Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Industrial Crops & Products journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indcrop Bioethanol and biomethane potential production of thirteen pluri-annual herbaceous species C. Maucieri a, ⁎ , C. Camarotto a , G. Florio a , R. Albergo b , A. Ambrico b , M. Trupo b , M. Borin a a Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Agripolis, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy b Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), C.R. Trisaia S.S. 106 Jonica, 75026, Rotondella (MT) Italy ARTICLEINFO Keywords: Arundo donax L. Miscanthus x giganteus Greef et Deu. 2 nd Generation biofuel ABSTRACT The research aimed to study and characterize, in a four-year study, thirteen pluri-annual herbaceous species for their potential bioethanol and biomethane production. The highest biomass yield was obtained with Arundo donax followed by Miscanthus x giganteus. Biomass cellulose content had median values ranging from 23.1% (Symphytum x uplandicum) to 45.4% (Lythrum salicaria), hemicellulose from 9.4% (Iris pseudacorus) to 36.8% (Glyceria maxima) and lignin from 2.6% (G. maxima) to 14.5% (Helianthus tuberosus and L. salicaria). The best ethanol and methane median yields were achieved by A. donax (3.5Mg ha −1 and 8227 m 3 ha −1 , respectively) followed by M. x giganteus (3.2Mg ha −1 and 4446 m 3 ha −1 , respectively). Methane transformation showed a higherenergyoutputthanethanolwithvaluesrangingfrom1GJha −1 (Phalaris arundinacea)to508GJha −1 (A. donax) and from 1 GJ ha −1 (P. arundinacea)to624GJha −1 (A. donax) for ethanol and methane, respectively. Results showed that A. donax and M. x giganteus are the most interesting species for bioethanol and biomethane production. 1. Introduction The importance of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources (RES) is stressed in several climate change mitigation policies (Dandres et al., 2012) and many studies underline the increasingly important role of bioenergy to obtain this target (Creutzig et al., 2015; Dornburg et al., 2010; Nijsen et al., 2012). On a world-wide scale the share of RES in providing total energy increased from 7% in 2004 to 19.3% in 2015, when 10.2% came from modern renewable sources (Sawin et al., 2017), such as solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal energy, biomass and biofuels. The development of RES is an important strategy to reach the EU “20 – 20 – 20” triple goal. Particularly the following three aims should be reached: 1) 20% reduction of EU Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions respect to emission levels detected on 1990;2)20%ofEUenergyconsumptionshouldbeproducedbyRES;3) 20% improvement in EU energy efciency (EC, 2009a,b) including energy derived from biomass. This last is expected to account for 56% of RES supply by 2020 (Bentsen and Felby, 2012). Diferent biomasses can be used as RES, such as forest biomass (i.e. woody species in short rotation forestry), agricultural residues, post processed biomass wastes (i.e. sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, manure), and energy crops of annual or pluri-annual species (Bentsen and Felby, 2012; Barbagallo et al., 2014; Garofalo et al., 2016; Maucieri etal.,2016; Orlandi et al., 2017). The latest available data indicate that theamountoflandusedtogrowenergycropsforbiofuelsisonly0.19% of the world’s total land area, 0.5% of global farmland, and 1.7% of global arable land (Ladanai and Vinterbäck, 2009), suggesting a big development potential for these crops. In general energy crops are grown specifcally for energy produc- tion, in terms of biofuels or heat by combustion. They are based on intensive agricultural systems, with high plant density and mechan- ization, high energy inputs and short rotation (1–4 years). The rapid expansion of energy crops at large-scale and the socio-environmental cascade impacts led to the identifcation of some sustainability criteria for biomass production (Wichtmann and Wichmann, 2011): 1) GHG balance, including the whole bioenergy production chain, must be po- sitive and therefore fewer emissions must be produced than on average with fossil fuels (Searchinger et al., 2008); 2) biomass production must not directly or indirectly induce negative efects on biodiversity at any level (gene, species or ecosystem) and possibly improve biodiversity conservation in the area (Adams, 2006); 3) biomass production should economically sustain local development and social well-being of the population, by making a positive contribution to local prosperity; 4) the entire biomass production cycle must maintain soil, surface and ground https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.12.007 Received 17 May 2018; Received in revised form 30 November 2018; Accepted 3 December 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: carmelo.maucieri@unipd.it (C. Maucieri). Industrial Crops & Products 129 (2019) 694–701 0926-6690/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. T