Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40842513›Full record

ArticleACS sustainable chemistry & engineering2025

Cost of Deconstruction Depots for Diversified, Waste-Based Lignocellulosic Sugars Using Distillable Solvents.

Nawa Raj Baral, Xueli Chen, Joseph M Palasz, Ramkrishna Singh, Anagha Krishnamoorthy, Venkataramana R Pidatala, Tyrell S A Lewis, Chang Dou, Ling Ding, Hemant Choudhary and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

13 authors.

Nawa Raj BaralBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0942-9183
Xueli ChenBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Joseph M PalaszBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Ramkrishna SinghBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Anagha KrishnamoorthyBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8396-0223
Venkataramana R PidatalaBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Tyrell S A LewisBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Chang DouBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Ling DingEnergy and Environment Science & Technology, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6035-5976
Hemant ChoudharyJoint BioEnergy Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Emeryville, California 94608, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2847-3080
Ning SunBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9689-9430
Blake A SimmonsBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1332-1810
Corinne D ScownBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2078-1126

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transitioning to a bioeconomy that makes use of low-emission and waste feedstocks requires greater flexibility to accommodate seasonal variations and mitigate long-term storage challenges, such as material loss and fire risk. To achieve this goal, biomass deconstruction technologies must efficiently handle diverse feedstocks. Here, we assess the cost of using butylaminea distillable solventto deconstruct 22 different biomass feedstocks: 7 herbaceous, 9 woody, 4 food processing residues, and 2 blends. Lignocellulosic sugar production costs, based on current empirical data, range from $1.3 to 6.1/kg, suggesting that substantial improvements are required to compete with conventional sugars. The high solvent loading (850 g/kg of whole slurry) is a process bottleneck. Lowering the solvent loading to 59 g/kg of whole slurry, demonstrated in an L-scale reactor using poplar biomass, reduces the minimum sugar selling price by 33%. Solvent loading and recovery, solid loading, sugar yield, enzyme use, and delivered biomass cost all play key roles in reaching sugar production costs of $0.45-0.79/kg. Strategic feedstock blending to maximize carbohydrate content, process optimization to improve conversion efficiency, and the selection of low-cost feedstocks are important to advancing feedstock-flexible biorefineries.

Indexed as

biomass pretreatmentdistillable solvent recoveryenzymatic hydrolysisherbaceous biomasslignocellulosic sugarsugar recoverywoody biomass

Identifiers

PMID40842513
PMCPMC12365919

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.