Adsorptive separations for the recovery and purification of biobutanol

Cousin-Saint-Remi, Julien; Baron, Gino V.; Denayer, Joeri

doi:10.1007/s10450-012-9415-1

Cited by 66 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the separation of butanol from the ABE fermentation broth, several adsorbents such as activated carbon [ 35 ], charcoal and XAD-type resins [ 36 ], as well as zeolites and metalorganic-framework adsorbents [ 37 ] have been tested; however, thus far, no satisfactory results with respect to selectivity towards butanol and capacity were achieved [ 35 , 36 ]. To enable adsorbent regeneration, temperatureswing or pressure-swing processes are needed [ 9 ].…”

Section: Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated processing for the separation of biobutanol. Part A: experimental investigation and process modelling

Stoffers

Heitmann

Lutze

et al. 2013

Green Processing and Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

n -Butanol is an important bulk chemical and a promising potential fuel additive. An alternative way to the chemical production of biobutanol from crude oil is the fermentation of biomass. However, the main drawback of this process is the toxicity of n -butanol towards the microorganisms resulting in a limited productivity. Additionally, high purification costs occur due to an energy-intensive distillation step which is used, up to now, as purification technology for the recovery of n -butanol. Therefore, alternative separation processes are discussed in this study. Extraction and pervaporation are two unit operations with high potential to overcome this problem. Because of their tuneable properties, the use of ionic liquids as extraction solvents for n -butanol recovery is a promising option; however, their economic potential is not obvious because of the relatively high costs. On the basis of those two unit operations, different potential processes to separate biobutanol from water are modelled using experimental data. Cost estimations result in purification costs of € 0.230 kg -1 to € 0.296 kg -1 n -butanol, which accounts for 20% -27% of the n -butanol market price in 2012.

show abstract

Section: Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated processing for the separation of biobutanol. Part A: experimental investigation and process modelling

Stoffers

Heitmann

Lutze

et al. 2013

Green Processing and Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several groups have previously reported butanol loading in adsorbents from model solutions and real fermentation broth [6,15,16,19], but to the best of our knowledge, none of these studies reported any selectivity data. However, Cousin Saint Remi et al reported butanol over ethanol and acetone selectivities of 10.2 and 2.6, respectively, for a ZIF-8 metal organic framework using a model fermentation broth and data from breakthrough [17]. In our previous study, we reported butanol over ethanol and butanol over acetone selectivities of 7.3 and 4.4, respectively, for silicalite-1 beads and breakthrough experiments using model fermentation broths [20].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zeolite MFI adsorbent for recovery of butanol from ABE fermentation broths produced from an inexpensive black liquor-derived hydrolyzate

Faisal

Zhou

Hedlund

et al. 2018

Biomass Conv. Bioref.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, high-silica MFI zeolite adsorbent was evaluated for selective recovery of butanol from a real ABE (acetone, butanol, and ethanol) fermentation broth by batch adsorption measurements. The fermentation broth was produced using a hydrolyzate originating from Kraft black liquor, an internal stream in pulp mills, i.e., a low-cost substrate. The adsorbent was very selective towards butanol and butyric acid and became nearly saturated with a mixture of butanol and butyric acid with relative amounts of butanol and butyric acid depending on the pH. The presence of phenolic compounds in significant amounts in the fermentation broths, originating from the black liquor hydrolyzate, did not affect the adsorption of butanol and butyric acid.

show abstract

“…was that silicalite adsorbents improved the fermentation the most as they have the ability to concentrate fermentation broth from 5 g butanol/L to 810 g butanol/L, but more recent work exhibits a tendency toward polymeric resins . Over time, the adsorbents used have become increasingly complex with Cousin Saint Remi et al . recommending ZIF‐8, a metal organic framework adsorbent from Sigma‐Aldrich as a superior adsorbent to silicalite.…”

Section: In Situ Product Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once the adsorbent has reached its capacity the ABE needs to be removed and the adsorbent regenerated. The main methods of adsorption are through increasing the temperature, displacement with steamor another solvent, e.g., methanol, or through vacuum evaporation . The recovered butanol titers ranged from 43 to 167 g/L .…”

Section: In Situ Product Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A wide range of adsorbents have been used in conjunction with the butanol and the ABE fermentation, and this list is continually evolving as new, more complex adsorbents become available. Some of the adsorbents used are activated carbon, 100-103 silicalite or silicalite-based zeolites, 23,102,104,105 and polymeric resins. 23,101,103,106,107 The initial conclusion from Qureshi et al 108 was that silicalite adsorbents improved the fermentation the most as they have the ability to concentrate fermentation broth from 5 g butanol/L to 810 g butanol/L, but more recent work exhibits a tendency toward polymeric resins.…”

Section: Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation

Outram

Lalander

Lee

et al. 2017

Biotechnology Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production of biobutanol is hindered by the product's toxicity to the bacteria, which limits the productivity of the process. In situ product recovery of butanol can improve the productivity by removing the source of inhibition. This paper reviews in situ product recovery techniques applied to the acetone butanol ethanol fermentation in a stirred tank reactor. Methods of in situ recovery include gas stripping, vacuum fermentation, pervaporation, liquid–liquid extraction, perstraction, and adsorption, all of which have been investigated for the acetone, butanol, and ethanol fermentation. All techniques have shown an improvement in substrate utilization, yield, productivity or both. Different fermentation modes favored different techniques. For batch processing gas stripping and pervaporation were most favorable, but in fed‐batch fermentations gas stripping and adsorption were most promising. During continuous processing perstraction appeared to offer the best improvement. The use of hybrid techniques can increase the final product concentration beyond that of single‐stage techniques. Therefore, the selection of an in situ product recovery technique would require comparable information on the energy demand and economics of the process. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 33:563–579, 2017

show abstract

Adsorptive separations for the recovery and purification of biobutanol

Cited by 66 publications

References 21 publications

Integrated processing for the separation of biobutanol. Part A: experimental investigation and process modelling

Integrated processing for the separation of biobutanol. Part A: experimental investigation and process modelling

Zeolite MFI adsorbent for recovery of butanol from ABE fermentation broths produced from an inexpensive black liquor-derived hydrolyzate

Applied in situ product recovery in ABE fermentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About