THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FOR A BIOBASED INDUSTRY

A compilation of the multistate, multidisciplinary, cooperative

accomplishments of past and present objectives for S-1041.

Program Proceedings

Waterfront Centre
800 9th Street SW
Washington, DC, USA

07 August, 2012

Edited by

Kent Rausch
Vijay Singh
Mike Tumbleson
ii
 THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FOR A BIOBASED INDUSTRY

Symposium Schedule

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

08:00 Overview of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

Sonny Ramaswamy, Director, NIFA/USDA

08:30 Bioenergy Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) Program Review

Peter Arbuckle, BCE/NIFA/USDA

08:50 Sustainable Bioenergy Production

Ganti Murthy, Oregon State University
Andy Hashimoto, University of Hawaii

09:50 Implementing Systems Methodologies for a Sustainable Biobased Economy

Lindsay Anderson, Cornell University

10:20 Break

10:50 Biomass Feedstocks Supply Logistics

Al Womac, University of Tennessee

11:20 Education: Bioenergy and Sustainable Technology

Distance Education Graduate Certificate
Julie Carrier, University of Arkansas

11:50 Bioenergy/Bioproduct Production and Processes:

Summary of Research Activities of S-1041
Bernie Tao, Purdue University

12:20 Thermochemical Conversion and Revision of Objective 2

Roger Ruan, University of Minnesota

12:50 Discussion for rewrite

Julie Carrier, University of Arkansas

iii
 Table of Contents
Page

BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (BRDI)

PROGRAM REVIEW
Peter Arbuckle BCE/NIFA/USDA 1

SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY PRODUCTION

G. S. Murthy Oregon State University 3
Andy Hashimoto University of Hawaii

IMPLEMENTING SYSTEMS METHODOLOGIES FOR

A SUSTAINABLE BIOBASED ECONOMY
Lindsay Anderson Cornell University 19

BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY LOGISTICS

Al Womac University of Tennessee 21

EDUCATION: BIOENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY

DISTANCE EDUCATION GRADUATE CERTIFICATE
Julie Carrier University of Arkansas 25

BIOENERGY/BIOPRODUCT PRODUCTION AND PROCESSES:

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES OF S-1041
Bernie Tao Purdue University 27

THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION AND REVISION OF OBJECTIVE 2

Roger Ruan University of Minnesota 29

HYBRID THERMOCHEMICAL-BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSING

FOR BIORENEWABLE ALCOHOL PRODUCTION USING
Alkalibaculum bacchi
Hasan Atiyeh Oklahoma State University 31

FOULING RATES OF SYNTHETIC THIN STILLAGE

Ravi Challa University of Illinois 33

AUTOHYDROLYSIS OF Miscanthus x giganteus FOR THE

PRODUCTION OF XYLOOLIGOSACCHARIDE (XOS):
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS AND RECOVERY
Ming-Hsu Chen University of Illinois 35

iv
 Table of Contents (cont.)
MICROWAVE ASSISTED PYROLYSIS OF MICROALGAE FOR 37
RENEWABLE BIO-OIL PRODUCTION
Zhenyi Du University of Minnesota

BIO-OIL FROM SWITCHGRASS PYROLYSIS: UPGRADE TO

TRANSPORTATION FUEL BY HYDROGENATION AND
CATALYTIC TREATMENT
Tahmina Imam Texas A&M University 39

COMPARISON OF MONOSACCHARIDE PRODUCTION FROM

PRETREATED Miscanthus OF VARYING PARTICLE SIZE
Esha Khullar University of Illinois 41

TECHNOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION FROM PERENNIAL
RYEGRASS STRAW
Deepak Kumar Oregon State University 43

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF LIGNOCELLULOSIC FEEDSTOCKS

FROM PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSERVATION BUFFERS
Deepak Kumar Oregon State University 45

UNDERSTANDING AND ENHANCING ALKALINE AND

OXIDATIVE CHEMICAL PRETREATMENTS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS THROUGH
IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION
Muyang Li Michigan State University 47

PRODUCTION OF BIOPOLYOLS AND POLYURETHANES FROM

LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS AND CRUDE GLYCERIN
Yebo Li Ohio State University 49

BIOBASED ENERGY EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL

EXCHANGE SYSTEM (BEEMS)
Yebo Li Ohio State University 51

VINASSE CONVERSION INTO AQUATIC FOODS

VIA FUNGAL FERMENTATION
Saoharit Nitayavardhana University of Hawaii 53

EFFECT OF FERTILIZATION AND GROWING SEASON ON

CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP)
PASTURELAND AS A BIOFUEL FEEDSTOCK
Tucker Porter Montana State University 55

v
 Table of Contents (cont.)
IMPACT OF TREATED EFFLUENT WATER USE IN
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL PRODUCTION
Divya Ramachandran University of Illinois 57

PRODUCING FURFURAL FROM BIOMASS IN AN

INTEGRATED BIOREFINERY
Troy Runge University of Wisconsin 59

EFFECT OF STEAM INJECTION LOCATION ON BIOMASS

GENERATED PRODUCER GAS IN A FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIER
Ashokkumar Sharma Oklahoma State University 61

GREEN PROCESSING OF TROPICAL GRASSES FOR

BIOFUEL AND BIOPRODUCTS
Devin Takara University of Hawaii 63

BIOBASED CONCRETE SEALANT

Bernard Tao Purdue University 65

BIOMATERIALS AND BIOPROCESSING RESEARCH AT

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Praveen Vadlani Kansas State University 67

CLEMSON SUSTAINABLE BIOREFINERY

Terry Walker Clemson University 69

BIOWINOL: CAPTURING RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY AND

CARBON DIOXIDE FOR TRANSPORTATION FUEL
Mark Wilkins Oklahoma State University 71

PRODUCTION OF FERMENTABLE SUGARS FROM

EASTERN RED CEDAR
Mark Wilkins Oklahoma State University 73

ESTABLISHMENT OF A THREE STAGE SOLID SUBSTRATE

CULTIVATION FOR SOLVENT PRODUCTION USING CORN STOVER
Julia Yao University of Kentucky 75

BIOMASS TO LIQUID HYDROCARBON PROCESS VIA CATALYTIC

CONVERSION ON CARBON ENCAPSULATED IRON NANOPARTICLES
Fei Yu Mississippi State University 77

Author and Affiliation Index 79

vi
 BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE (BRDI) PROGRAM REVIEW
Peter W. Arbuckle
BCE/NIFA/USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250
(202-401-5741) [email protected]

Reauthorized by section 9001(a) of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act (FCEA) of
2008 (Pub. L. 110-246), the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) fills an
important gap in the continuum of technology development and commercialization supported by
USDA and other federal programs. While meeting the requirements of section 9008(e) of
FCEA, USDA has shaped the program to be a source of bridge funding for developing and
emerging technologies to cross the “economic valley of death”. The program intent is to help
develop and demonstrate technologies that meet the congressionally defined objectives to the
point they might attract additional private or public financing to scale up and/or produce
commercial quantities of biomass based energy and/or materials.
Using the FCEA, section 9008, as a guide, NIFA tracks award statistics that measure
program performance relative to program administration requirements and program objectives
defined by section 9008(e)(6). Over the life of the program, BRDI has met the requirement that
each technical area, Feedstock Development, Biofuels and Biobased Product Development, and
Biofuels Analysis, receive not less than 15% of available funds. BRDI also has fostered
consortia awards averaging more than four collaborators per award. The program has attracted a
diversity of applicant types from a number of locations. A typical BRDI award includes at least
four collaborating organizations; the program has involved an average of 18 states per year.
In the early years of the BRDI program, grants were focused narrowly to address specific
technical challenges and new product development issues. The program now supports larger and
more comprehensive projects, which requires awardees to develop new products and
technologies in the context of the supply chain and target markets; therefore, projects must
address all three technical areas. The program has adopted an overarching theme of
sustainability to foster desirable outcomes, by requiring awardees to address environmental,
economic and social implications of the technology throughout its life cycle.
Progress toward the objectives of FCEA, section 9008, are monitored and documented
through a series of independent project reviews administered through the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). UNL coordinates project reviews through site visits conducted by
technical experts from the Multi-State Committee on Science and Engineering for a Biobased
Industry and Economy (S-1041) and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Project
outputs and incremental progress toward program objectives are illustrated through the project
reviews included in this report. BRDI technology priorities are broad and not prescriptive.
Trends in BRDI investment are driven largely by trends in biomass based energy and materials
markets. The program affords the flexibility for the balance of investment to shift toward
technical challenges of increasing importance in the market. Project results provide anecdotal
indications of industry progress and program impact.

1
2
 SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY PRODUCTION
Ganti S. Murthy1 and Andy Hashimoto2
1
Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
(541-737-6291) [email protected]
and
2
Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI 96822
(808-956-7531) [email protected]

ABSTRACT
There is wide spread agreement that bioenergy systems must be sustainable. Also, there
is general agreement that sustainability encompasses aspects of economics, environment and
social/community. The challenge is to determine the appropriate indicators for the three aspects
of sustainability, especially the environmental and social/community impacts. A discussion on
sustainability metrics especially focused on the environmental and technoeconomic aspects will
be presented. We will present details of some of the important global initiatives for sustainable
bioenergy certification. We will discuss our methodology to address sustainability in our
Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) project titled “Conversion of High Yield
Tropical Biomass into Sustainable Biofuels”. We will discuss the rationale for the choice of the
methodology and its relation to sustainability metrics. We will include a more general
discussion on life cycle assessments and sustainability indicators. We hope to stimulate a robust
discussion within S-1041 of appropriate sustainability indicators for the US, while at the same
time being linked to global sustainability indices and indicators.

INTRODUCTION

There is wide spread agreement that bioenergy systems must be sustainable. Also, there
is general agreement that sustainability encompasses aspects of economics, environment and
social/community. Although various definitions of sustainable systems have been proposed, a
common notion of sustainability is defined as, “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own need” (Brundtland
Report, 1987).

3
 The objective is to present different assessment tools with a particular focus on economic
and environmental aspects of bioenergy sustainability. A discussion will be presented to justify
the methodological choices proposed to address sustainability in our recently funded Biomass
Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) project titled “Conversion of High Yield Tropical
Biomass into Sustainable Biofuels”.

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

A sustainable approach to bioenergy can be found at the intersection of all three aspects
of sustainability namely, economic, environmental and social/community (Fig. 1). Thus it is
important to have metrics to evaluate objectively and quantitatively sustainability. Many
methodologies have been described to assess these three aspects of sustainability. However,
much of the progress in the bioenergy sustainability assessment has been focused on economic
and environmental aspects. In general, all three aspects of sustainable bioenergy must be
considered (technoeconomic viability, environmental sustainability and social/community
aspects) to evaluate a bioenergy processes.

Economic Aspects of Sustainability

Economic aspects of
sustainability can be refined further
to include technical feasibility to
demonstrate the influence of various
technological alternatives available.
For example, as demonstrated in our
Figure 1. Aspects of Sustainable Bioenergy (Adapted from
recent work, different pretreatment
Adams, 2006).
processes such as dilute acid, dilute
alkali, hot water and steam explosion represent various technological choices available to
produce the same biofuel (cellulosic ethanol) and have varying tradeoffs in terms of technical
feasibility, economic viability and environmental impacts (Kumar and Murthy, 2011). Similarly,
in the context of corn ethanol, it would mean the differences in technical feasibility and
economic viability of using dry grind corn ethanol vs wet milling process to produce fuel
ethanol.

Technical feasibility and economic viability of a process/product is assessed using

integrated technoeconomic analyses that often involve development of process models to
conduct detailed mass and energy balances and perform economic calculations. Commercial
software such as Aspen, SuperPro and Bioprocess simulators are used for process model
development and conducting technoeconomic analyses. Accuracies of these factored estimates

4
are up to ±30% and they are useful to compare process alternatives (Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s
Handbook, 1997).

Environmental Aspects of Sustainability

Methods to compare impacts of different products/processes on environment can be

classified into process oriented metrics and environmental pressure oriented metrics. While
process oriented metrics, such as life cycle assessment, are useful to assess competing
technologies, environmental pressure oriented metrics, such as sustainable process index, are
useful for assessing resources depletion. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to assess the
potential environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product’s life cycle, ie, from
raw material acquisition, via production
Text box 1: Comparison of aLCA and cLCA
and use phases, to waste management
Consider two processes, 1 and 2 which produce
(ISO, 2006). LCA is a comprehensive the products A, B and C. Assume that process 1
assessment and considers all attributes or produces a coproduct B that can replace C on a
aspects of natural environment, human 1:1 basis.
health and resources (ISO, 2006).
Special emphasis is placed in the LCA
methodology to avoid problem shifting,
for example, from one phase of life cycle
to another or from one environmental
problem to another. A classic example of
problem shifting is hydrogen cars;
although hydrogen cars themselves do
GHG Emissions for process 1:
not produce CO2 emissions and may
aLCA: 2 Kg CO2 eqv.
seem environmentally friendly, the cLCA: -1 Kg CO2 eqv. (2-3 as B replaces C).
picture is altered when viewed from a life It is important to note that while aLCA GHG
cycle perspective that accounts for emissions can never be negative, cLCA can have
emissions from combustion of natural gas negative GHG emissions due to the inclusion of
used to produce hydrogen. indirect effects. In the above example,
replacement of a GHG intensive process (process
LCA is divided into four stages: 2) with a ‘greener’ process (process 1) results in
goal definition and scoping, life cycle net lower marginal emissions.
inventory, life cycle impact assessment and life cycle interpretation. There are two variants of
LCA that answer different questions related to environmental sustainability. Attributional LCA
(aLCA) is defined by its focus on describing the environmentally relevant physical flows to and
from a life cycle and its subsystems. Consequential LCA (cLCA) is defined by its aim to
describe how environmentally relevant flows will change in response to possible decisions
(Curran et al, 2005; Earles and Halog, 2011). In other words, aLCA is used to answer the
question: What are the total emissions from the process during the life cycle of the product?

5
While cLCA is designed to answer the question: What is the change in total emissions from the
process during the life cycle of the product? (Brander et al, 2006). An example to demonstrate
differences between aLCA and cLCA is provided in the Text box 1.

The different focuses of aLCA and cLCA also is reflected in the use of average and
marginal data in aLCA and cCLA, respectively (Tillman, 2000, Finneveden et al, 2009). In
aLCA, average data for a system representing the average environmental burdens for producing a
unit of the good and/or service in the system are used. In cLCA marginal data, which represent
the effects of a unit change in the product/service output on all of the processes in an economy,
are used to assess the consequences (Ekvall and Weidema, 2004).

Another major difference of importance between aLCA and cLCA is in the selection of
system boundary. Many contrasting conclusions from LCA studies in the literature can be
explained on the basis of system boundary selection and coproduct allocation methods (Wang,
2005). Therefore, it is of critical importance to select the system boundary on a rational,
quantitative basis. An objective method that uses repeatable and verifiable quantitative criteria
to delineate the system boundary in aLCA, called relative mass, energy and economic value
(RMEE) method, was proposed by Raynolds (2000). Similarly, Schmidt (2008) proposed an
objective method for delineating the system boundary in cLCA for agricultural systems. The
system delineation in cLCA is even more important as the magnitude of uncertainties due to
various interactions of socioeconomic factors is higher compared to aLCA. A comparison of
differences between the aLCA and cLCA is presented in Table 1.

Summary of Global Initiatives to Assess Bioenergy Sustainability

With increasing awareness and agreement on the need for sustainable bioenergy, various
initiatives have been proposed and regulations have been enacted around the world. Recently,
Dam et al (2011) provided an excellent review of the global efforts towards certification of
sustainable bioenergy. Of more than 67 ongoing initiatives around the world, comparisons
among the three major initiatives Renewable Fuel Standard II, RFS-II (US), European Union-
Renewable Energy Directive, EU-RED (Europe) and Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, RSB
(Europe) are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

One of the challenges with many of these initiatives is there is no clear distinction
maintained between the aLCA and cLCA methodologies. Lack of such clear delineation often
leads to metrics that can neither be classified as aLCA nor cLCA. For example, US RFS II uses
aLCA (average data) for most of the LCA but also includes the indirect land use change (ILUC)
which is an attribute of cLCA methodology. Use of ILUC by Searchinger et al (2008) to
evaluate GHG emissions and subsequent critique of their analyses demonstrates the need for
having clearly defined methodologies for performing LCA.

6
 Recently Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) formulated a set of 24 sustainability
indicators that cover all three aspects of sustainability. GBEP indicators were developed in
consultation with over 127 countries and UN, and hence were designed to have wide
applicability to various bioenergy systems. Progress towards sustainability was designed to be
assessed by measuring improvement in the metrics and therefore avoiding any contentious hard
limits for various proposed metrics.

7
Table 1. Differences between aLC and cLCA (directly quoted from Brander et al, 2009).

Attributional LCA (aLCA) Consequential LCA (cLCA)

Question the What are the total emissions from the What is the change in the total emissions as a result of a
methods aims to processes and material flows directly used in marginal change in the production of a product?
answer the life cycle of a product?
Application aLCA is applicable for understanding the cLCA is applicable for informing consumers and policy‐
emissions directly associated with the life makers on the change in total emissions from a purchasing or
cycle of a product. policy decision
System boundary The processes and material flows directly All processes and material flows which are directly or
used in the production, consumption and indirectly affected by a marginal change in the output of a
disposal of the product. product.
Marginal or aLCA tends to use average data, e.g. the cLCA tends to use marginal data e.g. the marginal carbon
average data average carbon intensity of the electricity intensity of the electricity grid.
grid.
Market effects aLCA does not consider the market effects of cLCA considers the market effects of the production and
the production and consumption of the consumption of the product.
product.
Allocation aLCA allocates emissions to coproducts cLCA uses system expansion to quantify the effect of co‐
methods based on either economic value, energy products on emissions.
content, or mass.
Non-market aLCA does not include other indirect effects. cLCA should include all other indirect effects, such as the
indirect effects interactions with existing policies or the impact of R&D on the
efficiency of the production of other products.
Time scales aLCA aims to quantify the emissions cLCA aims to quantify the change in emissions which result
attributable to a product at a given level of from a change in production. It is necessary to specify the
production at a given time. time‐scale of the change, the means by which the change is
promoted, and the magnitude of the change.
Uncertainty aLCA has low uncertainty because the cLCA is nearly always highly uncertain because it relies on
relationships between inputs and outputs are models that seek to represent complex socio‐economic systems
generally stoichiometric that include feedback loops and random elements.
Table 2. GHG emissions criteria in three sustainable bioenergy initiatives (data from Dam et al, 2011).

Functional Default Selected time

Initiative GHG Emissions Criteria Scope Allocation ILUC LUC
unit values period
Conventional biofuels: 20%
Advanced biofuels: 50% 100 year with
GHG reduction Results
Biomass-based diesel: 50% Renewable Displacement 2% discount rate
US RFS-II Cellulosic biofuel: 60%
(%) compared
fuels method
provided by Yes Yes
OR 30 year with
to fossil fuel the EPA
lifecycle GHG threshold (below 0% discount rate
gasoline)
Biofuel shall have lower GHG
emissions than the fossil fuel
Criteria for
baseline and shall contribute to
Guidelines acceptable
the minimization of overall Based on IPCC
RSB GHG emissions. The threshold
g CO2 eq/MJ Biofuels under default values ? Yes
methodology
development under
(10, 40 and 70% is under
development
discussion) will be set at the
conclusion of the test period
At least 35% GHG emission
reduction compared to reference
fuel Rising to 50% on January
Biofuels Based on Annualized
2017 to 60% in 2018 for Typical and
EC-RED biofuels and bioliquids
g CO2 eq/MJ and energy
default values
No Yes emissions based
bioliquids content on 20 years
produced in installations in
which production started on or
after January 2017
Table 3. Other criteria in three sustainable bioenergy initiatives (data from Dam et al, 2011).

Social aspects
Water Other
Soil of workers and
Initiative Biodiversity quality and environmental
Quality local
quantity factors
communities
No (except
US RFS-II No No No No
new plantings)
No (Except
EC-RED Yes (partially) No No good farming No
practices)
Yes Yes
RSB Yes Yes Yes
(partially) (partially)

METHODOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT IN THE PROJECT

Overall goal of the sustainability assessment in the project is to guide the development of
advanced biofuel production supply chain, with special emphasis on:
1) Supporting informed decision making of the project participants on approaches to
improving sustainability metrics for a biorefinery enterprise in Hawaii by providing
timely data driven guidance using an existing suite of tools for measuring and estimating
economic, environmental and social impacts and
2) Adapting the framework of the Global Bioenergy Partnership 24 Sustainability Indicators
(GBEP, 2011) to provide a systematic evaluation of the impact of biofuel production in
the Hawaiian Islands.

To achieve this overall goal, the sustainability assessment in the project covers three
important sustainability aspects. Detailed methodology for each of these aspects is presented
below.

Technoeconomic aspects of sustainability

Analyses of costs and returns for energy crop production, coproducts (front end derived
juice as nutrient supplement, lignin for hydrogen production) and advanced biofuels will be
performed. Annual equivalent costs and revenues will be calculated to account for the time
value of money (Tran et al, 2011). Break even prices of energy crops, coproducts and advanced
biofuels will be used as indicators of economic viability of the production/processing operations.
The economic value of sequestering carbon will be measured using: 1) historical stock market
prices of carbon and 2) estimating the energy value ($/Btu) of carbon stock. The environmental
value of carbon balance will be integrated into the economic analysis and results will be

10
analyzed along with results of energy accounting to determine the cost effectiveness of advanced
biofuel production from energy crops.

Comprehensive technoeconomic analyses will be performed for conversion of energy

crops to advanced biofuels using some of the most common pretreatment technologies (dilute
acid and hot water). Process models incorporating feedstock handling, conversion to advanced
biofuel, coproduct and wastewater handling will be developed. Detailed chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and energy calculations will be performed for waste streams following organic
acid recovery to determine the potential for methane production. Tradeoffs in capital, energy
and water use exist in complex systems and will be dependent on several factors such as age at
harvesting, pretreatment methods, fermentation parameters and factors governing
thermochemical conversion of organic acids to advanced biofuels. Age at harvest is a critical
factor in determining the ease of processing, product yields and overall net energy balance.
Using process models developed in this task, various tradeoffs in capital costs, energy and water
use and impact on product yields, production cost and net energy balance will be examined at
different stages of growth of biomass. This will be used to guide decisions on determining
appropriate harvest age and operational details for processing energy crops into advanced
biofuels.

Environmental Aspects of Sustainability

Despite their suitability to compare environmental impacts at individual farm and firm
levels, aLCAs are unsuitable for understanding indirect effects of large scale production of
biofuels as influenced by interaction effects and policy initiatives. cLCAs are designed to
account for these interactions and thus are suitable to investigate environmental impacts of
different policy choices, technology adoption behaviors of farmers and interaction effects.
Differences between the aLCA and cLCA is important and can be a valuable source of
information to different stakeholders if used properly. In the context of bioenergy and
specifically this project, we envision that aLCA could be used by individual producers to assess
the environmental impacts of their biofuel process compared to standard fuels such as gasoline.
The cLCA performed as part of this project could be a useful aid in formulating policies as this
method considers both direct and indirect effects of a process.

Therefore, we will conduct both aLCA and cLCA (Figs. 2 and 3) to provide different sets
of information useful to both individual bioenergy processors and policy makers. Similarly,
keeping in view that sustainability often is defined using different metrics in various initiatives,
we have taken a data centric approach which will ensure that any postfacto assessment can be
performed. Important questions such as overall net energy value (NEV) of advanced biofuels,
use of fertilizers and pesticides, natural resources such as fresh water, impact on GHGs, NOx
emissions, eutrophication, acidification and long term sustainability will be addressed in the

11
aLCA. These metrics are similar to the bioenergy sustainability indicators suggested by the
Global Energy partnership. As discussed earlier, the GBEP sustainability indicators for
bioenergy consist of 24 metrics to assess sustainability that consider various environmental,
social and economic factors. Fifteen of these metrics will be measured in this project while four
metrics are not relevant for the current scenario. Five metrics will be relevant for large scale
implementation of the proposed technologies but will be measured to a limited extent, or not
measured, as there will be insufficient data to measure the metrics with confidence (Table 4).

Social and Economic Aspects of Sustainability

The Hawaii State IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for PLANning) model will be used to
determine short and long term impacts on island communities. Evaluation over time is important
to analyze structural changes that may occur in local communities. To examine more aggregate
economic impacts from biofuels production (such as Napier grass), a computable general
equilibrium (CGE) model is used to estimate statewide impacts (Coffman et al, 2007). The CGE
model can be calibrated from an IMPLAN based social accounting matrix (SAM) (Holland et al,
2007). The CGE framework is appropriate for Hawaii since the State has a small, open
economy.

12
 Inputs
Agricultural production data
1. Fertilizer (NPK) and pesticide use (kg/acre-
season).
2. Farm machinery use during various agricultural
operations such as land preparation, sowing,
weeding and harvesting (hr/acre-season).
3. CO2 and NOx emissions from the land due to
conversion to farmland or production (kg/acre-
season).
4. Water use (L/acre-season)
5. Product yields (kg/acre-season) Attributional Life Cycle
Processing data Assessment (aLCA)
6. Fossil Energy use during extraction, Boundary definition Outputs
1. System boundary will be 1. Total and fossil energy use to produce one
transesterification and waste disposal (MJ/L of liter of biodiesel starting from land
biodiesel) defined using RMEE method.
Functional Unit Definition preparation to delivery of biodiesel to
7. Water use (MJ/L of biodiesel). customer (MJ/L of biofuel)
8. Coproducts(Kg/L of biodiesel) 2. Functional unit of 10,000 MJ
of energy from advanced 2. Emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, CO,
Transportation and mode of transportation CH4, NOx and SOx) and volatile organic
9. Average distance from farm to production biofuel will be used to
compare the outputs to other carbon particulate matter (kg/L biofuel).
facility (km). 3. Water use intensity (L/L biofuel).
10. Average distance from production facility to aLCAs.
Life Cycle Inventory 4. Energy Returns on Energy Invested
distribution centers (km). (EROEI), Energy Returns on Water
Data sources: 3. LCI will be performed using a
MS Excel based on GREET Invested (EROWI).
1. Agricultural production data: Feedstock
production, harvesting and logistics, production 1.8d.
economics, GREET1.8d, Sokhansanj et al.
(2010) and literature surveys.
2. Processing data: Process parameters, additional
processing data will be obtained from the
process models for biodiesel production
developed by USDA; GRETT 1.8d.
3. Reasonable assumptions will be made if the
required data is not available from any other
source.

Fig. 2. Inputs and Outputs to aLCA.

 Inputs
1. Attributional LCA data for all
products affected by advanced
biofuel production. Sectors
affected by the advanced biofuel
production will be determined from
the CGE model outputs. Consequential Life Cycle Assessment
Data sources: (cLCA)
1. All the data inputs and outputs Boundary definition Outputs
from aLCA for advanced biofuel. 1. System boundary will be defined 1. Relative changes in fossil energy use to
2. Outputs from the CGE model using the systematic boundary produce one liter of biofuel starting from
specifically: definition method proposed by land preparation to delivery of advanced
Change in oilseed production; Schmidt (2008). biofuel to customer (MJ/L of biofuel)
biofuel production; biofuel use; Functional Unit Definition 2. Relative changes in emissions of
Change in prices of products 2. Functional unit of 10,000 MJ of greenhouse gases (CO2, CO, CH4, NOx
including commodities potentially energy from advanced biofuel will be and SOx) and volatile organic carbon
displaced by biofuel production; used. particulate matter (kg/L biofuel).
Change in cost by sector. OR the Life Cycle Inventory 3. Relative changes in water use intensity
impact of increased production will 3. LCI will be performed using a MS (L/L biofuel).
be determined by the system Excel based on GREET 1.8d.
boundary delineation method
proposed by Schmidt (2008).
3. Reasonable assumptions will be
made if the required data is not
available from any other source.

Fig. 3. Inputs and Outputs to cLCA.

Table 4. GBEP Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy.

Environmental Social Economic

Metric Units Metric Units Metric Units
Life-cycle GHG Grams of CO2 Allocation and Percentage Productivity Tons/ha-year,
Emissions equivalent per tenure of land MJ/ton, MJ/ha-
megajoule for new year and
bioenergy USD/MJ
production
Soil quality % change in soil Price and supply Tons/year and Net energy Ratio
organic carbon of a national USD/year balance
food basket
Harvest levels of Tons/ha-year Change in % Gross value US$/MJ
wood resources income added
Emissions of Emissions of Jobs in Number of new Change in MJ/year
non-GHG air PM2.5, PM10, bioenergy sector jobs per MJ of consumption of
pollutants, NOx,SO2 and bioenergy fossil fuels and
including air other pollutants traditional use of
toxics (mg/MJ biomass
bioenergy)
Water use and m3/MJ of Change in Hours per week- Training and re- %/year
efficiency bioenergy unpaid time household and qualification of
spent by women % the workforce
and children
collecting
biomass
Water quality kg N, P and Bioenergy used MJ/year Energy diversity MJ
active to expand access bioenergy/year
ingredients per to modern
ha-year. energy services
BOD and COD
from bioenergy
processing plant.
Biological Land (ha) in Change in % Infrastructure Number, MJ and
diversity in the three priority mortality and and logistics for percentage
landscape areas as defined burden of distribution of
in GBEP disease bioenergy
methodology. attributable to
indoor smoke
Land use and ha, ha/year and Incidence of Number/MJ of Capacity and Ratio
land-use change percentages as occupational bioenergy flexibility of use
related to defined in GBEP injury, illness of bioenergy
bioenergy methodology and fatalities
feedstock
production
Legend:
Plain text: indicator measured in current project.
Light shading: indicator not measured/measured to a limited extent.
Dark shading: indicator not relevant for current project.

15
CONCLUSIONS

A brief overview of various aspects of bioenergy sustainability assessment was presented.

An introduction to various global initiatives for sustainability certification of bioenergy also was
provided. A discussion elucidating the rational for the methodological choices for our Biomass
Research and Development Initiative project entitled “Conversion of High Yield Tropical
Biomass into Sustainable Biofuels” was presented. Perhaps this short paper will be a stimulus
for a robust discussion among S-1041 members of appropriate sustainability indicators for the
US, while at the same time being linked to global sustainability indices and indicators.

REFERENCES

1. Adams, W.M. 2006. The future of sustainability: re-thinking environment and

development in the twenty first century.
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf Accessed: 11th July,
2012.

2. Brander, M., Tipper, R., Hutchison, C. and Davis, G. 2009. Consequential and
attributional approaches to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specific reference to
greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels. TP-090403-A. Ecometrica.

3. Brundtland Commission Report. 1987. Our common future: report of the world
commission on environment and development.

4. Coffman, M., Surles, T. and Konan, D. 2007. Analysis of the impact of petroleum prices
on the State of Hawaii’s economy. Hawaii Dept Business, Economic Development and
Tourism report, 32 pp.

5. Curran, M. A. 2006. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. EPA Report
EPA/600/R-06/060; National Risk Management Research Laboratory.

6. Dam, J., Juninger, M. and Faaij, A.P.C. 2010. From the global efforts on certification of
bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Ren.
Sust. Energy Rev.

7. Earles, J.M. and Halog, A. 2011. Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. IJLCA
16:445-453.

8. Ekvall, T. and Weidema, B.P. 2004. System boundaries and input data in consequential
life cycle inventory analysis. IJLCA 9:161-171.

9. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.A., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler,
A., Pennington, D. and Suh, S. 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J.
Environ. Mgmt. 91:1-21.

10. GBEP. 2011. http://www.globalbioenergy.org/programmeofwork/sustainability/gbep-24-

sustainability-indicators/en/. Accessed Nov, 2011.
16
11. Holland, D., Stodick L. and Painter K. 2007. Assessing the economic impact of energy
price increase on Washington agriculture and the Washington economy: a general
equilibrium approach. Washington State University WP 2007-14, 23 pp.

12. ISO. 2006. ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental Management –Life
Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organisation for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

13. Kumar, D. and Murthy, G.S. 2011. Impact of pretreatment and downstream processing
technologies on economics, energy and water use in cellulosic ethanol production.
Biotechnol. Biofuels 4:27 doi:10.1186/1754-6834-4-27.

14. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. 1997. Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W., eds.
Seventh Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

15. Raynolds, M., Fraser, R. and Checkel, D. 2000. The relative mass-energy-economic
(RMEE) method for system boundary selection. Part 1: a means to systematically and
quantitatively select LCA boundaries. IJLCA 5:37-46.

16. Schmidt, J.H. 2008. System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA. IJLCA
13:350-364.

17. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz,
A., Hayes, D. and Yu, T. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse
gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319:1238-1240.

18. Tillman, A.-M. 2000. Significance of decision making for LCA methodology. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 20:113–123.

19. Tran, N., Illukpitiya, P., Yanagida, J.F. and Ogoshi R. 2011. Optimizing biofuel
production: an economic analysis for selected biofuel feedstock production in Hawaii.
Biomass Bioenergy 35:1756-1764.

20. Wang, M. 2005. Updated energy and greenhouse gas emission results of fuel ethanol.
Intl. Symp. Alcohol Fuels.

17
18
 IMPLEMENTING SYSTEMS METHODOLOGIES
FOR A SUSTAINABLE BIOBASED ECONOMY
C. Lindsay Anderson1, Hasan K. Atiyeh2, Sergio Capareda3,
Chengci Chen4 and Deepak R. Keshwani5
1
Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850
2
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University,
3
Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University,
4
Central Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University and
5
Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
(607-255-4533) [email protected]

Scientific and technological basis of biobased industries are evolving rapidly, in part
motivated by federally mandated targets. Even as the science continues to progress, there is
doubt surrounding the optimal form of these industries, perhaps most importantly in terms of
environmental and economic sustainability. There exist many sources of uncertainty including
unknowns in the development of new technologies, status of government policy and evolution of
markets and consumers. To develop a viable and sustainable biobased industry, early
comprehensive analyses are essential to assist researchers, government personnel and other
stakeholders in making informed and efficient decisions.

To assess alternatives, system level studies are required that will examine the
sustainability implications of various elements of the biomass to bioproduct supply chain. This
includes feedstocks supply, conversion technologies, product distribution and the myriad
possible combinations among them. One of the reformulated objectives of the S-1041 multistate
research plan will be to develop and apply advanced system level analyses to assess the
sustainability of a comprehensive set of biobased products and industries. These assessments
can provide the guidance for efficient scientific and technological efforts moving forward.

Achievement of this objective will require contribution and cooperation from a number of
participating institutions. Contributions will include specific process and product knowledge,
experimental data and modeling expertise through various objective based tasks.

19
20
 BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY LOGISTICS
Alvin R. Womac

Biosystems Engineering, Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station

2506 E. J. Chapman Drive, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996
(865-974-7266) [email protected]
www.biomassprocessing.org www.biomasslogistics.org

INTRODUCTION

The abundant, economical supply of biomass feedstock delivered with predictable

specifications that meet conversion needs is a critical step towards developing a biobased
economy. The required scale and biomass diversity exceed the capacity of current agricultural/
forestry logistic supplies. This remarkable quantity redefines the scope for growing, harvesting,
storing, transporting and processing feedstock. Biomass type and availability depends on climate
and growth conditions by geographic location. In general, biomass from agricultural, forestry
and energy crop sources is characterized by high moisture content, low bulk density and variable
seasonal yields. Identification and evaluation of biomass feedstock and availability,
characterization of biomass properties and development of engineered systems that harvest,
store, preprocess and deliver biomass require new fundamental knowledge, processes and
logistics systems. A key emphasis is the system must renewably supply, on a sustained basis, the
abundant and inexpensive feedstock at an annual billion ton capacity to meet US renewable
energy requirements.

PAST EFFORTS

Past efforts generally have been focused on isolated aspects of the feedstock supply
chain. Plant breeders improved biomass yield, drought resistance, pest tolerance or other traits
desirable for production. Engineers improved databases of biomass properties for moisture
content, bulk density, size reduction energy and other basic properties. Engineers evaluated
existing hay, forage and forest harvest/collection equipment for compatibility with some biomass
crops. Tub and horizontal feed grinders, hammer mills and kinetic energy mills were evaluated
for suitable operating conditions, energy use and particle sizes. In some instances, novel devices
for loading and handling bales of biomass formed with agricultural balers were conceptualized or

21
tested. Generally, biomass sources and harvest/processing equipment were tested under limited
test conditions and evaluated as a unit operation, and were not tested on a holistic, supply chain
basis. Acceptable ranges of biomass supply specifications for conversion were not available.
Hence, the supply chain was based on best guess targets. Feedstock quality was monitored at
harvest, storage and/or preprocessing stages.

PRESENT RESEARCH

Present feedstock supply chain research has improved the evaluation of overall supply
chain logistics that integrates basic unit processes. For example, five supply systems were
developed for evaluation as DOE High Tonnage Grant projects that involved members of this
multistate project (http://energy.gov/articles/doe-selects-biofuels-projects-receive-21-million-
funding ). Bale format, bulk format and forest product supply systems were selected for
evaluation of harvest, storage, transport and supply logistics to targeted biorefineries. Logistics
involved biomass physical properties coupled with the efficient use of equipment systems for
moving biomass. GPS on vehicles often was used for tracking purposes. In some cases,
improved unit operations were developed as a result of the holistic approach. Research needs of
commercial scale feedstock supply chains were identified better than by only focusing on a unit
operation. Biorefinery partners helped evaluate biomass specifications. Projects provided a
platform to use the Integrated Biomass Supply and Logistics (IBSAL) model developed by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and applied to each project for a uniform comparison basis.

The first generation of cellulosic fuel biorefineries is now underway. Industry

representatives have revealed many questions associated with acceptable biomass specifications.
Based on limited data, there is a trend the biomass storage should minimize biomass exposure to
excessive precipitation. Biomass that gets wet, and stays wet, first loses the potential sugars
necessary for biochemical conversion processes. Some members of the multistate project have
agreements with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) which is developing biomass commodity
feedstock supply systems. The idea is to use existing commodity scale solids handling
infrastructure for biomass processed at local depots near production fields. INL developed a
deployable process demonstration unit (PDU) that includes modules for bale decomposition,
drying, grinding and densification. Emphasis was placed on high density, bulk flowability and
aerobic stability. The PDU includes pelleting which creates high bulk densities useful for long
distance transport. Input material ultimately will consist of wheat straw, barley straw, rice straw,
corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, wood products and biowaste.

22
FUTURE NEEDS

Within the multistate project, there is expertise to address four critical feedstock logistics
needs:
1. Reduced costs: Current supply systems, especially for agricultural residues or dedicated
energy crops, deliver biomass at costs typically ranging from $60 to 100 per dry ton, not
including grower payment. Exact costs depend on assumptions regarding capital
expenditures, other equipment applications, annual utilization and a host of other details.
However, most will agree that overall costs must be reduced to entice substantial
investment in biorefineries and feedstock delivery systems.
2. Sustainable production: In depth agronomic knowledge of the wide possible array of
biomass production crops is lacking to make well informed decisions about selecting and
investing in crop stands, especially perennials. Sustainability of large plantings based on
expected nutrient management, pest control, climate conditions, stand suitability for
harvest and impact on water and air quality, integration with other crops, grower
acceptance and other indices is not well documented.
3. New equipment and storage technologies: Current feedstock supply logistics relies on
equipment developed and improved over many years for forage crops typically used on
farm. In general, biomass crops require harvesters that have improved robustness to
handle increased stem lengths and sizes. Densification systems need increased
throughput capacity and the ability to retain confining stresses with minimal impact on
throughput. High capacity storage systems are needed to reduce the required footprint for
annual harvests and to reduce biomass exposure to precipitation.
4. Optimization: Knowledge to optimize the feedstock logistics system is lacking. An
example is the integration of feedstock logistics and biorefinery conversion. First, as
biomass quality increases, and particle size decreases, costs increase. A complete curve
of this benefit cost curve is lacking, but a few data points are available. On the other
hand, a biorefinery is expected to increase production and decrease cost per unit as
biomass quality increases and particle size decreases. Since there are few operational
biorefineries, the benefit cost curve is not apparent. Optimization involves examining the
combined benefit cost curves, one for feedstock supply and the other for the biorefinery
conversion process.

23
24
 EDUCATION: BIOENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY
DISTANCE EDUCATION GRADUATE CERTIFICATE
Danielle Julie Carrier1 and Charles West2
1
Biological and Agricultural Engineering and 2Crop and Environmental Sciences,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479-575-2351) [email protected]

The American Graduate Education System is efficient, robust and credible, and is in part
responsible for giving a research and development edge to the American economy. The
American Graduate Education System is a national pipeline that has trained the 20th century
workforce and is in the process of preparing the 21st century workforce, which will need to
develop innovative solutions to many of our sustainable development problems. Everyone wants
clean water and food, shelter and ways of earning a living. The context in which to offer this
quality of life is different than from the Second World War. In the 21st century, we are
experiencing shrinking resources and expanding population, which restrict the confines of the
design sandbox. Our nation’s colleges and universities are key to developing long term
sustainable solutions to these colossal growth challenges. Unfortunately, most public institutions
and many private ones have been forced to reduce expenses, leaving less money to train and
educate students.

It is difficult for one single university to offer graduate courses in each discipline or topic.
It is in that spirit that Kansas State, Oklahoma State and South Dakota State Universities, and the
University of Arkansas, all S-1041 participants, formed a partnership to design an on line
graduate certificate in bioenergy and sustainable technology (BST). This certificate will be
instrumental in training a new generation of professionals to be equipped to function in the
interdisciplinary environment typical of sustainable biomass supply chains, biotechnologies and
energy conversion technologies. The BST certificate is affiliated with Great Plains-AG IDEA
and is governed by its structure. The BST certificate is for professionals who already hold an
undergraduate degree in any field, not specifically in science or engineering. We will present an
overview of the BST certificate.

25
26
 BIOENERGY/BIOPRODUCT PRODUCTION AND PROCESSES:
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ACTIVITITES OF S-1041

Bernie Tao

Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University,

225 South University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
(765-494-1183) [email protected]

Research on developing novel biobased processes for energy and materials requires a
highly diverse set of scientific and technological expertise, often beyond the experience of a
single researcher or group. It encompasses everything from fundamental molecular biology to
biomass production to processing to energy/product conversion/delivery and environmental
management. It incorporates a variety of geographical, economic and industrial settings. To
address these needs requires the diversity of research and collaboration found in the S-1041
group personnel. We will provide a summary of bioenergy/bioproducts research activities of the
S-1041 researchers, highlighting their achievements and accomplishments as well as
collaborations.

27
28
THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION AND REVISION OF OBJECTIVE 2

Roger Ruan and Paul Chen

Center for Biorefining and Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering,

University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
(612-625-1710) [email protected]

Agricultural and forest byproducts and residues, specialty energy crops, algae and
municipal wastes are potential feedstocks for production of renewable energy. Thermochmeical
processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal liquefaction and torrefaction, are
efficient ways to convert solid wastes to energy and biochar. Current status of these processes
will be reviewed. The needs and methods for stabilizing and upgrading of primary conversion
products, eg, bio-oil or bio-crude, will be presented. The technical challenges with these
processes also will be discussed. In addition, revision of S-1041 Objective 2 (pretreatment,
conversion and product development of biological and thermochemical processes) with inputs
from participating university representatives will be summarized.

29
30
 HYBRID THERMOCHEMICAL-BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSING
FOR BIORENEWABLE ALCOHOL PRODUCTION
USING Alkalibaculum bacchi

Hasan K. Atiyeh1, Kan Liu1, Ralph S. Tanner2, Mark R. Wilkins1 and Raymond L. Huhnke1
1
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK 74078 and
2
Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
(405-744-8397) [email protected]

Lignocellulosic ethanol can be produced via either the biochemical, thermochemcial or

hybrid thermochemical-biochemical platforms. The hybrid platform utilizes
gasification-fermentation. In gasification, the biomass is gasified into producer gas (CO, H2,
CO2 and N2). Particulates and inhibitors are cleaned from producer gas, which is fermented
using acetogens to produce ethanol, butanol and other coproducts. The primary advantage of the
hybrid conversion process over the biochemical or thermochemical platforms is a complete
utilization of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin components of the biomass into producer gas,
leading to a greater potential for alcohol production per unit of biomass. In addition, producer
gas fermentation operates near ambient pressure and temperature. The hybrid process has
several challenges that our team is tackling including gas-liquid mass transfer and low
productivity related to low cell density. Alkalibaculum bacchi strain CP15 was discovered
recently in our laboratories to produce ethanol and acetic acid from producer gas. Standard yeast
extract (YE), an expensive medium, was used in our previous studies. To improve the
economical feasibility of producer gas fermentation, the YE medium was replaced with low cost
corn steep liquor (CSL). Fermentations with YE and CSL media were compared. CSL medium
produced twofold more ethanol compared to YE medium. In addition, over 94% of the medium
cost was reduced using CSL, which was indicative of the potential use as a cost effective nutrient
for producer gas fermentation at a large scale.

31
32
 FOULING RATES OF SYNTHETIC THIN STILLAGE
Ravi Challa1, David B. Johnston2, Vijay Singh1,
M. E. Tumbleson1, Nicki J. Engeseth3 and Kent D. Rausch1
1
Agricultural and Biological Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801,
2
Eastern Regional Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Wyndmoor, PA and
3
Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(217-265-0697) [email protected]

In the US, fuel ethanol is produced by two processes: dry grind (86%) and wet milling
(14%) [1]. Ethanol production has become more energy efficient with innovative energy saving
methods, which reduced the energy requirements per liter ethanol from 33.4 MJ in 1981 to 7.2
MJ in 2008 [1]. Thin stillage is one of the coproducts from the dry grind process. It is
concentrated to form condensed distillers solubles (25 to 30% total solids, w/w) in multiple
effect evaporators [2]. Undesirable deposits on heat transfer surfaces increases resistance to heat
transmission and decreases energy efficiency [3]. Costs associated with fouling include: labor
and equipment needed to clean fouled heat transfer surfaces, increased capital, antifoulant
chemicals, production loss and environmental impact of chemical disposal from equipment
cleaning. To make ethanol production more sustainable it is important to make the dry grind
process economical. Proteins, carbohydrates, fats and fiber may cause evaporator fouling;
studies published in corn processing have been limited [2, 4, 5, 6]. None of these researchers has
determined which thin stillage components causes evaporator fouling. Our objective was to
investigate fouling tendencies of individual thin stillage components. Composite fouling is
difficult to understand as interactions among fluid particles and heat transfer surfaces are
complex. Synthetic fluids were prepared with model components of thin stillage (eg, starch).
Effects of starch and glucose composition in a synthetic thin stillage fluid on fouling resistance
(Rf) were studied. Effects of total solids content (1 to 10% db) on Rf were investigated. Fouling
resistance of starch and glucose or both was investigated to understand interactions among them
under various evaporator conditions. In this synthetic thin stillage system, starch had a larger
effect on fouling than glucose. Glucose alone did not foul the probe but had an effect in
combination with starch at 10% total solids.
1. Mueller, S. Biotechnol. Lett., 2010. 32(9):1261.
2. Singh, V., C.B. Panchal, and S.R. Eckhoff. Cereal Chem., 1999. 76(6):846.
3. Taborek, J., J.W. Palen, T. Aoki, R.B. Ritter, and J.G. Knudsen. Chem. Engr. Prog., 1972.
68(2):59.
4. Arora, A., B.S. Dien, R.L. Belyea, V. Singh, M.E. Tumbleson, and K.D. Rausch. Bioresource
Technol., 2010. 101(16):6521.
5. Wilkins, M.R., R.L. Belyea, V. Singh, P. Buriak, M.A. Wallig, M.E. Tumbleson, and K.D.
Rausch. Cereal Chem., 2006. 83(2):121.
6. Wilkins, M.R., V. Singh, R.L. Belyea, P. Buriak, M.A. Wallig, M.E. Tumbleson, and K.D.
Rausch. Cereal Chem., 2006. 83(3):311.

33
34
 AUTOHYDROLYSIS OF Miscanthus x giganteus
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF XYLOOLIGOSACCHARIDE (XOS):
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS AND RECOVERY
Ming-Hsu Chen1, Bruce S. Dien2, Kent D. Rausch1, M. E. Tumbleson1 and Vijay Singh1
1
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801 and 2NCAUR/ARS/USDA, Peoria, IL 61604
(217-333-9510) [email protected]

Miscanthus x giganteus (MG), a perennial grass, has potential as a new bioenergy crop
due to its cellulose and hemicellulose content. Currently, MG has been tested in central Illinois
and has been reported to attain an average yield of 36 MT/ha/year [1]. The process for
converting MG to ethanol only is not cost effective and not ready for commercialization. There
is a need to make this process more economical by recovering high value coproducts in addition
to ethanol. Xylooligosaccharides (XOS) are sugar oligomers made from xylose units and can be
produced during the hydrolysis of xylan, one of the main hemicellulose components. The
growing commercial importance of these nondigestive sugar oligomers is based on their
prebiotic effect to human health. We recovered XOS through an autohydrolysis process using
MG. Miscanthus from the University of Illinois research farm was oven dried overnight to 2.6%
moisture and milled to pass through a 0.25 mm screen. The raw material consisted of 35.9%
glucan, 19.5% xylan, 2.1% arabinan, 19.6% lignin, 11.3% extractives and 1.8% ash. Hot water
pretreatment was performed in a 25 mL tubular reactor with solid:liquid ratio (1:9); temperatures
varied from 140 to 200°C. XOS could be produced effectively at 160, 180 and 200°C at
different reaction times. Depending upon reaction conditions, XOS yields up to 13.9% (w/w) of
initial dry biomass and 71.4% (w/w) of initial xylan were observed. In gel permeation
chromatography (GPC), molecular weight distribution migrations at different reaction times and
temperatures were observed. Using water/ethanol solutions at the ratio of 50:50 and 30:70 could
recover effectively XOS from carbon adsorption.

1. Khanna, M., Dhungana, B., Clifton-Brown, J. 2008. Costs of producing miscanthus and
switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioengr. 32:482-493.

35
36
 MICROWAVE ASSISTED PYROLYSIS OF MICROALGAE
FOR RENEWABLE BIO-OIL PRODUCTION
Zhenyi Du, Yanling Cheng, Xiangyang Lin, Paul Chen and Roger Ruan

Center for Biorefining and Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering,

University of Minnesota, 1390 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108
(612-625-1710) [email protected]

Microalgae recently received much attention in the field of biofuels production due to its
numerous advantages, such as high biomass production, high lipids content, CO2 sequestration
and potential for wastewater treatment. However, most algae utilization researchers are
concentrating on biodiesel production through conventional transesterification processes. There
are few reports about bio-oils production from pyrolysis of microalgae. The pyrolysis of
Chlorella sp. was carried out in a microwave oven with char as microwave reception enhancer.
Liquid product from microwave assisted pyrolysis (MAP) was a mixture of an oil phase and a
water phase which separated automatically. Maximum bio-oil yield of 28.6% was achieved
under the microwave power of 750 W. Bio-oil properties were characterized with elemental,
GC-MS, GPC, FTIR and thermogravimetric analyses. Algal bio-oil had a density of 0.98 kg/L, a
viscosity of 61.2 cSt, pH of 9.5 and a higher heating value (HHV) of 30.7 MJ/kg. Using GC-MS
we showed the bio-oils were composed mainly of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols,
long chain fatty acids and nitrogenated compounds, among which aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons (22.18 % of the total GC-MS spectrum area) are desirable compounds as those in
crude oil, gasoline and diesel. Fast growing algae are a promising source of feedstock for
advanced renewable fuels production via MAP. 

37
38
 BIO-OIL FROM SWITCHGRASS PYROLYSIS:
UPGRADE TO TRANSPORTATION FUEL BY HYDROGENATION
AND CATALYTIC TREATMENT
Tahmina Imam and Sergio Capareda

Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University,

College Station, TX 77840
(979-458-3028) [email protected]

Bio-oil produced from biomass conversion through pyrolysis is a useful product and can
be a promising alternative source of energy. This product may be upgraded to biobased gasoline,
diesel and jet fuels. The chemical composition of bio-oil is complex, and is composed of water,
organics and small amounts of ash. Stabilizing these bio-oil products includes lowering the
oxygen content, reducing acidity, removing char and reducing moisture. Without the upgrade
process, bio-oil is unstable and difficult to flow for ease of transport. The objective of this
research was to upgrade pyrolyzed bio-oil into transportation fuel, such as gasoline, by
fractionation and hydrogenation using catalysts, such as palladium and nickel, at controlled
temperature and pressure. A plug flow reactor in a continuous system was used for maximal
oxygen removal and high catalytic activity. Detailed hydrocarbon analysis (DHA) of bio-oil and
products at each upgrading step was performed. Finally, products were compared to gasoline
through ASTM gasoline standard tests: thermal stability, diene number and gum. If bio-oil can
be upgraded to transportation fuel that would have a favorable environmental impact, gasoline
from our research could be used as a replacement for petroleum fuel.

39
40
 COMPARISON OF MONOSACCHARIDE PRODUCTION FROM
PRETREATED MISCANTHUS OF VARYING PARTICLE SIZE

Esha Khullar1, Bruce S. Dien2, Kent D. Rausch1, M. E. Tumbleson1 and Vijay Singh1
1
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
and 2NCAUR/ARS/USDA, Peoria, IL 61604
(217-333-9510) [email protected]

The effect of particle size on enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated Miscanthus x giganteus

was determined. Miscanthus was ground using a hammer mill equipped with screens having
0.08, 2.0 or 6.0 mm openings. Particle size distribution and geometric mean diameters were
determined. Ground samples were subjected to hot water, dilute acid or dilute ammonium
hydroxide pretreatment. Enzyme hydrolysis was conducted on washed pretreated solids; sugar
generation was used as a measure for pretreatment efficiency. Glucose and xylose
concentrations were monitored using HPLC. Glucose and xylose profiles were generated and
hydrolysis rates estimated. Glucan, xylan and total conversion yields were determined by
comparing final sugar concentrations obtained to theoretical amounts present in raw biomass.

Geometric mean diameters were the smallest from 0.08 mm sieve screen (56 μm)
followed by 2.0 mm (301 μm) and 6.0 mm (695 μm) screens. Across all pretreatments, an
increase in total polysaccharide conversion (12 to 26%) was observed when particle size was
decreased from 6.0 to 0.08 mm. Enzyme hydrolysis of unpretreated biomass samples also
resulted in increased total conversions as particle size decreased, although mean conversions (10
to 20%) were lower than for pretreated biomass samples (40 to 70%), indicating the need for
chemical pretreatments in biomass conversion.

41
42
TECHNOECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
ETHANOL PRODUCTION FROM PERENNIAL RYEGRASS STRAW
Deepak Kumar and Ganti S. Murthy

Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

(541-737-6291) [email protected]

Bioethanol, an important renewable transportation fuel, can be produced in large

quantities from fermentation of sugars derived from hydrolysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks.
Technoeconomic feasibility and environmental sustainability play a vital role in determining the
overall suitability of a feedstock and conversion process for producing cellulosic ethanol. Our
aim was to evaluate economic viability and environmental impact of ethanol production from
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) straw. Perennial ryegrass straw, a coproduct of grass
seed production, contains 26% cellulose, 13% hemicellulose and 14% lignin. A comprehensive
well to pump life cycle assessment was performed to investigate the overall net energy balance
and greenhouse gas emissions during ethanol production from straw. A process model for an
ethanol plant with a processing capacity of 250,000 metric ton biomass/ year, incorporating
feedstock handling, dilute acid pretreatment, simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation,
ethanol recovery, coproduct utilization and waste water treatment was developed using SuperPro
Designer (Intelligen, Inc.). Ethanol yield and production capacity were estimated to be 250.7
L/dry metric ton of biomass and 58.2 million L/year, respectively. Initial capital investment,
annual operating cost and production cost of ethanol were estimated as $114.9 MM, $48.5 MM
and $0.83/L of ethanol, respectively. Energy from lignin residue (26.8 MJ/L ethanol) was more
than that of steam energy (19.1 MJ/L ethanol) used in the plant. Grass straw (21.45 ¢/L ethanol)
and cellulase enzymes (11.2 ¢/L ethanol) were the main contributors in the total material cost.
Fossil energy required and GHG emissions during life cycle of ethanol production were
estimated as 4283 MJ and -228 kg CO2 equivalent per 10,000 MJ of ethanol, respectively.

43
44
 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF LIGNOCELLULOSIC FEEDSTOCKS
FROM PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSERVATION BUFFERS

Deepak Kumar1, Ankita Juneja1, William Hohenschuh1, John D. Williams2 and Ganti S. Murthy1
1
Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 and
2
Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center, ARS/USDA, Pendleton, OR 97801
(541-737-6291) [email protected]

Bioethanol is an important alternative to liquid transportation fuels due to advantages

such as compatibility with current infrastructure, comparable energy values and lower net life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Development of sustainable feedstocks that can be used for
bioethanol production and contribute to renewable energy is a critical need. Conservation
reserve program (CRP) was initiated for controlling soil erosion and providing other ecological
benefits. Currently, 2.5 to 3.0 million acres in the Pacific Northwest region are under this
program. Biomass harvested from these lands could contribute to total available biomass for
bioethanol industry. Our aim was to determine the chemical composition of common plant
species found in Pacific Northwest Conservation buffers. Nine feedstocks (two grass and seven
forb species) commonly found in these buffers were examined to determine their chemical
composition and potential bioethanol yields. Samples were collected from areas planted to
simulate conservation buffers alongside stream channels within three common resource areas in
the interior Pacific Northwest. Composition was determined as per laboratory analysis protocols
from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Composition differences for total glucan
(19.39 to 33%), xylan (7.03 to 20.31%) and lignin content (10 to 18%) were found among the
nine feedstocks. Potential maximum ethanol yields ranged from 182 to 316 L/dry ton of biomass
for different plant species.

45
46
 UNDERSTANDING AND ENHANCING
ALKALINE AND OXIDATIVE CHEMICAL PRETREATMENTS
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS
THROUGH IMPROVED CHARACTERIZATION

Muyang Li1,2, Daniel Williams2,3, Charles Chen3, Zhenglun Li2,3,

Trey Sato2, Tongjun Liu2 and David Hodge1,2,3,4
1
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering,
2
Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center,
3
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 and
4
Chemical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
(517-353-4508) [email protected]

We will present recent research on improving technologies for oxidative chemical

pretreatments and alkaline fractionation of plant biomass. One theme underlying this research is
how improved characterization of the chemical, structural and physical changes to the plant cell
wall and the spectrum of compounds solubilized from the cell wall can better inform
technologies for plant cell wall deconstruction and conversion to renewable fuels and chemicals.
Our work will span four areas: 1) characterizing how lignin properties (S/G ratio,
p-hydroxycinnamic acid content and total lignin content) and their alteration during alkaline
hydrogen peroxide (AHP) pretreatment impacts enzymatic digestibility for grasses with diverse
lignin phenotypes, 2) identifying the spectrum of fermentation inhibitors generated by AHP
pretreatment of grasses for high sugar concentration fermentation by xylose fermenting
Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains and demonstration of improved xylose fermentation and
hydrolyzate tolerance through evolutionary engineering and 3) quantifying the impact of AHP
pretreatment on plant cell wall water swelling capacity and how the water-cell wall environment
influences its susceptibility to enzymatic hydrolysis.

47
48
 PRODUCTION OF BIOPOLYOLS AND POLYURETHANES FROM
LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS AND CRUDE GLYCERIN
Yebo Li

Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691

(330-263-3855) [email protected]

Flexible and rigid petroleum based polyurethane foams are their most common
applications; they can be found in automotive, construction and insulation industries, among
others. To combat concerns over the depletion of global petroleum reserves and rising petroleum
prices, extensive research has been conducted to produce biobased polyols (biopolyols) from
renewable sources to replace conventional petroleum based polyols. Biopolyols from soy and
vegetable oil have been an attractive alternative but will continue to compete with demand for
foodstuffs. A compelling substitute to natural oil and petroleum based feedstock is crude
glycerin. Crude glycerin is a byproduct of the biodiesel production process and differs from pure
glycerin in composition due to the presence of various impurities. Because crude glycerin is an
inexpensive feedstock, it has the potential to produce biopolyol products at a cost competitive
with petroleum based polyol products. Since 2008, researchers at Ohio State University / Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development Center have developed a one pot catalytic process for
the production of biopolyols from crude glycerin and biomass.

49
50
 BIOBASED ENERGY EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL
EXCHANGE SYSTEM (BEEMS)
Yebo Li1, Scott Pryor2, Wei Liao3, Brian He4, Abolghasem Shahbazi5,
Lijun Wang5, Ann Christy1, Fred Michel1 and Thaddeus Ezeji1
1
Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691; 2North Dakota State University,
3
Michigan State University, 4University of Idaho and 5NC A&T State University
(330-263-3855) [email protected]

Project members have noted that new courses related to biobased energy are introduced
regularly around the country. There are few resources adequately synthesizing information in
this diverse and changing field. Compiling expertise and course materials from existing courses
would help those instructors currently teaching courses and those who will offer a new course at
their institution. Team members are developing a biobased energy education material exchange
system for faculty members to share course materials and encourage student interaction among
institutions. Course materials such as PowerPoint slides, homework exercises and examination
problems also will be developed by team members. Thus far, we have developed PowerPoint
modules for eight (8) topics: biomass pretreatment; enzymatic conversion; biodiesel; sugar based
and starch based ethanol; biobutanol; anaerobic digestion; biomass gasification and biomass
pyrolysis. More than 30 faculty members currently teaching biobased energy related courses are
reviewing and using these modules in their classes. The following six (6) modules are under
development: algae; liquefaction; physical, chemical and structural properties; fermentation;
microbial fuel cells and feedstock logistics. We expect to have up to 50 faculty members using
BEEMS for their bioenergy teaching. Hopefully, this program will reduce teaching preparation
time by 50% via sharing of course materials, improve the quality of the biobased energy courses
among member universities and increase student enrollment in such courses (up to 1,000
students are enrolled annually in courses utilizing BEEMS). 

51
52
 VINASSE CONVERSION INTO AQUATIC FOODS
VIA FUNGAL FERMENTATION
Saoharit Nitayavardhana and Samir K. Khanal

Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering (MBBE), University of Hawai'i at Mānoa

1955 East-West Road, Agricultural Science Building 218, Honolulu, HI 96822
(808-956-3812) [email protected]

We examined the potential for large scale production of an edible fungus, Rhizopus
oligosporus, on vinasse, a liquid waste stream generated during sugar to ethanol production. An
airlift bioreactor (2.5 L working volume) was used for cultivating the fungus on 75% (v/v)
vinasse with nutrient supplementation (nitrogen and phosphorus) at 37°C and pH 5.0 (an optimal
fungal growth condition on vinasse). Aeration rates were varied from 0.5 to 2.0
volumeair/volumeliquid/min (vvm). Fungal biomass yield depended on aeration rate; an aeration
rate of 1.5 vvm resulted in the highest fungal biomass yield of 8.0 ± 0.8 gbiomass increase/ginitial biomass.
Influent organic matter, measured as soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD), was reduced by
80% (26 g/L). Reduction in organic content was suggestive of a potential for recycling treated
effluent as process water for in plant use or land application as fertirrigation. Fungal biomass
can be processed into ingredients for aquatic feed applications as it contains 50% crude protein
and comparable amounts of essential amino acids to commercial protein sources for aquatic
feeds (fishmeal and soybean meal). Cofeeding fungal biomass with commercial protein could
address the problem of low methionine and phenylalanine in fungal biomass. Further, utilizing
the low value vinasse would provide an unique sustainable option for a sugar to ethanol
biorefinery by providing an additional source of revenue from its residue with concomitant waste
treatment.

53
54
 EFFECT OF FERTILIZATION AND GROWING SEASON ON
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP) PASTURELAND
AS A BIOFUEL FEEDSTOCK
Tucker Porter, Chengci Chen, Rick Lawrence and Bok Sowell

Montana State University, P.O. Box 172900, Bozeman, MT 59717

(406-570-1387) [email protected]

US Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy established a national goal that by 2030

biomass will supply 5% of the nation’s power, 20% of its transportation fuels and 25% of its
chemicals. Perennial forage crop species are considered to be the future ideal bioenergy
feedstock. Achieving the goal will require more than one billion dry tons of biomass feedstock
annually, a fivefold increase over the current consumption. Researchers suggest agricultural land
can provide nearly one billion dry tons of sustainably collectable biomass while continuing to
meet food, feed and export demands. We present an investigation using forage from
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land as potential biofuel feedstock source. We
investigated nitrogen fertilizer, harvest timing affecting the biomass yield, species composition
and biomass characteristics of plant materials on CRP land in central Montana with grass and
alfalfa mixture. In addition, remote sensing techniques were used to predict biomass yields at
different growing stages. Through more efficient methods of determining above ground plant
biomass production will allow land managers to make more informed ecological and economic
decisions, and allow bioenergy industry to predict feedstock availability for biorefineries.

55
56
 IMPACT OF TREATED EFFLUENT WATER USE
IN CELLULOSIC ETHANOL PRODUCTION

Divya Ramachandran, Kishore Rajagopalan, Timothy J. Strathmann and Vijay Singh

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

(217-333-9510) [email protected]

The bioethanol industry exerts a significant demand on water supplies. Current water
consumption rates in corn dry grind ethanol plants is 3 to 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol
produced (gal/gal) and 6 to 10 gal/gal for cellulosic ethanol plants. The main goal of this study
was to examine the use of treated wastewater effluent in place of potable freshwater for
cellulosic ethanol production. The effects of using two types of filtered treated effluent,
Bloomington-Normal, IL (residential type) and Decatur, IL (industrial/residential mix type), on
fermentation rates and final ethanol yields from a pure cellulosic substrate were evaluated. Final
ethanol concentrations with Bloomington-Normal and Decatur effluents and our control study
using deionized water were similar, resulting in 4.57 ± 0.22 % v/v (0.36 g/g, db), 4.74 ± 0.13 %
v/v (0.37 g/g, db) and 4.55 ± 0.28 % v/v (0.36 g/g, db), respectively. Residual glucose
concentrations were <0.04% w/v at 48 hr in all cases, suggesting complete fermentation.

Further study with Decatur effluent using 0.08 mm finely ground Miscanthus as the
substrate resulted in a final ethanol concentration of 0.46 ± 0.008 % v/v (0.14 g/g db) which was
similar to an ethanol concentration of 0.52 ± 0.07 % v/v (0.17 g/g db) obtained with a control
treatment using deionized water. With proper characterization studies and under appropriate
conditions, the use of treated effluent water in cellulosic ethanol production is feasible.

57
58
 PRODUCING FURFURAL FROM BIOMASS
IN AN INTEGRATED BIOREFINERY

Troy Runge and Anurag Mandalika

Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

460 Henry Mall, Madison, WI 53706
(608-890-3143) [email protected]

The pentose fraction of biomass is an ideal candidate for utilization in biorefineries to

produce fuels, energy and materials. The 5 carbon sugars are difficult to ferment in ethanol
plants and are hydrolyzed easily, making them susceptible to loss in processes such as pulp
production. Additionally, pentosans are reactive, enabling their extraction from biomass and
conversion into furans and organic acids. We evaluated a novel process of creating furfural, a
useful platform chemical, from biomass and compared its viability to other methods. Our
process fractionates biomass into a hexosan rich stream for producing paper and a pentosan rich
liquid stream. The latter is converted into furfural, catalyzed by sulfuric acid, followed by vapor
phase separation of furfural. Conventional batch furfural production process is characterized by
high losses due to formation of resinous substances called humins leading to theoretical yields of
50%. Our new process, in which both biomass separation and furfural separation strategies are
used, creates both higher yield of furfural, in excess of 80%, and also creates a hexosan rich
stream that can be used to create high value products such as ethanol or pulp. Condensation of
furfural/water vapors produces a fairly pure but dilute furfural product, providing the possibility
of converting it into other products, such as furfuryl alcohol, by biological conversion.
Therefore, there exists potential for conversion of pulp mills into integrated biorefineries that
produce one or more value added coproducts.

59
60
 EFFECT OF STEAM INJECTION LOCATION ON BIOMASS
GENERATED PRODUCER GAS IN A FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIER
Ashokkumar M. Sharma, Ajay Kumar and Raymond L. Huhnke

Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

228 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078
(405-744-8396) [email protected]

Synthesis of liquid fuels and chemicals requires a producer gas with different
concentrations of H2, CO and CO2. For a fluidized bed gasifier, reaction conditions vary along
the height of the reactor. In addition, steam injection location can have an effect on the quality
of biomass generated gas. Our objective was to determine the effects of steam injection location
on producer gas composition, tar and particulates content, and gasifier efficiency. Air-steam
gasification of switchgrass was performed in a laboratory scale fluidized bed reactor with
internal diameter of 102 mm. Experimental design included three steam injection locations and
three steam to biomass ratios. Steam injection locations were at the heights of 51, 152 and 254
mm above the air distributor plate. Steam to biomass ratios were 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3. There was a
significant (p < 0.05) effect of steam injection location on producer gas CO content, as well as
cold and hot gas efficiencies. However, producer gas H2 content, carbon conversion efficiency,
and tar and particulates contents were not dependent on steam injection location. The best gas
quality (9.8% H2 and 17.9% CO) and gasifier performance (75% cold gas efficiency and 80%
hot gas efficiency) were observed when steam was injected at 254 mm and using a steam to
biomass ratio of 0.1. Maximum carbon conversion efficiency of 98% was observed at a steam
injection location of 254 mm and using a steam to biomass ratio of 0.3.

61
62
 GREEN PROCESSING OF TROPICAL GRASSES
FOR BIOFUEL AND BIOPRODUCTS
Devin Takara, Andrew G. Hashimoto and Samir K. Khanal

Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering,

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822
(808-956-3812) [email protected]

Pennisetum purpureum, banagrass, is a perennial species that has been naturalized in

Hawaii and resembles the former state staple crop, sugarcane. Because of its high moisture
content, banagrass presents an unique opportunity for fractionation into valuable solid and liquid
components via green processing. The resulting clean, solid fibers serve as a substrate for
advanced biofuel production, while the green, nutrient rich liquids (juice) serve as a
supplemental additive for microbial coproduct generation. As banagrass matures, changes may
occur in its biochemical composition, subsequently affecting biofuel and bioproduct production.
Current conversion practices of lignocellulosic feedstocks (to biofuel) use dilute acid
pretreatments to weaken plant fibers and facilitate deconstruction to fermentable monomeric
sugars (precursors of biofuel) via cellulolytic enzymes. In this study, banagrass was hand
harvested from Waimanalo, HI, at ages of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mo and passed through a commercial
cutting mill for initial size reduction. Banagrass was passed through a screw press, under 40 psi
of pneumatic backpressure, for fractionation into solid and liquid components. Solid fibers were
pretreated under optimal conditions (5% w/w sulfuric acid, 120°C, 45 min) and saccharified
enzymatically. Banagrass juice, for nutrient supplementation in microbial bioproduct formation,
was collected and analyzed on the basis of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) and pH. The results of this study have implications in the technoeconomic
feasibility of biorefineries in Hawaii and other subtropical regions of the world.

63
64
 BIOBASED CONCRETE SEALANT
Bernard Tao1, Jason Weiss2, Michael Golias2, Javier Castro2,
Alva Peled2, Tommy Nantung3 and Paul Imbrock2
1
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University,
2
Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 and
3
Indiana Department of Transportation
(765-494-1183) [email protected]

Concrete is used globally for buildings, roads, bridges and consumer housing. With 30
billion tons of concrete produced annually, the industry is one of the major energy
consumers/carbon dioxide producers in the world. While concrete is one of the most durable
construction materials available, its durability suffers from corrosion/degradation, often caused
by moisture ingress which can result in deceased performance life. This is particularly relevant
in cold climates, due to freeze-thaw expansion. Additionally, salts used on roadways to melt ice
can accelerate corrosion of both concrete and reinforced concrete.

We will present results from our work in developing an effective biobased concrete
sealant using soy methyl esters and polystyrene. In exposure to over 300 freeze-thaw cycles,
these biobased sealants have demonstrated performance benefits vs current reactive silane-based
sealants. The biobased sealant also demonstrated superior protection from salt ingress and
preliminary results were indicative it may retard/prevent concrete spalling. The cost of this
sealant is lower than current reactive silane sealants and may extend the performance life of
concrete by up to 30%. Industrial/commercial testing of this biobased sealant is underway by the
Indiana Department of Transportation and private concrete companies.

65
66
 BIOMATERIALS AND BIOPROCESSING RESEARCH
AT KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Praveen V. Vadlani1, Xiuzhi Susan Sun1 and Donghai Wang2

1
Grain Science and Industry and 2Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
(785-532-5012) [email protected]

Biomaterials and bioprocessing research is being conducted in two research laboratories

(Bioprocessing and Renewable Energy Laboratory (BPRL), Biomaterials and Technology
Laboratory (BTL)) at Kansas State University. BPRL, directed by Praveen Vadlani, Grain
Science and Industry, is focused on efficient utilization of agricultural resources available in the
state of Kansas and conversion of those resources into value added biofuels and biochemicals.
The laboratory is equipped with a state of the art facility to perform enzymatic and microbial
bioprocessing and analyses of raw materials and products. BTL, directed by Susan Sun, Grain
Science and Industry, and Donghai Wang, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, is a
multifunctional laboratory focused on basic and applied research in biobased materials and
bioenergy, training graduate students with interdisciplinary skills in this field and developing
enabling technologies for environmentally friendly biobased products. BTL has advanced
facilities and professional staff, allowing for performing design, formulation, processing,
analyzing and testing of various biobased monomers, polymers, materials and fuels, as well as
converting low cost biorenewable materials to value added products.

We will highlight research projects directed by the three principal investigators. Dr.
Vadlani’s research includes: 1) D(-)lactic acid production from paper residues, 2) yeast oil
biosynthesis from biomass derived sugars, 3) effect of biomass pelleting on ethanol production
and 4) soy meal bioprocessing to premium animal food products. Dr. Sun’s research includes: 1)
morphology and structure of hydrophobic protein polymers, 2) protein nanomaterials, 3) soy
protein adhesives, 4) biocomposites and bionanocomposites and 5) resins from plant oils. Dr.
Wang’s research includes: 1) acid functionalized nanoparticles for cellulose hydrolysis, 2)
processing photoperiod sensitive sorghum for ethanol, 3) synchrotron X-ray scattering study of
biomass structure and 4) development of biobased adhesives from canola protein.

67
68
 CLEMSON SUSTAINABLE BIOREFINERY
Terry Walker

Biosystems Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634

(864-656-0351) [email protected]

The Clemson University Sustainable Bioenergy Initiative has created a biorefinery

concept that ranges from laboratory to pilot and full scale facilities. The facility now converts all
used cooking oils on campus to biodiesel which has displaced 30% of diesel used by the campus
fleet. The facility has production of up to 5,000 gallons per year while using both solar and
biodiesel power generation to power the facility off grid. The sustainable bioenergy complex
also includes close collaboration with the Clemson Student Organic Farm where a black soldier
fly digester has been implemented to produce biofuels and food for aquaculture. The
aquaculture ponds currently are under renovation to produce algal based biofuels and foods with
a coupled photobioreactor/greenhouse partitioned aquaculture/hydroponic pond system to be
powered by a combination of solar, gasification and biodiesel generator. A full scale 10 MW
biomass gasification plant feasibility study currently is taking place that will tie into the proposed
Clemson University Sustainable Bioenergy Center to link many of the projects on campus as a
means to meet the goals of a net zero carbon emissions campus as part of the Clemson
President's Climate Commitment.

69
70
 BIOWINOL: CAPTURING RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
AND CARBON DIOXIDE FOR TRANSPORTATION FUEL
Mark Wilkins1, Dimple Kundiyana2, Karthikeyan Ramachandriya1, Jennine Terrill3,
Xiaoguang Zhu1, Kan Liu1, Hasan Atiyeh1 and Raymond Huhnke1
1
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
2
E & J Gallo Winery, Modesto, CA, and
3
Coskata, Inc., Warrenville, IL
(405-744-8416) [email protected]

Many renewable electricity sources (eg, wind and solar energy) are available only at
certain times, which may not coincide with the times of highest demand. As a result, efforts to
develop storage methods to store electricity produced during times of low demand are being
pursued. The BioWinol concept is a microbial process utilizing hydrogen produced from
renewable electricity and carbon dioxide from industrial gas emissions to produce ethanol. In
the initial development of BioWinol, laboratory scale experiments were conducted using two
microorganisms (Clostridium carboxidivorans and Clostridium ragsdalei) which previously
have been shown to produce ethanol from H2/CO2 mixtures. Various feed-gas compositions and
culture media components also were tested. C. carboxidivorans produced more ethanol than C.
ragsdalei. After 15 days, a maximum of 2.66 gL-1 of ethanol was produced by C.
carboxidivorans vs 2.00 gL-1 by C. ragsdalei. Another valuable product, n-butanol, was
produced at a concentration of 0.7 gL-1 by C. carboxidivorans. It was observed the expensive
medium used in previous laboratory experiments with C. carboxidivorans can be replaced with a
simple medium of 0.5 gL-1 of cotton seed extract without a loss of ethanol or butanol production.
The laboratory scale experiments were conducted in serum bottles with limited volumes of gas,
which resulted in low productivity.

71
72
 PRODUCTION OF FERMENTABLE SUGARS
FROM EASTERN RED CEDAR
Mark R. Wilkins, Karthikeyan D. Ramachandriya,
S. Hiziroglu, N.T. Dunford and Hasan K. Atiyeh

Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

(405-744-8416) [email protected]

Eastern red cedar is the most widely distributed indigenous conifer in the Central Plains;
its invasiveness has brought many ecological concerns to farmers, ranchers and wildlife species.
Conversion of red cedar polysaccharides into fermentable sugars is a viable option to provide
value to red cedar and produce biofuel and/or chemicals. Acid bisulfite pretreatment was used to
pretreat red cedar. Use of 3.75 g sulfuric acid/100 g dry wood and 20 g sodium bisulfite/100 g
dry wood, a dry wood to liquid ratio of 1:5, 200°C and a reaction time of 20 min was found to
achieve the highest conversion of glucan to glucose in pretreated wood by cellulase (0.5 g
enzyme/g glucan, Accelerase 1500). However, 45% of glucan in untreated wood was lost during
pretreatment. To prevent glucan loss during pretreatment, reaction time during pretreatments
was reduced. Reaction times of 5 and 10 min were compared to a control of 20 min. Wood
glucan to glucose yield from enzymatic hydrolysis (0.5 g enzyme/g glucan, Accelerase 1500)
was the response variable used for comparison. Highly digestible biomass (90% digestibility)
and low glucan loss (6%) was achieved when a pretreatment time of 10 min was used. This
condition resulted in the highest wood glucan to glucose yield of 85%. Highly digestible
material was achieved due to removal of lignin and hemicellulose from the biomass. In the
future, we will focus on the statistical optimization of the pretreatment process with focus on
reducing chemical loading to reduce the cost of the process.

73
74
 ESTABLISHMENT OF A THREE STAGE SOLID SUBSTRATE
CULTIVATION FOR SOLVENT PRODUCTION USING CORN STOVER
Julia Yao1, Sue E. Nokes1, Michael Flythe2, Bert Lynn3, Dawn Kato3, Mike Montross1
1
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, 2ARS/USDA and 3Department of Chemistry,
215 C.E. Barnhart Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
(859-257-3000) [email protected]

Production of biochemicals from lignocellulose is of interest to replace chemicals

produced from petroleum. To improve biochemical marketability, research is focused on efforts
to improve production efficiency and yield from lignocellulosic feedstocks. We adopted
microbial pretreatment of corn stover by solid substrate cultivation (SSC) using Phanerochaete
chrysosporium to degrade lignin in the pretreatment stage. Thereafter, we directly inoculated
Clostridium thermocellum into the pretreated biomass to accomplish hydrolysis, followed by
acetone/butanol/ethanol production initiated by introducing Clostridium beijerinckii. Our
hypothesis is that microbial fermentation by SSC is a low cost, environmentally friendly process
which can be used as a model and extended to other types of biomass, demonstrating a potential
to be an on farm alternative for biochemical production.

Process parameters, ie, the effects of substrate moisture content and culture temperature
on lignin degradation, culture time for each of the three phases, availability of carbohydrates and
solvents production were monitored and examined to determine the optimal process for
profitability. The yield of reducing sugar produced by Clostridium thermocellum on biomass
pretreated with Phanerochaete chrysosporium was increased two fold as compared with biomass
which was not pretreated. A comprehensive comparison among pretreated biomass and
nonpretreated biomass (corn stover, Miscanthus, switch grass and wheat straw) using the three
stage SSC for solvent production will be explored to evaluate the applicability of the established
model to other biomass.

75
76
 BIOMASS TO LIQUID HYDROCARBON PROCESS VIA CATALYTIC
CONVERSION ON CARBON ENCAPSULATED IRON NANOPARTICLES
Fei Yu and Eugene Columbus

Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University,

Mississippi State, MS 39762
(662-325-0206) [email protected]

There are several strategies to convert syngas to fuels and chemicals. Fischer-Tropsch
(FT) synthesis is the major part of gas to liquids (GTL) technology, which converts syngas into
liquid fuels with a wide range of liquid hydrocarbons and high value added chemicals.
However, FT products are controlled by the Anderson-Schulz-Flory (ASF) polymerization
kinetics, resulting in a nonselective formation of hydrocarbons. Another approach is to convert
syngas to methanol over a hydrogenation catalyst and subsequently polymerize methanol to
hydrocarbons over ZSM-5. Currently, many investigators have demonstrated the advantages of
one stage processes by using bifunctional catalysts compared with two stage and three stage
processes of synthesis gas conversion to gasoline.

The use of a bifunctional catalyst allows for simultaneously carrying out the synthesis of
methanol from syngas over the metallic function and the transformation of methanol into
hydrocarbons over the acidic function. Fulfillment of both steps in the same reaction medium
promotes displacement of the thermodynamic equilibrium of methanol synthesis. Also, the
shape selectivity of the acidic function provides a high selectivity that cannot be reached in the
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Moreover, previous syngas to gasoline technologies are based on
using pure syngas or low nitrogen syngas, which are derived from natural gas or coal. There are
a limited number of publications using nitrogen rich producer gas to produce hydrocarbons. In
this research, the existing downdraft gasifier at Mississippi State University is generating
producer gas from lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks. Currently, biomass derived producer gas
contains about 20% hydrogen, 19% CO, 12% CO2, 2% CH4 and 49% N2. The N2 and CO2
contents are too high for the hydrocarbon synthesis if we use existing technologies. Developing
high activity and high stability catalysts is the key for a better overall performance when using
the biomass derived producer gas. A series of new catalysts with high activity and high stability
are being developed for a single stage hydrocarbon mixture production process from biomass
derived nitrogen rich producer gas. We demonstrated the process of biomass to aviation
biofuels via gasification and catalytic conversion.

77
78
 Author and Affiliation Index

Author Affiliation Page

Anderson, C. Lindsay Cornell University 19

Arbuckle, Peter W. NIFA/USDA 1
Atiyeh, Hasan K. Oklahoma State University 19, 31, 71, 73
Capareda, Sergio Texas A&M University 19, 39
Carrier, Danielle Julie University of Arkansas 25
Castro, Javier Purdue University 65
Challa, Ravi University of Illinois 33
Chen, Charles Michigan State University 47
Chen, Chengci Montana State University 19, 55
Chen, Ming-Hsu University of Illinois 35
Chen, Paul University of Minnesota 29, 37
Cheng, Yanling University of Minnesota 37
Christy, Ann Ohio State University 51
Columbus, Eugene Mississippi State University 77
Dien, Bruce S. NCUAR/ARS/USDA 35, 41
Du, Zhenyi University of Minnesota 37
Dunford, N.T. Oklahoma State University 73
Engeseth, Nicki J. University of Illinois 33
Ezeji, Thaddeus Ohio State University 51
Flythe, Michael ARS/USDA, Lexington, KY 75
Golias, Michael Purdue University 65
Hashimoto, Andrew G. University of Hawaii 3, 63
He, Brian University of Idaho 51
Hiziroglu, S. Oklahoma State University 73
Hodge, David Michigan State University 47
Hohenschuh, William Oregon State University 45
Huhnke, Raymond L. Oklahoma State University 31, 61, 71
Imam, Tahmina Texas A&M University 39
Imbrock, Paul Purdue University 65
Johnston, David B. ERRC/ARS/USDA 33
Juneja, Ankita Oregon State University 45
Kato, Dawn University of Kentucky 75
Keshwani, Deepak R. University of Nebraska 19

79
Author Affiliation Page

Khanal, Samir K. University of Hawaii 53, 63

Khullar, Esha University of Illinois 41
Kumar, Ajay Oklahoma State University 61
Kumar, Deepak Oregon State University 43, 45
Kundiyana, Dimple E & J Gallo Winery 71
Lawrence, Rick Montana State University 55
Li, Muyang Michigan State University 47
Li, Yebo Ohio State University 49, 51
Li, Zhenglun Michigan State University 47
Liao, Wei Michigan State University 51
Lin, Xiangyang University of Minnesota 37
Liu, Kan Oklahoma State University 31, 71
Liu, Tongjun Great Lakes Bioenergy Research 47
Lynn, Bert University of Kentucky 75
Mandalika, Anurag University of Wisconsin-Madison 59
Michel, Fred Ohio State University 51
Montross, Mike University of Kentucky 75
Murthy, Ganti S. Oregon State University 3, 42, 45
Nantung, Tommy Indiana Department of Transportation 65
Nitayavardhana, Saoharit University of Hawaii 53
Nokes, Sue E. University of Kentucky 75
Peled, Alva Purdue University 65
Porter, Tucker Montana State University 55
Pryor, Scott North Dakota State University 51
Rajagopalan, Kishore University of Illinois 57
Ramachandran, Divya University of Illinois 57
Ramachandriya, Karthikeyan Oklahoma State University 71, 73
Rausch, Kent D. University of Illinois 33, 35, 41
Ruan, Roger University of Minnesota 29, 37
Runge, Troy University of Wisconsin-Madison 59
Sato,Trey Great Lakes Bioenergy Research 47
Shahbazi, Abolghasem North Carolina A&T State University 51
Sharma, Ashokkumar M. Oklahoma State University 61
Singh, Vijay University of Illinois 33, 35, 41, 57
Sowell, Bok Montana State University 55
Strathmann, Timothy J. University of Illinois 57
Sun, Xiuzhi Susan Kansas State University 67

80
Author Affiliation Page

Takara, Devin University of Hawaii 63

Tanner, Ralph S. Oklahoma State University 31
Tao, Bernard Purdue University 27, 65
Terrill, Jennine Coskata 71
Tumbleson, M. E. University of Illinois 33, 35, 41
Vadlani, Praveen V. Kansas State University 67
Walker, Terry Clemson University 69
Wang, Donghai Kansas State University 67
Wang, Lijun North Carolina A&T University 51
Weiss, Jason Purdue University 65
West, Charles University of Arkansas 25
Wilkins, Mark R. Oklahoma State University 31, 71, 73
Williams, Daniel Michigan State University 47
Williams, John D. CPCRC/ARS/USDA 45
Womac, Alvin R. University of Tennessee 21
Yao, Julia University of Kentucky 75
Yu, Fei Mississippi State University 77
Zhu, Xiaoguang Oklahoma State University 71

81