Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Kenneth A. Leiper 1, Cornelia Schlee 1, Ian Tebble 2 and Graham G. Stewart 1,3
ABSTRACT
J. Inst. Brew. 112(2), 122133, 2006 Fermentation of sugar or starch-containing substrates by yeast to produce ethanol for use as a liquid fuel has been an accepted technology for many years. Currently, the most popular substrates are sugar cane molasses and starch from maize or wheat. Interest in renewable liquid fuels is growing and other substrates are now being considered, choice of these depends on local conditions. This paper presents findings from work carried out on syrup from sugar beet, an ideal crop for cultivation in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe. Fermentation of this substrate was found to be successful. The process of backsetting was investigated as a way of reducing water usage and effluent disposal. This was found to have no effect on ethanol production provided compensation was made for increases in gravity caused by glycerol levels. Backsetting was also found to be beneficial to yeast growth. As yeast remain in the fermented substrate, the effect of distillation on yeast cells was also investigated. It was found that dead yeast cells are present in backset and thus persist into subsequent fermentations. This can cause difficulties in viability measurement if the methylene blue method is used. Key words: Backsetting, beet sugar syrup, cell walls, fermentation, yeast.
INTRODUCTION
Bioethanol can be defined as ethanol produced by fermenting sugars extracted from agricultural crops, or byproducts using micro-organisms (normally yeast) to produce ethanol, which is then recovered by distillation. The most common use for bioethanol is as a motor fuel substitute or supplement. Production of bioethanol accounts for the vast majority of ethanol manufacture. Worldwide production in 2003 was approximately 30,000 million litres 3, dwarfing the output of potable ethanol approximately 4,000 million litres. The bulk of bioethanol production is in Brazil and the USA. The most common substrate in the USA is maize (corn) starch, while in Brazil sugar cane molasses is used. They can either make use of molasses produced as a coproduct from sugar refining (molasses is the liquid residue remaining after the extraction of sugar from cane or beet)
1 International
Centre for Brewing and Distilling, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, Scotland. 2 British Sugar plc, Oundle Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE2 9QU, England. 3 Corresponding author. E-mail: G.G.Stewart@hw.ac.uk
Publication no. G-2006-0629-427 2006 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling
or from sugar cane grown especially for ethanol production. The choice of suitable agricultural crops in other countries depends on the local agricultural environment and economics. If substrates containing starch are used, they must first be subjected to heat and enzyme treatments to convert the starch to fermentable sugars, thus adding to production costs. Molasses and other beet extracts do not require such treatment as the sugar content is almost all in the form of sucrose 8. This is readily split into glucose and fructose in the initial stage of fermentation by the enzyme invertase, located in the periplasmic space between the yeast cell wall and cell membrane. The only preparation required with molasses is dilution to a suitable original gravity and pH buffering. This paper presents data from fermentations carried out using syrup extracted from sugar beet (this came from an early stage in the sugar manufacturing process and had no sugar removed from it). If economic conditions were favourable, the production of bioethanol could become a viable proposition in the United Kingdom. If this situation develops, sugar beet would be a suitable substrate. Initial production would use syrup currently available from sugar refining, with the possibility of dedicated crops in the future. Initial work at the laboratory scale indicated that fermentation of beet sugar syrups to produce ethanol was easy to conduct. As the reduction of production costs would be vital for bioethanol production, the use of backsetting was investigated. This process makes use of spent media, also known as spent wash, stillage or vinasse, from distillation to dilute subsequent batches of syrup thus saving water and waste water treatment charges. This process has been used successfully in whisk(e)y and grain neutral spirit production in Scotland and North America for many years. More recently, it has found a role in the production of bioethanol. The process, however, must be used with care, it is only a partial solution to water usage and cannot be used indefinitely as the constituents of the liquid will become progressively concentrated causing problems associated with viscosity and build-up of toxins. The material must be discarded at some point. Backsetting has been investigated by many workers at varying levels of spent wash usage, and has been reviewed by Chin & Ingledew 1. None of the workers found backsetting to have an effect on ethanol production despite the increasing concentration of a range of metabolites. Despite this, the process is still regarded with suspicion in many quarters.
122
In this work, backsetting was found to cause no reduction in ethanol production, provided the level of glycerol was observed and taken into account. Initial work investigated backsetting at 50% and 100%, but later pilot scale work used backset at 30%, as this level was considered to be realistic on an industrial scale. Both normal and backsetted fermentations were successfully scaled up to pilot scale volumes. It had been assumed that yeast cells would be completely destroyed during distillation, but this was found not to be the case.
previously described. Samples were retained for FAN and sugar analyses. Following fermentation, final ethanol content was determined by distillation according to the IOB method 8.5.1 7. The residues from the distillations were retained and analysed for FAN and sugars. The fermentations for determining optimal pitching rates were carried out in 500 mL flasks containing 250 mL syrup. These were fermented for up to 96 h. The pilot scale fermentations were conducted in the ICBDs 2 hL brewery. Syrup and water (or spent wash) were mixed in the mashing-in equipment followed by further mixing in the mash mixer vessel. Here pH and gravity were adjusted if required as described previously, with the pH meter probe placed in the vessel. No attempt was made to control levels of oxygen, it was assumed that sufficient oxygen would be picked up during mixing. The syrup was cooled to 30C by being passed through the brewerys wort cooling system and was then pumped into a fermentation vessel. Following pitching, the fermentations were left for up to 70 h. The vessels were fitted with a cooling system, but this was not used, the temperature was allowed to free rise. Sampling and ethanol determination was as previously described. Distillation The ethanol produced during fermentation was recovered by distillation, with the yeast remaining in the liquid. Pot stills were used, as small scale distillation using a continuous still (which would have been more realistic) was not possible. The laboratory scale fermentations were distilled in an apparatus consisting of a 500 mL flask, a foaming chamber, a lyne arm and a condenser (Kiko, Osaka, Japan). Wash (330 mL) was placed in the flask and heated with a Bunsen flame. The foaming chamber was largely redundant as no foaming occurred. The distillation was conducted until 110 mL spirit was collected, this containing approximately 40% (v/v) ethanol. The spirit fraction, or Low Wines (the term used in the Scotch whisky industry to describe spirit from an initial pot still distillation) was analysed for ethanol content by gravity and volatile content by GC. The spent wash fraction was retained for use in backsetting. The pilot scale fermentations were distilled in the ICBDs pilot distillery in 20 L batches in a glass pot still. The distillations were conducted until the spirit coming from the still contained less than 1% v/v ethanol. This is a longer distillation than that carried out on the laboratory scale stills, so the low wines contained a lower level of ethanol. Low wines and spent wash samples were analysed as described previously.
TABLE I. Analysis of unfermented beet syrups used in laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. Sample Laboratory scale control Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset Pilot scale control Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset Original gravity 1087.1 1094.5 1092.2 1102.9 1100.4 1086.8 1089.6 pH 5.66 5.63 5.61 5.65 5.65 5.60 5.61 FAN (mg/L) 207.4 281.4 229.1 314.5 245.5 205.2 249.6 Sugars (g/L) Glucose 0.08 0.69 0.55 1.03 0.41 0.33 0.30 Fructose 4.73 1.52 4.45 2.28 0.15 0.07 Sucrose 240.76 260.33 230.28 255.55 277.86 256.54 248.34
123
Fig. 1. Specific gravity during laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. = Laboratory scale control. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset. = Pilot scale control. = Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset.
Fig. 2. pH levels during laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. = Laboratory scale control. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset. = Pilot scale control. = Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset.
Sugar levels Levels of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose and maltotriose were measured by HPLC. The system consisted of a Dionex Carbopak PA-100 guard column (4 mm 50 mm), a Dionex PA-100 column (4 mm 250 mm) and a
124 JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF BREWING
Dionex PAD electrochemical detector (all Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, California, USA). The eluent used was 500 mM NaOH and cellobiose was used as the internal standard. This system also detected the presence of glycerol. This appeared as an unknown peak on the chromatographs and was identified by running potential chemicals
Fig. 3. Total cell number during laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. = Laboratory scale control. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset. = Pilot scale control. = Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset.
Fig. 4. Yeast viability during laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. = Laboratory scale control. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset. = Pilot scale control. = Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset.
on the system until a match was found, quantitative analysis was not attempted. Free amino nitrogen Free Amino Nitrogen (FAN) was measured according to the IOB method 8.3 7.
Volatile concentrations Levels of acetaldehyde, acetone, esters and higher alcohols in the low wines were measured using Headspace GC. The system consisted of a Hewlett Packard 5890 Series II GC with a split-splitless injector (Hewlett Packard
VOL. 112, NO. 2, 2006 125
Fig. 5. Free amino nitrogen during laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. = Laboratory scale control. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset. = Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset. = Pilot scale control. = Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset.
Fig. 6. Sugar uptake during laboratory (2 L) scale fermentations. = Sucrose. = Glucose. = Fructose.
Ltd, Stockport, England) with a FID, a Chrompack CPWax-57-CB column (0.23 mm 60 m) (Chrompack International BV) and a Hewlett Packard 19395A autosampler with a 1 mL injection loop. The internal standard used was 3-heptanone. Confocal microscopy Samples of healthy and boiled yeast were examined using a confocal microscope to investigate the effects of distillation. To gauge the effect on cell walls, cells were
126 JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF BREWING
stained for trehalose with concanavalin A fluoresceinconjugate (Con-A-fluorescein) according to the method of Hutter et al. 6 To gauge the effect on cell contents, cells were stained for DNA content with propidium iodide following RNAse digestion according to the methods of Hutter 4, and Hutter and Eipel 5. The samples were examined using a DM-IRE2 Confocal Fluorescence Microscope with a Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope Attachment (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany). Both stains underwent excitation at a
wavelength of 488 nm, Con-A-fluorescein emitted detectable light at 500542 nm and propidium iodide at 618 710 nm. The data were digitized to produce a photographic record.
also been observed with some brewing yeast strains, where glucose is taken up preferentially due to the yeast sugar transport system having a higher affinity for glucose than fructose 2. The control fermentations produced an average ethanol level of 13.2% (v/v). Data from the fermented molasses are shown in Table II. The final gravity was 990 and the residual gravity was 1007.3. This was found to be caused mainly by glycerol, but some residual fructose was detected. The fermented syrups were distilled to give spirit (low wines) and spent wash. Data on the spent wash are shown in Table II, gravity, FAN and sugar levels all increased in comparison to the residual gravity. This is due to the concentrating effect of distillation and extraction of sugars and amino acids from yeast cells during boiling. Data on the low wines are shown in Table III, it can be seen that the spirit had low levels of volatiles other than ethanol, they also had clean aromas. Most of the volatiles present are higher alcohols principally 2 and 3 methyl butanol (amyl and iso amyl alcohol) but also propanol (propan-1-ol) and isobutanol (2-methyl propanol). Levels of acetaldehyde and ethyl acetate are significant, levels of other esters are low. The ethanol content of this spirit was 41.1% (v/v).
TABLE II. Analysis of fermented beet syrups and spent wash samples from laboratory (2 L) and pilot scale (2 hL) fermentations. Sample Laboratory scale control Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset Laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset Spent wash from laboratory scale control Spent wash from laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset Spent wash from laboratory scale OG 1088 with 50% backset Spent wash from laboratory scale OG 1096 with 100% backset Spent wash from laboratory scale OG 1096 with 50% backset Pilot scale control Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset Spent wash from pilot scale control Spent wash from pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset Final gravity 990.0 994.1 991.1 993.7 993.2 988.0 992.6 Residual gravity 1007.3 1011.6 1008.5 1012.9 1012.3 1010.1 1016.7 1012.3 1017.9 1016.6 1005.2 1009.3 1012.7 1021.1 pH 3.67 4.75 4.14 4.89 4.39 3.61 4.53 3.94 4.59 4.13 3.74 4.04 3.80 3.87 FAN (mg/L) 46.0 75.8 36.3 106.0 57.3 83.7 155.7 104.3 145.5 116.6 55.8 113.6 129.5 207.1 Ethanol (% v/v) 13.2 13.9 13.4 14.9 14.8 13.3 13.5 Residual sugars (g/L) Glucose 0.42 0.91 0.76 1.23 0.88 0.62 1.81 1.19 1.59 1.16 0.68 0.92 1.66 1.64 Fructose 5.63 0.04 0.35 2.27 11.70 6.01 0.04 0.21 1.93 12.46 3.52 7.11 Sucrose 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.11
TABLE III. Volatiles in low wines produced from laboratory and pilot scale fermentations (mg/L). Laboratory scale OG 1088 with 100% backset 304.89 2.81 52.04 6.72 1.08 0.72 66.54 317.67 372.32 542.37 42.4 OG 1088 with 50% backset 250.84 3.16 46.56 3.33 1.02 0.51 56.85 335.73 393.14 596.07 43.0 OG 1096 with 100% backset 307.12 4.52 53.79 9.14 1.14 0.94 91.65 355.84 422.69 497.96 50.8 OG 1096 with 50% backset 318.01 65.29 5.79 0.89 1.18 67.48 340.86 404.52 532.18 47.0 Pilot scale OG 1088 with 30% backset 198.6 8.5 17.1 1.2 0.2 42.1 234.5 238.3 277.8 27.6
Compound Acetaldehyde Acetone Ethyl acetate Isobutyl acetate Ethyl butyrate Isoamyl acetate Ethyl hexanoate Ethyl octanoate Propan-1-ol Isobutanol 2-Methyl butanol 3-Methyl butanol Ethanol (% v/v)
Control 184.43 86.34 12.38 0.82 61.04 254.34 359.10 426.39 41.1
Control 214.3 5.9 30.2 1.3 0.5 0.2 47.0 157.8 176.9 353.7 24.2
127
Fig. 7. Sugar uptake during pilot scale (2 hL) control fermentations. = Sucrose. = Glucose. = Fructose.