Category Archives: BIOMASS NOW — CULTIVATION AND UTILIZATION
Towards the Production of Second Generation Ethanol from Sugarcane Bagasse in Brazil
T. P. Basso, T. O. Basso, C. R. Gallo and L. C. Basso
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx. doi. org/10.5772/54179
Brazil and the United States produce ethanol mainly from sugarcane and starch from corn and other grains, respectively, but neither resource are sufficient to make a major impact on world petroleum usage. The so-called first generation (1G) biofuel industry appears unsustainable in view of the potential stress that their production places on food commodities. On the other hand, second generation (2G) biofuels produced from cheaper and abundant plant biomass residues, has been viewed as one plausible solution to this problem [1]. Cellulose and hemicellulose fractions from lignocellulosic residues make up more than two-thirds of the typical biomass composition and their conversion into ethanol (or other chemicals) by an economical, environmental and feasible fermentation process would be possible due to the increasing power of modern biotechnology and (bio)-process engineering [2].
Brazil is the major sugar cane producer worldwide (ca. 600 million ton per year). After sugarcane milling for sucrose extraction, a lignocellulosic residue (sugarcane bagasse) is available at a proportion of ca. 125 kg of dried bagasse per ton of processed sugarcane. Therefore, sugarcane bagasse is a suitable feedstock for second generation ethanol coupled to the first generation plants already in operation, minimizing logistic and energetic costs.
State-owned energy group Petrobras is one of the Brazilian groups leading the development of second generation technologies, estimating that commercial production could begin by 2015. Other organizations making significant contributions to next generation biofuels in Brazil include the Brazilian Sugarcane Technology Centre (CTC), operating a pilot plant for the production of ethanol from bagasse in Piracicaba (Sao Paulo) [3]. Recently, GraalBio (Grupo Brasileiro Graal) has stated publically that will start production of bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse in one plant located at the Northeast region of the country.
Pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation can be performed by various approaches. According to a CTC protocol, the process of manufacturing ethanol from bagasse is divided into the following steps. First, the bagasse is pretreated via steam explosion (with or without a mild acid condition) to increase the enzyme accessibility to the cellulose and promoting the hemicellulose hydrolysis with a pentose stream. The lignin and cellulose solid fraction is subjected to cellulose hydrolysis, generating a hexose-rich stream (mainly composed of glucose, manose and galactose). The final solid residue (lignin and the remaining recalcitrant cellulose) is used for heating and steam generation. The hexose fraction is mixed with 1G cane molasses (as a source of minerals, vitamins and aminoacids) and fermented by regular Saccharomyces cerevisiae industrial strains (not genetically modified) using the same fermentation and distillation facilities of the Brazilian ethanol plants. The pentose fraction will be used as substrate for other biotechnological purposes, including ethanol fermentation.
Researchers are focusing on cutting the cost of the enzymes and the pretreatment process, as well as reducing energy input. Production of ethanol from sugarcane bagasse will have to compete with the use of bagasse for electricity cogeneration. Depending on the efficiency of the cogeneration plant, about half of the bagasse is required to produce captive energy in the form of steam and energy at the sugar and ethanol facility. It is estimated that the surplus bagasse could increase the Brazilian ethanol production by roughly 50% [3].
Effect of SDS in biomass hydrolysates solution
SDS is a popular surfactant used in PHA recovery to disrupt the cells or remove a small amount of hydrophobic impurities from PHB granules [30, 31]. The purity of PHB granules can be increased from 96.4% to above 99% when a small amount of SDS was added in the base treatment. The surfactant left in the base solution, however, may have an adverse effect when the cell debris is reused in microbial PHB fermentation. An acid-base biomass hydrolysates solution containing 48.5 g/L of soluble solids and SDS were added into a glucose medium. The cell debris concentration was kept at 1.94 g/L, and SDS concentration was increased from 0.2 to 0.8 g/L with SDS. Controls without biomass hydrolysates and SDS were run in parallel. Table 2 gives the results of cell growth and PHA formation at different surfactant levels at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.
Biomass |
SDS |
24 hours |
48 hours |
||
hydrolysates |
(g/L) |
Cell mass |
PHB |
Cell mass |
PHB |
(g/L) |
(g/L) |
(wt%) |
(g/L) |
(wt%) |
|
0 |
0 |
2.08 ± 0.02 |
36.8 ± 1.1 |
2.7 ± 0.02 |
44.4 ± 0.6 |
1.94 |
0.2 |
3.69 ± 0.06 |
49.7 ± 2.1 |
4.99 ± 0.04 |
60.6 ± 1.1 |
1.94 |
0.4 |
3.27 ± 0.05 |
39.6 ± 1.2 |
4.58 ± 0.04 |
53.8 ± 0.8 |
1.94 |
0.6 |
2.70 ± 0.04 |
33.9 ± 1.5 |
3.51 ± 0.03 |
50.3 ± 0.7 |
1.94 |
0.8 |
2.59 ± 0.04 |
17.8 ± 1.3 |
3.54 ± 0.03 |
25.8 ± 1.2 |
Note: flask cultures were maintained at 30 oC and 200 rpm in a rotary incubator. Table 2. Effect of surfactant SDS and biomass hydrolysates on cell growth and PHB formation |
Compared with the controls of no biomass hydrolysates and surfactant, all the cultures containing the acid-base hydrolysates exhibited better cell growth. Particularly, the increase of cell concentration from 24 hours to 48 hours was the new cell mass formed in 24 hours from glucose and cell debris in the presence of SDS. The formation of PHB, however, was deteriorated at high SDS concentrations (0.6-0.8 g/L). At a low or moderate SDS concentrations (0.2-0.4 g/L), the positive effect from biomass hydrolysates was much higher than the negative effect of surfactant. The PHB concentrations, after 48 hours cultivation, were 2.4 to 3 g/l, in comparison with 1.2 g/L of the control. The results in Table 2 indicate that the dosage of SDS in PHA recovery should be controlled according to the amount of residual microbial biomass generated. The mass ratio of SDS to biomass hydrolysates should be less than 20% w/w or better at 10% w/w. In a typical PHB recovery process as shown in Figure 1, the amount of SDS used should be less than 2.9 g for 10% of acid-base cell debris or 5.8 g for 20% of acid-base cell debris. The consumption of SDS is therefore 4-8 % of PHB resin produced. It is much lower than the SDS dosages used in the conventional separations [30, 31].
Residual microbial biomass is an inevitable waste generated in downstream recovery of polyhydroxyalkanoates from microbial cells. With a separation technology based on sequential dissolution of no-PHB cell mass in aqueous solutions, the cell mass separated from the PHB-granules is decomposed and hydrolyzed into small molecule hydrolysates that can be assimilated by microbial cells as nutrients and/or carbon source. A type of biomass hydrolysates generated from continuing treatment in acid and base solutions exhibits the best nutrient value for cell growth and PHA formation. The acid-base hydrolysates contains two major water-soluble components derived from the cell proteins and lipids, respectively. When PHB-producing cells are fed with the hydrolysates in a glucose mineral solution, the cells grow faster and form more biopolyester in comparison with the controls that do not contain the hydrolysates. The glucose-based yields of cell mass and PHA bioplastics are significantly improved. SDS is an efficient surfactant to remove the small amount of hydrophobic residues for high PHB purity, but also a potential inhibitor to microbial PHA formation. When the amount of surfactant is less than 20% of an acid-base biomass hydrolysates, its negative effect is overwhelmed by the nutritional value of hydrolysates. Under these conditions, it is highly possible to reuse most of the residual biomass discharged from PHB recovery in the next microbial PHB fermentation. It therefore eliminates a waste stream from bioplastics production and saves the nutrients with improved PHA productivity and yield.
A first practical observer for k and a
Let us consider the new variable
T(t) = yi (0) — yi (0 + У2 (о) — У2 (0
that is measured on-line. From Proposition 1, one deduces that r(-) is bounded. One can also easily check the property
dT
— = (1 — k) a x(t) > 0 , Vf > 0 . Consequently, t(-) is an increasing function up to
t = lim T(t) < +ro
and t(-) defines a diffeomorphism from [0, +ro) to [0,T). Then, one can check that the dynamics of the variable s in time t is decoupled from the dynamics of the other state variables:
where a and в are parameters defined as combinations of the unknown parameters a and k: к
1 — it’
1
я(1 — к)
and from (4) one has (a, в) Є [a-, a+] x [в-, в+]. For the identification of the parameters a, в, we propose below to build an observer. Other techniques, such as least squares methods, could have been chosen. An observer presents the advantage of exhibiting a innovation vector that gives a real-time information on the convergence of the estimation.
^,,S) = § + M3A|i
and the pair (A, C) in the Brunovsky’s canonical form:
/0 1 0
A = 0 0 1 and C = (10 0) . (7)