Techno-economic analysis of inulooligosaccharides, protein, and biofuel co-production from Jerusalem artichoke tubers: A biorefinery approach
Oscar K. K. Bedzo
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mohsen Mandegari
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Correspondence to: Mohsen Mandegari, Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1,
Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa. E-mail: mandegari@sun.ac.za
Search for more papers by this authorJohann F. Görgens
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Search for more papers by this authorOscar K. K. Bedzo
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mohsen Mandegari
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Correspondence to: Mohsen Mandegari, Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1,
Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa. E-mail: mandegari@sun.ac.za
Search for more papers by this authorJohann F. Görgens
Department of Process Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Jerusalem artichoke (JA) is a crop with excellent potential for application in biorefineries. It can resist drought, pests, and diseases and can thrive well in marginal lands with little fertilizer application. The JA tubers contain considerable quantities of inulin, which is suitable for the production of inulooligosaccharides (IOS), as a high-value prebiotic, dietary fiber. In this study, five JA tuber biorefinery scenarios were simulated in Aspen Plus® and further evaluated by techno-economic and sensitivity analyses. Production of IOS, proteins and animal feed was studied in scenarios A and C, applying various biorefinery configurations. Scenario B explored the option of producing only IOS and the sale of residues as animal feed. Scenarios D and E investigated the economic potential of biofuel generation from residues after IOS and protein production by generation of biogas and ethanol respectively, from residues. Based on the chosen economic indicators, scenario B resulted in the lowest minimum selling price (MSP) of 3.91 US$ kg−1 (market price 5.0 US$ kg−1) with correspondingly reduced total capital investment (TCI) and total operating cost (TOC) per mass unit produced of IOS of 18.91 and 2.59 US$ kg−1 respectively, compared with other studied scenarios. Considering the set production scale, it is more profitable when the residues are sold as animal feed instead of being converted into biofuel, due to the capital-intensive nature of the biofuel production processes. The coproduction of protein had a negative impact on the economics of the process as the associated capital and operating expenditure outweighed the associated revenue. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| bbb2105-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxWord 2007 document , 139.1 KB |
Table S1: Properties of the user-defined components used in the IOS production process Table S2: Stream table for scenario A Table S3: Stream table for scenario B Table S4: Stream table for scenario C Table S5: Summary of stream table for scenario D Table S6: Stream table for scenario E Table S7: Stream table for scenario E (Contd.) Table S8: IOS production, fermentation and anaerobic digestion reactions Table S9: Operating conditions, Aspen model specifications, sizing and costing of major equipment Table S10: Other, minor equipment unit information Table S11: Costing worksheet for estimation of capital investment |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- 1Bedzo OKK, Trollope K, Gottumukkala LD, Coetzee G and Görgens JF, Amberlite IRA 900 versus calcium alginate in immobilization of a novel, engineered β-fructofuranosidase for short-chain fructooligosaccharide synthesis from sucrose. Biotechnol Prog 35(3): 1–9 (2019).
- 2Mutanda T, Wilhelmi BS and Whiteley CG, Response surface methodology: synthesis of inulooligosaccharides with an endoinulinase from aspergillus Niger. Enzyme Microb Technol 43(4–5): 362–368 (2008).
- 3Shoaib M, Shehzad A, Omar M, Rakha A, Raza H, Sharif HR et al., Inulin: properties, health benefits and food applications. Carbohydr Polym 147: 444–454 (2016).
- 4Mensink MA, Frijlink HW, Van Der Voort MK and Hinrichs WLJ, Inulin, a flexible oligosaccharide I: review of its physicochemical characteristics. Carbohydr Polym 130: 405–419 (2015).
- 5Dominguez AL, Rodrigues LR, Lima NM and Teixeira JA, An overview of the recent developments on fructooligosaccharide production and applications. Food Bioproc Tech 7: 324–337 (2014).
- 6Charalampopoulos D and Rastall RA, Prebiotics and Probiotics Science and Technology. Springer, New York (2009).
10.1007/978-0-387-79058-9 Google Scholar
- 7Mutanda T and Mokoena MP, Olaniran a. O, Wilhelmi BS, Whiteley CG. Microbial enzymatic production and applications of short-chain fructooligosaccharides and inulooligosaccharides: recent advances and current perspectives. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 41(6): 893–906 (2014).
- 8Singh RS, Singh RP and Kennedy JF, Recent insights in enzymatic synthesis of fructooligosaccharides from inulin. Int J Biol Macromol 85: 565–572 (2016).
- 9Kays SJ and Nottingham SF, Biology and Chemistry of Jerusalem Artichoke. Taylor & Francis Group, London (2008).
- 10Gunnarsson IB, Svensson SE, Johansson E, Karakashev D and Angelidaki I, Potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as a biorefinery crop. Ind Crops Prod 56: 231–240 (2014).
- 11Long XH, Shao HB, Liu L, Liu LP and Liu ZP, Jerusalem artichoke: a sustainable biomass feedstock for biorefinery. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54: 1382–1388 (2016).
- 12Fuchs A, Inulin and Inulin-Containing Crops, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993).
- 13Johansson E, Prade T, Angelidaki I, Svensson SE, Newson W, Gunnarsson I et al., Economically viable components from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in a biorefinery concept. Int J Mol Sci 16(4): 8997–9016 (2015).
- 14Bhagia S, Akinosho H, Ferreira JFS and Ragauskas AJ, Biofuel production from Jerusalem artichoke tuber inulins: a review. Biofuel Res J 4(2): 587–599 (2017).
- 15Li L, Li L, Wang Y, Du Y and Qin S, Biorefinery products from the inulin-containing crop Jerusalem artichoke. Biotechnol Lett 35(4): 471–477 (2013).
- 16Farnworth ER, Feeding Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) to pigs. J Sci Food Agric 64(2): 217–221 (1994).
- 17Maumela P, van Rensburg E, Chimphango AFA and Gorgens JF, Sequential extraction of protein and inulin from the tubers of Jerusalem artichoke ( Helianthus tuberosus L.). Food Sci Dent Technol 57: 775–786 (2020).
- 18Bedzo OKK, Mandegari M and Görgens JF, Comparison of immobilized and free enzyme systems in industrial production of short-chain fructooligosaccharides from sucrose using a techno-economic approach. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 13(5): 1274–1288 (2019).
- 19Mussatto SI, Aguiar LM, Marinha MI, Jorge RC and Ferreira EC, Economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of three different fermentation processes for fructooligosaccharides production. Bioresour Technol 198: 673–681 (2015).
- 20Vaňková K, Onderková Z, Antošová M and Polakovič M, Design and economics of industrial production of fructooligosaccharides. Chem Pap 62(4): 375–381 (2008).
- 21Haigh KF, Petersen AM, Gottumukkala L, Mandegari M and Naleli K, Simulation and comparison of processes for biobutanol production from lignocellulose via ABE fermentation. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining-Biofpr 12(6): 1023–1036 (2018).
- 22Mandegari MA, Farzad S, Rensburg E and Van GJF, Multi-criteria analysis of a biorefinery for co-production of lactic acid and ethanol from sugarcane lignocellulose. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 11(6): 971–990 (2017).
- 23Soltanian S, Aghbashlo M, Farzad S and Tabatabaei M, Exergoeconomic analysis of lactic acid and power cogeneration from sugarcane residues through a biorefinery approach. Renew Energy 143: 872–889 (2019).
- 24Mandegari MA, Farzad S and Görgens JF, Economic and environmental assessment of cellulosic ethanol production scenarios annexed to a typical sugar mill. Bioresour Technol 224: 314–326 (2017).
- 25Hossain N, Mahlia TMI, Zaini J and Saidur R, Techno-economics and sensitivity analysis of microalgae as commercial feedstock for bioethanol production. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 38(5): 1–14 (2019).
- 26Khounani Z, Nazemi F, Shafiei M, Aghbashlo M and Tabatabaei M, Techno-economic aspects of a safflower-based biorefinery plant co-producing bioethanol and biodiesel. Energ Conver Manage 201: 1–15 (2019).
- 27Peters M and Timmerhaus KD, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, NY (1991).
- 28Nieder-Heitmann M, Haigh K, Louw J and Görgens JF, Economic evaluation and comparison of succinic acid and electricity co-production from sugarcane bagasse and trash lignocelluloses in a biorefinery, using different pretreatment methods: dilute acid (H2SO4), alkaline (NaOH), organosolv, ammonia fibre expansion (AFEX™), steam explosion (STEX), and wet oxidation. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 14(1): 55–77 (2019).
- 29Choi J and Lee SY, Process analysis and economic evaluation for Poly ( 3-hydroxybutyrate ) production by fermentation. Bioprocess Eng 17: 335–342 (1997).
- 30Özüdoğru HMR, Nieder-Heitmann M, Haigh KF and Görgens JF, Techno-economic analysis of product biorefineries utilizing sugarcane lignocelluloses: xylitol, citric acid and glutamic acid scenarios annexed to sugar mills with electricity co-production. Ind Crops Prod 133: 259–268 (2019).
- 31Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L et al., Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.2172/1013269.
- 32Nieder-Heitmann M, Haigh KF and Görgens JF, Process design and economic analysis of a biorefinery co-producing itaconic acid and electricity from sugarcane bagasse and trash lignocelluloses. Bioresour Technol 262: 159–168 (2018).
- 33Farzad S, Mandegari MA, Guo M, Haigh KF, Shah N and Görgens JF, Multi-product biorefineries from lignocelluloses: a pathway to revitalisation of the sugar industry? Biotechnol Biofuels 10: 1–24 (2017).
- 34Liu G, Zhang J and Bao J, Cost evaluation of cellulase enzyme for industrial-scale cellulosic ethanol production based on rigorous Aspen plus modeling. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 39: 133–140 (2016).
- 35Baccioli A, Ferrari L, Guiller R, Yousfi O, Vizza F and Desideri U, Feasibility analysis of bio-methane production in a biogas plant: a case study. Energies 12(3): 1–16 (2019).
- 36Dutta A, Sahir A, Tan E, et al. Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels Thermochemical Research Pathways with In Situ and Ex Situ Upgrading of Fast Pyrolysis Vapors (2015).
- 37 Frost & Sullivan. Strategic Analysis of the European Human Food and Beverage Prebiotics Markets, Growth Pipeline Co., Santa Clara, CA, USA (2008).
- 38Lutz H, Ultrafiltration for Bioprocessing. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2015).
10.1016/B978-1-907568-46-6.00004-5 Google Scholar
- 39Zhengyu J, Jing W, Bo J and Xueming X, Production of inulooligosaccharides by endoinulinases from aspergillus ficuum. Food Res Int 38: 301–308 (2005).
- 40Ishizawa KN, Akajima MN and Abetani HN, Kinetic study on transfructosylation by β-fructofuranosidase from aspergillus Niger ATCC 20611 and availability of a membrane reactor for fructooligosaccharide production. Food Sci Technol Res 7(1): 39–44 (2001).
10.3136/fstr.7.39 Google Scholar
- 41Vaňková K and Polakovič M, Design of fructooligosaccharide separation using simulated moving-bed chromatography. Chem Eng Technol 35(1): 161–168 (2012).
- 42Oakley DDE, Spray dryer modeling in theory and practice. Drying Technol 22(6): 1371–1402 (2004).
- 43Yang L, He QS, Corscadden K and Udenigwe CC, The prospects of Jerusalem artichoke in functional food ingredients and bioenergy production. Biotechnol Reports 5: 77–88 (2015).
- 44Mandegari MA, Farzad S and Görgens JF, Process design, flowsheeting, and simulation of bioethanol production from lignocelluloses, in Biofuels Production and Future Perspectives, ed. by RS Singh, A Pandey and E Gnansounou. Taylor & Francis Group, Oxfordshire United Kingdom (UK), pp. 255–282 (2016).
- 45Benato A and Macor A, Italian biogas plants: trend, subsidies, cost, biogas composition and engine emissions. Energies 12(6): 1–31 (2019).
- 46Ciotola RJ, Lansing S and Martin JF, Energy analysis of biogas production and electricity generation from small-scale agricultural digesters. Ecol Eng 37: 1681–1691 (2011).
- 47Whiting A and Azapagic A, Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy 70: 181–193 (2014).
- 48Raftery JP and Karim MN, Economic viability of consolidated bioprocessing utilizing multiple biomass substrates for commercial-scale cellulosic bioethanol production. Biomass Bioenergy 103: 35–46 (2017).
- 49Neto AC, Guimarães MJOC and Freire E, Business models for commercial scale second-generation bioethanol production. J Clean Prod 184: 168–178 (2018).
- 50Pöschl M, Ward S and Owende P, Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways. Appl Energy 87: 3305–3321 (2010).
- 51Petersen AM, Van Der Westhuizen WA, Mandegari MA and Görgens JF, Economic analysis of bioethanol and electricity production from sugarcane in South Africa. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 12(2): 224–238 (2018).
- 52Dogbe ES, Mandegari M and Görgens JF, Assessment of the thermodynamic performance improvement of a typical sugar mill through the integration of waste-heat recovery technologies. Appl Therm Eng 158: 1–15 (2019).
- 53Mkwananzi T, Mandegari M and Görgens JF, Disturbance modelling through steady-state value deviations: the determination of suitable energy indicators and parameters for energy consumption monitoring in a typical sugar mill. Energy 176: 211–223 (2019).
- 54Biddy MJ, Davis R, Humbird D, Tao L, Dowe N, Guarnieri MT et al., The techno-economic basis for coproduct manufacturing to enable hydrocarbon fuel production from lignocellulosic biomass. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4(6): 3196–3211 (2016).
- 55Mandegari M, Farzad S and Görgens JF, A new insight into sugarcane biorefineries with fossil fuel co-combustion: techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Energ Conver Manage 165: 76–91 (2018).
- 56Diederichs GW, Ali Mandegari M, Farzad S and Görgens JF, Techno-economic comparison of biojet fuel production from lignocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane juice. Bioresour Technol 216: 331–339 (2016).
