You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Increasing the diversity of lignocellulosic feedstocks accepted by a regional biorefinery has the potential to improve the environmental footprint of the facility; harvest, storage, and transportation logistics; and biorefinery economics. However, feedstocks can vary widely in terms of their biomass yields and quality characteristics (chemical composition, moisture content, etc.). To investigate how the diversity of potential biofuel cropping systems and feedstock supply might affect process and field-scale ethanol yields, we processed and experimentally quantified ethanol production from five different herbaceous feedstocks: two annuals (corn stover and energy sorghum) and three perennials (switchgrass, miscanthus, and mixed prairie). The feedstocks were pretreated using ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX), hydrolyzed at high solid loading (~17%–20% solids, depending on the feedstock), and fermented separately using microbes engineered to utilize xylose: yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiaeY128) or bacteria (Zymomonas mobilis8b). The field-scale ethanol yield from each feedstock was dependent on biomass quality and cropping system productivity; however, biomass yield had a greater influence on the ethanol yield for low-productivity crops, while biomass quality was the main driver for ethanol yields from high-yielding crops. The process ethanol yield showed similar variability across years and feedstocks. A low process yield for corn stover was determined to result from inhibition of xylose utilization by unusually elevated levels of hydroxycinnamates (p-coumaric and ferulic acids) in the untreated biomass and their acid and amide derivatives in the resulting hydrolyzate. This finding highlights the need to better understand factors that influence process ethanol yield and biomass quality. Ultimately we provide evidence that most feedstocks fall within a similar range of process ethanol yield, particularly for the more resistant strain Z. mobilis8b. This supports the claim that the refinery can successfully diversify its feedstock supply, enabling many social and environmental benefits that can accrue due to landscape diversification.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 DOE-Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
2 DOE-Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
3 DOE-Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
4 DOE-Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Department of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
5 DOE-Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Genome Center of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
6 Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan; DOE-Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan