ARTICLE

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Process Simulation of Fuel Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosics

using Aspen Plus
Juli
an A. Quintero and Carlos A. Cardona*
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Instituto de Biotecnología y Agroindustria, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Manizales,
Cra. 27 No. 64-60, Manizales, Colombia
bS Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: Fuel ethanol production has become one of the most studied processes in the last two decades because of the need to
decrease its production cost and improve its energetic performance. The most promising raw material is lignocellulosic biomass
because of its negligible cost and high availability. On the other hand, most research has focused on single steps and has not
considered the whole process design. Aspen Plus allowed designing this kind of process while considering relevant aspects such as
raw material composition and kinetic models of chemical and biological transformation. In this study fuel ethanol from rice hulls has
been simulated considering the kinetic parameters for acid pretreatment, detoxification, and fermentation with the aim of assessing
the energy performance of the process. In addition, the economic evaluation was accomplished using Aspen Process Economic
Analyzer with the objective of calculating the production cost. It was found that the dilute acid pretreatment had a higher ethanol
yield (347.25 L/t) and lower energy consumption (86.75 MJ/L) than liquid hot water pretreatment. However, the latter
pretreatment had a lower production cost (US$0.4367/L); although when energy cogeneration and electricity sales were included in
the analysis, dilute acid pretreatment became the most economic technology with a lower production cost (US$0.1918/L).

1. INTRODUCTION Hamelinck36 as the more perspective in short-, mid-, and long-

Ethanol production has become one of the most studied
processes in the last two decades because of the necessity of
finding alternative renewable fuels. However, ethanol production
from food raw materials has raised controversy about its produc-
tion because of the direct competition with food. Currently,
research has focused on lignocellulosic biomass because of its
high availability, relative low cost, and nondirect food applica-
tions. Several lignocellulosic materials have been experimentally
evaluated in ethanol production: almond shells,1 barley straw,2
corncobs,3 corn fiber,4,5 corn stalks,2 pine pulp,6 pinus tadea,7
prosopis juliflora,8 rice straw,9 sugar cane bagasse,9,10 willow,11
poplar, and others.5 Different pretreatment technologies have
being developed and used with the aim of disrupting the
lignocellulosic complex: mechanical,12,13 thermal,14
17 steam
explosion,18
21 liquid hot water (LHW),21
23 acid,13,16,24,25
alkaline,21,26 oxidative,26,27 combined thermal and acid,28,29
combined thermal and alkaline,12,30 ammonia and carbon diox-
ide pretreatment (AFEX).30,31 Dilute acid (DA) pretreatment
and with steam explosion are the most widely studied methods.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the U.S.
Department of Energy, which currently is developing technolo-
gies for ethanol production from biomass, has preferred the DA
pretreatment for the design of its process alternatives.32,33 Lynd34
pointed out that main advantage of this process, compared to
steam explosion, is the higher sugars recovery from hemicellu-
lose. In the case of hardwood, this recovery was about 80% for
dilute acid pretreatment, and did not exceed 65% for steam
explosion. Ogier et al.35 stated that the methods appearing as the
most efficient are dilute acid pretreatment, steam explosion with
catalyst addition, and LHW. These methods were also chosen by
term evaluations.
One of the most promising methods is the pretreatment with
Liquid Hot Water (LHW) or thermohydrolysis. Laser et al.21
mentioned that, under optimal conditions, this method is
comparable to dilute acid pretreatment but without addition of
acids or production of hydrolyzate neutralization wastes. In
addition, this technology presented elevated recovery rates of
pentoses and little or no production of inhibitors.21,35 Never-
theless, solid load is much less than for steam explosion, which is
usually greater than 50%.
The aim of this work was to evaluate the ethanol production
from rice hulls and compare the energy requirements and
production cost of the DA and LHW pretreatments using Aspen
and Aspen Economic Analyzer. Other studies have used this
research approach based on simulation of process stages with
experimental information (yields and kinetic models).33,37
39
2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Simulated ethanol process scheme is shown in Figure 1. LHW
and DA pretreatments present the same configuration with
differences only in the first hydrolysis conditions. Ethanol
production process comprises five stages: pretreatment (first
hydrolysis), cellulose hydrolysis (second hydrolysis), concentra-
tion and detoxification, fermentation, and separation.
The first unit in Figure 1 is a crusher used for size reduction;
the final particle diameter expected in this unit is 1 mm. After
Received: August 23, 2010
Accepted: March 29, 2011
Revised: March 5, 2011
Published: April 05, 2011

r 2011 American Chemical Society 6205 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research ARTICLE

Figure 1. Flowsheet of fuel ethanol production from rice hulls using either LHW or DA pretreatment. 1. Crusher, 2. First stage hydrolysis, 3. Filter for
separation of nonhydrolyzed fiber, 4. Second stage hydrolysis, 5. Filter for lignin separation, 6. Evaporator for sugars concentration, 7. Cooler, 8.
Detoxification reactor, 9. Neutralization reactor, 10. Filter for gypsum separation, 11. Fermenter, 12. Concentration column, 13. Rectification column,
14. Molecular sieves for ethanol dehydration, 15. Product tank.

milling, the raw material is subjected to acid hydrolysis (at 170 °C
for 10 min) or liquid hot water pretreatment (at 220 °C for
10 min) which allows the hemicellulose conversion into pentoses
(mainly xylose). Furfural and HMF were considered as the only
byproducts of this operation, since the fermentability of hydro-
lizates is inversely related to the concentration of these
compounds.40,41
After pretreatment, the solid fraction (cellulose and lignin) is
separated from the hydrolizate and sent to the second hydrolysis,
where cellulose conversion is accomplished at 200 °C for 3
min.42,43 Liquid fractions from both hydrolyses are sent to the
sugars concentration and detoxification stages. The aim of the
concentration and detoxification is conditioning the substrate for
fermentation. Influence of inclusion or exclusion of sugars
concentration (unit 6 in Figure 1) on ethanol yield and energy
consumption was analyzed. In detoxification stage, the liquid
fraction is treated with calcium hydroxide at 60 °C for 30 min in
order to reduce the concentration of furfural and HMF, which are
inhibitory compounds for further fermentation. The stream out
of the detoxification is later neutralized with sulfuric acid.
The main stage of the whole process of ethanol production is
the fermentation. At this point, the sugars stream coming from
the previous stages is converted into ethanol by a recombinant
bacteria Zymomonas mobiliz ZM4 (pZB5) at 33 °C for 30 h.
Produced ethanol is separated from the broth by continuous
distillation and further rectification. Finally, molecular sieves
columns are used for ethanol dehydration.
6206
3. KINETIC MODELS
3.1. Dilute Acid and Liquid Hot Water Pretreatments.
Dilute acid pretreatment was based on acid-catalyzed breakdown
of hemicellulose chains to form shorter oligomers and further
broken down to monomeric sugars; in this work it was assumed
that only xylose was produced from the hemicellulose break-
down. A well-established first-order kinetic model of hemicellu-
lose hydrolysis, including one type of hemicellulose fractions was
included. In this work only the fast hydrolyzing fraction was
considered for describing hemicellulose breakdown.
The reaction of hemicellulose hydrolysis was assumed to
follow a first-order dependence on reactant concentration with
an Arrhenius temperature association for the first-order rate
constants (ki), following eq 1. Decomposition rate of xylose to
furfural was also considered by using first-order reaction kinetics.
ki ¼ Ae
E=RT ð1Þ
where A is the pre-exponential factor and E is the activation
energy. The exponential factor, A, can be calculated taking into
account the acid-independent pre-exponential factor, A0, and the
acid concentration, Ca, according to eq 2.
A ¼ A0 3 Cna ð2Þ
The corresponding kinetic parameters for conversion of fast
fraction to xylose, and xylose to furfural have been obtained from
Esteghlalian et al.44 (see Supporting Information). In the case of
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research ARTICLE

Table 1. Main Process Data for Simulation of Fuel Ethanol Production from Rice Hulls
feature value

feedstock rice hull

composition water 10.20%, cellulose 29%, hemicellulose 26.94%, lignin 15%, ash 16.61%, and extractives 2.25%
pretreatment (first stage hydrolysis) dilute acid liquid hot water
agent H2SO4 water
acid concentration 0.909 mg/g mix. autocatalytic
temperature 170 °C 220 °C
pressure 12 atm 24 atm
residence time 10 min 10 min
pretreatment (2st stage hydrolysis)
agent H2SO4
acid concentration 3.64 mg/g mix.
temperature 200 °C
pressure 15 atm
residence time 3 min
detoxification
agent Ca(OH)2
temperature 50 °C
pressure 1 atm
residence time 30 min
pH 11
fermentation
agent Z. mobiliz ZM4 (pZB5)
preinoculum 10% of fermentation volume
temperature 33 °C
pressure 1 atm
residence time 48 h
pH 4.4
separation concentration rectification
number of stages 10 10
reflux ratio 3 3.5
distillate to feed ratio 0.06 0.47
feed stage 5 (above stage) 5 (above stage)
condenser total total
pressure 1 atm 1 atm
ethanol dehydration
technology pressure swing adsorption with molecular sieves
no. of units 2
temperature 116 °C
pressure 1.7 atm (ads.), 0.14 atm (des.)
cycle time 10 min

dilute acid pretreatment the acid concentration was considered from Saeman,45 using data reported for Douglas fir as a useful
to be constant, at 0.909 mg acid/g reaction mixture. For liquid approximation, and employing eqs 1 and 2.
hot water kinetic parameters were calculated considering a very 3.2. Detoxification. Detoxification by overliming was simu-
low acid concentration (dilution based on DA case was increased lated using the kinetic model exposed by Purwadi et al.41 This
100 times until 0.00909 mg acid/g reaction mixture). In this model is based on the following set of reactions and equations:
technology the occurring reactions are considered autocatalytic,
k1
therefore it was assumed that some acids (at very low con- ZþA r f fZAg
centration) are released from the raw material at temperatures k2
over 200 °C for catalyzing the hemicelluloses hydrolysis.
In the case of the cellulose hydrolysis during both pretreatment k3
fZAg sf P þ Z
and second-stage hydrolysis, the reaction scheme proposed by
Saeman was adopted.45 Products of cellulose hydrolysis are mainly
monomeric glucose, and HMF as glucose degradation coproduct. d½A
¼
k1 ½Að½Z0
½ZAÞ þ k2 ½ZA ð3Þ
Kinetic parameters used (see Supporting Information) were taken dt
6207 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research ARTICLE

Table 2. Total Flow Rates and Compositions of Some Streams of Base Cases for Ethanol Production from Rice Hulls

raw
compound material dilute acid pretreatment liquid hot water pretreatment

xylose-rich glucose-rich xylose-rich glucose-rich

rice hulls hydrolyzate hydrolyzate substrate broth product hydrolyzate hydrolyzate substrate broth product
(wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%) (wt%)

water 10.20 95.18 92.47 87.93 93.11 0.40 95.79 91.50 87.92 92.94 0.40
cellulose 29.01 - - - - - - - - - -
hemicellulose 26.94 - - - - - - - - - -
lignin 15.00 - - - - - - - - - -
glucose - 1.12 5.56 5.08 - - 0.03 6.33 4.63 - -
xylose - 3.40 0.06 5.95 - - 4.05 0.07 6.06 - -
protein - - - - - - - - - - -
ash 16.61 - - - - - - - - - -
extractives 2.25 0.18 - 0.18 0.18 - 0.13 - 0.10 - -
furfural - 0.01 - - - - Traces - - 0.10 -
HMF - - 1.43 0.80 0.81 - - 1.63 1.18 1.19 -
ethanol - - - - 5.57 99.60 - - - 5.40 99.60
sulfuric acid - 0.11 0.48 0.02 0.02 - - 0.47 0.07 0.07 -
calcium hydroxide - - - 0.04 0.04 - - - 0.04 0.04 -
Z. mobilis 0.27 0.27
total flow (kg/h) 10 000.00 82 287.65 28 967.74 51 327.46 50 868.20 2739.84 75 093.72 36 663.31 50 528.91 50 188.91 2673.51

d½A 4. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

¼
k1 ½Að½Z0
½ZAÞ þ k2 ½ZA ð4Þ
dt The evaluation of the fuel ethanol production from rice hulls
took into account both energetic and economic aspects. In the
d½ZA present work, the production cost estimation was performed to
¼
ðk2 þ k3 Þ½ZA þ k1 ½Að½Z0
½ZAÞ ð5Þ assess the profitability of fuel ethanol production using two
dt different pretreatment technologies. For this, mass and energy
balances calculated by simulation are the starting point to
d½P determine capital and operating costs of both processes and
¼ k3 ½ZA ð6Þ consequently, their economic performance. Implemented meth-
dt
odology was used in previous works.37
39

½Z0 ¼ kZ  10
ð14
pHÞ þ ½Z0, N ð7Þ 5. SIMULATION PROCEDURE

where [A], [ZA], and [P] represent the concentration in g/L of
furfural or HMF, intermediate , and product of detoxification,
respectively. [Z]0 is the initial concentration of Ca2þ ion (g/L)
and [Z]0,N is the concentration of Ca(OH)2 needed to neutralize
the hydrolyzate and is equal to 4.3 g/L. The model was exposed
and experimentally validated in the detoxification of a dilute acid
hydrolizates of forest residues by Purwadi et al.41The kinetic
parameters used in the simulation for both furans (furfural and
HMF) were k1 = 0.0426, k2 = 0. 11622, k3 = 0.009569426, and
kZ = 467 g/L.
3.3. Double Substrate Fermentation. In this work, for sugars
fermentation the mathematical model developed by Leksawasdi
et al. was used46 for a double substrate fermentation (xylose and
glucose). The authors suggested using this model at 33 °C for
30 h. They obtained the experimental parameters (see Supporting
Information) of a kinetic model of fermentation where recombi-
nant bacteria Zymomonas mobiliz ZM4 (pZB5) is able to
assimilate both glucose and xylose simultaneously.
Models related to operation units such as mills, filters, heat
exchangers, and distillation column were not explained in detail
because these are included and well described in Aspen Plus.
6208
Simulation of the technological configurations (ethanol pro-
duction from rice hulls using DA and LHW) was carried out
using Aspen Plus (Aspen Technology Inc., USA). Main input
data utilized for process simulation are shown in Table 1.
Simulations were started considering as calculation base the
raw material required (240 t/day), for a plant capacity of
approximately 100 000 L of anhydrous ethanol per day, accord-
ing to reported yields. Part of the physical-property data of the
components required for simulations were obtained from Woo-
ley and Putsche.47 The nonrandom two liquid (NRTL) thermo-
dynamic model was utilized to calculate the activity coefficients
in the liquid phase and the Hayden
O0 Conell equation of state
was used to model the vapor phase.
Preliminary specifications of distillation columns were esti-
mated using the DSTWU short-cut method included in Aspen
Plus. This procedure employs the Winn
Underwood
Gilliland
method that provides an initial estimate of the minimum number
of theoretical stages, the minimum reflux ratio, the feed stage, and
the products split. With this information and the results of the
analysis of the statics, the rigorous calculation of the distillation
columns was performed using the RadFrac model of Aspen Plus,
which is based on mass, equilibrium, summation, and heat (MESH)
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
equations and uses the inside-out calculation algorithm (which
consists of the iterative simultaneous solution of two loops, using the
partial results from the inner loop in the solution of the outer).
Energy consumption estimation was based on the thermal energy
required by the heat exchangers, reboilers, and related units. DA and
LHW were simulated using batch reactors with kinetic expressions.
The second hydrolysis was simulated using a batch reactor with
kinetic expressions for cellulose hydrolysis. Detoxification and
sugars fermentation were simulated including user subroutines by
an excel
matlab interface for solving the mathematical model
(these units and models are not included in the Aspen Plus).
A circulating fluidized bed combustor/turbogenerator
(CFBC/TG) system was analyzed as the cogeneration technol-
ogy. This system was contemplated in the model process
designed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) for cogeneration using the lignin released during the
conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into ethanol.33
The economic analysis was performed by the Aspen Icarus
Process Evaluator (Aspen Technology, Inc., USA) package. This
analysis was estimated in US dollars for a 10-year period at an
annual interest rate of 16.02% (typical for the Colombian
economy), considering the straight line depreciation method
and a 33% income tax. Prices and economic data used in this
analysis correspond to Colombian conditions and were calcu-
lated at an exchange rate of 1950 Colombian pesos per US dollar.
Rice hulls price of US$5/t was estimated considering only the
transport cost involved in this type of material. Lime and sulfuric
acid cost were US$0.08/kg and US$0.09/kg, respectively. Op-
erator and supervisor labor costs were US$2.14/h and US$4.29/
h, respectively. Electricity, potable water, and low steam pressure
costs were US$0.038/kWh, US$1.25/m3, and US$8.18/t, re-
spectively. The above-mentioned software estimates the capital
costs of process units as well as the operating costs, among other
valuable data, using the design information provided by Aspen
Plus and data introduced by the user for specific conditions, for
example project location.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1. Ethanol Production. Main results of streams composi-
tion obtained from simulations are shown in Table 2. Both
pretreatments achieved complete hemicellulose conversion,
however, with DA a significant cellulose conversion (31.20%)
was accomplished in the pretreatment. DA showed higher sugars
yield (40.61%) than LHW (30.87%) due to catalytic effect on
cellulose hydrolysis of the added acid. The presence of acid in the
reaction media had a higher effect of cellulose hydrolysis than a
higher temperature, however acid presence led to glucose and
xylose dehydration into HMF and furfural, respectively.
Base cases considered the concentration of sugars from both
hydrolyzates (see Figure 1 unit 6). As should be expected from
the fermentation kinetics, sugars concentration influenced the
ethanol yield. When total sugars where concentrated up to 112 g/
L ethanol yield was 347.25 and 338.85 L/t for DA and LHW,
respectively. On the other hand, when the concentration unit was
not included (total sugar concentration equal to 37 g/L) lower
ethanol yields were obtained, 319.26 and 286.33 L/t, for DA and
LHW, respectively. The influence of sugars concentration was
higher in LHW pretreatment achieving an increase of 15% in
ethanol yield. Obtained yields from simulations were higher than
that reported (236 L/t) for ethanol from sugar cane bagasse via
dilute acid hydrolysis and fermentation of hexoses.48 Higher yield
6209
ARTICLE
Table 3. Energy Consumption of Ethanol Production Pro-
cess from Rice Hulls
pretreatment net energy consumption (MJ/L)
without energy cogeneration with energy cogeneration
a
DA
SC 86.75 58.65
DAb 46.29 15.72
LHW
SCc 96.75 67.95
LHWd 62.24 28.16
a
Dilute acid pretreatment with sugar concentration. b Dilute acid
pretreatment without sugar concentration. c Liquid hot water pretreat-
ment with sugar concentration. d Liquid hot water pretreatment without
sugar concentration.
was attributed to the additional use of pentoses for ethanol
production by the recombinant bacteria. Plant capacity for
ethanol production from rice hulls, considering the calculation
base of 240 tons of rice hulls per day, was around 80 000 L per day
when sugar concentration was included, and 70 000 L/day with
no concentration.
Higher furfural concentration (0.0044 g/L) was obtained
when DA was used as pretreatment, due to the added acid. As
mentioned by some authors21,35 few inhibitors were obtained
from the LHW pretreatment. Sugars concentration helped
furfural and HMF reduction, because some of these compounds
are volatilized during this operation. When sugars concentration
was not included a higher furfural concentration was obtained
(0.0161 g/L) for DA. The furfural concentration was low but in
the range of the experimental values (0
0.7 g/L) reported by
Laser et al.21 for SCB pretreated with LHW at 200, 210, and
220 °C for 2, 5, and 10 min. Additionally, detoxification extent of
furfural for the evaluated cases was around 98%.
An important parameter involved in ethanol production from
lignocellulosics is the energy consumption; this always has been
one of the main drawbacks of this type of process. Table 3 shows
the net energy consumption of the evaluated cases with and
without energy cogeneration. As was expected the highest energy
consumptions were obtained when sugars concentration
(glucose and xylose rich hydrolyzates) was included (see Figure 1
unit 6) and when no cogeneration was considered, due to the
energy cost of evaporating water from sugars-rich hydrolyzates.
Energy consumption contribution by stages is shown in Figure 2.
For both evaluated pretreatment technologies it was found that
pretreatment and sugars concentration required most of the total
energy of ethanol productions. Separation was relevant, in terms
of energy, only when sugars concentration was not considered.
When pretreatment technologies where compared, LHW ex-
hibited higher energy consumption than DA. Influence of sugars
concentration in downstream energy consumption can be ob-
served in Figure 2; when sugars concentration was included
energy consumption of fermentation and separation stages
decreased 68% and 54% for DA and LHW, respectively. Only
the DA pretreatment with energy cogeneration and with no sugar
concentration had an energy consumption lower than the energy
value of ethanol (21.20 MJ/L).49 The lignin used in the boiler for
energy cogeneration, with an average energy value of 29.54 MJ/
kg,39 allowed production of 1
1.3 kW of electricity per each liter
of produced ethanol, moreover heat produced from the system
replaced 32% and 30% of the total energy required for the DA
and LHW pretreatments with sugars concentration, respectively.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research ARTICLE

Figure 2. Energy requirements per stage in fuel ethanol production from rice hulls. DA
SC: Dilute acid pretreatment with sugar concentration. DA:
Dilute acid pretreatment without sugar concentration. LHW
SC: Liquid hot water pretreatment with sugar concentration. LHW: Liquid hot water
pretreatment without sugar concentration.

Table 4. Fuel Ethanol Production Cost from Rice Husk

category DA
SCa DAb LHW
SCc LHWd

US$/L share of total cost (%) US$/L share of total cost (%) US$/L share of total cost (%) US$/L share of total cost (%)
e
raw materials 0.0382 8.65 0.0416 12.72 0.0398 9.12 0.0490 14.07
utilitiesf 0.2548 57.67 0.0823 25.17 0.2482 56.85 0.0795 22.82
labor 0.0049 1.12 0.0047 1.44 0.0051 1.16 0.0052 1.50
maintenance 0.0196 4.44 0.0385 11.79 0.0192 4.40 0.0414 11.87
operating charges 0.0012 0.28 0.0012 0.36 0.0013 0.29 0.0013 0.38
indirect plant expenses 0.0123 2.78 0.0216 6.61 0.0121 2.78 0.0233 6.69
general and administrative costs 0.0265 5.99 0.0152 4.65 0.0261 5.97 0.0160 4.59
capital depreciationg 0.0843 19.07 0.1218 37.26 0.0849 19.44 0.1328 38.09
total 0.4418 100 0.3269 100 0.4367 100 0.3486 100
a
Dilute acid pretreatment with sugars concentration. b Dilute acid pretreatment without sugars concentration. c Liquid hot water pretreatment with
sugars concentration. d Liquid hot water pretreatment without sugars concentration. e Price of rice hull US$0.005/kg. f Price of low pressure steam US
$8.18/t. g Calculated using the straight line method. It does not include energy cogeneration system.

Replaced energy was higher in the cases with no sugars con-
centration (66% and 55% for DA and LHW, respectively)
6.2. Economic Evaluations. Ethanol production cost using
rice hulls for both pretreatment technologies (base cases) is
shown in Table 4. The highest production cost was obtained for
DA with sugars concentration. Costs are higher than that
reported by Luo et al.50 (US$0.20/L) using sugar cane bagasse
for ethanol production and energy cogeneration from wastes, as
these authors considered the energy cogeneration as an essential
part for the process economy.
High ethanol production cost in the cases where sugars were
concentrated is due to the high utilities cost that represents more
6210
than 56% of the total production cost. High utilities cost is a
consequence of the high energy consumption of the pretreatment
and sugars concentration steps (see Figure 2). When sugars
concentration was not included capital depreciation was the most
contributing item. With sugars concentration small units down-
stream were required because of the lower stream flows, this fact was
corroborated with the capital depreciation of studied cases. In the
case of DA pretreatment including sugar concentration, the capital
depreciation was 0.08 US$/L (see Table 4), while in the contrary
case it was 0.12 US$/L; the same occurred with LHW. For a more
detailed description of the capital cost for each process stage for the
evaluated cases please see Supporting Information.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Table 5. Fuel Ethanol Production Cost from Rice Hulls Including Energy Cogeneration and Electricity Sales
co-generation
pretreatment technology dilute acid US$/L liquid hot water US$/L
with sugars concentration 0.2321
without sugars concentration 0.3041
As was suggested by Luo et al.50 and Cardona et al.51 energy
cogeneration is required for energy supply of this type of process.
In this sense, energy cogeneration is necessary for obtaining a
lower production cost. When cogeneration and electricity sales
were included, the reduction in production cost was more
relevant in those cases with higher energy consumption. Highest
reduction cost (57%) was obtained for DA. However, when
cogeneration was included the new process units (mainly boiler
and turbogenerators) required for the system increased the
capital depreciation cost in 59% and 41% for dilute acid with
and without sugars concentration, respectively. In the case of
liquid hot water the increase was 58% and 37% with and without
sugars concentration, respectively.
Including energy cogeneration into the analysis allowed deter-
mining the better conditions for ethanol production. Sugar con-
centration was not a feasible operation reflecting a high production
cost, but including energy cogeneration the panorama changed and
the lower ethanol productions cost were obtained for that process
including sugars concentration (see Table 5).
7. CONCLUSIONS
Energy requirement for pretreatment is a strong criterion in
the evaluation of ethanol production process from lignocellulosic
biomass because it represents the main portion of energy
demand. The simulation presented in this work showed that
DA and LHW are efficient processes, but if energy cogeneration
is not implemented, these pretreatment methods are not applic-
able for industry given the large amount of energy required.
The configuration of ethanol production process presented in
this work applies only for Z. mobiliz ZM4 (pZB5). Any strain
different from the strain employed in this work suggests a
reorganization of the scheme and the conditions of the fermenta-
tion. The use of a different fermentative microorganism shall
require a new model and maybe simultaneous assimilation of
hexoses and pentoses will not be possible. The effect of changing
the microorganism depends on the capability of growing on
glucose or xylose as single carbon source; in this sense, if just one
sugar is assimilated an additional microorganism and a fermenter
unit will be required for complete sugars utilization.
Ethanol production cost from rice hulls highly depends on
energy consumption. At current context and market prices a
project for ethanol production from these wastes is not feasible in
Colombia; however, if a cogeneration system were included
energy requirements would be supplied and production cost
would decrease significantly. Moreover, when electricity sales
were considered as coproduct, ethanol production cost became
competitive compared to that obtained for conventional raw
materials. These results strongly depend on composition of the
lignocellulosic material used; for example, rice hulls contain more
lignin than sugar cane bagasse, implying that more energy will be
obtained from the former in a combustion process.
Aspen Plus has demonstrated to be a robust tool able to model
and evaluate complex processes like that involved in ethanol
ARTICLE
co-generation and electricity sales
dilute acid US$/L liquid hot water US$/L
0.2344 0.1918 0.1931
0.3287 0.2602 0.2797
production obtaining good results comparable with that obtained
experimentally at bench and pilot scales. However, user custom
models and subroutines should be added for a correct and near-
reality simulation of the nonavailable operation units.
’ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
bS Supporting Information. Supplemental tables and other
data. This information is available free of charge via the Internet
at http://pubs.acs.org/.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Tel.: þ 57 6 8879300, ext. 50417. Fax: þ 57 6 8879300, ext.
50452. E-mail: ccardonaal@unal.edu.co.
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank the Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede
Manizales for financial support
’ REFERENCES
(1) Martínez, J. M.; Reguant, J.; Montero, M. A.; Montan
e, D.;
Salvad
o, J.; Farriol, X. Hydrolytic Pretreatment of Softwood and Almond
Shells, Degree of Polymerization and Enzymatic Digestibility of the
Cellulose Fraction. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 688.
(2) Belkacemi, K.; Turcotte, G.; Savoie, P. Aqueous/Steam-Fractio-
nated Agricultural Residues as Substrates for Ethanol Production. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 173.
(3) Garrote, G.; Y
a~ nez, R.; Alonso, J. L.; Parajo, J. C. Coproduction
of Oligosaccharides and Glucose from Corncobs by Hydrothermal
Processing and Enzymatic Hydrolysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008,
47, 1336.
(4) Kim, Y.; Hendrickson, R.; Mosier, N.; Ladisch, M. R. Plug-Flow
Reactor for Continuous Hydrolysis of Glucans and Xylans from
Pretreated Corn Fiber. Energy Fuels 2005, 19, 2189.
(5) Allen, S. G.; Schulman, D.; Lichwa, J.; Antal, M. J. A Comparison
between Hot Liquid Water and Steam Fractionation of Corn Fiber. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 2934.
(6) Kilpel€ainen, I.; Xie, H.; King, A.; Granstrom, M.; Heikkinen, S.;
Argyropoulos, D. S. Dissolution of Wood in Ionic Liquids. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 2007, 55, 9142.
(7) Marzialetti, T.; Valenzuela, M. B.; Sievers, C.; Hoskins, T. J. C.;
Agrawal, P. K.; Jones, C. W. Dilute Acid Hydrolysis of Loblolly Pine: A
Comprehensive Approach. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 7131.
(8) Gupta, R.; Sharma, K. K.; Kuhad, R. C. Separate hydrolysis and
fermentation (SHF) of Prosopis Juliflora, a Woody Substrate, for the
Production of Cellulosic Ehanol by Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and Pichia
stipitis-NCIM 3498. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 1214.
(9) Sukumaran, R. K.; Singhania, R. R.; Mathew, G. M.; Pandey, A.
Cellulase Production Using Biomass Feed Stock and Its Application in
Lignocellulose Saccharification for Bio-Ethanol Production. Renew.
Energy 2009, 34, 421.
6211 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
(10) Han, Y. E; Catalana, E. A.; Ciegler, A. Chemical and Physical
Properties of Sugarcane Bagasse Irradiated with y Rays. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 1983, 31, 34.
(11) Sivers, M. V.; Zacchi, G.; Olsson, L.; Hahn-Hgerdals, B. Cost
Analysis of Ethanol Production from Willow Using Recombinant
Escherichia coli. Biotechnol. Prog. 1994, 10, 555.
(12) Chang, V. S.; Holtzapple, M. T. Fundamental Factors Affecting
Enzymatic Reactivity. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2001, 84
86, 5.
(13) Ramos, L. P. The Chemistry Involved in the Steam Treatment
of Lignocellulosic Materials. Quim. Nova 2003, 26 (6), 863.
(14) Bobleter, O.; Concin, R. Degradation of Poplar Lignin by
Hydrothermal Treatment. Cellul. Chem. Technol. 1979, 13, 583.
(15) Garrote, G.; Dominguez, H.; Parajo, J. C. Hydrothermal
Processing of Lignocellulosic Materials. Holz Roh-Werkst. 1999, 57, 191.
(16) Liu, C.; Wyman, C. E. The Effect of Flow Rate of Compressed
Hot Water on Xylan, Lignin and Total Mass Removal from Corn Stover.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 5409.
(17) Negro, M. J.; Manzanares, P.; Oliva, J. M; Ballesteros, I.;
Ballesteros, M. Changes in Various Physical Chemical Parameters of
Pinus Pinaster Wood After Steam Explosion Pretreatment. Biomass
Bioenergy 2003, 25, 301.
(18) Mok, W. S.; Antal, M. J. Uncatalyzed Solvolysis of Whole
Biomass Hemicellulose by Hot Compressed Liquid Water. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 1992, 31, 1157.
(19) Shahbazi, A.; Li, Y.; Mims, M. R. Application of Sequential
Aqueous Steam Treatments to the Fractionation of Softwood. Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 2005, 121
124, 973.
(20) S€oderstr€om, J.; Pilcher, L.; Galbe, M.; Zacchi, G. Two-Step
Pretreatment of Softwood with SO2 Impregnation for Ethanol Produc-
tion. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2002, 98
100, 5.
(21) Laser, M.; Schulman, D.; Allen, S. G.; Lichwa, J.; Antal, M. J.;
Lynd, L. R. A Comparison of Liquid Hot Water and Steam Pretreat-
ments of Sugar Cane Bagasse for Bioconversion to Ethanol. Bioresour.
Technol. 2002, 81, 33.
(22) Mosier, N.; Wyman, C.; Dale, B.; Elander, R.; Lee, Y. Y.;
Holtzapple, M.; Ladisch, M. Features of Promising Technologies for
Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2005,
96, 673.
(23) Weil, J. R.; Sarikaya, A.; Rau, S. L.; Goebz, J.; Lasisch, C. M;
Brwer, M.; Hendrickson, R.; Ladisch, M. R. Pretreatment of Corn Fiber
by Pressure Cooking in Water. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1998, 73, 1.
(24) Xiao, W.; Clarkson, W. W. Acid Solubilization of Lignin and
Bioconversion of Treated Newsprint to Methane. Biodegradation 1997,
8, 61.
(25) Shevchenko, S. M.; Beatson, R. P.; Saddler, J. N. The Nature of
Lignin from Steam Explosion/Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Softwood. Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 1999, 77
79, 867.
(26) Hendricks, A. T.; Zeeman, G. Pretreatments to Enhance the
Digestibility of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2009,
100, 10.
(27) Teixeira, L. C.; Linden, J. C.; Schroeder, H. A. Alkaline and
Peracetic Acid Pretreatments of Biomass for Ethanol Production. Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 1999, 77
79, 19.
(28) Gregg, D.; Saddler, J. N. A Techno-Economic Assessment of
the Pretreatment and Fractionation Steps of a Biomass-to-Ethanol
Process. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1996, 57
58, 711.
(29) Tengborg, C.; Stenberg, K.; Galbe, M.; Zacchi, G.; Larsson, S.;
Palmqvist, E.; Hahn-H€agerdal, B. Comparison of SO2 and H2SO4
Impregnation of Softwood Prior to Steam Pretreatment on Ethanol
Production. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1998, 70
72, 3.
(30) Chang, V. S.; Kaar, W. E.; Burr, B.; Holtzapple, M. T. Simulta-
neous Saccharification and Fermentation of Lime-Treated Biomass.
Biotechnol. Lett. 2001, 23 (16), 1327.
(31) Chang, V. S.; Nagwani, M.; Kim, C.; Holtzapple, T. Oxidative
Lime Pretreatment of High-Lignin Biomass. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
2001, 94, 1.
(32) Aden, A.; Ruth, M.; Ibsen, K.; Jechura, J.; Neeves, K.; Sheehan,
J.; Wallace, B.; Montague, L.; Slayton, A.; Lukas, J. Lignocellulosic Biomass
6212
ARTICLE
to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Concurrent Dilute Acid
Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover; Technical Report
NREL/TP-510-32438; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Gold-
en, CO, 2002; 143 pp.
(33) Wooley, R.; Ruth, M.; Sheehan, J.; Ibsen, K.; Majdeski, H.;
G
alvez, A. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics
Utilizing Co-current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis.
Current and Futuristic Scenarios; Technical Report NREL/TP-580-
26157; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 1999;
123 pp.
(34) Lynd, L. R. Overview and Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol from
Cellulosic Biomass: Technology, Economics, the Environment, and
Policy. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1996, 21, 403.
(35) Ogier, J. C.; Ballerini, D.; Leygue, J. P.; Rigal, L.; Pourqui
e, J.
Production D’
ethanol a partir de Biomasse Lignocellulosique. Oil Gas
Sci. Technol. 1999, 54 (1), 67.
(36) Hamelinck, C. N.; van Hooijdonk, G.; Faaij, A. P. Ethanol from
Lignocellulosic Biomass: Techno-Economic Performance in Short-,
Middle- and Long-Term. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 28, 384.
(37) Quintero, J. A.; Montoya, M. I; S
anchez, O. J.; Giraldo, O. H;
Cardona, C. A. Fuel Ethanol Production from Sugarcane and Corn:
Comparative Analysis for a Colombian Case. Energy 2008, 33, 385.
(38) Guti
errez, L. F.; S
anchez, O. J.; Cardona, C. A. Process
Integration Possibilities for Biodiesel Production from Palm Oil Using
Ethanol Obtained from Lignocellulosic Residues of Oil Palm Industry.
Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 1227.
(39) Cardona, C. A; S
anchez, O. J. Energy Consumption Analysis of
Integrated Flowsheets for Production of Fuel Ethanol from Lignocellu-
losic Biomass. Energy 2006, 31, 2447.
(40) Taherzadeh, M. J.; Eklund, R.; Gustafsson, L.; Niklasson, C.;
Lid
en, G. Characterization and fermentation of dilute-acid hydrolyzates
from wood. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 4659.
(41) Purwadi, R.; Niklasson, C.; Taherzadeh, M. J. Kinetic Study of
Detoxification of Dilute-Acid Hydrolyzates by Ca(OH)2. J. Biotechnol.
2004, 114, 187.
(42) Choi, C. H.; Mathews, A. P. Two-Step Acid Hydrolysis Process
Kinetics in the Saccharification of Low-Grade Biomass: 1. Experimental
Studies on the Formation and Degradation of Sugars. Bioresour. Technol.
1996, 58, 101.
(43) Kim, K. H.; Tucker, M.; Nguyen, Q. Conversion of Bark-Rich
Biomass Mixture into Fermentable Sugar by Two-Stage Dilute Acid-
Catalyzed Hydrolysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 1249.
(44) Esteghlalian, A.; Hashimoto, A. G; Fenske, J. J.; Penner, M. H.
Modeling and Optimization of the Dilute Sulphuric-Acid-Pretreatment
of Corn Stover, Poplar and Switchgrass. Bioresour. Technol. 1997,
59, 129.
(45) Saeman, J. F. Hydrolysis of Cellulose and Decomposition of
Sugars in Dilute Acid at High Temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 1997,
59, 129.
(46) Leksawasdi, N.; Joachimsthal, E. L.; Rogers, P. L. Mathematical
Modeling of Ethanol Production from Glucose/Xylose Mixtures by
Recombinant Zymomonas mobilis. Biotechnol. Lett. 2001, 23, 1087.
(47) Wooley, R.; Putsche, V. Development of an ASPEN PLUS
Physical Property Database for Biofuels Components; Report No.
NREL/MP-425-20685; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Gold-
en, CO, 1996.
(48) Botha, T.; Blottnitz, H. V. A Comparison of the Environmental
Benefits of Bagasse-Derived Electricity and Fuel Ethanol on a Life-Cycle
Basis. Energ Policy 2006, 34, 2654.
(49) Prakash, R.; Henham, A.; Bhat, I. K. Net energy and gross
pollution from bioethanol production in India. Fuel 1998, 77 (14), 1629.
(50) Luo, L.; van der Voet, E.; Huppes, G. Life Cycle Assessment
and Life Cycle Costing of Bioethanol from Sugarcane in Brazil. Renew-
able Sustainable Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 613.
(51) Cardona, C. A.; Quintero, J. A.; Paz, I. C. Production of
Bioethanol from Sugarcane Bagasse: Status and Perspectives. Bioresour.
Technol. 2010, 101, 4754.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x |Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 6205–6212