DOCSLIB.ORG

ABE Fermentation from Low Cost Substrates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABE Fermentation from Low Cost Substrates Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 9-9-2016 12:00 AM ABE Fermentation From Low Cost Substrates Kai Gao The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Lars Rehmann The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Chemical and Biochemical Engineering A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Kai Gao 2016 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Biochemical and Biomolecular Engineering Commons, Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons, and the Biotechnology Commons Recommended Citation Gao, Kai, "ABE Fermentation From Low Cost Substrates" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 4087. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4087 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract The high cost of substrate and product inhibition in the fermentation broth remain two major problems associated with bio-butanol production. This thesis aims to solve these problems by examining abundant lignocellulosic biomass as potential feedstocks and exploring novel substrates such as carbohydrates derived from microalgae for ABE (Acetone-butanol-ethanol) fermentation. The commonly observed toxic effect after pretreatment of lignocelluslosic biomass was removed by resin adsorption, where the resin could also serve as an in-situ butanol recovery device. Corn cobs (an agricultural waste), switchgrass (an energy crop) and phragmites (an invasive plant in North America) were investigated as substrates for ABE fermentation by Clostridium saccharobutylicum DSM 13864. NaOH pretreatment followed by a washing step was used to reduce the biomass recalcitrance and facilitate the subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. Total sugar yields for corn cobs, switchgrass and phragmites were 475, 365, and 385 g/kg of raw biomass, respectively. After the subsequent fermentation, an ABE yield of 166, 146, and 150 g/kg raw biomass was obtained. Although biofuel production from lignocellulosic biomass is considered more sustainable than biofuel from food crops, it still faces many challenges. In order to demonstrate a possible biofuel production strategy using microalgal biomass, lipid extracted microalgae (LEA) was also used as substrates for ABE fermentation. To convert the carbohydrate fraction into solvents (ABE), LEA was either acid hydrolysed into glucose or directly fermented. The highest butanol titers (8.05 g/L) was obtained with the fermentation of acid hydrolysates. However fermenting the hydrolysate required detoxification via a resin, while direct fermentation did not, significantly simplifying the LEA to butanol process. The resin that was used to detoxify acid hydrolysates of LEA was further investigated for detoxification of lignocellulosic hydrolysates and in-situ butanol recovery. Detoxifcation of acid hydrolyzed phragmites by resin L-493, improved the fermentability signficantly. Resin L-493 was efficient in removing phenolic comopunds present in the phragmites hydrolysates, as well as butanol produced during fermentation. Keywords lignocellulosic biomass, NaOH pretreatment, ABE fermentation, resin, pervaporation, microalgae ii Co-Authorship Statement Contents of Section 2 were published to refereed journals and were co-authored by Dr. Lars Rehmann, who provided editorial and technical advice. Simone Boiano provided experimental assistance to portions of the work performed in section 2.4 and is listed as an co-author; Dr. Antonio Marzocchela provided advice on the draft of manuscript and is listed as a co-author. In section 2.5, Valerie Orr contributed to cultivation and lipid extractions of microalgae, and revision of the first draft of manuscript, and is listed as a co-author; Kai Gao designed and conducted all fermentation experiments, composition analysis and collected data; Kai Gao drafted the manuscript. iii Acknowledgments First and foremost I would like to thank Prof. Lars Rehmann for taking me as a PhD student four years ago. It was a great adventure for me to come over to Canada and I did not expect to be where I am today. For the last several years, Prof. Lars has inspired me both academically and mentally. Without his contribution, I would not have such a great journey and fruitful results during my PhD. I would like to thank him for providing many opportunities to go to conferences to present my research; these great experiences substanially improved my presentation and networking skills. Thanks to Dr. Erin Johnson, Dr. Luis Luque, Valerie Orr, Sascha Kießlich, Dr. Ethan Su, and Dr. Jeff Wood. It was a great pleasure to work with them and they have made the lab such a great place. I have to thank the Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and China Scholarship Council for funding. I would like to thank Biqiong Wang for sharing all the moments with me for the last several years. Her helps in all aspects of my life is greatly appreciated. Finally, many thanks to my mom (Ying Lin) and dad (Yinxiang Gao) in China, for their unconditional love and constant support. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i Co-Authorship Statement ................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii Section 1 - Introduction and Literature Review .................................................................. 1 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Literature review ..................................................................................................... 4 Section 2 - Experimental data and interpretation .............................................................. 40 2.1 Structure of the thesis ............................................................................................ 40 2.2 General Objective ................................................................................................. 41 2.3 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................... 41 2.4 ABE fermentation from enzymatic hydrolysate of NaOH-pretreated corncobs ... 43 2.5 Cellulosic butanol production from alkali-pretreated switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and phragmites (Phragmites australis) ................................................. 57 2.6 Butanol fermentation from microalgae-derived carbohydrates after ionic liquid extraction ............................................................................................................... 72 2.7 Combined Detoxification and In-situ Product Removal by a Single Resin During Lignocellulosic Butanol Production ......................................................... 94 Section 3 - Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................... 114 3.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 114 3.2 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 116 3.3 Future work and recommendation ....................................................................... 116 References ....................................................................................................................... 118 v List of Tables Table 1.1 Butanol fermentation from starch-based substrates ................................................ 16 Table 1.2 Percentage of major components of common lignocellulosic biomass .................. 20 Table 1.3 Effect of various pretreatment methods .................................................................. 26 Table 1.4 Comparison of major inhibitor concentrations obtained after different pretreatment methods .............................................................................................................. 27 Table 1.5 Sugar yields from switchgrass pretreated by various pretreatment methods .......... 32 Table 1.6 Comparisons of ABE fermentation from lignocellulosic materials ........................ 34 Table 2.1 Comparison of enzymatic hydrolysis of corncobs and corn stover pretreated with alkali and wet disk milling .............................................................................................. 50 Table 2.2 Comparison of ABE production from alkali-pretreated corncobs and reported ABE production from lignocellulosic materials pretreated with other method ...................... 55 Table 2.3 Chemical compositions of raw and pretreated biomass .........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enhanced Butanol Production by Free and Immobilized Clostridium Sp
    Enhanced Butanol Production by Free and Immobilized Clostridium sp. Cells Using Butyric Acid as Co-Substrate Laili Gholizadeh This thesis comprises 30 ECTS credits and is a compulsory part in the Master of Science with a Major in Chemical Engineering – Applied Biotechnology 120 ECTS credits No. 10/2009 Title: Enhanced Butanol Production by Free and Immobilized Clostridium sp. Cells using Butyric Acid as Co-Substrate. Author: Laili Gholizadeh Baroghi (e-mail: [email protected]) Master Thesis Subject Category: Biotechnology (Bioprocess Engineering – Biofuels) University College of Borås School of Engineering SE-501 90 BORÅS Telephone: (+46) 033 435 4640 Examiner: Prof. Mohammad Taherzadeh Supervisor and Thesis Advisor: Prof. Shang–Tian Yang Supervisor Address: OSU–Ohio State University 125 Koffolt Laboratories 140 West 19th Ave. Columbus, OH 43210–1185, USA Client: Ohio State University (OSU), Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering Department Prof. Shang–Tian Yang Columbus, Ohio; USA. Date: 08–12–2009 Keywords: Bio-butanol y Acetone–Butanol–Ethanol (ABE) y ABE- fermentation y Butyric acid y Clostridium y C. acetobutylicum ATCC 824 y C. beijerinckii ATCC 55025 y C. beijerinckii BA 101 y C. beijerinckii NCIMB 8052 y Fibrous-bed Bioreactor (FBB) y Batch y Suspended cell culture y Immobilized cell system. DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this M.Sc. Thesis to my beloved Family for all their love and encouragement and for always been supportive of my choices. “I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena, which impress him like a fairy tale.” − Marie Curie ABSTRACT Butanol production by four different Clostridium sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcription 12.01.12
    Lecture 2B • 01/12/12 We covered three different reactions for converting alcohols into leaving groups. One was to turn an alcohol into an alkyl chloride, that was using thionyl chloride. Second reaction was using tosyl chloride; the primary difference between those two reactions is one of stereochemistry. An inversion of stereochemistry does occur if you use thionyl chloride, because it does affect the carbon-oxygen bond, but because forming a tosylate does not touch the carbon-oxygen bond, only the oxygen- hydrogen bond, there’s no change in stereochemistry there. We then saw phosphorus tribromide that reacts very similarly to the thionyl chloride; you get an alkyl bromide instead, but it also has inversion of configuration. The last reaction is not a new mechanism, it is just an Sn2 reaction, it’s called the Finkelstein reaction. Really this works, in a sense, off of Le Châtelier’s principle. In solution, in theory, sodium iodide can displace bromide, but sodium bromide can displace iodide, so you can have an Sn2 reaction that goes back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Except, sodium iodide is somewhat soluble in acetone, while sodium chloride and sodium bromide are not. So, in fact, one of the things that we get out of this as a by-product is sodium bromide, which, again, is not soluble in acetone and therefore precipitates out and is no longer part of the reaction mixture, so there’s no reverse reaction possible. Because of this solubility trick, it allows this reaction to be pulled forward, which means you can get the alkyl iodide.
    [Show full text]
  • Aldehydes and Ketones
    Organic Lecture Series Aldehydes And Ketones Chap 16 111 Organic Lecture Series IUPAC names • the parent alkane is the longest chain that contains the carbonyl group • for ketones, change the suffix -e to -one • number the chain to give C=O the smaller number • the IUPAC retains the common names acetone, acetophenone, and benzophenone O O O O Propanone Acetophenone Benzophenone 1-Phenyl-1-pentanone (Acetone) Commit to memory 222 Organic Lecture Series Common Names – for an aldehyde , the common name is derived from the common name of the corresponding carboxylic acid O O O O HCH HCOH CH3 CH CH3 COH Formaldehyde Formic acid Acetaldehyde Acetic acid – for a ketone , name the two alkyl or aryl groups bonded to the carbonyl carbon and add the word ketone O O O Ethyl isopropyl ketone Diethyl ketone Dicyclohexyl ketone 333 Organic Lecture Series Drawing Mechanisms • Use double-barbed arrows to indicate the flow of pairs of e - • Draw the arrow from higher e - density to lower e - density i.e. from the nucleophile to the electrophile • Removing e - density from an atom will create a formal + charge • Adding e - density to an atom will create a formal - charge • Proton transfer is fast (kinetics) and usually reversible 444 Organic Lecture Series Reaction Themes One of the most common reaction themes of a carbonyl group is addition of a nucleophile to form a tetrahedral carbonyl addition compound (intermediate). - R O Nu - + C O Nu C R R R Tetrahedral carbonyl addition compound 555 Reaction Themes Organic Lecture Series A second common theme is
    [Show full text]
  • N-BUTYL ALCOHOL
    Right to Know Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet Common Name: n-BUTYL ALCOHOL Synonyms: Propyl Carbinol; n-Butanol CAS Number: 71-36-3 Chemical Name: 1-Butanol RTK Substance Number: 1330 Date: November 1998 Revision: January 2008 DOT Number: UN 1120 Description and Use EMERGENCY RESPONDERS >>>> SEE BACK PAGE n-Butyl Alcohol is a colorless liquid with a strong, sweet Hazard Summary alcohol odor. It is used as a solvent for fats, waxes, shellacs, Hazard Rating NJDOH NFPA resins, gums, and varnish, in making hydraulic fluids, and in HEALTH - 2 medications for animals. FLAMMABILITY - 3 REACTIVITY - 0 f ODOR THRESHOLD = 1 to 15 ppm FLAMMABLE f Odor thresholds vary greatly. Do not rely on odor alone to POISONOUS GASES ARE PRODUCED IN FIRE determine potentially hazardous exposures. CONTAINERS MAY EXPLODE IN FIRE Hazard Rating Key: 0=minimal; 1=slight; 2=moderate; 3=serious; Reasons for Citation 4=severe f n-Butyl Alcohol is on the Right to Know Hazardous f n-Butyl Alcohol can affect you when inhaled and by Substance List because it is cited by OSHA, ACGIH, DOT, passing through the skin. NIOSH, DEP, IRIS, NFPA and EPA. f Contact can irritate and burn the skin. f This chemical is on the Special Health Hazard Substance f n-Butyl Alcohol can irritate and burn the eyes with possible List. eye damage. f Inhaling n-Butyl Alcohol can irritate the nose, throat and lungs. f Exposure to n-Butyl Alcohol can cause headache, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. SEE GLOSSARY ON PAGE 5. f n-Butyl Alcohol can damage the liver, kidneys, hearing, and sense of balance.
    [Show full text]
  • Alcoholsalcohols
    AlcoholsAlcohols Chapter 10 1 Structure of Alcohols • The functional group of an alcohol is H an -OH group bonded to an sp3 O 108.9° hybridized carbon. C H – Bond angles about the hydroxyl oxygen H H atom are approximately 109.5°. • Oxygen is sp3 hybridized. –Two sp3 hybrid orbitals form sigma bonds to a carbon and a hydrogen. – The remaining two sp3 hybrid orbitals each contain an unshared pair of electrons. 2 Nomenclature of Alcohols • IUPAC names – The parent chain is the longest chain that contains the OH group. – Number the parent chain to give the OH group the lowest possible number. – Change the suffix -etoe -ol.ol • Common names – Name the alkyl group bonded to oxygen followed by the word alcohol.alcohol 3 Nomenclature of Alcohols OH o o 1o OH 1 2 OH 1-Propanol 2-Propan ol 1-Bu tanol (Pro py l alco ho l) (Isoprop yl alcoh ol) (Bu tyl alcoh ol) OH 2o OH 1o OH 3o 2-Butanol 2-M eth yl-1-p ropan ol 2-M eth yl-2-p ropan ol (sec-Butyl alcohol) (Isobutyl alcohol) (tert -Butyl alcohol) 4 Nomenclature of Alcohols • Compounds containing more than one OH group are named diols, triols, etc. CH2 CH2 CH3 CHCH2 CH2 CHCH2 OH OH HO OH HO HO OH 1,2-Ethanediol 1,2-Propanediol 1,2,3-Propanetriol (Ethylene glycol) (Propylene glycol) (Glycerol, Glycerine) 5 Physical Properties • Alcohols are polar compounds. – They interact with themselves and with other polar compounds by dipole-dipole interactions. • Dipole-dipole interaction: The attraction between the positive end of one dipole and the negative end of another.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies to Introduce N-Butanol in Gasoline Blends
    sustainability Article Strategies to Introduce n-Butanol in Gasoline Blends Magín Lapuerta *, Rosario Ballesteros and Javier Barba Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Av. Camilo José Cela s/n, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain; [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (J.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Academic Editors: Gilles Lefebvre and Francisco J. Sáez-Martínez Received: 13 February 2017; Accepted: 7 April 2017; Published: 12 April 2017 Abstract: The use of oxygenated fuels in spark ignition engines (SIEs) has gained increasing attention in the last few years, especially when coming from renewable sources, due to the shortage of fossil fuels and global warming concern. Currently, the main substitute of gasoline is ethanol, which helps to reduce CO and HC emissions but presents a series of drawbacks such as a low heating value and a high hygroscopic tendency, which cause higher fuel consumption and corrosion problems, respectively. This paper shows the most relevant properties when replacing ethanol by renewable n-butanol, which presents a higher heating value and a lower hygroscopic tendency compared to the former. The test matrix carried out for this experimental study includes, on the one hand, ethanol substitution by n-butanol in commercial blends and, on the other hand, either ethanol or gasoline substitution by n-butanol in E85 blends (85% ethanol-15% gasoline by volume). The results show that the substitution of n-butanol by ethanol presents a series of benefits such as a higher heating value and a greater interchangeability with gasoline compared to ethanol, which makes n-butanol a promising fuel for SIEs in commercial blends.
    [Show full text]
  • Alcohols I 1400
    ALCOHOLS I 1400 Table 1 MW: Table 1 CAS: Table 2 RTECS: Table 2 METHOD: 1400, Issue 2 EVALUATION: PARTIAL Issue 1: 15 February 1984 Issue 2: 15 August 1994 OSHA : Table 2 PROPERTIES: Table 1 NIOSH: Table 2 ACGIH: Table 2 COMPOUNDS AND SYNONYMS: (1) ethanol: ethyl alcohol. (2) isopropyl alcohol: 2-propanol. (3) tert-butyl alcohol: 2-methyl-2-propanol. SAMPLING MEASUREMENT SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE TECHNIQUE: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY, FID (coconut shell charcoal, 100 mg/50 mg) ANALYTE: compounds above FLOW RATE: 0.01 to 0.2 L/min (£0.05 L/min for ethyl alcohol) DESORPTION: 1 mL 1% 2-butanol in CS 2 (1) (2) (3) INJECTION VOL-MIN: 0.1 L 0.3 L 1.0 L VOLUME: 5 µL -MAX: 1 L 3 L 10 L TEMPERATURE-INJECTION: 200 °C SHIPMENT: cooled -DETECTOR: 250-300 °C -COLUMN: 65-70 °C SAMPLE STABILITY: unknown, store in freezer CARRIER GAS: N2 or He, 30 mL/min BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set COLUMN: glass, 2 m x 4-mm ID, 0.2% Carbowax 1500 on 60/80 Carbopack C or equivalent ACCURACY CALIBRATION: solutions of analyte in eluent (internal standard optional) RANGE STUDIED: see EVALUATION OF METHOD RANGE AND BIAS: not significant [1] PRECISION: see EVALUATION OF METHOD OVERALL PRECISION (S ˆ ): see EVALUATION OF METHOD rT ESTIMATED LOD: 0.01 mg per sample [2] ACCURACY: ± 14% APPLICABILITY: The working ranges are 16 to 1000 ppm ethanol (30 to 1900 mg/m 3) for a 1-L air sample; 4 to 400 ppm isopropyl alcohol (10 to 1000 mg/m 3) for a 3-L air sample; and 1 to 100 ppm t-butyl alcohol (3 to 300 mg/m 3) for a 10-L air sample.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the Addendum to The
    International Journal of Toxicology, 27(Suppl. 2f53—69, 2008 Copyright © American College of Toxicology ISSN: 1091-5818 print! 1092-874X online 001: 10.1080/10915810802244504 Final Report of the Addendum to the Safety Assessment of n-Butyl Alcohol as Used in Cosmetics’ n-Butyl Alcohol is a primary aliphatic alcohol historically used in care cosmetic products, but new concentration as a solvent nail INTRODUCTION of use data indicate that it also is being used at low concentrations in eye makeup, personal hygiene, and shaving cosmetic products. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) evaluated the safety it-Butyl Alcohol has been generally recognized as safe for use as a of n-Butyl Alcohol (n-BuOH) in 1987, finding it safe in the flavoring substance in food and appears on the 1982 Food and Drug practices of use and concentration in nail products (Elder 1987). list of inactive ingredients for approved pre Administration (FDA) This original safety assessment was specific in that the conclu scription drug products. n-Butyl Alcohol can be absorbed through regards the use of n-Butyl Alcohol in the skin, tangs, and gastrointestinal tract. n-Butyl Alcohol may be sion was issued only as formed by hydrolysis of butyl acetate in the blood, but is rapidly nail products. oxidized. The single oral dose ED50 of n-Butyl Alcohol for rats was Recently, CIR undertook a re-review of this ingredient to de 0.79 to 4.36 g/kg. The dermal ED50 for rabbits was 4.2 g/kg. Inhala termine what additional data relevant to the safety of n-Butyl Al humans demonstrate sensory irritation of tion toxicity studies in 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Data Sheet
    SAFETY DATA SHEET Flammable Liquefied Gas Mixture: Ethanol / Isobutanol / Isopropanol (Isopropyl Alcohol) / Methanol / N-Butane / N-Butanol (N-Butyl Alcohol) / N-Propanol / Sec-Butyl Alcohol (2-Butanol) / Tert Butanol Section 1. Identification GHS product identifier : Flammable Liquefied Gas Mixture: Ethanol / Isobutanol / Isopropanol (Isopropyl Alcohol) / Methanol / N-Butane / N-Butanol (N-Butyl Alcohol) / N-Propanol / Sec-Butyl Alcohol (2-Butanol) / Tert Butanol Other means of : Not available. identification Product use : Synthetic/Analytical chemistry. SDS # : 011439 Supplier's details : Airgas USA, LLC and its affiliates 259 North Radnor-Chester Road Suite 100 Radnor, PA 19087-5283 1-610-687-5253 Emergency telephone : 1-866-734-3438 number (with hours of operation) Section 2. Hazards identification OSHA/HCS status : This material is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). Classification of the : FLAMMABLE GASES - Category 1 substance or mixture GASES UNDER PRESSURE - Liquefied gas GHS label elements Hazard pictograms : Signal word : Danger Hazard statements : Extremely flammable gas. Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated. May cause frostbite. May form explosive mixtures in Air. May displace oxygen and cause rapid suffocation. Precautionary statements General : Read and follow all Safety Data Sheets (SDS’S) before use. Read label before use. Keep out of reach of children. If medical advice is needed, have product container or label at hand. Close valve after each use and when empty. Use equipment rated for cylinder pressure. Do not open valve until connected to equipment prepared for use. Use a back flow preventative device in the piping. Use only equipment of compatible materials of construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Azeotropic Isopropyl Alcohol
    Azeotropic Isopropyl Alcohol Type of Posting Revision Bulletin Posting Date 30-Jul-2021 Official Date 1-Feb-2022 Expert Committee Simple Excipients Expert Committee In accordance with the Rules and Procedures of the Council of Experts, the Simple Excipients Expert Committee has revised the Azeotropic Isopropyl Alcohol monograph. The purpose of the revision is to strengthen the Identification (ID) section of the monograph by including the Limit of Methanol test as an additional ID test. To address the serious hazards associated with the use of methanol-containing azeotropic isopropyl alcohol, the Simple Excipients Expert Committee (SE) has revised the Azeotropic Isopropyl Alcohol monograph. These revisions are consistent with a letter (Feb. 25, 2021) from, and a recent FDA Guidance (January 2021) issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). USP previously revised the USP Alcohol and USP Dehydrated Alcohol monographs by including an Identification C test for “Limit of Methanol.” Additional information about that topic can be found in the Frequently Asked Questions for Alcohol and Dehydrated Alcohol. As mentioned in the Notice of Intent to Revise posted on Apr. 30, 2021, the purpose of these revisions is to strengthen the ID section of the monograph by including the test for Limit of Methanol as an additional ID test. The new Limit of Methanol test utilizes a gas-chromatography (GC) method similar to the Volatile Impurities test in the USP Azeotropic Isopropyl Alcohol monograph. The limit for methanol (200 µL/L) is the same as that in the USP Alcohol monograph, consistent with what is recommended in the FDA Guidance (January 2021).
    [Show full text]
  • These Two Workbooks Are Provided by As a Convenient Introduc
    These two workbooks are provided by www.hansen-solubility.com as a convenient introduc They are Copyright © 2013 Prof Steven Abbott If you find bugs/issues or would like extra functionality, please email Steven Abbott [email protected] ction to some of the basic HSP methods HSP Sphere dD dP dH R Good 11 18.4 9.7 8.0 7.1 Bad 11 Test Value 16 7 8 Total 22 Delta 2.4 11.4 10.4 Distance 5.5 RED 0.77 Solvents dD dP dH MVol Score Distance Acetone 15.5 10.4 7 73.8 1 5.915773 Acetonitrile 15.3 18 6.1 52.9 0 10.52754 n-Amyl Acetate 15.8 3.3 6.1 148 0 n-Amyl Alcohol 15.9 5.9 13.9 108.6 0 Benzene 18.4 0 2 52.9 0 11.38507 Benzyl Alcohol 18.4 6.3 13.7 103.8 0 Benzyl Benzoate 20 5.1 5.2 190.3 0 1-Butanol 16 5.7 15.8 92 0 2-Butanol 15.8 5.7 14.5 92 0 n-Butyl Acetate 15.8 3.7 6.3 132.6 0 t-Butyl Acetate 15 3.7 6 134.8 0 t-Butyl Alcohol 15.2 5.1 14.7 96 0 Butyl Benzoate 18.3 5.6 5.5 178.1 0 Butyl Diglycol Acetate 16 4.1 8.2 208.2 0 Butyl Glycol Acetate 15.3 7.5 6.8 171.2 0 n-Butyl Propionate 15.7 5.5 5.9 149.3 0 Caprolactone (Epsilon) 19.7 15 7.4 110.8 0 Chloroform 17.8 3.1 5.7 80.5 1 7.075453 m-Cresol 18.5 6.5 13.7 105 1 6.563973 Cyclohexane 16.8 0 0.2 108.9 0 12.82752 Cyclohexanol 17.4 4.1 13.5 105.7 0 Cyclohexanone 17.8 8.4 5.1 104.2 0 Di-isoButyl Ketone 16 3.7 4.1 177.4 0 Diacetone Alcohol 15.8 8.2 10.8 124.3 0 Diethyl Ether 14.5 2.9 4.6 104.7 0 10.87429 Diethylene Glycol Monobut 16 7 10.6 170.4 0 Dimethyl Cyclohexane 16.1 0 1.1 140 0 Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) 18.4 16.4 10.2 71.3 1 7.066692 1,4-Dioxane 17.5 1.8 9 85.7 0 8.160898 1,3-Dioxolane
    [Show full text]
  • N-Butanol Fermentation and Integrated Recovery Process: Adsorption, Gas
    N-Butanol Fermentation and Integrated Recovery Process: Adsorption, Gas Stripping and Pervaporation Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Fangfang Liu, B.S. Graduate Program in Chemical Engineering The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Professor Shang-Tian Yang, Advisor Professor Aravind Asthagiri Professor David Wood Copyright by Fangfang Liu 2014 Abstract As a second generation biofuel, butanol has attracted increasing attention during the last decade. Biobutanol can be produced through traditional ABE fermentation. However, fermentative butanol production is not yet economically competitive with petrochemical process, mainly due to high substrate cost, low product yield and concentration and high recovery cost. Many efforts have been made to improve fermentative butanol production. Typical batch ABE fermentation usually gives a final butanol titer of 12-14 g/L. Butanol recovery from this dilute solution by distillation is very energy-intensive. Many alternative separation techniques have been developed. Among them, adsorption is a promising technique for its simple operation. In order to selectively recover butanol and release the product inhibition effect, four commercial materials were identified as potential adsorbents for butanol separation. These four adsorbents, including activated carbon Norit ROW 0.8, zeolite CBV901, polymeric resin Dowex Optipore L-493 and SD-2, showed high specific loading and adsorbent-aqueous partitioning coefficients for butanol. Adsorption isotherms and their regressions with Langmiur model were further studied for these adsorbents, which provided the theoretical basis for predicting the amount of butanol adsorbed on these adsorbents. In batch fermentation with in situ ii adsorption without pH control, activated carbon showed the best performance with 21.9 g/L total butanol production, and 71.3 g/L glucose consumption.
    [Show full text]