MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166861236 · doi:10.18331/brj2021.8.2.4

Comparison of acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation and ethanol catalytic upgrading as pathways for butanol production: A techno-economic and environmental assessment

2021· article· en· W3166861236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Estefanny Carmona-Garcia, Paula Andrea Marín-Valencia, Juan Camilo Solarte‐Toro, Κωνσταντίνος Μουστάκας, Carlos Ariel Cardona Álzate

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuel Research Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
KeywordsButanolBiofuelEthanol fuelFermentationBiomass (ecology)Raw materialLife-cycle assessmentWaste managementTonAcetonePulp and paper industryProduction (economics)Environmental scienceChemistryEngineeringEthanolFood scienceEconomicsOrganic chemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Butanol is an important compound used as a building block for producing value-added products and an energy carrier. The main butanol production pathways are conventional acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fermentation and catalytic upgrading of ethanol. On the other hand, the application of biomass as a promising substrate for biofuel production has been widely considered recently. However, few studies have compared different butanol production pathways using biomass as raw material. In light of that, the present work aims (i) to provide a short review of the catalytic ethanol upgrading and (ii) to compare conventional ABE fermentation and catalytic ethanol upgrading processes from the economic and environmental perspectives. Aspen Plus v9.0 was used to simulate both processes. The economic and environmental assessments were carried out considering the Colombian economic context, a gate-to-gate approach, and single impact categories. Considering a processing scale of 1000 ton/d, the conventional ABE fermentation process presented a more favorable technical, economic, and environmental performance for butanol production from biomass. It also offered lower net energy consumption (i.e., 57.9 GJ/ton of butanol) and higher butanol production (i.e., 2.59 ton/h). Nevertheless, the proposed processing scale was insufficient to reach economic feasibility for both processes. To overcome this challenge, the minimum processing scale had to be higher than 1584 ton/d and 1920 ton/d for conventional ABE fermentation and catalytic ethanol upgrading, respectively. Another critical factor in enhancing the economic feasibility of both butanol production pathways was the minimum selling price of butanol. More specifically, prices higher than 1.56 USD/kg and 1.80 USD/kg would be required for conventional ABE fermentation and catalytic ethanol upgrading, respectively. From the environmental impact point of view, the conventional ABE fermentation process led to a lower potential environmental impact than catalytic ethanol upgrading (0.12 PEI/kg vs. 0.18 PEI/kg, respectively).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuel Research JournalSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207