Cargando…

Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties

The most common procedures for characterizing the chemical components of lignocellulosic feedstocks use a two-stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis to fractionate biomass for gravimetric and instrumental analyses. The uncertainty (i.e., dispersion of values from repeated measurement) in the primary data is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Templeton, David W., Scarlata, Christopher J., Sluiter, Justin B., Wolfrum, Edward J.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2010
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf100807b
_version_ 1782185548011536384
author Templeton, David W.
Scarlata, Christopher J.
Sluiter, Justin B.
Wolfrum, Edward J.
author_facet Templeton, David W.
Scarlata, Christopher J.
Sluiter, Justin B.
Wolfrum, Edward J.
author_sort Templeton, David W.
collection PubMed
description The most common procedures for characterizing the chemical components of lignocellulosic feedstocks use a two-stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis to fractionate biomass for gravimetric and instrumental analyses. The uncertainty (i.e., dispersion of values from repeated measurement) in the primary data is of general interest to those with technical or financial interests in biomass conversion technology. The composition of a homogenized corn stover feedstock (154 replicate samples in 13 batches, by 7 analysts in 2 laboratories) was measured along with a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference sugar cane bagasse, as a control, using this laboratory's suite of laboratory analytical procedures (LAPs). The uncertainty was evaluated by the statistical analysis of these data and is reported as the standard deviation of each component measurement. Censored and uncensored versions of these data sets are reported, as evidence was found for intermittent instrumental and equipment problems. The censored data are believed to represent the “best case” results of these analyses, whereas the uncensored data show how small method changes can strongly affect the uncertainties of these empirical methods. Relative standard deviations (RSD) of 1−3% are reported for glucan, xylan, lignin, extractives, and total component closure with the other minor components showing 4−10% RSD. The standard deviations seen with the corn stover and NIST bagasse materials were similar, which suggests that the uncertainties reported here are due more to the analytical method used than to the specific feedstock type being analyzed.
format Text
id pubmed-2923869
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29238692010-08-19 Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties Templeton, David W. Scarlata, Christopher J. Sluiter, Justin B. Wolfrum, Edward J. J Agric Food Chem The most common procedures for characterizing the chemical components of lignocellulosic feedstocks use a two-stage sulfuric acid hydrolysis to fractionate biomass for gravimetric and instrumental analyses. The uncertainty (i.e., dispersion of values from repeated measurement) in the primary data is of general interest to those with technical or financial interests in biomass conversion technology. The composition of a homogenized corn stover feedstock (154 replicate samples in 13 batches, by 7 analysts in 2 laboratories) was measured along with a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference sugar cane bagasse, as a control, using this laboratory's suite of laboratory analytical procedures (LAPs). The uncertainty was evaluated by the statistical analysis of these data and is reported as the standard deviation of each component measurement. Censored and uncensored versions of these data sets are reported, as evidence was found for intermittent instrumental and equipment problems. The censored data are believed to represent the “best case” results of these analyses, whereas the uncensored data show how small method changes can strongly affect the uncertainties of these empirical methods. Relative standard deviations (RSD) of 1−3% are reported for glucan, xylan, lignin, extractives, and total component closure with the other minor components showing 4−10% RSD. The standard deviations seen with the corn stover and NIST bagasse materials were similar, which suggests that the uncertainties reported here are due more to the analytical method used than to the specific feedstock type being analyzed. American Chemical Society 2010-07-29 2010-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC2923869/ /pubmed/20669952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf100807b Text en Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society http://pubs.acs.org This is an open-access article distributed under the ACS AuthorChoice Terms & Conditions. Any use of this article, must conform to the terms of that license which are available at http://pubs.acs.org.
spellingShingle Templeton, David W.
Scarlata, Christopher J.
Sluiter, Justin B.
Wolfrum, Edward J.
Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
title Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
title_full Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
title_fullStr Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
title_full_unstemmed Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
title_short Compositional Analysis of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks. 2. Method Uncertainties
title_sort compositional analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks. 2. method uncertainties
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf100807b
work_keys_str_mv AT templetondavidw compositionalanalysisoflignocellulosicfeedstocks2methoduncertainties
AT scarlatachristopherj compositionalanalysisoflignocellulosicfeedstocks2methoduncertainties
AT sluiterjustinb compositionalanalysisoflignocellulosicfeedstocks2methoduncertainties
AT wolfrumedwardj compositionalanalysisoflignocellulosicfeedstocks2methoduncertainties