Table 2:1: Biochemical composition of some lignocellulosic biomasses 5 Hydrogen fermentation process parameters e.g switch grass, mischantus, elephant grass and Jerusalem artichoke (Cheng et al., 2011). *Values based on Dry Matter (DM) (not kgVS) Table 2.2 a: Effect of biomass pretreatment on biohydrogen productio1 Table 2.2 b: Effect of biomass pretreatment on biomethane production Figure 2.1: Schematic diagram showing the impact of pretreatment on lignocellulosic biomass .7 Formation and inhibition of Furfural R1 is a dehydration step where 1 molecule of water is lost at high temperatures and pressures. Figure 2.2: Schematic diagram showing furfural formation from biomass * Maximum hydrogen yields are at the least furfural concentration tested; ° treated with 2 g/L linoleic acid; ‘combined and/or individual threshold inhibition with Table 2:3: Batch studies showing hydrogen yields from various substrates with IC50 and threshold furfural concentration * Wastewater from thermo-mechanically treated eucalyptus wood; 4mL biogas/g Dry matter; » mL biogas/gCOD removea; ‘converted from mL/g TS in Table 2.4: Comparison between a single-stage BMP process and a two-stage anaerobic digestion process 3.3.2 Gompertz parameters and lag phase (A) were obtained at the various test conditions using the modified Gompertz mode. *Values of calculated parameters are averages of triplicate results + standard deviation Table 3.1: Estimated Gompertz and calculated parameters for hydrogen production ND - Not detected (detection limit of < 0.05 g/L) Table 3.2: Final products analysis showing (TVF Ar + RS)/ SCODr parameters influence hydrogen production. A comparison of the results in the present study with similar literature studies operated batch Table 3.3: Comparison of fermentation parameters (Hydrogen yield, S°/X°, g Furfural/g sugars initial and g furfural/g biomass initial) Table 3.4: Two-way ANOVA analysis results *: R squared =0.999; df: degree of freedom; F: is the ratio of two different measures of variance for a set of date value < 0.05). Table 3.5a: Tukey’s HSD test for multiple comparisons between furfural concentrations 95 % Confidence interval converted from mmol/L in study to g/L; ° converted from mmol/mmol in study to g biomass/g substrate; ° g dry wt/g substrate; “ converted from g biomass/mole substrate in study to g biomass /g substrate; ND-Not Defined Table 4.1 a: Kinetic parameters using various modifications of the Monod model for hydrogen production from pure cultures “converted from d" in study to h!; °converted from gCOD/L in study to g/L; ° biomass yield converted from gVSS/gCOD in study to gVSS/g sugar using 1.067 gCOD/g sugars; ‘ converted from gVSS/mole substrate in study to g VSS/ g sucrose, ND: Not defined Table 4.1 b: Kinetic parameters using various modifications of the Monod model for hydrogen production from mixed cultures Table 4.2 a: ADS characterization *TSS — Total Suspended Solids; **VSS — Volatile Suspended Solids *VFAs- Volatile Fatty Acids Table 4.2 b: Substrate composition *Volumes of hydrogen at thermophilic temperatures were corrected to 37 °C (mesophilic temperatures) for comparison basis; **based on yields in LCH4/gC consumed Table 4.3: Hydrogen yields from mesophilic and thermophilic experiments Figure 4.2 b: Cumulative hydrogen curves for thermophilic experiment at 0 g/L, 1 g/L and 4 g/L furfural Table 4.4: Metabolites concentration and COD mass balance for mesophilic and thermophilic experiments Thermophilic experiment Metabolites COD accounts for the sum of ethanol (EtOH), acetate (HAc), propionate (HPr), butyrate (HBu), isobutyrate (Iso HBu), lactate (HLa), and valerate Table 4.5: Experimental versus theoretical hydrogen production based on acetate, butyrate and propionate concentrations *Theoretical volume of hydrogen from HAc, HBu and HPr were calculated by converting the mass of hydrogen that can be obtained per gram of metabolite using (xylose as substrate) from the balanced equations shown below to L Hz at the respective temperature. Table 4.7 b: Kinetic parameters for thermophilic experiment at 0 g/L furfural, 1 g/L furfural and 4 g/L furfural obtained using the MONOD model on APE=Average Percent Error; RMSE= Root Mean Square Error; kg = 0.1 gVSS/gVSS-d Table 4.8 a: APE and RSME for biomass, substrate and metabolites for mesophilic experiment at 0 g/L furfural, 1 g/L furfural and 4 g/L furfura Table 5.1: Poplar wood treated with various pretreatment methods *Values are mean of triplicates + standard deviation Table 5.3 a: Characterization of TSE samples for liquid streams *Values are mean of triplicates + standard deviation; * wet mass basis; > dry mass basis; * sum of acid soluble and acid-insoluble lignin Table 5.3 b: Characterization of TSE samples for solid streams Table 5.4: Summary table showing first-stage biohydrogen yields and rates data Figure 5.2: Cumulative methane production curves. (a) and (b): single-stage BMP, (c) and (d) 2-stage BMP Table 5.5: Summary of single-stage and second-stage biomethane production data “L;: Liquid stream; S: Solid stream; ° based on methane yields per gCOD added using theoretical maximum methane yield of 0.4 LCH4/gCOD consumea at 37°C All values are averages + standard deviation of sample duplicates of the respective streams at both S°/X° of 0.5 and 1 gCOD/gVSS except otherwise stated “L: Liquid stream; 8: Solid stream All values are averages + standard deviation of sample duplicates of the respective streams at both S°/X° of 0.5 and 1 gCOD/gVSS except otherwise stated Table 5.6: Anaerobic biodegradability of poplar wood hydrolysates “L: Liquid stream; 9: solid stream All values are averages + standard deviation of sample duplicates of the respective streams at both S°/X° of 0.5 and gCOD/gVSS except otherwise stated Table 5.7: TVEA initia/SCOD initia and COD removal efficiencies data for single-stage BMP and second-stage BMP processes Table 5.8 a: Lignin degradation for the BHP process *9 =mass after correcting for the blank *o =mass after correcting for the blank Table 5.8 b: Lignin degradation for the single-stage BMP process Energy yield (kJ/gCOD feedstock) = kJ/L biogas* L biogas/gCOD feedstock; Energy yields for the second-stage BMP ignored COD lost during centrifugation; Volume of hydrogen or methane gas at 37 °C is 25.4 L/mol; 16 gCOD H2 and 64 gCOD CHa are the gCOD equivalents of hydrogen and methane gas respectively. -_te Gua oO *Xylose, Mannose & Galactose Mesophilic experiment at 0 g/L Furfural Mesophilic experiment at 1 g/L Furfural Mesophilic experiment at 4 g/L furfural Thermophilic experiment at 1 g/L furfural
