Method to separate lignin-rich solid phase from acidic biomass suspension at an acidic pH

Abstract

A method of separating a lignin-rich solid phase from a solution suspension, by pretreating a lignocellulosic biomass with a pretreatment fluid having remove soluble components, colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles; separating the pretreated lignocellulosic biomass from the pretreatment fluid with soluble components, colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles; flocculating the separated pretreatment fluid with soluble components, colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles using polyethylene oxide (i.e., PEO) or cationic Poly acrylamide (i.e., CPAM) as a flocculating agent; and filtering the flocculated separated pretreatment fluid with soluble components, colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles to remove agglomerates.

Claims

1. A method of separating a lignin-rich solid phase from an aqueous suspension comprising a lignocellulosic biomass having an acidic pH and aromatic components, the method comprising: dividing the aqueous suspension comprising the lignocellulosic biomass having the acidic pH and the aromatic components into a residual lignocellulosic biomass and a suspension comprising soluble components having colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles, said suspension having a pH less than about 4, using a pretreatment fluid; flocculating said suspension using a sufficient amount of polyethylene oxide (PEO) as a flocculating agent, substantially without added cofactors; adding to said suspension a precipitated calcium carbonate to raise the pH to between about 5 to 7.5; and separating the flocculated suspension to remove agglomerates to achieve a reduction in turbidity of about 99.5%.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said dividing comprises at least one method selected from the group consisting of sedimentation, centrifugation, and microfiltration.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said pretreatment fluid comprises a hot water extraction fluid.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said flocculating is conducted at a temperature of about 21.5 C. to about 25 C.

5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising fermenting a solution resulting after separating the flocculated suspension to remove agglomerates.

6. The method according to claim 1, wherein said separating comprises filtering through a filter having a pore size of less than about 10 microns.

7. The method according to claim 1, wherein said separating comprises filtering through at least one of a ceramic filter and a cloth filter.

8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the flocculating is performed for a sufficient time of less than about 2 hours to form agglomerates separable from the flocculated suspension to achieve the reduction in turbidity of about 99.5%.

9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the precipitated calcium carbonate is limited to an amount that does not substantially increase turbidity of the suspension.

10. A method for treating lignocellulosic biomass comprising: treating the lignocellulosic biomass with an extractant to extract a suspension comprising soluble components having colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles from the lignocellulosic biomass, yielding a residual biomass and the suspension having a pH less than about 4; separating the suspension from the residual biomass; adding a flocculating agent to the suspension to form a flocculated suspension, wherein the flocculating agent comprises polyethylene oxide (PEO) in an amount sufficient to achieve a 99.5% reduction in turbidity after separation; adding to the suspension a precipitated calcium carbonate to raise the pH between about 5 and 7.5; and separating a flocculated portion of the flocculated suspension from a non-flocculated portion of the flocculated suspension to produce a fermentable solution from the lignocellulosic biomass.

11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the extractant comprises hot water.

12. The method according to claim 10, wherein the suspension is separated from the residual biomass with a separation device which comprises at least one of a filter, a sedimentation tank, and a centrifuge.

13. A method of separating a lignin-rich solid phase from a suspension comprising: dividing a lignocellulosic biomass into a residual lignocellulosic biomass and a suspension comprising soluble components having colloidal material and primarily lignin containing particles, the suspension having a pH less than about 4, using a pretreatment fluid; treating the suspension with a polymer flocculating agent comprising a sufficient amount of polyethylene oxide (PEO) and precipitated calcium carbonate to raise the pH to between about 5 and 7.5 and said polymer flocculating agent, being substantially without additional cofactors; and separating the flocculated suspension to remove agglomerates to achieve a reduction in turbidity of about 99.5%.

14. The method according to claim 13, wherein said dividing comprises at least one method selected from the group consisting of sedimentation, centrifugation, and microfiltration.

15. The method according to claim 13, wherein said suspension comprises an aqueous suspension.

16. The method according to claim 13, wherein said treating is conducted at a temperature of about 21.5 C. to about 25 C.

17. The method according to claim 13, further comprising microbially processing a non-agglomerated portion of the flocculated suspension.

18. The method according to claim 17, wherein said microbially processing comprises fermenting.

19. The method according to claim 13, wherein said separating comprises filtering through a filter having a pore size of less than about 10 microns.

20. The method according to claim 13, wherein said separating comprises filtering through at least one of a ceramic filter and a cloth filter.

21. The method according to claim 13, wherein the treating is performed for less than about 2 hours.

22. The method according to claim 13, wherein said pretreatment fluid comprises a hot water extraction fluid and said treating is conducted at a temperature of about 21.5 C. to about 25 C.

23. The method according to claim 13, wherein the precipitated calcium carbonate is limited to an amount that does not substantially increase turbidity of the suspension.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 shows UV absorption spectra of supernatants of hydrolyzates treated with CPAM (30 ppm), filtrate from 0.2 m filter (arbitrary units);

(2) FIG. 2 shows UV absorption spectra at 205 nm of supernatants of hydrolyzates treated with CPAM at different concentrations in ppm;

(3) FIGS. 3A-3D show graphs of particle size for aggregations over time for pDADMAC (FIG. 3A), Alum (FIG. 3B), PEI (FIG. 3C), and CPAM (FIG. 3D);

(4) FIGS. 4A-4E show graphs of zeta potential over time for Alum (FIG. 4A), PEI (FIG. 4B), pDADMAC (FIG. 4C), med. mol. wt. CPAM (FIG. 4D); and 25 ppm CPAM+0.15 M Alum;

(5) FIGS. 5A-5C show graphs of zeta potential vs. flocculating agent concentration for Alum (FIG. 5A), PEI (FIG. 5B), and pDADMAC (FIG. 5C);

(6) FIG. 6A-6F show graphs of turbidity of supernatant vs. time for different concentrations of polymers (6A), Alum (6B), PEI (6C), pDADMAC (6D), med. mol. wt. CPAM (6E), high. mol. wt. CPAM (6F), and a combination of PEI and Alum (6F);

(7) FIGS. 7A-7F show graphs of suspension height vs. time for Alum (FIG. 7A), PEI (FIG. 7B), pDADMAC (FIG. 7C), med. mol. wt. CPAM (FIG. 7D), high. mol. wt. CPAM (FIG. 7E), and PEI+Alum (FIG. 7F);

(8) FIGS. 8A-8D show graphs of settling velocity vs. time for Alum (FIG. 8A), PEI (FIG. 8B), pDADMAC (FIG. 8C), and med. mol. wt. CPAM (FIG. 8D);

(9) FIGS. 9A-9D show graphs of maximum velocity vs. time for Alum (Alum 9A), PEI (Alum 9B), pDADMAC (Alum 9C), and CPAM (FIG. 9D);

(10) FIGS. 10A-10D show graphs of sedimentation height vs. flocculating agent concentration for Alum (FIG. 10A), PEI (FIG. 10B), pDADMAC (FIG. 10C), and CPAM (FIG. 10D);

(11) FIGS. 11A-11D show micrographs of flocculated particles for a neat extract (FIG. 11A), pDADMAC (FIG. 11B), Alum (FIG. 11C), and PEI (FIG. 11D);

(12) FIG. 12 shows a graph of turbidity neat extract hydrolyzate at different suspension vs. pH (adj. with NaOH) (Turbidities measured at 10 dilution);

(13) FIGS. 13A-13D show graphs of zeta potential vs. time for Alum (FIG. 13A), PEI (FIG. 13B), PEI (FIG. 13C), and pDADMAC (FIG. 13D);

(14) FIGS. 14A-14D show graphs of turbidity (NTU) vs. time for Alum (FIG. 14A), pDADMAC (FIG. 14B), PEI (FIG. 14C), and med. mol. wt. CPAM (FIG. 14D);

(15) FIGS. 15A-15D show graphs of sedimentation height vs. time for Alum (FIG. 15A), pDADMAC (FIG. 15B), PEI (FIG. 15C), and med. mol. wt. CPAM (FIG. 15D);

(16) FIG. 16 shows a flow chart of a lignocellulosic biomass process;

(17) FIG. 17 shows a graph of mass recovery vs. extraction time;

(18) FIG. 18 shows a graph of effective diameter vs. mass removal;

(19) FIG. 19 shows a chart showing extraction content;

(20) FIG. 20 shows a graph of sediment height vs. time;

(21) FIG. 21 shows a graph of turbidity vs. time for different concentrations of polymer;

(22) FIG. 22 shows a graph of maximum sediment height vs. polymer concentration;

(23) FIG. 23 shows a graph of settling velocity vs. time of sedimentation;

(24) FIG. 24 shows a graph of maximum settling velocity vs. polymer concentration;

(25) FIG. 25 shows a sediment height vs. pH of extract at 40 ppm PEO;

(26) FIG. 26 shows a graph of final sediment height vs. temperature;

(27) FIGS. 27A and 27B show graphs of turbidity vs. dosage of polymer solution at 1 g/l (FIG. 27A), and 2 g/l (FIG. 27B).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

(28) Hydrolyzates

(29) Autohydrolysis or hot water extraction were carried out in a MK digester using 500 g oven dried sugar maple wood chips and 4:1 liquor (water) to wood ratio at 160 C. for 2 hours. FIGS. 17 and 18 show the mass removal over time and effective diameter of particle size as a function of mass removed, respectively.

(30) Particle size and zeta potential of the wood hydrolyzate were measured using a Brookhaven Particle Size and Zeta Potential Analyzer (90 Plus and ZetaPlus, Holtsville, N.Y.). A Micro100 turbidimeter (HF Scientific Inc., Fort Myers, Fla.) was used to measure turbidity of the samples (Nephelometric turbidity units, NTUs).

(31) It was necessary to dilute the samples at least 10 fold to measure the turbidity, particle size and zeta potential. All the dilutions required were performed with filtrated (100 nm filter) reverse osmosis water.

(32) Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) chips were prepared from debarked wood logs in a Carthage chipper. The chips were screened and air-dried before extraction. 500 g (on over dried basis) of the wood chips were placed in the digester and 2000 ml of reverse osmosis purified water was added (water-wood ratio of 4:1). The digester temperature was increased linearly from the initial room temperature up to 160 C. (ramp time 15 min) and then held for 120 min. at the extraction condition that corresponds to the maximum dissolved solids [5, 15, 40] and the highest xylose concentration in the extract. At the end of the extraction, the digester was cooled, depressurized and the reaction mixture was withdrawn. The extraction liquor was separated, collected and the chips were washed, dried and weighed.

(33) Supernatant, Sediment and Hydrolyzate characterization

(34) Physical Characterization

(35) The turbidity of the solutions was measured (in NTUs) using a Micro100 laboratory turbidimeter [HF Scientific Inc, Fort Myers, Fla., USA]. It was necessary to dilute the sampled solution 10 to measure the turbidity from which the true turbidity was calculated. All the dilutions required were performed with filtrated reverse osmosis water. Particle size and zeta potential of the wood hydrolyzates were measured using a Brookhaven Particle Size and Zeta Potential Analyzer (90 Plus and ZetaPlus, Holtsville, N.Y., USA). Each value reported is the average of 10 measurements.

(36) Sugar analysis of both the raw extract and supernatants of the PEO treated extract samples was performed by 1H NMR Spectroscopy using a method described by Kimle et al (2004). Klason lignin and acid soluble lignin were determined by standard TAPPI methods T222 om 88 and UM 250 respectively. A UV-VIS spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV 3600) was used to measure absorbance of the solutions at 205 nm from which the soluble lignin fraction was calculated.

(37) 1H NMR analysis was used to determine the cellulose and hemicellulose concentration (from the quantification of monomeric sugars obtained from the hydrolysis of glucan, xylan, mannan, arabinan, rhamnan and galactan). The NMR methods used in this research were described in detail earlier [40]. The samples were first hydrolyzed to yield sugars and then analyzed using 1H NMR. In a first stage, the sample is dispersed in 16 ml of 72% sulfuric acid at room temperature for 2 hours, stiffing it every 15 minutes to ensure proper dissolution. In a second stage, 21 ml of DI water are added to the mixture, bringing the acid content down to 40%. This mixture is then placed in a water bath at 80 C. for one hour, being shaken every 15 minutes. The tubes are then cooled down and kept in the refrigerator overnight, for the residual solid matter to precipitate. When necessary the tubes are centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 7 min to further settle the solid matter and allow the collection of 1 ml of the clean supernatant, which is transferred to a NMR tube and mixed with 0.1 ml of a standard solution. The standard solution is a mixture of known amounts of tri-methylamine hydrochloride (TMA) and glucosamine. This analysis was done in duplicate.

(38) Polyelectrolytes:

(39) The polyelectrolytes used for this study are alum, PEI, pDADMAC, and CPAM. Different concentrations of these polymers were added to the hydrolyzates for the study of flocculation kinetics. The concentrations of polymers were alum (0.01M, 0.1M, 0.25M), PEI (25 ppm and 50 ppm, or 0.5% and 1% v/v), pDADMAC (23.6 ppm and 47 ppm; weight of polymer per weight of extract), CPAM (Medium Molecular weight: 10 ppm, 15 ppm, 20 ppm and 25 ppm), CPAM (Higher molecular weight; 20 ppm and 30 ppm) and a combination of alum and PEI (0.15 M+25 ppm/0.5% v/v) was also used for the study.

(40) Polyethylene Oxide

(41) Laboratory grade Polyethyleneoxide (PEO) with molecular weight in excess of 1,000,000 Daltons from Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, Mass.) was used. The PEO solution was prepared as 1 g/L in filtered reverse osmosis water. The solution was prepared the day before use and was kept at a temperature lower than 10 C. until it was used. Besides the concentration of polymer, effect of wood extract pH on flocculation was also examined. The pH of wood extract was varied from 2 to 8.5 with dilute H.sub.2SO.sub.4 and NaOH solutions respectively.

(42) Total Lignin Analysis:

(43) Klason (or Acid Insoluble) Lignin and Acid Soluble Lignin tests were performed, according to the respective TAPPI Standard T222 and TAPPI Useful Method 250. In case of the acid insoluble lignin, the standard was slightly modified since the all the reagent amounts were cut in half. For the acid soluble lignin, Klason lignin was performed in duplicates. Acid Soluble lignin was performed in triplicate.

(44) Acid insoluble lignin was determined following the Tappi T 222 om-06 method, using 4 ml of 72% H.sub.2SO.sub.4 and 50 ml of water on 100 ml of extract and boiling for four hours at 1000 C, with frequent addition of water. The sample was then filtered in a sintered glass crucible using Whatman filter paper 4 (ash-less), the precipitate was collected as insoluble part while the supernatant was used for the determination of acid soluble lignin. A PerkinElmer Lambda 650 UV/Vis Spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV 3600) was used to measure absorbance of the solutions at 205 nm from which the soluble lignin fraction was calculated considering absorptivity to be 110 L/g/cm.

(45) Flocculation Experiments

(46) 100 ml of neat wood extract was taken in a glass beaker and flocculating agent was added and the mixture was agitated with magnetic stirrer. A 5 ml of sample mixture was collected to measure the particle size and zeta potential during process of mixing. Next the agitated mixture was processed for sedimentation in a 100 ml graduated glass cylinder in a fixed position without any disturbance and turbidity of supernatant was measured for about 1-2 hour time period. Turbidity, particle size and zeta potential of the neat extract were measured initially for the reference. Besides the concentration of polymers, effect of wood extract pH on flocculation was also studied. The pH of wood extract was varied from 3.5 to 6.1 and 8.0 with diluted NaOH solution. The study was performed for various concentrations of alum, PEI, CPAM and pDADMAC.

(47) Pilot Study

(48) Flocculation and clarification with PEO were demonstrated on batches of 1000 kg of extract with optimal polymer dosage of 50 ppm PEO at 25 C. temperature conditions. Further, the flocculated extract was mixed with commercially available soft wood pulp which acted as a filter aid to adsorb flocculated particles and suspended mixture was filtered through a 5 micron pore size filter cloth. The filtrate showed a 99.5% reduction in turbidity, from 12000 NTUs in the raw extract to 50 NTUs in the filtrate.

(49) The average particle size of colloidal particles in neat sugar maple wood hydrolyzate were around 260-290 nm and pH of the solution was 3.5. The zeta potentials of dispersed particles in extracts are between 18.6 to 21.0 mV which showed that the particles are strongly anionic. The presence of negatively charged particles indicates that separation of these particles could be possible by flocculation with cationic polymers followed by sedimentation. The flocculation kinetics depends on several factors such as mixing conditions, adsorption on particles and concentration of polymers. The charge density and molecular weights of cationic polymers play an important role in coagulation of negatively charged particles.

(50) The flocculation kinetics depends on several factors such as concentration of polymer, pH of the solution and temperature. The rate of sedimentation of the flocculated particles was measured by turbidity of supernatants of the solution and height of the sediment volume as a function of time. The aggregation of the particles was observed in the agitation process within few seconds upon addition of the polymer to the extract. FIG. 1 shows the height of the sediment volume at different concentrations of the polymer. The height of the sediment volume is not altered between the polymer concentrations of 20 ppm to 40 ppm. The temperature of the extract was maintained constant at 25 C.

(51) A further demonstration was conducted with about 160 liters of extract, and the polyethylene oxide flocculant flocculated the entire batch within about 2-5 min. The suspension was filtered with a simple bag filter, and the resulting hydrolyzate was clear. A screen filter is generally usable as an alternate filter. The anticipated yield is >99%, based on the fact that about 100 g to 200 g of solids were filtered out of nearly 6 kg of solids in suspension.

(52) By using a simple separation system, a plate and frame filter press can be eliminated, which is expensive, requiring manpower and maintenance. Flocculation can also sequester lignin for further use in products. The polymer binds with lignin to yield a good, extrudable material that can be either pelletized for fuel or spun into fibers; therefore, the flocculant forms a functional part of the final product, and need not be separated for these purposes. Flocculation can eliminate components which have adverse effects on fermentation downstream. For example, reduction in acetic acid may be achieved.

(53) The preferred polymer for use in the flocculant is Polyethylene Oxide, of MW over 1000 kDa (Alfa Aesar, Ward Hill, Mass.). A polymer makedown system is available from Ashland. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,384,109; 8,038,846; 8,021,516; 7,648,032; 7,531,600; 7,514,007; 7,476,272; 7,442,722; 7,258,732; 7,001,953; 6,939,443; 6,831,042; 6,642,351; 6,417,268; 6,414,080; 6,372,088; 6,074,473; 6,071,379; 6,020,422; 5,707,533; 5,696,194; 5,688,315; 5,667,885; 5,614,602; 5,603,411; 5,584,394; 5,565,509; 5,344,619; 5,328,880; 5,312,484; and 5,130,395, each of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference.

(54) Polyelectrolytes

(55) The kinetics of flocculation depends most often on charge neutralization, and rate of adsorption (initial attachment) of polymer chains to the surface. The charge density and molecular weights of cationic polymers play important roles in the coagulation of negative colloidal particles. For oppositely charged polymers and particles, two main mechanisms can be involved in the particle flocculation i.e., charge neutralization and bridging flocculation. [9]. Low molecular weight and high charge density polymers such as poly-ethyleneimine (PEI), poly-diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride (pDADMAC) are cationic polymers which are widely used for separation of colloidal particles. These polymers are often involved in aggregating the particles by charge neutralization and patch flocculation mechanisms.

(56) Cationic polyelectrolytes are subject to change in charge and size in solution upon alteration of pH and ionic strength. Furthermore, the absorbability of the polyelectrolytes on an oppositely charged surface may change with these solution properties. Since these polymers are polybase, addition of protons (reduction in pH) will result in protonation and subsequent expansion of polyions due to mutual charge repulsion. [8, 10]

(57) Flocculation efficiency and effectiveness is often determined by measuring the changes in turbidity, particle size and the settling behavior of the extracts in the hot water process. In addition, because of the nature of neutralization involved, the effect of changing extract pH, dosage of flocculants and the influence of electrolytes is often a factor in determination of flocculation efficiency.

(58) Table 1 shows the characteristics of the hydrolyzate suspension used in this work. The zeta potentials of dispersed particles were between 18.6 to 21.0 mV. Since they are negatively charged, separation of these particles should be possible by flocculation with cationic polymers followed by sedimentation. The impact of cationic polyacrylamide on flocculation was investigated in neat hydrolyzates by measuring the UV absorbance spectrum. FIG. 1 shows the spectrum for three solutions: the neat hydrolyzate (diluted 100), the supernatant after treatment with CPAM and a filtrate from filtering the neat hydrolyzate without polymer addition. The neat extract had high absorption in the 200-300 nm region whereas the resulting solutions after adding the CPAM lowered the absorbance to under 10. The absorbance of the supernatant was similar to that of the filtrate and the CPAM treated hydrolyzates. FIG. 2 shows the absorbance at different levels of CPAM addition. It appears that the absorbance is a minimum at 30 ppm indicating the best removal of the fraction of the hydrolyzate responsible for UV absorption. These are most likely to be the lignin related compounds in colloidal and dissolved forms. This was confirmed by analyzing the compositions of the supernatants as described later.

(59) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Characteristics of hydrolysate suspension. Average particle sizes range 280-320 nm Zeta Potential 18.6 to 21.0 mV pH 3.5-3.6 Turbidity 880-990 NTU's (10 folds Dilution)

(60) The performance of each of the polymers was investigated with respect to the development of the size of the flocs, their effect on the turbidity and settling velocity of the suspension and on the final sediment volumes. FIG. 3A shows the aggregation achieved by pDADMAC based on results obtained earlier [15]. pDADMAC also reduced the turbidity of the hydrolyzates from initial values above 9000 NTUs to less than 40 NTUs (at different addition levels). Note that optimal growth and floc size was obtained at addition levels of 15.8 ppm. The aggregation effect of alum, PEI and CPAM at their optimal dosages are shown FIGS. 3B-3D. The samples of PEI and CPAM treated extracts were diluted 10 and the alum treated samples were diluted by 2. At 10 folds dilution, the alum was not effective at flocculation. FIG. 3B shows the rapid growth of the flocs when sufficient quantity of alum was added (0.25 M). It appears that flocculation is much faster than with pDADMAC although the floc sizes are smaller. The cationic electrolyte PEI acts similar to alum at dosage of 50 ppm. The flocs are much larger than those obtained by alum although the kinetics are comparable. Higher dosages were found to reduce the floc sizes and ultimately suppress flocculation altogether indicating that the particle surfaces have been overcharged to become cationic. The application of cationic polyacrylamide results in a rapid flocculation of the dispersions even at the relatively low dosages of 5 ppm. At higher dosages, flocculation was impeded and the suspension was stabilized, possibly by steric repulsion between the particles. Based on the rate of observed aggregation, pDADMAC appears to be the slowest, perhaps because its MW is the lowest among the polymers considered here. The dynamic zeta potential variations in FIGS. 3A-3E show that the adsorption phase is relatively fast (of the order of a few minutes or less) for all the polymers considered here. Therefore, adsorption kinetics cannot be the significant cause of the differences in the rates of aggregation. Since a number of factors, including the magnitude of the interparticle interaction forces determine the kinetics of aggregation, models similar to those proposed earlier for charge neutralization [45] and bridging polymers [46] need to be developed.

(61) The zeta potential of the particles was measured as function of time for each polymer at optimal dosage levels and is shown in FIGS. 4A-4E. When alum was added, the pH of the solution decreased from 3.5 to 3.2. The other solutions did not show changes in pH upon addition of the polyelectrolytes. In this range of pH, alum is expected to yield the trivalent Al cation, which would be available for adsorption onto the anionic particle surfaces [41]. The zeta potential of the hydrolyzates was approximately 20 mV in the absence of the flocculants. As shown in FIG. 4A, it approaches zero as alum concentration is increased. At a dosage of 0.1 M, the zeta potential vanishes, indicating the isoelectric point for the suspension. Similarly, increasing the concentration of the polymers (PEI and DADMAC) leads to lower zeta potentials of the suspensions. However, at higher polymer dosages, the zeta potential becomes positive, indicating charge reversal of the particles to show a net cationic charge. The suspensions are restabilized at this point and the turbidities were observed to be close to the initial values. The PEI dosage at which the zeta potential vanishes is between 25 ppm and 50 ppm, whereas for DADMAC it is between 23.6 and 47.3 ppm. When a combination of PEI and alum was used (FIG. 4E) the polymer dosage at vanishing zeta potential was lower at 25 ppm. The addition of alum reduces the net surface charge available for the PEI and therefore a smaller dosage is necessary to cause flocculation. A decreasing trend in the zeta potential is observed with time in these figures (with the exception of the CPAM case). Redistribution of the adsorbed cationic species, perhaps by penetration into the particles or change of the conformation of the polymers on the surfaces could lower their effectiveness at neutralizing surface charges. Both of these effects could account for the slow decrease in the zeta potentials with time. The colloidal particles (of lignin) may be porous, in which case diffusion into the interior of the particles can lead to the observed decay in surface potential. The zeta potentials of the solution did not change with the addition of the CPAM. The CPAM size is expected to be higher than the low MW PEI and pDADMAC, which may hinder its diffusion into the particle interior. The aggregation of the particles was noticed immediately when the polymer CPAM was uniformly mixed with the solution at slow agitation. The dosage of CPAM on a ppm basis necessary for flocculation is much smaller than the lower MW polyelectrolytes or alum.

(62) FIGS. 5A-5C show the maximum zeta potential attained by the suspension as a function of the dosage of each flocculant (since CPAM showed only a small change, its effect is not shown). Application of higher concentrations of the polymeric flocculants PEI and DADMAC result in charge reversion and cationization of the particles whereas higher concentrations of alum show negligible cationization (5 mV). Alum is effective at screening the initial charge repulsions between the particles and flocculates the suspensions by reducing the electrical double layer repulsion between the negatively charged particles. On the other hand, the polymers adsorb to the particle surfaces and can cause redispersion of the suspensions at higher dosages.

(63) FIGS. 6A-6F show the turbidity of the suspensions with the different flocculants. All the flocculants are effective at reducing the turbidities of the hydrolyzates. Addition of alum reduced the turbidity of the neat hydrolyzates at 0.1 and 0.25 M. Concentrations higher than this did not change the turbidity or flocculation further. Increasing dosages of PEI and pDADMAC resulted in rapid reductions in turbidity, proportional to the dosage as long as the dosage was below the optimal value (defined as that required to neutralize the zeta potential) (in FIGS. 5A-5C). Higher dosages than the optimum resulted in a corresponding reduction in the rate of turbidity changes. This is indicative of the adsorption/patching mechanism for flocculation, especially since the charge is reversed to cationic values as observed in FIGS. 5A-5C. The impact of adding alum and PEI together was investigated. It appears that the combination of electrolyte (alum) and polymer (PEI) is just as effective as either one acting alone showing that alum simply reduces the amount of anionic charge available for neutralization by subsequent PEI. The average particle size in presence of the flocculant was observed to increase beyond 3000 nm (the upper limit of particle sizer) with all the three polymers. Two cationic polyelectrolytes of medium and high MW were added to the hydrolyzates. The change in turbidity was faster with the two CPAM polymers, similar to the rate of aggregate size growth as seen in FIG. 3D. Furthermore, much lower dosages were necessary for flocculation and the eventual clear supernatant was also found to have lower turbidity than those obtained with the other flocculants. The medium molecular weight CPAM is more effective than the higher MW CPAM as is evident from FIGS. 6D and 6E. The reason for the difference in their action is unclear at this point. Flocculation and sedimentation are strongly impacted by charge density and molecular weight of polyacrylamides [44].

(64) FIGS. 7A-7F show the height of the settling interface as a function of time, with the application of these flocculants at different dosages. The settling of the particles was very rapid with the CPAM as the particles were already aggregated in the agitation process. The application of alum also results in sedimentation of the suspensions. Increased dosage beyond that necessary for charge neutralization does not affect the settling rates. The application of PEI and DADMAC results in settling of the suspensions also, with DADMAC at 47.3 ppm being very effective in the separation. The combination of alum and PEI also results in the settling of the suspensions. The kinetics of flocculation varied from polymer to polymer, flocculation with PEI showed rapid sedimentation when compared with alum and pDADMAC. Sedimentation did not occur for lower concentrations of alum (0.01M) and DADMAC (23.6 ppm). The height of the sediment volume depended on rate of aggregation of particles with faster aggregation resulting in rapid sedimentation and larger floc sizes.

(65) FIGS. 8A-8D show the settling velocity measured by numerically differentiating the settling height curves. The settling velocity is usually a constant value independent of time for unflocculated slurries under hindered settling conditions. The settling velocities of the suspensions however show significant variation with time. The initial increase in settling velocity is due to the formation of flocs. As flocs form and begin to settle, they interfere with each other leading to a reduction in the settling velocity. The settling velocities also show a characteristic slow decrease at long times. This behavior can be expected for the settling of consolidated beds or suspensions that are consolidating at concentrations above their gel point. Further analysis of the settling behavior of these suspensions is being conducted to characterize their gel points. The settling velocity increases with higher flocculant dosages. However, the settling velocity appears to be similar for flocs formed from alum at different concentrations.

(66) The maximum in the settling velocity found is shown as a function of the concentration of the flocculant dosages in FIGS. 9A-9D. It is interesting to note that the flocs induced by the simple electrolyte alum show a maximum settling velocity that is independent of dosage beyond 0.1 M. Flocs appear to attain a maximum size at this dosage and the electrolyte's influence reaches a plateau. The behavior of flocs of PEI and DADMAC is different. The settling velocity v.sub.max shows a sharp maximum, which occurs at the optimal polymer dosage. The increasing part of the curve is due to increased flocculation with higher flocculant levels. The decrease in settling velocity occurs because some of the particles have acquired larger cationic charges hindering the flocculation process. This will result in smaller floc sizes as well reduced overall flocculation.

(67) FIGS. 10A-10D show the settled sediment height as a function of polymer dosage. These curves follow the same trends as the maximum settling velocities. The cationic flocculants adsorb onto the anionic particle surfaces and also screen the electrostatic repulsions between the particles. Reduced repulsion results in more compact sediments as indicated by the curves in this set of figures. The reversion of charges due to higher polymer dosages results in the reappearance of the electrostatic repulsions increasing the sediment heights (reducing their concentrations).

(68) FIGS. 9A-9D and 10A-10D taken together show that both the dynamic and steady state characteristics of solid liquid separations (sedimentation, filtration, and centrifugation) will be strongly impacted by flocculation of the hydrolyzates. Higher settling velocities indicate significant increase in the hydrodynamic mobilities and rapid separations whereas the more compact sediments (and by implication, concentration) will deliver greater solid and liquid yields. Sedimentation and filtration characteristics, in particular the particle yield stresses, the gel points and their dependence on sediment or suspension volume fractions, are strongly dependent on flocculation and the specifics of polymer adsorption [44].

(69) FIGS. 11A-11D are optical micrographic images of the suspensions with the three flocculating agents at their optimal dosages. Particles of the neat hydrolyzate are shown in FIG. 11A. The hydrolyzate particle size measured earlier [15] was in the range of 250 to 500 nm, much smaller than the entities visible in (a). These represent agglomerates occurring due to increased concentration of the suspensions under the microscope. The flocs seen in FIGS. 11B-11D however represent images of the native flocs in the hydrolyzates induced by the corresponding flocculants. The flocs due to the polymers (FIGS. 11C and 11D) are much larger than those due to the alum (shown in FIG. 11B). This confirms the results of particle size measurements in FIGS. 3A-3D. The particles flocculated with PEI (FIG. 11D) are closely aggregated and larger than flocs of pDADMAC and alum. The clear solutions of the polymer treated supernatants after the sedimentation. The clarity of the supernatants was substantially improved with flocculant addition.

(70) Lignocellulosic feedstocks are quite diverse, ranging from hardwood chips to agricultural wastes, and therefore can yield hydrolyzates of varying composition. An important variable is the hydrolyzate pH which depends on the organic acid content of the feedstock, the pretreatment method and its conditions. Hardwoods such as sugar maple are rich in acetylated xylans and mild acid or auto catalyzed hot water pretreatments give yield significantly acidic hydrolyzates with pH less than 4.0. Hydrolyzates used had a baseline pH of 3.5. The addition of alum reduced this to 3.2 while the polymeric flocculants did not significantly change the baseline. The charge of many polymers is pH sensitive due to the dependence of the degree of ionization of their functional groups. The zeta potential of the wood hydrolyzates becomes more negative with increased pH, primarily due to the dissociation of additional surface groups on the particles [15].

(71) Due to its importance, the effect of changing pH on the action of the flocculants was investigated as follows. FIG. 12 shows the variation in turbidity of the wood hydrolyzates as a function of their pH (adjusted from its original value of 3.2 by using HCl or NaOH respectively). A decrease in the pH to 1.5 caused only a marginal change in the turbidity although visual observation indicated the formation of larger particles. Lignin that is insoluble in acid conditions precipitates out of the solution and forms larger particulates. As pH is increased on the other hand, a distinct reduction in turbidity is observed since more of the lignin becomes soluble and goes into solution. At pH of 8, the turbidity has reduced significantly, by almost tenfold. The normal pH of the hydrolyzate was 3.5. When the pH was adjusted to 6.1 the zeta potential of the suspension increased (more negative charges observed).

(72) FIGS. 13A-13D shows the change of zeta potential with time for each of the flocculants at different dosage levels. Three pH levels (3.5, 6.1 and 8.2) were considered. When alum was added to the native extract, the pH drops from an initial value of 3.4 to 3.2 due to the buffering action of the alum. Even when the initial pH of the hydrolyzate was changed to 6.1 or 8.0, the addition of alum decreased the suspension pH to near 3.5 due to the strong buffering action of alum. It is seen that the zeta potential increases to slightly positive values but for the higher (initial) pH it reverts to slightly negative values with time. At higher pH, the speciation reactions of alum are altered and polynuclear complexes occur which precipitate easily [41]. There is a slight increase in the zeta potential with alum addition, perhaps because of this additional precipitation at the higher pH values. With an initial pH of 8, the zeta potential is slightly negative indicating that the charge neutralizing capacity of the alum is reduced somewhat. This could be due to the higher anionic charges on the suspended particles and also due to the fact that increased suspension pH especially near 8 can yield anionic species of alum in solution. Note that the predominant species of alum in solution at pH 8, Al(OH).sub.4 [41] is anionic. The charge decay effect with time can be understood to be a consequence of this increased pH. The polyelectrolytes on the other hand did not affect the pH of the hydrolyzate significantly and the final suspension pH was equal to the initial value. The action of PEI is significantly affected by pH as shown by FIG. 13B. At the higher pH of 6.1, dosages of 25 and even 75 ppm PEI leaves the suspension with a negative zeta potential. For the case of pDADMAC too, higher pH of the suspension seems to result in a net negative zeta potential. The rate at which the zeta potential reverts to its original (negative) value is also greater at the higher pH. The charge of PEI decreases as the pH increases due to deprotonation of the imine group. Hence, the ability of PEI to neutralize the particles' negative charge is substantially impeded at pH 8.0. Since the charge on PEI is known to decrease with pH, this result can be expected. The addition of pDADMAC did not cause charge reversal at the high pH level of 8.0.

(73) The impact on turbidity is shown in FIGS. 14A-14D. At pH 6.1, PEI reduced the turbidity by 90% whereas at pH of 3.5, the reduction was close to 100%. The action of pDADMAC on the other hand is not so drastically affected by pH as the PEI, although it appears that the optimal dosage of pDADMAC for flocculation is shifted to higher values as compared to the lower pH suspension.

(74) FIGS. 15A-15D show the impact of the flocculants on the settling curves. At the pH of 8.0, PEI did not result in any flocculation or settling. At the intermediate pH of 6.1, the settling was similar to that at lower pH although the settling velocity appears lower. The final settled height is lower indicating more compact sediment at the lower pH (3.5). In the case of alum, the settling velocity is slightly smaller with higher pH but the sediment height is also smaller. This is repeated when the pH is increased to 8.0 too. The case of DADMAC is similar to PEI. Increased pH resulted in slower settling and higher settled volume (height), both indicative of stronger residual repulsions. The rate of sedimentation was rapid with higher concentration of PEI at pH 6.1 (FIG. 15C). There was no sedimentation at pH 8.0. This study shows that polymers PEI and pDADMAC were sensitive to pH of the solution and alum was buffering agent. The effect on the CPAM was minimal.

(75) FIGS. 27A and 27B show that under different dilutions (1 g/l and 2 g/l) each display the same optimum flocculation concentration.

(76) The impact of flocculation and resultant sedimentation on the composition of the hydrolyzates was analyzed. Table 2 shows the composition of sugars and lignin in the neat extracts (hydrolyzates) and supernatants of the polymer treated extracts. The application of pDADMAC led to reductions in the concentration of the total sugars from 37% to 24% and a drop in the lignin contents of more than 50%. The stronger action of pDADMAC may stem from its higher charge density and lower MW. Alum captured sugars in similar proportion but was less effective at removing the lignin in both acid insoluble and soluble forms. The Al cation is also highly charged and is nonselective between lignin and the carbohydrates in dissolved forms causing equal precipitation or agglomeration and removal. It appears that PEI is more selective in removing lignin (>50% removal) while affecting the sugar yields to smaller extents (30% remaining in solution compared to 37% in the neat hydrolyzates). PEI has a stronger affinity to lignin compared to the sugars perhaps due to the stronger charges on the lignin.

(77) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Chemical Composition of hydrolyzates before and after polymer treatment. (g/L) Neat Extract PEI Alum pDADMAC CPAM Galactose 1.31 1.03 0.91 0.77 1.002 Xylose 27.78 22.17 21.35 17.79 24.34 Rhamnose 1.29 0.97 0.88 0.73 0.836 Mannose 3.26 2.14 1.78 2.22 2.4544 Arabinose 1.55 1.31 1.31 0.99 1.3016 Glucose 2.72 1.80 1.78 1.49 1.51 Total 37.91 29.42 28.01 23.97 31.44 Sugars Furfural 1.34 1.73 1.60 0.43 1.7 5-HMF 0.33 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.082 Acetate 7.24 6.21 6.15 4.47 6.8 Lignin: (g/L) Acid 0.68695 0.39 0.55 0.325 0.61 Soluble Acid 4.86 1.92 2.88 1.32 1.12 Insoluble Total 5.54695 2.31 3.43 1.645 1.73 Lignin

(78) Polyethylene Oxide

(79) FIG. 20 shows the height of the sediment volume vs. time for different concentrations of the polymer. The setting velocity is very rapid at the initial stage of the sedimentation process. The turbidity of the supernatant was also varied with sedimentation of the aggregated particle.

(80) FIG. 21 shows the change in turbidities with time at different concentrations of the polymer.

(81) FIG. 22 shows the maximum sediment height vs. polymer concentration. The maximum sedimentation height of the flocculated particles after one hour sedimentation process was same for all concentrations of the polymer.

(82) The settling velocities of the aggregated particles in the wood extract were calculated and shown in the FIG. 23.

(83) The maximum settling velocities of the aggregated particles at different concentrations of the polymer are very near to each other, and were shown in the FIG. 24.

(84) The effect of pH on the flocculation was examined by varying the pH of the extract between about 2 and about 9. The wood extract pH was changed by using dilute H.sub.2SO.sub.4 and NaOH solutions. The PEO polymer concentration of 40 ppm was added to the extract and mixed homogenously by magnetic stirrer. The aggregation of the particles was observed in the mixing process and the suspension was further processed for sedimentation for 30 minutes. This is shown in FIG. 25. Although the pH of the extracts was varied the effect on suspension stability was minimal. The temperature was maintained constant at 25 C.

(85) The effect of temperature on polymer flocculation was studied in between the temperature range of 15-25 C. The wood extract after extraction was stored in the cold room to maintain the temperature around 10 C and was used for the work. The PEO polymer concentration of 40 ppm was used initially for all temperature ranges and optimal temperature for the flocculation was found to be at 21.5 C. in the agitation process. Then the suspended solution was processed for sedimentation.

(86) FIG. 26 shows the final sediment height at different temperature conditions at optimal concentration of 40 ppm PEO. At temperatures below 21.5 C., the aggregation of particles was not noticed even at higher dosage levels of up to 150 ppm.

(87) Flocculation and clarification with PEO were demonstrated on large pilot scale batches of 1000 kg of extract with optimal polymer dosage of 50 ppm PEO at 25 C. temperature conditions. Further, the flocculated extract was mixed with commercially available soft wood pulp, which acted as a filter aid to adsorb flocculated particles and the suspended mixture was filtered through a 5 micron pore size filter cloth. The filtrate showed a 99.5% reduction in turbidity, from 12,000 NTUs in the raw extract to 50 NTUs in the filtrate.

(88) The overall lignin and sugars composition in the supernatant of the extract was analyzed after the sedimentation. The optimal concentration of 40 ppm was used for the flocculation and the supernatant was used for the analysis. The polysaccharides were analyzed by 1H NMR and lignin by standard TAPPI methods. The composition was shown in Table 3. The lignin was removed effectively and sugars remained constant in the solution after the PEO polymer induced flocculation.

(89) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Chemical Composition of hydrolyzates before and after polymer treatment (PEO 40 ppm) (g/L) Neat Extract PEO Galactose 1.31 1.001 Xylose 27.78 23.52 Rhamnose 1.29 0.816 Mannose 3.26 2.33 Arabinose 1.55 1.01 Glucose 2.72 1.05 Total Sugars 37.91 29.73 Furfural 1.34 1.52 5-HMF 0.33 0.13 Acetate 7.24 6.02 Lignin: (g/L) Acid Soluble 0.68695 0.107 Acid Insoluble 4.86 1.4 Total Lignin 5.54695 1.507

(90) The separation of colloidal particles (lignin and its derivatives) from hot water extracts of sugar maple wood extracts can be achieved by non-ionic polymer PEO. The dynamics of flocculation depends on concentration of the polymer, pH and temperature. The formation of lignin-PEO complex is confirmed by supernatant lignin analysis. The hemicellulose sugars in the supernatant remain constant after the polymer flocculation.

(91) Sequestration of Colloidal Lignin

(92) According to one embodiment, a polymeric flocculant such as the non-ionic polymer PEO is added first to sequester and remove the colloidal lignin, extractives and other interference components. This may be followed by the addition of Calcium Carbonate (PCC) in appropriate dosages to increase the pH and neutralize acetic acid present in the hydrolyzate. The below-described experiments demonstrate the feasibility of this approach.

(93) A lignocellulosic hydrolyzate produced by acid-catalyzed steam explosion pulping of a combination hardwood biomass sample was chosen for analysis. The sample (denoted A) was divided into two parts (denoted B and C). Both B and C were treated with PEO. C was further treated with calcium carbonate (CaCO.sub.3, in the precipitated form also known as PCC). The pH of the final solutions and other properties are shown in the table below.

(94) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Effect of PEO and PCC on Hydrolyzate Turbidity, Mean Particle Sample Name pH NTU size, nm A Initial 2.5 26 300 B Control (A + PEO, 7 ml) 2.5 3 n.d. C1 Detox (B + PCC), 75 g 4.10 2 n.d. C2 B + PCC, 125 g 5.75 3 n.d. C3 B + PCC, 250 g 6.20 3 n.d. C4 B + PCC, 500 g 6.51 4 n.d.

(95) As demonstrated in Table 5, no particles were detected up to a pH of 6.51. When the dosage of PCC was increased further, turbidity reappeared with particles being formed in the solution.

(96) The presence of Ca.sup.2+ ions in solution can be beneficial by accelerating the fermentative action of microbes. Calcium is a micronutrient and thus can offer an additional advantage to the treated hydrolyzates. This facilitation of microbial growth may be the cause of significant quantities of ethanol in the PCC treated hydrolyzates, after analysis.

(97) References (Each of the following reference is hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference.) 1. Liu, S.; Amidon, T. E.; Francis, R. C.; Ramarao, B. V.; Lai Y. Z.; Scott, G. M. Ind.l Biotech. 2006, 2, 113-120. 2. Luo, C.; Brink, D. L.; Blanch, H. W. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 2, 125-138. 3. Huang, H. J.; Ramaswamy, S.; Tschirner, U. W.; Ramarao, B. V. Separation and Purification processes for lignocellulose-to-bioalcohol production. In Bioalcohol production: Biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass, Ed. K. Waldron, Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, 2010, 246-269. 4. Liu, Z.; Fatehi, P.; Jahan, M. S.; Ni, Y. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 2, 1264-1269. 5. Hasan, A.; Yasarla, R.; Ramarao, B. V.; Amidon, T. E. J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2011, 4, 357-383. 6. Huang, H.; Ramaswamy, S.; Tschirner, U. W.; Ramarao, B. V. Separation and Purification Technology 2008, 1, 1-21. 7. Eken-Saracolu, N.; Arslan, Y. Biotechnol. Lett. 2000, 10, 855-858. 8. Miyafuji, H.; Danner, H.; Neureiter, M.; Thomasser, C.; Bvochora, J.; Szolar, O.; Braun, R. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2003, 3-4, 396-400. 9. Rabelo, S. C.; Filho, R. M.; Costa, A. C. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009, 1-3, 139-150. 10. Ranjan, R.; Thust, S.; Gounaris, C. E.; Woo, M.; Floudas, C. A.; Keitz, M. v.; Valentas, K. J.; Wei, J.; Tsapatsis, M. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 2009, 1-3, 143-148. 11. Villarreal, M. L. M.; Prata, A. M. R.; Felipe, M. G. A.; Almeida E Silva, J. B. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2006, 1, 17-24. 12. Han, B.; Carvalho, W.; Canilha, L.; da Silva, S. S.; Almeida E Silva, J. B.; McMillan, J. D.; Wickramasinghe, S. R. Desalination 2006, 1-3, 361-366. 13. Mao, H.; Genco, J. M.; Yoon, S.; van Heiningen, A.; Pendse, H. Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy 2008, 2, 177-185. 14. Gong, C. S.; Chen, C. S.; Chen, L. F. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1993, 1, 83-88. 15. Duarte, G. V.; Ramarao, B. V.; Amidon, T. E. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 22, 8526-8534. 16. Kim, J.; Akeprathumchai, S.; Wickramasinghe, S. R. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 1-2, 161-172. 17. Burke, D. R.; Anderson, J.; Gilcrease, P. C.; Menkhaus, T. J. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 1, 391-401. 18. Menkhaus, T. J.; Anderson, J.; Lane, S.; Waddell, E. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 7, 2280-2286. 19. Barany, S.; Szepesszentgyrgyi, A. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004, 1-2, 117-129. 20. Schowalter, W. R. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1984, 245-261. 21. Besra, L.; Sengupta, D. K.; Roy, S. K.; Ay, P. Separation and Purification Technology 2004, 3, 231-246. 22. Patil, D. P.; Andrews, J. R. G.; Uhlherr, P. H. T. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2001, 3, 171-188. 23. Heath, A. R.; Bahri, P. A.; Fawell, P. D.; Farrow, J. B. AIChE J. 2006, 6, 1987-1994. 24. Haydar, S.; Aziz, J. A. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 2-3, 1035-1040. 25. Pearse, M. J.; Weir, S.; Adkins, S. J.; Moody, G. M. Minerals Eng 2001, 11, 1505-1511. 26. Yu, J.; Wang, D.; Ge, X.; Yan, M.; Yang, M. Colloids Surf. Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 2006, 1-3, 288-294. 27. Popa, I.; Cahill, B. P.; Maroni, P.; Papastavrou, G.; Borkovec, M. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2007, 1, 28-35. 28. Yukselen, M. A.; Gregory, J. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2004, 2-4, 251-259. 29. Rasteiro, M. G.; Garcia, F. A. P.; Ferreira, P.; Blanco, A.; Negro, C.; Antunes, E. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 2008, 8, 1323-1332 30. Lindquist, G. M.; Stratton, R. A. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1976, 1, 45-59. 31. Alince, B.; Bednar, F.; van de Ven, T. G. M. Colloids Surf. Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 2001, 1-2, 71-80. 32. Ersoy, B. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2005, 3-4, 207-216. 33. Dixon, J. K.; fLa Mer, V. K.; Li, C.; Messinger, S.; Linford, H. B. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1967, 4, 465-473. 34. Franks, G. V.; Sepulveda, C. V.; Jameson, G. J. AIChE J. 2006, 8, 2774-2782. 35. Li, T.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, D.; Yao, C.; Tang, H. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2007, 1, 23-29. 36. Vanerek, A.; van de Ven, T. G. M. Colloids Surf. Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 2006, 1-3, 55-62. 37. Nasser, M. S.; James, A. E. Separation and Purification Technology 2006, 2, 241-252. 38. Mittal, A.; Scott, G. M.; Amidon, T. E.; Kiemle, D. J.; Stipanovic, A. J. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 24, 6398-6406. 39. Alves, E. F.; Bose, S. K.; Francis, R. C.; Colodette, J. L.; Iakovlev, M.; Van Heiningen, A. Carbohydr. Polym. 2010, 4, 1097-1101. 40. Duarte, G. V.; Ramarao, B. V.; Amidon, T. E.; Ferreira, P. T. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 17, 9949-9959. 41. Duan, J.; Gregory, J. Adv. Coll. Int. Sci. 2003, 100-102, 475-502. 42. Adachi, Y. Adv. Coll. Int. Sci. 1995, 56, 1-31. 43. Gregory, J.; Barany, S. Adv. Coll. Int. Sci. 2011, 169, 1-12. 44. Nasser, M.; James, A. E. Sep. Pur. Tech. 2006, 52, 241-252. 45. Yu, J.; Wang, D; Ge, X; Yan, M; Yang, M. Coll. Surf. A Physicochem. Asp. 2006, 290, 288-294. 46. Runkana, V.; Somasundaran, P.; Kapur, P. C. J. Coll. Interf. Sci. 2004, 270, 347-358. 47. Amidon, T. E. & Liu, S. 2009, Water-based woody biorefinery, Biotechnology Advances, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 542-550. 48. Burke, D. R., Anderson, J., Gilcrease, P. C. & Menkhaus, T. J. 2011, Enhanced solid-liquid clarification of lignocellulosic slurries using polyelectrolyte flocculating agents, Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 391-401. 49. Duarte, G. V., Ramarao, B. V. & Amidon, T. E. 2010, Polymer induced flocculation and separation of particulates from extracts of lignocellulosic materials, Bioresource technology, vol. 101, no. 22, pp. 8526-8534. 50. Gaudreault, R., van de Ven, T. G. M. & Whitehead, M. A. 2005, Mechanisms of flocculation with poly(ethylene oxide) and novel cofactors, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, vol. 268, no. 1-3, pp. 131-146. 51. Liu, Z., Fatehi, P., Jahan, M. S. & Ni, Y. 2011, Separation of lignocellulosic materials by combined processes of pre-hydrolysis and ethanol extraction, Bioresource technology, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 1264-1269. 52. Mittal, A., Scott, G. M., Amidon, T. E., Kiemle, D. J. & Stipanovic, A. J. 2009, Quantitative analysis of sugars in wood hydrolyzates with 1H NMR during the autohydrolysis of hardwoods, Bioresource technology, vol. 100, no. 24, pp. 6398-6406. 53. Mpofu, P., Addai-Mensah, J. & Ralston, J. 2004, Temperature influence of nonionic polyethylene oxide and anionic polyacrylamide on flocculation and dewatering behavior of kaolinite dispersions, Journal of colloid and interface science, vol. 271, no. 1, pp. 145-156. 54. Negro, C., Fuente, E., Blanco, A. & Tijero, J. 2005, Flocculation mechanism induced by phenolic resin/PEO and floc properties, AICHE Journal, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1022-1031. 55. Negro, C., Fuente, E., Snchez, L. M., Blanco, . & Tijero, J. 2006, Evaluation of an alternative flocculation system for manufacture of fiber-cement composites, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 45, no. 20, pp. 6672-6678. 56. Xiao, H., Pelton, R. & Hamielec, A. 1995, The association of aqueous phenolic resin with polyethylene oxide and poly(acrylamide-co-ethylene glycol), Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, vol 33, 2605-2612 57. Kusch S., Morar M. V., 2009. Integration of lignocellulosic biomass into renewable energy generation concepts. ProEnvironment 2 (2009) 32-37. 58. Tunc, M. S., van Heiningen, A. R. P., 2008. Hemicellulose Extraction of Mixed Southern Hardwood with Water at 150 C.: Effect of Time., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 47, 7031-7037. 59. Jonsson A. S, Wallberg O. 2007 Cost estimation of kraft lignin recovery by ultrafiltration. Desalination 237 (2009) 254-267. 60. Grzenia L D, Schell D. J., Wickramasinghe S. R. 2009. Detoxification of biomass hydrolystes by reactive membranes. J. Mem Sci. 348, (2010), 6-12. 61. Grzenia L D, Wickramasinghe S. R. 2007. Adsorptive membranes and resins for acetic acid removal from biomass hydrolyzates, Desalination, 234, (2008), 144-151. 62. Huang, H. J., Ramaswamy, S., Tschirner, U. W., Ramarao, B. V. A review of separation technologies in current and future biorefineries. Sep. Pur. Tech. 62 (2008) 1-21. 63. Negro, C., Fuente, E., Snchez, L. M., Blanco, . & Tijero, J. 2006, Evaluation of an alternative flocculation system for manufacture of fiber-cement composites, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 45, no. 20, pp. 6672-6678. 64. Biorefining Process, Fermentation of Lignocellulosic Biomass, Wisconsin Biorefining Development Initiative, www.biorefine.org/proc/fermlig.pdf