Processing Brewers’ Spent Grain to High

Concentration Protein

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Department of Biological Systems Engineering

Spring 2018

Expected Graduation: May 12, 2018

Team Members: Advisors:

Lucy Epshteyn Cully Hession

Ryan Mitchell Haibo Huang
Samuel Villarreal
Zhicheng Xu

Lucy Epshteyn Date: 4.10.2018

Ryan Mitchell Date: 4.10.2018

Samuel Elizondo Villarreal Date: 4.10.2018

Zhicheng Xu Date: 4.10.2018

Statement

The senior Biological Systems Engineering class of 2018 was presented with multiple options on
projects ranging from storm water management to medical engineering applications to process
engineering projects. The team had specific interest in creating new products from the waste product
known as brewers’ spent grain and focused the senior design project on creating a process to filter and
collect protein from the processing of brewers’ spent grain.

Abstract
Finding sources of protein to satisfy future populations, whether through direct human
consumption or feed for animal consumption, continues to be a valuable pursuit for the future of
humanity. Brewers spent grain (BSG), the most abundant byproduct produced from the brewing process,
contains high protein concentrations as well as high fiber concentrations that are both crucial components
for human health (Lynch et al., 2016; Witkiewicz, 2012). Moreover, BSG contains essential amino acids
and minerals (calcium, silicon, magnesium, phosphorus), but BSG often goes unused, landfilled,
composted, or sent to farms for cattle feed (Lynch et al., 2016). Due to the high fiber concentrations in
spent grains (comprised primarily of cellulose) they are difficult to digest and pose issues to human and
most animal consumption (disregarding ruminants). By overcoming the obstacle of digestion through
increased protein purity and fiber concentration reductions, brewer’s spent grains pose great potential for
the food industry. Team BSG aims to develop a design to process and purify brewers’ spent grains to
obtain a product containing approximately 40-50 wt.% protein.

Acknowledgements

The team would like to thank Dr. Haibo Huang for his time, patience, and invaluable guidance.
Dr. Huang’s support was crucial in the development of this study; he educated the team on the proper use
of lab equipment, lab processes and procedures. The team would like to acknowledge and thank Dr.
Senger for his time and direction with SuperPro design software that elevated the team’s understanding of
modeling the design process. We would also like to thank Dr. Hession for assisting in the ordering of
materials, guidance throughout the entire project, and for providing constructive feedback that helped the
team manage obstacles and difficulties amidst our design process. Also, thank you to Kyle Saylor and
Frank Gillam for their assistance and feedback determining the team’s potential solutions.

2
Table of Contents
Introduction 5
Problem Statement 5
Project Goals 5
Goals 5
Objectives 6
Constraints & Criteria 6
Constraints 6
Criteria 6
Standards 6
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 6
Good Manufacturing Processes (GMP) 6
Animal Feed Safety System (AFSS) 6
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) 7
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 7
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 7
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 7
Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) 7
Design Process 8
Decision Matrix 8
Alcohol Process 9
Alcalase Process 9
Final Project Design 10
Economic Analysis 11
Conclusion 11
References 12
Appendices 13
Figure 1: Ethanol SuperPro 13
Figure 2: Alcalase SuperPro 13
Table 1: Economic Analysis 14
Figure 3: Alcohol Gantt Chart 15
Figure 4: Enzyme Gantt Chart 15
Figure 5: Protein Recovery of Operations 16
Figure 6: Process Revenue Per Year of Operations 16
3
Figure 7: Payback time of Operations 17
Figure 8: Gross Margin of Operations 17
Table 2: Decision Matrix 18
Table 3: Raw Data before Experimentation (Midwest Laboratory report) 18
Table 4: Raw Data after Experimentation (Virginia Tech FST Lab) 18
Table 5: Alcohol Process Machine Description 19
Table 6: Enzyme Process Process Machine Description 20
Table 7: Materials 21
Table 8: Experimental Protein Recovery 21
Calculations: 22
Water Content of BSG 22
Mass Balance 22

4
Introduction
The BSG team is focusing on deriving proteins from Brewers’ Spent Grains (BSG), the leftover
kernels and mash that is a waste stream of the beer processing industry. Barley is the main feedstock used
in the brewing industry and the starch is hydrolyzed and extracted for the fermentation process. The
leftover grains, which amount to about 85% of the total by-products from the hydrolysis process are
known as BSG (Witkiewicz, 2012). BSG is currently a large nuisance to the brewing industry because
BSG spoil quickly and cost money to send to landfills. BSG has approximately 70% to 80% moisture
content, presenting two main issues: the high cost of transportation and the growth of microbes. The rich
polysaccharide and protein content, in addition to the high moisture content, make BSG susceptible to
microbial growth and spoilage following beer production (Lynch et al., 2016). Townsley (1979) found
that on average, spent grain constitutes for 31% of the original malt weight. With every 20 kilograms of
spent grain about 100 liters of beer is produced, a five to one ratio. The high supply of BSG renders a low
byproduct market price due to a surplus of BSG at brewing facilities. BSG is frequently fed to cattle and
other ruminants that are capable of digesting them. BSG can also be composted and return valuable
nutrients to the soil, or they can be disposed of at landfills and waste processing facilities. These solutions
to disposal are primarily low value disposal options.
The main goal of our design is to create a high-quality feed for farm raised fish, pets, or other
animals. The team’s goal is to purify BSG to a protein purity of about 20-50%, based on the digestion
requirements of targeted animal markets. The high concentration of fiber that resides in BSG after
brewing is indigestible by fish, dogs, and animals other than ruminants. BSG can be incorporated into
foods in small amounts, however our team aims to produce a product with high protein composition and
low fiber content that will cover the health and diet needs of targeted animal groups to be determined.
Utilizing BSG as a food source for animals helps to remove a waste stream from the brewing industry
while at the same time providing a nutritious, healthy, and valuable diet for animals.

Problem Statement
Currently, brewers’ spent grain is produced as a waste product of brewing. Companies may sell it
to local farmers or pay landfills to dispose of the BSG, which is environmentally unfriendly and causes
the companies to lose money. Additionally, humans cannot digest BSG because of its high fiber content.
Our team aimed to process brewers’ spent grain with the goal of extracting and concentrating the protein
in our output, by using either Alcalase or ethanol as the main separation mechanism. Processing and
extracting protein from BSG will lead to the reduction of waste, a reduction in brewery expenses, and
high protein availability in the finalized product. Following experimentation, the team will decide which
process yields the best results to be pursued in an industrial setting.

Project Goals
Goals
The team’s goal is to design an efficient production method to re-utilize brewers’ spent grain and apply
the product in the food industry.

5
Objectives
● Determine the best reactor
● Determine reactor material and scale-up costs
● Analyze future industries and product markets
● Reduce energy usage by minimizing steps and electricity requirements
● Adhere to federal regulations for pharmaceuticals/food products
● Create SuperPro Design of process
● Create economic analysis of process

Constraints & Criteria

Constraints
● Cost of unit operations to dry/mill brewers grains
● Color of spent grains is undesirable for consumer products
● Ease of spoilage
● High fiber content difficult to digest
● Taste/texture unpleasant
● Cost of separation operations
Criteria
● End product must have at least 30% protein content
● Reduce fiber content in final product
● Locate facility within 20 km distance from processing plant
● Design process to have a minimum processing capacity of 12,000 kg/day

Standards
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The FDA will govern many of the rules and practices that will affect our design, including:
mandatory recall authority, food safety records access, suspension of registration, administration
detention, and authority to ensure that imported products meet U.S. standards and are safe for U.S.
customers. The FDA’s animal feed safety system ensures these things are regulated through their Good
Manufacturing Processes program, AFSS, FDAAA, FSMA and bioterrorism act (“Overview of FDA’s”,
2016).

Good Manufacturing Processes (GMP)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations require all breweries to have an active
Good Manufacturing Processes (GMP) program in place (“Overview of FDA’s”, 2016).

Animal Feed Safety System (AFSS)

The AFSS, formed in 2003, deals with the manufacturing, labeling, storage, distribution, and use
of animal food. The FDA must determine an establishment’s or product’s degree of compliance with
applicable regulations. This is, for the most part, done by state agencies using federal or state authority.

6
The AFSS also implements training, education, and outreach activities to keep partners and stakeholders
informed of FDA and state feed regulations (“Overview of FDA’s”, 2016).

Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA)

The FDAAA, formed in 2007, requires FDA to establish an early warning system about unsafe
pet food, improve labeling for pet food (in development) and standards for pet food ingredients (also in
development) (“Overview of FDA’s”, 2016). The agency requires timely information about unsafe animal
feed and, where appropriate, makes such information publicly available. In May 2010, FDA launched the
Safety Reporting Portal, where responsible parties can report foods to the registry (“Overview of FDA’s”,
2016). Consumers can also report pet food complaints to the FDA through this registry. Additionally,
veterinarians can complain on this registry from resulting sick pets that they treat. This allows FDA to
know where to inspect. In March 2014, FDA also added a portal for reporting problems with livestock
feed; these are reports made for species considered to be farm animals (horse, cattle, swine, poultry, fish).

Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)

The FSMA deals with prevention of food safety problems; gives FDA the legislative power to
require comprehensive, science-based preventive controls across the food supply, including preventive
controls for animal feed (“Overview of FDA’s”, 2016). The FDA enforcement authorities include:
mandatory recall authority, food safety records access, suspension of registration, administration
detention (designed to achieve higher rates of compliance), authority to ensure that imported products
meet U.S. standards are safe for U.S. customers.

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002

All domestic and foreign human food and animal feed facilities must register under the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act) (“Overview
of FDA’s”, 2016).

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) is a management system in which food
safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical and physical hazards from raw
material production (“Hazard Analysis”, n.d.)

Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)

AAFCO deems pet food to be complete and balanced for pet diets and often require food testing
to determine the nature and composition of manufactured products (“Overview of FDA’s”, 2016).
AAFCO deems foods “complete/balanced”, providing a necessary nutrition for stand-alone diet and
establishes a preferred testing method. The preferred testing method requires feeding finished products to
cats or dogs, and determines if animals can uptake nutrients and have any adverse reactions or
deficiencies after food is taken.

7
Design Process
Decision Matrix

Before any experimentation was done, we made a decision matrix to hypothesize what might be
the best solution. As a team, we created a list of the most important criterion for our process of purifying
protein, as seen in our decision matrix (Table 2). We then weighted each criteria out of 10, 10 being the
best and each potential solution out of 5, 5 being the best. To get the totals, the weight of each criterion
was multiplied by the weight of one solution under that same criteria and all added together. The same
was done for the other solution.

Waste/Resource Recovery: At the end of our process, we want to recover as much as possible in order to
save the most money and/or reduce the cost of resources. These resources include water used during the
process, fiber separated from the BSG and, specifically for the alcohol option, any alcohol used during the
process.

Cost of Operation: In order to continue to run either of our processes, we need to account for the cost of
electricity, energy, labor, maintenance of equipment (including cleaning) and the transportation of BSG to
our facility.

Cost of Resources: We will either need to purchase Ethanol or Alcalase depending on which process we
choose. Additionally, we will need to utilize a pH probe and phosphate buffer for the enzyme process, a
temperature monitor, filter paper and grinder for either process.

Cost of Installation: We will need to account for the installation of various equipment, including an oven
dryer, filter press, bomb calorimeter, pellet mill and bioreactor.

Robustness: We want a process that will be relatively easy to produce pure (40-50 wt.%) protein; it
cannot be overly complicated because that will require a lot of education or training which is an
additional cost.

Safety: Eventually we will hire people to run the operations and so we want to make sure that the
processes are as safe as possible so that we do not run into an issue of liability.

Process Efficiency: With the efficiency of the process, we are concerned about the length of the process
(how much time is involved), how much protein is recovered in the end, and the yield rate. We cannot
have a lengthy process because we are competing with an existing process that does not take any time at
all (simply sending the BSG to farms).

After narrowing down the possible solution, the group weighted each criterion from 0 to 10 and
each solution from 0 to 5. Then, the Alcohol/Enzyme columns was multiplied by the weight and the sum
of the multiplication was the final score; the maximum score was 250. As seen in our decision matrix
(table 2), the enzyme (Alcalase) solution scored lower than the Alcohol solution. This shows that the
enzyme solution may be more efficient and safe, despite having a relatively high operating cost and waste
recovery concern. The Alcohol solution scored higher compared with the Enzyme solution; It got 72% of
the total score and scored higher in the robustness and waste recovery categories. The other scores for
alcohol solution were varied between 3 and 4, which is still acceptable. The overall results based on the
8
decision matrix and analysis of each potential solution showed that the alcohol may be the optimal
solution to recover and purify the protein from BSG, however we will still need to perform
experimentation to validate this analysis.

Alcohol Process

The foundation of the first design solution utilizes alcohol, specifically ethanol, to break down
and process the protein and other substances contained in brewers’ spent grain. Experimental trials were
conducted in the Food and Science Technology lab at Virginia Tech to determine the effectiveness of
various solutions and concentrations of ethanol on processing brewers’ spent grain. The BSG group
mixed eight samples of BSG containing various moisture contents with alcohol. An initial sample of BSG
was sent to the Midwest Labs to determine the chemical makeup, protein assay, and water content and
chemical composition regarding the sample.
The lack of solubility of BSG proteins present a barrier for more extensive use in food processes
and products. If the spent brewers grain is grinded and its endosperm is exposed, ethanol can be used to
precipitate the protein solids. Ethanol has been found to recover as much as 49% of the protein content of
BSG (Ervin et al., 1989) and its very attractive as it can be reused and recycled on multiple batches losing
ethanol only when venting is permitted such as distillation and ultrafiltration unit operations.
During experimentation, the BSG was mixed with alcohol to solubilize the protein and was then
screened using filter paper. Two types of filters were tested on both the enzyme and alcohol process, 10
kDa and 100 kDA. During filtration, the solution is passed through a filter where the protein and alcohol
seep through while the carbohydrates and other impurities are contained. After the filtration step, the cake
was collected and oven dried for further processing in Dr. Haibo Huang’s lab. The dried cake was
analyzed to determine the fiber and protein content that was not solubilized by the alcohol. A system mass
balance was completed to determine the amount of protein that was captured in the process. The team
concluded that a 2% mass loss was appropriate due to the spilling and vessel exchange of the solution.
Furthermore, the grinded brewers spent grains was in a 5% volume ratio to the alcohol mixture. After
experimentation and analysis the team was able to capture 18.75% of the protein in brewers spent grain.
Utilizing data obtained through experimentation in the lab (amount of alcohol used, amount of
BSG used, initial and final protein composition, initial, final fiber composition, fiber collected on filter
paper, and water content of BSG), the BSG group designed a process using SuperPro software. SuperPro
will be used to scale up the process utilizing ethanol to solubilize proteins in BSG (performed in stirred
tank reactor/storage vessel). After mixing and solubilization of proteins in alcohol, the solution will be
screened by passing it through a membrane filter press using >13kD membrane filters. The filtration
process will remove fiber (cellulose) from the solution but allow the protein to pass through the filter. The
filtration process will occur twice using 2 different sized membrane filters. The plate and filter press will
take the bulk of the filtration work, then ultrafiltration will be used to concentrate the protein and recycle
the alcohol used in the process.

Alcalase Process
Our second proposed solution for extracting protein from BSG is by employing enzymes to break
down the spent grain and hydrolyze the protein to break multiple peptide chains. According to Treimo et
al. (2008), Alcalase is the most effective peptidase for solubilization of BSG proteins, with an ability to
release up to 77% of the total protein. Under current market conditions and the minimal effective amount
of alcalase necessary per gram of dry BSG, up to 1000 kg can be processed with a 74-dollar investment
(“ALCALASE® Enzyme”, n.d.; Treimo et al., 2008).
Of the two operations, the enzymatic process has been proven to yield the greatest amount of
BSG protein. The downside of this operation, however, is its cost; our initial revenue estimates for a
small-scale industry estimate low revenue margins, indicating that a large operation would have to be
9
employed to upset the energy capital investment costs. Since the final goal of our design is to create a
high quality feed for animal consumption, and BSG is currently in abundance, the high cost of protein
recovery offered by an efficiency enzymatic process is downplayed.
The adverse effect of using enzymes is the lack of ability to recover them, thus setting a fixed
resource cost for the operation. The liquid waste produced by the enzymatic process will have to be sent
to a water treatment plant before it can be discarded. It will contain a mix of chemicals as BSG is
naturally acidic and alcalase needs a pH of 8 to function under ideal conditions so a buffer such as
phosphate needs to be employed before the enzyme can be placed in the bioreactor. In addition the
membranes utilized in the ultrafiltration operation will need to be washed to recover and concentrated the
protein extracted. From the waste stream, only fiber will be captured, as it can be recycled into a second
value product.
The experiment used to extract protein from brewers spent grain utilizing Alcalase mirrors much
of the experimental procedure for the alcohol process. Eight samples were prepared and four different
douses of Alcalase were tested. Alcalase doses varied from 2 microliters to 20 microliters per gram of
dried bsg. The grinded brewers spent grains was also in a 5% volume ratio to the alcohol mixture. After,
the Alcalase was added, the samples were stirred and incubated at 60 degrees for one hour. Then the
samples were filtered, the cake was captured and dried, and a system mass balance analysis was
conducted aided with the cake protein results to calculate how much protein was extracted. Using
Alcalase, the team managed to extract 17.02% of the BSG protein.
SuperPro software was also utilized to design a comprehensive industrial simulation for brewers
spent grain protein extraction using Alcalase. Experimental data increased the accuracy of our simulation
by providing real results. The main difference between the protein extraction via alcohol SuperPro and
Alcalase SuperPro is that brewers spent grain does not have to be dried in the Alcalase process and that
water acts a the main solvent. Also, three different filtration systems had to be employed to yield pure
protein in the final product stream. This is due to the smaller peptide chains created by the enzyme. The
GAC/ adsorption column is an activated carbon column that uses intra-particle diffusion (Silva et al.,
2016) to separate the small polypeptide chains from the carbohydrates.

Final Project Design

The final process designs include an ethanol SuperPro model and Alcalase SuperPro model
shown in the appendices in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Both SuperPro models are capable of processing
12,000 kilograms of BSG per cycle, and by looking at the Gantt Chart in Figure 3 and Figure 4, about
four cycles occur every 36 hours. This equates to processing of approximately 48,000 kilograms of
brewers’ spent grains every 36 hours.
The two process designs are very similar regarding time for processing, equipment (Table 5 and
Table 6), and processing capacity, however differences exist among the two designs. The Alcalase
process is inherently different from the ethanol process because the enzyme is being used to break down
the proteins in the BSG, whereas the ethanol process utilizes ethanol to break down proteins. The
Alcalase can not be recovered from the process, and is a single use product that must be added to the
system for every batch or cycle processed. The Alcohol process utilizes ethanol that can be recovered via
distillation, however by experimenting with the SuperPro model, the team determined that ultrafiltration
was the best method to clean, purify and recycle ethanol as well. Distillation had high operational costs,
energy requirements, and the fluxes that the system operated throughput exceeded the batch distillation
tower capacity. The ethanol process and Alcalase process both utilize ultrafiltration to filter high
concentrations of fiber out of the mixture and capture protein. In addition to using ultrafiltration in the
Alcalase process, an activated carbon column is used to capture additional protein that is otherwise lost.
This additional filtration step was needed as Alcalase cleaves the protein strands into small peptide bonds.

10
Economic Analysis
The economic analysis of the two theoretical and experimental designs can be found in Table 2 of
the appendices. As seen in Table 2, the theoretical designs proved to be economically viable. The
theoretical Alcalase and ethanol processes both resulted in payback periods of 3.2 years with an
approximate internal rate of return of 21%. The substantial difference between the theoretical Alcalase
and ethanol processes was the net present value. The theoretical Alcalase process had a net present value
of $70,680,000, whereas the theoretical ethanol process had a net present value of $4,908,300, making the
Alcalase process far more valuable and economically attractive, despite a larger upfront capital
investment (Alcalase process capital investment is $20,600,000 greater than the ethanol process capital
investment).
To visualize the differences between the four process designs, Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8
graphically represent the economic data obtained from the SuperPro software results. Figure 6 depicts a
bubble chart used to compare the difference in capital investment, operational cost per year, and process
revenue per year. Figure 7 shows the difference in payback periods for the four process designs. The two
theoretical processes had payback periods of approximately 3.2 years, whereas the experimental processes
had payback periods of approximately 43 years. Figure 8 shows the difference in the return on each
process for every kilogram of material produced. These graphical displays help to illustrate the economic
feasibility of the theoretical Alcalase and ethanol processes, as well as the economic failures that exist in
the experimental processes.
Experimental process designs for both Alcalase and ethanol returned data that led both processes
to be economically unviable. When the experimental data was inputted in SuperPro, the net present value
of both the Alcalase process and ethanol process was negative, meaning these processes will never return
a revenue, making them undesirable. These undesirable economic results from the experimental values
can be attributed to the high amount of water content within the experimental BSG (approximately 76%
water and 24% BSG in contrast to its theoretical value of 60% water and 40% BSG) and a lot less protein
extraction than expected (19.4% in comparison to theoretical values of 77%). Due to these differences
among the theoretical and experimental design processes, the theoretical processes prove to be the most
successful and economical, with the Alcalase process being the best process design of all.

Conclusion
The greatest limitation of the economic profitability of this process is the large capital investment
needed to turn a profit which is highly limited to the current low market price for a protein concentrate.
However, the initial project goals were met as we were able to turn a waste product into a potential food
source in a process that is sustainable.
Based on our experimental findings and also supported by the theoretical data compiled, brewer spent
grain protein extraction is best done by enzyme hydrolysis (Alcalase). Experimental values showed
promising results with Alcalase as we were able to make the system more efficient.
The vast differences between the experimental data and the data compiled from other research papers
gives us hope that there is still much room for improvement and that this process can potentially yield
positive economic results. We hope that our findings can shed light into future research. Nevertheless, if
future senior design teams were to use our project as the foundations for more research we recommend
that they focus on:

•developing a procedure to capture more protein

•optimizing the SuperPro process and capital costs
•developing a system that uses both ethanol and Alcalase to extract more protein
•experimenting with various filter sizes between 20-75 kDa
11
 References
ALCALASE® Enzyme, Bacillus licheniformis. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/mm/126741?lang=en&region=US

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/HACCP/

Ervin, V., Alli, I., Smith, J. P., & Li, Z. (1989). Extraction and Precipitation of Proteins from Brewer's Spent
Grain. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology, 22(3), 216-221.

Lynch, K. M., Steffen, E. J., & Arendt, E. K. (2016). Brewers' spent grain: a review with an emphasis on food and
health. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 122(4), 553-568. doi:10.1002/jib.363

Overview of FDA's Animal Feed Safety System (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalFeedSafetySystemAFSS/UCM2
77673.pdf

Silva, K. M., Steffen, E. J., & Arendt, E. K. (2016). Brewers' Spent Grain: a Review with Emphasis on Food and
Health. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 122(4), 553-568.

Townsley, P. M. (1979). Preparation of Commercial Products from Brewer's Waste Grain and Trub. Tech Q
Master Brew Assoc Am, 16, 130-134.

Treimo, J., Aspmo, S. I., Eijsink, V. G., & Horn, S. J. (2008). Enzymatic solubilization of proteins in brewer's
spent grain. J Agric Food Chem, 56(13), 5359-5365. doi:10.1021/jf073317s

Witkiewicz, K. (2012). Sustainable Uses of Spent Grain. Retrieved from https://www.craftbeer.com/craft-beer-

muses/sustainable-uses-of-spent-grain

12
Appendices
Figure 1: Ethanol SuperPro

Figure 2: Alcalase SuperPro

13
Table 1: Economic Analysis
Yearly Data Alcohol Alcohol Enzyme Enzyme
Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical

Total Capital
Investment
$69,485,000 $45,311,000 $113,247,000 $65,911,000

Operating Cost
$33,180,000 $28,077,000 $33,796,000 $25,957,000

Revenues
$28,657,000 $44,470,000 $26,316,000 $49,803,000

Cost Basis Annual

Rate
$3,016,490 $4,681,000 $2,770,050 $5,242,410

Unit Production Cost

(per kg)
11 6 12.2 4.9

Unit Production
Revenue (per kg)
9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5

Gross Margin
-15% 36.80% -28% 47.80%

Return on Investment
2.20% 30.30% 2.30% 30.50%

Payback Time (yr)

43.7 3.2 42.5 3.2

IRR (After Taxes)

N/A 20.80% N/A 21.30%

NPV (7% Interest)

($59,585,000) $4,908,300 ($95,415,000) $70,680,000

14
Figure 3: Alcohol Gantt Chart

Figure 4: Enzyme Gantt Chart

15
Figure 5: Protein Recovery of Operations

Figure 6: Process Revenue Per Year of Operations

16
Figure 7: Payback time of Operations

Figure 8: Gross Margin of Operations

17
Table 2: Decision Matrix
Criterion Weight (out of 10) Alcohol Enzyme (Alcalase)
Waste/Resource Recovery 6 4.5 2
Cost of Operation 10 3 2.5
Cost of Resources (enzyme, 8 3 2.5
alcohol)
Cost of Installation (Capital 7 3.5 3
Investment)
Robustness 5 4.5 3
Safety (for workers) 4 3 4
Process Efficiency (protein, time, 10 4 5
yield vs cost)
Total ----- 180 159

Table 3: Raw Data before Experimentation (Midwest Laboratory report)

As Received (%) Dry Weight (%)
Moisture 3.32 -----
Dry Matter 96.68 -----
Protein (crude) 18.7 19.3
Fat (crude) 6.72 6.95
Fiber (neutral detergent) 36 37.2
Ash 2.7 2.79

Table 4: Raw Data after Experimentation (Virginia Tech FST Lab)

Sample Nitrogen (g) Protein (g) % Protein
E8 0.0188 0.1172 18.6
E7 0.023 0.1436 22.4
E3 0.0233 0.1456 22.7
A8 0.0065 0.0407 6.3
A7 0.0072 0.0449 7
A2 0.0103 0.0643 10.4

18
Table 5: Alcohol Process Machine Description
Machine SuperPro BSE purpose system Unit Cost Power
Machine ($) Requirement
(kW)

Store tank P-1/V-106 Introduction of BSG in 54,000 0

system

Store tank P-5/V-102 Waste product intermediate 40,000 0

Store tank P-18/V-105 Introduction and storage of 43,000 0

Ethanol

Solid tank P-7/SL-101 Store dry BSG 81,000 0

Solid tank P-17/SL-102 Final Product Intermediate 81,000 0

Blending tank P-3/V-101 Reaction Tank, BSG 363,000 325.37

degradation and protein
recovery

Rotary dryer P-2/RDR-101 Reduce the moisture content 902,000 20

of BSG

Rotary dryer P-16/RDR- Reduce the moisture content 625,000 20

102 of final product

Plate and Frame P-4/PFF-101 Remove cellulose from BSG 273,000 20

Filter

Ultrafilter P-6/UF-101 Separate ethanol, 122,000 9.17

carbohydrates, and protein

Grinder P-19/GR-101 Grinding BSG into smaller 104,000 433.56

size to increase surface area

Heat exchanger P-22/HX-101 Provide enough heat for 30,000 20

rotary dryer to process

19
Table 6: Enzyme Process Process Machine Description
Machine SuperPro BSE purpose system Unit Power
Machine Cost ($) Requiremen
t (kW)

Store tank P-1/V-106 Introduction of BSG in 52,000 0

system

Store tank P-13/V-107 Final Product Intermediate 25,000 0

Store tank P-18/V-105 Introduction and storage of 22,000 0

Alcalase

Flat bottom tank P-5/V-102 Store large amount of wet 322,000 0

BSG for enzyme process
required

Flat bottom tank P-12/V-110 Large waste product 321,000 0

intermediary

Blending tank P-3/V-101 Reaction Tank, BSG 421,000 125.14

degradation and protein
recovery

Horizontal tank P-11/V-103 Introduction and recycling of 28,000 0

water as the main solvent

Receiver tank P-2/V-10 Grinded BSG Intermediate 273,000 0

Plate and frame P-4/PFF-101 Remove cellulose from BSG 198,000 20

filter

Ultrafilter P-9/UF-101 Remove water from 136,000 34.1

concentrate

Granular Activated P-6/GAC-101 Adsorption of protein on 380,000 9.17

Carbon (GAC) activated carbon
Adsorption

Grinder P-19/GR-101 Grinding BSG into smaller 321,000 25,200

size to increase surface area

20
Table 7: Materials
Item Company

Ethanol 200 Proof Decon Laboratories, Inc.

Alcalase Enzyme, Bacillus licheniformis Sigma Aldrich

Weighing Dish, ¾” Diameter Grainger

10 Micron Qualitative Filter Paper Ahlstrom

100 Micron 6-¾” Diameter Filter Sheet The Cary Company

125 mL Beaker Fisher Scientific

Spectrophotometer Thermo Scientific

Clear Glass Jars Thomas Scientific

Pipette Finnpipette II

Scale XS64 Mettler Toledo

Water Bath Amerex Instruments, Inc

Drying Oven Thermo Scientific

A.C. Gearmotor, Model 4FDZ1 Dayton

Table 8: Experimental Protein Recovery

Sample Solid Dry 2% Loss Total Protein in Protein % Protein

Weight, g Protein, g cake, g Recovered, Recovered
g

E3 4.4016 0.088032 0.83251 0.1456 0.68691 15.61%

E7 4.2 0.084 0.794388 0.1436 0.650788 15.49%

E8 5.0064 0.100128 0.946910 0.0188 0.928110 18.54%

A2 4.3776 0.087552 0.827979 0.0103 0.817679 18.68%

A7 4.008 0.08016 0.758073 0.0072 0.750873 18.73%

A8 4.596 0.09192 0.869287 0.0065 0.862787 18.77%

21
Calculations:
Water Content of BSG

Sample Mass Wet Sample (g) Mass Dry Sample (g)

1 0.453 0.1085

2 0.5109 0.1205

3 0.4932 0.1172

Mass Balance

Sample Calculation: Utilizing Data from Table 8

22