Model of a sugar factory with bioethanol production in program Sugars™

Henke, Svatopluk; Bubník, Z.; Hinkova, Andrea; Pour, V.

doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.07.007

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The raw, concentrated raw and thick beet juices were characterized by their dry matter content (25.0, 60.0 and 69.0%, respectively). The sucrose content was~23.9, 58.0 and 67.7% for the raw, concentrated raw and thick juice, with the values being higher than those reported by Henke et al (19) who reported 16.4 and 65.0% of dry matter, and 14.8 and 63.4% sucrose for the raw and thick juices, respectively.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of ethanol fermentation parameters for bioethanol production from sugar beet pulp and juice

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficient utilization of sugar beet pulp, as well as raw, concentrated raw and thick sugar beet juice, for bioethanol production. Different fermentation conditions were examined. The influence of raw material pre-treatment (pasteurization or sterilization), type of batch culture process (stationary or shaken) as well as the type of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast preparation on the yields of the process were studied. Moreover, the fermentation process effectiveness was examined in connection with the quality of the obtained distillates. Sterilization, stationary batch culture and Safdistil C-70 yeast preparation were identified as the most profitable factors for sugar beet pulp fermentation, providing a high fermentation efficiency and ethanol yield (87.7% of theoretical ethanol yield). Concentrated raw beet juice resulted in a value of 94.2% of theoretical yield, and thick juice a 92.6% yield. The results suggest that bioethanol production from sugar beet pulp and sugar beet juice has promise as an alternative fuel. The raw spirits obtained from the sugar beet juice were characterized as having the lowest quantity of volatile by-products.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…The sucrose content was ~23.9, 58.0 and 67.7% for the raw, concentrated raw and thick juice, with the values being higher than those reported by Henke et al . who reported 16.4 and 65.0% of dry matter, and 14.8 and 63.4% sucrose for the raw and thick juices, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evaluation of ethanol fermentation parameters for bioethanol production from sugar beet pulp and juice

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The production stages of different sugars show that it is possible to manufacture the proposed product with improved beneficial properties. The processing stages to obtain white (conventional) sugar from sugar beet are extraction, refining and concentration of sugar beet juice, crystallization of the massecuite (cooked mass), separation of crystals from heavy syrup in centrifugation and drying of sugar granules (Chen and Chou 1993;Van Der Poel et al 1998;Henke et al 2006). The manufacture of bleached (white) sugar from a suitable massecuite will not occur in a one-stage system when its crystal content is more than 55%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bleaching effects of massecuite on some properties of crystallized sugar beet and milk chocolate bars produced

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four kinds of bleached, unbleached, second and third crystal sugars (BCS, UCS, SCS and TCS) were made from different massecuites in a sugar-beet factory, and their physiochemical (polarization, invert sugar, colorants, pH, ash and SO), microbiological and functional properties were measured. While the polarization of UCS, SCS and TCS were lower than BCS; their invert sucrose, colorants, pH and ash contents were significantly higher than BCS. The phenols and betaine of BCS, UCS, SCS, and TCS were 144, 401, 384 and 673 (mg/100 g); and 244, 791, 4662, and 6589 (mg/100 g); respectively. Whereas the phenol of milk chocolate bars (MCB) made with UCS, SCS, and TCS were only 10% higher than MCB completed with BCS; their betaine contents were substantially (up to 16 times) higher than the ones finished with BCS. Sensory evaluation showed that the MCB prepared with three sugars including UCS, SCS and TCS had significantly higher glossiness, brittleness, flavor and mouth feel than those made with BCS. The greater colorants, ash content and inverted sugars of UCS, SCS and TCS (in comparison with BCS) made considerable improvements in the glossiness, flavor and brittleness of MCB, respectively. BCS had 8 ppm of toxic sulfur; whereas, UCS, SCS and TCS had no detectable sulfur and significantly higher beneficial copper content than BCS. No pathogenic microorganism were detected in UCS, SCS, TCS or their subsequent MCB. Our results highly recommend using UCS, SCS and TCS instead of BCS in food products (such as MCB) due to their higher health benefits.

show abstract

“…Models of sugar factories have also been developed. Henke et al (2006) described the application of the Sugars™ program for modeling and simulation of a sugar factory with subsequent production of bioethanol and ani-mal fodder. The designed scheme was further adjusted and verified using data from the Czech sugar industry (i.e., processing of 10.000 tons of sugar beet per day, 17% of sucrose in sugar beet, 2.5% of impurities, and 98% effectiveness of ethanol fermentation).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Sugar Beet Production and Processing Simulation Model – a System Dynamics Approach to Support Decision-Making Processes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The sugar beet is the main field crop used for sugar production in the temperate climatic zone. The abolishment of the quota system will open new investment opportunities in countries that were forced to abandon sugar industry as the result of the reform in 2006. Present paper describes the modeling of sugar beet production and its processing into sugar for purpose of decision support. Methods: A system dynamics methodology was chosen to model impacts of regional sugar factory investment. We present two basic concepts of system dynamics models at causal loop diagram level. The first holistic model deals with regional planning of new product development and the second one deals with factory model. Results: The holistic model presented main feedback loops and dynamics of main elements in the case of regional investment into sugar industry. The factory model considered the specifics of the beet processing which is a) limited period of beet processing and b) initial adjustment to the production capacity at the start of the production season Conclusions: The model seeks answers to strategic questions related to the whole sugar beet production and processing system and will be used for simulation of different scenarios for sugar production and their impact on economic and environmental parameters at an aggregate level.

show abstract

Model of a sugar factory with bioethanol production in program Sugars™

Cited by 23 publications

References 1 publication

Evaluation of ethanol fermentation parameters for bioethanol production from sugar beet pulp and juice

Evaluation of ethanol fermentation parameters for bioethanol production from sugar beet pulp and juice

Bleaching effects of massecuite on some properties of crystallized sugar beet and milk chocolate bars produced

The Development of Sugar Beet Production and Processing Simulation Model – a System Dynamics Approach to Support Decision-Making Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About