Biofuel Production-Recent Developments and Prospects 2011
DOI: 10.5772/16454
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detoxification of Lignocellulosic Hydrolysates for Improved Bioethanol Production

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 94 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…24 To improve the 2,3-BDO production from hydrolysates, treatment processes to remove microbial inhibitors prior to fermentation are still required. 25 Therefore, a microwave-assisted heating-activated carbon adsorption method was employed to detoxify furfural and phenol from cotton stalk hydrolysate under the following conditions: activated carbon of 1%, microwave power of 330 W and detoxification time of 10 min. 26 This processing removed 81.2% of furfural and 92.3% of phenol but only 10.6% of the total sugar loss.…”
Section: Optimization Of the Cotton Stalk Hydrolysate Concentrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 To improve the 2,3-BDO production from hydrolysates, treatment processes to remove microbial inhibitors prior to fermentation are still required. 25 Therefore, a microwave-assisted heating-activated carbon adsorption method was employed to detoxify furfural and phenol from cotton stalk hydrolysate under the following conditions: activated carbon of 1%, microwave power of 330 W and detoxification time of 10 min. 26 This processing removed 81.2% of furfural and 92.3% of phenol but only 10.6% of the total sugar loss.…”
Section: Optimization Of the Cotton Stalk Hydrolysate Concentrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Usually less toxic substances are formed in catalytic processes like hydrolysis than in thermochemical depolymerization processes such as pyrolysis, but nevertheless this may lead to issues when applied in biological systems (Arnold, Moss, Henkel, & Hausmann, 2017;Jönsson, Alriksson, & Nilvebrant, 2013;Palmqvist & Hahn-Hägerdal, 2000). The inhibitor concentrations showed great fluctuation between different hydrolyzates, as summarized by (Chandel, da Silva, & Singh, 2011). Acetic acid concentration varies from 0.4 g/L (Alriksson, Cavka, & Jönsson, 2011) to 5.45 g/L , furfural concentration from 0.15 g/L (Nigam, 2001) to 2.2 g/L (Qian et al, 2006), and hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) concentration from 0.07 g/L (Villarreal, Prata, Felipe, & Almeida E Silva, 2006) to 3.3 g/L (Alriksson et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different purification processes to remove contaminants have been described by Chandel et al 21 These methods include chemical/physical conditioning steps 22 followed by evaporative concentration methods. 23 The conditioning steps generate large amounts of solid waste whose disposal can be expensive and pose environmental concerns.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%