ArticleFolia microbiologica2016
Continuous co-production of ethanol and xylitol from rice straw hydrolysate in a membrane bioreactor.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of Ethanol Dehydration using Membrane Separation Processes.Open life sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was set to develop a robust and economic biorefinery process for continuous co-production of ethanol and xylitol from rice straw in a membrane bioreactor. Acid pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, detoxification, yeast strains selection, single and co-culture batch fermentation, and finally continuous co-fermentation were optimized. The combination of diluted acid pretreatment (3.5 %) and enzymatic conversion (1:10 enzyme (63 floating-point unit (FPU)/mL)/biomass ratio) resulted in the maximum sugar yield (81 % conversion). By concentrating the hydrolysates, sugars level increased by threefold while that of furfural reduced by 50 % (0.56 to 0.28 g/L). Combined application of active carbon and resin led to complete removal of furfural, hydroxyl methyl furfural, and acetic acid. The strains Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCIM 3090 with 66.4 g/L ethanol production and Candida tropicalis NCIM 3119 with 9.9 g/L xylitol production were selected. The maximum concentrations of ethanol and xylitol in the single cultures were recorded at 31.5 g/L (0.42 g/g yield) and 26.5 g/L (0.58 g/g yield), respectively. In the batch co-culture system, the ethanol and xylitol productions were 33.4 g/L (0.44 g/g yield) and 25.1 g/L (0.55 g/g yield), respectively. The maximum ethanol and xylitol volumetric productivity values in the batch co-culture system were 65 and 58 % after 25 and 60 h, but were improved in the continuous co-culture mode and reached 80 % (55 g/L) and 68 % (31 g/L) at the dilution rate of 0.03 L per hour, respectively. Hence, the continuous co-production strategy developed in this study could be recommended for producing value-added products from this hugely generated lignocellulosic waste.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26354791What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.