Compositional Analysis of Biomass Reference Materials: Results from an Interlaboratory Study

Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) wer...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Bioenergy research 2016-03, Vol.9 (1), p.303-314
Hauptverfasser: Templeton, David W., Wolfrum, Edward J., Yen, James H., Sharpless, Katherine E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 314
container_issue 1
container_start_page 303
container_title Bioenergy research
container_volume 9
creator Templeton, David W.
Wolfrum, Edward J.
Yen, James H.
Sharpless, Katherine E.
description Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) were prepared and characterized, via an interlaboratory comparison exercise in the early 1990s to evaluate biomass summative compositional methods, analysts, and laboratories. Having common, uniform, and stable biomass reference materials gives the opportunity to assess compositional data compared to other analysts, to other labs, and to a known compositional value. The expiration date for the original characterization of these RMs was reached and an effort to assess their stability and recharacterize the reference values for the remaining material using more current methods of analysis was initiated. We sent samples of the four biomass RMs to 11 academic, industrial, and government laboratories, familiar with sulfuric acid compositional methods, for recharacterization of the component reference values. In this work, we have used an expanded suite of analytical methods that are more appropriate for herbaceous feedstocks, to recharacterize the RMs’ compositions. We report the median values and the expanded uncertainty values for the four RMs on a dry-mass, whole-biomass basis. The original characterization data has been recalculated using median statistics to facilitate comparisons with this data. We found improved total component closures for three out of the four RMs compared to the original characterization, and the total component closures were near 100 %, which suggests that most components were accurately measured and little double counting occurred. The major components were not statistically different in the recharacterization which suggests that the biomass materials are stable during storage and that additional components, not seen in the original characterization, were quantified here.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4807399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A712240202</galeid><sourcerecordid>A712240202</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c733t-9d54021f48df9e47187af7feda29deb4d7dda63ea16ed73468a62b0b27d2d6853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhgdRbF39Ad7IoDfeTM3XJBMvhHXxo1AR_LgTQnZysk2ZSbZJRth_b9apaytKJZCEnOe84ZzzVtVjjE4wQuJFwgS3bYNw20gu2gbfqY6xpLLBhJG7hztlR9WDlC4Q4ogheb86IgLhksGPq2-rMG5DctkFr4d6WbZdcqkOtn7twqhTqj-BhQi-h_qDzhCdHtLL8pimIafaxjDW2tenvoQGvQ5R5xB39ec8md3D6p4tNDy6OhfV17dvvqzeN2cf352ulmdNLyjNjTQtQwRb1hkrgQncCW2FBaOJNLBmRhijOQWNORhBGe80J2u0JsIQw7uWLqpXs-52Wo9gevA56kFtoxt13KmgnboZ8e5cbcJ3xTokqJRF4OksEFJ2KvUuQ3_eB--hz6o0E6EOF-j51S8xXE6Qshpd6mEYtIcwJUVkxwWWRJBbUdwRznlHW3o7KjrUMsb5f6gKwTmTtNS0qJ79gV6EKZbh_qQwK4It-U1t9ADKeRtKd_q9qFoKTErdBO2pk79QZRkYXWkSWFfebyTgOaGPIaUI9jAJjNTeuGo2rirGVXvjqn1zn1wf4SHjl1MLQGYglZDfQLxW0T9VfwCHGvZ6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1771444652</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Compositional Analysis of Biomass Reference Materials: Results from an Interlaboratory Study</title><source>SpringerLink Journals (MCLS)</source><creator>Templeton, David W. ; Wolfrum, Edward J. ; Yen, James H. ; Sharpless, Katherine E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Templeton, David W. ; Wolfrum, Edward J. ; Yen, James H. ; Sharpless, Katherine E. ; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) were prepared and characterized, via an interlaboratory comparison exercise in the early 1990s to evaluate biomass summative compositional methods, analysts, and laboratories. Having common, uniform, and stable biomass reference materials gives the opportunity to assess compositional data compared to other analysts, to other labs, and to a known compositional value. The expiration date for the original characterization of these RMs was reached and an effort to assess their stability and recharacterize the reference values for the remaining material using more current methods of analysis was initiated. We sent samples of the four biomass RMs to 11 academic, industrial, and government laboratories, familiar with sulfuric acid compositional methods, for recharacterization of the component reference values. In this work, we have used an expanded suite of analytical methods that are more appropriate for herbaceous feedstocks, to recharacterize the RMs’ compositions. We report the median values and the expanded uncertainty values for the four RMs on a dry-mass, whole-biomass basis. The original characterization data has been recalculated using median statistics to facilitate comparisons with this data. We found improved total component closures for three out of the four RMs compared to the original characterization, and the total component closures were near 100 %, which suggests that most components were accurately measured and little double counting occurred. The major components were not statistically different in the recharacterization which suggests that the biomass materials are stable during storage and that additional components, not seen in the original characterization, were quantified here.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1939-1234</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27019676</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>09 BIOMASS FUELS ; Alternative energy sources ; Analysis ; Analytical chemistry ; analytical methods ; Biodiesel fuels ; Biofuels ; Biomass ; Biomass energy ; biomass reference material ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Carbohydrates ; Cellulose ; Closures ; Comparative analysis ; compositional analysis ; Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) ; economic sustainability ; Economic theory ; Economics ; Feedstock ; feedstocks ; Interlaboratory ; Laboratories ; Life Sciences ; Lignin ; Lignocellulose ; Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) ; normal values ; Plant Breeding/Biotechnology ; Plant Ecology ; Plant Genetics and Genomics ; Plant Sciences ; Quality standards ; Raw materials ; Reference materials ; Renewable resources ; Statistical methods ; Studies ; Sugarcane ; Sugarcane Bagasse (Saccharum spp. Hybrid) ; Sulfuric acid ; Trees ; uncertainty ; Wheat Straw (Triticum aestivum var. Thunderbird) ; Wood Science &amp; Technology</subject><ispartof>Bioenergy research, 2016-03, Vol.9 (1), p.303-314</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Springer</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c733t-9d54021f48df9e47187af7feda29deb4d7dda63ea16ed73468a62b0b27d2d6853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c733t-9d54021f48df9e47187af7feda29deb4d7dda63ea16ed73468a62b0b27d2d6853</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27019676$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1240081$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Templeton, David W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolfrum, Edward J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yen, James H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharpless, Katherine E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Compositional Analysis of Biomass Reference Materials: Results from an Interlaboratory Study</title><title>Bioenergy research</title><addtitle>Bioenerg. Res</addtitle><addtitle>Bioenergy Res</addtitle><description>Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) were prepared and characterized, via an interlaboratory comparison exercise in the early 1990s to evaluate biomass summative compositional methods, analysts, and laboratories. Having common, uniform, and stable biomass reference materials gives the opportunity to assess compositional data compared to other analysts, to other labs, and to a known compositional value. The expiration date for the original characterization of these RMs was reached and an effort to assess their stability and recharacterize the reference values for the remaining material using more current methods of analysis was initiated. We sent samples of the four biomass RMs to 11 academic, industrial, and government laboratories, familiar with sulfuric acid compositional methods, for recharacterization of the component reference values. In this work, we have used an expanded suite of analytical methods that are more appropriate for herbaceous feedstocks, to recharacterize the RMs’ compositions. We report the median values and the expanded uncertainty values for the four RMs on a dry-mass, whole-biomass basis. The original characterization data has been recalculated using median statistics to facilitate comparisons with this data. We found improved total component closures for three out of the four RMs compared to the original characterization, and the total component closures were near 100 %, which suggests that most components were accurately measured and little double counting occurred. The major components were not statistically different in the recharacterization which suggests that the biomass materials are stable during storage and that additional components, not seen in the original characterization, were quantified here.</description><subject>09 BIOMASS FUELS</subject><subject>Alternative energy sources</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Analytical chemistry</subject><subject>analytical methods</subject><subject>Biodiesel fuels</subject><subject>Biofuels</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biomass energy</subject><subject>biomass reference material</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Carbohydrates</subject><subject>Cellulose</subject><subject>Closures</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>compositional analysis</subject><subject>Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)</subject><subject>economic sustainability</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Feedstock</subject><subject>feedstocks</subject><subject>Interlaboratory</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Lignin</subject><subject>Lignocellulose</subject><subject>Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata)</subject><subject>normal values</subject><subject>Plant Breeding/Biotechnology</subject><subject>Plant Ecology</subject><subject>Plant Genetics and Genomics</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Quality standards</subject><subject>Raw materials</subject><subject>Reference materials</subject><subject>Renewable resources</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Sugarcane</subject><subject>Sugarcane Bagasse (Saccharum spp. Hybrid)</subject><subject>Sulfuric acid</subject><subject>Trees</subject><subject>uncertainty</subject><subject>Wheat Straw (Triticum aestivum var. Thunderbird)</subject><subject>Wood Science &amp; Technology</subject><issn>1939-1234</issn><issn>1939-1242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhgdRbF39Ad7IoDfeTM3XJBMvhHXxo1AR_LgTQnZysk2ZSbZJRth_b9apaytKJZCEnOe84ZzzVtVjjE4wQuJFwgS3bYNw20gu2gbfqY6xpLLBhJG7hztlR9WDlC4Q4ogheb86IgLhksGPq2-rMG5DctkFr4d6WbZdcqkOtn7twqhTqj-BhQi-h_qDzhCdHtLL8pimIafaxjDW2tenvoQGvQ5R5xB39ec8md3D6p4tNDy6OhfV17dvvqzeN2cf352ulmdNLyjNjTQtQwRb1hkrgQncCW2FBaOJNLBmRhijOQWNORhBGe80J2u0JsIQw7uWLqpXs-52Wo9gevA56kFtoxt13KmgnboZ8e5cbcJ3xTokqJRF4OksEFJ2KvUuQ3_eB--hz6o0E6EOF-j51S8xXE6Qshpd6mEYtIcwJUVkxwWWRJBbUdwRznlHW3o7KjrUMsb5f6gKwTmTtNS0qJ79gV6EKZbh_qQwK4It-U1t9ADKeRtKd_q9qFoKTErdBO2pk79QZRkYXWkSWFfebyTgOaGPIaUI9jAJjNTeuGo2rirGVXvjqn1zn1wf4SHjl1MLQGYglZDfQLxW0T9VfwCHGvZ6</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Templeton, David W.</creator><creator>Wolfrum, Edward J.</creator><creator>Yen, James H.</creator><creator>Sharpless, Katherine E.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><scope>OIOZB</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Compositional Analysis of Biomass Reference Materials: Results from an Interlaboratory Study</title><author>Templeton, David W. ; Wolfrum, Edward J. ; Yen, James H. ; Sharpless, Katherine E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c733t-9d54021f48df9e47187af7feda29deb4d7dda63ea16ed73468a62b0b27d2d6853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>09 BIOMASS FUELS</topic><topic>Alternative energy sources</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Analytical chemistry</topic><topic>analytical methods</topic><topic>Biodiesel fuels</topic><topic>Biofuels</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biomass energy</topic><topic>biomass reference material</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Carbohydrates</topic><topic>Cellulose</topic><topic>Closures</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>compositional analysis</topic><topic>Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)</topic><topic>economic sustainability</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Feedstock</topic><topic>feedstocks</topic><topic>Interlaboratory</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Lignin</topic><topic>Lignocellulose</topic><topic>Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata)</topic><topic>normal values</topic><topic>Plant Breeding/Biotechnology</topic><topic>Plant Ecology</topic><topic>Plant Genetics and Genomics</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Quality standards</topic><topic>Raw materials</topic><topic>Reference materials</topic><topic>Renewable resources</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Sugarcane</topic><topic>Sugarcane Bagasse (Saccharum spp. Hybrid)</topic><topic>Sulfuric acid</topic><topic>Trees</topic><topic>uncertainty</topic><topic>Wheat Straw (Triticum aestivum var. Thunderbird)</topic><topic>Wood Science &amp; Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Templeton, David W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolfrum, Edward J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yen, James H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharpless, Katherine E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV - Hybrid</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Bioenergy research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Templeton, David W.</au><au>Wolfrum, Edward J.</au><au>Yen, James H.</au><au>Sharpless, Katherine E.</au><aucorp>National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Compositional Analysis of Biomass Reference Materials: Results from an Interlaboratory Study</atitle><jtitle>Bioenergy research</jtitle><stitle>Bioenerg. Res</stitle><addtitle>Bioenergy Res</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>303</spage><epage>314</epage><pages>303-314</pages><issn>1939-1234</issn><eissn>1939-1242</eissn><abstract>Biomass compositional methods are used to compare different lignocellulosic feedstocks, to measure component balances around unit operations and to determine process yields and therefore the economic viability of biomass-to-biofuel processes. Four biomass reference materials (RMs NIST 8491–8494) were prepared and characterized, via an interlaboratory comparison exercise in the early 1990s to evaluate biomass summative compositional methods, analysts, and laboratories. Having common, uniform, and stable biomass reference materials gives the opportunity to assess compositional data compared to other analysts, to other labs, and to a known compositional value. The expiration date for the original characterization of these RMs was reached and an effort to assess their stability and recharacterize the reference values for the remaining material using more current methods of analysis was initiated. We sent samples of the four biomass RMs to 11 academic, industrial, and government laboratories, familiar with sulfuric acid compositional methods, for recharacterization of the component reference values. In this work, we have used an expanded suite of analytical methods that are more appropriate for herbaceous feedstocks, to recharacterize the RMs’ compositions. We report the median values and the expanded uncertainty values for the four RMs on a dry-mass, whole-biomass basis. The original characterization data has been recalculated using median statistics to facilitate comparisons with this data. We found improved total component closures for three out of the four RMs compared to the original characterization, and the total component closures were near 100 %, which suggests that most components were accurately measured and little double counting occurred. The major components were not statistically different in the recharacterization which suggests that the biomass materials are stable during storage and that additional components, not seen in the original characterization, were quantified here.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>27019676</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1939-1234
ispartof Bioenergy research, 2016-03, Vol.9 (1), p.303-314
issn 1939-1234
1939-1242
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4807399
source SpringerLink Journals (MCLS)
subjects 09 BIOMASS FUELS
Alternative energy sources
Analysis
Analytical chemistry
analytical methods
Biodiesel fuels
Biofuels
Biomass
Biomass energy
biomass reference material
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Carbohydrates
Cellulose
Closures
Comparative analysis
compositional analysis
Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)
economic sustainability
Economic theory
Economics
Feedstock
feedstocks
Interlaboratory
Laboratories
Life Sciences
Lignin
Lignocellulose
Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata)
normal values
Plant Breeding/Biotechnology
Plant Ecology
Plant Genetics and Genomics
Plant Sciences
Quality standards
Raw materials
Reference materials
Renewable resources
Statistical methods
Studies
Sugarcane
Sugarcane Bagasse (Saccharum spp. Hybrid)
Sulfuric acid
Trees
uncertainty
Wheat Straw (Triticum aestivum var. Thunderbird)
Wood Science & Technology
title Compositional Analysis of Biomass Reference Materials: Results from an Interlaboratory Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T18%3A59%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Compositional%20Analysis%20of%20Biomass%20Reference%20Materials:%20Results%20from%20an%20Interlaboratory%20Study&rft.jtitle=Bioenergy%20research&rft.au=Templeton,%20David%20W.&rft.aucorp=National%20Renewable%20Energy%20Laboratory%20(NREL),%20Golden,%20CO%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=303&rft.epage=314&rft.pages=303-314&rft.issn=1939-1234&rft.eissn=1939-1242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12155-015-9675-1&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA712240202%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1771444652&rft_id=info:pmid/27019676&rft_galeid=A712240202&rfr_iscdi=true