Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Carboxylate Platform: The MixAlco Process Part 1: Comparison of Three Biomass Conversion Platforms

  • Published:
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To convert biomass to liquid fuels, three platforms are compared: thermochemical, sugar, and carboxylate. To create a common basis, each platform is fed “ideal biomass,” which contains polysaccharides (68.3%) and lignin (31.7%). This ratio is typical of hardwood biomass and was selected so that when gasified and converted to hydrogen, the lignin has sufficient energy to produce ethanol from the carboxylic acids produced by the carboxylate platform. Using balanced chemical reactions, the theoretical yield and energy efficiency were determined for each platform. For all platforms, the ethanol yield can be increased by 71% to 107% by supplying external hydrogen produced from other sources (e.g., solar, wind, nuclear, fossil fuels). The alcohols can be converted to alkanes with a modest loss of energy efficiency (3 to 5 percentage points). Of the three platforms considered, the carboxylate platform has demonstrated the highest product yields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NREL Biomass Database. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/feedstock_databases.html.

  2. Klass, D. L. (1998). Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals p. 81. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Reed, T. B. (1981). Biomass gasification: Principles and technology p. 10. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spivey, J. J., & Egbebi, A. (2007). Heterogeneous catalytic synthesis of ethanol from biomass-derived syngas. Chemical Society Review, 36, 1514–1529.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lynd, L. R., van Zyl, W. H., McBride, J. E., & Laser, M. (2005). Consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass: An update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 16, 577–583.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liming, X., & Xueliang, S. (2004). High-yield cellulase production by Trichoderma reesei ZU-02 on corn cob residue. Bioresource Technology, 91(3), 259–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sierra, R., Granda, C., & Holtzapple, M. T. (2008). Short-term lime pretreatment of poplar wood. Biotechnology Progress (in press).

  8. NREL .rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi.

  9. Holtzapple, M. T. (2003a). Cellulose. In B. Caballero, L. C. Trugo, & P. M. Finglas (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food science, food technology, and nutrition(2nd ed.). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Holtzapple, M. T. (2003b). Lignin. In B. Caballero, L.C. Trugo, & P.M. Finglas (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food science, food technology, and nutrition (pp. 3535–3542, 2nd ed.). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Weast, R. C. (1977). CRC handbook of chemistry and physics (58th ed.). West Palm Beach, FL: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Felder, R. M., & Rousseau, R. W. (1986). Elementary principles of chemical processes, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrel, J., US DOE Biomass Program (2006). http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Program/307/DOEBiomassProgram.pdf.

  14. Aden, A. (2005). Technical and economic feasibility of mixed alcohols fuel production from biomass-derived syngas. AiChE National Meeting, November 3rd.

  15. Lynd, L. R., & Wang, M. Q. (2004). A product-nonspecific framework for evaluating the potential of biomass-based products to displace fossil fuels. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(3–4), 117–146.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Agbogbo, F. K., & Holtzapple, M. T. (2007). Fixed-bed fermentation of rice straw and chicken manure using a mixed culture of marine mesophilic microorganisms. Bioresource Technology, 98(8), 1586–1595. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.06.021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Eggeman, T., & Verser, D. (2006). The importance of utility systems in today’s biorefineries and vision for tomorrow. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 129–132, 361–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Granda, C., & Holtzapple, M. (2008). Biorefineries for solvents: The MixAlco process. In J. Wall, C. Harwood, & A. Demain (Eds.), Bioenergy. Washington, DC: ASM.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-3122, USA

    Mark T. Holtzapple & Cesar B. Granda

Authors
  1. Mark T. Holtzapple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cesar B. Granda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark T. Holtzapple.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holtzapple, M.T., Granda, C.B. Carboxylate Platform: The MixAlco Process Part 1: Comparison of Three Biomass Conversion Platforms. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 156, 95–106 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-008-8466-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-008-8466-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation