Biomass

Lignocellulosic biomass is a readily available feedstock that can be purchased yearly from forest and agricultural operations. Forest residues comprise unusable trunk sections, limbs and tops. Typical composition of these residues is similar to that of common wood chips shown in Table 1. We define, as agricultural residues, the non-edible part of the plant which is let on the field after the harvest and the latter are usually composed of straw and stalk. It also comprises the parts of the cultivated plants that are thrown out after industrial processes. A specific example of such biomass includes but is not limited to corn cobs. Agricultural residues are the most probable feedstock that will be the original source for the production of ethanol from lignocellulsic materials due to their availability, their quantity and their proximity to the existing grain to ethanol platform. Non conventional plantation crops ( i. e. ‘energy crops’ ) are also to be considered as feed for biorefineries. Most of these crops have not reach industrial scale production (in North America) but an increasing amount of information has been published during the last few years about their chemical composition. Pricing for this biomass has been evaluated to 100-120$ per (dry basis; prices courtesy of CRB Innovations) metric ton but it tends to decrease because of a reduced use of fertilizers and the utilisation of marginal lands instead of high value agricultural land. The characteristics which make energy crops, especially perennial grasses, attractive for ethanol production, are the high amount of cellulose and hemicellulose as well as, under certain restriction, the favorable environmental impact.

Lignocellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, extractives and ashes. The quantities of each fraction are detailed below for a large range of lignocellulosic materials including agricultural residues, energy crops and forest residues which are divided into leafy hardwoods and coniferous families (Table 1). Cellulose is the principal constituent of lignocellulosic plants representing 30-50 wt% of its composition. It is a polymer composed of D-glucose. Contrarily to cellulose, hemicelluloses are a heterogeneous polymer principally composed of pentoses (P-D-xylose, a-L-arabinose), hexoses (P-D — mannose, P-D-glucose, a-D-galactose) and/or uronic acids (a-D-glucuronic, a-D-4-O — methylgalacturonic, a-D-galacturonic acids). Among them, xylans and glucomannans are the most common compounds. Hemicelluloses represent 15-35 wt% of the plant. We can define lignin as a relatively hydrophobic amorphous polymer which consists of phenylpropane units. This macromolecule occurs primarily between the fibre cells, acting as a cementing material and giving the wood its rigidity and its impact resistance. It is always associated with hemicelluloses through carbon-carbon and ether linkages (Xu et al., 2008) and can be classified following 2 major classes (Gibbs and Thimann, 1958): (1) the guaiacyl which includes most of the lignins of softwoods (gymnosperms), (2) the guaiacyl-syringyl which comprises the lignins of hardwoods (angiosperms) and the lignins of grasses (non woody or herbaceous crops) (angiosperms). Extractives are composed of resins, fats and fatty acids, phenolics, phytosterols, terpenes, salts and minerals. This fraction is not used for the production of ethanol, and, for obvious reasons, neither are the ashes. The latter is defined as the residue remaining after total combustion. It is composed of elements such as silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. Typically, the amount of each fraction can also differ within a single biological species (following the environment: soil composition, water supply and weather patterns) and also during the growth of the plant making the quantification of sugar present in the holocellulose (sum of hemicelluloses and cellulose) difficult to specify.

The valorization of the lignocellulosic materials and more particularly of the carbohydrates (composing the holocellulose) into ethanol is made possible through their fermentation. Each plant has different composition (Table 1) but, as detailed before, contains the same major compounds. All the biomasses show comparable characteristics (Table 2) with the following order by quantity: Glucan>Xylan>Mannan-Galactan-Arabinan, except for the coniferous forest residues which show a high amount of mannan, which leads to a shift between the glucan and the xylan. Table 2 also shows an average of the 6 carbons sugars (C6) which can be fermented by most common yeast (including but not limited to S. cerevisiae) to give ethanol. Agricultural residues, energy crops and leafy forest residues present high averages of 41.5, 46.6 ans; 48.2 wt% respectively. Furthermore, coniferous forest residues could potentially produce more ethanol as they possess a very high amount of C6 (56 %) sugars which can be explained by a high amount of mannose (about 10 % more than the other species).

North America produced 46% of the world biofuels in 2008 (IEA, 2009)and the R &D efforts on second generation biofuels have been widely orientated toward the production of ethanol. From the results in Table 2, it is possible to estimate the ethanol production directly from C6 sugars using S. cerevisiae. Production of ethanol from C5 sugar was not taken into account in our study as these sugars require the use of special microorganisms. C5 sugars, although hard to ferment to ethanol could be converted into other value added products as ethyl levulinate (considered as part of the extended P-fuel pool) by successive dehydration, reduction and ethanolysis. Table 3 shows a comparison between the actual possible production of ethanol (not operational) using the forest residues, the agricultural residues and the unexploited forest biomass available in Quebec, Canada and North America versus the operational ethanol production from energy crop (first generation of biofuel) and the consumption of gasoline. Only 25 % of the forest and agricultural residues have been taken into account for ethanol production estimate as the rest of the biomass is already dedicated for others purposes. In the case of the unexploited forest, our study presents a result based on the forest zone which can be used without causing damage on biodiversity (Ministere des Resources Naturelles et de la Faune MNRF, Quebec, 2009).

Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Lignin

Extractives

Ashes

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

Agricol residues

Rice strawa

41.2

19.5

21.9

Wheat straw a

39.7

36.5

17.3

Rye strawb

37.9

36.9

17.6

Tritical strawv

34

31.7

17

12.4

Flax strawc

53.8

17.1

23.3

3.6

Sun flower stalk a

37.6

29.3

10.3

Sorghum stalk a

41.5

24.4

15.6

Cotton stalk a

58.5

14.4

21.5

Corn stoverd

38

26

19

6

Barley strawe

42

28

11

Vine shoots a

41.1

26

20.4

Olive pruningsa

35.7

25.8

19.7

Energy crops

Switchgrass

37

28

16.4

15

3.7

Miscanthus

40

18

25

Big bluestern f, g,h

37

28

18

6

Little bluesternh

35

31

7

Prairie cordgrassi

41

33

6

Indian grassf, h

39

29

8

Intermediate

wheatgrassg

35

29

6

Reed canarygrass),k

24

36

8

Smooth bromegrass lk

32

36

6

Tymothyb l, m

28

30

6

Tall fescue n

25

25

14

11

Sundan grass lk

33

27

8

Jatropha stemh

37.1

30.6

22.3

Jatropha seed cakeo

13.5

26.8

12.4

Cannabis sativav

43

26

14.5

16

3.2

Salix viminalisv

30.2

33.5

29.2

8.8

Forest residues

Leafy

Soft maple

41

35

24

Red oakp

35.5

18.8

29

European oakq

38

29

25

4.4

0.3

White oakr

44

24

24

5.4

1

Chesnut oak r

41

30

22

6.6

0.4

Post oak r

38

30

26

5.8

0.5

Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Lignin

Extractives

Ashes

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

White birch r

45

33

18

5

0.3

Yellow birch

40

39

21

Quaking aspen r

49

29

19

6

0.4

White elm

49

27

24

Beech

42

36

22

Basswood

Poplarwood

41.4

23.7

24.5

Eucalyptusa

52.8

27.7

20

Coniferous

Pinus pinaster a

55.9

13.7

26.2

Pinus radiate chipsc

53

15.8

23.7

Cedars

43.5

20.3

Eastern Hemlock

42

26

33

Eastern white cedar

44

25

31

White spruce

44

29

27

Jack pine

41

30

29

Tamarack

43

28

29

Sprucet

54.1

21.4

24.4

Loblolly pineu

43.6

21.2

26.8

3.2

0.4

Balsam-fir

44

27

29

“(Rodriguez et al., 2010); b(Sun et al., 2000); “(Schafer & Bray, 1929); d(Lee et al., 2007); e(Mani et al., 2008); f(Lee & Owens, 2008); g(Owens et al., 2006); h(Jefferson et al., 2004); i(Boe & Lee, 2006); j(Jung et al., 1997); k(Jurgens, 1997), !(Alvo et al., 1996), m(Claessens et al., 2004); ““(Department of energy, 2006); o(Liang etal., 2010); p(Mazlan et al., 1999); q(Bednar & Fengel, 1974); “(Pettersen, 1984); s(Yamashita et al., 2010); “(Yildiz et al., 2006); u(FrederickJr et al., 2008); vMesured in our laboratory

Table 1. Chemical composition of various lignocellulosic materials

In the case of forest residues, we can assume that for 1 m3 of roundwood exploited, 0.6 m3 of residual biomass is left behind (Smeets & Faaij, 2007). In the province of Quebec, forest residues have been estimated to 6.9 millions of tons per year (Goyette & Boucher, 2009). Thus, the production of ethanol from glucose fermentation can be determinated assuming that the average of this sugar in such materials is about 52.4% (calculated from the Table 2) and that the maximum yield is equal to 0.51g of ethanol per g of glucose. Thus, 584 millions liters of ethanol could be produced in Quebec. To put such a value in perspective, consumption of refined petroleum in Quebec reached 9 billion liters in 2007 (Ministeres de Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune, MNRF, Quebec, 2009). The production of ethanol from forest residues is sufficient to reach the objective fixed by the government (5 vol% in gasoline in 2012) since it represents 6.5 vol%. The North American consumption of gasoline for transport was estimated in 2008 at 518 739 millions liters with respectively 479 243 millions liters for the United States of America and 39 496 millions liters for Canada (IEA energy statistic, 2010). More ethanol can be produced by using agricultural residues, energy crops and unexploited forest zone. In Quebec, the latter represents 14,100,000 m3 or 5.6 millions tons assuming an average density of 400kg/ m3. Thus, 1 638 millions liters of ethanol can be produced per year. Quebec will be able to replace 24.7 vol% of its gasoline by ethanol just by using exploited forest zone and forest residues, thus using only residual

biomass. The comparison between the gasoline consumption and the possible production of ethanol from residues shows undeniably the importance of such source of raw material. Furthermore, the production of ethanol coming from the latter could rise above the production of ethanol coming from the first generation of biofuel. As an example, in North America, the nameplate production of ethanol from grain represents 53 949 millions of liters per year while the exploitation of residues could give more than 60 000 millions of liters per year.

Glucan

Xylan

Mannan Galactan Arabinan

Lignin

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

(wt%)

Agricol residues

Corn stover3

39

14.8

0.3

0.8

3.2

13.1

Rice strawa

41

14.8

1.8

0.4

4.5

9.9

Rice hullsa

36.1

14

3

0.1

2.6

19.4

Wheat strawa

36.6

19.2

0.8

2.4

2.4

14.5

Triticale strawj

43.5

17.7

2.3

17

Sugar cane

41.3

21.8

0.3

0.5

1.8

C6 Average

39.5

1.2

0.8

Energy crops

switchgrass

35.2

21.7

0.2

0.9

2.8

27.4

Miscanthusb

44

21

Hempj

51

14.3

1.5

0.7

1.3

14.5

Sweet sorghumc

44.6

25.3

18

Bagasse fiber

38.1

13

8

2

20

C6 Average

42.6

3.2

0.8

Forest residues

Leafy

Populus tristisa

40

13

8

2

20

Oak

45.2

20.3

4.2

Red Mapplei

46.0

19.0

2.4

0.6

0.5

24

Aspend

45.9

16.7

1.2

0

0

23

Salixe

41.4

15.0

3.2

2.3

1.2

26.4

Yellow poplarf

42.1

15.1

2.4

1

0.5

23.3

Eucalyptusf

48.1

10.4

1.3

0.7

0.3

26.9

C6 Average

44.1

3.2

0.9

Coniferous

Spruceg

43.2

5.7

11.5

2.7

1.4

28.3

Lodgepole pineh

42.5

5.5

11.6

2.1

1.6

27.9

Ponderosa pineh

41.7

6.3

10.8

4.7

1.8

26.9

Douglas-firi

44

2.8

11.0

4.7

2.7

32

Loblolly pinei

45

6.8

11.0

2.3

1.7

28

Red pinei

42

9.3

7.4 1.8

2.4

29

C6 Average

43.1

10.6

3

a(Lee, 1997); b(S0rensen et al., 2008); c(Ballesteros et al., 2004); d(Wang et al. 2008); e(Sassner et al., 2008); f(Zhu & Pan, 2010); g(Zhu et al., 2009); h(Youngblood et al., 2009); i(Pettersen, 1984); jMesured in our laboratory

Table 2. Details of carbohydrates and lignin amounts present in various lignocellulosic materials

Possible Production of ethanol Production of

(Millions of liters per year) ethanol

Agricultural

residues

(25%)

from

Forest

residues

(25%)

Unexploited

Forest

operational from energy crop

(Millions of liters per year)

Gasoline consumption (Millions of liters per year)

Quebec

584

1638

155(a)

9000(d)

Canada

5097(e)

3353

1821(a)

39496(f)

North

America

41483(e)

20322(c)

53949(b)

518739(f)

(Canadian Renewalable Fuels Association, 2010), (b) (Renewable Fuels Association, 2010) (c) Estimated from the production of roundwood; (d) (Natural Ressources Canada, 2007) (e) Estimated from FAOSTAT (FAOSTAT, 2010) thanks to the coeffient of residues proposed by D. Bellerini (Bellerini,

2006); (f) IEA energy statistic (IEA, 2011)

Table 3. Comparison between the actual possible production of ethanol from C6 sugars contained in the lignocellulosic biomass, the operational ethanol production from energy crop and the gasoline consumption

In this estimation of the possible production of ethanol, marginal lands have not been taken into account. The potential of surplus land for the cultivation of energy crops like willows, poplars, miscanthus, switchgrass, panic, reed canary grass (second generation of biofuel) considerably depends on the regions. Numerous constraints exist for the implementation of new energy crops, making the estimation of biofuel production very approximative. The first one is food competition. In fact, in major countries, populations are growing, consequently increasing the food demand therefore reducing surplus land, which overall limits the additionnal production of energy crops. Among the others constraints we can mention, the water shortages, the implementation of indigeneous species (could be a probleme for biodiversity), the type of plant, improvement of agricultural system (allowing the cultivation of other land), etc. Depending on the scenario, disparate results are obtained; bioenergy could reach between 39EJ to 204 EJ in 2050, furthermore, Smeets et al. 2007 show that the biggest energy apport will be done by dedicated energy crops with 20-174 EJ of biomass against 6-11 EJ of agricultural residues and 6 EJ of forestry residues.

More than replacing gasoline coming from fossil ressources, the employement of biofuels in well defined conditions can contribute to reduce the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The GHG balance varies significantly following the choice of biomass, the technology employed throughout the full « fuel cycle » from biomass production to final fuel consumption, the caracteristic of the land and climate, the crop management, etc. Thus, the choice of biomass is essential. As for ethanol production, the potential of lignocellulosic biomass to reduce GHG is comprised between 60 and 120 % and it is comparable to the high diminution of GHG observed with sugar cane (90%). In comparison, production of ethanol from wheat grain brings a lesser gain of 20 to 50% (IEA, 2004). The reduction, especially for lignocellulosic biomass, is due to the compostion of plant itself, to fertilizer loading and to the efficiency of vehicles. The high reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the case of lignocellulosic biomass (cellulose to ethanol) essentially comes from the use of the other part of the plant (mainly lignin) as a source of energy for the process. However the previous
estimations do not take into account the modifications affecting the lands. In fact, the GHG balance of the second-generation biofuels are closely related to the land use change (LUC) and the indirect use change (ILUC) which could in certain case conduct to a negative GHG balance. When a prior land-use like forest is replaced by culture for biofuel production, a direct land-use change occurs which can change the carbon stock of that land. This aspect has been widely studied and factors of changing balance can be found in the literature. However, the changes on GHG are induced by ILUC (takes place when land use change implies the displacement of the previous activity on another land). Thus, the replacement of sparsely vegetated and certain grass land by energy crops could generate a positive effect on GHG and in the mean time participate to the stockage of carbon in soil. Contrarily, the estimation made by Farrel and O’hare (2008) on the ILUC GHG emission shows that if the actual crops of soybean are used for the production of ethanol, the result could lead to the expansion of soybean for food into forests and will conduct to more emission than the use of fossil ressources (6 times more). These cultivations can also have several positive or negative impacts on soil, water and biodiversity. ILUC are normally less important if residues are used as feedstock since there is no need for additional land to be cultivated.

The second-biofuel generation, and in particular in the case of lignocellulosic ethanol production, should start with a sustainable development of agricultural and forestry residues which are at that time very interesting in terms of productivity (as it was shown on the Table 3) and environment. Even if some species contains much more C6 sugars like coniferous and notably loblolly Pine, the use of a wide range of biomass genotypes is advised and needed. All the species presented show an interest for ethanol production. In fact, the use of just the best species would be catastrophic for biodiversity. In general, lignocellulosic biomass is a promising source of fuel as it is shown on the figure 1. As an example, in about ten years the production of biofuel via the lignocellulosic biomass in the US could almost reach the same production as from the other sources of biofuel.

Подпись:image270160

140

a>

120

100 ro

80 60 40

T3

о

20 0

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Year

Fig. 1. Biofuel Mandate from lignocellulosic materials in the United States Renewable Fuels Standard

3. Fractionation