Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25774217›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2015

2G ethanol from the whole sugarcane lignocellulosic biomass.

Sandra Cerqueira Pereira, Larissa Maehara, Cristina Maria Monteiro Machado, Cristiane Sanchez Farinas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. GM crops & food · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Pectins, Endopolygalacturonases, and Bioenergy.Frontiers in plant science · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra Cerqueira PereiraEmbrapa Instrumentation, Rua XV de Novembro 1452, 13560-970 São Carlos, SP Brazil.
Larissa MaeharaEmbrapa Instrumentation, Rua XV de Novembro 1452, 13560-970 São Carlos, SP Brazil ; Graduate Program of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luiz, km 235, 13565-905 São Carlos, SP Brazil.
Cristina Maria Monteiro MachadoEmbrapa Agroenergy, Parque Estação Biológica s/n°, 70770-901 Brasília, DF Brazil.
Cristiane Sanchez FarinasEmbrapa Instrumentation, Rua XV de Novembro 1452, 13560-970 São Carlos, SP Brazil ; Graduate Program of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luiz, km 235, 13565-905 São Carlos, SP Brazil.
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation · BRUniversidade Federal de São Carlos · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the sugarcane industry, large amounts of lignocellulosic residues are generated, which includes bagasse, straw, and tops. The use of the whole sugarcane lignocellulosic biomass for the production of second-generation (2G) ethanol can be a potential alternative to contribute to the economic viability of this process. Here, we conducted a systematic comparative study of the use of the lignocellulosic residues from the whole sugarcane lignocellulosic biomass (bagasse, straw, and tops) from commercial sugarcane varieties for the production of 2G ethanol. In addition, the feasibility of using a mixture of these residues from a selected variety was also investigated.

resultsThe materials were pretreated with dilute acid and hydrolyzed with a commercial enzymatic preparation, after which the hydrolysates were fermented using an industrial strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The susceptibility to enzymatic saccharification was higher for the tops, followed by straw and bagasse. Interestingly, the fermentability of the hydrolysates showed a different profile, with straw achieving the highest ethanol yields, followed by tops and bagasse. Using a mixture of the different sugarcane parts (bagasse-straw-tops, 1:1:1, in a dry-weight basis), it was possible to achieve a 55% higher enzymatic conversion and a 25% higher ethanol yield, compared to use of the bagasse alone. For the four commercial sugarcane varieties evaluated using the same experimental set of conditions, it was found that the variety of sugarcane was not a significant factor in the 2G ethanol production process.

conclusionsAssessment of use of the whole lignocellulosic sugarcane biomass clearly showed that 2G ethanol production could be significantly improved by the combined use of bagasse, straw, and tops, when compared to the use of bagasse alone. The lower susceptibility to saccharification of sugarcane bagasse, as well as the lower fermentability of its hydrolysates, can be compensated by using it in combination with straw and tops (sugarcane trash). Furthermore, given that the variety was not a significant factor for the 2G ethanol production process within the four commercial sugarcane varieties evaluated here, agronomic features such as higher productivity and tolerance of soil and climate variations can be used as the criteria for variety selection.

Indexed as

BioethanolCellulosic ethanolSecond-generation ethanolSugarcane bagasseSugarcane trashWhole sugarcane lignocellulosic biomass

Identifiers

PMID25774217
PMCPMC4359543
OpenAlexW2133876547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.