Background: Similar to biofuels, numerous chemicals produced from petroleum resources can also be made from biomass. In this research we investigate cradle to biorefinery exit gate life cycle impacts of producing acetic acid from poplar biomass using a bioconversion process. A key step in developing acetic acid for commercial markets is producing a product with 99.8% purity. This process has been shown to be potentially energy intensive and in this work two distillation and liquid–liquid extraction methods are evaluated to produce glacial bio-acetic acid. Method one uses ethyl acetate for extraction. Method two uses alamine and diisobutyl ketone. Additionally two different options for meeting energy demands at the biorefinery are modeled. Option one involves burning lignin and natural gas onsite to meet heat/steam and electricity demands. Option two uses only natural gas onsite to meet heat/steam demands, purchases electricity from the grid to meet biorefinery needs, and sells lignin from the poplar biomass as a co-product to a coal burning power plant to be co-fired with coal. System expansion is used to account for by-products and co-products for the main life cycle assessment. Allocation assessments are also performed to compare the life cycle tradeoffs of using system expansion, mass allocation, or economic allocation for bio-acetic acid production. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine potential effects of a decrease in the fermentation of glucose to acetic acid. Results: Global warming potential (GWP) and fossil fuel use (FFU) for ethyl acetate extraction range from 1000–2500 kg CO₂ eq. and 32–56 GJ per tonne of acetic acid, respectively. Alamine and diisobutyl ketone extraction method GWP and FFU ranges from −370–180 kg CO₂ eq. and 15−25 GJ per tonne of acetic acid, respectively. Conclusions: Overall the alamine/diisobutyl ketone extraction method results in lower GWP and FFU values compared to the ethyl acetate extraction method. Only the alamine/diisobutyl extraction method finds GWP and FFU values lower than those of petroleum based acetic acid. For both extraction methods, exporting lignin as a co-product produced larger GWPs and FFU values compared to burning the lignin at the biorefinery.

While high-rise mass-timber construction is booming worldwide as a more sustainable alternative to mainstream cement and steel, in South America, there are still many gaps to overcome regarding sourcing, design, and environmental performance. The aim of this study was to assess the carbon emission footprint of using mass-timber products to build a mid-rise low-energy residential building in central Chile (CCL). The design presented at a solar decathlon contest in Santiago was assessed through lifecycle analysis (LCA) and compared to an equivalent mainstream concrete building. Greenhouse gas emissions, expressed as global warming potential (GWP), from cradle-to-usage over a 50-year life span, were lower for the timber design, with 131 kg CO₂ eq/m² of floor area (compared to 353 kg CO₂ eq/m²) and a biogenic carbon storage of 447 tons of CO₂ eq/m² based on sustainable forestry practices. From cradle-to-construction, the embodied emissions of the mass-timber building were 42% lower (101 kg CO₂ eq/m²) than those of the equivalent concrete building (167 kg CO₂ eq/m²). The embodied energy of the mass-timber building was 37% higher than that of its equivalent concrete building and its envelope design helped reduce space-conditioning emissions by as much as 83%, from 187 kg CO₂ eq/m² as estimated for the equivalent concrete building to 31 kg CO₂ eq/m² 50-yr. Overall, provided that further efforts are made to address residual energy end-uses and end-of-life waste management options, the use of mass-timber products offers a promising potential in CCL for delivering zero carbon residential multistory buildings.

Most of the current commercial production of glacial acetic acid (GAA) is by petrochemical routes, primarily methanol carbonylation. GAA is an intermediate in the production of plastics, textiles, dyes, and paints. GAA production from biomass might be an economically viable and sustainable alternative to petroleum-derived routes. Separation of acetic acid from water is a major expense and requires considerable energy. This study evaluates and compares the technical and economic feasibility of GAA production via bioconversion using either ethyl acetate or alamine in diisobutylkerosene (DIBK) as organic solvents for purification. Models of a GAA biorefinery with a production of 120,650 tons/year were simulated in Aspen software. This biorefinery follows the path of pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, acetogen fermentation, and acid purification. Estimated capital costs for different scenarios ranged from USD 186 to 245 million. Recovery of GGA using alamine/DIBK was a more economical process and consumed 64% less energy, due to lower steam demand in the recovery distillation columns. The estimated average minimum selling prices of GGA were USD 756 and 877/ton for alamine/DIBK and ethyl acetate scenarios, respectively. This work establishes a feasible and sustainable approach to produce GGA from poplar biomass via fermentation.

Biomass appears to be one of the most prominent renewable resources for biofuels such as bioethanol, mainly due to its better environmental performance compared with fossil fuels. This study addresses a comprehensive environmental performance of bioethanol production, employing empirical data from hybrid poplar grown in the U.S. The study considers 1 MJ as a functional unit and employs a cradle-to-grave approach, which entails the feedstock and harvesting production of poplar, transport to a biorefinery, bioconversion of the biomass process, and fuel use. On average, bioconversion is the main contributor to environmental degradation in all the categories evaluated (77%). The second main contributor is either the feedstock and harvesting production of poplar (17%) or fuel use (6%), depending on the environmental category. Thus, focusing on only one category may induce a misinterpretation of the environmental performance of bioethanol production. Finally, environmental credits in the global warming potential (GWP) category were obtained from the carbon sequestered in the biomass during the growing period and from avoided fossil fuel emissions due to electricity production from a renewable source. This means that the net GWP of the life cycle of bioethanol from poplar biomass is slightly negative (−1.05 × 10⁻³ kg CO₂-eq·MJ⁻¹).

Low cost of raw materials and good process yields are necessary for future lignocellulosic biomass biorefineries to be sustainable and profitable. A low cost feedstock will be diverse, changing as a function of seasonality and price and will most likely be available from multiple sources to the biorefinery. The efficacy of the bioconversion process using mixed biomass, however, has not been thoroughly investigated. Considering the seasonal availability of wheat straw and the year round availability of hybrid poplar in the Pacific Northwest, this study aims to determine the impact of mixing wheat straw and hybrid poplar biomass on the overall sugar production via steam pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification. Steam pretreatment proved to be effective for processing different mixtures of hybrid poplar and wheat straw. Following SO2-catalyzed steam explosion pretreatment, on average 22 % more sugar monomers were recovered using mixed feedstock than either single biomass. Improved sugar recovery with mixtures of poplar and wheat straw continued through enzymatic hydrolysis. After steam pretreatment and saccharification, the mixtures showed 20 % higher sugar yields than that produced from hybrid poplar and wheat straw alone. Blending hybrid poplar and wheat straw resulted in more monomeric sugar recovery and less sugar degradation. This synergistic effect is attributable to interaction of hybrid poplar’s high acetic acid content and the presence of ash supplied by wheat straw. As a consequence on average 20 % more sugar was yielded by using the different biomass mixtures. Combining hybrid poplar and wheat straw enables sourcing of the lowest cost biomass, reduces seasonal dependency, and results in increasing biofuels and chemicals productivity in a cellulosic biorefinery.

As the need to address climate change grows more urgent, policymakers, businesses, and others are seeking innovative approaches to remove carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere and decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors. Forests can play a role in reducing atmospheric carbon. However, there is disagreement over whether forests are most effective in reducing carbon emissions when left alone versus managed for sustainable harvesting and wood product production. Cross-laminated timber is at the forefront of the mass timber movement, which is enabling designers, engineers, and other stakeholders to build taller wood buildings. Several recent studies have shown that substituting mass timber for steel and concrete in mid-rise buildings can reduce the emissions associated with manufacturing, transporting, and installing building materials by 13%-26.5%. However, the prospect of increased utilization of wood products as a climate solution also raises questions about the impact of increased demand for wood on forest carbon stocks, on forest condition, and on the provision of the many other critical social and environmental benefits that healthy forests can provide. A holistic assessment of the total climate impact of forest product demand across product substitution, carbon storage in materials, current and future forest carbon stock, and forest area and condition is challenging, but it is important to understand the impact of increased mass timber utilization on forests and climate, and therefore also on which safeguards might be necessary to ensure positive outcomes. To thus assess the potential impacts, both positive and negative, of greater mass timber utilization on forests ecosystems and emissions associated with the built environment, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) initiated a global mass timber impact assessment (GMTIA), a five-part, highly collaborative research program focused on understanding the potential benefits and risks of increased demand for mass timber products on forests and identifying appropriate safeguards to ensure positive outcomes.