University College London

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
United Kingdom
E-mail: aiduan.li@ucl.ac.uk

Bioethanol Production
from
Municipal Solid Waste
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Aiduan Li
Dr Majeda Khraisheh
Dr Blanca Antizar

Department of Chemical Engineering

Professor Steffan Simons
Contents

Background
Previous studies
Ongoing project
Waste characterization
Experiments & results
Conclusions
Future work
 Background: MSW - rubbish or resources?
Average Biodegradability Overall
Composition of MSW % Wt Fraction Biodegradability
in MSW 1 (%) 1 (%) 1
Paper and card 27.8 100 27.8
Organics 34.3 100 34.3
Fines (< 10 mm) 1.3 60 0.8
Textiles
4.4 Million tonnes MSW produced 2.4 50
in London in 20031.2
Miscellaneous combustible 10.3 50 5.2
Glass 7.5 0.0 0.0
Other non-combustibles 1.6 0.0 0.0
Plastic film 5.0 0.0 0.0
Ferrous metal 3% rising2.9every year 0.0 0.0
Non ferrous metal 0.9 0.0 0.0
Waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) 0.3 0.0 0.0
Household hazardous waste
(HHW) 0.2 0.0 0.0
Dense plastic 5.5 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 - 69.3%
Source: Burnley S J, Coleman T and Gronow J R (1999) The Impact of the Landfill Directive on
Strategic Waste Management in the UK, Sardinia 1999 International Conference on Landfill.
1 Dry matter basis
Background: MSW as Feedstock?

MSW disposal Reasons for MSW as

methods in London in biomass feedstock:
2003:
Potential large biodegradable
fraction: around 70% of total

E.U. Directive 2003/30/EC

requires to reduce biodegradable
fraction to landfill by 25% by 2010,
50% by 2013, 65% by 2020

Large quantity, low cost

Economic benefits of Rubbish to

fuel (bioethanol)

Source: Defra, UK
 Background: Ethanol Market

Source: Berg, C. (2004). World fuel ethanol analysis and outlook. F.O. Licht, Commodity Analysts.
[URL: http://www.distill.com/]
Background: Ethanol process challenges
Improving technology
to reduce cost:

Producing ethanol from

abundant and cheap waste
biomass

Improved efficient
pretreatment

Increasing use of genetically-

engineered organisms with
improved properties for
hydrolysis and fermentation

Integrating process steps to

reduce capital and operating
Cost Contribution Details from Each Process Area (% cost
of Ethanol Selling Price)
Source: Wyman, C. E. (1999). Biomass ethanol: Technical
progress, Opportunities, and Commercial Challenges. Annu. Rev.
Energy. Environ. Vol 24. pp. 189-226.
 Previous Studies
Single Substrate
Study on used newspapers, pretreated with aqueous ammonia-
hydrogen peroxide solution1, stated that more than 80% enzymatic
digestibility can be obtained after 72 hours hydrolysis.

Most of the previous investigations have focused on single

substrates, using grass, corn stover etc

Multi-substrates
Investigation of mixed waste, by combining construction lumber
waste, almond tree prunings, wheat straw, office waste paper,
and newsprint, with pretreatment method of dilute-acid hydrolysis2,
reported that 80-90% theoretic of glucose yield can be obtained
with enzyme loading of 66 FPU after 100 hours hydrolysis.

Sources:
1
Kim, S. B. & Moon, N.K. (2003). Enzymatic digestibility of used newspaper treated with aqueous ammonia-hydrogen peroxide
solution. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. Vol. 105-108. pp. 365-373.
2
Nguyen, Q. A., Keller, F.A., Tucker, M.P., Lombard, C.K., Jenkins, B. M, Yomogida, D. E., and Tiangco, V.M. (1999).
Bioconversion of mixed solids waste to ethanol. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. Vol. 77-79. pp. 455-472.
 On-going Project

Enzyme
and Yeast SSF
MSW /Fermentation Ethanol

Pre-processing Yeast

Biomass Pre- Enzymatic

treatment Hydrolysis Glucose

Process Simulation
Enzyme

Current Stage

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

MSW samples: Carrot peelings, potato peelings, grass, newspaper and scrap paper
SSF: Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation
Ongoing project aims

Waste characterization

Studying the possibility of MSW as biomass feedstock

Investigation of effective pre-treatment methods

Factorial experimental design with Design Expert

software package

Optimizing enzymatic hydrolysis process

Waste Characterization: cellulose content

Cellulose Content of Common Lignocellulosic

Materials
Cellulose Content (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
s s r r
g g ss e e se
elin elin r a
pap pap lu
l o
G l
pe pe s
ap e
o ot ew r C
tat ar
r N S
c
o C
P
Sample

Note: dry matter basis

Waste Characterization: CHN Analysis

C H N Analysis

50
40
% content

% Carbon
30
% Hydrogen
20
10 % Nitrogen
0

ge
r
ss
g
g

er

pe
in
in

ra
ra

ap
el

el

Pa

e
G
Pe
Pe

sp

Av
p
ew

ra
t
to

ro

Sc
ta

N
ar
Po

Sample

Note: dry matter basis

Waste characterization: Ethanol potential
According to our preliminary studies, 1kg of selected wastes contains
0.41 kg carbon (average carbon content is 41.05%)

Percentage of carbon in glucose molecule (C6H12O6): 40.00%

If 100% of the carbon present in selected wastes was converted to glucose,

then the possible potential yield of glucose from 1 kg of selected waste can be
calculated.

Then, possible mass of glucose : 1.03 kg

Percentage of carbon in ethanol molecule(C2H6O) : 52.17%

Therefore, the possible mass of ethanol that we could obtain from 1 kg

of selected waste is 0.79 kg
Current results: Pretreatment effects (24 hours)

Pretreatment effects (after 24 hours hydrolysis)

Glucose yield (% theoretic)

80
carrot peelings
60 Potato peelings
40 Grass
20 Newspaper
0 Scrap paper
E

E
E

W
t
en

S
+S

M
l+

4+
m

4+
O3
HC

SO
at

SO
HN
re

H2
et

H2
pr
no

Pretreatment methods

HCl+SE: Dilute acid (Hydrochloric acid) hydrolysis + Steam Explosion

HNO3+SE: Dilute acid (Nitric acid) hydrolysis + Steam Explosion
H2SO4+SE: Dilute acid (sulphuric acid) hydrolysis + Steam Explosion
H2SO4+MW: Dilute acid (sulphuric acid) hydrolysis + Microwave treatment
Results: cellulase effects (without
pretreatment)

Cellulase Effect
Glucose yield (%

100
Theoretic)

80
60 T.reesei
40
20 T.viride
0

gs gs ass p er er
il n i n r a p
ee eel G sp pa
tp o
p e w rap
rr
o
ta
t N Sc
Ca o
P
Substrates

Hydrolysis condition: temperature 50oC, ph 4.8, enzyme loading 60 FPU, time 96 hours
Current Results: Cellulase effects (with
pretreatment)
Effects of Cellulase
Glucose yield ( % Theoretic)

120
100
80 T.reesei
60
40 T.viride
20
0
e l (C) (P) r) P) P
)
P P SP
c (G N (S N +
vi gs gs
s r
( r P+ C P+
A lin lin e
e e r as ape ap S r +N
t pe pe G sp
p
p
+G
ro tat
o ew cra +P
ar o N S C
C P
Pretreated Substrate

Hydrolysis condition: temperature 50oC, ph 4.8, enzyme loading 60 FPU, time 96 hours
Pretreatment: H2SO4 + SE
 Current results: Glucose yield (after
pretreatment)

Enzymatic hydrolysis with pretreated samples

100 Avicel
Glucose yield (%

Carrot peelings (C)

80
theoretic)

Potato peelings(P)
60
Grass (Gr)
40 New spaper (NP)
20 Scrap paper (SP)
0 SP+NP
C+P
0 24 48 72 96
C+P+Gr+NP+SP

Hydrolysis time (hour)

Hydrolysis condition: temperature 50oC, ph 4.8, enzyme (T. viride) loading 40 FPU
 Factorial experiment design
Sample: Carrot peelings Time: 72 hours, pH 4.8
Factors: A, Acid concentration: 1% and 4% Treatment: H2SO4 + SE
B, Temperature 121 and 134 0C Enzyme: T. viride
C, Enzyme loading: 10 and 60 FPU Hydrolysis temperature 50oC

Experimental results Results from DESIGN-EXPERT Plot

Run Tempera Acid Enzyme Glucose Cube Graph
Glucose
No. -ture (0C) concentratio loading yield (%)
X = A: Acid concentration
n (%) (FPU) Y = B: Temperature 70.57 61.66
1 121 4 60 61.16 Z = C: Enzyme loading

2 134 1 60 72.50
3 134 4 60 61.16 B+ 58.62 49.72
- low
4 121 1 10 65.21 setting

B: Temperature
+
5 134 4 10 50.22 high 72.80 58.22 C+

g
in
setting

ad
6 134 1 10 56.70

lo
e
m
7 121 4 10 43.34

zy
En
B- 60.85 46.27 C-
8 121 1 60 68.45 A- A+

C:
A: Acid concentration
 Factorial experiment design
Sample: Carrot peelings Time: 72 hours, pH 4.8
Factors: A, Acid concentration: 1% and 4% Treatment: H2SO4 + SE
B, Temperature 121 and 134 0C Enzyme: T. viride
C, Enzyme loading: 10 and 60 FPU Hydrolysis temperature 50oC

Comparison of Actual Value (AV) and

Predicted Value (PV) Results from DESIGN-EXPERT Plot
90
R2 = 0.90 Cube Graph
PV, %

70
Glucose
50
X = A: Acid concentration
30 Y = B: Temperature 70.57 61.66
30 40 50 60 70 80 Z = C: Enzyme loading
AV, %

Table of factor effects

Factor Effect % B+ 58.62 49.72
Contribution
- low
A (Acid concentration) 13.12 47.70 setting

B: Temperature
+
B (Temperature) 0.04 0.13 high 72.80 58.22 C+

g
in
setting

ad
lo
C (Enzyme loading) 13.58 49.39

e
m
zy
AB (Acid 0.76 2.78

En
B- 60.85 46.27 C-
concentration*Temperature) A- A+

C:
A: Acid concentration
 Conclusions
Pretreatment of dilute sulphuric acid hydrolysis followed with steam
explosion did increase in general the rate at which the maximum yield of
glucose was formed. However, this pretreatment did not give higher yields for
newspaper wastes.

Enzyme of T.viride is more effective on the selected wastes in general as

well as the multi-substrates by combining the single substrates.

This investigation reported the glucose yields produced by multi-substrates

are higher than the average yield by single substrate.

This study proved the possibility of using multi-substrates as ethanol feedstock

and encouraged the conversion of MSW to ethanol.

The factorial experiment results showed that acid concentration and

enzyme loading have a higher effect on glucose yield within the
temperature range of 121-134 0C.
 Future work

Greater biomass yield

Other sugar analysis: including xylose, mannose,
galactose, and arabinose
Feedstock from pretreated waste (directly from bin,
or separated)
Ethanol production from fermentable sugars
University College London
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
United Kingdom
E-mail: aiduan.li@ucl.ac.uk

Acknowledgement

Engineering Conference International (ECI) Organization

Graduate School, University College London, UK

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University

College London, UK

Dorothy Hodgkins, RCUK

Natural and Environmental Research Council (NERC), RCUK