Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 10121 2023-10-17 07:45:20 |
2 changed the description and content -6569 word(s) 3552 2023-10-18 05:28:41 | |
3 The content of the application has been corrected into English + 6 word(s) 3558 2023-10-18 09:12:12 | |
4 content has been corrected. Title editing is disabled -1021 word(s) 2479 2023-10-18 09:52:35 | |
5 The text has been corrected to English. Links in the text have been removed. The full text can be re + 881 word(s) 3360 2023-10-18 10:06:44 | |
6 format correct -1 word(s) 3359 2023-10-19 03:21:03 | |
7 I can't change the name from Russian to English. how to do it? Only content ocgas are active Meta information modification 3359 2023-10-25 05:30:55 | |
8 comments have been eliminated + 1530 word(s) 4889 2023-10-25 08:11:05 | |
9 format correct -1 word(s) 3086 2023-10-26 03:55:36 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Gismatulina, Y.�.; Budaeva, V.V.; Kortusov, A.N.; Kashcheyeva, E.I.; Gladysheva, E.; Mironova, G.F.; Skiba, E.A.; Shavyrkina, N.A.; Korchagina, A.A.; Zolotukhin, V.N. Chemical Composition of Giant Miscanthus from Different Climatic Regions. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50377 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Gismatulina Y�, Budaeva VV, Kortusov AN, Kashcheyeva EI, Gladysheva E, Mironova GF, et al. Chemical Composition of Giant Miscanthus from Different Climatic Regions. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50377. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Gismatulina, Yulia А., Vera V. Budaeva, Aleksey N. Kortusov, Ekaterina I. Kashcheyeva, Evgenia Gladysheva, Galina Fedorovna Mironova, Ekaterina A. Skiba, Nadezhda A. Shavyrkina, Anna A. Korchagina, Vladimir N. Zolotukhin. "Chemical Composition of Giant Miscanthus from Different Climatic Regions" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50377 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Gismatulina, Y.�., Budaeva, V.V., Kortusov, A.N., Kashcheyeva, E.I., Gladysheva, E., Mironova, G.F., Skiba, E.A., Shavyrkina, N.A., Korchagina, A.A., & Zolotukhin, V.N. (2023, October 17). Chemical Composition of Giant Miscanthus from Different Climatic Regions. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/50377
Gismatulina, Yulia А., et al. "Chemical Composition of Giant Miscanthus from Different Climatic Regions." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 October, 2023.
Chemical Composition of Giant Miscanthus from Different Climatic Regions
Edit

Lignocellulosic biomass is of great interest as an alternative energy resource because it has a number of advantages. Miscanthus x gigantis is a lignocellulosic feedstock of particular interest because it combines high biomass productivity with low environmental impact, including control of CO 2 emissions. The chemical composition of lignocellulose determines the possibilities of its use for efficient industrial processing. Here we have collected specimens from a collection of Miscanthus x giganteus, which were grown in different climatic regions between 2019 and 2021. The chemical composition was quantified using traditional wet methods. The results were compared with each other and with known data. It has been shown that already from the first year of vegetation, miscanthus has the following chemical composition: cellulose content 43.2–55.5%, acid-insoluble lignin content 17.1–25.1%, pentosan 17.9–22.9%, ash content 0, 90–2.95%, and 0.3–1.2% extractives. Habitat and environment have been found to influence the chemical composition of miscanthus. It was found that the stem part of miscanthus is richer in fiber than the leaf part (48.4–54.9% versus 47.2–48.9%, respectively), regardless of the age of the plantation and habitat. The data obtained expand the geography of research into the chemical composition of miscanthus and confirm the high value of miscanthus for industrial processing into cellulose products around the world.

Miscanthus chemical composition cellulose lignin pentosans different climate regions

1. Introduction

Fossil fuel is a non-renewable energy source having a crucial importance for global development [1], and it is likely that it will be depleted within the next 40–50 years [2]. It is essential to advance alternative energy sources in order to replace fossil fuel resources, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and abate the anthropogenic burden on the environment [2][3]. Lignocellulosic biomass is of great interest as an alternative energy resource because of the significant benefits it offers: great diversity, availability, carbon neutrality and low cost as compared to fossil fuels [2][4][5]. As of today, lignocellulosic biomass is estimated at almost 25% of the global energy supply [6].

Perennial C4 plants are considered to be an especially promising alternative feedstock because of their higher photosynthetic capacity, high yield and productive utilization of nitrogen and water when compared to C3 plants [3][7]. These peculiarities allow the perennial grasses, particularly Miscanthus, to attain to substantial yields [8] even if they are raised in marginal and degraded lands [7][9][10], thereby exerting a positive habitat-forming impact on them. That said, Miscanthus is reckoned as one of the most promising because it is capable of utilizing the ambient resources more efficiently than the other C4 plants [10].

The Miscanthus cultivation is already beneficial by itself for environmental restoration, for example, CO2 fixation [11] and remediation [12][13]. The use of Miscanthus as the carbon resource can replace fossil fuels, with no serious damage to the environment [2]. In China, Miscanthus has already become in-demand for bioenergy development [14]. In the UK, Miscanthus is also touted as a popular bioenergy feedstock because of high yields (8–32 ton/ha) and a high energy output (140–560 GJ/ha) compared to the other raw materials [9][14]. It is believed that Miscanthus is able to shorten and, in perspective, replace wood in the industry if more eco-benign (green) technologies are employed, particularly without sulfur and chlorine chemicals and hence with a minimum negative impact on the environment [15]. Baxter et al. [16] noted that even the combustion of Miscanthus biomass releases harmful agents no more than those absorbed during the growth, making the closed carbon cycle feasible. Kowalczyk-Juśko et al. [17] reported the broadest variability of biochemical conversion of Miscanthus into a range of valuable products.

The following Miscanthus varieties are being studied most: Miscanthus sinensis, Miscanthus x giganteus, Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Miscanthus floridulus.

The researchers examined Miscanthus × giganteus, a perennial cereal crop with a biomass yield of up to 40 ton/ha annually [7][10] over the span of 18–25 years, having a high potential for the greenhouse gas mitigation through carbon fixation into the soil [18]. The advantage of Miscanthus × giganteus is that it is able to sequestrate twice more carbon than Miscanthus sinensis [19].

The cultivation of Miscanthus × giganteus in Russia is discussed as compared with other countries (edaphoclimatic conditions, yield capacity, harvesting time and constituent composition of ash) in a series of studies [20][21][22][23], but there is no data on the chemical composition (contents of polymers) of those harvests.

The chemical composition of any lignocellulosic feedstock needs to be evaluated to identify whether the feedstock has a value for converting the same into products in demand [1]. The chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus is currently being studied extensively [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Despite quantification methods for the Miscanthus chemical composition being diverse, they are more alike than distinct, making the comparison betweenhe reported data possible [1]. Studies on chemical composition measurement and variations after chemical modifications are being pursued [34][35][36]. There are known studies on the chemical composition of M. saccharif lorus, M. Sinensis and M. Purpurascens raised in the continental climate of West Siberia (Russia) [37].The relationships between the chemical composition of Miscanthus and species/variety, plantation age, climatic conditions, seasonal variations and harvest time are being examined [10]. Studies are being performed on the chemical composition subject to the biomass harvesting time: early (fall) and late (spring) [7][10][18][25][26][27][28]. Cellulose was shown to prevail in the spring harvest [7][25][26][27], which is the best for further processing of Miscanthus. The spring harvesting is also preferable because of a low biomass moisture and more complete transfer of nutrients from leaves and stems to rhizomes for storage and utilization in the next season [10][18][25][26][27], favorably affecting the soil quality [38]. The effects of plantation age on the biomass yield [7][28][39] and chemical composition of Miscanthus are being explored [24][40]. There are single studies on the chemical composition quantification of different morphological portions of Miscanthus [28][29][31][41].

Despite Miscanthus being evidently promising for carbon footprint mitigation and/or for its conversion into valuable products, there are no studies on the chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus raised in three different climate regions. The research would expand the knowledge of the chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus as a function of the habitat, plantation age and morphological part of the plant.

The research aimed to evaluate the chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus subject to the climate region of cultivation and to the morphological part of the plant (leaf and stem).

Table 1. Data on harvesting year, farmers and yield capacity (calculated), sample weight and climatic conditions for cultivation of Miscanthus × giganteus differing in plantation age and habitat (Russia).

Plantation Age/Habitat/Harvesting Year

Farmer

Yield Capacity, t/ha

Sample Weight, kg

Annual Means

Т, °С

Rainfalls, mm

1 year old, Kaluga, 2020

ООО Re:forma

2.5

7.6

+5.6

636

4 years old, Kaluga, 2021

ООО Re:forma

21.5

4.0

+5.6

636

5 years old, Kaluga, 2022

ООО Re:forma

22.0

4.5

+5.6

636

3 years old, Moscow, 2020

ООО Master Brand

14.5

11.0

+5.8

739

7 years old, Moscow, 2020

ООО Master Brand

19.0

6.8

+6.0

825

1 year old, Bryansk, 2021

Farm Household Savchenko V.V.

2.9

2.5

+6.1

671

2 years old, Bryansk, 2022

Farm Household Savchenko V.V.

10.0

3.0

+6.1

671

2 years old, Kaliningrad, 2021

ООО Kalagra Farm

12.0

2.4

+7.9

750

8 years old, Penza, 2022

Penza State Agrarian University

22.0

15.0

+5.2

521

1 year old, Novosibirsk, 2020

Siberian Research Institute of Plant Cultivation and Breeding

2.1

1.0

+2.6

437

1 year old, Irkutsk, 2022

ООО Sibgiprobum

2.0

1.5

+1.0

472

2. Chemical Composition of Miscanthus × giganteus Differing in Plantation Age and Habitat 

The chemical composition is the most important indicator to evaluate if a plant feedstock has the potential for efficient industrial processing. The Miscanthus cell wall consists mainly of the polymers such as cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin [10]. There are guidelines on how to assess the biomass quality after a plant growth period of at least 2–3 years [10]. Here, the researchers examined the biomass of Miscanthus from different-aged plantations, including one-year-old plants. Table 2 summarizes the chemical compositions of Miscanthus × giganteus differing in plantation age and habitats.

Table 2. Chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus differing in plantation age and habitat (Russia).

Plantation Age/Habitat/
Harvesting Year

Component Content, %

 

Cellulose

Lignin

Pentosans

Ash

Extractives

1 year old, Kaluga, 2020

47.8 ± 0.5

21.5 ± 0.5

22.9 ± 0.5

0.90 ± 0.05

1.2 ± 0.1

4 years old, Kaluga, 2021

49.4 ± 0.5

20.6 ± 0.5

22.3 ± 0.5

1.45 ± 0.05

0.5 ± 0.1

5 years old, Kaluga, 2022

50.2 ± 0.5

19.6 ± 0.5

20.4 ± 0.5

1.58 ± 0.05

0.6 ± 0.1

3 years old, Moscow, 2020

50.1 ± 0.5

21.7 ± 0.5

21.0 ± 0.5

1.55 ± 0.05

0.8 ± 0.1

7 years old, Moscow, 2020

50.1 ± 0.5

25.0 ± 0.5

21.7 ± 0.5

0.96 ± 0.05

0.7 ± 0.1

1 year old, Bryansk, 2021

46.8 ± 0.5

21.3 ± 0.5

22.2 ± 0.5

1.76 ± 0.05

0.5 ± 0.1

2 years old, Bryansk, 2022

50.4 ± 0.5

18.5 ± 0.5

22.6 ± 0.5

1.25 ± 0.05

0.5 ± 0.1

2 years old, Kaliningrad, 2021

53.5 ± 0.5

25.1 ± 0.5

19.7 ± 0.5

1.82 ± 0.05

0.3 ± 0.1

8 years old, Penza, 2022

55.5 ± 0.5

20.9 ± 0.5

19.5 ± 0.5

2.63 ± 0.05

0.9 ± 0.1

1 year old, Novosibirsk, 2020

43.2 ± 0.5

19.7 ± 0.5

20.2 ± 0.5

2.95 ± 0.05

0.9 ± 0.1

1 year old, Irkutsk, 2022

44.4 ± 0.5

17.1 ± 0.5

17.9 ± 0.5

2.61 ± 0.05

0.8 ± 0.1

It follows from the tabulated data (Table 2) that, starting as soon as the first vegetation year, Miscanthus exhibits the following chemical composition: 43.2–55.5% cellulose content, 17.1–25.1% acid-insoluble lignin content, 17.9–22.9% pentosan content, 0.90–2.95% ash content and 0.3–1.2% extractives.

By comparing the chemical compositions of Miscanthus from different climate regions, it can be noted that Miscanthus plants from the continental (Novosibirsk) and severely continental (Irkutsk) climate regions are similar in biomass indicators. It was found by comparing these values with the chemical composition of Miscanthus plants from the same-age plantations growing in the temperate continental climate that the contents of cellulose, lignin and pentosans are higher by 2.4–4.6%, 1.6–4.4% and 2.0–5.0% in the latter climate, respectively, with the extractives content being almost similar and the ash content being 0.85–2.05% lower.

It should be noted that our data obtained for the continental climate (Novosibirsk) can be compared to those of chemical compositions of three Miscanthus species Miscanthus sacchariflorus, Miscanthus Sinensis and Miscanthus Purpurascens cultivated under the same climatic conditions [37]. It is obvious that the reason behind the low cellulose content of Miscanthus x giganteus sample (Table 2) is due to the plantation age (one year old) because all the three Miscanthus species taken for comparison were raised on plantations aged 5 years.

Because there are no publications on chemical composition measurement results for the Russian Miscanthus × giganteus varieties, we compared our findings with the international studies from the UK, the USA, Portugal, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Greece, Ukraine, Belgium, Korea and South Ireland. These countries are characterized by a milder climate, particularly by no high-negative temperatures.

Our findings on the chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus are in agreement with the other studies: 32.7–52.9% cellulose content, 7.6–33.0% lignin content and 17.1–33.8% hemicellulose content [15][24][25][26][27][28][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. However, the lignin content of the Russian Miscanthus is characterized by a narrower range of 17.1–25.1% when compared to the international results, suggestive of the impact of the habitat on the chemical composition of biomass [26][27][40]. The main peculiar feature of Miscanthus × giganteus raised in Russia is that it is capable of growing in the temperate and severely continental climates, with a high-efficiency productivity of biomass having a cellulose content as high as 55.5%. Such a high cellulose measure is commensurate with and, in some instances, superior to those of cellulose from other countries (41.8% in Greece, 37.8% in France, 42.3% in Germany and 49.5% in the UK) [26] located in the similar temperate climate zone and even in the warmer subtropical zone. In the study by Schläfle et al. [48], Miscanthus × giganteus raised in the moderate climate of Germany had the following chemical composition: 49.4% cellulose content, 27.7% acid-insoluble lignin content, 19.9% hemicellulose and 1.21% ash content, in a good agreement with the findings from the present study. Vanderghem et al. [47] reported chemical compositions of Miscanthus × giganteus raised in Belgium in the moderate marine climate with a mild winter and cool summer as: 48.4% cellulose, 23.0% acid-insoluble lignin, 17.6% pentosans and 2.4% ash content, which is also consistent with the present study results.

The maximum cellulose content was detected in the biomass of Miscanthus from the oldest 8-year-old plantation, which is in good agreement with the results from the other studies [40] in which a tendency of the increase in the cellulose content was noted for three Miscanthus species according to the plantation age. The same tendency was observed for Miscanthus raised on the territorially similar plantations but of different ages: a cellulose content increased from 47.8% (1 year) to 49.4% (4 years) and further to 50.2% (5 years) in Kaluga city, while the cellulose content rose from 46.8% (1 year) to 50.4% (2 years) in Bryansk city. Such a tendency was not noted for the Moscow plantation (50.1% cellulose for the plantations aged 3 and 7 years old), which can be due to the fact the highest increment in the cellulose content is observed exactly in the initial life years of the plantation [40], i.e., the cellulose content of the plant from the 3-year-old plantation almost achieved its ultimate level and no further increment was noted. By the example of the continental climate, without being bound to any particular city, one can observe a tendency of an increase in the cellulose content from 46.8–47.8% for 1-year-old plants to 50.4–53.5% for 2-year-old plants. No relationships for the measures of pentosans, lignin, ash content and extractives were established. The data obtained by other researchers on this matter are somewhat controversial. In the UK, three harvests (from plantations aged 2, 3 and 4 years) were found to have no considerable changes in the chemical composition of 244 Miscanthus genotypes, depending on the plant age, except for the ash content [24]. Weijde et al. [40] showed that the biomass of Miscanthus from the Ukrainian, Germany and Netherlands plantations was noted to increase in the cellulose content for the initial three vegetation years, which is in line with our findings.

By comparing the chemical composition of Miscanthus from plantations in five cities located in the temperate continental climate, the highest cellulose contents were detected for the two geographical locations: 53.5% in Kaliningrad and 55.5% in Penza; the other three cities (Kaluga, Moscow and Bryansk) are characterized by close cellulose contents ranging from 49.4% to 50.4%, starting from the second vegetation year. The similar values for the latter three geographical locations are explained by the cities being territorially close to each other and hence having identical climatic conditions. The high contents of cellulose (53.5%) and lignin (25.1%) in the biomass of Miscanthus from Kaliningrad are most likely due to this plant being territorially remote from the preceding three samples, namely, due to the plant being situated at the interface of the marine climate and the temperate continental climate and hence due to a milder climate with favorable humidity and daily average temperatures in summer and winter. The second city that is distant from Kaluga, Moscow and Bryansk is Penza in which the biomass exhibits a maximum cellulose content of 55.5% and a maximum ash content of 2.63%. Despite Penza being distant from Moscow, these are very alike in the climate, but the climate in Penza is more continental and arid. Because of the Penza Miscanthus biomass having an enhanced ash content, it can be inferred that the soil of that plantation is distinct from the other plantations, which could help the biomass to achieve such a high cellulose content. This considered, such a high cellulose content is due to the plantation being 8 years old [40].

However, despite the difference in the chemical compositions according to the plantation age, growth conditions and habitats, a fundamental pattern is observed regarding the contents of cellulose, lignin, pentosans, ash and extractives in the leaf and stem (Figure 1).

Z:\Атукмаев К.В\СТАТЬИ В ЖУРНАЛАХ 12.02.2021\Будаева и др\2022\3 РНФ состав мискантуса\Plants MDPI\Правка 2 от 04.10.2022\Fig. 1.png

Figure 1. The chemical composition of the leaf and stem of Miscanthus × giganteus raised in Kaluga (plantation aged 1 year), Kaliningrad (plantation aged 2 years), Moscow (plantation aged 3 years) and Kaluga (plantation aged 5 years).

It follows from Figure 1 that the stem contains most of cellulose (48.4–54.9% vs. 47.2–48.9%) and lignin (23.0–26.3% vs. 18.7–20.4%), while the leaf contains chiefly the other non-cellulosic constituents, more specifically ash (3.95–7.79% vs. 0.93–1.91%), pentosans (22.2–24.4% vs. 19.1–22.1%) and extractives (1.2–1.9% vs. 0.4–0.9%). The difference in the chemical composition is attributed to different metabolic mechanisms of the processes occurring in the leaves and stems. In particular, the stiffening of the stem compared to the flexible leaf is due to the higher lignin content [10]. The ash content of the leaf is 2.1–8.4 times higher than that of the stem, which is due to the leaves being richer in minerals, and is in agreement with the data reported in [31]. These comparison results allow for the conclusion that the Miscanthus stem is characterized by a higher cellulose content, irrespective of the habitat and plantation age.

It was found in Germany [31], as was in our study, that cellulose (50.0–50.5% vs. 44.8–45.0%) was concentrated in the Miscanthus stem, while pentosans and ash were concentrated in the leaf (28.4–29.5% and 4.53–6.82% vs. 26.2–27.4% and 2.50–3.07%, respectively), with no considerable differences in the lignin content (25.3–26.0%) detected in the leaf and stem. In Korea, located in the temperate climate region, the stems of three Miscanthus species were found to have a higher content of cellulose than the leaves, whereas the lignin content did not differ greatly between the leaves and stems [29]. It was discovered in South Ireland [28], as was in our study, that cellulose and lignin were concentrated in the stem of Miscanthus × giganteus (52.5% and 14.7% vs. 35.5% and 8.0%, respectively), while pentosans and ash were concentrated in the leaf (31.0% and 5.8% vs. 19.7% and 3.2%, respectively). Even though the tendency of the three basic constituents concentrated in the leaf and stem persists, the chemical composition of Miscanthus from South Ireland differs appreciably from our findings: a high ash content of 3.2–5.8% in the leaf and stem and a low cellulose content (35.5%) and a high pentosan content (31.0%) in the leaf, which is explained by the different climatic features of the countries, namely by a milder moist oceanic climate of South Ireland. In the USA (Iowa) [41], cellulose and lignin were also concentrated in the stem (41.6% and 25.6% vs. 33.2% and 24.1%), while pentosans in the leaf (17.7% vs. 17.1%). The pattern of the distribution of the basic constituents within the leaf and stem is observable again, but in particular, the leaf is much lower in cellulose content, which is due to the climatic features of the growth region, namely due to the continental climate with a hot arid summer and cold winter.

Our study demonstrated that the habitat and climatic peculiarities have an impact on the chemical composition of Miscanthus. A more detailed evaluation of the chemical composition of Miscanthus × giganteus requires that different-age Miscanthus should be further harvested from the same plantation, which will reveal new patterns and relationships, and the creation of a Russia-wide chemical composition database should be continued.

The low content of lignin in Miscanthus × giganteus and its conceptual distinction from wood lignin [18], along with the high cellulose content (up to 55.5%), allow this crop to be reckoned as a feedstock for the manufacture of an array of valuable products. Moreover, based on the chemical composition measurements of Miscanthus that is a new cellulosic source for Russia, it can be concluded that Miscanthus has a lead position among other non-woody species, as reported likewise in [36][49][50][51][52][53][54].

Thus, Miscanthus × giganteus can be esteemed as a crop of high importance for the national ecology and industries because this plant forms “carbon quotes” for greenhouse gas emissions and is able to compete with fossil energy sources.

3. Conclusions

Miscanthus was discovered to exhibit the following chemical composition, starting from the first vegetation year: 43.2–55.5% cellulose content, 17.1–25.1% acid-insoluble lignin content, 17.9–22.9% pentosan content, 0.90–2.95% ash content and 0.3–1.2% extractives. The habitat and the surrounding environment were found to influence the chemical composition of Miscanthus. Miscanthus plants raised at the interface of marine and temperate continental regions with favorable humidity and daily average temperature in summer and autumn compare favorably with the other samples in terms of the cellulose content (53.5%). Miscanthus from the 8-year-old plantation has the maximum cellulose content (55.5%), as evidenced by the cellulose increment as the plantation age was advancing. The stem part of Miscanthus offers a key merit: the stem is richer in cellulose than the leaf (48.4–54.9% vs. 47.2–48.9%, respectively). This fundamental phenomenon gives a rationale for harvesting Miscanthus in spring in the regions with dry winter, when Miscanthus naturally drops off the leaf and governs, chiefly, the use of the stem part when processed into cellulose.

References

  1. Rodrigues, R.C.; Rodrigues, B.G.; Canettieri, E.V.; Martinez, E.A.; Palladino, F.; Wisniewski, A., Jr.; Rodrigues, D., Jr. Comprehensive approach of methods for microstructural analysis and analytical tools in lignocellulosic biomass assessment–A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 348, 126627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126627.
  2. Vohra, M.; Manwar, J.; Manmode, R.; Padgilwar, S.; Patil, S. Bioethanol production: Feedstock and current technologies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.10.013.
  3. Davey, C.L.; Jones, L.E.; Squance, M.; Purdy, S.J.; Maddison, A.L.; Cunniff, J.; Donnison, I.; Clifton-Brown, J. Radiation capture and conversion efficiencies of Miscanthus sacchariflorus, M. sinensis and their naturally occurring hybrid M. × giganteus. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 9, 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12331.
  4. Azum, N.; Jawaid, M.; Kian, L.K.; Khan, A.; Alotaibi, M.M. Extraction of Microcrystalline Cellulose from Washingtonia Fibre and Its Characterization. Polymers 2021, 13, 3030. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13183030.
  5. Puițel, A.C.; Suditu, G.D.; Danu, M.; Ailiesei, G.-L.; Nechita, M.T. An Experimental Study on the Hot Alkali Extraction of Xylan-Based Hemicelluloses from Wheat Straw and Corn Stalks and Optimization Methods. Polymers 2022, 14, 1662. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091662.
  6. Perlack, R.D. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply; Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2005.
  7. Chupakhin, E.; Babich, O.; Sukhikh, S.; Ivanova, S.; Budenkova, E.; Kalashnikova, O.; Kriger, O. Methods of Increasing Miscanthus Biomass Yield for Biofuel Production. Energies 2021, 14, 8368. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248368.
  8. Gauder, M.; Graeff‐Hönninger, S.; Lewandowski, I.; Claupein, W. Long‐term yield and performance of 15 different Miscanthus genotypes in southwest Germany. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2012, 160, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00526.x.
  9. Shepherd, A.; Littleton, E.; Clifton‐Brown, J.; Martin, M.; Hastings, A. Projections of global and UK bioenergy potential from Miscanthus× giganteus—Feedstock yield, carbon cycling and electricity generation in the 21st century. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12671.
  10. Van der Cruijsen, K.; Al Hassan, M.; van Erven, G.; Dolstra, O.; Trindade, L.M. Breeding targets to improve biomass quality in Miscanthus. Molecules 2021, 26, 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26020254.
  11. Adjuik, T.; Rodjom, A.M.; Miller, K.E.; Reza, M.T.M.; Davis, S.C. Application of hydrochar, digestate, and synthetic fertilizer to a Miscanthus x giganteus crop: Implications for biomass and greenhouse gas emissions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8953. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248953.
  12. Edgar, V.N.; Fabián, F.L.; Julián Mario, P.C.; Ileana, V.R. Coupling plant biomass derived from phytoremediation of potential toxic-metal polluted soils to bioenergy production and high-value by-products—A review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2982. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072982.
  13. Xue, S.; Lewandowski, I.; Wang, X.; Yi, Z. Assessment of the production potentials of Miscanthus on marginal land in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 932–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.040.
  14. Turner, W.; Greetham, D.; Mos, M.; Squance, M.; Kam, J.; Du, C. Exploring the Bioethanol Production Potential of Miscanthus Cultivars. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9949. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219949.
  15. Danielewicz, D.; Surma-Ślusarska, B. Miscanthus × giganteus stalks as a potential non-wood raw material for the pulp and paper industry. Influence of pulping and beating conditions on the fibre and paper properties. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 141, 111744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111744.
  16. Baxter, X.C.; Darvell, L.I.; Jones, J.M.; Barraclough, T.; Yates, N.E.; Shield, I. Miscanthus combustion properties and variations with Miscanthus agronomy. Fuel 2014, 117, 851–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.003.
  17. Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Mazur, A.; Pochwatka, P.; Janczak, D.; Dach, J. Evaluation of the Effects of Using the Giant Miscanthus (Miscanthus × Giganteus) Biomass in Various Energy Conversion Processes. Energies 2022, 15, 3486. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15103486.
  18. Wang, C.; Kong, Y.; Hu, R.; Zhou, G. Miscanthus: A fast‐growing crop for environmental remediation and biofuel production. GCB Bioenergy 2021, 13, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12761.
  19. Nakajima, T.; Yamada, T.; Anzoua, K.G.; Kokubo, R.; Noborio, K. Carbon sequestration and yield performances of Miscanthus× giganteus and Miscanthus sinensis. Carbon Manag. 2018, 9, 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1518106.
  20. Kalinina, O.; Nunn, C.; Sanderson, R.; Hastings, A.F.; Van Der Weijde, T.; Özgüven, M.; Tarakanov, I.; Schüle, H.; Trindade, L.M.; Dolstra, O.; et al. Extending Miscanthus cultivation with novel germplasm at six contrasting sites. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 563. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00563.
  21. Iqbal, Y.; Kiesel, A.; Wagner, M.; Nunn, C.; Kalinina, O.; Hastings, A.F.; Clifton-Brown, J.C.; Lewandowski, I. Harvest time optimization for combustion quality of different miscanthus genotypes across Europe. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00727.
  22. Nunn, C.; Hastings, A.F.; Kalinina, O.; Özgüven, M.; Schüle, H.; Tarakanov, I.; Van Der Weijde, T.; Anisimov, A.A.; Iqbal, Y.; Kiesel, A.; et al. Environmental Influences on the Growing Season Duration and Ripening of Diverse Miscanthus Germplasm Grown in Six Countries. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00907.
  23. Lewandowski, I.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Trindade, L.M.; Van der Linden, G.C.; Schwarz, K.U.; Müller-Sämann, K.; Anisimov, A.; Chen, C.-L.; Dolstra, O.; Donnison, I.S.; et al. Progress on optimizing miscanthus biomass production for the European bioeconomy: Results of the EU FP7 project OPTIMISC. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01620.
  24. Allison, G.G.; Morris, C.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Lister, S.J.; Donnison, I.S. Genotypic variation in cell wall composition in a diverse set of 244 accessions of Miscanthus. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 4740–4747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.008.
  25. Hodgson, E.M.; Nowakowski, D.J.; Shield, I.; Riche, A.; Bridgwater, A.V.; Clifton-Brown, J.C.; Donnison, I.S. Variation in Miscanthus chemical composition and implications for conversion by pyrolysis and thermo-chemical bio-refining for fuels and chemicals. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3411–3418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.017.
  26. Lee, W.C.; Kuan, W.C. Miscanthus as cellulosic biomass for bioethanol production. Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201400704.
  27. Arnoult, S.; Brancourt-Hulmel, M. A review on miscanthus biomass production and composition for bioenergy use: Genotypic and environmental variability and implications for breeding. BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 502–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9524-7.
  28. Wahid, R.; Nielsen, S.F.; Hernandez, V.M.; Ward, A.J.; Gislum, R.; Jørgensen, U.; Møller, H.B. Methane production potential from Miscanthus sp.: Effect of harvesting time, genotypes and plant fractions. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 133, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.03.005.
  29. Jung, S.J.; Kim, S.H.; Chung, I.M. Comparison of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose contents for biofuels utilization among 4 types of lignocellulosic crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 83, 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.10.007.
  30. Waliszewska, H.; Zborowska, M.; Stachowiak-Wencek, A.; Waliszewska, B.; Czekała, W. Lignin Transformation of One-Year-Old Plants During Anaerobic Digestion (AD). Polymers 2019, 11, 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11050835.
  31. Bergs, M.; Völkering, G.; Kraska, T.; Pude, R.; Do, X.T.; Kusch, P.; Monakhova, Y.; Konow, C.; Schulze, M. Miscanthus x giganteus Stem Versus Leaf-Derived Lignins Differing in Monolignol Ratio and Linkage. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20051200.
  32. Stavridou, E.; Webster, R.J.; Robson, P.R. The Effects of Moderate and Severe Salinity on Composition and Physiology in the Biomass Crop Miscanthus × giganteus. Plants 2020, 9(10), 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9101266.
  33. Voća, N.; Leto, J.; Karažija, T.; Bilandžija, N.; Peter, A.; Kutnjak, H.; Šurić, J.; Poljak, M. Energy Properties and Biomass Yield of Miscanthus x Giganteus Fertilized by Municipal Sewage Sludge. Molecules, 2021, 26(14), 4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26144371.
  34. Haffner, F.B.; Mitchell, V.D.; Arundale, R.A.; Bauer, S. Compositional analysis of Miscanthus giganteus by near infrared spectroscopy. Cellulose 2013, 20, 1629–1637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-9935-1.
  35. Van der Weijde, T.; Huxley, L.M.; Hawkins, S.; Sembiring, E.H.; Farrar, K.; Dolstra, O.; Visser, R.G.F.; Trindade, L.M. Impact of drought stress on growth and quality of miscanthus for biofuel production. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12382.
  36. Bergs, M.; Do, X.T.; Rumpf, J.; Kusch, P.; Monakhova, Y.; Konow, C.; Völkering, G.; Pude, R.; Schulze, M. Comparing chemical composition and lignin structure of Miscanthus x giganteus and Miscanthus nagara harvested in autumn and spring and separated into stems and leaves. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 10740–10751. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA10576J.
  37. Dorogina, O.V.; Vasilyeva O.Yu.; Nuzhdina N.S.; Buglova L.V.; Gismatulina Yu.A.; Zhmud E.V.; Zueva G.A.; Kominа O.V.; Tsybchenko E.A. Resource potential of some species of the genus Miscanthus Anderss. under conditions of continental climate of West Siberian foreststeppe. Vavilovskii Zhurnal Genetiki i Selektsii = Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding. 2018, 22 (5), 553-559. DOI 10.18699/VJ18.394.
  38. Huyen, T.L.N.; Rémond, C.; Dheilly, R.M.; Chabbert, B. Effect of harvesting date on the composition and saccharification of Miscanthus x giganteus. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8224–8231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.087.
  39. Brosse, N.; Dufour, A.; Meng, X.; Sun, Q.; Ragauskas, A. Miscanthus: A fast‐growing crop for biofuels and chemicals production. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2012, 6, 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1353.
  40. Van der Weijde, T.; Dolstra, O.; Visser, R.G.; Trindade, L.M. Stability of cell wall composition and saccharification efficiency in Miscanthus across diverse environments. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2004. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.02004.
  41. Kim, S.J.; Kim, M.Y.; Jeong, S.J.; Jang, M.S.; Chung, I.M. Analysis of the biomass content of various Miscanthus genotypes for biofuel production in Korea. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 38, 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.01.003.
  42. Kurschner, K.; Hoffer, A. A new quantitative cellulose determination. Chem. Unserer Zeit 1931, 161, 1811.
  43. TAPPI method T 222 om-83; Acid-insoluble lignin in wood and pulp. In Test Methods, 1998–1999. TAPPI Press: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1999.
  44. Kashcheyeva, E.I.; Gismatulina, Y.A.; Budaeva, V.V. Pretreatments of non-woody cellulosic feedstocks for bacterial cellulose synthesis. Polymers 2019, 11, 1645. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11101645.
  45. TAPPI 211 om-02; Ash in Wood, Pulp, Paper and Paperboard: Combustion at 525 °C. TAPPI: Peachtree Corners, GA, USA, 2002.
  46. TAPPI method T 204 cm-97; Solvent Extractives of Wood and Pulp. TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPI Press: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1997.
  47. Vanderghem, C.; Brostaux, Y.; Jacquet, N.; Blecker, C.; Paquot, M. Optimization of formic/acetic acid delignification of Miscanthus× giganteus for enzymatic hydrolysis using response surface methodology. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 35, 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.07.014.
  48. Schläfle, S.; Tervahartiala, T.; Senn, T.; Kölling-Paternoga, R. Quantitative and visual analysis of enzymatic lignocellulose degradation. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2017, 11, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.07.014.
  49. Baldini, M.; da Borso, F.; Ferfuia, C.; Zuliani, F.; Danuso, F. Ensilage suitability and bio-methane yield of Arundo donax and Miscanthus× giganteus. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 95, 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.10.031.
  50. Sharma, B.; Larroche, C.; Dussap, C.-G. Comprehensive assessment of 2G bioethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 313, 123630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123630.
  51. Singh, A.; Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. A Review of Thermochemical and Biochemical Conversion of Miscanthus to Biofuels, 3rd ed; Nanda, S., Vo, D.N., Sarangi, P.K., Eds.; Biorefinery of Alternative Resources: Targeting Green Fuels and Platform Chemicals; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1804-1_9.
  52. Fradj, N.B.; Rozakis, S.; Borzęcka, M.; Matyka, M. Miscanthus in the European bio-economy: A network analysis. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 148, 112281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112281.
  53. Zhang, Y.; Xu, C.; Lu, J.; Yu, H.; Zhu, J.; Zhou, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, F.; Wang, Y.; Hao, B.; et al. An effective strategy for dual enhancements on bioethanol production and trace metal removal using Miscanthus straws. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 152, 112393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112393.
  54. Chandel, H.; Kumar, P.; Chandel, A.K.; Verma, M.L. Biotechnological advances in biomass pretreatment for bio-renewable production through nanotechnological intervention. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2022, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02746-0.
More
Information
Subjects: Polymer Science
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , , , , , , ,
View Times: 241
Revisions: 9 times (View History)
Update Date: 26 Oct 2023
1000/1000