MPI Maize Processing Innovators MaizePI Quick Germ Fiber Quick Germ QQ Dry Grind Wet Mill Ethanol Pericarp Recovery Eckhoff Singh Patent Technology Fermentation ddgs Enhance Improve Coproducts Pre Frac Fractionation University Illinois

MPI Maize Processing Innovators MaizePI Quick Germ Fiber Quick Germ QQ Dry Grind Wet Mill Ethanol Pericarp Recovery Eckhoff Singh Patent Technology Fermentation ddgs Enhance Improve Coproducts Pre Frac Fractionation University Illinois

MaizePi Home
MaizePi Articles
MaizePi Articles
MaizePi Contact
MaizePi Technology
MaizePi Patent
MaizePi

Maize Processing Innovators, Inc.
216 Sauk Ridge Drive
South Beloit, IL 61080

Ph: 779.475.0571
Fax: 779.475.0572

Email:  info@maizepi.com

 

Choosing a Fractionation Process - S.R. Eckhoff, August 2007

• Introduction

• Kernel Composition

• Preseparation vs. Post-separation

• Wet vs. Dry

• Gallons per Bushel

• Calculating Maximum Ethanol Yield

• Choosing a Process

• References

 


Dry grind ethanol plants are springing up everywhere and the latest spike in gasoline prices has done nothing to cool the optimism of investors.  Because of the price volatility of both the corn and ethanol markets, producers are looking at ways to enhance their profitability, especially when ethanol prices are low relative to corn price.  Dry grind ethanol plants have been shown to be the most economical means to produce ethanol, but profitability could be enhanced if additional coproducts could be gleaned from the corn (Singh et al, 1999). There currently is much rhetoric and confusion about “fractionation” of corn.  What is the difference between dry fractionation and wet fractionation? Preseparation vs. post-separation?  Are higher ethanol (gals/bu) yields always more profitable? What affect does corn composition have on the operation of the ethanol plant?  These questions and more are addressed herein to help in understanding the differences between the technologies involved.

Recovering additional coproducts from corn prior to a dry grind process presents a dilemma.  In order to maintain a low cost of operation, it is desirable to do minimal processing yet recover a maximum value from the coproducts.  Components that are uniformly distributed throughout the kernel often have the highest cost for recovery because all of the kernel must be processed in order to achieve adequate coproduct recovery.  Most desirable is to have a component concentrated in an area or structure of the kernel, thus minimizing the effort and making the recovery more profitable.  The goal of preseparation or post-separation is to recover as “cleanly” as possible the non-fermentable components of the corn.  “Clean” being defined as having no attached starch, sugar or intermediate products (for purposes herein we will just call it starch).  It is a balancing act between recovery of non-fermentables and loss of ethanol production because if you increase recovery of non-fermentables you invariably increase the loss of starch.   Generally as recovery increases, purity of the recovered fraction decreases. 

Approximately 1/3 of the corn kernel is composed of the non-fermentable components of fiber, protein, ash, and oil.  It is fortuitous for corn processors that the non-fermentables are concentrated in two major structural components of the corn kernel: pericarp (coarse fiber) and germ (also called embryo).  In the 17.2% of the kernel weight that makes up the germ and coarse fiber exists 56 % of the non-fermentables. The rest of the non-fermentables (endosperm protein and cellular fiber) are more uniformly distributed throughout the remainder of the kernel and have higher recovery costs associated with them.

Kernel Composition

Table 1 shows that the pericarp and tip cap of standard dent corn contains approximately 7% starch (0.21 lb dry solids/bushel) while the germ contains 8.3% starch (0.44 lb ds/bu) and 10.8% sugars (0.57 lb ds/bu).  In some processes most of the sugars and some of the starch can be recovered from the germ, but there almost always will be some residue.  It is just not economically viable to wash out all of the sugars and starch.

Table 1.  Average Composition (% and lb dry solids/bu) of Seven Midwestern Dent Hybrids

  Proportion of Whole Kernel Starch Protein Oil Ash Sugar Other (Mostly NDF)*
Kernel 100
(47.88)**
73.4
(35.14)
9.1
(4.36)
4.4
(2.11)
1.4
(0.67)
1.9
(0.91)
9.8
(4.69)
Endosperm 82.9
(39.69)
87.6
(34.77)
8.0
(3.18)
0.8
(0.32)
0.3
(0.12)
0.6
(0.24)
2.7
(1.07)
Germ 11.1
(5.31)
8.3
(0.44)
18.4
(0.98)
33.2
(1.76)
10.5
(0.56)
10.8
(0.57)
8.8
(0.47)
Pericarp 5.3
(2.54)
7.3
(0.19)
3.7
(0.09)
1.0
(0.25)
0.8
(0.02)
0.3
(0.01)
86.7
(2.20)
Tip Cap 0.8
(0.38)
5.3
(0.02)
9.1
(0.03)
3.8
(0.01)
1.6
(0.00)
1.6
(0.00)
78.6
(0.30)

Source:  Watson (1987)

* NDF is Neutral Detergent Fiber

**lb/bu of dry solids for corn at 14.5% w.b. moisture content

>> Back To Top

Preseparation vs. Post-separation

Preseparation is the recovery of coproducts prior to fermentation, whereas post-separation is the recovery of coproducts after fermentation.  The advantage of post-separation, as touted by some dry grind ethanol producers, is that post-separation does not affect the standard dry grind fermentation and can be a mere add-on to the process. The disadvantage of post-separation processes is the same as the perceived advantage, that is, post-separation does not affect the dry grind fermentation and thus loses out on the advantages.  Almost all of the impact of preseparation on fermentation and coproduct value has been positive.  Removal of the nonfermentables increases the alcohol content of the beer, increases the amount of alcohol produced per fermenter turn, increases the speed of fermentation and decreases the likelihood of “stuck” fermentations (Muthy et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2004).  The advantages of preseparation are so significant that even if the nonfermentables were routed from the front of the process and blended with the DDGS, it would be profitable.  Other disadvantages of post-separation include the negative impact of fermentation and drying on germ oil quality and the effect of fermentation on separation efficiency.

Wet vs. Dry

There is no question as to whether wet or dry fractionation results in the “cleanest” germ and pericarp.   Look in any reference book concerning corn milling and it will show a significant difference in the cleanliness of the coproducts.  Table 2 is a representative comparison, showing that wet mill products are more diverse and concentrated with certain components.  Starch is 99.3% starch, gluten meal is 68.9% protein, germ (Table 3) is 40% oil and gluten feed is 30% NDF.  Dry mill fractions are basically the same compositionally except for the germ and hominy feed.  But neither of them have any one component over 30%.  Fiber can be progressively aspirated in dry milling to get a high NDF fiber but the yield will be low.

Table 2.  Comparison of Dry and Wet Milling Coproducts

Dry Mill
 

Wet Mill
 

Coproduct Flaking
Grits
Coarse
Grits
Corn
Cones
Corn
Flour
Hominy
Feed
Gluten
Feed
Gluten
Meal
Starch
Protein 7.0 7.5 7.9 5.2 11.3 25.1 68.9 0.39
Fat 0.6 0.7 0.6 2.0 7.7 2.7 2.8 0.04
Crude Fiber 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 6.7 8.9 1.3 0.1
NDF         23.0 30.0 4.8  
Ash 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 3.1 8.6 2.0 0.1
Starch 78.3 78.0 77.4 76.0 19.0   19.0 99.3
TDN (ruminants)         91.0 75.0 86.0  

* Sources:  Alexander (1987); Wright (1987)

Table 3.  Comparison of Dry Milling and Wet Milling Germ*

Coproducts Process % Oil % Protein % Starch % Ash % Yield
Germ Commercial Wet Milling 38.7 13.6 7.4 1.8 7.5
Germ Commercial Dry Milling 23.0 15.4 19.8 --- 12.0

* Rausch and Belyea (2006)

To directly compare the economics of dry milling technology with wet prefractionation technology, a spreadsheet model was developed (Li, et al, 2007) with an internal mass balance being used to make sure that more mass (total or specific species of mass) is not specified in the outgoing products than in the original corn (the model accounts for changes in specific species, such as starch to sugar, sugar to cell mass, etc.). Based on corn composition, initial moisture content of the corn and the coproduct composition (except DDGS, which is determined by what mass is left over), the maximum available sugars can be calculated and from this, the maximum ethanol yield. For practical considerations, the maximum yield is reduced by 7% because commercial facilities do not run fermentations to completion for economic reasons. The model also calculates all coproduct prices based on the Purdue relationship between corn price, soybean meal (SBM) price and DDGS price (Hurt, 2006): DDGS ($/ton) =1.52 +0.205*SBM ($/ton) + 21.98*C ($/bu). The DDGS price is also adjusted for protein and NDF levels using the relationship:

$/ton = -36.6 +4.19*Pro+1.11*%NDF; at a corn price of $3.60/bu.

The model calculates the net revenue from addition of a prefractionation process to a 40 million gallon/yr plant. It currently compares dry prefractionation using a Beall degerminator to the quick germ/quick fiber process (QQ) and conventional dry grind. A fourth process can be compared with the addition of specifics about yield and composition of coproducts. Coproduct characteristics were based on the data of Singh (2006) for the QQ process and for a dry milling prefractionation process using Beall degerminators. Equipment costs were determined based on specified equipment manufacture’s rack prices. The model predicts that the QQ process will be a positive addition to the dry grind ethanol plant and should be superior to the dry fractionation processes. Published results of the model are in process.

>> Back To Top

Gallons per Bushel

The issue of gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn can be confusing when comparing different separation processes. The highest gallons of ethanol per bushel will always be with the standard dry grind process because any separation process will remove some fermentables with the nonfermentables, as discussed in the previous section. An economic model with a mass balance to keep track of the removed sugars or starch is the easiest way to compare processes. The total mass used to calculate yield of ethanol per bushel needs to be 56 lb bushel of whole kernel dent corn at 15% wet basis moisture (= 47.6 lb ds). Using a lower moisture content yields more ethanol per bushel because there is more carbohydrate available. In the same way any comparison needs to be based on a blend of normal dent corn and not a high starch hybrid. Any mass which leaves as coproducts can not be added back in or compensated for. For example it is not appropriate to take 56 lbs or 47.6 lbs ds of degermed and debranned corn as the basis for calculating yield. In the same way it is not appropriate to report yield on a denatured gallon basis because the denaturant was not part of the original bushel of corn.

>> Back To Top

Calculating the Maximum Ethanol Yield

The maximum ethanol yield possible can be calculated by assuming an average corn analysis such as shown in Table 1. First calculate the amount of sugar needed to produce adequate yeast mass. It is generally recognized that 2% of the available sugar is a realistic minimum level of cell mass produced and hydrolysis is 98% efficient. Don’t forget to add in the naturally occurring sugars from the corn.

Total sugar = (35.14 lb*0.98*1.11) + 0.91 lb = 39.14 lb sugar

Total cell mass = 0.02*39.14 = 0.78 lb/bu

Total available sugar for fermentation = 39.14 lb - 0.78 lb = 38.36 lb/bu

Assuming no side fermentations, the theoretical maximum ethanol yield for standard dry grind is
(38.36 *511)/1000 = 19.6 lb ethanol

The density of anhydrous ethanol is 6.583 lb/gal. Then, 19.6 lb ethanol/bu/6.583 lb/gal = 2.98 gal/bu

However, ethanol fermentations are not run to completion, but generally to a maximum of 93%, so a practical maximum ethanol yield is 2.98*0.93 = 2.77 gallon ethanol/bu, for a standard dry grind plant.

If your plant is a modified dry grind plant, which has coproducts other than DDGS, you need to calculate the amount of starch and sugar in the coproducts. For calculation purposes, let us assume that our prefrac process coproducts contain 0.9 lbs of starch and 0.1 lb of sugar. In that case, total available sugar for fermentation = 38.36 lb - ((starch in coproducts*1.11 ) + sugar in coproducts) = 38.36 - (0.9 lb*1.11)-0.1 = 37.26 lb/bu

(37.26 *511)/1000 = 19.04 lb ethanol

The density of anhydrous ethanol is 6.583 lb/gal. Then, 19.04 lb ethanol/bu/6.583 lb/gal = 2.89 gal/bu

As before, we multiply by 93%, so a practical maximum ethanol yield is 2.89*0.93 = 2.69 gallon ethanol/bu, or 2.89% less than the conventional dry grind. However, if we consider the same volume of fermenter space we actually have an additional 7.5 lb ds we can put back into the fermenter. The additional corn solids will contain the same % sugar (or more correctly, will contain starch which will lead to the same % sugar) as in the prefrac mash, 37.26/ (47.88-7.5) = 92.27%. So, our additional sugar is 7.5 * .9227 = 6.92 lb

Converting to ethanol, 6.92 lb * 0.511 =3.54 lb; but again we only go to 93% completion.

(3.54 lb* 0.93)/ 6.583 lb/gal. yields an additional 0.50 gal or 2.69 + 0.50 = 3.19 gal/bu weight equivalent.

Each prefractionation process could conceivably have a different maximum yield, which is why comparing maximum yields is not productive. The important issue is the value of all coproducts plus the value of ethanol produced.

>> Back To Top

Choosing a Process

The selection of a prefractionation method should not be based on who has the best sales pitch but on a variety of information, including:

  1. Cost of Equipment
    Often is not the determining factor but patented systems also carry a technology fee (yearly or upfront) which should be amortized with the capital.
     

  2. Suitability of Process to Specific Needs
    How close are you to companies who buy germ? Do you want to press out oil? What is your feed market like? Can it consume all you produce?
     

  3. Market for Coproducts
    While a process may produce a DDGS with improved value, if a market cannot be found for its use, it is not an economic benefit. Since many of these coproducts are new, their value is hard to discern and the livestock industry may not readily discriminate between them.
     

  4. Economic Comparison
    The best way to get a head to head comparison is to input yield and compositional data for the coproducts into a mass balance based model. All parameters should be set the same for each process except where actual data can substantiate the change.
     

  5. Maintenance
    How much maintenance is required? Will it require additional manpower to operate? Could a failure in the add-on process cause you to shut down or would it just be a distraction?
     

  6. Complexity
    How complicated is it? Will it require special equipment or technical help?

    Summary: Generally speaking; preseparation is better than post separation; wet fractionation is better than dry fractionation; make sure you understand the basis of yield number for a process; and do your homework on checking out the process economics.

>> Back To Top

References

Alexander, R.J. (1987). Corn dry milling: Processes, products, and applications, In: Corn Chemistry and Technology (Stan Watson and Paul Ramstad, editors), AACC Press, 604 pp.

Blanchard, P. 1992. “Technology of Corn Wet Milling and Associated Processes”, Academic Press,

Eckhoff, S.R. 2004. Maize wet milling, In: Encyclopedia of Grain Science (C. Wrigley, editor), Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL , pp. 225-242

Hurt, C., Tyner, W., and Doering, O. 2006. "Economics of Ethanol." Purdue University, Cooperative Extension, Available at: http://www.ces.purdue.edu/bioenergy, Accessed: May 16, 2007.

Li, C., Rodriguez, L., Khanna, M., Spaulding, A., Eckhoff, S. 2007. An Engineering Economic Evaluation of Quick Germ Quick Fiber Process for Dry-grind Ethanol Facilities. (Poster), Livestock Industry and Renewable Fuels Conference, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL May 23-24, 2007.

Rausch, K.D. and Belyea, R.L. (2006). The future of coproducts from corn processing,
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Vol. 128:47-87.

Singh, V., Moreau, R. A., Doner, L. W., Eckhoff, S. R., and Hicks, K. B. 1999. Recovery of fiber in the corn dry-grind ethanol process: A feedstock for valuable coproducts. Cereal Chem. 76:868-872.

Singh, V. (2006). Past, present and future of dry grind corn processes. Presented at the 2006 Bioenergy Symposium, Purdue University, February 23.

Watson, S.A. (1987). Structure and composition, In: Corn Chemistry and Technology (Stan Watson and Paul Ramstad, editors), AACC Press, 604 pp.

Wright, K.N. (1987). Nutritional properties and feeding value of corn and its by-products, In: Corn Chemistry and Technology (Stan Watson and Paul Ramstad, editors), AACC Press, 604 pp.

>> Back To Top


 

DRY GRIND
ETHANOL PROCESS

QUICK GERM / QUICK
FIBER PROCESS

>> Click Here To Learn More

>> Click Here To Learn More

MPI Maize Processing Innovators MaizePI Quick Germ Fiber Quick Germ QQ Dry Grind Wet Mill Ethanol Pericarp Recovery Eckhoff Singh Patent Technology Fermentation ddgs Enhance Improve Coproducts Pre Frac Fractionation University Illinois

Home  :  Strategic Alliances  :  Articles  :  Contact Us  :  Technology  :  Patent
Copyright 2007 MPI Maize Processing Innovators, Inc.
 Website Design & Development by:  www.BlueLaserDesign.com

MPI Maize Processing Innovators MaizePI Quick Germ Fiber Quick Germ QQ Dry Grind Wet Mill Ethanol Pericarp Recovery Eckhoff Singh Patent Technology Fermentation ddgs Enhance Improve Coproducts Pre Frac Fractionation University Illinois

 

Entrance 2   Entrance 3