and Stripping”, American Chemical Society and American Institute of Chemical Engineers, accepted for publication Mar. 27, 2000, p. A-G.
Taylor et al., “Some Properties of a Glucoamylase produced by the Thermophilic Fungus Humicola lanuginose”, Carbohydrate Research, 1978, 61:301-308.
Thammarutwasik et al., “Alcoholic Fermentation of Sorghum Without Cooking”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1986, 28:1122-1125.
The fuel of the future, Novozymes, May 2002.
Thomas et al., “Fuel Alcohol Production: Effects of Free Amino Nitrogen on Fermentation of Very-High-Gravity Wheat Mashes”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1990, 56(7):2046-2050.
Tosi et al., “Purification and characterization of an extracellular glucoamylase from the thermophilic fungus Humicola grisea var. thermoidea”, Can J. Microbiol., 1993, 39:846-852.
Tritto, “2 grants, 6 clients boost yields at ethanol center”, St. Louis Business Journal, Nov. 26-Dec. 2, 2004.
Ueda et al., “Alchoholic Fermentation of Raw Starch without Cooking by Using Back-koji Amylase”, J. Ferment. Technol., 1980, 58(3):237-242.
Ueda et al., “Direct hydrolysis of raw starch”, Microbiological Sciences, 1984, 1(1):21-24.
Ueda, “Ethanol Fermentation of Starch Materials without Cooking”, J. Jap. Soc. Starch Sci., 1982, 29(2):123-130, (English Abstract).
Van Maris et al., “Alcoholic fermentation of carbon sources in biomass hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: current status”, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 2006, 90:391-418.
Van Uden et al., “Effects of ethanol on yeast performance; targets and underlying mechanisms”. European Brewery Convention, Proceedings of the 19th Congress, London 1983, pp. 137-144.
Wang. “Argonne National Laboratory Ethanol Study: Key points.” Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy—U.S. Department of Energy, pp. 1-3, 2005.
Weiss et al. “Distillers Grains”, eXtension, Last Updated May 12, 2009, pp. 1-6, Printed May 8, 2010.
Weller et al., “Fuel Ethanol from Raw Corn by Aspergilli Hydrolysis with Concurrent Yeast Fermentation”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symp., 1983, 13:437-447.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31195.pdf. Biofuels News. vol. 4. No. 3. Fall 2001.
Yue et al., “Functionality of resistant starch in food applications”, National Starch & Chemical (reprinted from Dec. 1998 issue of Food Australia) (1999).
Zheng et al., “Enzymatic saccharification of dilute acid pretreated saline crops for fermentable sugar production”, Applied Energy, 2009, 86:2459-2465.
Ziffer et al., “Temperature Effects in Ethanol Fermentation High Corn Media”, Biotechnology Letters, 1982, 4(12):809-814.
De Mancilha, et al, “Evaluation of Ion Exchange Resins for Removal of Inhibitory Compounds from Corn Stover Hydrolyzate for Xylitol Fermentation,” Biotechnology Progress, (2003), 19:1837-1841.
Gulati, et al., “Assessment of Ethanol Production Options for Corn Products,” Bioresource Technology, (1996), 58:253-264.
Jeffries, T.W., et al., Fermentation of Hemicellulosic Sugars and Sugar Mixtures by Candida shehatae, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 31:502-506 (1988).
Maier, et al., “Low-Temperature Drying of the 1992 Indiana Corn Crop,” Grain Quality Fact Sheet #5. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette, Indiana, (1992), pp. 1-8, http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/GQ/GQ-5.HTML.
Nigam, et al., “Enzyme and microbial systems involved in starch processing,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, (1995), 17:770-778.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/827,948, filed Jun. 2010, Bootsma et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/828,028, filed Jun. 2010, Bootsma et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/209,170, filed Aug. 2011, Bly et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/798,617, filed Mar. 2013, Narendranath.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/804,364, filed Mar. 2013, Narendranath et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/980,255, filed Jul. 2013, Narendranath et al.
U.S. appl. No. 14/130,878, filed Jan. 2014, McDonald et al.
Adney, B. et al., “Measurement of Cellulase Activities”, Technical Report NREL/TP-510-42628 (2008) Cover; p. 1-8.
Caparros, S. et al., “Xylooligosaccharides Production from Arundo donax”, J. Agric. Food Chem. 55 (2007): p. 5536-5543.
Cort, J. et al., “Minimize Scale-Up Risk”, www.aiche.org/cep, (2010): p. 39-49.
Demain, A.L. et al., “Cellulose, Clostridia, and Ethanol”, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 69(1) (2005): p. 124-154.
Dien, B.S. et al., “Enzyme characterization for hydrolysis of AFEX and liquid hot-water pretreated distillers' grains and their conversion to ethanol”, Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): p. 5216-5225.
Gibbons, W.R. et al., “Fuel Ethanol and High Protein Feed from Corn and Corn-Whey Mixtures in a Farm-Scale Plant”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering XXV (1983): p. 2127-2148.
Goodman, B. J., “FY 1988 Ethanol from Biomass Annual Report” (1989): p. 1-458.
Grohmann, K. et al., “Optimization of Dilute Acid Pretreatment of Biomass”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symp. 15 (1985): p. 59-80.
Grohmann, K. et al., “Dilute Acid Pretreatment of Biomass at High Solids Concentrations”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symp. 17 (1986): p. 135-151.
Humbird, D. et al., “Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2011): Covers with Introduction; p. 1-114.
Jeoh, T. “Steam Explosion Pretreatment of Cotton Gin Waste for Fuel Ethanol Production”, Thesis submitted to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1998): Cover with Introduction; p. 1-138.
Jorgensen, H. et al., “Enzymatic conversion of lignocellulose into fermentable sugars: challenges and opportunities”, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref 1 (2001): p. 119-134.
Kumar, R. et al., “Effect of Enzyme Supplementation at Moderate Cellulase Loadings on Initial Glucose and Xylose Release from Corn Stover Solids Pretreated by Leading Technologies”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 102(2) (2009); p. 457-467.
Larsen, J. et al., “The IBUS Process—Lignocellulosic Bioethanol Close to a Commercial Reality”, Chem. Eng. Technol. 31(5) (2008): p. 765-772.
Lynd, L.R. et al. “Consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass: an update”, Current Opinion in Biotechnology 16 (2005): p. 577-583.
Mosier, N. et at, “Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass”, Bioresource Technology 96 (2005): p. 673-686.
McMillan, J.D. “Processes for Pretreating Lignocellulosic Biomass: A Review”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (1992): Covers with Introduction; p. 1-44.
Nandini, C. et al. “Carbohydrate composition of wheat, wheat bran, sorghum and bajra with good chapatti/roti (Indian flat bread) making quality”, Food Chemistry 73 (2001): p. 197-203.
Sanchez, O.J. et al., “Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks”, Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): p. 5270-5295.
Saska, M. et al., “Aqueous Extraction of Sugarcane Bagasse Hemicellulose and Production of Xylose Syrup”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 45 (1995): p. 517-523.
Sepulveda-Huerta, E. et al. “Production of detoxified sorghum straw hydrolysates for fermentative purposes”, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86 (2006): p. 2579-2586.
Spindler, D. et al., “Evaluation of Pretreated Woody Crops for the Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation Process”, Ethanol from Biomass. FY 1988, Annual Report (1989): p. B33-B43.
Taherzadeh, M.J. et al., “Acid-based Hydrolysis Processes for Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Materials: A Review”, BioResources 2(3) (2007): p. 472-499.
Taherzadeh, M.J. et al., “Enzyme-based Hydrolysis Processes for Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Materials: A Review”, BioResources 2(4) (2007): p. 707-738.
Texeira, R.H. et al., “Ethanol Annual Report FY 1990”, (1991): p. 1-346.
Torget, R. et al., “Dilute Acid Pretreatment of Short Rotation Woody and Herbaceous Crops”, Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 24/25 (1990): p. 115-126.
Torget, R. et al., “Initial Design of a Dilute Sulfuric Acid Pretreatment Process for Aspen Wood Chips”, Solar Energy Research Institute (1988): p. 89-104.
Torget, R. et al., “Dilute Acid Pretreatment of Corn Cobs, Corn Stover, and Short-Rotation Crops”, FY 1990 Ethanol Annual Report (1991): p. 71-81.
Weil, J. et al., “Pretreatment of Corn Fiber by Pressure Cooking in Water”, Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 73 (1998): p. 1-17.
Wyman, Charles E., “What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol”, Trends in Biotechnology 25(4) (2007): p. 153-157.
Wyman, C.E. et al., “Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technologies”, Bioresource Technology 96 (2005): p. 1959-1966.
Yang, B. et al., “Pretreatment: the key to unlocking low-cost cellulosic ethanol”, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 2 (2008): p. 26-40.
Zhang, Y-H.P. et al., “Outlook for cellulose improvement: Screening and selection strategies”, Biotechnology Advances 24 (2006): p. 452-481.
Zhang, Y.P. et al., “Toward an Aggregated Understanding of Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulose: Noncomplexed Cellulase Systems”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 88(7) (2004): p. 797-824.
Bellissimi, Eleonora et al., Effects of acetic acid on the kinetics of xylose fermentation by an engineered, xylose-isomerase-based Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain, FEMS Yeast Res 9 (2009): 358-364.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20100227369 A1 Sep 2010 US
Provisional Applications (3)
Number Date Country
61157140 Mar 2009 US
61157142 Mar 2009 US
61157137 Mar 2009 US