Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27895708›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2016

Continuous production of biohythane from hydrothermal liquefied cornstalk biomass via two-stage high-rate anaerobic reactors.

Bu-Chun Si, Jia-Ming Li, Zhang-Bing Zhu, Yuan-Hui Zhang, Jian-Wen Lu, Rui-Xia Shen, Chong Zhang, Xin-Hui Xing, Zhidan Liu

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Yeast Midas' touch: recent advances in the valorisation of methanol by yeasts.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Biohythane: a Potential Biofuel of the Future.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bu-Chun SiLaboratory of Environment-Enhancing Energy (E2E), and Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083 China.
Jia-Ming LiLaboratory of Environment-Enhancing Energy (E2E), and Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083 China.
Zhang-Bing ZhuLaboratory of Environment-Enhancing Energy (E2E), and Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083 China.
Yuan-Hui ZhangDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, 61801 USA.
Jian-Wen LuLaboratory of Environment-Enhancing Energy (E2E), and Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083 China.
Rui-Xia ShenLaboratory of Environment-Enhancing Energy (E2E), and Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083 China.
Chong ZhangKey Laboratory of Industrial Biocatalysis of Ministry of Education of China, Beijing, 100084 China ; Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Biochemical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084 China.
Xin-Hui XingKey Laboratory of Industrial Biocatalysis of Ministry of Education of China, Beijing, 100084 China ; Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Biochemical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084 China.
Zhidan LiuLaboratory of Environment-Enhancing Energy (E2E), and Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083 China.
China Agricultural University · CNMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China · CNUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiohythane production via two-stage fermentation is a promising direction for sustainable energy recovery from lignocellulosic biomass. However, the utilization of lignocellulosic biomass suffers from specific natural recalcitrance. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is an emerging technology for the liquefaction of biomass, but there are still several challenges for the coupling of HTL and two-stage fermentation. One particular challenge is the limited efficiency of fermentation reactors at a high solid content of the treated feedstock. Another is the conversion of potential inhibitors during fermentation. Here, we report a novel strategy for the continuous production of biohythane from cornstalk through the integration of HTL and two-stage fermentation. Cornstalk was converted to solid and liquid via HTL, and the resulting liquid could be subsequently fed into the two-stage fermentation systems. The systems consisted of two typical high-rate reactors: an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and a packed bed reactor (PBR). The liquid could be efficiently converted into biohythane via the UASB and PBR with a high density of microbes at a high organic loading rate.

resultsBiohydrogen production decreased from 2.34 L/L/day in UASB (1.01 L/L/day in PBR) to 0 L/L/day as the organic loading rate (OLR) of the HTL liquid products increased to 16 g/L/day. The methane production rate achieved a value of 2.53 (UASB) and 2.54 L/L/day (PBR), respectively. The energy and carbon recovery of the integrated HTL and biohythane fermentation system reached up to 79.0 and 67.7%, respectively. The fermentation inhibitors, i.e., 5-hydroxymethyl furfural (41.4-41.9% of the initial quantity detected) and furfural (74.7-85.0% of the initial quantity detected), were degraded during hydrogen fermentation. Compared with single-stage fermentation, the methane process during two-stage fermentation had a more efficient methane production rate, acetogenesis, and COD removal. The microbial distribution via Illumina MiSeq sequencing clarified that the biohydrogen process in the two-stage systems functioned not only for biohydrogen production, but also for the degradation of potential inhibitors. The higher distribution of the detoxification family

conclusionsBiohythane production could be a promising process for the recovery of energy and degradation of organic compounds from hydrothermal liquefied biomass. The two-stage process not only contributed to the improved quality of the gas fuels but also strengthened the biotransformation process, which resulted from the function of detoxification during biohydrogen production and enhanced acetogenesis during biomethane production.

Indexed as

Biohythane productionBiomassHydrothermal liquefactionMicrobial communityTwo-stage fermentation

Identifiers

PMID27895708
PMCPMC5117538
OpenAlexW2551774351

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.