The subject disclosure relates to systems and methods for the recycle of acid in a xylose stream in the production of ethanol from a cellulosic feedstock. The subject disclosure also relates to systems and methods for pre-treatment of biomass before the biomass is provided to a hydrolysis system and subsequently to a fermentation system in order to facilitate the efficient production of ethanol.
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 cellulosic 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 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 and/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. In order to be used or processed, biomass is harvested and collected from the field and transported to the location where it is to be used or processed.
In a biorefinery configured to produce ethanol from biomass, such as cellulosic feedstocks as indicated above, ethanol is produced from lignocellulosic material (e.g. cellulose and/or hemi-cellulose). The biomass is prepared so that sugars in the cellulosic material (such as glucose from the cellulose and xylose from the hemi-cellulose) can be accessed and fermented into a fermentation product that comprises ethanol (among other things). The fermentation product is then sent to a distillation system, where the ethanol is recovered by distillation and dehydration. Other bioproducts, such as lignin and organic acids, may also be recovered as co-products. Determination of how to more efficiently prepare and treat the biomass for production into ethanol depends upon (among other things) the form and type or composition of the biomass.
One costly step in the preparation of lignocellulosic material for fermentation is the pretreatment of the biomass material, which requires the usage of a suppressed pH in order to degrade the cellulose to sugars. Typically, large doses of acid are utilized to bring the pH of the biomass to the levels required to effectively separate C5 sugars from the C6 solids. The volume of acid required for a commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant can be very large, which is costly to purchase and store. Further, the large quantities of acid must be subsequently neutralized prior to downstream processing, such as fermentation. Neutralization is also associated with a significant cost, and may result in an excess of minerals, which can buildup in downstream systems.
The disclosed aspects relate to systems and methods for pretreating lignocellulosic biomass. The pretreated biomass may be supplied to a fermentation system, or a saccharification system followed by a fermentation system, for the generation of a fermentation product. In some embodiments, the biomass may include ground corncobs, corn stover, or a combination of ground corncobs and corn stover. In some embodiments, the fermentation product may be ethanol or other bio-fuel.
In some embodiments, a method includes applying an acid solution to a first portion of biomass. The acid solution may include between about 1% to about 1.6% sulfuric acid, in some embodiments. The biomass may be subjected to an elevated temperature for a length of time in order to yield xylose sugars in a xylose liquor and glucan solids. In some embodiments, the temperature may be maintained between about 120° C. to about 150° C. for a period of between around 10 minutes to around 120 minutes.
The elevated temperature can cause xylose, glucose, and furfural to be produced. In an aspect, at least approximately 80% of theoretical xylose is produced. In some embodiments, temperature, acid concentration, and/or time may be optimized (e.g., altered) to generate at least about 90% of theoretical xylose. In a similar manner, the conditions (e.g., temperature, acid concentration, and/or time) may be modified to ensure around 45% or more (e.g., around 50%) of the theoretical glucose is generated. Since more severe pretreatments yield greater sugar levels, in some embodiments, the severity may be controlled such that the desired sugar is generated without causing more than approximately 4000 ppm or approximately 3000 ppm of furfural to be present in the xylose liquor.
After the elevated temperature, at least a portion of the resulting xylose liquor may be separated from the glucan solids. The glucan solids may be provided to a saccharification system, in some embodiments. In some implementations, around 70% of the xylose liquor is recovered. In other implementations, about 75% of xylose liquor is recovered.
The xylose liquor, which can still be highly acidic, can be recycled to reduce subsequent acid loading requirements. Makeup acid solution can be added to the xylose liquor and subsequent biomass to help ensure the proper solids to liquids ratio is met. The biomass can again be treated to higher temperatures to yield sugars. The process may be repeated for each subsequent cycle, according to an aspect.
In order that the disclosed aspects may be more clearly ascertained, some embodiments will now be described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
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;
TABLE 4 lists the theoretical acid and water usage for various recycle amounts according to exemplary and representative embodiments;
TABLE 5 lists the experimental conditions for a number of acid recycle examples according to exemplary and representative embodiments; and
TABLE 6 lists the results for xylose, glucose, and furfural of the example recycle conditions of TABLE 5 according to exemplary and representative embodiments.
Various aspects will now be described with reference to several embodiments thereof as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the various aspects. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art, that embodiments may be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In other instances, well known process steps and/or structures have not been described in detail in order to not unnecessarily obscure the one or more aspects. The features and advantages of embodiments may be better understood with reference to the drawings and discussions that follow.
Aspects disclosed herein relate to systems and methods for acid recycle in a cellulosic acid pretreatment for the generation of ethanol. Such systems and methods can provide cost effective means for decreasing acid and water consumption in a cellulosic ethanol biorefinery while maintaining xylose and glucose yields. For example, provided are systems and methods for pretreatment of biomass in the production of ethanol with reduced acid requirements. Also provided are systems and methods for reducing the need for additional acid, water, and neutralizing agents employed during biomass pretreatment in a cellulosic ethanol biorefinery.
Referring to
As shown in
Referring to
Referring to
The C5-sugar-containing liquid component (C5 stream or pentose liquor) may be treated in a pentose cleanup treatment system 306. From the pentose cleanup treatment system 306, a recycle stream of xylose liquor may be returned to the pre-treatment system 302 as indicated above.
The C6-sugar-containing pretreated solids component may be treated in a solids treatment system using enzyme hydrolysis 308 to generate sugars. According to an 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). Enzyme hydrolysis efficiency may be increased through the addition of an agent. Such agents may include anaerobic membrane digester effluent, clarified thin stillage, wet cake, whole stillage, other viable protein source, or combinations thereof. Details of the treatment of the C6 solids will be described below.
In accordance with the embodiment of
In the alternate embodiment of
During treatment of the C5 and/or C6 stream, components may be processed to recover byproducts, such as organic acids and lignin. The removed components during treatment and production of ethanol from the biomass from either or both the C5 stream and the C6 stream (or at distillation) 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) or recovered for use or reuse.
According to an embodiment, the biomass comprises plant material from the corn plant, such as corn cobs, corn plant husks and corn plant leaves and corn stalks (e.g. at least upper half or three-quarters portion of the stalk); the composition of the plant material (e.g. cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin) can be approximately as indicated in TABLES 1A and 1B (e.g. after at least initial preparation of the biomass, including removal of any foreign matter). According to an 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 of a wide variety of 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) can comprise (by weight) cellulose at about 30 to about 55 percent, hemicellulose at about 20 to about 50 percent, and lignin at about 10 to about 25 percent; according to a particular embodiment, the lignocellulosic plant material of the biomass (e.g. cobs, husks/leaves and stalk portions from the corn plant) can comprise (by weight) cellulose at about 35 to about 45 percent, hemicellulose at about 24 to about 42 percent, and lignin at about 12 to about 20 percent. According to a particular embodiment, pre-treatment of the biomass can yield a liquid component that comprises (by weight) xylose at no less than approximately 1.0 percent and a solids component that comprises (by weight) cellulose (from which glucose can be made available) at no less than around 45 percent.
According to an embodiment, in the pre-treatment system an acid can be applied to the prepared biomass to facilitate the breakdown of the biomass for separation into the liquid (pentose liquor) 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 some embodiments, the acid can be applied to the biomass in a reaction vessel under determined operating conditions (e.g. 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 breakdown 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 in combination with a xylose liquor recycle stream. The xylose liquor recycle stream includes enzymes, acid, and water that may reduce the requirements for additional acid and water to be added at the pretreatment system. Maximization of sugar liberation and minimization of inhibitor generation may be achieved by carefully controlling xylose recycle volumes and process conditions. TABLE 4 provides theoretical acid and water utilized for pretreatments dependent upon volume of xylose liquor recycled during the pretreatment step. Additionally, economic data relating to the cost for the new acid is provided. Acid/Water usage was calculated for 10 pretreatment cycles using varying amounts of recycled liquor. The calculations were based on 1000 kg of cob at a 14.3% solids loading, using 1% H2SO4. Recycling a larger amount of xylose liquor into the next pretreatment results in a larger percentage reduction in the amount of acid and water utilized in subsequent pretreatments. It was also found that by recycling liquor there is an increase in the xylose concentration of the xylose liquor proportional to the amount of liquor being recycled. There is a maximum amount of liquor that can be recycled based on liquor availability due to liquid solid separation efficiency and the amount of liquor taken from the process as a liquor stream. As illustrated, with larger volumes of xylose liquor recycle, water usage and acid addition decreases significantly. Up to around a 70% reduction in water and acid can be achieved, in some embodiments.
In a similar manner,
According to a particular embodiment, sulfuric acid can be applied to the biomass in pre-treatment in addition to the xylose liquor recycle stream. According to a particular embodiment, the prepared biomass may be pretreated with approximately 0.8 to approximately 1.5 percent acid (such as sulfuric acid) and about 12 to about 25 percent biomass solids at a temperature of approximately 100 to about 180 degrees Celsius for approximately 5 to around 180 minutes. In alternate embodiments, xylose liquor is supplied to the biomass at a set volume. The pH of the biomass is then adjusted to about 1.5 using concentrated acid, such as sulfuric acid. The use of a xylose recycle stream reduces the total new mineral acid that is needed to bring the pH to acceptable levels for pretreatment. The pre-treatment may also comprise a steam explosion step, where biomass is heated to and held at (e.g. hold time) approximately 150 to approximately 165 degrees Celsius under pressure (e.g. 100 psi) at a pH of about 1.4 to about 1.6 for around 1 to around 15 minutes, and the pressure is released to further aid in the breakdown of cellulose. After pretreatment the pre-treated biomass is separated into a solids component (C6) and a liquid pentose liquor component (C5), as shown in
The liquid pentose liquor 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 approximately 7 percent solids (e.g. suspended/residual solids such as partially hydrolysed hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin). According to a particular embodiment, the liquid component comprises at least about 2 to about 4 percent xylose (by weight); according to other exemplary embodiments, the liquid component comprises no less than around 1 to around 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. A portion of the C5 xylose liquid liquor stream may be recycled to the pretreatment as described above. In some embodiments, all (or substantially all) of the xylose liquor may be recycled. In the embodiments where all (or substantially all) of the xylose liquor is not recycled the remaining xylose liquor that is not recycled may be treated with an alkali (such as sodium hydroxide, lime, or ammonium hydroxide) prior to being introduced to fermentation. Additional inhibitor removal treatments may be performed on the xylose liquor, in some 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 approximately 40 percent solids (by weight) (after separation); according to a particular embodiment, the solids component can comprise approximately 20 to approximately 30 percent solids (by weight). According to another embodiment, the solids in the solids component comprise no less than about 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.
After the separation of the C5 liquid component from the C6 solids, the solids may be treated further in an enzymatic hydrolysis system. According to an embodiment, after pre-treatment, the solids component (C6) is supplied to a vessel for enzymatic hydrolysis (or saccharification) along with enzymes, agents, and water. The enzymes can facilitate the breakdown of pre-treated cellulose into sugar (e.g. glucose) to generate an enzymatic hydrolysis product. This sugar rich enzymatic hydrolysis product may then be fermented into ethanol, or used for any other downstream process.
In some embodiments, the C6 solids may be subjected to a sequential hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) process, wherein the solids are subjected to an enzyme hydrolysis (with a glucan conversion of at least 80%) followed by a fermentation. While using a two-step process, with the SHF approach enzyme hydrolysis may be performed at optimal pH (or as near an optimal pH as possible) and temperature for conversion of cellulose to sugars. For SHF, the solids are treated at about 50° C., around 5.5 pH, and about 15% total solids slurry with cellulase.
Alternatively, the C6 solids may be subjected to a simultaneous (or almost simultaneous) saccharification and fermentation (SSF) process wherein the enzyme hydrolysis and fermentation is performed at about the same time. Simultaneous (or near simultaneous) saccharification and fermentation can be performed at temperatures suitable for ethanol production by the yeast (e.g., about 37° C.) which can be less than optimal for the cellulase enzyme, according to an aspect.
According to an exemplary embodiment, an enzyme formulation comprising an enzyme capable of hydrolysing cellulose is supplied to the solids component (C6) to facilitate the enzyme hydrolysis, e.g. the saccharification by enzyme action of the polymeric cellulose (e.g. polymeric glucan) into accessible monomeric sugars (e.g. monomeric glucose). An example of such cellulase enzyme is Cellic CTec (e.g. NS22074) from Novozymes North America, Inc. of Franklinton, N.C. The amount or loading (dose) of enzyme formulation may be varied as an operating condition. According to an exemplary embodiment, approximately 2 to approximately 12 milligrams of enzyme protein per gram of cellulose may be added. According to a particular embodiment, approximately 3 to approximately 9 milligrams of enzyme protein per gram of cellulose may be added.
According to an exemplary embodiment, the temperature during the treatment of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 30 to approximately 60 degrees Celsius. According to an embodiment, the temperature during the treatment of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 45 to approximately 55 degrees Celsius, and according to a particular embodiment, the temperature during the treatment of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 49 to around 51 degrees Celsius.
According to an exemplary embodiment, the treatment time of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 48 to about 144 hours. According to an embodiment, the treatment time of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 60 to approximately 120 hours, and according to a particular embodiment, the treatment time of the solids component (C6) may be around 72 to about 96 hours.
According to an exemplary embodiment, the solids content of the solids component (C6) supplied to the treatment system may be approximately 5 to approximately 25 percent by weight. According to an embodiment, the solids content of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 10 to approximately 20 percent by weight, and according to a particular embodiment, the solids content of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 12 to approximately 17 percent by weight.
According to an exemplary embodiment, the pH during the treatment of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 4.8 to about 6.2. According to an embodiment, the pH during the treatment of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 5.2 to around 5.8, and according to a particular embodiment, the pH during the treatment of the solids component (C6) may be approximately 5.4 to approximately 5.6.
A glucose yield that may be achieved during enzyme hydrolysis of biomass (e.g. corn cobs, husks, leaves and/or stalks) using available cellulase enzymes without the addition of thin stillage, clarified thin stillage, or anaerobic membrane bioreactor effluent may be in the range of around 35 to around 40 percent of theoretical (e.g. calculated) glucose yield for simultaneous (or almost simultaneous) saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and between about 55 to about 70 percent of theoretical glucose yield for sequential hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF). Exact glucose yields may vary dependent upon pretreatment procedures. For example, inclusion of steam explosion pretreatment, as described above, may increase glucose conversion yields for SHF processed biomass.
As discussed herein, an aspect relates to a method for pretreating lignocellulosic biomass. The method can include applying an acid solution to a first portion of biomass and maintaining an elevated temperature of the first portion of biomass such that a xylose yield of greater than about 80% of theoretical is achieved. A liquid xylose liquor and a glucan solid are produced from the first portion of biomass while maintaining the elevated temperature. The method can also include separating at least a portion of the liquid xylose liquor from the glucan solid, applying the portion of the liquid xylose liquor to a subsequent portion of the biomass, and applying a makeup acid solution to the subsequent portion of the biomass. Further, the method can include maintaining an elevated temperature of the subsequent portion of the biomass such that xylose yield of greater than about 80% of theoretical is achieved. A liquid xylose liquor and a glucan solid are produced from the subsequent portion of the biomass while maintaining the elevated temperature. The method can repeat starting with separating the portion of the liquid xylose liquor to a subsequent portion of the biomass. In some implementations, the method can include releasing sugar glucose.
In an example, maintaining the elevated temperature can include maintaining the temperature at about 120° C. and 150° C. In another example, maintaining the elevated temperature can include maintaining the elevated temperature for at least about 10 minutes. In a further example, maintaining the elevated temperature can include maintaining the elevated temperature for less than about 120 minutes.
In some implementations, applying the acid solution can include applying an acid solution that is between about 1% to 1.6% sulfuric acid. In some implementations, the elevated temperature of the first portion of biomass and the elevated temperature of the subsequent portion of the biomass can be maintained until greater than about 90% of theoretical xylose yield is achieved. In other implementations, the elevated temperature of the first portion of biomass and the elevated temperature of the subsequent portion of the biomass can be maintained until greater than about 45% of theoretical glucose yield is achieved. In some implementations, the elevated temperature of the first portion of biomass and the elevated temperature of the subsequent portion of the biomass can be maintained until greater than about 50% of theoretical glucose yield is achieved.
In an aspect, the liquid xylose liquor comprises less than about 4000 ppm furfural. In some aspects, the liquid xylose liquor comprises less than about 3000 ppm furfural. According to some aspects, the portion of the liquid xylose liquor is about 70% of the total xylose liquor. According to other aspects, the portion of the liquid xylose liquor is about 75% of the total xylose liquor.
Another aspect relates to a method for pretreating lignocellulosic biomass to be supplied to a fermentation system for production of a fermentation product. The method can include applying a xylose liquor to biomass, applying a makeup acid solution to the biomass, and maintaining an elevated temperature of the biomass such that a xylose yield of greater than about 80% of theoretical is achieved. Xylose liquor and a glucan solid can be produced from the biomass while maintaining the elevated temperature. The method can also include separating at least some portion of the xylose liquor from the glucan solid. The method can repeat with applying an acid solution to the biomass.
A series of limited examples were conducted according to an exemplary embodiment of the system in an effort to evaluate the effect of varying recycle volumes and process conditions. Experiments and tests were conducted to evaluate xylose concentrations, glucose yields, acetic acid concentrations, and inhibitor levels (such as furfural) as a function of recycle volume, cycle number, and process conditions. The following examples are intended to provide clarity to some embodiments of systems and means of operation and are not intended to limit the scope of the various aspects disclosed herein.
TABLE 5 provides an overview of the example experimental conditions, including pretreatment temperature, cycle numbers, sulfuric acid concentration, and timing. For all examples, sugar, furfural/5-hydroxy-methylfurfural (HMF), and acetic acid levels were measured utilizing known HPLC (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography) analytical techniques. Glucose concentrations were measured after a saccharification step. Further, pretreatment makeup was adjusted for moisture variability of the ground biomass samples. For each example condition, all (or substantially all) pretreatment liquor was used to recycle to the next cycle (excluding a small test volume for analytics).
For all examples, cob material was hammer milled and stored in a Quonset hut style building to maintain a dry environment with minimal or no exposure to the sun and inclement weather. Sulfuric acid was obtained from Fisher Scientific (of Waltham, Mass.) in reagent form for the Babcock Milk Test SA174-4 91.6% acid.
The ground cob was used to make a 14.3% solids solution with acid solution containing the prescribed concentration of acid for the pretreatment conditions as presented in TABLE 5. The 1 L Parr reactor vessel was loaded with 100 g of ground cob on a dry weight basis; water and sulfuric acid were combined to achieve the desired acid concentration in the liquid fraction while accounting for water brought in with the biomass and then added to the raw biomass. The acid solution and cobs were stirred with a spatula to wet the entire sample. The vessel was then connected to the Parr reactor head and stirred at 450 rpm. Heat was applied by supplying high pressure steam (250 to 300 psi) into the vessel jacket. The temperature was monitored using a thermocouple in the external thermowell. The heat was adjusted accordingly by adding either steam or cold water to the vessel jacket. The reaction timer started as soon as the vessel contents reached the desired temperatures. After the vessel had been held at temperature for the appropriate amount of time, the vessel was cooled using water through the vessel jacket.
After the reaction was complete, the Parr reactor vessel was removed and the pretreatment slurry was transferred into a tared 1000 ml polypropylene centrifuge tube. The slurry was then separated via centrifuge at 4500 rpm for 15 minutes. The moisture level of the solids was determined using an oven moisture procedure, and then submitted for enzymatic saccharification. A 30 g sample of the xylose liquor was taken for sugar (xylose, glucose, and arabinose), HMF, Furfural, acetic acid, and total solids (dissolved and suspended) analysis. The remaining mass of liquor was used as recycle liquid for the next pretreatment.
Subsequently, the solids were diluted to 10% with water. Hydrolysis was performed in 125 ml Erlenmeyer flasks with 70 nil of slurry. The slurries in each flask were pH adjusted to 5.5 using 45% w/w aqueous potassium hydroxide or 10% v/v aqueous sulfuric acid. Enzyme loadings were 9 mg enzyme protein per g glucan (the glucan content of the solids portion was assumed as 35%). The flasks were incubated in a water bath shaker at 50° C. (stirred at 150 rpm) for 72/96 hours.
The recycle process was performed by loading the Parr reactor vessel with 100 g ground cob on a dry weight basis, the recycle liquid from the previous pretreatment was added, the reaction mass was adjusted to 700 g using a dilute acid solution with appropriate acid concentration from TABLE 5. The process for pretreatment was then carried out identically (or nearly identically) for each recycle step. This recycle process was repeated for the number of times designated in the experimental design.
In the example experiment, xylose concentration, glucose concentration, and acetic acid concentration for each of the conditions illustrated in TABLE 5 were analyzed. Xylose liquor was collected and filtered through a 0.2 μm syringe into HPLC vials. The vials were then loaded onto a carousel, which fits into an auto sampler (either 717 plus or 2659 separations module from Waters of Milford, Mass.). An aliquot (5 μl) of the sample was injected by the auto-injector onto a reverse phase column (HPX-87H from Bio-Rad Laboratories of Hercules, Calif.) maintained at 50° C. Sulfuric acid at 0.005M was used as the mobile phase (eluent). The HPLC system was equipped with a refractive index detector (either the 2410 or 2414 model from Waters). The components (sugars, organic acids, and ethanol) were identified and quantified using the Empower software (Waters).
Furfural and HMF concentration for each of the conditions illustrated at TABLE 5 were analyzed. Samples were prepared by diluting the xylose liquor tenfold with water and filtering through a 0.2 μm nylon syringe filter into HPLC vials. A 10 μl aliquot was injected by the HPLC autosampler (Dionex Ultimate 3000) onto a reversed phase HPLC C18 column at 40° C. The samples were eluted with a mobile phase consisting of a solution of 90:5:5 water:acetonitrile:methanol at a flow rate of 1 ml/min. Furfural and HMF were detected by UV at 280 nm wavelength. Late eluting compounds were washed off the column by a column wash mobile phase consisting of 50:10:40 water:acetonitirle:methanol at 1 ml/ml for 5 min.
Results for the analysis of xylose as a function of number of recycles are illustrated in the graphs of
Results for the analysis of glucose as a function of number of recycles are illustrated in the graphs of
Results for the analysis of acetic acid as a function of number of recycles are illustrated in the graphs of
Results for the analysis of furfural as a function of number of recycles are illustrated in the graphs of
TABLE 6 summarizes the experimental data in tabular format. The 1% acid, 120° C., 2 hour xylose liquor recycle pretreatments resulted in xylose yields of 85-100% and glucose yields of 45-55% (from low enzyme dosing). When a 1.2% sulfuric acid was used the highest xylose yields occurred. In contrast, 1% acid yielded the highest glucose levels. Xylose yields between 90 and 100% are achieved with 1.6% acid loading. Acetic acid yields show the same trends for the 1% acid pretreatments at around 80-85% and the 1.6% acid pretreatments from 85-95% as compared to xylose yields. Glucose yields are between 45% and 65% with the 1.6% acid loading showing an upward trend over the 5 pretreatment cycles increasing from about 55-65% while the 1% actually seems to cause a decrease in glucose yield as it is recycled.
The 150° C. xylose liquor recycle pretreatments have xylose yields approaching 100% and glucose yields that start near 60% but then fall off to reach a steady state in the 50% range, the pretreatment also produces around 85-90% of the theoretical acetic acid available.
The 130° C. pretreatments have xylose yields in the 90-95% range that shows a decreasing yield as recycles progress, the same trend is seen in the acetic acid yield. The elevation in temperature from 130° C. to 150° C. causes an increased amount of xylose being converted to furfural. These trends in sugar, acetic acid, and furfural production support the assessment that 150° C. at the same acid level provides higher pretreatment severity than 130° C. for longer periods of time (10 minutes versus 60 minutes).
When the xylose yield trends are examined across the entire experimental design, the 1% acid recycles have a downward trend suggesting that there is not enough acid being recycled with the xylose liquor to maintain the severity level. Conversely, the 1.6% acid data shows an increase in both xylose and glucose yield which indicates that there is an increase in severity that leads to a higher yield pretreatment, possibly due to increasing levels of acetic acid. The 1.2% and 1.4% acid yield for xylose and glucose remain relatively steady.
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.
The word “exemplary” is used to mean serving as an example, instance, or illustration. Any embodiment or design described as “exemplary” is not necessarily to be construed as preferred or advantageous over other embodiments or designs, nor is it meant to preclude equivalent exemplary structures and techniques known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, use of the word exemplary is intended to present concepts in a concrete fashion, and the disclosed subject matter is not limited by such examples.
The term “or” is intended to mean an inclusive “or” rather than an exclusive “or.” To the extent that the terms “comprises,” “has,” “contains,” and other similar words are used in either the detailed description or the claims, for the avoidance of doubt, such terms are intended to be inclusive in a manner similar to the term “comprising” as an open transition word without precluding any additional or other elements.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/130,878 U.S., filed Mar. 5, 2014, which is a national stage entry of PCT International Application No. PCT/US2012/045953 filed Jul. 9, 2012, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/505,389, filed Jul. 7, 2011, and entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ACID RECYCLE”, the entire contents of each application are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2734836 | Elian et al. | Feb 1956 | A |
3212932 | Hess et al. | Oct 1965 | A |
4014743 | Black | Mar 1977 | A |
4029515 | Kiminki et al. | Jun 1977 | A |
4072538 | Fahn et al. | Feb 1978 | A |
4152197 | Lindahl et al. | May 1979 | A |
4168988 | Riehm et al. | Sep 1979 | A |
4342831 | Faber et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4425433 | Neves | Jan 1984 | A |
4427453 | Reitter | Jan 1984 | A |
4432805 | Nuuttila et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
4461648 | Foody | Jul 1984 | A |
4529699 | Gerez et al. | Jul 1985 | A |
4552616 | Kauppi | Nov 1985 | A |
4612286 | Sherman et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4668340 | Sherman | May 1987 | A |
4752579 | Arena et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4908098 | DeLong et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4941944 | Chang | Jul 1990 | A |
4997488 | Gould et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5125977 | Grohmann et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5171592 | Holtzapple et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5188673 | Clausen et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5221357 | Brink | Jun 1993 | A |
5328562 | Rafferty et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5338366 | Grace et al. | Aug 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 |
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 |
5693296 | Holtzapple et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5705369 | Torget et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5711817 | Titmas | Jan 1998 | A |
5726046 | Farone et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5733758 | Nguyen | Mar 1998 | A |
5769934 | Ha et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5782982 | Farone et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5820687 | Farone et al. | Oct 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 | Aug 1999 | A |
5972118 | Hester et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5972415 | Brassart et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5975439 | Chieffalo et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6007636 | Lightner | Dec 1999 | A |
6022419 | Torget et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6090595 | Foody et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6228177 | Torget | May 2001 | B1 |
6379504 | Miele et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6419788 | Wingerson | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6423145 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6512110 | Heikkila et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6555350 | Ahring et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6569289 | Stromberg et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6620292 | Wingerson | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6660506 | Nguyen et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6692578 | Schmidt et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6770168 | Stigsson | Aug 2004 | B1 |
7198925 | Foody | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7238242 | Pinatti et al. | Jul 2007 | 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 |
7585652 | Foody et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7604967 | Yang et al. | Oct 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 |
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 |
8449728 | Redford | May 2013 | B2 |
8815552 | Narendranath et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
9034620 | Narendranath | May 2015 | B2 |
20020192774 | Ahring et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030199049 | Nguyen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040060673 | Phillips et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050069998 | Ballesteros Perdices et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20060251764 | Abbas et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060281157 | Chotani et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070238155 | Gusakov et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080026431 | Saito et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080184709 | Rowell | Aug 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 |
20100144001 | Horton | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100233771 | McDonald et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100285553 | Delmas et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110065159 | Raines et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110079219 | McDonald et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110094505 | Bulla et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110171708 | Larsen | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120111514 | Dottori et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120116063 | Jansen et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120129234 | McDonald et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120138246 | Christensen et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120201947 | Stuart | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120291774 | Kilambi et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130065289 | Carlson | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130337521 | Carlson et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140024826 | Narendranath et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140093920 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140234911 | Narendranath et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20150037859 | Bootsma | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150072390 | Narendranath et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150128932 | Kwiatkowski et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
222 636 | May 1985 | DE |
0 044 658 | Jan 1982 | EP |
0 098 490 | Jan 1984 | EP |
0 159 795 | Oct 1985 | 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 |
WO 9207098 | Apr 1992 | WO |
WO 9408027 | Apr 1994 | WO |
WO 9429475 | Dec 1994 | WO |
WO 9508648 | Mar 1995 | 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 00073221 | 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 02051561 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO 02067691 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO 02070753 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO 03013714 | Feb 2003 | WO |
WO 03071025 | Aug 2003 | WO |
WO 03078644 | Sep 2003 | 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 |
WO 2009045651 | Apr 2009 | WO |
WO 2009108773 | Sep 2009 | WO |
WO 2010102060 | Sep 2010 | 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 |
WO 2012168410 | Dec 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
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., “Cellulase, 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 al., “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. 71-82. |
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. |
Taherzadeh, M.J. et al. “Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Wastes to Improve Ethanol and Biogas Production: A Review”, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 9 (2008): p. 1621-1651. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/716,989, filed Mar. 2010, Kwiatkowski. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/827,948, filed Jun. 2010, Bootsma et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/209,170, filed Aug. 2011, Bly et al. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180237869 A1 | Aug 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61505389 | Jul 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14130878 | US | |
Child | 15958895 | US |