Effect of Temperature on Starch Decomposition to Optimize Mash Tun Operation for the Design of a...

1

Effect of Temperature on Starch Decomposition to

Optimize Mash Tun Operation for the Design of a Brewery

Brittany BeachamRay Filosa

Mark Williams

2

Outlineo Overall Processo Motivation and Design Goalso Component Balanceso Equipment and Raw Material Costso Product Distributiono Laboro Energy Requirementso Mash Tun Optimizationo HPLC Analysis of Sugarso Kinetic Modelo Brewing Schedule Optimizationo Environmental Concernso Profitability Analysiso Conclusions

3

Overall Process

Screw Auger

Grain TruckSilo

Grain Mill

Steam Generator

Boiling Kettle

Mash Tun

Instant Water Heater

City Water

Fermentation Tank

Heat Exchanger

Cooling Unit

In House Kegs

Bottler/labeler

Keg Filler

CO2 Tank

Brightening Tank

Filter

Figure 1. Process Flow Sheet

4

Motivation

Brewery Specificationso 13,000 barrels a year

o Considered a microbrewery

o Brew 4 times a week, 192 times per year

Brewery Location

Storrs, CT

o High consumer demand

o Unlimited market present

o Local distribution opportunities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CTMap-doton-Storrs.png

5

Design GoalsOptimization of Brewing Process Through:

Mash Temperature Optimization

1 Experimentally tested mash temperatures of 55°C, 63°C, and 70°C using HPLC

1 Developed a kinetic model with experimental data in order to find desired sugar

profiles for each temperature to create high quality product

1 Determine the effect of sugar profiles on body, and taste

Weekly Batch Schedule

1 Examined two different methods for brewing four batches a week to

reduce energy costs per year.

Closed Mass and Energy Balances

Profitability Analysis on the entire process

6

Silo & Milling

http://defendingveggies.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html

1

Screw Auger 2

Mass Balance

In Out

2705 lb Grain 2705 lb Grain

Energy Required – 34.86 kW / Batch

Operation Cost – $3.55 / BatchAssumptions:• No losses during milling

Figure 2. Grain Mill

7

Mashing

http://www.brewplants.com/mMashTun.html

Instant Water Heater

City Water

To Boil KettleGrain

9308 Water (lbs) 16453 Water (lbs)2705 Milled Grain (lbs) 1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)

9308 Water (lbs) 2164 Water (lbs)755 Un-Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)

Check 0

Wort (Sweet)

Spent Grain

InfusionOutIn

Mass Balance

Sparging

Strike Water Temperature: 75°CMash Temperature: 70°C

( (𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑆𝐺 )−1 )∗1000=𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠(𝐺𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 )∗ (𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠 )=𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡

(𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛%)∗(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠)=𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛

𝐶𝐺𝐷𝐵 /𝐹𝐺𝐷𝐵∗46∗𝐵𝐻𝑌=𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑

Grain Needed: Brewing Science and Practice

𝑇 h𝑚𝑎𝑠 (𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐻2𝑂+ (0.4∗𝑘𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 ))−

0.4∗𝑘𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛∗𝑇 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐻2𝑂

=𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒

Water Temperatures: The Brewer’s Handbook

Assumptions:• Adiabatic mash tun• No wort losses• Spent grain contained 80%

wt/water Figure 3. Mash Tun

8

Wort Boiling

http://www.brewplants.com/mBrewKettle.html

City Water

From Mash

Wort

16453 Water (lbs) 15417 Water (lbs)1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs) 1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)

9.1 Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)

60.9 Hops (lbs) 51.8 Un-Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)48.8 Water

987 Water (lbs)

Check 0

Mass Balance

In Out

Wort (Sweet) Wort (Bittered)

TrubHopping

Evaporated

Assumptions:• Adiabatic steam kettle• Hot break mass negligible• No wort losses• 4% evaporative water losses per hour• 15% hops are soluble• Trub contains 80% wt/water

Figure 4. Wort Boiler Kettle

9

Wort BoilingSteam Requirements for Boil Kettle

𝑄=16453 𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟2.204 𝑙𝑏𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑘𝑔

∗4.2055𝑘𝐽

𝑘𝑔∗𝐾∗ ( (100 °C+273 ° C )− (70 ° C+273 ° C ) )=941,829𝑘𝐽

𝑄=𝑚∗𝐶𝑝∗ Δ𝑇

Energy of Evaporation

Energy to Boil

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑬𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 𝑹𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒅=(𝟏 ,𝟎𝟏𝟎 ,𝟔𝟖𝟓𝒌𝑱+𝟗𝟒𝟏 ,𝟖𝟐𝟗𝒌𝑱 )∗ 𝟎 .𝟗𝟒𝟖𝑩𝑻𝑼𝒌𝑱

=𝟏 ,𝟖𝟓𝟗 ,𝟓𝟗𝟏𝑩𝑻𝑼

@ 100 PSI and 600°F -

𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟 h𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑐 =1,859,591𝐵𝑇𝑈∗𝑙𝑏

1329.3𝐵𝑇𝑈=𝟏𝟑𝟗𝟐 .𝟏𝟓𝒍𝒃

Total Steam Needed

http://www.parkerboiler.com/

Figure 5. Steam Boiler

10

http://www.parkerboiler.com/

Wort Boiling

1,859,591𝐵𝑇𝑈0.84

=2,203,084𝐵𝑇𝑈

Natural Gas Needed to Feed to Boiler

Boiler Runs at 84% Efficiency

2,203,084 𝐵𝑇𝑈∗ 𝑓𝑡 3

1000𝐵𝑇𝑈=2,203.08

𝑓𝑡3𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙𝐺𝑎𝑠h𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑐

Natural Gas Contains

Item Provider Amount (Batch)

Unit Price Price (Batch) Price (Year)

Natural Gas DOE Connecticut 2203.08 ft3 $0.0095 / ft3 $20.84 $4,001.50

Table 1. Natural Gas Costs

11

httwww.agcengineering.com/c_downloads/Pro3-SH%20Spec.pdf

Wort Cooling & Aeration

Heat Exchanger

Hot Wort

Cooled Water

Heated Water

Cooled Wort

http://www.agcengineering.com/c_downloads/Pro3-SH%20Spec.pdf

Oxygen

15417 Water (lbs) 15417 Water (lbs)1959 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs) 1959 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)

0.127 Oxygen (lbs)

0.127 Oxygen (lbs)

Check 0

Wort (Warm/Un-aired)

Oxygen

Wort (Cool/Aerated)

Mass Balance

In Out

𝑞=𝑚𝑡𝐶𝑝

Δ𝑇

Mass Flow Rates (kg/s)In Out In-Out

Wort 212 70 12.6Chiller Water 32 182 13.3

Temperatures (°F)Energy Balance

Figure 6. Heat Exchanger

12

Fermentation

Beer

Wort from Heat Exchanger

Used Coolant back to Chiller

Coolant from Chiller

Yeast

15417 Water (lbs) 15370 Water (lbs)1959 Total Dissolved Material (lbs) 711 Ethanol (lbs)

490 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)680 CO2 (lbs)

16.1 Yeast (lbs) 78.21 Yeast (lbs)63 Water Absorbed (lbs)

Check 0

Unfermented Wort Green Beer

Post-FermentationPre-Fermentation

Mass Balance

In Out

http://www.toreuse.com/every-sti-fermenting-tank/

Assumptions:• Yeast attenuation of 75%• Mass of extract as glucose

Figure 7. Fermentation Tank

13

Fermentation

𝐶6𝐻12𝑂6→2𝐶2𝐻5𝑂𝐻+2𝐶𝑂2

𝐻 ° 𝑓=∑𝐻 ° 𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠−∑𝐻 ° 𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠

𝐻 ° 𝑓=−73.4𝑘𝑗𝑚𝑜𝑙

h𝐶 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑=Δ 73 °𝐶

Glycol/Water Cooling Unit

73.4𝑘𝑗𝑚𝑜𝑙

∗1950 𝑙𝑏𝑠∗453.59𝑔𝑙𝑏𝑠

∗𝑚𝑜𝑙

180.16𝑔∗75 %=−270,269.5𝑘𝑗

Mass Flow Rates (kg/s)In Out In-Out

Wort 201.4 70 -Chiller Water 32 32 13.3

Energy BalanceTemperatures (°F)

14

Item Manufacturer Price

Silo Brock Grain Systems $10,000.00

Auger 1 N/A $7,000.00

Auger 2 N/A $7,000.00

Mill Pleasant Hill Grain Company $7,100.00

Grain Vacuum JET $499.00

Mash Pump AAA Metal Fabrication $2,471.00

Brew Pump AAA Metal Fabrication $4,276.00

DE Filter Della Toffola $73,633.86

Mash Tun AAA Metal Fabrication $42,336.00

Boil Kettle AAA Metal Fabrication $33,048.00

Heat Exchanger AAA Metal Fabrication $15,000.00

Fermentation Tank (8) AAA Metal Fabrication $268,096.00

Brightening Tank (8) AAA Metal Fabrication $242,232.00

Refridgeration Room Foster Coolers $5,199.00

Bottling Machine Ager Tank & Equipment $51,635.00

Labeling Machine Ager Tank & Equipment $19,800.00

Kegging Machine Ager Tank & Equipment $18,900.00

Hot Water Heater Hubble $5,000.00

Glycol-Water Chiller Glycol Chillers $24,000.00

Steam Boiler AAA Metal Fabrication $113,890.00

Piping AAA Metal Fabrication $33,238.00

Total Equipment CostsTable 2: Equipment Costs

Total Equipment Cost $984,354

15

Raw Material Costs

Item Manufacturer Amount (Batch) Unit Price Price (Batch) Shipping Price (Year) Price (Year)

2-Row BarleyCanada Malting

Company2387 lbs $0.35 / lb $835.45 Included $160,406.40

Caramel MaltThomas Faucet and

Sons159 lbs $0.013 / lb $2.07 $1,344.00 $1,740.86

Carapils MaltMalteries Franco-

Belges159 lbs $0.012 / lb $1.91 $1,344.00 $1,710.34

Diatomaceous Earth Country Malt 50 lbs $0.72 / lb $36.00 $480.00 $7,392.00

Saaz Hops Country Malt 24.4 lbs $7.26 / lb $177.14 Included $34,011.65

Casecade Hops Country Malt 36.6 lbs $6.17 / lb $225.82 Included $43,357.82

British Ale Yeast (WLP005)

White Labs 34.5 lbs $132.64 / lb $25.42 Included $4,576.08

Table 3#: Raw Material Costs

Total Yearly Raw Material Cost $263,470

http://countrymaltgroup.com/Figure 8. Great Malt Group

16

Product Distribution

Distributed (99%) Number/Batch Number/Month Unit Price Monthly Sales Yearly Sales

Kegs 63.0 1006 $85.00 / keg $85,510.00 $1,026,120.00

Bottles (24 Pack) 430 6880 $18.00 / 24 Pack $123,840.00 $1,486,080.00

Distributed Product (99%)

Table 4: Distribution of product

In House (1%) Number/Batch Number/Month Unit Price Monthly Sales Yearly Sales

Kegs 1 16 $4.50 / pint $8,928.00 $107,136.00

Bottles 20 320 N/A N/A N/A

In House Product (1%)Table 5: Distribution of in house product

Total Monthly Sales - $218,278.00

Total Yearly Sales - $2,619,336.00

Distributed Kegs

Distributed Bottles

In House Sales

$1,026,120

$1,486,080

$107,136

Figure 9. Product Distribution

17

Labor Costs

Position Yearly Salary

Proprietor $100,000

Secretary $30,000

Head Brewer $55,000

Cleaner $30,000

Brewers Assistant $30,000

Inventory/Distribution Specialist $35,000

Total Yearly Labor Cost$280,000Figure 10. Labor Distribution Tree

Table 6: Yearly Salaries

18

Energy Requirement

Component Energy Required (Batch)

Energy Required (Year) Energy Cost (Batch) Energy Cost (Year)

Auger 1 0.196 kW 37.632 kW $0.0200 $3.83

Auger 2 0.196 kW 37.632 kW $0.0200 $3.83

Mill 34.856 kW 6692.352 kW $3.5511 $681.82

Grain Vacuum 1.13 kW 216.96 kW $0.1151 $22.10

Brewing Pump 3.51 kW 673.92 kW $0.3576 $68.66

Mash Pump 0.097 kW 18.624 kW $0.0099 $1.90

DE Filter 20.74 kW 3982.08 kW $2.1130 $405.69

Mash Tun 2.24 kW 430.08 kW $0.23 $43.82

Refrigeration Room 1.864 kW 134.208 kW $0.19 $13.67

Bottling Machine 4.32 kW 829.44 kW $0.4401 $84.50

Labeling Machine 0.054 kW 10.368 kW $0.0055 $1.06

Kegging Machine 3.3 kW 633.6 kW $0.34 $64.55

Hot Water Heater 40.63 kW 7800.96 kW $4.14 $794.76

Glycol-Water Chiller 660 kW 237600 kW $67.24 $24,206.69

Table 7: Brewery’s Energy Requirements

Total Energy Cost (Batch)$ 78.77

Total Energy Cost (Year)$ 26,637

CL&P supplies electricity at $0.10188/kW

19

Mash Tun Optimization Starch decomposition during mashing produces fermentable

and un-fermentable sugars o Malted barley starches - amylose and amylopectin

Enzymes o Alpha Amylase: 60˚C – 70˚C, not selective for cleaving

o Thicker, less alcohol, more sugar flavorso Beta Amylase: 55˚C– 65˚C, produces maltose

o Dryer beer, more alcoholic, malt flavor

Sugars define the taste profile and overall quality of end producto Yeast can ferment mono-, di-, and tri-saccharideso Higher order sugars contribute to flavor and body

Analyze starch decomposition to optimize mashing temperature

http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu/fst605/ lectures/lect14.html

Figure 11. MAltose

20

Mash Tun Optimization

High Performance Liquid Chromatography

Column separates molecules based on molecular size and hydrophobic interaction

Two types of HPLCo Reverse Phase – nonpolar stationary phase and less

hydrophobic mobile phaseo Normal Phase – polar stationary phase and more

hydrophobic mobile phase

Detectiono Refractive Index - measure the bending of a ray of

light passing through two mediumso Angle of refraction

o UV-Viso Fluorescence

HPLC Analysis of Sugars

Figure 12. HPLC Chromatogram

21

HPLC Analysis of Sugarso Experimental Procedure:

o Brewed at 3 mashing temperatures - 55˚C, 63˚C, 70˚C

o Sampled mash every 5 minutes for 60 minute durationo Quenched reaction with 0.1M NH3OH and placed in ice bath

Figure 13. Experimental Setup Figure 14. Sampling!

22


o Centrifuged samples o Spinning at 1500-2000 rpm for 30 minuteso Supernatant transferred to vials

o Brought pH to 6.8 with NaOH

Figure 15. Centrifuge

Figure 16. Transferring Supernatant Figure 17. pH system

23


o Diluted samples 100x with mobile phase (75% Acetonitrile)

o Filtered through 0.45µm syringe filters into HPLC vials

o Standard solutions prepared before injecting samples

Figure 17. Dilution Figure 18. Transferring to HPLC vials

24

HPLC Analysis of Sugars

Item Description/Operating Conditions

Column Akzo Nobel Kromasil 100 Å, 5 μm, NH2, 4.6 ×

250 mm

Mobile Phase 75% Acetonitrile

Time Program Isocratic Method

Flow Rate

Time (minutes)

0.01 Operation

55.01 Controller Start

1.00 mL/min Controller Stop

Detection Refractive Index

Sample Dilution 100x

Sample pH ~ 6.8

Autosampler Temperature 25 °C

Column Oven Temperature 35 °C

Run Time 55 minutes

o Experimental Procedure:

Figure 19. HPLC Column

Table 8: Method

25

Experimental Resultso Results: Standard Solutions

Minutes

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0

mVolts

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

mVolts

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

652284

264969

223768

330348

3276

279009

8050

3929

483

390

1085

778

253127

797

3029

3654

16352

28162

242

4546

929

9230

2856

10092

3248

17261

3246

9654

2086

Analog - Analog Board 2Sugar Standard Solution 2500 ppm

Area

Fruc

tose

Dex

tros

e

Sucr

ose

Mal

tose

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

26

Experimental Resultso Results: Calibration Curve

Minutes

2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5

mVolts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

mVolts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55



Analog - Analog Board 2Suger Standard 1500 ppm



500 ppm

1000 ppm

1500 ppm

2000 ppm

2500 ppm

27

Experimental Resultso Results:

Calibration Expressions for Sugars

Sugar y variable x variable Calibration Line Equation

Fructose Peak Area ppm y = 105.68x + 19327

Dextrose Peak Area ppm y = 83.379x + 477.5

Sucrose Peak Area ppm y = 121.37x + 15671

Maltose Peak Area ppm y = 108.34x - 8671.2

Maltotriose Peak Area ppm y = 103.84x - 12110

Maltotetraose Peak Area ppm y = 26.747x - 5833.2

Figure 19. Representative Calibration Curve

Table 9: Calibration Curve Summary

28

Experimental Resultso Results: T = 70˚C Data

Minutes

2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5

mVo

lts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

mVolts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Analog - Analog Board 270C t=5











t = 5 min

t = 10 min

t = 15 min

t = 20 min

t = 30 min

t = 35 min

t = 40 min

t = 45 min

t = 50 min

t = 55 min

t = 60 min

mVo

lts

Minutes

Fruc

tose

Dex

tros

e

Sucr

ose M

alto

se

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

29


0 10 20 30 40 50 600.00E+00

5.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.50E+05

2.00E+05

2.50E+05

3.00E+05T = 70 C Sugar Profile

Maltose Maltotetraose Dextrose Maltotriose Sucrose

Time (Min)

ppm

30


Minutes

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0

mVo

lts

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

mVolts

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120













t = 5 mint = 10 min

t = 15 min

t = 20 min

t = 30 min

t = 35 min

t = 40 mint = 45 mint = 50 min

t = 60 minFruc

tose

Dex

tros

e

Sucr

ose M

alto

se

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

t = 25 min

t = 0 min

31


0 10 20 30 40 50 600.0E+00

5.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.5E+05

2.0E+05

2.5E+05

3.0E+05

3.5E+05

4.0E+05

4.5E+05T = 63 C Sugar Profile

Dextrose Maltose Maltotriose Maltotetraose

Time (Minutes)

ppm

32


Minutes

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0

mVo

lts

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

mVolts

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120Analog - Analog Board 255C t=0












t = 0 min

t = 5 mint = 10 min

Fruc

tose

Dex

tros

e

Sucr

ose

Mal

tose

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

t = 15 mint = 20 mint = 25 mint = 30 mint = 35 min

t = 40 min

t = 50 min

t = 60 mint = 55 min

33


0 10 20 30 40 50 600.0E+00

5.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.5E+05

2.0E+05

2.5E+05

3.0E+05

3.5E+05T = 55C Sugar Profile

Dextrose Fructose Maltose Sucrose Maltotetraose

Time (Minutes)

ppm

34

HPLC Analysis of SugarsResults: Summary

End point of Sugars and Sum (concentrations = grams/lit)

Fructose Dextrose Sucrose Maltose Malt-3 Malt-4 Sum Total Conc. Total HOS

70 C 27.04 65.43 20.56 220.51 46.18 120.22 499.93 1039.92 660.21

63 C 6.32 161.51 5.90 419.60 39.35 106.04 738.72 1035.92 403.24

55 C 32.44 132.44 2.60 289.62 9.82 46.36 513.28 1037.92 571.00

o The 70°C samples have less maltose than the 63°C and 55°C sampleso Lower alcohol content

o Higher concentration of maltotetraose and higher order sugars in the 70°C sample o Fuller bodied beer with deeper flavor profile

𝑆𝐺𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡70 𝐹=𝜌𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

Table 10: Sugar Concentrations

35

Sampling!

36

Kinetic ModelStarch

Higher Order SugarsMalto-

Tetraose

Malto-Triose

Maltose/Sucrose

Glucose /Fructose

k8

k4

k3

k2

k1

[S] → 1800/B [HOS]k8

[HOS] → H/1 [1]k1

[HOS] → H/2 [2]k2

[HOS] → H/3 [3]k3

[HOS] → H/4 [4]k4

Figure 20. Starch Decomposition

37

Kinetic ModelAssumptions:

o Amylose and Amylopectin were lumped together -> Starch

o Starch was assigned to be 1800 glucose unitso To write reaction stoichiometric equations

o Decomposition of higher order sugars (HOS) yielded:o Glucose/Fructoseo Maltose/Sucroseo Maltotrioseo Maltotetraose

o To compare against sugars measured in H.P.L.C.

o 1st order kinetics

38

Kinetic Model

]

o Rate Laws:o Reaction Rates:

𝑑 [𝑆 ]𝑑𝑡

=−𝑘8 [𝑆 ]

𝑑 [𝐻𝑂𝑆 ]𝑑𝑡

=1800𝐵𝑘8 [𝑆 ]− 𝐻

4𝑘4 [𝐻𝑂𝑆 ]− 𝐻

3𝑘3 [𝐻𝑂𝑆 ]− 𝐻

2𝑘2 [𝐻𝑂𝑆 ]−𝐻𝑘1[𝐻𝑂𝑆]

𝑑 [ 4 ]𝑑𝑡

=𝐻4𝑘4 [𝐻𝑂𝑆 ]

𝑑 [ 3 ]𝑑𝑡


𝑑 [ 2 ]𝑑𝑡


𝑑 [1 ]𝑑𝑡

=𝐻𝑘1 [𝐻𝑂𝑆 ]

39

Kinetic Modelo Results:

0 5 00 1 00 0 1 50 0 2 00 0 2 50 0 3 00 0 3 50 00 .0

0 .5

1 .0

1 .5

Time Seco nd s

Co

nce

ntr

atio

nmolLW ort Carb oh yd rate P ro fi le 6 3 Cels iu s

40

Kinetic Modelo Results: 63°C Data Experimental vs. Theoretical

Glucose/Fructose Maltose/Sucrose Malto-triose Malto-tetraose0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

1.4000

Modeled Experimental

Sugars

Conc

entr

ation

: mol

/lit

41

Brewing Schedule Optimization

Two Weekly Brewing Schedule Options

• Brewing 1950 gallon batches 4 times a week

Reasons for Optimization

• To optimize energy required to heat strike water for mashing for

each batch

• To Save in electricity cost used for mashing per year

42


Option 1 – Brew twice a day, two times a week

• Require 4 hours to heat water for each batch

• Require two instant hot water heaters

Total Energy Requirement Per Week - 813 kw

Hubble Instant Hot Water Heater Used

Option 2 – Brew once a day, four times a week

• Require 12 hours overnight to heat water for each batch

• Require one instant hot water heaters

Total Energy Requirement Per Week - 136.7 kw

43


Option 1 Option 20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Req

uire

d E

nerg

y (k

W)

• Option 2 provides an 83% reduction in required energy to mash per week.

• This brewery used option 2 in order to save on yearly energy costs

Figure 21. Brewing Schedule Energy Comparison

44

Environmental Concernso Solid Waste

o Yeast o Reused 180 times, then steralized and sent to farmers

o Liquid Waste o Waste Water

o CT DEP – General Permit for Miscellaneous Discharges of Sewer Compatible (MISC) Wastewater

o BOD5 level, pH, turbidity

o Cleaning Supplieso Biodegradable, environmentally friendly cleaners

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Sustainability/About/Partners.asp

o Diatomaceous Eartho Toxic and carcinogenic in dry form, but non-hazardous

when weto No federal or state regulations for disposal – can be

discharged or sent to landfill

http://www.ghorganics.com/DiatomaceousEarth.html

Figure 21. Diatomaceous Earth

Figure 22. DEP Logo

45

Spent Grains

Uses• Compost used as a growing medium

• Baked Goods

• Dog Biscuits

• Conversion to Ethanol

In This Brewery

Spent grains donated to local farmers

- Most cost effective method for disposal

- Farmer gains grains for free

http://beeractivist.com/2007/04/15/grains-of-possibility-ways-to-use-spent-brewing-grains/

Figure 23. Spent Grains

Profitability Analysis

Item Cost (Year)

Variable Costs

Raw Materials $984,354.00

Purchased Equipment Installation $29,530.62

Instrumentation & Controls $19,687.08

Buildings $590,612.40

Yard Improvements $9,843.54

Fixed Costs

Engineering and Supervision $98,435.40

Construction Expenses $78,748.32

Legal Expenses $9,843.54

Contractor’s Fee $19,687.08

Contingency $78,748.32

Working Capital $738,265.50

Table 11: Brewery’s Total Capital Investment

Total Capital Investment (TCI) $2,657,756

Total Capital Investment

Item Cost (Year)

Electricity $26,782.00

Manufactured Gas $6,273.43

Water Usage $2,649.83

Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal $1,908.00

Natural Gas $1,739.51

Table 12: Brewery’s Total Utility Cost

Utility Costs

Total Utility Cost - $39,353

47


Item Cost (Year)

Variable Costs

Raw Materials $263,470.00

Operating Labor $393,061.20

Operation Supervision $58,959.18

Utilities $39,352.77

Cleaning Supplies $3,235.00

Bottles and Labels $2,800.00

Fixed Charges

Property Taxes $39,434.01

Financing $157,736.03

Insurance $19,717.00

Plant Overhead $226,010.19

Payback Period2.5 years

Total Net Profit Over First 10 Years$ 5,790,000

Product Sales $2,619,336.00

Table 13: Brewery’s Annual TPC

Annual Total Production Cost

Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return chosen to be 20%

Return on Investment21.2 % per year

48


Item Unit Price Product Sales (Year)

Distributed Kegs $65 $784,680

Distributed Bottles (24 Pack) $13.00 $1,073,280

In House Kegs $2.50 / pint $59,520

Total Sales $1,917,480

Economic Justification for 70˚C

Item Unit Price Product Sales (Year)

Distributed Kegs $85 $1,026,120

Distributed Bottles (24 Pack) $18.00 $1,486,080

In House Kegs $4.50 / pint $107,136

Total Sales $2,619,336

55˚C 70˚C

Item Energy Required (Batch) Cost (Year)

Hot Water Heater 27.08 kW $529.79

Item Energy Required (Batch) Cost (Year)

Hot Water Heater 40.63 kW $794.76

Table 14: 55˚C Mash Temperature Specs Table 15: 70˚C Mash Temperature Specs

49


Pay Back Period0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7Payback Period Comparison

55°C 70°C

Yea

rs

10 Year Total Net Profit0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7Total Net Profit Over 10 Years

55°C 70°C

Pro

fit

($ M

illio

ns)

Temperature Payback Period 10 Year Net Profit Rate of Return

55˚C 6 years $1,330,000 4.9 % / year

70˚C 2.5 years $5,790,000 21.2% / year

Table 16: 55˚C vs. 70˚C Profitability Results

Figure 24: 55˚C vs. 70˚C Payback Period Figure 25: 55˚C vs. 70˚C Total Net Profit Over 10 Years

50


45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8Net 10 Year Profit and Pay Back Period

Years

Profit

% Products Sold

Pay

bac

k P

erio

d (

Yea

rs)

Net

Pro

fit

over

10

Yea

rs (

$ M

illi

ons)

Figure 26: Brewery’s % Products Sold vs. Payback Period & Net 10 Year Profit

To break even over a 10 year period this brewery would need to operate at 65% of products sold

Implies a payback period of about 13 years

51

Conclusionso Final Decision: Go

o Low payback period

o 70C Mash temperature yielded optimum flavor profile

o This brewery could become a cultural symbol of UConn

52

Acknowledgements

o Dr. Abhay Vaze – Chemistry Department

o Dr. William Mustain

o Dr. Daniel Burkey

53

Questions?

54

ReferencesUltraviolet and Visible Absorption Spectroscopy (UV-Vis). (2000). Retrieved from The Chemistry Hypermedia Project: http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/spec/uv-vis/uv-vis.htmlALAR Engineering Corporation. (2010). Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Retrieved April 2011, from ALARWater Pollution Control Systems: http://www.alarcorp.com/applications/biological-oxygen-demand-bodBaker, J. (2008). Material Safety Data Sheet: Diatomaceous Earth. Boilers, P. (n.d.). Steam Boiler Manual.Briggs, D. E., Boulton, C. A., Brookes, P. A., & Stevens, R. (2004). Brewing Science and Practice. Woodhead Publishing.Britannica, E. (2011). Refractive Index.Budweiser, H. (2011, March). Distribution Specifications. (R. J. Jr., Interviewer)Container, K. (2011). Bottle Quote. Diana Boyle.Coolers, F. (n.d.). Refridgeration Room Quote.Equipment, B. P. (n.d.). Ampco AC-216 Centrifugal Pump.Equipment, I. (n.d.). RVS HELICOIDAL IMPELLER PUMP .Fabrication, A. M. (2011, April). Brewery Quote.Fix, G. (1989). Principles of Brewing Science. Brewers Publications.Golden Harvest Organics LLC. (n.d.). Diatomaceous Earth. Retrieved April 2011, from Golden Harvest Organization: http://www.ghorganics.com/DiatomaceousEarth.htmlGoldhammer, T. (2008). The Brewer's Handbook. Apex.Grain, P. H. (n.d.). Specifications, Table A. Hampton, Nebraska .Harris, T. (2011, March). Long Trail Brewery. (M. Williams, Interviewer)Heater, H. H. (n.d.).Hemad Zareiforoush, M. H. (n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains. Journal of Agricultural Science.Lehloenya KV, S. D. (2008). Effects of feeding yeast and propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield and components, and reproduction*. Pub Med, 190-202.Max S. Peters, K. D. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill higher Education.Northern Brewer. (2011). Star San. Retrieved from Northern Brewer: http://www.northernbrewer.com/brewing/star-san.html

55

ReferencesO'Brien, C. (2007). Grains of Possibility: Ways to Use Spent Brewing Grains. Retrieved from American Brewer: http://beeractivist.com/2007/04/15/grains-of-possibility-ways-to-use-spent-brewing-grains/Palmer, J. J. (2006). How To Brew . Brewers Publications.Priest, F. G., & Stewart, G. G. (2006). Handbook of Brewing. Taylor & Francis.Regulation, C. (1989). Title 40: Protection of Environment. Retrieved April 2011, from eCFR: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d7773ee6b09450c54ab24e0f8726bd32;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A22.0.1.1.3.8;idno=40;cc=ecfrRussell, I. (2003). Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing. Academic Press.(n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains. Steed, A., Steed, A., & Steed, A. (1992). Filters and Filtration. National Rural Water Association.Swadesh, J. (2001). HPLC: practical and industrial applications. CRC Press.Tank, A. (n.d.). Bottle Labeler and Keg Quote.Toffola, D. (n.d.). DE Filter Quote.UV-Vis Absorption Spectroscopy. (n.d.). Retrieved from Sheffield Hallam University: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/uvvisab1.htmWilliams, J. L. (2011, April). Natural Gas Futures Close. Retrieved from Natural Gas Futures Prices - NYMEX: http://www.wtrg.com/daily/gasprice.htmlYates, M. (2011, April 5). Tour of Hooker Brewery. (B. Beacham, Interviewer)

56

Overall Process – Aspen Model

57

Appendix – Aspen Data

Beer P r o d u ctio n Mo d elin g

S tr eam I D COLD -H 2 O EXTRA CT1 EXTRA CT2 EXTRA CT3 GRI ST H2 O VAPO RHO PS HTR1 - H2 O HTR2 - H2 O MA SH- H2 OMI LLGRN SPENTG RN SPRG- H2 O W ORT- BIT W ORT- SWT

Temp eratu r e F 7 0 .0 1 4 5 .4 8 0 8 4 .2 1 4 0 .0 1 5 1 .3 2 1 2 .0 7 7 .0 7 0 .0 7 0 .0 1 5 2 .6 7 7 .0 1 4 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 1 2 .0 1 4 0 .0

Pr essu re p s ia 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 4 .5 0 2 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 4 .5 0 2 1 .0 0 0

Vap o r F r ac 0 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .9 6 2 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0

Mo le F lo w lb m o l/h r 4 3 .0 5 8 2 2 .1 5 5 4 3 .6 8 4 4 3 .6 8 4 2 2 .1 5 5 2 .3 0 3 0 .1 4 1 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 0 .6 2 6 5 .4 0 4 2 1 .5 2 9 3 5 .9 7 6 3 8 .2 8 0

Mass F lo w lb /h r 7 7 5 .7 0 8 5 0 0 .5 6 3 8 8 8 .4 1 7 8 8 8 .4 1 7 5 0 0 .5 6 3 4 1 .4 9 4 2 .5 3 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 1 1 2 .7 0 8 1 2 5 .6 6 3 3 8 7 .8 5 4 7 2 1 .2 5 9 7 6 2 .7 5 4

Vo lu me Flo wcu ft/h r 1 2 .4 5 4 1 3 9 7 1 3 .6 7 3 4 .0 0 5 2 9 E+6 4 .0 0 5 2 9 E+6 1 3 9 7 1 3 .6 7 3 1 1 4 4 .7 7 9 0 .0 4 1 6 .2 2 7 6 .2 2 7 1 4 1 4 5 7 .8 4 8 1 .5 3 8 1 4 0 8 5 7 .1 4 8 1 2 .0 6 5

En th alp y Gcal/h r - 1 .3 3 4 - 0 .6 4 6 - 0 .0 6 0 - 0 .0 0 4 - 0 .6 6 7 - 0 .6 6 7 - 0 .5 6 1 - 0 .0 8 5 - 0 .5 6 1 - 1 .1 3 8

Mass F lo w lb /h r

WA TER 7 7 5 .7 0 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 7 7 5 .7 0 8 7 7 5 .7 0 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 4 1 .4 9 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 9 4 .2 1 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 6 3 9 .9 9 7 6 8 1 .4 9 1

STARCH 1 1 2 .7 0 8 1 1 2 .7 0 8

STARCH- S 8 1 .2 6 3 8 1 .2 6 3 8 1 .2 6 3 tr ace 8 1 .2 6 3 8 1 .2 6 3

STARCH- I 3 1 .4 4 6 3 1 .4 4 6

DRYG RAI N 3 1 .4 4 6 3 1 .4 4 6

HOPS 2 .5 3 8

Mass Frac

WA TER 1 .0 0 0 0 .7 7 5 0 .8 7 3 0 .8 7 3 0 .7 7 5 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .7 5 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .8 8 7 0 .8 9 3

STARCH 0 .2 2 5 1 .0 0 0

STARCH- S 0 .1 6 2 0 .0 9 1 0 .0 9 1 2 PPB 0 .1 1 3 0 .1 0 7

STARCH- I 0 .0 6 3 0 .0 3 5

DRYG RAI N 0 .0 3 5 0 .2 5 0

HOPS 1 .0 0 0

Mo le F lo w lb m o l/h r

WA TER 4 3 .0 5 8 2 1 .5 2 9 4 3 .0 5 8 4 3 .0 5 8 2 1 .5 2 9 2 .3 0 3 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 5 .2 3 0 2 1 .5 2 9 3 5 .5 2 5 3 7 .8 2 8

STARCH 0 .6 2 6 0 .6 2 6

STARCH- S 0 .4 5 1 0 .4 5 1 0 .4 5 1 tr ace 0 .4 5 1 0 .4 5 1

STARCH- I 0 .1 7 5 0 .1 7 5

DRYG RAI N 0 .1 7 5 0 .1 7 5

HOPS 0 .1 4 1

Effect of Temperature on Starch Decomposition to Optimize Mash Tun Operation for the Design of a...

Documents

Transcript of Effect of Temperature on Starch Decomposition to Optimize Mash Tun Operation for the Design of a...