WFF Research Forum_Presentation Yulie Meneses

WFF Research Forum_Presentation Yulie Meneses

Feasibility, safety, economic and environmental implications of whey-­recovered water for CIP systems: A case study on water conservation for the dairy industry
Yulie E. Meneses and Rolando A. Flores
May 12th , 2016
How much water does the food industry consume?
U.S water consumption
(1) Others, 70%
Food …
1.
2.
Electric power research institute, 2014. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2 014/0 3/28/to-­u ndersta nd-­w ater-­l earn-­th e-­math/
Pacific Institute report. 2014.
Additional challenges
Quality
Community
Wastewater
Water reconditioning and reuse, an alternative?
Regulations
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Codex alimentarius
• USDA
Reconditioned water
Cheese making by products, a source for water reconditioning Milk Reuse 10 %
Cheese
Reconditioning 94 %
Water 90 %
Whey 6 %
Water usage in dairy processing Other Trade wash 3%
4%
Mannual Washing 6%
Cooling tower
6%
Operational …
Crate Wash
Pasteurisation
12%
16%
25%
CIP Rad, S.J. and M.J. Lewis, Water utilization, energy utilization and waste water management in the dairy industry: A review. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 2014. 67(1): p. 1-­‐20.
Project framework 1
Process efficiency and water reuse 2
Water reconditioning and reuse in the food industry 3
4
5
Value added of by-­‐products
Cost analysis Life cycle assessment
Risk assessment
Water recovery system and reuse in CIP
Water recovery system Objective: To recover high quality water from cheese-­whey, and reuse in CIP systems Cheddar cheese whey
Volume: 276 L per filtration
Initial temperature: 33± 2 ˚C
Spiral membranes
Pilot plant scale Water recovery system Objective: To recover high quality water from cheese-­whey, and reuse in CIP systems Cheddar cheese whey
Volume: 276 L per filtration
Initial temperature: 33± 2 ˚C
Spiral membranes
Pilot plant scale Protein and lactose powder characteristics Parameter
Units Whey Protein powder
Lactose powder
Codex *
USDA*
pH -­‐
6.56
Fat
%
0.02
0.08
0.02
2 <10
Total protein
%
0.49
29.5
2.60
>10 >25
Lactose
%
5.62
41.0
63.7
61
NI
Total dry matter
%
6.87
97.9
98.5
NI
NI
Water activity -­‐
-­‐
0.07
0.06
NI
NI
Moisture
%
93.1
2.13
1.55
<5 <5
Density
g/ cm3
1.03
-­‐
-­‐
NI
<7
* Standards for whey protein Biofilm formation and CIP regime Pseudomonas a eruginosa 1 ml (10 6 CFU/ml)
TSB (300 mg/L)
48 h Room T˚ (26˚C)
Rotation speed 120 rpm
CIP standard regime 5 min rinse 10 min wash with alkaline solution at 65 ±1 ˚C 316 stainless steel TSB (2g/L)
Pump flow 1 0 ml/min
5 min rinse 10 min wash with acid solution at 65 ±1 ˚C 5 min final rinse Microbial counts – Results Log 10 (cfu/cm2)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa counts before and after CIP
10
8.63
8.65
8
6
4
0.99
2
1.09
0
TW before CIP ROW before CIP
TW = tap water ROW = recovered water
a CIP ROW after a CIP
TW after p-­value: 0.87 ;; α: 0.05 Cost analysis Cost analysis Economic results for different cheese production levels SuperPro Designer ®
1
Whey
Investment
Revenue
Operating cost
IRR 1
PBT 2
(Million L/year)
(Million $)
(Million $/year)
(Million $/year)
(%)
(years)
1
2.04
0.18
0.17
2.42
10.9
20
6.72
3.05
1.87
15.9
5.17
225
56.3
33.4
20.1
19.5
4.36
IRR: Internal Revenue Rate, 2 Payback time
Savings vs. wastewater treatment cost Contribution of s avings to total investment ( %)
55
Small
Medium Large
45
35
25
15
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Increments over the c urrent wastewater treatment c ost ( 40 $/unit) ( %)
Annual domestic water demand of 1,540 people in Nebraska could be satisfied Cost analysis Life cycle assessment LCA – System boundaries Objective: To perform an LCA of the water recovery system and compare the environmental burdens of this alternative system against those produced by wastewater treatment and water production
CH
E
Whey
M
UF E
E
CH
M
Wastewater
Recovered water for reuse in CIP
RO E
E
B
Packaging Condensed water Water r ecovery s ystem E: Energy;; B: bags;; C: concentrates;; CH Chemicals;; G: gas;; M: Membrane
Protein and lactose powders
Solids
E
CH
Wastewater treatment
C
Spray dryer
Water
o
r
Water
Wastewater treatment Potable water production
Potable water
Water production
LCA – Data collection Annual consumables • First study, large scale cheese production • SuperPro® for membrane cleaning • Local wastewater plant • Thesis on a local water production plant (energy consumption only)
Functional unit
Reference to relate inputs and outputs 1 unit = 780 gal of wastewat or water LCA – Water recovery treatment vs. Wastewater treatment plant 100
90
Impact category %
80
70
60
50
40
30
Wastewater plant
20
Water recovery system
10
0
WRS presents 19 % -­ 62 % lower environmental impacts than WWT in specific categories LCA – Water recovery treatment vs. Wastewater production plant 100
90
80
70
(%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Climate change
Cumulative Photochemical Fresh water Marine Water depletion Human toxicity
energy demand oxidant eutrophication eutrophication
formation
Water recovery system Water production plant
WRS presents 18 % lower impacts than the WPP
Ecosystems
Ecotoxicity
41.2
47.4
43.6
45.8
CIP M embranes
%
%
60
50
Electricity Spray drying 40
30
20
46.7
47.2
59.4
54.5
49.4
53.3
51.1
10
Steam Spray drying 99.1
37.1
99.3
49.8
96.9
70
50.5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
99.3
80
UF/RO s ystem
98.2
90
98.7
100
98.9
LCA – Relative contribution of processing inputs
Membrane disposal
Electricity
Membranes
0
Water recovery system UF/RO system: 46 % -­ 59 % Spray drying: 37 % -­ 50 %
(steam production)
UF/RO filtration system Electricity responsible for >98% of impacts Energy conservation opportunities Electricity production in the U.S.
Fossil fuels (67%) including coal, natural gas and petroleum Renewable-­energy-­powered technologies (evaluated for water desalination)
• Solar and wind
• Biogas from food waste through anaerobic digestion
• 20.4 kw-­h of electricity could be generated from 1 m3 of biogas, (Murphy et al., 2004)
More efficient membrane technologies : Membrane distillation (MD) and forward osmosis (FO) • Lower energy usage
• Higher water fluxes
• Resistance to fouling and easy cleaning
Others: CIP and membrane disposal
RISK ASSESSMENT Cost analysis Risk assessment Risk assessment
Risk assessment model Pathogen concentration in raw commingled silo milk Transfer rate from this project Pathogen concentration in raw milk tank before pasteurization Data from literature
Pathogen on inner surface of pasteurized milk tank before CIP operation Efficiency ratio (ER)
Pathogen on inner surface of pasteurized milk tank after CIP operation using contaminated-­‐
recovered water Efficacy of CIP operation using contaminated-­‐
recovered water from this project Pasteurization efficacy from publications Pathogen concentration in milk right after pasteurization $%&' ()*$+& )
𝐸𝑅 = $
+& ()*$%&' )
Efficiency factor (EF)
𝐸𝐹 = log)1 𝑐345 − (log)1 𝑐74 + log )1 𝑐355 )
Pathogen on inner surface of pasteurized milk tank before CIP operation using contaminated-­‐
recovered water Transfer coefficient Pathogen concentration in pasteurized milk tank Package filling Distribution of pathogen load per package of milk produced Pathogen on inner surface of pasteurized milk tank after CIP operation using contaminated-­‐
recovered water 𝑇𝐶 =
%
GHA>IH%J (% '%AK ,@DEF)
=>?@>A
∑M
%
GHA>IH%J (% '%AK ,@>)
=>?@>A
∑M
3=>?@>A ∗CDEF
3=>?@>A ∗C>
Input data for dtistribution he simulation for the final c oncentration of Listeria monocytogenes per gallon of milk
Predicted Input data for the simulation Spider graph, changes in output means across a range of input values
16
12
Raw milk microbial concentration
10
Probability of a positive silo Probability of a contaminated area after pasteurization
TC probability of a contaminated area at 0h of milk storage
Probability of a contaminated area before pasteurization
8
6
4
2
Input Percentile%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
0%
Bacteria concentration 14
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
Type o f water: Whey-­recovered w ater S
T
E
P
S
Method of reconditioning: membrane filtration and c hlorination
Intended use: C leaning o perations
Flow diagram 1
1. Hazard Identification: Post-­recovery treatment contamination (Listeria monocytogenes)
2. Identification of CCP’s
Selection of water treatment method Membrane filtration H
A
C
C
P
S
T
E
P
S
Chemical d isinfection 3. Establishment of critical limits Water flux 2
Pressure 2
Total solids 2
Free c hlorine level 0.2-­1 p pm
4. Monitoring Flowmeter
Manometer
Refractometer
Water quality strips 5. Corrective a ctions
Stop operation
Review o perating c onditions
Change membrane Adjust dose/ r esidual within standards
When w ater q uality has b een c ompromised, s end b ack to the membrane s ystem or u se for o ther non-­food c ontact a pplications. 6. Record k eeping 7. Verification A reference HACCP plan for
reconditioning of whey-recovered water
Input data for the simulation Conclusions
• An overall water recovery percentage of 47% was obtained from the UF/RO system, and up to 85 % if condensed water is used for suitable applications • The cleaning efficiency of the water recovered from the UF/RO filtration system is comparable to potable water, when used in CIP systems
• Good quality lactose and protein powders with commercial value were obtained from the concentrated streams
Input data for the simulation Conclusions
• 19 % -­‐ 62 % reductions in photochemical oxidant formation, water eutrophication, human toxicity and ecotoxicity, in comparison to WWT. Up to 82% lower emission were detected for the WRS in comparison to WWP
• Electricity, main input responsible for the environmental burdens of WRS
• In the event of contamination of the recovered water, bacteria transferred from the water to equipment and from the equipment to the manufactured product, is minimal
• Bacteria concentration in raw milk, is the major factor responsible for microbial quality of the final product
Input data for the simulation Framework, a holistic approach for water conservation Input data for the simulation Acknowledgments
Pilot plants
Jonathan Hnosko
University of Nebraska-­Lincoln
Dr. Rolando A. Flores
Dr. Jayne Stratton
Dr. Bruce Dvorak
Dr. Bing Wang
Dr. Curtis Weller
Steve Weier
Special Thanks !
Patrick Berge
Brad Barber "Anyone who can solve the problems of water will be worthy of two Nobel prizes -­ one for peace and one for science." John F. Kennedy
Thank you!
Yulie E. Meneses and Rolando A. Flores
University of Nebraska-­‐Lincoln