The researchers found that wood chips, both hard and soft, completely dissolved in an ionic liquid under only moderate conditions of temperature and pressure. By the controlled addition of water and a water-acetone mixture, the dissolved wood is partially separated into a part rich in cellulose and pure lignin
Scientists from the University of Belfast have discovered a new environmentally friendly method of melting wood through the use of ionic liquids that can help convert it into useful products such as: biofuels, fabrics, clothes and paper.
Dr. Héctor Rodríguez and Professor Robin Rogers from the School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering worked in collaboration with the University of Alabama to find a more economical and cheaper method of wood processing. Their solution, published in the journal Green Chemistry, could be a future solution for an industry based on bio-renewable sources. Today, the wood is unloaded by a process known as Kraft, which originated in the nineteenth century and uses waste-intensive methods based on polluting substances.
The main reason why this method is still used lies in the fact that unpacking and separating the various components of wood is extremely complicated. To date, all alternatives to this method that have been tried have presented similar shortcomings.
The researchers found that wood chips, both hard and soft, completely dissolved in an ionic liquid under only moderate conditions of temperature and pressure. By controlled addition of water and a water-acetone mixture, the dissolved wood partially separates into a cellulose-rich part and pure lignin. This process is much more environmentally friendly than the method used today because it uses less heat and pressure and produces extremely low toxicity while still being biodegradable.
The researcher explains: "This is a very important discovery since cellulose and lignin have a wide variety of uses. Cellulose can be used to make products such as: paper, biofuels, wool and linen fabric, as well as other consumer products and chemicals. "Lignin can be used to prepare performance-enhancing additives in diverse applications, such as strengthening vehicles and airplanes in relatively small quantities compared to the additives available on the market today. Also, lignin is a source of other chemicals obtained mainly from petroleum-based sources."
The researcher adds: "The discovery is a significant step forward towards the development of the idea of biological refining in which biomass is converted into a wide variety of chemicals. Ultimately, the research may pave the way for the establishment of a practical sustainable chemical industry based on bio-renewable sources." Future approaches the researchers are considering include adding environmentally friendly additives to the ionic liquid system or using catalysts.
The researchers hope that in the end they will achieve a better decomposition under even milder conditions and will be able to achieve a complete separation of the various components in a single step. The researchers also focus on biomasses that are rich in essential oils that can be used later in processes such as the production of fragrances.
13 תגובות
light:
You are making an error in judgment and so that you can discover it I have given the example of the poisonous corn.
It's all a question of efficiency and exactly the same conflict would have arisen in the question of whether to grow toxic corn for fuel or normal corn for food, but then it was impossible to claim that food is grown for fuel.
I was the last commenter. The meaning of course is the two worlds and not the two worlds
Michael,
This way you can enjoy both worlds. to use the same resources to produce, from the very same plants, both food and fuel. There is no need to produce the same products from two different fields, in such a way that they compete with each other for fertile land and so on. Assaf claimed, and I agree, that if the old situation had been maintained and indeed the fuel and the food had competed with each other, the food would have had to be chosen over the fuel. Now the conflict is resolved thanks to the new technology.
light:
I was fully aware of this situation but the consideration he and you are making is wrong.
What is really disturbing is the lack of efficiency and not the fact that it is food.
Imagine, for example, that there was a type of poisonous corn that could be processed into fuel just like regular corn.
Wasn't Asaf her mind then?
He might not have protested but he would be wrong because the same resources on which the toxic corn (which is not food) was grown for fuel could have been used to grow normal corn and provide food.
So, in the end, all that matters here is efficiency and that's what I tried to get him to say himself.
fresh:
The scenario you described is not necessarily correct.
Of course, a certain amount - as large as possible - should be left for the forests - but this is a matter of appropriate laws that will protect the forest.
You should also take into account the fact that growing plants consume carbon dioxide during their growth (sometimes more than mature plants!).
Let's assume, for that matter, that an area of a certain size is sufficient to provide all the energy we need that is not produced from other renewable (or almost infinite) sources.
This area can be allocated to increase energy and in the calculation of the total consumption of its DTP will be offset with the creation of DTP by burning the fuel that will be produced from it.
No description
but to create/mine
Michael,
The old situation:
Corn grown in the field. Its seeds are turned into food or fuel. The rest (stem, leaves, roots, etc.) is thrown into the trash as useless waste. Assaf protested the competition for the kernels between the food industry and the fuel industry.
The new situation:
Corn grown in the field. Its seeds are turned into food or fuel. The balance is converted to fuel. Assaf is happy about the possibility of reducing the competition for the kernels, because the supply of fuels has increased (instead of only the kernels of the corn, other tissues of the corn can also be used). Assaf thinks that the increase in supply will satisfy the demand for fuel to such an extent that the growth of corn *kernels* for food production will decrease, and the food supply will increase.
If indeed the new method is financially more profitable than the old method of converting corn kernels into fuel, so that the financial return to the farmer for selling the corn kernels as food will be higher than the return for selling them as fuel, Assaf is right. Such a situation is possible, according to his hypothesis, because the supply of fuel has increased and hence its price will decrease.
Growing plants for fuel will encourage the clearing of jungle areas and the planting of these profitable crops in their place, and thus the greenhouse effect will worsen, and the composition of the atmosphere will change.
Asaf:
Again you didn't say anything I didn't know and I still don't understand what problem you are talking about.
Why do you think growing plants for fuel is problematic if these plants are also edible?
Michael,
What is not clear is that every food crop has "waste" or any other process that utilizes plant material.
When growing cucumbers or tomatoes, there is foliage that remains in the field, all the grains whose seeds are eaten by straits
Straw, every treatment of wood produces "waste", the "waste" that is cellulose is used to produce fuel,
There are oil by-products that are used in the food industry,
This does not preclude doing everything to prevent the pollution caused by burning mineral fuel.
Asaf:
This difference is self-evident, but it is not clear to me what the advantage you point to is.
If land and certain resources are invested in some crop and this crop is suitable to be fuel - then what does it matter if it can also be food?
Imagine if they found a way to turn oil into food - would you then object to its use for engine propulsion purposes?
To Michael
Growing food for fuel means using corn, soybeans, etc. for the fuel industry instead of food,
To distinguish from the use of: sawdust, wood chips, straw and even soybean stalks, corn and the like
After the kernels - the edible material - was separated from them,
Asaf:
It is not clear to me why you call "growing food for fuel" and why the new solution is different in your eyes.
After all, this solution is also based on plants that must be grown and areas allocated to them.
Is there a fundamental difference between plants that you call food and others?
Let it be clear:
I too welcome the discovery that will enable a better conversion of plant materials into fuel - I'm just claiming that those who oppose "growing food for fuel" should not see this innovation as the solution to what is troubling them.
Undoubtedly progress in the right direction
That you moderate the crazy fashion of food crops for fuel
post Scriptum.
Fuel has no bias to many like bread like a weapon like a car
There are not many.