Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34507592›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2021

A high solids field-to-fuel research pipeline to identify interactions between feedstocks and biofuel production.

Meenaa Chandrasekar, Leela Joshi, Karleigh Krieg, Sarvada Chipkar, Emily Burke, Derek J Debrauske, Kurt D Thelen, Trey K Sato, Rebecca G Ong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Meenaa ChandrasekarDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Leela JoshiDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Karleigh KriegDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Sarvada ChipkarDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Emily BurkeDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Derek J DebrauskeDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Kurt D ThelenDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Trey K SatoDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Rebecca G OngDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA. rgong1@mtu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5020-646X
Michigan Technological University · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USGreat Lakes Bioenergy Research Center · US

Funding

office of science DE-FC02-07ER64494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnvironmental factors, such as weather extremes, have the potential to cause adverse effects on plant biomass quality and quantity. Beyond adversely affecting feedstock yield and composition, which have been extensively studied, environmental factors can have detrimental effects on saccharification and fermentation processes in biofuel production. Only a few studies have evaluated the effect of these factors on biomass deconstruction into biofuel and resulting fuel yields. This field-to-fuel evaluation of various feedstocks requires rigorous coordination of pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation experiments. A large number of biomass samples, often in limited quantity, are needed to thoroughly understand the effect of environmental conditions on biofuel production. This requires greater processing and analytical throughput of industrially relevant, high solids loading hydrolysates for fermentation, and led to the need for a laboratory-scale high solids experimentation platform.

resultsA field-to-fuel platform was developed to provide sufficient volumes of high solids loading enzymatic hydrolysate for fermentation. AFEX pretreatment was conducted in custom pretreatment reactors, followed by high solids enzymatic hydrolysis. To accommodate enzymatic hydrolysis of multiple samples, roller bottles were used to overcome the bottlenecks of mixing and reduced sugar yields at high solids loading, while allowing greater sample throughput than possible in bioreactors. The roller bottle method provided 42-47% greater liquefaction compared to the batch shake flask method for the same solids loading. In fermentation experiments, hydrolysates from roller bottles were fermented more rapidly, with greater xylose consumption, but lower final ethanol yields and CO

conclusionA pipeline of small-scale AFEX pretreatment and roller bottle enzymatic hydrolysis was able to provide adequate quantities of hydrolysate for respirometer fermentation experiments and was able to overcome hydrolysis bottlenecks at high solids loading by obtaining greater liquefaction compared to batch shake flask hydrolysis. Thus, the roller bottle method can be effectively utilized to compare divergent feedstocks and diverse process conditions.

Indexed as

Abiotic stressorsEnvironmental factorsEnzymatic hydrolysisFermentationField-to-fuelHigh solids loadingHorizontal tumbling

Identifiers

PMID34507592
PMCPMC8431876
OpenAlexW3198786013

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.