DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Compositional analysis of biomass reference materials: Results from an interlaboratory study

Abstract

Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) were prepared and characterized, via an interlaboratory comparison exercise in the early 1990s to evaluate biomass summative compositional methods, analysts, and laboratories. Having common, uniform, and stable biomass reference materials gives the opportunity to assess compositional data compared to other analysts, to other labs, and to a known compositional value. The expiration date for the original characterization of these RMs was reached and an effort to assess their stability and recharacterize the reference values for the remaining material using more current methods of analysis was initiated. We sent samples of the four biomass RMs to 11 academic, industrial, and government laboratories, familiar with sulfuric acid compositional methods, for recharacterization of the component reference values. In this work, we have used an expanded suite of analytical methods that are more appropriate for herbaceous feedstocks, to recharacterize the RMs’ compositions. We report the median values and the expanded uncertainty values for the four RMs on a dry-mass, whole-biomass basis. The original characterization data has beenmore » recalculated using median statistics to facilitate comparisons with this data. We found improved total component closures for three out of the four RMs compared to the original characterization, and the total component closures were near 100 %, which suggests that most components were accurately measured and little double counting occurred. Here, the major components were not statistically different in the recharacterization which suggests that the biomass materials are stable during storage and that additional components, not seen in the original characterization, were quantified here.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [2]
  1. National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
  2. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Sustainable Transportation Office. Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO)
OSTI Identifier:
1240081
Report Number(s):
NREL/JA-5100-64070
Journal ID: ISSN 1939-1234
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC36-08GO28308
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
BioEnergy Research
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 9; Journal Issue: 1; Related Information: BioEnergy Research; Journal ID: ISSN 1939-1234
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
09 BIOMASS FUELS; biomass reference material; compositional analysis; Sugarcane Bagasse (Saccharum spp. Hybrid); Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides); Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata); Wheat Straw (Triticum aestivum var. Thunderbird)

Citation Formats

Templeton, David W., Wolfrum, Edward J., Yen, James H., and Sharpless, Katherine E. Compositional analysis of biomass reference materials: Results from an interlaboratory study. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1.
Templeton, David W., Wolfrum, Edward J., Yen, James H., & Sharpless, Katherine E. Compositional analysis of biomass reference materials: Results from an interlaboratory study. United States. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1
Templeton, David W., Wolfrum, Edward J., Yen, James H., and Sharpless, Katherine E. Thu . "Compositional analysis of biomass reference materials: Results from an interlaboratory study". United States. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1240081.
@article{osti_1240081,
title = {Compositional analysis of biomass reference materials: Results from an interlaboratory study},
author = {Templeton, David W. and Wolfrum, Edward J. and Yen, James H. and Sharpless, Katherine E.},
abstractNote = {Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) were prepared and characterized, via an interlaboratory comparison exercise in the early 1990s to evaluate biomass summative compositional methods, analysts, and laboratories. Having common, uniform, and stable biomass reference materials gives the opportunity to assess compositional data compared to other analysts, to other labs, and to a known compositional value. The expiration date for the original characterization of these RMs was reached and an effort to assess their stability and recharacterize the reference values for the remaining material using more current methods of analysis was initiated. We sent samples of the four biomass RMs to 11 academic, industrial, and government laboratories, familiar with sulfuric acid compositional methods, for recharacterization of the component reference values. In this work, we have used an expanded suite of analytical methods that are more appropriate for herbaceous feedstocks, to recharacterize the RMs’ compositions. We report the median values and the expanded uncertainty values for the four RMs on a dry-mass, whole-biomass basis. The original characterization data has been recalculated using median statistics to facilitate comparisons with this data. We found improved total component closures for three out of the four RMs compared to the original characterization, and the total component closures were near 100 %, which suggests that most components were accurately measured and little double counting occurred. Here, the major components were not statistically different in the recharacterization which suggests that the biomass materials are stable during storage and that additional components, not seen in the original characterization, were quantified here.},
doi = {10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1},
journal = {BioEnergy Research},
number = 1,
volume = 9,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Oct 29 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Thu Oct 29 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 25 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Biomass Recalcitrance: Engineering Plants and Enzymes for Biofuels Production
journal, February 2007

  • Himmel, M. E.; Ding, S.-Y.; Johnson, D. K.
  • Science, Vol. 315, Issue 5813, p. 804-807
  • DOI: 10.1126/science.1137016

Assessing corn stover composition and sources of variability via NIRS
journal, June 2009


Process and technoeconomic analysis of leading pretreatment technologies for lignocellulosic ethanol production using switchgrass
journal, December 2011


Uncertainty in techno-economic estimates of cellulosic ethanol production due to experimental measurement uncertainty
journal, January 2012

  • Vicari, Kristin J.; Tallam, Sai; Shatova, Tatyana
  • Biotechnology for Biofuels, Vol. 5, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-5-23

The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials
journal, January 2006

  • Ragauskas, Arthur J.; Williams, Charlotte K.; Davison, Brian H.
  • Science, Vol. 311, Issue 5760, p. 484-489
  • DOI: 10.1126/science.1114736

Effect of corn stover compositional variability on minimum ethanol selling price (MESP)
journal, July 2013


Robust statistics–how not to reject outliers. Part 1. Basic concepts
journal, January 1989

  • Committee, Analytical Methods
  • The Analyst, Vol. 114, Issue 12, p. 1693-1697
  • DOI: 10.1039/AN9891401693

An overview of second generation biofuel technologies
journal, March 2010


Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
journal, August 2010

  • Templeton, David W.; Scarlata, Christopher J.; Sluiter, Justin B.
  • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 58, Issue 16
  • DOI: 10.1021/jf100807b

Genomics of cellulosic biofuels
journal, August 2008


Toward a Systems Approach to Understanding Plant Cell Walls
journal, December 2004


Deconstruction of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Fuels and Chemicals
journal, July 2011


Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 1. Review and Description of Methods
journal, August 2010

  • Sluiter, Justin B.; Ruiz, Raymond O.; Scarlata, Christopher J.
  • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 58, Issue 16, p. 9043-9053
  • DOI: 10.1021/jf1008023

Robust statistics–how not to reject outliers. Part 2. Inter-laboratory trials
journal, January 1989


Process and economic analysis of pretreatment technologies
journal, December 2005


Standardized analytical methods
journal, January 1992


Assessing corn stover composition and sources of variability via NIRS
journal, June 2009


Process and economic analysis of pretreatment technologies
journal, December 2005


Process and technoeconomic analysis of leading pretreatment technologies for lignocellulosic ethanol production using switchgrass
journal, December 2011


Effect of corn stover compositional variability on minimum ethanol selling price (MESP)
journal, July 2013


Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 1. Review and Description of Methods
journal, August 2010

  • Sluiter, Justin B.; Ruiz, Raymond O.; Scarlata, Christopher J.
  • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 58, Issue 16, p. 9043-9053
  • DOI: 10.1021/jf1008023

Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
journal, August 2010

  • Templeton, David W.; Scarlata, Christopher J.; Sluiter, Justin B.
  • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 58, Issue 16
  • DOI: 10.1021/jf100807b

Genomics of cellulosic biofuels
journal, August 2008


Toward a Systems Approach to Understanding Plant Cell Walls
journal, December 2004


The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials
journal, January 2006

  • Ragauskas, Arthur J.; Williams, Charlotte K.; Davison, Brian H.
  • Science, Vol. 311, Issue 5760, p. 484-489
  • DOI: 10.1126/science.1114736

Biomass Recalcitrance: Engineering Plants and Enzymes for Biofuels Production
journal, February 2007

  • Himmel, M. E.; Ding, S.-Y.; Johnson, D. K.
  • Science, Vol. 315, Issue 5813, p. 804-807
  • DOI: 10.1126/science.1137016

Deconstruction of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Fuels and Chemicals
journal, July 2011


Uncertainty in techno-economic estimates of cellulosic ethanol production due to experimental measurement uncertainty
journal, January 2012

  • Vicari, Kristin J.; Tallam, Sai; Shatova, Tatyana
  • Biotechnology for Biofuels, Vol. 5, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-5-23

Methods for Biomass Compositional Analysis
text, January 2013

  • Sluiter, Amie; Sluiter, Justin; Wolfrum, Edward J.
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften
  • DOI: 10.34663/9783945561195-09

Works referencing / citing this record:

Forest-based resources as fillers in biobased polyurethane foams
journal, September 2017

  • de Avila Delucis, Rafael; Magalhães, Washington Luiz Esteves; Petzhold, Cesar Liberato
  • Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 135, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/app.45684

Carbon dynamics of paper, engineered wood products and bamboo in landfills: evidence from reactor studies
journal, December 2018

  • Ximenes, Fabiano A.; Kathuria, Amrit; Barlaz, Morton A.
  • Carbon Balance and Management, Vol. 13, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/s13021-018-0115-3

Enabling community-based metrology for wood-degrading fungi
journal, March 2020

  • Perez, Rolando; Luccioni, Marina; Kamakaka, Rohinton
  • Fungal Biology and Biotechnology, Vol. 7, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/s40694-020-00092-2

Valorization of Tomato Processing Residues Through the Production of Active Bio-Composites for Packaging Applications
journal, March 2019


Undefined cellulase formulations hinder scientific reproducibility
journal, November 2017

  • Himmel, Michael E.; Abbas, Charles A.; Baker, John O.
  • Biotechnology for Biofuels, Vol. 10, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/s13068-017-0974-y

Enabling community-based metrology for wood-degrading fungi
journal, March 2020

  • Perez, Rolando; Luccioni, Marina; Kamakaka, Rohinton
  • Fungal Biology and Biotechnology, Vol. 7, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/s40694-020-00092-2