Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10570-009-9308-y
Received: 16 December 2008 / Accepted: 14 May 2009 / Published online: 26 June 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract The Biomass Refining Consortium for stover to sugars by several leading pretreatment
Applied Fundamentals and Innovation, with members technologies. These technologies include ammonia
from Auburn University, Dartmouth College, Mich- fiber expansion pretreatment, ammonia recycle per-
igan State University, the National Renewable colation pretreatment, dilute sulfuric acid pretreat-
Energy Laboratory, Purdue University, Texas A&M ment, flowthrough pretreatment (hot water or dilute
University, the University of British Columbia, and acid), lime pretreatment, controlled pH hot water
the University of California at Riverside, has devel- pretreatment, and sulfur dioxide steam explosion
oped comparative data on the conversion of corn pretreatment. Over the course of two separate USDA-
and DOE-funded projects, these pretreatment tech-
nologies were applied to two different corn stover
R. T. Elander (&) batches, followed by enzymatic hydrolysis of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, remaining solids from each pretreatment technology
CO 80401, USA
using identical enzyme preparations, enzyme load-
e-mail: richard.elander@nrel.gov
ings, and enzymatic hydrolysis assays. Identical
B. E. Dale analytical methods and a consistent material balance
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA methodology were employed to develop comparative
sugar yield data for each pretreatment and subsequent
M. Holtzapple
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA enzymatic hydrolysis. Although there were differ-
ences in the profiles of sugar release, with the more
M. R. Ladisch acidic pretreatments releasing more xylose directly in
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
the pretreatment step than the alkaline pretreatments,
Y. Y. Lee the overall glucose and xylose yields (mono-
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA mers ? oligomers) from combined pretreatment and
enzymatic hydrolysis process steps were very similar
C. Mitchinson
for all of these leading pretreatment technologies.
Genencor, a Danisco Division, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
Some of the water-only and alkaline pretreatment
J. N. Saddler technologies resulted in significant amounts of resid-
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, ual xylose oligomers still remaining after enzymatic
Canada
hydrolysis that may require specialized enzyme
C. E. Wyman preparations to fully convert xylose oligomers to
University of California, Riverside, CA 92507, USA monomers.
123
650 Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659
123
Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659 651
Energy Laboratory (NREL), Purdue University, and biochemical process conversion steps and overall
Texas A&M University formed the Biomass Refining process economics are summarized.
Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innova-
tion (CAFI) in 2000 to collaboratively develop data
on pretreatment options that each research institution Materials and methods
was developing. In the same year, via a competitive
solicitation, the US Department of Agriculture Ini- One of the founding principles of the CAFI was that
tiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems consistent and comparative materials and methodol-
(IFAFS) Program awarded a research grant to the ogies would be followed by all team members. To
CAFI team, allowing it to conduct a comprehensive that end, the individual CAFI research groups used
project where consistent feedstocks, enzymes, ana- the same raw materials, analytical procedures, and
lytical methods, and methodologies for pretreatment data analysis approaches wherever possible (Wyman
and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover et al. 2005a).
were utilized. Additionally, the Office of the Biomass
Program of the US Department of Energy funded Materials
NREL to conduct comparative process economic
analysis and to provide logistical support to the team Feedstocks
for that project. At the conclusion of that project, the
CAFI team summarized the results of that project in a Whole corn stover (Zea mays) was used in both CAFI
series of papers that was published in a special issue projects, without any attempt to differentiate or
of BioResource Technology, where the pretreatment preferentially select any specific anatomical fractions
processes, the subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis and of the corn plant. In the first CAFI project, the source
fermentation of the pretreatment hydrolyzates using of the corn stover was from Bio/Mass Agri-Products
consistent enzyme types, enzyme loadings, fermen- (B/MAP) in Harlan, IA. This corn stover was part of a
tation microorganisms, chemical analysis methods, large scale corn stover collection activity that was
comparative process yields, and economic analyses operated over several years. Collected corn stover
were reported (Eggeman and Elander 2005; Kim and was stored in large round bales and prior to being
Holtzapple; 2005; Kim and Lee 2005; Liu and provided to the CAFI team, the bales were broken,
Wyman 2005; Lloyd and Wyman 2005; Mosier tub ground, washed to remove excess soil, and dried
et al. 2005b; Teymouri et al. 2005; Wyman et al. to a moisture content of less than 12% moisture.
2005a, b). Approximately 100 kg of this corn stover was
More recently, the US Department of Energy’s supplied to the NREL and was used as a single,
Office of the Biomass Program selected the existing consistent feedstock by all research groups in the first
CAFI team to perform a second comparative pre- CAFI project. Upon receipt at NREL, it was further
treatment project. During that project, the principal washed, air-dried, and milled in a Mitts and Merrill
investigator for the CAFI project moved to the Model 10 9 12 knife mill (Saginaw, MI) to pass
University of California, Riverside from Dartmouth through a 6.4 mm ( inch) screen and distributed to
College. While much of that project has focused on a CAFI research teams. In the second CAFI project, a
hardwood feedstock (hybrid poplar), some additional new source of corn stover was used (Pioneer variety
work was conducted using a different variety of corn 33A14, from the Kramer farm in Wray, CO). This
stover. Additionally, another pretreatment technology corn stover was collected during a second-pass
(sulfur dioxide-catalyzed steam explosion by the harvest using a high rake setting to reduce collection
University of British Columbia, whose work in this of extraneous soil, so no washing of this feedstock
project was funded by Natural Resources Canada) was performed. Once received at NREL, this corn
was included in this project, along with supply of stover was milled in an identical manner as described
advanced enzyme preparations by Genencor Inc. via above and was provided to all CAFI research teams.
in-kind support. In this paper, the key features and The composition of the corn stover from both of these
results from the CAFI team’s work on corn stover batches is shown in Table 1. This data shows that the
pretreatment and resulting impacts on subsequent composition of the two corn stover batches was fairly
123
652 Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659
Table 1 Compositional analysis of corn stover batches used in (lot 301-04232-162) was also used in the second
the first and second CAFI projects CAFI project and had corresponding values of 89
Component mass fraction (wt%-dry basis) FPU/mL and 184 mg protein/mL. The other enzymes
supplied by Genencor in the second CAFI project
1st CAFI Project 2nd CAFI Project
included b-glucosidase (32 mg protein/mL), Multi-
Sucrose 1.2 2.2 fect Xylanase (lot 301-04021-015, 41 mg protein/
Glucan 36.1 34.4 mL), and b-xylosidase (85 mg protein/mL). The
Xylan 21.4 22.8 baseline enzyme formulation was a combination of
Arabinan 3.5 4.2 b-glucosidase and cellulase at a cellobiase unit
Mannan 1.8 0.6 (CBU)/FPU ratio of 2.0.
Galactan 2.5 1.4
Lignin 17.2 11.0 Methods
Protein 4 2.3
Acetyl 3.2 5.6 Pretreatment
Ash 7.1 6.1
Uronic acids 3.6 3.8 Pretreatments were performed by the individual
CAFI research teams using specific equipment,
conditions, and procedures described in the refer-
enced papers (Kim and Holtzapple 2005 [Lime
similar, with the stover from the second CAFI project pretreatment]; Kim and Lee 2005 [Ammonia recy-
having slightly lower glucan, lignin, protein, and ash cled percolation pretreatment]; Liu and Wyman 2005
content and slightly higher xylan, arabinan, and [Hot water flowthrough pretreatment]; Lloyd and
acetyl content. Wyman 2005 [Dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment];
Mosier et al. 2005b [Controlled pH hot water
Enzymes pretreatment]; Teymouri et al. 2005 [Ammonia fiber
expansion (AFEX) pretreatment]). Although these
Enzymes were generously provided by Genencor Inc. papers specifically describe pretreatment procedures
for both CAFI projects. In the first CAFI project, the used in the first CAFI project, the same general
Genencor Spezyme CP cellulase preparation (Lot pretreatment systems and methods were also used for
301-00348-257), was distributed to CAFI members corn stover pretreatments conducted in the second
by NREL. The average activity of the enzyme, as CAFI project. Generally, pretreatments were con-
determined by NREL, was 31.2 Filter Paper Units ducted in bench-scale pretreatment reactor systems
(FPU)/mL. Beta-glucosidase (NovozymeÒ 188), a specifically designed or modified by each CAFI team
supplementary enzyme used with Spezyme CP, was for their particular pretreatment approach.
purchased from Sigma Chemical Company (Cat. No.
C6150, Lot No. 11K1088). Beta-glucosidase supple- Enzymatic hydrolysis
mentation was used by some CAFI research teams to
test whether its addition would be beneficial, but all Enzymatic hydrolysis of the pretreated solids (typi-
CAFI research teams utilized only Spezyme CP at a cally on water-washed solids in the pretreatments that
standardized loading level as described in the Meth- release soluble sugars) was conducted at a solids
ods section of this paper. In the second CAFI project, loading corresponding to a 1 wt % or 2 wt % glucan
Genencor Inc. provided two baseline cellulase prep- concentration to keep soluble sugar concentrations
arations. The first preparation was Spezyme CP, but low in order to minimize end product inhibition
from a newer lot (Lot 301-04075-034) than the effects of sugars or oligomers. Enzymatic hydrolysis
Spezyme CP preparation used in the first CAFI assays were conducted in 100 mL shake flasks in
project. This newer lot had a filter paper activity of 59 citrate buffer (pH 4.8) plus antibiotics for a total
FPU/mL and a protein concentration of 123 mg digestion time of 72 h. As a minimum, cellulase
protein/mL, as measured by Genencor. A different loadings corresponding to 15 and 60 FPU/g of glucan
cellulase product from Genencor, known as GC-220 in the raw feedstock were tested, although some
123
Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659 653
individual CAFI research groups also conducted maximum yield of xylose is 37.7%, for a sum total
enzymatic hydrolysis experiments using other of 100%. Similarly, for the corn stover used in the
enzyme loadings and other enzyme preparations and second CAFI project, the maximum yield of glucose
combinations. Other specific conditions and methods is 59.6% and the maximum yield of xylose is 40.4%,
used in the enzymatic hydrolysis assays are outlined as there is slightly less glucan and more xylan in this
in a specific NREL Laboratory Analytical Procedure corn stover sample. Sugar yields of each sugar were
(Dowe and McMillan 2008). determined after the pretreatment step and after the
subsequent standardized enzymatic hydrolysis step,
Chemical analysis as there are different sugar release profiles depending
on the pretreatment process.
Chemical analysis of feedstocks, pretreated solids
and liquids, and enzymatically digested solids and
liquids were performed by the individual CAFI Results and discussion
research teams following the standard NREL Labo-
ratory Analytical Procedures (LAPs) that were In both CAFI projects that studied the pretreatment
appropriate for each type of analysis (NREL 2008). and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover,
a number of pretreatment processes were employed
Calculation of sugar yields and comparative conversion data was generated. The
general features and specific operational details for
Yields of the primary corn stover-derived sugars, these pretreatment approaches are discussed else-
glucose and xylose, were calculated as described where (Mosier et al. 2005a; Wyman et al. 2005a).
previously (Wyman et al. 2005b) based on the In Table 2, some of the representative conditions
maximum amount of xylose and glucose that could for each of the CAFI pretreatment technologies are
be potentially recovered from the specific corn stover presented. There are significant differences across
feedstock, considering its measured glucan and xylan many of the operational parameters for the various
content. The maximum potential yields for glucose pretreatment approaches. With regard to chemical
and xylose were determined such that the sum total usage, the ‘‘no-catalyst’’ processes (water-only flow-
yield of the two sugars is 100%. Thus, in the case of through pretreatment and the pH controlled hot water
the corn stover used in the first CAFI project, the pretreatment) use no added chemicals. The sulfuric
maximum yield of glucose is 62.3% and the acid and SO2-catalyzed pretreatment processes use
Table 2 Pretreatment technologies and ranges of representative reaction conditions used on corn stover in CAFI projects
Pretreatment Chemicals used Temperature Pressure (atm Reaction times Concentrations of
technology (°C) absolute) (minutes) solids (wt%)
Dilute sulfuric acid 0.5–3.0% Sulfuric acid 130–200 3–15 2–30 10–40
SO2 catalyzed steam 0.5–3.0% SO2 170–210 8–18 5–10 20–40
explosion
Flowthrough Sulfuric acid 190–200 20–24 12–24 2–4
pretreatment
pH controlled water Water or stillage 160–190 6–14 10–30 5–30
pretreatment
AFEX 100% (1 g ammonia:1 g dry biomass) 70–90 15–20 \5 60–90
anhydrous ammonia
ARP 10–15 wt% ammonia 150–170 9–17 10–20 2–12
Lime 0.05–0.15 g Ca(OH)2/g biomass 70–130 1–6 1–6 h 5–20
Lime ? air 0.05–0.15 g Ca(OH)2/g biomass 25–60 1 2 weeks– 10–20
2 months
Information compiled from Wyman et al. (2005a)
123
654 Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659
relatively low loadings of inexpensive catalysts and exiting free liquid fraction. AFEX is often referred to
thus do not require recovery and re-use of the as a ‘‘dry’’ pretreatment process, as the anhydrous
pretreatment catalyst. The alkaline pretreatment pro- ammonia catalyst effectively penetrates biomass
cesses often use higher catalyst loadings and are pores without a free liquid phase and only small
likely to require recovery and re-use of the pretreat- amounts of steam are necessary to achieve the
ment catalyst in a commercial process context. This relatively low pretreatment temperatures of the
can add significant cost and complexity to the overall AFEX process.
process design and operation (Eggeman and Elander In Table 3, sugar yields for both xylose and
2005). glucose are presented for the corn stover batch used
The acidic and non-catalyzed pretreatment pro- in the first CAFI project. Pretreatments are listed
cesses generally operate at relatively high tempera- from top to bottom in approximate order of increas-
tures, while the alkaline processes operate at ing pH. In the left portion of Table 3, xylose yields
significantly lower temperatures. This is inversely are presented after the pretreatment step and after the
related to pretreatment catalyst loading, with high subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis step at an enzyme
temperature processes using lower amounts of pre- loading of 15 FPU/g glucan in the untreated corn
treatment catalyst and low temperature processes stover. Often, enzyme loadings are specified based on
using greater catalyst loadings. An exception to this is the glucan content in the pretreated solids, but since
the ammonia recycled percolation (ARP) process, the various CAFI pretreatment processes achieve
which is performed at temperatures at or above different degrees of hemicellulose and lignin solubi-
150 °C while still using significant catalyst loadings. lization, specifying the enzyme loading based on the
While many of the alkaline processes operate at glucan content in the untreated feedstock allows for a
lower pressures corresponding to their lower operat- clearer basis for comparison.
ing temperatures, the AFEX process operates at high For the more acidic pretreatments and in the low or
pressures, as shown in Table 2. This is due to the high no catalyst flowthrough and pH controlled liquid hot
loading of ammonia catalyst in this process and the water pretreatments, a significant amount of xylose
resulting high pressure due to the high vapor pressure (based upon a maximum possible xylose yield of
of ammonia. 37.7%) is released during the pretreatment step. A
Reaction times for the various pretreatment pro- large proportion of released xylose is in monomer
cesses generally range from a few minutes to less form for dilute acid pretreatment while most of the
than 30 min. The primary exception to this is the lime released xylose is in oligomeric form for the low or
pretreatment process, where residence times range no catalyst flowthrough and pH controlled liquid hot
from a few hours in the higher temperature version of water pretreatments. AFEX is a ‘‘dry’’ pretreatment
this process to as long as several weeks in the low process and results in no solubilization of xylan to
temperature ‘‘pile’’ version of this process that also either oligomeric or monomeric xylose after the
utilizes air to facilitate oxidative removal of lignin pretreatment step. The ARP process results in release
during pretreatment. of about half of the xylan to monomeric xylose after
There is also a wide range of solids concentrations pretreatment, while about one-fourth of the xylan is
employed across the various pretreatment processes, released upon lime pretreatment, primarily to oligo-
and in some cases, within a specific pretreatment meric xylose. After subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis
approach. For example, dilute acid pretreatment can using the Spezyme CP enzyme preparation, small
be conducted in a low solids environment in stirred additional amounts of xylose are formed from the
pressure vessels or in a high solids environment using acidic and flowthrough pretreated solids, with a
feedstock that is pre-impregnated with the sulfuric somewhat larger amount from the controlled pH
acid catalyst and is then loaded into tubular reactors liquid hot water pretreated solids. In the alkaline
or steam explosion-type reactors with no internal pretreated solids, significant amounts of xylan is
mixing. The ‘‘flowthrough’’ or ‘‘percolation’’ pre- hydrolyzed in the enzymatic hydrolysis step and in
treatment approaches are practiced at low solids, as a the case of AFEX, high yields of monomeric xylose
relatively large volume of liquid is passed through a are achieved. This is a significant finding, as this
packed bed of feedstock, with collection of the performance was obtained using only a commercial
123
Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659
Table 3 Xylose, glucose, and total sugar yields for each CAFI pretreatment process after pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and combined process steps from corn stover
feedstock used in the first CAFI project
Pretreatment system Xylose yields Glucose yields Total sugar yields
Pretreatment Enzymatic Combined Pretreatment Enzymatic Combined Pretreatment Enzymatic Combined
hydrolysis hydrolysis hydrolysis
Maximum possible 37.7 37.7 37.7 62.3 62.3 62.3 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dilute acid 32.1/31.2 3.2 35.3/34.4 3.9 53.2 57.1 36.0/35.1 56.4 92.4/91.5
Flowthrough 36.3/1.7 0.6/0.5 36.9/2.2 4.5/4.4 55.2 59.7/59.6 40.8/6.1 55.8/55.7 96.6/61.8
Partial flow 31.5/2.8 2.6/2.4 34.1/5.2 4.3/4.2 51.2 55.5/55.4 35.8/7.0 53.8/53.6 89.6/60.6
pretreatment
Controlled pH 21.8/0.9 9.0 30.8/9.9 3.5/0.2 52.9 56.4/53.1 25.3/1.1 61.9 87.2/63.0
AFEX 34.6/29.3 34.6/29.3 59.8 59.8 94.4/89.1 94.4/89.1
ARP 17.8 15.5 33.3/15.5 56.1 56.1 17.8 71.6 89.4/71.6
Lime 9.2/0.3 19.6 28.8/19.9 1.0/0.3 57.0 58.0/57.3 10.2/0.6 76.6 86.8/77.2
Data compiled from Wyman et al. (2005b)
Yield values for xylose and glucose are relative to the ‘‘Maximum Possible’’ values for each component. Single value indicates yield as monomer sugar. When two values are
present, the first value is a total (monomer ? oligomer) sugar yield and the second value is monomer sugar yield
655
123
656 Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659
‘‘cellulase’’ preparation. It is apparent that this higher when combined with the small additional
enzyme preparation has some effectiveness on glucose yields achieved directly in pretreatment for
AFEX-treated xylan. The combined xylose yields some of the pretreatment processes.
(after pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis) are In the right portion of Table 3, the total sugar
quite high for most of these pretreatments, even (xylose ? glucose) yields are presented after the
though the bulk of the xylose yield occurred after pretreatment step and after the subsequent enzymatic
different steps in the process (typically after pretreat- hydrolysis step. Although there are wide-ranging
ment for the more acidic pretreatment conditions and differences with regard to sugar release after the
after enzymatic hydrolysis for the more alkaline pretreatment steps or the enzymatic hydrolysis steps,
pretreatment conditions). In several cases, however, a when overall sugar yields are combined from both
large proportion of the released xylose is still in process steps, the resulting overall sugar yields are
oligomeric form. It is possible that with proper quite similar for the various pretreatment processes.
identification and usage of enzyme systems with good As total sugars (monomer ? oligomer), overall
ability to convert xylose oligomers, high monomeric yields generally range from 85 to 95% of theoretical.
xylose yields could also be achieved for these cases. For dilute acid pretreatment and AFEX pretreatment
In the center portion of Table 3, glucose yields are processes, overall monomer sugar yields are only
presented after the pretreatment step and after the slightly lower than the total sugar yields. For the
subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis step. As opposed to other pretreatment processes, overall monomer sugar
the xylose yield data, the glucose yield data portrays yields are significantly lower, indicating that there are
a much greater consistency in performance across the significant amounts of oligomeric sugars (primarily
various pretreatment processes. After all pretreat- xylose oligomers) remaining after enzymatic hydro-
ments, only small amounts of glucan are released, lysis for these processes. Identification and utilization
either as monomeric or oligomeric glucose. High of enzyme activities that can better convert these
levels of glucan conversion to monomeric glucose are xylose oligomers to monomers would result in higher
achieved upon enzymatic hydrolysis of the pretreated overall monomer sugar yields from these processes.
solids using the standard enzymatic hydrolysis In Table 4, similar data is presented for the corn
method for all of the pretreatment methods. In all stover batch used in the second CAFI project. Data in
cases, glucose yields approach or exceed 90% of the Table 4 is portrayed as total (oligomer ? monomer)
theoretically available glucose and are even slightly yield in all cases. Since there is slightly more xylan
Table 4 Xylose, glucose, and total sugar yields for each CAFI pretreatment process after pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and
combined process steps from corn stover feedstock used in the second CAFI project
Pretreatment Xylose yields Glucose yields Total sugar yields
system
Pretreatment Enzymatic Combined Pretreatment Enzymatic Combined Pretreatment Enzymatic Combined
hydrolysis hydrolysis hydrolysis
Maximum 40.4 40.4 40.4 59.6 59.6 59.6 100.0 100.0 100.0
possible
Dilute acid 32.0 1.2 33.2 5.1 49.8 54.9 37.1 51.0 88.1
SO2 catalyzed 15.0 22.1 37.1 2.3 54.3 56.6 17.3 76.4 93.7
steam
explosion
Controlled 23.4 9.7 33.1 3.3 50.5 53.8 26.7 60.2 86.9
pH
AFEX 32.9 32.9 61.2 61.2 94.1 94.1
ARP 19.0 15.1 34.1 0.8 52.9 53.7 19.8 68.0 87.8
Lime 9.2 19.5 28.7 0.9 57.2 58.1 10.1 76.7 86.8
Yield values for xylose and glucose are relative to the ‘‘Maximum Possible’’ values for each component. Values indicate total
(oligomer ? monomer) sugar yield
123
Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659 657
and slightly less glucan than in the corn stover used in 1.75
this batch of corn stover are ultimately very close to w/o Oligomer Credit w/ Oligomer Credit
those achieved from the corn stover batch used in the
first CAFI project. Table 4 also includes data for the Fig. 1 Predicted minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) for a
conceptual 2,000 dry ton/day bioethanol production facility for
SO2 steam explosion pretreatment process, which various CAFI pretreatment processes using data from first
was included in the second CAFI project from the CAFI project. Source: Eggeman and Elander 2005
University of British Columbia. In general, the SO2
steam explosion pretreatment results in similar per-
formance to dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment, the various pretreatment processes, assuming that
although xylose yields were somewhat lower after enzyme preparations needed to convert remaining
pretreatment but were slightly higher after enzymatic oligomers do not add any additional cost to the
hydrolysis. process. But when only monomer sugar yields are
Comparative process economic analysis using the included (i.e. the ‘‘w/o Oligomer Credit’’ case), there
results from the first CAFI project in Table 3 was also is substantial differentiation in MESP, with the lower
performed. The specific material and energy balance yielding processes resulting in higher MESP values.
methods and economic modeling methodologies have
been previously described (Eggeman and Elander
2005). The process economic results are reported as a Conclusions
Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (MESP), which is
defined as the ethanol sales price required for a zero Comparative sugar yield data from two different
net present value when the cash flows are discounted batches of corn stover have been developed and
at a 10% real after-tax basis, based upon the yields reported for a variety of pretreatment processes being
reported. Each CAFI pretreatment process was investigated within the Biomass Refining Consortium
embedded in a full bioethanol commercial facility for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation. Consistent
model at a nominal 2,000 dry ton/day scale. Capital feedstocks, chemical analysis methods, enzymatic
costing of all process equipment was conducted, hydrolysis assays, and data reporting methodologies
including costs associated with any pretreatment were utilized by all CAFI research teams for two
catalyst recovery and recycle operation that was batches of corn stover over two distinct CAFI
deemed necessary. This was combined with an research projects. This comparative approach across
estimate of all operating costs, including estimated different pretreatment types facilitates meaningful
raw materials costs, other consumables, labor, and technology evaluation of process options for potential
other fixed operating costs. lignocellulosic biomass conversion technology devel-
Using the yields reported in Table 3, the resulting opers and commercializers.
MESP for selected pretreatment processes from the Several distinct trends were observed in the corn
first CAFI pretreatment project are presented in stover conversion data from the various CAFI
Fig. 1. When yields based upon both monomeric pretreatment technologies. In the pretreatment step
and oligomeric sugars are used (i.e. the ‘‘Oligomer itself, xylan hydrolysis to oligomeric and/or mono-
Credit’’ case), there is very little difference in MESP meric xylose occurred to a significant extent in acidic
(within a range of 10 cents/gallon of ethanol) across pretreatments and some non-catalyzed pretreatments
123
658 Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659
but to a much lesser extent in alkaline pretreatments, the CAFI team. In addition, support by Natural Resources
with the AFEX pretreatment process resulting in no Canada allowed participation by the University of British
Columbia in the second CAFI project. The authors also
measured hydrolysis of xylan to soluble sugar recognize Tim Eggeman of Neoterics International, who (via
products. Residual xylan in the AFEX-pretreated contract with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) has
solids could be hydrolyzed enzymatically using a provided the process engineering and economic analysis
commercial cellulase preparation, although not expertise in support of all CAFI projects to date. We also
wish to recognize the true collaborative spirit of the CAFI team
always completely to monomeric xylose. It is likely that makes such projects possible and pleasurable and thank the
that thorough analysis of the properties and structure many undergraduate and graduate students, post doctoral
of the remaining oligomeric xylose, coupled with a candidates, technicians, and others on the CAFI Team for
systematic determination of the enzyme activities their vital role in developing this information.
necessary to break all types of covalent bonds needed
to fully liberate all xylose monomers, could result in
References
higher monomeric xylose yields from these pro-
cesses, potentially at little or no added process cost.
Dowe N, McMillan J (2008) SSF experimental protocols-lig-
The hydrolysis of cellulose to glucose occurred to nocellulosic biomass hydrolysis and fermentation-labora-
a very limited extent in the pretreatment step itself for tory analytical procedure (LAP), National Renewable
all of the CAFI pretreatment processes. Very good Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-510-
42630
enzymatic conversion of the cellulose in pretreated Eggeman T, Elander R (2005) Process and economic analysis
solids to monomeric glucose using standard commer- of pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 96(18):
cial cellulase preparations was achieved in all cases. 2019–2025
These enzymatic hydrolysis assays were conducted at Hsu TA (1996) Pretreatment of biomass. In: Wyman CE (ed)
Handbook on bioethanol, production and utilization.
low solids loadings and hence low cellulose concen- Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, pp 179–212
trations, while commercial application will likely Johnson DK, Elander RT (2007) Pretreatments for enhanced
require effective enzymatic hydrolysis performance digestibility of feedstocks. In: Himmel ME (ed) Biomass
at much higher slurry concentrations and sugar recalcitrance. Blackwell, London, pp 436–453
Kim S, Holtzapple MT (2005) Lime pretreatment and enzy-
product concentrations. matic hydrolysis of corn stover. Bioresour Technol
Overall sugar yields of glucose and xylose from 96(18):1994–2006
combined pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis Kim T, Lee Y (2005) Pretreatment and fractionation of corn
process steps showed quite similar performance stover by ammonia recycle percolation process. Bioresour
Technol 96(18):2007–2013
across both batches of corn stover tested, especially Liu C, Wyman CE (2005) Partial flow of compressed-hot water
when total (monomer ? oligomer) yields are consid- through corn stover to enhance hemicellulose sugar
ered. Several of the pretreatment approaches resulted recovery and enzymatic digestibility of cellulose. Biore-
in significant amounts of residual xylose oligomers sour Technol 96(18):1978–1985
Lloyd TA, Wyman CE (2005) Total sugar yields for pretreat-
remaining after enzymatic hydrolysis. It must be ment by hemicellulose hydrolysis coupled with enzymatic
emphasized that these findings may not by applicable hydrolysis of the remaining solids. Bioresour Technol
to all feedstock types and that there may be signif- 96(18):1967–1977
icant differences in overall sugar yields across McMillan JD (1994) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass.
In: Himmel ME, Baker JO, Overend RP (eds) Enzymatic
various pretreatment approaches for different feed- conversion of biomass for fuels production. American
stocks. In fact, recent work conducted by the CAFI Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 292–324
team on a hardwood feedstock (hybrid poplar) Mosier N, Hendrickson R, Ho N, Sedlak M, Ladisch M (2005a)
indicated that the different pretreatments give a wide Optimization of pH controlled liquid hot water pretreat-
ment of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96(18):1986–1993
range of overall sugar yields for this particular Mosier N, Wyman CE, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple
feedstock (Wyman et al. 2009). M, Ladisch M (2005b) Features of promising technologies
for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the Technol 96(6):673–686
Unites States Department of Agriculture Initiative for Future NREL (2008) National Renewable Energy Laboratory Stan-
Agricultural and Food Systems Program (contract number 00- dard Biomass Analytical Procedures, http://www.nrel.
52104-9663) and the United States Department of Energy gov/biomass/analytical_procedures.html
Office of the Biomass Program (contract number DE-FG36- Teymouri F, Laureano-Perez L, Alizadeh H, Dale BE (2005)
04GO14017) for funding the collaborative research projects of Optimization of the ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX)
123
Cellulose (2009) 16:649–659 659
treatment parameters for enzymatic hydrolysis of corn Wyman CE, Dale BE, Elander RT, Holtzapple M, Ladisch MR,
stover. Bioresour Technol 96(18):2014–2018 Lee YY (2005b) Comparative sugar recovery data from
Wooley R, Ruth M, Glassner D, Sheehan J (1999) Process laboratory scale application of leading pretreatment
design and costing of bioethanol technology: a tool for technologies to corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96(18):
determining the status and direction of research and 2026–2032
development. Biotechnol Prog 15:794–803 Wyman CE, Dale BE, Elander RT, Holtzapple M, Ladisch MR,
Wyman CE (2007) What is (and is not) vital to advancing Lee YY, Mitchinson C, Saddler JN (2009) Comparative
cellulosic ethanol. Trends Biotechnol 25(4):153–157 sugar recovery and fermentation data following pretreat-
Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M, Lee ment of poplar wood by leading technologies. Biotechnol
Y (2005a) Coordinated development of leading biomass Prog 25(2):333–339
pretreatment technologies. Bioresour Technol 96(18):
1959–1966
123