PROSPECTS OF BIOETHANOL AND PELLET PRODUCTION BASED ON SWEET SORGHUM CULTIVARS GROWING ON RECLAIMED LANDS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31734/agronomy2023.27.074Keywords:
sweet sorghum, cultivars, reclaimed land, theoretical ethanol, thermolysisAbstract
Field experiments on the growing of Ukrainian and American cultivars of sugar sorghum were conducted in the conditions of the steppe zone of Ukraine at the Pokrov educational and research station of land reclamation. The station was founded almost 50 years ago on a 60 m high dump after mining and technical reclamation works related to the open pit quarry of manganese ore. Three sweet sorghum hybrids of Ukrainian selection including Medove, Zubr, Pokrovske, one variety called Silosne – 42, and four American hybrids (SS506, Sioux, Mohawk, G1990) were studied in the field conditions in 2017–2018. A two-factor field experiment was launched, namely Factor A – sweet sorghum hybrids of domestic and American origin; factor B – two types of soil (chernozem mass and phytomeliorated loess-like loam). The main goal of the study was to assess prospects for production of high-quality biological raw material after sweet sorghum cultivars growing on reclaimed lands.
Plants grown on chernozem had little higher Brix values than those on loess loam. The theoretical yield of ethanol of the high-yield hybrids (Zubr, Medove, Mohawk, SS506) was 2500–3600 l ha-1, and of the low-yield hybrids (Sioux and Silosne-42) – 705–1600 l ha-1.
The study of biomass thermolysis processes of the Ukrainian and American cultivars of sweet sorghum revealed both similarities and differences in three indicators (mass loss, speed of decomposition processes, thermal effect). Chemical reactions of destruction of the samples of the Ukrainian cultivars were characterized by a greater release of energy than destruction of the samples of the American hybrids. There was almost no difference in the nature of mass loss within hybrid groups on the black soil. In the samples of the Ukrainian cultivars, the rate of mass loss increased at earlier stages at temperatures of 170–175 oC, while the samples of the American hybrids began to rapidly lose the mass only at temperatures of 230–240 oC. The duration of thermolysis on chernozem was longer than on loess like loam and was 40–50 °C – 550–580 °C in the Ukrainian cultivars and 50–60 °C – 550–590 °C in the American hybrids.
Therefore, the obtained results of the evaluation of the theoretical yield of ethanol and processes of thermolysis of bagasse made it possible to identify some American and Ukrainian cultivars for growing on the two types of reclaimed land.
References
Almorades A., Hadi M. R. Production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum: A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2009. No 4 (9). P. 772–780.
Ameen A., Yang X., Chen F., Tang C., Du F., Fahad S., Xie G. H. Biomass Yield and Nutrient Uptake of Energy Sorghum in Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate on Marginal Land in a Semi – Arid Region. BioEnergy Research. 2017. No 10 (2). P. 363–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9804-5.
Borůvka L., Vacek O., Jehlička J. Principal component analysis as a tool to indicate the origin of potentially toxic elements in soils. Geoderma. 2005. No 128 (3–4). P. 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.04.010.
Dhyani V., Kumar J., Bhaskar T. Thermal decomposition kinetics of sorghum straw via thermogravimetric analysis. Bioresource Technology. 2017. No 245. P. 1122–1129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.189.
Ekefre D. E., Mahapatra A. K., Latimore J. M., Bellmer D. D., Jena U., Whitehead G. J., Williams A. L. Evaluation of three cultivars of sweet sorghum as feedstocks for ethanol production in the Southeast United States. Heliyon. 2017. No 3. P. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.%20e00490.
Fu H. M., Meng F. Y., Molatudi R. L., Zhang B. G. Sorghum and Switchgrass as Biofuel Feedstocks on Marginal Lands in Northern China. Bioenerg. Res. 2016. No 9 (2). P. 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9704-0.
Holou R. A., Stevens G. Juice, sugar, and bagasse response of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench cv. M81E) to N fertilization and soil type. GCB Bioenergy. 2012. 4. P. 302–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1757 – 1707.2011.01126.x.
Kharytonov M. M., Babenko M. H., Mytsyk O. O., Gavryushenko O. O., Martynova N. V. Psysical-chemical and biological testing of phytomeliorated rocks of the Pokrov land reclamation Station. Agrology. 2018. No 1 (3). P. 300–305. https://doi.org/10.32819/2617-6106.2018.13010.
Kharytonov M. M., Babenko M. G., Kozechko V. I., Martynova N. V., Hamandii V. L. Sweet sorghum raw material production on reclaimed lands. Agrology. 2021. No 4 (2). P. 77‒84. doi: 10.32819/021010.
Kim M., Day D. F. Composition of sugar cane, energy cane, and sweet sorghum suitable for ethanol production at Louisiana sugar mills. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. 2011. No 38 (7). P. 803–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295–010–0812–8.
Mathur S., Umakanth A. V., Tonapi V. A., Sharma R., Sharma M. K. Sweet sorghum as biofuel feedstock: recent advances and available resources. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017. No 10. 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0834-9.
Mehmood M. F., M. Ibrahim Rashid U., Nawaz M., Ali S., Hussain A., Gull G. Biomass production for bioenergy using marginal lands. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2017. No 9. P. 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.08.003.
Menéndez J., Loredo J. Reclamation of Degraded Landscape due to Open Pit Coal Mining: Biomass for Renewable Power Plants. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development. 2018. No 14. P. 251–255.
Navarro M. C., Pérez-Sirvent C., Martínez-Sánchez M. J., Vidal J., Tovar P. J., Bech J. Abandoned mine sites as a source of contamination by heavy metals: A case study in a semi-arid zone. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 2008. No 96 (2–3). P. 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2007.04.011.
Reddy B. V. S., Ramesh S., Reddy P. S., Ramaiah, B., Salimath P. M., Rajashekar K. Sweet Sorghum – A Potential Alternate Raw Material for Bio-Ethanol and Bioenergy. International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter. 2005. No 46. P. 79–86. URL:00b4952bd0439abc7e000000.pdf.
Regassa T. H., Wortmann C. S. Sweet sorghum as a bioenergy crop: literature review. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014. No 64. 348–355. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.052.
Ren L. T., Liu Z.X., Wei T.Y., Xie G.H. Evaluation of energy input and output of sweet sorghum grown as a bioenergy crop on coastal saline‐alkali land. Energy. 2012. No 47. P. 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.024.
Rutto L. K, Xu Y., Brandt M., Ren Sh., Kering M. K. Juice, Ethanol, and Grain Yield Potential of Five Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) Cultivars. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems. 2013. No 3. P. 113–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jsbs.2013.32016.
Sheoran V., Sheoran A. S., Poonia P. Soil reclamation of abandoned mine land by revegetation: a review. International Journal of Soil, Sediment and Water. 2010. No 3 (2), Art. 13. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/intljssw/vol3/ iss2/13.
Shoemaker C., Bransby D. I. The role of sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock. In: Sustainable alternative fuel feedstock opportunities, challenges and roadmaps for six US regions. 2010. Chapter 9. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. P. 149–159.
Taylor J. R. N., Schober T. J., Bean S. R. Novel food and non-food uses for sorghum and millets. Review. Journal of Cereal Science. 2006. No 44 (3). P. 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.06.009.
Wortmann C. S., Liska A. J., Ferguson R. B., Lyon D. J., Klein R. N., Dweikat I. Dryland Performance of Sweet Sorghum and Grain Crops for Biofuel in Nebraska. Agronomy Journal. 2010. No 102 (1). P. 319–326. doi:10.2134/agronj2009.0271.
