Bia Henriques, David Johnston and Muthanna Al-Dahhan

Results/Analysis

New Green Process Technology For Energy Efficient Ethanol Production and Decreased Fermentation Time Via Enzymatic Water Removal From Distillers Grains

Discussion/ConclusionBackground

Dewatering increased with increasing GC220 loadDewatering effect tapers off at around 0.015 mL of enzyme/100 mL of mash95% of maximum dewatering achieved with 0.015 mL of enzymeSmall increase in dewatering with increasing protease load

Control No Treatment

Thank you Genencor and Novozymes for all of the enzymes

Thank you Dr. Vijay Singh for providing the corn from UofI – Urbana/Champagne

I would like to thank the following people for all their support:

Dr. Muthanna Al-Dahhan (Advisor)

Dr. David Johnston (Advisor – USDA)

Dr. Kevin Hicks (Research Leader – USDA)

Dr. Andy McAloon (Modeling and Economics – USDA)

Financial support from:

USDA

WashU-SIUE/NASEO Grant # 65356

CREL sponsors

Acknowledgements

Bonds between water molecules and polyssacharides

Different bonding types and strengths

Maximum water binding capacity

One hydrogen bond between water and polyssacharide

Molecule is highly hydrophilic

Attempt to disrupt network of hydrogen bonding

Free water

Cell wall degrading enzymes hydrolyze and cleave cellulose and hemicellulose

Possible use of enzymes to disrupt bonding

Cell wall degrading and proteolytic enzymes

Increase:

Water removal during centrifugation

Productivity

Decrease:

Drier temperature, residence time and emissions

Fermentation timeAddition of enzymes to fermentation

Maximize activity time

Look at commercially available enzyme combinations

Maintain industrial parameters

Temperature

pH

Residence times

Centrifugal force

Corn Grind Liquefaction Saccharification, Fermentation and Enzymatic Hydrolysis

Analysis

DDGS

Corn

Water

Yeast

Enzyme

MashTank

Fermentor

DistillationColumn

Centrifuge

Evaporator

Dryer

Ethanol

Whole Stillage

ThinStillage

Wet Grains

CO2

Backset

Methodology

FiltrationEvaporation Centrifugation

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Multifect GC (mL/100g mash)

Wat

er R

emo

ved

(%

of

con

tro

l)

GC106 at 0.01 mLGC106 at 0.015 mLGC106 at 0.02 mLGC106 at 0.03 mLNo GC106

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Multifect GC Volume (mL/100g mash)

Dry

So

lid P

elle

t W

t (g

)

No GC106GC106 at 0.01mLGC106 at 0.015mLGC106 at 0.02mLGC106 at 0.03mL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

GC220 Volume (mL/100g mash)

Wa

ter

Re

mo

ved

(%

of

co

ntr

ol)

GC106 at 0.01 mLGC106 at 0.015 mLGC106 at 0.02 mLGC106 at 0.03 mLNo GC106

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

GC220 Volume (mL/100g mash)

Dry

So

lid P

elle

t W

eig

ht

(g)

No GC106GC106 at 0.01mLGC106 at 0.015mLGC106 at 0.02mLGC106 at 0.03mL

Multifect GC showed highest dewatering capability

Suggested dosage of 0.67kg per metric ton dry corn

Mash with 30% solids loading

Observed 16-20%/w increase in dewatering

GC106 gave highest reduction in fermentation time

Suggested Dosage of 0.67kg per metric ton dry corn

Mash with 30% solids loading

Significant reduction in fermentation time

Reduction in viscosity of mash with enzymes

Potential oil separation with Multifect GC

Benefits to drier:

Emissions reduction

Residence time reduction

Operating temperature reduction

Energy input reduction

Benefits to fermentation:

Fermentation time reduction

Productivity increase

Benefits to centrifuge:

Viscosity reduction

Evaporator able to handle extra water

Possible improvement in water recycle

Possible savings of $0.8 to $1.2 million for 40mmgpy plant

Ferm Gen Experiment

Reduce fermentation time

Centrifuge Modeling

Compare theoretical to experimental data

Plant Trial

Center Ethanol: Sauget, IL

Scheduled

October 2008

Future Work

Decrease in dewatering with increase in protease load Specially as MGC load is increased, dewatering effect decreases with increasing protease loadMGC and GC106 could have inhibiting effect when added together to mashHighest dewatering seen when no protease is present

Graph shows weight loss of fermentation flasks over time

Enzyme treated mash has significant increase in weight loss rate compared to control

At 32 hours enzyme treated mash is at 95% completion whereas control is at 79% completion

Fermentation time can be decreased, increasing ethanol production

Duplicate data

Definite downwards trend in the dry solid pellet weights

Statistically only weights at 0.02 mL of GC220 and above are different from rest

Some solubilization could be occurring but not possible to quantify

Duplicate data

Differences in dry solid pellet weight were not significant for the most part

Some material may be solubilizing but the amount is too small to be quantified

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time (hr)

Wei

gh

t L

oss

(g

)

ControlBromelain-0.5mLBromelain-1mLGC106-0.5mLGC106-1mLGC710-0.5mLGC710-1mLP899-0.5mLP899-1mLFungal-0.5mLFungal-1mL

GC220, Multifect GC and GC 106 are commercially available, enzyme cocktailsSchematic diagram of the dry grind process.

Enzyme addition is represented by dashed line into fermentor.