4.6 Article

Acid Hydrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass: Sugars and Furfurals Formation

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal10040437

关键词

spruce wood; beech wood; miscanthus; pretreatment; hydroxymethylfurfural; HMF; furfural; hydrolysate; glucose; xylose

资金

  1. GRACE project from the Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [745012]
  2. Ministry of Science, Research, and Arts of Baden-Wurttemberg
  3. German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection (FNR project) [22027811]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass is a crucial step for the production of sugars and biobased platform chemicals. Pretreatment experiments in a semi-continuous plant with diluted sulphuric acid as catalyst were carried out to measure the time-dependent formation of sugars (glucose, xylose, mannose), furfurals, and organic acids (acetic, formic, and levulinic acid) at different hydrolysis temperatures (180, 200, 220 degrees C) of one representative of each basic type of lignocellulose: hardwood, softwood, and grass. The addition of the acid catalyst is followed by a sharp increase in the sugar concentration. Xylose and mannose were mainly formed in the initial stages of the process, while glucose was released slowly. Increasing the reaction temperature had a positive effect on the formation of furfurals and organic acids, especially on hydroxymehtylfurfural (HMF) and levulinic acid, regardless of biomass type. In addition, large amounts of formic acid were released during the hydrolysis of miscanthus grass. Structural changes in the solid residue show a complete hydrolysis of hemicellulose at 180 degrees C and of cellulose at 200 degrees C after around 120 min reaction time. The results obtained in this study can be used for the optimisation of the hydrolysis conditions and reactor design to maximise the yields of desired products, which might be sugars or furfurals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据