ReviewiScience2022
Mechanical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass toward enzymatic/fermentative valorization.
Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomass-Based Biofuels: Technological Innovations, Sustainability Metrics, and Policy Pathways for a Low-Carbon Future.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Review
- Lignocellulosic waste biomass as a valuable energy source for bioethanol production: a review.RSC advances · 2026Review
- A comparative assessment and economic implications of physical, chemical, and enzymatic treatments of lignocellulosic waste.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2025Article
- Integrated Chemical and Biochemical Treatments to Produce Protein and Microbial Lipid Food Ingredients from Ryegrass.ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering · 2025Article
- From microbial proteins to cultivated meat for alternative meat-like products: a review on sustainable fermentation approaches.Journal of biological engineering · 2025Article
- Lignin from Plant-Based Agro-Industrial Biowastes: From Extraction to Sustainable Applications.Polymers · 2025Review
- Pilot-scale high-consistency mechanical refining improves enzymatic saccharification of lignocellulosic feedstock.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ModifiedInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Fungal endophytes and leaf litter fungi as sources of novel inhibitor-resistant cellulase for biofuel production: a basic study.3 Biotech · 2024Article
- Databases for biomass and waste biorefinery - a mini-review and SWOT analysis.Bioengineered · 2023Review
- Exploring carbohydrate extraction from biomass using deep eutectic solvents: Factors and mechanisms.iScience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) has the potential to replace fossil fuels, thanks to the concept of biorefinery. This material is formed mainly by cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose. To maximize the valorization potential of this material, LCB needs to be pretreated. Milling is always performed before any other treatments. It does not produce chemical change and improves the efficiency of the upcoming processes. Additionally, it makes LCB easier to handle and increases bulk density and transfer phenomena of the next pretreatment step. However, this treatment is energy consuming, so it needs to be optimized. Several mills can be used, and the equipment selection depends on the characteristics of the material, the final size required, and the operational regime: continuous or batch. Among them, ball, knife, and hammer mills are the most used at the laboratory scale, especially before enzymatic or fermentative treatments. The continuous operational regime (knife and hammer mill) allows us to work with high volumes of raw material and can continuously reduce particle size, unlike the batch operating regime (ball mill). This review recollects the information about the application of these machines, the effect on particle size, and subsequent treatments. On the one hand, ball milling reduced particle size the most; on the other hand, hammer and knife milling consumed less energy. Furthermore, the latter reached a small final particle size (units of millimeters) suitable for valorization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.