Establishment and assessment of a novel cleaner production process of corn grain fuel ethanol

Wang, Ke; Zhang, Jianhua; Tang, Lei; Zhang, Hongjian; Zhang, Guiying; Yang, Xizhao; Liu, Pei; Mao, Zhangming

doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.095

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biofuel system co-product treatment has traditionally been a topic of controversy, especially for fi rst generation corn-based biofuels which produce distiller dry grains. 43,44 In cellulosic biofuel production facilities electricity is a common co-product that can be accounted for in several ways. According to ISO 14000 series standards, allocation should be avoided by performing system expansion.…”

Section: Co-product Treatment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impacts of bioethanol using the NREL biochemical conversion route: multivariate analysis and single score results

Daystar

Treasure

Reeb

et al. 2015

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandated Environmental Protection Agency biofuel qualifications focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fossil fuel use are limited in perspective and have the potential to encourage burden shifting. When a broader host of environmental impacts are examined, environmental trade‐offs often exist when biofuels are compared to gasoline. Multivariate analysis methods examining a wide variety of weighting value systems and methodology assumptions were used to determine process design options with the lowest overall environmental impact. A multivariate environmental analysis was applied to the dilute acid pre‐treatment process followed by enzymatic hydrolysis and the fermentation process for converting loblolly pine, eucalyptus, natural hardwood, switchgrass, and sweet sorghum biomass to ethanol. The influence of co‐product treatment method choices, inclusion of direct land‐use change, and electrical grid assumptions were examined using 16 different weighting methods to create a single score result. Biofuel system rankings based on GHG emissions following the Renewable Fuel Standards 2 (RFS2) methods were very sensitive to the co‐product treatment method, inclusion of land‐use change emissions, and energy grid assumptions. The multivariate analysis ranking was heavily influenced by other environmental impacts resulting from the production of process chemicals used in ethanol conversion. Weighting methods examined had no influence on the environmental preference ranking of the biofuel scenarios. Additionally, the biofuel ranking based on the RFS2 methodology was different than the ranking following the multivariate approach examining additional impacts. These findings demonstrate a robust approach to biofuel life cycle assessment (LCA) scenario analysis and suggest that the limited scope of the RFS2 environmental analysis could result in burden shifting. © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

Section: Co-product Treatment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impacts of bioethanol using the NREL biochemical conversion route: multivariate analysis and single score results

Daystar

Treasure

Reeb

et al. 2015

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…29 Previous studies showed that the integrated ethanolmethane fermentation process is an efficient approach for the treatment of ethanol production wastewater. 4,8,9,30 However, there are still some problems with the process. For example, employing sulfuric acid for pH regulation generates sulfatecontaminated wastewater.…”

Section: Ph-dependent Acetic Acid Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of pH by acetic acid and its effect on ethanol fermentation in an integrated ethanol–methane fermentation process

Yang

Wang

et al. 2016

RSC Adv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The international scientific community agrees that it is necessary to seek greater energy efficiency and energy models not based on fossil fuels. Therefore, increased diversification of sources, renewable energy and improving energy efficiency are major concerns [4,5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Steam Reforming of Model Bio-Oil Aqueous Fraction Using Ni-(Cu, Co, Cr)/SBA-15 Catalysts

Calles

Carrero

Vizcaíno

et al. 2019

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrogen obtained from biomass derivatives is considered a promising alternative to fossil fuels. The aim of this work is to test the viability of Ni-M/SBA-15 (M: Co, Cu, Cr) catalysts for the hydrogen production from bio-oil aqueous fraction reforming. Tests were performed in a fixed-bed reactor at 600 °C and atmospheric pressure. Firstly, the steam reforming (SR) of acetic acid, hydroxyacetone, furfural and phenol, as representative constituents of the bio-oil aqueous fraction, was carried out. Lower reactivity with increasing carbon number and decreasing steam-to-carbon ratio was observed. Coking rate during SR is a consequence of carbon number and aromaticity of the reactant, as well as the steam-to-carbon ratio. However, deactivation also depends on the graphitization degree of carbon filaments, higher in the case of coke formed from phenol. Then, the performance of the Ni-M/SBA-15 catalysts was studied in the reforming of a bio-oil aqueous fraction surrogate containing the four model compounds. Ni-Co/SBA-15 and Ni-Cr/SBA-15 samples were the most active because Co also catalyze the steam reforming reactions and Cr promotes the formation of very small Ni crystallites accounting for high conversion and the low coke deposition (~8 times lower than Ni/SBA-15) in the form of poorly condensed carbon filaments.

show abstract

Establishment and assessment of a novel cleaner production process of corn grain fuel ethanol

Cited by 20 publications

References 19 publications

Environmental impacts of bioethanol using the NREL biochemical conversion route: multivariate analysis and single score results

Environmental impacts of bioethanol using the NREL biochemical conversion route: multivariate analysis and single score results

Control of pH by acetic acid and its effect on ethanol fermentation in an integrated ethanol–methane fermentation process

Steam Reforming of Model Bio-Oil Aqueous Fraction Using Ni-(Cu, Co, Cr)/SBA-15 Catalysts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About