Abstract
Traditionally, as much as 80% or more of an ethanol fermentation broth is water that must be removed. This mixture is not only costly to separate but also produces a large aqueous stream that must then be disposed of or recycled. Integrative approaches to water reduction include increasing the biomass concentration during fermentation. In this paper, experimental results are presented for the rheological behavior of high-solids enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation for biomass conversion using Solka Floc as the model feedstock. The experimental determination of the viscosity, shear stress, and shear rate relationships of the 10 to 20% slurry concentrations with constant enzyme concentrations are performed with a variable speed rotational viscometer (2.0 to 200 rpm) at 40 °C. The viscosities of enzymatic suspension observed were in range of 0.0418 to 0.0144, 0.233 to 0.0348, and 0.292 to 0.0447 Pa s for shear rates up to 100 reciprocal seconds at 10, 15, and 20% initial solids (w/v), respectively. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of bioreactor mixing demonstrates the change in bioreactor mixing with increasing biomass concentration. The portion-loading method is shown to be effective for processing high-solids slurries.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- τ :
-
shear stress, Pa
- τ y :
-
yield shear stress, Pa
- n :
-
flow behavior index, dimensionless
- K :
-
consistency index constant, Pa sn
- R 2 :
-
linear regression correlation coefficient, dimensionless
References
Renewable Fuels Association (REF) (2006). Ethanol industry outlook: from niche to nation. Washington, DC: USDA.
Ingledew, W. M. (1993). Yeast for production of fuel ethanol. In A. H., Rose, & J. S., Harrison (Eds.) The yeast. Yeast technology(vol. 5, 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic.
Varga, E., Klinke, H. B., Réczey, K, & Thomsen, A. B. (2004). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 88, 567–574.
Philippidis, G. P., & Hatzis, C. (1997). Biotechnology Progress, 13(3), 222–231.
Lübbert, A., & JØrgensen, B. S. (2001). Journal of Biotechnology, 85(2), 187–212.
Mohagheghi, A., Tucker, M., Grohman, K., & Wyman, C. E. (1992). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 33, 67–81.
Pimenova, N. V., & Hanley, T. R. (2003). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 105(108), 353–364.
Ranatunga, T. D., Jervis, J., Helm, R. F., McMillan, J. D., & Wooley, R. J. (2000). Enzyme and, Microbial Technology, 27, 240–247.
Labuza, T. P., Barrera Santos, D., & Roop, R. N. (1970). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 12, 123–134.
Mancini, M., & Moresi, M. (2000). Journal of Food Engineering, 44, 225–231.
Speers, R. A., Durance, T. D., Tung, M. A., & Tou, J. (1993). Biotechnology Progress, 9, 267–272.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support of the Dahlem Supercomputer Laboratory at the University of Louisville. We also wish to thank Mr. Nathan P. Johnson and Dr. Eric Berson for their valuable discussion and the technical support of this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Um, BH., Hanley, T.R. A Comparison of Simple Rheological Parameters and Simulation Data for Zymomonas mobilis Fermentation Broths with High Substrate Loading in a 3-L Bioreactor. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 145, 29–38 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-007-8105-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-007-8105-z