Optimization of no cook technology at very high gravity for rice-based ethanol production

Vu Thi Phuong; Chinh Nghia Nguyen; Son Vu Hong; Ky Son Chu

doi:10.15625/2525-2518/17249

Author affiliations

Authors

Vu Thi Phuong Department of Food Technology, School of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, No. 1 Dai Co Viet street, Hai Ba Trung district, Ha Noi, Viet Nam;
Nutricare Nutrition Jsc., No.1, Block 2, Simco Van Phuc New Urban Area, Van Phuc Commune, Ha Dong District, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
Chinh-Nghia Nguyen Department of Food Technology, School of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, No. 1 Dai Co Viet street, Hai Ba Trung district, Hanoi, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7379-5535
Son Vu Hong Department of Quality Management, School of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, No. 1 Dai Co Viet street, Hai Ba Trung district, Hanoi, Vietnam
Son Chu-Ky Department of Food Technology, School of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, No. 1 Dai Co Viet street, Hai Ba Trung district, Hanoi, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15625/2525-2518/17249

Keywords:

no cook technology, very high gravity, optimization, Taguchi design, raw-starch hydrolysis, multi-response optimization, Design-Expert

Abstract

The application of raw-starch hydrolysis enzymes to ethanol production by no-cook technology at very high gravity (VHG) (311.5 g/L) from rice would reduce the energy consumption compared to traditional process. In this study, the Taguchi design and the desirability function were used to identify the optimized production process for economic and technological targets. Three factors: dosage of alpha- and gluco-amylase enzyme (Stargen 002 – A), dosage of protease enzyme (Fermgen – B) and dosage of yeast (C) were investigated. With the expected Desirability = 0.74, the no-cook process from rice would be optimized with following dosage: Stargen 002, Fermgen and yeast at 700 µL/L (1140 GAU/kg raw material), 151 µL/L (431 SAPU/kg raw material) and 0.25 g/L (6.25 x 106 cells/mL), respectively. After 120h of fermentation, ethanol concentration reached 17.45 ± 0.07 %v/v, corresponding to ethanol yield of 86.08 ± 0.2 %, and the cost of raw material was at 3225.5 VND/L of rice slurry.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

D. Gang, S. Xu, J. Zhou, S. K. Tok, and J. K. Shetty. - Novel enzymatic processes for ethanol production from cassava feedstock, in The 5th International Conference on Starch Technology “Starch Update 2009”, (2009).

V. Gohel and G. Duan. - No-cook process for ethanol production using Indian broken rice and pearl millet, Int. J. Microbiol. 2012 (2012) 1–9. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/680232.

M. Krajang, K. Malairuang, J. Sukna, K. Rattanapradit, and S. Chamsart. - Single-step ethanol production from raw cassava starch using a combination of raw starch hydrolysis and fermentation, scale-up from 5-L laboratory and 200-L pilot plant to 3000-L industrial fermenters, Biotechnol. Biofuels 14 (2021) 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-021-01903-3.

S. Chu-Ky et al. - Simultaneous liquefaction, saccharification and fermentation at very high gravity of rice at pilot scale for potable ethanol production and distillers dried grains composition, Food Bioprod. Process. 98 (2016) 79–85. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2015.10.003.

G. Taguchi, S. Chowdhury, and Y. Wu. - Taguchi’s Quality Engineering Handbook, (2005) . New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.

G. L. Miller. - Use of DinitrosaIicyIic Acid Reagent for Determination of Reducing Sugar, Anal. Chem. 31 (1959) 426–428. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60147a030.

M. Le Thanh et al. - Analytical methods in fermentation technology, (2007). Science and Technology Publishing House: Science and Technology Publishing House, 2007.

D. Kumar, A. Juneja, and V. Singh. - Fermentation technology to improve productivity in dry grind corn process for bioethanol production, Fuel Process. Technol. J. 173 (2018) 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.01.014.