Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thin stillage fractionation using ultrafiltration: resistance in series model

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The corn based dry grind process is the most widely used method in the US for fuel ethanol production. Fermentation of corn to ethanol produces whole stillage after ethanol is removed by distillation. It is centrifuged to separate thin stillage from wet grains. Thin stillage contains 5–10% solids. To concentrate solids of thin stillage, it requires evaporation of large amounts of water and maintenance of evaporators. Evaporator maintenance requires excess evaporator capacity at the facility, increasing capital expenses, requiring plant slowdowns or shut downs and results in revenue losses. Membrane filtration is one method that could lead to improved value of thin stillage and may offer an alternative to evaporation. Fractionation of thin stillage using ultrafiltration was conducted to evaluate membranes as an alternative to evaporators in the ethanol industry. Two regenerated cellulose membranes with molecular weight cut offs of 10 and 100 kDa were evaluated. Total solids (suspended and soluble) contents recovered through membrane separation process were similar to those from commercial evaporators. Permeate flux decline of thin stillage using a resistance in series model was determined. Each of the four components of total resistance was evaluated experimentally. Effects of operating variables such as transmembrane pressure and temperature on permeate flux rate and resistances were determined and optimum conditions for maximum flux rates were evaluated. Model equations were developed to evaluate the resistance components that are responsible for fouling and to predict total flux decline with respect to time. Modeling results were in agreement with experimental results (R 2 > 0.98).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. RFA (2007) Industry statistics http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#EIO. Renewable fuels association: Washington, DC. Accessed 20 Sept 2007

  2. Wall JS, Bothast RJ, Lagoda AA, Kenneth RS, Wu YV (1983) Effects of recycling distillers solubles on alcohol and feed production from corn fermentation. J Agric Food Chem 31:770–775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rausch KD (2002) Front end to backpipe: membrane technology in the starch processing industry. Starch/Starke 54:273–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu YV, Sexson KR, Wall JS (1983) Reverse osmosis of soluble fraction of corn stillage. Cereal Chem 60:248–251

    Google Scholar 

  5. Agbisit RM, Singh V, Valenti JJ, Kakleas M, Tumbleson ME, Rausch KD (2003) Technique to measure surface-fouling tendencies of steepwater from corn wet milling. Cereal Chem 80:84–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Thompson CI, Rausch KD, Belyea RL, Tumbleson ME (2005) Microfiltration of gluten processing streams from corn wet milling. Bioresour Technol 97:348–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Templin TL, Johnston DB, Singh V, Tumbleson ME, Belyea RL, Rausch KD (2006) Membrane separation of solids from corn processing streams. Bioresour Technol 97:1536–1545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang Y, Wang T, Su Y, Peng F, Wu H, Jiang Z (2005) Remarkable reduction of irreversible fouling and improvement of permeation properties of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane by blending with Pluronic F127. Langmuir 21:11856–11862

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pieracci J, Crivello J, Belfort G (2002) Increasing membrane permeability of UV-modified poly(ether sulfone) ultrafiltration membranes. J Memb Sci 202:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ko MK, Pellegrino JJ (1992) Determination of osmotic pressure and fouling resistances and their effects on performance of ultrafiltration membranes. J Memb Sci 74:141–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wiesner MR, Chellam S (1992) Mass transport considerations for pressure-driven membrane processes. J Am Water Works Assoc 84:88–95

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ramesh Babu P, Gaikar VG (2001) Membrane characteristics as determinant in fouling of UF membranes. Sep Purific Technol 24:23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi H, Zhang K, Dionysiou DD, Oerther DB, Sorial GA (2005) Effect of permeate flux and tangential flow on membrane fouling for wastewater treatment. Sep Purific Technol 45:68–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jiraratananon R, Chanachai A (1996) A study of fouling in the ultrafiltration of passion fruit juice. J Memb Sci 111:39–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. de Barros STD, Andrade CMG, Mendes ES, Peres L (2003) Study of fouling mechanism in pineapple juice clarification by ultrafiltration. J Memb Sci 215:213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vladisavljevi’c GT, Vukosavljevi’c P, Bukvi’c B (2003) Permeate flux and fouling resistance in ultrafiltration of depectinized apple juice using ceramic membrane. J Food Eng 60:241–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rai P, Rai C, Majumdar GC, DasGupta S, De S (2006) Resistance in series model for ultrafiltration of mosambi (Citrus sinesis (L) Osbeck) juice in a stirred continuous mode. J Memb Sci 283:116–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Satyanarayana SV, Bhattacharya PK, De S (2000) Flux decline during ultrafiltration of kraft black liquor using different flow modules: a comparative study. Sep Purific Technol 20:155–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Li M, Zhao Y, Xing W, Wong FS (2007) Resistance analysis for ceramic membrane microfiltration of raw soy sauce. J Memb Sci 299:122–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhattacharya PK, Agarwal S, De S, Rama Gopal UVS (2000) Ultrafiltration of sugarcane juice for recovery of sugar: analysis of flux and retention. Sep Purific Technol 21:247–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lapisova K, Vlcek R, Klozova J, Rychtera M, Melzoch (2006) Separation techniques for distillery stillage treatment. Czech J Food Sci 24:261–267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. American Association of Cereal Chemists International, Approved Methods of the AACC, 10th ed Method 44–15A, 44-19 (2000) The Association: St Paul, MN

  23. Wang P, Singh V, Xu L, Johnston DB, Rausch KD, Tumbleson ME (2005) Comparison of enzymatic (E-mill) and conventional dry-grind corn processes using a granular starch hydrolyzing enzyme. Cereal Chem 82:420–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. AOAC, official methods of the AOAC, 17th ed Methods 92039, 94205, 99003 The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2003) Gaithersburg, MD

  25. Do DD, Elhassadi AA (1985) A theory of limiting flux in a stirred batch cell. J Memb Sci 25:113–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zeman LJ, Zydney AL (1996) Microfiltration and ultrafiltration: principles and applications. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ghosh R (2003) Protein bioseparation using ultrafiltration: theory applications and new developments. Imperial College Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bhattacharjee S, Bhattacharya PK (1992) Flux decline with low molecular weight solutes during ultrafiltration in an unstirred batch cell. J Memb Sci 72:149–161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Larry Pruiett for his technical assistance. The Illinois Council for Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR) provided partial funding through the External Competitive Grants Program (project IDA CF07I-012-1-SEN). Partially funded through a Specific Cooperative Agreement (SCA 58-3620-2-149) with the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Agriculture Research Service, USDA, Peoria, IL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1304 West Pennsylvania Avenue, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Amit Arora, Ping Wang, Vijay Singh, M. E. Tumbleson & Kent D. Rausch

  2. Fermentation Biochemistry Research Unit, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 1815 North University Street, Peoria, IL, 61604, USA

    Bruce S. Dien

  3. Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Ronald L. Belyea

Authors
  1. Amit Arora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce S. Dien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald L. Belyea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vijay Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. E. Tumbleson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kent D. Rausch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent D. Rausch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arora, A., Dien, B.S., Belyea, R.L. et al. Thin stillage fractionation using ultrafiltration: resistance in series model. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 32, 225–233 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-008-0240-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-008-0240-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation