Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40647792›Full record

ReviewPolymers2025

Liquid Hot Water and Steam Explosion Pretreatment Methods for Cellulosic Raw Materials: A Review.

Evgenia K Gladysheva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Evgenia K GladyshevaBioconversion Laboratory, Institute for Problems of Chemical and Energetic Technologies, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPCET SB RAS), 659322 Biysk, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-6567-9662

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Feder-ation under project no. 124021200031-4 (FUFE-2024-0008)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellulosic raw materials are the most common source of carbon on Earth and are in great demand for the production of high-value-added products. Cellulosic feedstocks represent a strong matrix consisting of cellulose, lignin, and hemicelluloses. The efficient transformation of cellulosic raw materials into fermentable sugars requires the use of effective pretreatment strategies. The methods employed for pretreatment should be efficient, have low operating costs, and exhibit lower environmental impact. The present review describes pretreatment methods like liquid hot water (LHW) and steam explosion (SE) and highlights peculiar features, benefits and disadvantages of these processes. The effectiveness of these pretreatment methods and their effect on cellulosic raw materials strongly depends on the type of feedstock (component composition), pretreatment method, and pretreatment conditions (pressure, temperature, time, etc.). The LHW pretreatment requires neither addition of chemicals and catalysts nor grinding stage, but requires high energy inputs. The SE pretreatment is regarded as environmentally friendly and requires lower energy inputs, but contributes to the formation of toxic compounds. The life cycle assessment approach demonstrated that the SE pretreatment outperforms dilute acid pretreatment methods and allows the reduction of energy inputs, thereby improving the environmental performance of the process, while the LHW method improves long-term energy security and creates a greener future.

Indexed as

cellulosic raw materialsliquid hot waterpretreatment methodssteam explosion

Identifiers

PMID40647792
PMCPMC12252447

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.