Biorefinery for Corn Dry Grind Production Associate Professor Department of Agricultural & Biological Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Workshop Biorefineries: Recent Advances and New Challenges Rio de Janeiro, Brazil November 10-12, 2010 U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption 8,989,000 barrels/day (2008) 378 million gallons/day 137 billion gallons/yr US dependence on net Petroleum imports 57% Source: Energy Information Administration University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1
EISA Mandated Biofuel Production Targets Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) Conventional (Starch) Biofuel Biomass-based diesel Cellulosic Biofuels Other Advanced Biofuels 15 BGY cap on conventional (starch) biofuel 2022 2015 2012 Advanced Biofuels (include cellulosic biofuels other than starch-based ethanol) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Production Targets (Billions of Gallons) EISA defines Cellulosic Biofuel as renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin that is derived from renewable biomass and that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 60 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA interprets this to include cellulosic-based diesel fuel. EISA defines Advanced Biofuel as renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch, that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. This includes biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuels, and other advanced fuels such as sugarcane-based ethanol. Different Integrated Biorefineries Corn University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2
World Corn Production, 2010 South Africa Ukraine 2% 1% Canada 1% Others India 14% 2% Argentina 2% United States 42% Mexico 3% EU 7% China 20% Brazil 6% USDA/FAS, January 2010 US Corn Use, 2010 HFCS 460 4% Starch 230 2% 4,200 32% Sweeteners 230 2% Dry Grind Cereal/Other 193 1% Wet Milling/ Dry Milling Alcohol 134 1% Seed 23 0% Feed/Residual 5,550 42% Units = Million Bushels/yr Export 2,050 16% USDA/ERS, January 2010 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 3
Composition of Corn Kernel Pericarp Endosperm Germ Tip Cap Wet Milling Industry University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4
Corn Wet Milling Corn Wet Milling Facility One bushel of Corn (24.5 kg or 56 lb) 1.5 lb (0.68 kg) of Corn Oil 2.5 gal (9.46 L) of Poultry Food 12.4 lb (5.62 kg) of Gluten Feed 3 lb (1.36) of Gluten Meal Ruminant Food U.S. Corn Wet-Milling Facilities Source: USDA-NASS 2002 Census of Agriculture Cargill CPI ADM ADM Penford ADM Cargill Cargill GPC ADM CPICargill Cargill T&L AVRE T&L National Roquette ADMT&L T&L T&L Cargill National GPC CPI Cargill Cargill T&L T&L Cargill University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 5
Size of Corn Storage Facility University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 6
Corn Wet Milling Industry $14.0 billion industry 1000 different products are produced from corn Food Feed Fuel Industrial Products Dry Grind Process Corn Dry Grind Facility One bushel of Corn (25.4 kg or 56 lb) 2.7 gal (10.2 L) of 15 lb (6.8 kg) of DDGS Ruminant Food University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 7
Dry Grind Plants Source: RFA Jan 2010 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 8
Conventional Dry Grind Process Corn Water Grinding (Hammermill) Mash Blending CO 2 Overhead product (Recycled back) Alpha-Amylase Liquefaction Yeast & Dehydration column Glucoamylase Thin Saccharification & Centrifuge Stillage Fermentation Stripping/ Rectifying column Syrup Wet Grains DDGS Evaporator DDGS Utilization in US University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 9
200 corn DDGS 150 Value ($/to on) 100 50 0 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/feedgrainsqueriable.aspx Corn Fractionation Technologies University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 10
Wet Fractionation Soaking corn in water and separating coproducts in aqueous medium Uses wet grinding mills, hydrocyclones and screens for separation Example of Wet Fractionation: Enzymatic Dry Grind Corn Process (E-Mill) Bushel of Corn (25.4 kg or 56 lb) Corn Dry Grind Facility Density Density Size 2.6 gal Separation Separation Separation (9.84 L) 3.3 lb (1.49 kg) Germ 4 lb (1.81 kg) Pericarp Fiber 4 lb (1.81 kg) Endosperm Fiber 3.7 lb (1.68 kg) Residual DDGS Ruminant Food Nonruminant Food Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Naidu, K., Rausch, K.D., Belyea, R.L. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison of modified dry grind corn processes for fermentation characteristics and DDGS composition. Cereal Chem. 82:187-190. Wang, P., Singh, V., Xu, L., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison of enzymatic (E-Mill) and conventional dry grind corn processes using a granular starch hydrolyzing enzyme. Cereal Chem. 82:734-738. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 11
Enzymatic Dry Grind Corn Process (E-Mill) Corn Soaking Incubation Enzymes (GSH + Protease) Grinding (Degermination mill) Fine Grinding (Degermination mill) Germ & Fiber Dryer Germ & Fiber Germ clones Pericarp Fiber Air Germ Aspirator CO 2 Overhead (Recycled) Liquefaction Yeast & Enzymes Saccharification & Fermentation Stripping/ Rectifying column Dehydration column Screens Endosperm Fiber E-Mill DDGS Wang, P., Singh, V., Xu, L., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison of enzymatic (E-Mill) and conventional dry grind corn processes using a granular starch hydrolyzing enzyme. Cereal Chem. 82:734-738. Fermentation Profiles: Conventional and E-Mill Processes 14 Concentration %v v/v 12 10 8 6 4 2 100% 64% Conventional E-Mill Conventional Rate E-Mill Rate 0 0 20 40 60 80 Fermentation Time (hr) Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Naidu, K., Rausch, K.D., Belyea, R.L. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison of modified dry grind corn processes for fermentation characteristics and DDGS composition. Cereal Chem. 82:187-190. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12
DDGS Composition: Wet Fractionation (E-Mill Process) Conv. E-Mill SBM CGM Crude 28.50 58.50 53.90 66.70 Protein (%) Crude Fat 12.70 4.53 1.11 2.77 (%) Ash (%) 3.61 3.24 ---- ---- Acid Det. 10.8 2.03 5.95 6.88 Fiber (%) Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Naidu, K., Rausch, K.D., Belyea, R.L. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison of modified dry grind corn processes for fermentation characteristics and DDGS composition. Cereal Chem. 82:187-190. Grain Dry Fractionation Tempering corn with steam or hot water and dry separation of coproducts Uses dry degerminators, gravity tables and sifters for separation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 13
Example of Corn Dry Fractionation: Dry Degerm Defiber Process (3D Process) Bushel of Corn (25.4 kg or 56 lb) Dry Grind Facility Size and Density Separation 2.5 gal (9.46 L) 4 lb (1.81 kg) Germ + 7.0 lb (3.17 kg) Residual DDGS 4 lb (1.81 kg) Pericarp Fiber Ruminant Food Nonruminant Food Murthy, G.S., Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2006. Evaluation and strategies to improve fermentation characteristics of modified dry grind corn processes. Cereal Chem. 83:455-459. Example of Dry Fractionation: 3D Process Corn Steam Tails (Grits) Beall Degerminator Sifter Throughsh Roller Mill (Germ + Pericarp Fiber) Endosperm Fraction Hammer Mill Water Saccharification & Fermentation Mash CO 2 Liquefaction Yeast & Enzymes Stripping/ Rectifying column Pericarp Fiber Germ Overhead product (Recycled back) Dehydration column Centrifuge Wet Grains Thin Stillage Murthy, G.S., Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2006. Evaluation and strategies to improve fermentation characteristics of modified dry grind corn processes. Cereal Chem. 83:455-459. Evaporator Syrup 3D DDGS University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 14
Other Benefits of Fractionation Processes: Recovery of Valuable Coproducts Recovery of germ, pericarp and endosperm fiber as valuable coproducts Germ Corn Germ Oil Pericarp and Endosperm Fiber Corn Fiber Oil Corn Fiber Gum Recovery of fzi Zein from E-Mill DDGS Fiber Gum Fiber Oil Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Naidu, K., Rausch, K.D., Belyea, R.L. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2005. Comparison of modified dry grind corn processes for fermentation characteristics and DDGS composition. Cereal Chem. 82:187-190. Dien, B.S., Johnston, D.B., Hicks, K.B., Cotta, M.A. and Singh, V. 2005. Hydrolysis and fermentation of pericarp and endosperm fiber recovered from enzymatic corn dry grind process. Cereal Chem. 82:616-620. Corn Fractionation Plants Dry Fractionation Plants Poet Research Center Scotland, SD Poet Biorefining Glennville East Albert Lea, MN Renew Energy Jefferson, WI Poet Biorefining Coon Rapids, IA Lifeline Foods St. Joseph, MO Wet Fractionation Plant Badger State Monroe, WI University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 15
Other Fractionation Technologies Corn Water Grinding (Hammermill) Mash Blending CO 2 Overhead product (Recycled back) Alpha-Amylase Liquefaction Yeast & Dehydration column Glucoamylase Thin Saccharification & Centrifuge Stillage Fermentation Stripping/ Rectifying column Syrup Wet Grains DDGS Evaporator Oil Zein Fiber Thanks! University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 16