Dehydration of an ethanol-water mixture by sorption using barley as the sorbent
by James Patrick Law
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Chemical Engineering
Montana State University
© Copyright by James Patrick Law (1983)
Abstract:
Experiments were conducted to determine the feasibility of utilizing barley as a dehydration agent for
the separation of an ethanol-water mixture. The variables tested were mass flux, column geometry,
grain particle size distribution, and the number of regenerations of the barley.
The mass flux was varied between 0.035 and 0.35 gm/min-sqcm. A vapor phase, fixed-bed adsorption
apparatus was used with three different adsorption columns. The adsorption columns used were 1.5”
(diameter) X 14” (length), 1.5" X 24", and 2.5” X 23”. Three particle size distributions of ground
barley were tested. The particle size distributions were obtained by grinding the barley in a hammer
mill with different screen sizes. The screen sizes used were 1/8”, 1/16", and 1/32”. A total of five
regeneration runs were made with the 1/32” hammer-milled barley. The initial feed concentration was
75 weight percent ethanol in all runs.
The best results were obtained with the smallest particle size distribution and the lowest mass flux. The
yield varied between 0.029 and 0.191 grams 99-wt% ethanol produced per gram dried barley. The
column geometry had an effect at the low mass fluxes, but had no effect at the high mass fluxes.
Effects of column diameter were larger than the effects of column length on the yield. Grain
regeneration is necessary if the barley is to be used to produce fermentation ethanol. Ethanol along with
water was adsorbed into the barley. DEHYDRATION OF AN ETHANOL-WATER MIXTURE
BY SORPTION USING BARLEY AS THE SORBENT
by
James Patrick Law
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
o f the requirements for the degree
of
Master o f Science
in
Chemical Engineering
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
May 1983
main
Lia
LYA2
COp 5-
ii
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
James Patrick Law
This thesis has been read by each member o f the thesis committee and has been found
to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style,
and consistency, and is ready for admission to the College of Graduate Studies.
/V
Date
5? 3
^ 'Jv tXS—'O2''*—
Chairperson, Graduate Committee
Approved for the Major Department
Tfead, Major Department
Date
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
r - /7 - TJ
Date
Graduate Dean
L
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for a master’s degree
at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers
under the rules o f the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without
special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of the source is made.
Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction o f this thesis may be granted
by my major professor, or in his/her absence, by the Director o f Libraries when, in the
opinion o f either, the proposed use o f the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying
or use o f the material in this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my
written permission.
Signature
Date
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY................
hi
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................
iv
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................
vi
LIST OF FIGURES. ......................................................
vh
ABSTRACT........................................................................
vih
INTRODUCTION...............................................................
I
Sorption........................................................................
Theories o f Physical Adsorption..............................
Physical Adsorption in Packed B e d s.......................
Previous Research........................................................
-Fx U)
APPROVAL ........................................................................
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.........................................
10
MATERIALS, APPARATUS, AND PROCEDURE. . .
11
Materials........................................................................
Apparatus . . .................................................................
Procedure.....................................................................
11
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................
19
Effect o f Mass Flux and Particle Size Distribution
Effect of Column G eom etry.....................................
Effect of Grain Regeneration..................................
Possible Barley Sorption Process.....................
23
29
29
34
SUMMARY.............. ...........................................................
36
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY . . .
37
LITERATURE CITED
38
16
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
Page
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................
41
APPENDIX A — Results o f R u n s ...................................................................................
APPENDIX B —Fortran Computer Program Used to Calculate
Yield, and Print R esults...............................................................................................
APPENDIX C —Calculations..........................................................................................
42
97
101
i
f
/
vi
#
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
„
Page
1. Common Ethanol-Water Separation Processes and the Approximate
Energy Required to Produce One Liter o f 100% Ethanol from a
10-vol% Ethanol Mixture. . ..........................................................................................
2
2. The Particle Size Distributions o f the 1/8”, 1/16”, and 1/32”
Hammer-Milled Barley....................................................... .............................................
12
3. Equations for the Yield as a Function o f Mass Flux for the Various
Adsorber Columns and Grain Particle Size Distributions......................... 27
4. Results o f Repeated Runs..................................... .........................................................
27
Appendix Table
5. List o f Rejected Runs and the Reason for Rejection................................................
43
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. The five general types o f adsorption isotherm s.......................................................
5
2. The adsorption wave and breakthrough curve....................................... '.......... ..
8
3. Flow diagram for the barley adsorption process.....................................................
14
4. Breakthrough curve for Run 20..................................... .............................................
21
5. Temperature as a function o f space velocity for 1/32” hammermilled barley..........................................................................,.......................................
22
6 . Yield as a function o f mass flux for the 1.5” X 14” adsorption
colu m n ................................................................................ '..........................................
24
7. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1.5” X 24” adsorption
column ......................................................... : .............................. ..................................
25
8 . Yield as a function of mass flux for the 2.5” X 23” adsorption
colu m n ............................................................................
26
9. Graphical representation o f the 1/8”, 1/16", and 1/32”
hammer-milled barley particle size distributions......................................................
28
10. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1/32” hammer-milled
b arley.............................................................................................................
30
11. Yield as a function of mass flux for the I /1 6 ” hammer-milled
b arley.................................................................................. ...........................................
31
12. Yield as a function o f mass flux for the I / 8 ” hammer-milled
b arley...............................................................................................................................
32
13. Yield as a function o f the numberof regenerations.................................................
33
Viii
ABSTRACT
Experiments were conducted to determine the feasibility o f utilizing barley as a dehy­
dration agent for the separation o f an ethanol-water mixture. The variables tested were
mass flux, column geometry, grain particle size distribution, and the number o f regenera­
tions o f the barley.
The mass flux was varied between 0.035 and 0.35 gm/min-sqcm. A vapor phase, fixedbed adsorption apparatus was used with three different adsorption columns. The adsorp­
tion columns used were 1.5” (diameter) X 14” (length), 1.5" X 24”, and 2.5” X 23”. Three
particle size distributions o f ground barley were tested. The particle size distributions were
obtained by grinding the barley in a hammer mill with different screen sizes. The screen
sizes used were 1/8”, 1/16", and 1/32”. A total o f five regeneration runs were made with
the 1/32” hammer-milled barley. The initial feed concentration was 75 weight percent
ethanol in all runs.
The best results were obtained with the smallest particle size distribution and the low­
est mass flux. The yield varied between 0.029 and 0.191 grams 99-wt% ethanol produced
per gram dried barley. The column geometry had an effect at the low mass fluxes, but had
no effect at the high mass fluxes. Effects o f column diameter were larger than the effects
of column length on the yield. Grain regeneration is necessary if the barley is to be used to
produce fermentation ethanol. Ethanol along with water was adsorbed into the barley.
I
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1974 Arab oil embargo and the ever increasing tensions in the Middle East,
the United States’ need for alternate energy sources has grown tremendously. Ethanol has
long been identified as a possible candidate for the extension of petroleum-based transpor­
tation fuels. Ethanol fuels could play an important role in the transition period between
today’s petroleum fuels and the synthetic fuels o f the future.
The idea o f using ethanol to supplement petroleum reserves is by no means new. Brazil
has been testing different blends o f gasoline and ethanol, which is called gasohol, since the
1920s [ I ] . In 1975 Brazil,launched a program called Proa’lcool, whose purpose was to
decrease Brazil’s dependence on foreign oil. Under this program the average blending level
o f gasoline is 20-vol% (volume percent) ethanol. In addition to the increased use o f gasohol,
there has been an increase in the number of pure ethanol driven vehicles [ 2 ].
Gasohol with up to 20-vol% ethanol can be used without any engine modification.
Researchers say the optimum blend is 10-15-vol% ethanol [3].
A major advantage o f mixing ethanol with gasoline is that ethanol is an octane booster.
Pure ethanol has a research octane number (RON) of 106-108 [4 ]. In general, ethanol will
increase the octane number o f gasoline by 0.5 units for every l-vol% addition of ethanol
[5 ]. Several oil companies are currently marketing super unleaded gasoline, which is a
mixture containing 90-vol% unleaded gasoline and 10-vol% ethanol.
Ethanol can be produced by the fermentation o f grains. The starch in the grain is con­
verted into glucose by the addition of an enzyme. A specific yeast is then added to convert
the glucose into ethanol and carbon dioxide. This is carried out until the ethanol concen­
2
tration reaches approximately 10-vol%. At that point, the ethanol is in sufficient concen­
tration to kill the yeast [ 6 ].
Ethanol which is to be used for mixing with gasoline must be nearly anhydrous. A 20vol% ethanol-gasoline mixture will tolerate only l-vol% water at 70 F [7 ]. Simple distil­
lation cannot be used to produce anhydrous ethanol because there is a minimum boiling
point azeotrope at 94.4”wt% (weight percent) ethanol. There are, however, several methods
available to produce anhydrous ethanol; the most common being azeotropic distillation.
This involves using a third compound, such as benzene, to break up the minimum boiling
azeotrope. There are, however, new methods being investigated that require less energy.
Several o f these methods are shown in Table I , along with the approximate energy required
to produce I liter o f anhydrous ethanol [ 8 ].
Table I . Common Ethanol-Water Separation Processes and the Approximate Energy Re­
quired to Produce One Liter o f 100% Ethanol from a 10-vol% Ethanol Mixture.
Separation process
Vacuum distillation
Azeotropic distillation
Distillation to 95-wt%, and
molecular sieve
Distillation to 95-wt% and low
temperature blending with gasoline
Carbon dioxide extraction
Distillation to 95-wt%, and
dehydration with calcium oxide
Distillation to 75-wt%, and
dehydration with starches
Solvent extraction
Energy requirements
(KJ/1)
7,600
7,400
6,100-7,600
5,860*
2,500**
2,170
< 2,000
1,000 **
*Results in the direct production o f gasohol.
**Requires a high capital investment.
This project looks at using the starch present in barley to remove the water from an
aqueous ethanol mixture. Barley was chosen as a desiccant for several reasons; first, past
research at Montana State University has shown great promise for the use of barley in
3
ethanol water separation [9].. Barley can also be used as a feedstock to produce fermenta­
tion ethanol. Also, barley is an abundant cash crop in Montana and several other states.
Dehydration is not a new method for separating ethanol and water. Calcium oxide
(CaO) has long been used as a desiccant in the dehydration o f many gases and vapors,
including ethanol and water mixtures [1 0 ]. The main disadvantage o f using CaO as a desic­
cant is that it reacts with the water to form a hydroxide. This makes the regeneration of
the solid very energy expensive. It has been known for many years that starches, such as
those found in barley, could be used as a desiccant [1 1 ]. However, it was just recently
found thait starches would preferentially adsorb water vapor over ethanol vapor [ 12 ].
Sorption
There are three types o f sorption:
1. Absorption
2. Physical Adsorption
3. Chemical Adsorption
First, adsorption should be distinguished from absorption. Absorption is the bulk penetraI
tion o f a vapor or gas into the structure of the solid, thus forming a solid solution. Adsorp­
tion is the phenomenon where molecules o f a gas or vapor will stick to the surface of the
solid, but not form a solid solution. The term sorption is used when both processes may
occur simultaneously.
Physical adsorption should be distinguished from chemical adsorption, sometimes
called chemisorption. Physical adsorption is similar to condensation o f a vapor. The gas or
vapor is held to the solid surface by van der Waals forces. Chemical adsorption involves the
formation of a chemical bond between the solid and the adsorbed liquid.
4
There are several important differences between physical and chemical adsorption
listed below [13]:
1. Physical adsorption will occur on any gas-solid system, provided that the temper­
ature and pressure are suitable. Chemisorption will occur only when the gas and
solid are able to form a chemical bond.
2. The heat o f physical adsorption is on the order of the heat o f vaporization for a
vapor and the heat o f liquefaction for a gas. The heat of chemisorption is on the
order of the heat o f reaction.
3. Physical adsorption is easily reversible by simply reducing the pressure or increas­
ing the temperature. Chemisorption is much less reversible and requires much
more rigorous conditions.
4. Several adsorbed layers can be built up with physical adsorption, but only one
layer will occur with chemisorption.
5. Chemisorption will occur at much lower pressures and much higher temperatures
than physical adsorption.
6 . Physical adsorption occurs almost instantaneously, where as chemisorption may
occur instantaneously or might require an activation energy.
The adsorption o f water onto biological materials is almost always physical adsorp­
tion [14].
Theories o f Physical Adsorption
For a given weight o f adsorbent the amount of gas or vapor adsorbed at equilibrium is
a function o f temperature and pressure only. Adsorption data is generally given in terms of
isotherms. An isotherm is a plot o f the amount of gas or vapor adsorbed versus pressure at
a constant temperature. There are five types o f isotherms for the adsorption o f gases or
vapors on solids. These are shown in Figure I . Type I isotherms are associated with systems
A D SO RBED
TY PE
I
II
TY PE
I I I
VOLUM E
TY PE
PRESSU RE
PRESSU RE
PRESSU RE
TY PE
IV
PRESSU RE
TY PE
V
PRESSU RE
F ig u r e I . T h e fiv e g e n e r a l t y p e s o f a d s o r p t i o n is o th e r m s . P q is th e s a t u r a t i o n p re s s u r e .
6
where adsorption is monomolecular. Types II and III isotherms are associated with systems
where multilayer adsorption occurs. Types IV and V isotherms are associated with systems
where a highly porous adsorbent is used [1 5 ]. The isotherms for biological materials are
most similar to the type II isotherm [16].
Nygoddy and Bakker-Arkema [17] developed an isotherm equation for the sorption o f
water by starches. They obtained their equation by combining the three following adsorp­
tion theories:
1. Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller’s (BET) theory o f multilayer adsorption.
2. Zsigmond’s capillary condensation theory.
3. Polyany’s adsorption potential theory.
The most used theory o f adsorption is the BET theory o f multilayer adsorption. The
BET equation appears to represent the shape o f actual isotherms fairly well. It is also used
to find the surface area o f a substance because it yields a good value for the volume of gas
required to form a monomolecular layer on the surface o f the substance. This theory says
that adsorption will occur on one layer until it is completely full, then adsorption will con­
tinue by building more and more layers [18].
■ Zsigmond’s capillary condensation theory says that the adsorbate exists as a con­
densed liquid in the capillaries o f the sorbent. The adsorbate’s properties are-the same as
the bulk liquid phase [1 9 ].
Polyany’s adsorption potential theory says the adsorbent exerts strong attractive
forces. These forces attract gas molecules in the vicinity and as a result many layers can
buildup [ 20 ].
Physical adsorption o f a gas or vapor on a solid is a spontaneous process, which causes
a decrease in the Gibb’s free energy o f the system. The process also.involves a decrease in
entropy when the gas or vapor goes from the free gas to the adsorbed film. It follows from
the equation,
7
AG = AH - TAS
that physical adsorption must always be an exothermic process.
Desorption is the process by which the adsorbate is removed from the solid. Biological
materials show a hysteresis effect present between the adsorption and desorption isotherms.
During desorption more water is contained in the solid at a given pressure than during
adsorption. Young and Nelson [21] tried to explain this phenomenon by assuming there
are three types o f water sorption in biological materials. First, there is a layer of water
adsorbed directly on the outer surface o f the cell. Then, there are several layers o f con­
densed molecules that adhere to the adsorbed layer. There are also molecules that pass
through the cell wall and become adsorbed into the interior o f the cell. It was proposed
that two or more adsorbed layers are required to push the adsorbed molecules into the
interior o f the cell. During desorption the water bound to the surface would have to be
removed before the water in the cell. This would mean that at a given pressure more water
would be present in the cell during desorption than during adsorption.
Physical Adsorption in Packed Beds
The unsteady-state adsorption o f gases in packed beds is. very common in industry.
The main reason for this is the ease o f operation and low cost o f the adsorption systems.
Adsorption is used in many recovery and purification operations such as: decolorizing
mineral and vegetable oils, purifying air, dehydration o f gases and vapors, and concentrating
valuable solutes from liquid solutions [ 22 ].
In a packed bed where there is a vapor and strongly adsorbed solute, such as ethanol
and water, the vapor enters the packed bed and at first the solid adsorbs the solute rapidly
and effectively. The effluent from the bottom o f the packed bed is practically solute free
(see Fig. 2). The distribution o f the adsorbate in the solid bed is indicated by the horizon­
tal lines in Figure 2. The bulk o f the adsorption takes place over a small adsorption zone,
8
ADSORPTION
ZONE
ADSORPTION
ZONE
I
I
B
CONCENTRATION OF SOLUTE IN EFFLUENT
A
BREAKTHROUGH
CURVE -------------
TIM E
F ig u re 2 . T h e a d s o r p t i o n w a v e a n d b r e a k t h r o u g h c u r v e .
9
which moves down the column like a wave. The speed o f the wave is usually much slower
than the linear velocity o f the vapor in the column. As the adsorption zone gets closer to
the bottom of the column, the concentration o f the solute in the effluent starts to rise very
rapidly. This is called the break point. Then the concentration o f the solute in the effluent
rises until it reaches the inlet concentrations. The portion of the curve after point C on
Figure 2 is called the breakthrough curve [2 3 ].
If the process is highly exothermic a temperature wave will follow the adsorption
wave. A rise in temperature o f the effluent can be used as an indication o f the start o f the
breakthrough curve [2 4 ].
Previous Research
There has been some previous work done with the separation o f ethanol and water at
Montana State University. Graham [25] did work with a 0.75” X 12” adsorption column
and 1/16” hammer-milled Shabet barley. He obtained a correlation for yield as a function
of initial temperature and mass flux. The correlation he obtained is shown below:
Y = 0.0229/((T-80)0l5209F0 -6436)
Y = Yield (milliliters 99-wt% ethanol produced per gram dried barley)
F = Mass flux (gm/min-sqcm)
T = Temperature (C)
He also determined that the initial feed concentration had little effect on the yield for
feed concentrations between 75- and 85-wt% ethanol. Runs using specific barley particle
sizes showed a decrease in yield for sizes larger than 0.83 millimeters.
f
10
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The purpose o f this investigation was to determine the feasibility o f using barley as a
dehydration agent in the separation o f an ethanol-water mixture. The following parameters
were considered important in this investigation:
1. Feed space velocity
2. Barley particle size distribution
3. Adsorption column geometry
4. Number o f regenerations
5. Initial barley temperature
6 . Pressure
7. Initial feed concentration
8 . Initial grain moisture content
Parameters 1-4 were varied while parameters 5-8 were held constant at the following values:,
Initial grain moisture content
0%
Initial barley temperature
84-86 C
Feed concentration
75-wt% ethanol
Pressure
atmospheric (640 mmHg)
11
MATERIALS, APPARATUS, AND PROCEDURE
Materials
All the grain used in this project was Shabet barley. The barley was first separated
into three parts, then each part was ground in a Bell Model 10 hammer mill with a different
size screen. The three screen sizes used were 1/32”, 1/16”, and 1/8”, thus giving three dif­
ferent particle size distributions. A comparison of the three particle size distributions ob­
tained can be seen in Table 2. After grinding, all the grain was stored in sacks and kept in
the refrigerator at 1 0 C.
The particle size distributions were found using screens, which varied in size from 16
mesh to 250 mesh. For a list of screen sizes used, see Table 2. The screens were stacked in
order o f decreasing mesh and then the sample, usually 115 grams, was placed on the top
screen. A Ro-Tap was then used to shake and tap the screens. Two different samples were
Ro-Tapped for each particle size distribution. The results that are shown in Table 2 are the
average o f the two runs. All grain was ground and sized when the moisture content was 7%.
All the ethanol used was anhydrous, and it was mixed with distilled water to form a
75-wt% mixture.
Apparatus
/
The equipment used consisted of five major parts:
1. Feed burette
2. Pump
3. Evaporator
4. Adsorber
Table 2. The Particle Size Distributions o f the 1/8”, 1/16”, and 1/32” Hammer-Milled Barley.
Percent o f total sample
Screen
number
I
2
3
4
5
. 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Screen size
U.S. mesh
Screen opening
millimeters
10
18
30
40
- 50
60
70
100
140
200
270
bottom
2.0
1.0
0.589
6.417
0.297
0.246
0.210
0.147
0.106
0.075
0.053
-
1/8” Hammermilled barley
3.25
38.75
10.4
24.7
4.9
4.5
1.6
5.2 .
2.4
3.3
3.3 .
1.7
1/16” Hammermilled barley
1/32” Hammermilled barley
1.7
36.4
9.2
19.7
8.2
4.4
1.4
5.4
3.0
3.1
3.2
1.1
0.0
8.2
14.2
24.7
13.9
7.0
2.0
7.8
4.0
13.3
3.0
1.9
.
13
5. Condenser
A flow diagram o f the complete apparatus is shown in Figure 3.
A 50 milliliter glass feed burette was used for runs 1-25; it was accurate to 0.1 ml. A
100 milliliter glass feed burette, accurate to 0.2 ml, was used starting with run 26. The
reason for changing burettes was due to the volume o f feed required.
A four channel, low pressure, peristaltic pump was used with 3/3 2 ” tygon tubing. The
maximum output o f the pump was approximately .4 ml/min for each channel. The higher
flow rates were obtained by connecting two or more channels in parallel.
The aqueous ethanol was transported from the feed burette to the pump and from
the pump to the evaporator via 3/32” I.D. plastic tubing.
The evaporator, which would vaporize the aqueous ethanol, consisted of. one inch
pipe filled with copper-clad SB’s. The entire evaporator was wrapped with heating tape and
was insulated. It was placed vertically so the aqueous ethanol would enter the top and drip
down through the hot SB's. The evaporator was packed with BB’s in order to supply a high
surface area so complete vaporization could take place. A thermocouple was placed right
below the output o f the evaporator so the temperature of the exiting vapor could be moni­
tored. The output o f the heating tape for the evaporator and the other equipment was con­
trolled by a Powerstat variable transformer.
After the vapor left the evaporator, it passed through a 12 inch section of 1/4” I.D.
copper tubing. This tubing was wrapped with heating tape and insulated. The purpose of
this section was to insure complete vaporization o f the aqueous ethanol. When the higher
flow rates were used (4.5 ml/min and above), the evaporator was not able to vaporize all
the incoming aqueous ethanol. In those cases, the remainder of the aqueous ethanol was
vaporized in this section o f tubing. Complete vaporization was insured by monitoring the
temperature at the end o f this section of tubing.
■FEED BURETTE
-ADSORBER
•PUMP
CONDENSER
THERMOWELLS
EVAPORATOR
VALVES
WASTE BUCKET
F ig u r e 3 . F lo w d ia g ra m f o r t h e b a r le y a d s o r p t i o n p r o c e s s .
THERMOCOUPLES
0 .6 3 5
CM.
COPPER TUBING
15
There was a series o f valves at the end o f the 12 inch section o f tubing. During pre­
heat, the valve leading to the waste bucket was opened and the vapor was condensed and
discarded. ^Vhen the run-was started, that valve was closed and the valve leading to the
adsorption column was opened.
Four different adsorption columns were used. Runs 1-32 used a 1.5” (diameter) X
14” (length) copper column; runs 33-42 used a 1.5” X 24” copper column; runs 43-60
used a 1.5” X 24” black iron column; and runs 60-75 used a 2.5” X 23” black iron column.
All regeneration runs, numbers 57, 62, 64, 65, and 75 used the 1.5” X 24” black iron
column. The reason for switching from the copper column to the black iron column on run
43 was because leaks were developing at the entrance and exit o f the copper column.
The purpose o f the adsorber was to hold the grain in a fixed position. Heating tape
was wrapped around the adsorber and the entire adsorber was insulated. One piece of heat­
ing tape was used with the 1.5” X 14” column. Two separately-controlled pieces of heating
tape were used on the other columns. There were thermowells at the entrance, exit, and
every 3-4 inches along the adsorption column. Thermowells were placed so the ends were
at the center o f the adsorption column. One thermowell was placed at the edge of the col­
umn about halfway up. The thermowells consisted o f 3/16” copper tubing with the ends
soldered shut. Thermocouples were placed inside the thermowells as far as they would go.
After the vapor left the adsorber, it entered a water-cooled condenser where the sam­
ples were collected in test tubes. The vapor was kept hot until it entered the condenser.
This was done in order to prevent the vapor from condensing and dripping back into the
adsorption column.
All the thermocouples used were chromel-alumel. A Cole-Palmer digital thermometer
that was accurate to I C was used to record temperatures. The thermocouples used to
measure the temperature o f the vapor leaving the evaporator and the vapor entering the
adsorber were held in place with a Swagelok fitting filled with epoxy.
16
Procedure
Before the run could begin, the barley had to be dried to 0% moisture. This was
accomplished by placing the grain in large aluminum pans with the grain 0 .5-0.7 centimeters
deep. The pans were placed in one o f two ovens that were kept at HOC. The samples were
allowed to dry for 72-96 hours. It was found that this was sufficient to completely dry the
barley.
The pump was then set up depending on the flow rate required. The maximum out­
put o f the pump was a 4 ml/min for each channel. To keep a constant flow rate during the
run, 3 /3 2 ” tygon tubing was used and changed often.
The adsorption column was then blown out with compressed air in order to insure
that all the old grain was removed. Teflon tape was wrapped around the threads at both
ends of the column. The bottom screen was then placed in the column and the cap was put
on. A preweighed sample o f barley (230 grams for the 1.5” X 14” column, 400 grams for
the 1.5 X 24” column, and 900 grams for the 2.5” X 23” column) was added. The barley
came to within 0.5-1.5 inches o f the top of the column. The top screen was fitted into
place and the top cap screwed on. Both the top and bottom caps were then tightened in a
pipe vise to prevent leaks. The adsorption column was wrapped with heating tape and an
insulation jacket was placed around the entire adsorber. The adsorber was fitted into place
and the thermocouples were placed in the thermowells.
The Powerstats were turned on and the system was allowed to heat up. The valve to
the adsorber was closed, and the valve to the waste bucket was opened.
When the temperature o f the evaporator reached 80-83 C the pump was turned on
and adjusted to the correct flow rate. The Powerstats controlling the evaporator were set
so the output o f the evaporator was 84-92 C. The temperature of the vapor entering the
adsorber was kept at 100-110 C. When the high flow rates were used (above 4.5 ml/min),
17
the evaporator could not vaporize all the incoming feed. In those cases the power to the
heating tape on the 12 inch section o f tubing was turned up. This would allow complete
vaporization to occur before the feed entered thq adsorber.
The barley inside the adsorber was heated until a uniform 84-86 C was obtained.
Then the vapor was routed up the. adsorber and the run was started. At the start the level
of the burette was recorded along with all the temperatures.
When the 1.5” X 14” column was being used, the power to the heating tape was
turned off when the vapor was routed up the adsorption column. Due to the heat of
adsorption, the temperature o f the adsorber would rise to 90-95 C. The exception to this
was the slowest space velocity (0.035 gm/min sqcm). In this case a small amount of heat
had to be added to maintain the temperature above 84 C. When the other two columns
were being used, the power to the bottom section o f heating tape would be shut off at the
beginning o f the run. The upper section of heating tape was kept on so the outlet tempera­
ture would not drop below 84 C. Again, the only exception to this was the slowest space
velocity where some heat addition was required from the lower section o f heating tape.
Temperatures were recorded at various time intervals depending on the space velocity.
Generally, temperatures were recorded after every 20-30 milliliters o f feed additions. Sam­
ple tubes were changed at various times depending on run conditions. At the beginning of
the runs, samples were changed every 10-15 grams. As the ethanol concentration started to
drop, 3-4 gram samples were taken. A good indication of when the ethanol concentration
would start dropping was when the exit temperature started to rise.
I
'
The run was stopped when the barley was saturated. The Powerstats were turned off,
and the last sample was allowed to set for 10-15 minutes to collect the last bit of output.
The sample tubes were then weighed, and the samples were transferred to smaller
sample bottles for analysis. A Beckman gas chromatograph with a Poropack-R packed col­
umn operated at 190 C was used to find the ethanol concentration. A calibration curve
18
of weight percent versus area percent was obtained by making up samples o f known weight
percents.
The column was allowed to cool for several hours. Then three samples o f barley were
taken, one from the top, one from the middle, and one from the bottom. These samples
were dried in order to find the moisture content. The overall grain moisture content was
taken as the average of the three individual moisture contents.
19
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total o f 75 runs were made and o f that number, 54 were used in my analysis. The
results for all the useful runs are shown in Appendix A along with a list o f all rejected runs
and the reason for their rejection. The purpose o f the runs was to determine the effects of:
— Particle size distribution
— Space velocity
— Column geometry
— Multiple grain regenerations
Before the above points are discussed, a few general points should be mentioned.
As explained in the procedure section, the moisture content o f the barley was taken
as the average of the three small samples taken from the adsorption column. This method
worked well for the 1.5” X 14” and the 1.5" X 24” adsorption columns. All the grain from
two columns was dried and the actual moisture contents were 3-5% higher than the esti­
mated moisture contents. The method did not work as well for the 2.5” X 24” adsorption
column. AU the grain from one column was dried and the actual moisture content was 13%
lower than the estimated moisture content. This is the reason for the higher percentages
(above 100%) of the amount of feed accounted for when the 2.5” X 23” adsorption col­
umn was being used.
The results in Appendix A show that some ethanol was adsorbed by the barley. The
amount ranged from 12-35% of the ethanol in the feed. These figures were only estimates
due to the method of calculating barley moisture content. That is the probable cause for
the large range of values obtained. No trend could be found for the differences as a
function o f space velocity, particle size distribution, or adsorber geometry.
20
A typical breakthrough curve is shown in FigUre 4. The concentration of water in the
effluent was small for 5 minutes. Then the concentration rose very rapidly and leveled out
at about 5-6-wt% below the inlet concentration. This phenomenon was most likely due to
the fact that as the grain became saturated many adsorbed layers were built up. As stated
in the Introduction, Young and Nelson [26] proposed that once two layers were built up,
absorption o f the water into the interior o f the barley cells occurs. This would suggest that
as the barley became saturated it would start to absorb water molecules making more sites
available for adsorption. This process would occur at a much slower rate than the initial
adsorption rate, thus removing only 5-6-wt% o f the water in the feed. This would make
sense, since initially barley cells contain some water that was removed when the barley was
dried. Graham [27] obtained the same results with his experiments.
As stated before, the adsorption process releases heat causing the barley temperature
to rise. The faster the adsorption takes place the higher the barley temperature rises. Figure
5 shows the maximum temperature o f the barley versus mass flux for the 1/32” hammermilled barley. This is typical of the other particle size distributions. The temperatures
shown on Figure 5 are the average maximum temperature the barley attained at the center
of the adsorption column. The temperature o f the barley increased as the size of the
adsorber increased, due to the fact that less heat could escape in the larger columns. The
temperature of the barley would rise as the adsorption wave, as discussed in the Introduc­
tion, would move up the column. The fastest temperature rise observed was with the
1/32” hammer-milled barley, a mass flux o f 0.212 gm/min-sqcm, and the 2.5” X 23”
column. A temperature rise o f 11 C was observed in 45 seconds. It should be noted that
the thermocouples were placed in thermowells, which would tend to slow down their
response. In most cases the temperature would increase 3-7 C in 3-4 minutes.
There were some radial temperature gradients in all the columns. These gradients
would occur just after the adsorption wave would pass a point. The 1.5” adsorption col-
( WT%)
EFFLUENT
-
A M O UN T O F
W ATER
IN
1 5 .0 -
10.0
1 5 .0 -
-
10.0
T IM E
F ig u r e 4 . B r e a k th r o u g h c u r v e f o r R u n 2 0 .
(MINUTES)
12 .0
A
100
<1
□
□
□
_
O
96
U
□
□
§
D
<
Cd
W
92
_
A
2
O
£
O
88
_
O
GQ
A
2 . 5 " x2 3"
CO LU M N
n
L-I
1 .5 " x 2 4 "
CO LU M N
O
I .5 " x l4 "
CO LU M N
84
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
SPACE VELOCITY (GM/MIN CK2 )
Figure 5. Temperature as a function of space velocity for 1/32” hammer-milled barley.
0 .3
23
umns had gradients of 2-4 C, while the 2.5” adsorption column had gradients o f up to 6 C.
The radial temperature gradients did not last very long. After the adsorption wave had
passed the temperature at the wall would slowly increase until it reached the temperature
at the center o f the column.
Effect of the Mass Flux and Particle Size Distribution
The criteria for evaluation in this project was the amount o f 99-wt% ethanol pro­
duced per gram o f dried barley. This quantity was determined by mathematically mixing
the samples obtained until a mixture of 99-wt% was obtained. The weight o f this mixture
was divided by the amount o f dried barley present at the start o f the run. This was done
with the aid o f a Fortran computer program shown in Appendix B. This program also
printed the results shown in Appendix A.
Figures 6 , 1 , and 8 show the yield as a function o f mass flux and particle size for the
1.5” X 14”, 1.5” X 24", and the 2.5” X 23” adsorption columns respectively. The equa­
tions for the lines shown on the figures are listed in Table 3. The lines were obtained by
linear regression. The yield was found to be linear in reciprocal mass flux in all cases. The
yields for the 1/32” hammer-milled barley were highest at all conditions. The yields for the
1/8" and 1/16” hammer-milled barley were very close to each other in all cases. The results
for the 1/8” and 1/16” hammer-milled barley were so similar for the 1.5” X 24” column
that one equation was found to represent both particle size distributions.
This was due to how close the two. particle size distributions were to each other.
Figure 9 is a plot o f percent of the total weight o f barley screened versus pan number for
the three particle size distributions. The screen sizes for the various pans are shown in
Table 2.
BARLEY
BARLEY
O
l / l 6"
H A M M E R -M IL L E D
BARLEY
□
1 /8 "
HAM M ER- M I L L E D
P R O D U C E D /G R A M
D R IE D
H A M M E R -M IL L E D
0 .0 4
(G R A M S
9 9 -W T %
ETHANOL
Y IE L D
A 1 /3 2 "
M A SS
FLU X
(GM/MIN
CM^)
Figure 6. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1.5” X 14” adsorption column.
BARLEY
(GRAMS 99-WT?S ETHANOL PRODUCED/GRAM D R IE D BARLEY
Y IE L D
0.20
V I / 3 2 " HAMMER-MILLED BARLEY
O 1 /1 6 "
□ 1 /8 "
0.16
.
0.12
-
0.08
_ _
HAMMER-MILLED BARLEY
HAMMER-MILLED BARLEY
-
0.04
0.00
0.0
Figure 7. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1.5” X 24” adsorption column.
BARLEY)
D R IE D
YIELD
P R O D U C E D /G R A M
ETHANOL
99-W T %
(GRAM S
0.20
A 1 / 3 2 " HAMMER-MILLED BARLEY
O
1 /1 6 "
HAMMER-MILLED BARLEY
0 .1 6
L-J 1 / 8 "
0.12
HAMMER-KIL LED BARLEY
.
to
On
0.08
0.04
o.oo
I— — — 4—
0.0
-
H
-
4— —
0.10
M ASS
4 —“ “ T"
0.20
FLUX
( G M /M IN
CM2 )
Figure 8. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 2.5” X 23” adsorption column.
0.30
27
Table 3. Equations for the Yield as a Function o f Mass Flux for the Various Adsorber
Columns and Grain Particle Size Distributions.
Yield as a function o f mass flux (F)*
(gm 99-wt% ethanol produced/gm i
dried barley)
Correlation
. coefficient
Column
geometry
Grain size
distribution
1.5” X 14”
1/8”
1/16”
1/32”
Y=0.00242/F + 0.0572
Y=0.00348/F + 0.0536
Y=0.00407/F + 0.0840
0.84
0.95
0.99
1.5” X 24”
1/8” & 1/16”
1/32”
Y=0.00247/F + 0.00578
Y=0.00328/F + 0.081
0.97
0.92
2.5” X 23”
1/8”
1/16”
1/32”
Y=0.00144/F + 0.0523
Y=0.00162/F + 0.0599
Y=0.00155/F + 0.0786
0.92
0.93
0.98
*F = Mass flux (gm/min-sqcm).
In order to determine the approximate error in the values reported, several data points
were repeated. Table 4 shows the repeated runs and the conditions used. Generally the
repeatability was good-the maximum deviation was 15%.
Table 4. Results of Repeated Runs,
Column
geometry
Grain size
distribution
Mass flux
(gm/min-sqcm)
Yield*
1.5” X 14”
1/16” H.M.
0.325
0.337
0.066
0.063'
1.5” X 14”
1/8” H.M.
0.212
0.196
0.219
0.214
0.071
0.068
0.062
0.068
1.5” X 24”
1/8” H.M.
0.219
0.219
0.216
0.071
0.074
0.068
1.5” X 24”
1/16” H.M.
0.317
0.327
0.059
0.057
1.5” X 24”
1/32” H.M.
0.225
0.212
0.087
0.094
*Yield = Grams 99-wt% ethanol produced/gram dried barley.
30 . 0
20.0
-
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
SAMPLE
W E IG H T
40.0
10.0
-
PAN
NUMBER
Figure 9. Graphical representation of the 1/8” , 1/16” , and 1/32” hammer-milled barley particle size distributions.
29
Effect o f Column Geometry
Figures 10, 11, and 12 show yield as a function o f mass flux and adsorption column
geometry for the 1/32”* 1/16”, and the 1/8” hammer-milled barley respectively. The col­
umn geometry had an effect on the 1/32” and 1/16” hammer-milled barley at the lowest
mass flux, but there was no effect at the higher mass fluxes. The 1.5” X 14” and the 1.5”
X 24” adsorption columns showed about the same yields after 0 .1 gm/min-sqcm. The 2.5”
X 24” adsorption column showed lower yields until about 0.2 gm/min-sqcm; the column
geometry had no apparent effect after that. The column geometry had less effect on the
1/8” hammer-milled barley; however, the 2.5” X 23” adsorption column was lower at the
low values o f the mass flux.
The increase in adsorption column length had little effect on the yield. The increase
in adsorption column diameter decreased the yield by 20-30% at the low mass fluxes. This
could be due to the increase in temperature in the larger diameter column.
The curve obtained by Graham [28] is plotted on Figure 11. He used a 0.75” X 12”
adsorption column. The yields were considerably higher at the low mass fluxes, but the
yield drops off very fast and is about the same as the other yields at the high mass fluxes.
Effect o f Grain Regeneration
A total o f five runs were made with the same 1/32” hammer-milled barley. All the
runs were made with a mass flux o f 0.32 gm/min-sqcm. This mass flux was chosen because
a small variation in flow would not affect the yield. All the runs were made with the 1.5”
X 24” adsorption column.
A plot o f yield versus number o f runs is shown in Figure 13. Initially the yield drop­
ped 20%, then the yield stays at a constant 0.075 over the next four runs.
BARLEY
D R IE D
1/2"
ETHANOL
0.12
0.08
0.04
(G R A M S
x
1 4 ” COLUMN
x
24"
COLUMN
x
23'
COLUMN
0.16
99-W T %
Y IE L D
P R O D U C E D /G R A M
0 . 20
0 .00
0.20
0.10
M ASS
FLUX
(G M /M IN
CM
)
Figure 10. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1/32” hammer-milled barley.
(GRAMS 9 9 -WTfo ETHANOL PRODUCED/GRAM D R IE D BARLEY
Y IE L D
0.20
G R A H A M 'S
C O R R E L A T IO N
□ I
1/2"
x
14"
COLUMN
O I
1 /2 "
x
24"
COLUMN
A 2
1 /2 "
x
23"
COLUMN
CO L U M N
0.12
_ _
0.08
0.00
MASS FLUX
(G M /M IN CM^)
Figure 11. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1/16” hammer-milled barley.
(GRAMS 99-W T% ETHANOL PRODUCED/GRAM D R IE D BARLEY)
Y IE L D
0.20
□ I
1 /2 "
x
14"
COLUMN
O I
1 /2 "
x
24"
COLUMN
A 2
1/2"
x
23"
COLUMN
0.12
0.00
MASS FLUX
(G M /M IN CM^)
Figure 12. Yield as a function of mass flux for the 1/8” hammer-milled barley.
BARLEY)
D R IE D
P R O D U C E D /G R A M
(GRAM S
99-W T %
ETHANOL
Y IE L D
%
0 . 0 5 - -
1
2
3
R E G E N E R A T IO N
Figure 13. Yield as a function of the number of regenerations.
4
NUMBER
5
34
Run 45 was made with grain that was dried for a period o f 500 hours in the oven at a
temperature of 110C. The results o f this run were about 20% lower than the value obtained
for run 52 where the barley was dried for 100 hours. It could be possible that the regenera­
tion did not affect the sorptive capacity, but the time it spent in the oven was the cause of
the decrease in sorptive capacity. Sair and Fetzer found that severe desiccation can reduce
the ability of starches to adsorb water [29]. It has been proposed that the hydroxyl groups
present in starches play an important role in water sorption. The high heat required to dry
the barley could cause mutual bonding of the hydroxyl groups, thus reducing the sorptive
capacity [30].
Possible Barley Sorption Process
In order for the barley sorption process to be economically feasible, regeneration of
the grain would be necessary. Since the barley contains some ethanol, it should not be used
for anything except fermentation to produce ethanol. As shown in Appendix C, four
regenerations are required to dehydrate the ethanol created by fermenting one batch of
barley.
The barley adsorption process would be tied directly to a conventional distillation
column. The distillation column would output 75-wt% ethanol directly to the barley
adsorption column. If one barley adsorption column was used, four regenerations would
be required for each batch o f fermentation ethanol. This would be very inefficient since
the distillation column would have to be heated up four times for each batch of ethanol.
A more feasible alternative would be to have four columns in parallel. Then the entire
batch could be distilled and concentrated at the same time. At the end of the run the bar­
ley from one column would be dumped and fermented. New barley would be put in its
place, and the columns would be regenerated. As shown in Appendix C, the time required
to regenerate the barley is about 7 hours. The fermentation requires 36-48 hours [31], so
35
a run could be made every other day. The time required for the distillation and adsorption
is much less than the time required for regeneration.
It should be noted that for the barley adsorption system, the yield is not known for
larger columns. More tests would be required in order to know how the yield varies in large
columns. ,From the data in this report it can be concluded that the yield will not increase
in a larger adsorption column. '
This type o f a process would undoubtedly be very expensive and difficult to run. At
this point there are more attractive methods, such as molecular sieve adsorption, which
would be easier and less costly to run.
36
SUMMARY
This investigation o f the separation o f an ethanol-water mixture by sorption using
barley as the sorbent has produced the following results and conclusions:
1. The amount o f 99-wt% ethanol produced per gram of dried barley is inversely
proportional to the mass flux.
2. The smallest particle size distribution provided the greatest yield under all con­
ditions.
3. An increase in adsorption column length has no effect on the yiel^l, but an increase
in column diameter decreases the yield at low values o f mass flux.
4. Absorption in addition to adsorption o f the water vapor occurs when barley is
used as a sorbent.
5. Both ethanol vapor and water vapor are adsorbed by the barley.
6. Regeneration of the barley will decrease the sorptive capacity.
'7 .
An increase in the adsorption column diameter will increase the temperature of
the grain, thus lowering the yield.
8. Regeneration will be necessary if the process is to be used on a large scale.
9. The use o f this process would be difficult because o f grain regeneration and
temperature control.
10. The repeatability o f the data obtained was good.
37
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
1. Experiments with even more finely ground barley should be run. •
2. The adsorption process should be tried at pressures greater than atmospheric.
3. A small scale distillation unit, with a barley adsorption unit should be tested with
. each other to determine the best operating conditions.
38
LITERATURE CITED
ri
ji
39
LITERATURE CITED
1. Paul, I. K. E thyl Alcohol Production and Use as a Motor Fuel, Noyes Data Corp.,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1979, p. 275.
2. Goodrich, R. S. “Brazil’s Alcohol Motor Fuel Program,” Chemical Engineering Pro­
gress, vol. 78, No. I, Jan. 1982, pp. 29-34.
3. Paul, J. K. Op. c it, p. 277.
4. McCallum, P. W., Timbrio, T. J., and Bechtold, R. J. “Methanol/Ethanol: Alcohol
Fuels for Highway Vehicles,” Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 78, No. 8, Aug.
1982, pp. 53-59.
5. Paul, J. K. Op. cit., p. 334.
6. Kirk, R. E. (Ed.). Encyclopedia o f Chemical Technology, vol. I, Interscience Encyclo­
pedia, 1947, pp. 252-286.
7. Paul, J. K. Op. cit., p. 315.
8. Eakin, D. E., Donovan, J. M., and Cysewski, G. R. “Preliminary Evaluation of Alter­
native Ethanol/Water Separation Processes,” PNL-3823, Pacific Northwest Labora­
tory, Richland, Washington, 1981, p. 3.
9. Graham, G. “Sorption o f Water Vapor From an Ethanol-Water Mixture Using Barley
as the Sorbent,” Master’s Thesis, Montana State University (under preparation).
10. Ladish, M. R., and Dyck, K. “Dehydration o f Ethanol: New Approach Gives Positive
• Energy Balance,” Science, vol. 206, Oct. 6, 1979, pp. 898-900.
11. Sair, L., and Fetzer, W- R- “Water Sorption by Starches,” Ind. Eng. Chem., vol. 36,
No. 31, March 1944, pp. 205-08.
12. Ladish, M. R., and Dyck, K. Loc. cit.
/
13. Young, D. M., and Crowell, A. D. Physical Adsorption o f Gases, Butterworth, London,
1962, p. 2.
'
14. Nygoddy, P. O., and Bakker-Arkema, F. W. “A Generalized Theory o f Sorption Phe­
nomena,in Biological Materials (Part I: The Isotherm Equation),” Transactions of the
A.S.A.E., 1970, pp. 612-17.
15. Young, D. M., and Crowell, A. D. Loc. cit.
16. Nygoddy5P. O., and Bakker-Arkema, F. W. Loc. cit.
40
17. Ibid.
18. Mantell, C. L. Adsorption, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951, pp. 25-26.
19. Nygoddy, P. O., and Bakker-Arkepia, F. W. Loc. cit.
20. Mantell, C. L. Loc. cit.
21. Young, I. H., and Nelson, G. L. “Theory o f Hysteresis Between Sorption and Desorp­
tion Isotherms in Biological Materials,” Transactions o f the A.S.A.E., 1968, pp. 260263.
22. Treybal, R. E. Mass Transfer Operations, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968,
p. 542.
23. Ibid,, p. 542.
24. Ibid., p .5 4 3 .
25. Graham, G. Loc. cit.
26. Young, J. H., and Nelson, G. L. Loc. cit.
27. Graham, G. Loc. cit.
28. Ibid.
29. Sair, L., and Fetzer, W. R. Loc. cit.
30. Ibid.
31. Kirk, R. E. Loc. cit.
32. Gird, J. W. “On-Farm Production and Utilization of Ethanol Fuel,” Cooperative Ex­
tension Service Facts, Facts #126, Montana Cooperative Extension Service, August
1980.
41
APPENDICES
42
ft
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF RUNS
43
Table 5. List o f Rejected Runs and the Reason for Rejection.
Run
number
Reason for rejection
1-12
Start up
25
Bad mass balance
26
Valve was left open
34
Bad mass balance
37
Powerstat blew a fuse
40
Leak detected after start
43
Bad mass balance
46
Hose burst
49
Feed concentration too low
61
Feed concentration too low
69
Valve was left open
I
I
44
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 13
1 , 5 ' X 14" COLUMN
a
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I—6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
1-11
1-12
fSlIu
zI
IZ2I i S
MILLED
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
4 .5 8
8 .1 3
1 0.2 6
1 2 .8 2
1,5.28
2 0 .3 4
2 4 .9 3
2 9 .5 5
3 2 .3 4
3 6 .9 6
4 1.6 1
4 9 .1 9
.0198
.0352
,0444
»0555
,0662
.0881
»1079
»1279
.1400
,1600
.1801
.2129
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.994
.99 5
.996
.996
,996
,98 4
.960
-X &
.919
.909
.896
.07678
GRAMS 99 WT.X ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 0 .0
6 2 .6 4
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 9 .1 9
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .8 0
PERCENT
16.85
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
PERCENT
1 0 5 .4 3
4 9 .5 3
16.51
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 4 .0 6
5 .1 3
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL. ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
5 ,4 7
1 1 ,0 5
3 2 .4 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
45
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 14
1 ,5 " X 14" COLUMN
a
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I-
3
V-I
I- 6
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
6 ,2 0
.0268
,0448
.0542
.0660
.0754
.0854
1 0,3 5
12,51
15.24
1 7 .4 2
1 9 .7 3
1 :1
2 9 .1 0
3 3 .7 3
} :u
348v.il
1-10
H
6MIS &
&UE
X
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.998
.998
'.Il76
'.111
'.Htt
,
.1260
.1460
! I
:il? 6
*,889
,
.915
»06643
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 9 .0
5 6 .7 6
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 4 .8 6
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .5 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
13.44
102.71
4 3 .7 3
1 4 .5 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 9 .8 8
1.98
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION.OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
3 .8 5
8 .8 0
2 8 .6 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
46
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 15
. 4'
. COLUMN
1 . 5 ' X, 1
Jffi-Sffirf0PBflIB HHn
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
1
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I-
7
V
-1
1-10
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
4 .6 8
9 .7 7
1 4 .9 6
1 9 .5 8
2 4 .5 8
2 7 .7 7
.0203
.0423
.0648
.0848
.1064
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.996
I
.993
.984
.974
.967
.959
.1202
.1412
.1606
.1759
.1959
^ f o 2
4 0 .6 3
4 5 .2 5
.12653
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 8 .0
7 0 .8 5
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 5 .2 5
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 .6 0
PERCENT
1 9 .0 0
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 0 .6 9 PERCENT
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
4 8 .1 9 GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
1 6 .0 6
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 3 .3 9
1 .8 6
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
4 ,8 0
9 .9 5
2 5 .2 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
47
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 16
1 .5 » X 14” COLUMN
MASS FLUX .10 8 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /1 6 1 HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I--I
I- 7
I- 8
I.
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
7 .1 3
1 0 .3 6
1 3 .2 6
1 5.2 7
.0309
.0449
.0574
*0661
.997
.997
,998
.998
2 2 .7 6
2 6 .0 4
*0857
.0985
.1127
9
,
.989
.979
.•III
:B 8
1-10
:? ? !
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 1 .0
5 0 .1 1
G
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
3 2 .6 1
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .8 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.09729
1 4.2 2
9 3 .4 6
3 5 .1 2
11.71
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 1 .2 2
1 .3 9
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
3 .9 0
1 1.1 0
2 7 .4 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
48
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 17
a
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 3
I- 4 .
I- 5
1~ 6
9
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
4 .8 0
9 .3 9
1 4.3 7
1 7 .9 7
2 2 .0 4
2 5 .8 8
.0208
.0407
,0622
.0778
.0954
.1120
.996
.998
.998
.998
.998
.998
m
:??7
I-Ii
.
.993
.983
.1398
.1599
3 6 .9 3
4 2 .1 4
4 7 .8 3
1-10
_
SF&Xoffl ms HEEk.
8:31
3 2 .3 0
I: I
I-
1 ,5 " X 14" COLUMN
:lo7i4
,14544
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 9 .0
8 0 .7 8
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 7 .8 3
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
8 .1 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
2 0 .3 6
8 4 .4 1
5 1 .1 4
1 7 .0 5
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 6 .2 4
1 .5 9
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
\
GRAMS
4 .9 0
9 .5 9
2 4 .0 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
49
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 18
1*5" X 14" COLUMN
_
GRAIN SIZE ! / 1S" HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I:
I
I- 6
I-
7
I- 1
1-10
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
7 .5 9
1 1 ,1 6
1 3 .7 8
1 5 .9 8
1 8.9 2
2 2 .3 6
2 6 .7 2
3 1 .9 0
3 7 ,1 9
4 3 .2 8
.0329
.0483
.0597
.0692
.0819
.0968
.1157
.1381
.1610
.1874
.999
.999
*999
♦999
.994
.983
♦967
♦953
*939
.928
GRAMS 99 WT*% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 7 .0
6 0 .0 5
.08699
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 3 .2 8
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .1 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT QF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
15.01
9 7 .0 7
4 3 .7 1
14*57
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 0 .1 4
3 .1 4
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
3 .5 7
8 .1 7
2 3 .7 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
50
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 19
1 . 5 ' X 1 4 ' COLUMN
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 * HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 4
I-
5
I- 6
i-1
I-
9
1-10
1-11
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
5 .5 2
8 .8 0
.0239
.0381
.998
.998
.
m
1 6.3 7
1 9 .4 8
!I:!!
2 9 .2 5
3 3 .3 6
3 9 .9 2
:???
,
.0709
.0843
.999
.997
-.0I 9I 8O?
.1266
.1444
.1728
.949
.932
M
.962
.09560
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 9 .0
5 6 .1 6
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
3 9 .9 2
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .5 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
1 3.4 4
9 5 .0 2
4 0 .0 2
1 3 .3 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 7 .2 0
2 .7 2
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 .8 2
7 .0 6
2 1 .0 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
51
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 20
1*5" X 14" COLUMN
ow
M
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
m
E E
e.
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
5 ,0 5
7 .7 3
1 0 .4 2
.0219
.0335
.0451
.999
.999
.999
}: 5
I—6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
H :B .
1 9 .2 2
2 2 ,0 6
2 6 .9 4
3 1 .4 4
3 9 .2 3
.0832
.0955
♦ 1166
.1361
.1698
*964
♦949
♦927
♦9 11
.892
1-10
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
9 0 .0
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
5 0 .2 8
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
39*23
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .0 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.06139
1 2.1 6
1 0 2 .1 9
3 8 .5 4
1 2 .8 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 4 .9 8
4 .2 5
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
3 .5 6
9 .2 3
2 9 .2 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
52
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 21
1 . 5 ' X 1 4 ' COLUMN
MASS FLUX .297 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- j
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
7 .1 5
9 .9 4
1 4.2 6
1 6.8 8
.0310
.0430
.0513
,0617
.0731
.998
.998
.998
.998
.998
5*. 2
2 9 ,2 9
3 3 .3 0
4 0 .6 9
.1268
.1442
.1761
. .964
.949
.927
11.86
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
•.III
:iin
11
GRAMS 99 UT.Z ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 0 .0
5 5 .3 0
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 0 .6 9
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .4 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.09252
13.19
9 7 .4 3
4 0.4 1
1 3 .4 7
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 7 .7 2
2 .9 7
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
2 .6 9
6 .6 6
2 0 .4 1
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
53
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 22
1 ,5 ' X 1 4' COLUMN
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 * HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-10
1-11
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.998
.999
.999
.999
.999
,998
.992
.985
,976
.963
.958
.0300
.0654
.0955
.1190
.1414
.1659
.1868
.2054
.2292
6 ,9 2
1 5.1 0
2 2 .0 5
2 7 .4 8
3 2 .6 7
3 8 .3 2
4 3 .1 6
4 7 .4 4
5 2 .9 4
6 0 .4 8
6 2 .7 2
,2618
.2715
GRAMS 99 UT,Z ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 7 .0
9 3 . 31
.19193
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
6 2 .7 2
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
9 .3 0
PERCENT
2 3 .6 9
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
9 2 .6 0
6 4 .8 0
2 1 .6 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
6 0 .1 1
2 .6 1
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 .6 9
7 .2 4
1 9 .8 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
54
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 23
1 ,5 " X 1 4' COLUMN
MASS FLUX ,21 2 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /1 6 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 4
i l l
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
5 ,5 5
1 3.4 6
18.22
2 3 .9 4
,0240
0583
0789
1036
.999
.998
.985
.960
cuB
h
T e
M
3 7 .3 3
m
.93C
.917
.904
1616
1926
4 4 .4 8
.07143
GfcAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 0 .0
6 1 .7 8
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 4 ,4 8
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .0 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 1 .6 8
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
12,16
4 2 .4 8
1 4.1 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 0 .2 0
4 .2 8
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 .2 8
5 .3 6
1 8 .7 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
55
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 24
1 , 5 ' X 1 4 “ COLUMN
MASS FLUX .1 0 2 6 M/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
67
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
8 .0 2
.0347
.0499
.0622
.0761
.0868
11.52
1 4,3 6
1 7.5 7
2 0 .0 5
cM
vE
eT
-.I9T7
.994
,989
.977
.1191
.1299
.1492
2 7 ,5 1
3 0 .0 0
3 4 .4 6
l
ht
,995
,996
.997
,997
.997
-.OT
Sfctt.
B
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 8 .0
5 3 .4 0
.12695
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
3 4 .4 6
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 ,3 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
1 8.1 9
9 8 .6 1
3 9 .4 9
1 3 .1 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
3 3 .6 7
AMOUNT. OF WATER IN PRODUCT
,7 9
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY *
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
5 .8 1
.14.72
3 1 .9 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
56
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 27
1 ,5 " X 14" COLUMN
MASS FLUX ,1 9 6 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /1 6 * HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
. CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
5 .0 1
1 1.5 4
1 6.7 3
.0217
,0500
.0724
.0875
,1023
.1205
,1338
.1479
,1783
2 0 .2 0
2 3 .6 4
2 7 .8 3
3 0.9 1
3 4 .1 7
4 1 ,1 9
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.997
.997
.988
.973
.957
.940
♦931
♦921
,905
GRAiMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 0 .0
5 7 .0 2
.06806
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 1 ,1 9
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .0 0
PERCENT
1 4.7 4
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 8 . 09
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
4 1 .9 5
1 3 .9 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 7 .2 6
3 .9 3
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 .6 9
1 1 .1 7
3 1 .7 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
57
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 28
1 , 5 “ X 1 4 “ COLUMN
sM$ M
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I-
7
l:1-10I
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
MB ECeb
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0190
,0502
.0617
,998
.997
,99 0
.-O0B
7K
:??§
.1038
.1255
.952
.934
: I1I I i
:IS
.904
4 .3 9
11.59
1 4.2 4
2 3 .9 7
2 8 .9 8
!!.-S0I
.1805
4 1 .7 0
.06210
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 9 .0
5 8 .7 5
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 1 ,7 0
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 ,0 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 6 .0 7
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
14.74
4 2 .3 3
1 4.1 1
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 7 .7 1
3 .9 9
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
4 .6 2
1 0 .9 2
3 1 .3 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
58
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 29
1 .5 * X 1 4 ' COLUMN
GRAIN SIZE 1/16^ HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE.
NUMBERS
I- I .
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY .
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.993
.99 5
.994
.9 8 3
.970
.95 3
♦940
.927
.0266
.0446
.0617
.0795
.0962
.1174
.1339
.1557
6 .1 4
1 0 .3 0
1 4.2 6
1 8.3 6
2 2 .2 3
2 7 .1 1
3 0 .9 3
3 5 .9 6
.06776
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 8 .0
5 2 .2 7
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
3 5 .9 6
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 .1 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
1 7.6 5
1 0 2 .5 7
4 0 .2 1
1 3 .4 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS '
GRAMS
3 3 .3 2
2 .6 4
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
6 .9 0
1 7 .1 5
3 9 .0 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
59
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 30
1 . 5 ' X 1 4 “ COLUMN
M im i #
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I-
I
fci
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
B
r
nm
,
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
5 .4 8
.0237
.997
1 7 .5 5
2 2 .2 5
2 8 .1 1
3 8 .9 3
.0760
.0963
.1217
.1685
.980
.955
.929
,897
m i.
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 2 .0
5 0 .9 8
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
3 8 .9 3
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .7 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.06362
1 3.9 6
1 0 3 .7 6
3 9 .6 7
1 3 .2 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 4 .9 0
. 4 .0 3
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
4 ,7 7
1 2 .0 3
3 4 .1 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
60
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 31
1 . 5 ' X 1 4' COLUMN
MASS FLUX .19 3 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
V-1
I- 7
I-
8
.
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
4 .3 0
m
2 2 .0 4
.0186
.0384
.0512
.0625
■m
.0954
.997
.998
,998
.996
2 7 .9 6
.1210
:???
.962
.937
8.86
1 1 .8 2
1 4 .4 3
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.06976
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 0 .0
4 4 .9 3
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
2 7 .9 6
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .0 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 5 .0 5
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
1 4.7 4
3 2 .0 3
1 0 .6 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 6 .2 1
1 .7 5
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
5 .8 2
1 8 .1 8
3 9 .4 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
61
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 32
1 ,5 " X 2 4 ' COLUMN
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
I- I
I- 2
6 .3 7
1 5.9 5
.0159
,0399
.998
.998
I:
I.
I- 6
25'.42
2 8 .7 4
3 2 .7 5
3 6 .0 5
4 1 .2 0
M
.0819
.0901
.1030
I
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- 7
I- 8
.994
.988
.979
.08754
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 4 ,0
7 7 .3 3
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 1 .2 0
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .3 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
2 2 .3 9
8 2 ,2 3
4 7 .6 9
1 5 .9 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
4 0 .3 4
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.86
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
7 .3 5
15.41
3 2 .8 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
62
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 33
1 , 5 ' X 24" COLUMN
MASS FLUX >121 W M I N SBCM
GRAIN SIZE 1/16» HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I-
I
1-. 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.998
.99 8
.998
.998
.998
.998
.997
.995
.986
.0152
,0318
.0449
.0530
.0628
.0704
.0772
.0835
.0955
6 .0 7
1 2 .7 2
1 7,9 7
21.21
2 5 .1 0
2 8 .1 4
3 0 .8 7
3 3 .3 8
3 8.2 1
,09003
GRAMS 99 tiT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 6 .0
6 2 .2 1
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
C
GRAMS
3 8 .2 1
4 .0 0
GRAMS
<PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
1 6 .6 7
8 8 .2 1
4 1 .1 6
1 3 .7 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
3 7 .6 7
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.5 4
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 .4 9
8 .4 ?
2 0 .9 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
63
RESULTS RUM NUMBER 3 5
1 , 5 ' X 2 4 ' COLUMN
. MASS FLUX ,14 4 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 ° HAMMER MILLED
CUMULATIVE
OiMs
- I
--I
- 4
I- 5
H
I-
9
1-10
m
Mm
WEIGHT OF
-
M
m
r®
5 .8 7
.0147
.995
11:14
:%
%1
.0575
M
.996
2 3 .0 0
2 7 .3 2
.0683
8:1
\V
,i
.989
.0892
.0975
,1109
.1224
.1384
3 9 .0 0
4 4 .3 7
4 8 .9 6
5 5 .3 6
.983
.972
.‘It.
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 4 .0
8 7 .2 6
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
5 5 .3 6
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .4 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
'0 8 76
2 2 .8 3
8 9 .6 1
5 8 .6 4
1 9 .5 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
5 2 .9 2
2 .4 4
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
.5 .7 2
9 .7 6
2 5 .0 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
64
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 36
1 .5 " X 24" COLUMN
MASS FLUX .309 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 " HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-10
1-11
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
5 .6 8
1 1 .0 8
1 8.1 4
22.51
2 4 .9 3
2 8 .0 3
3 1 .0 1
3 2 .7 2
3 7 .7 5
4 2.7 1
4 8 .5 1
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
♦0142
.0277
.0454
.0563
.0623
.0701
.0775
.0818
.0944
.1068
.1213
.998
.999
.999
.999
.999
.999
.998
.994
.980
.966
.952
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 8 .0
7 9 .0 6
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 8 .5 1
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .3 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
,08551
2 2 .3 9
8 9 .6 8
5 3 .1 7
1 7 .7 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 6 .1 7
2 .3 4
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
7 .0 0
1 3.1 7
3 1 .2 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
65
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 38
1 .5 - X 2 4 ' COLUMN
_
m
GRAIN SIZE 1 /1 6 ^ HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I—6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
7 .9 7
1 6 .1 3
2 2 .6 3
2 7 .0 4
3 4 .5 9
3 8 .5 0
4 2 .3 4
4 6 .8 9
5 5 ,3 8
,0199
.0403
,0566
«0676
,0865
.0963
♦ 1058
♦ 1172
♦1384
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.994
.995
•.995
.985
.977
.97 0
.07694
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 5 .0
8 4 .6 7
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
5 5 .3 8
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .7 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 3 .9 6
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
2 4 .1 8
5 9 .6 7
1 9.8 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
5 2 .4 6
2 .9 2
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
7 .2 1
1 2i0 8
2 9 .8 1
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
66
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 41
1 . 5 " X 2 4 " COLUMN
GRAIN S I ^ E l / i ! ^ HAMMER HlLLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
8 .79
15.82
22.42
I:
J
1™ 6
?2.*?6
46.75
51.22
i- ?
S.'Ii
62,89
I- 7
1-10
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
.0220
.0396
.0561
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.997
.997
,997
:KH
.1169
■Ml
.1280
.994
.989
.1572
.965
.12 5 2 9
GRAMS 9 9 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADD ITIO NS
9 4 .0
1 1 6 . 21
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
62.89
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 .20
PERCENT
31.03
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
8 0 .8 2
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
70.44
23.48
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
60.66
2.23
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
9 .78
13,89
3 1 .5 2
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
67
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 42
1 . 5 ' X 2 4 " COLUMN
MASS FLUX » 0 8 7 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN S I Z E 1 / 1 6 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
i-i
IIII-
6
7
8
9
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
7 .76
15.29
22.88
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
,0194
.0 3 8 2
.0572
13:11
•. 0 9m4 7
37.89
41.49
44.61
5 0 .3 3
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.997
.998
,998
m
.997
.1037
,1115
.1258
.993
.988
.980
GRAMS 9 9 U T . Z ETHANOL PRODUCED. PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
93.0
76,03
.10895
C
GRAMS
TOTAt SAMPLE WEIGHT
50.33
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 ,6 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
9 7 .4 0
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER I N FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
23.73
55.54
18.51
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
49.31
1.02
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L I Q U I D
GRAMS
GRAMS
6.23
1 1 .2 2
2 6 .2 7
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
68
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 44
1 , 5 ° X 2 4 ° COLUMN
MASS FLUX , 2 8 6 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN S I Z E I / 8 ° HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
.0234
.0430
.0561
,0725
.0826
,0921
,1020
.1126
.1387
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
9 .37
17.21
22.43
29.01
33.04
36.83
4 0.79
45.06
55,47
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.993
,983
.971
.954
,941
.929
.918
.908
.889
.0 2 9 2 9
GRAMS 9 9 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
93.0
76,46
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
55,47
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5.30
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
22.39
101.82
58.39
19,46
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
49,29
6 .18
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
9.10
15,58
4 0 .6 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
69
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 45
1 , 5 ' X 2 4 ' COLUMN
MASS FLUX . 3 1 7 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN S I Z E 1 7 1 6 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
10.40
16.84
23.11
2 8.65
34,74
40,79
47,60
.0260
.0421
.0578
.0 7 1 6
.0869
,1020
.1190
CUMULATIVE HEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.999
.998
.991
.982
:?il
.920
.0 5 9 1 0
GRAMS 9 9 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADD ITIO NS
94.0
62.64
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
47.60
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
4 .00
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER I N FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER I N PRODUCT
16.67
1 02,60
48.20
16.07
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
43.80
3.80
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
4.40
9,12
2 6 .3 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
.70
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 4 7
1 , 5 " X 2 4 " COLUMN
,8818 K i;2!? 8 # 8 E C n
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
1:3'
1™ 6
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
9.27
15.26
2 0.82
I- 7
32.68
37.07
}:§
1-10
57.87
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
♦0 2 3 2
.0382
.0521
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.996
.996
.997
.0817
.0927
*??2
,984
.970
.1447
.922
m
m
Il-Il
GRAMS 9 9 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
94.0
77,76
,07 3 8 5
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
57,87
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
4.00
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
16.67
95,85
5 5 .9 0
18.63
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
5 3 .3 3
4 .54
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL I N ADSORBED L I Q U I D
GRAMS '
GRAMS
2 .58
4,61
15.46
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
71.
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 48
1 .5 '
X 24'
COLUMN
MASS FLUX . 2 7 7 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN S I Z E 1 / 1 6 ’ HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
12.35
17.54
23.18
27.71
32.28
38.08
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0309
.0439
♦0 5 8 0
.0693
.0807
.0952
.997
.997
.992
.983
.972
.957
GRAMS 9 9 U T . X ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADD ITIO NS
93.0
48.38
C
GRAMS
/
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
38.08
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
3 .50
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
14.51
108.69
39.44
13.15
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
36.43
1.65
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQU ID
'I
.06023
GRAMS
GRAMS
3.01
7 .64
20.78
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
72
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 50
1 , 5 " X 2 4 " COLUMN
MASS FLUX . 2 2 5 GM/MIN SQGM
GRAIN S I Z E 1 / 3 2 " HAMMER MILLED
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
I- I
9.60
.0240
.996
I- 4
I- 5
I- &
1-7
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
27.19
31.16
35.29
39.61
43.69
49.97
57.14
_ . ''V-
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I-1
m
H:»-
•Mi
»0680
.0779
.0882
.0990
.1092
.1249
.1428
.996
.995
.989
♦9 7 8
.966
,950
.934
GRAMS 9 9 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADD ITIO NS '
96.0
78.62
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
57.14
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5.20
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
,08708
C
21.94
100.58
59.31
19.77
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
53.34
3.80
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L I Q U I D
GRAMS
GRAMS
5 ,9 7
1 0 .0 6
2 7 .2 1
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
73
RESULTS RUN NUMBER S I
1 .5 "
X 24'
COLUMN
MASS FLUX .3 2 7 GM/MIN
GRAIN SIZE 1 /1 6 " HAMMER
-
WEIGHT OF
CUMULATIVE
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
■
cR tr a m ! 7
SHHfSUB
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
1 2.9 9
1 8 .9 5
2 1 .9 6
2 5 .3 3
2 9 .0 5
.0325
.0474
,0549
.0633
.0726
.998
I-
4 9 .6 3
.1241
♦923
$8
m
.*992
.985
.975
,05729
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 3 .0
6 4 .8 0
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 9 .6 3
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
3 .8 0
PERCENT
1 5,8 0
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
1 0 0 .9 7
4 9 .0 7
1 6 .3 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 5 .8 1
3 .8 2
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 .2 6
6 .6 4
2 0 .6 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 5 2
X 2 4 ' COLUMN
aunTiS
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
i'-l
1-6
I- 7
I- 8
I Z3 8^ HAMMER MILLED
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
. WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
10.66
16.86
19.52
i? :!!
31.74
37,25
46.69
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0267
.0422
,0488
.996
.994
.991
.0794
.0931
,1167
.962
.946
.925
m
GRAMS 9 9 UT *Z ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
F I NAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 4 .0
62.21
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
46.69
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
4 .30
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.0 4 9 7 4
17.97
103.95
48.50
16.17
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
43.17
3.52
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L I Q U I D
GRAMS
GRAMS
5.33
10.99
2 9 .6 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
75
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 53
1 .5 '
X 24'
COLUMN
MASS FLUX .03 9 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
1 0 .5 0
2 3 .0 9
3 5 .7 4
4 3 .2 2
5 2 .7 1
5 8 .5 6
6 3 .2 0
7 0 .3 3
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.996
.996
.996
.996
.995
.994
.992
.985
.0263
.0577
.0894
.1080
.1318
.1464
.1580
.1758
,16196
GRAMS 99 MT.Z ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
87*0
1 15 .34
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
7 0 .3 3
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
8 .0 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
9 1 .1 3
7 8 .8 3
2 6 .2 8
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
3 4 .7 8
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
6 9 .2 5
1 .0 8
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN
GRAMS
ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
9 .5 8
12.15
2 7 .5 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
f
76.
RESULTS RUM NUMBER 54
X 24" COLUMN u
MASS FLUX .2 1 6 GM/HIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 " HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0178
. 0366
.0457
.0549
.0592
.0638
.0727
. .0871
.1025
7 .1 2
1 4.6 2
1 8.2 9
2 1 .9 4
2 3 .6 7
2 5 .5 3
2 9 .0 9
3 4 .8 5
4 1 .0 2
.996
.997
.997
.99 7
.996
♦995
.986
.967
.948
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 3 .0
6 0 .4 8
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 1 .0 2
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .3 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
. *06883
2 2 .3 9
1 04 .84
4 7 .5 5
1 5 .8 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 8 .8 8
2 .1 4
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
8 .6 7
18.24
3 8 .7 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
77
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 55
1 .5 '
X 24'
COLUMN
MASS FLUX .34 7 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
!--I
I- 7
I-
8
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
7 .8 3
1 6 .3 3
.0196
.0408
.0555
.0663
.996
.997
.997
.997
..0976
‘Ssl?
.M
.985
.1189
*958
22.2 0
2 6 .5 1
‘5?
33.
3 9 .0 4
4 7 .5 5
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 7 .0
6 8 .6 9
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 7 .5 5
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
4 .8 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.09139
2 0 .1 7
9 8 .5 9
5 0 .7 9
1 6 .9 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS ,
4 5 .5 3
2 .0 2
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
5 .2 6
1 0 .3 6
2 6 .0 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
78
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 56
1 ,5 " X 24" COLUMN
MASS FLUX .03 7 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /1 6 " HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
1-6
I- 7
I- 8
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0305
.0617
.0816
.1013
.1128
.1238
.1355
.1452
, ,996
.997
»997 ,
.996
.994
.992
.989
.986
12.20
2 4 .6 9
3 2 .6 4
4 0 .5 2
4 5 .1 4
4 9 .5 3
5 4 .2 0
5 8 .1 0
GRAMS 99 UT', % ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
8 6 ,0
9 3 ,7 4
,13083
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
5 8 .1 0
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 .8 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
3 3 .8 4
9 8 .0 8
6 8 .9 5
2 2 .9 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
5 7 .2 9
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.81
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
1 1.6 7
1 6 .9 2
3 4 .4 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
79
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 57
1,5» X 2 4 ' COLUMN
GRAIN SIZE 1/32= HAMMER MILLED
REGENERATION NUMBER I
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
1 -7
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
m
li:n
itM
.0508
,0619
.0689
.0757
.0955
2 9 .2 9
3 2 .1 8
4 0 .5 8
.995
.995
.995
.995
.990
GRAMS 99 WT,Z ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 5 ,0
6 1 ,7 8
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 0 .5 8
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
4 .4 0
PERCENT
'
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
.09454
19.56
9 7 .3 5
.
4 5 .1 1
, 15,04
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
4 0 .1 6
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.42
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQ UID
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 .9 4
1 0,9 6
2 5 .2 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
!
80
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 58
1*5" X 2 4 ' COLUMN
MASS FLUX .03 5 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
1 2.7 6
2 2 .7 7
3 0 .8 5
3 8 .6 3
4 2 .0 3
4 6 .2 6
5 0 .2 2
5 3 .2 8 ,
.0319
.0569
.0771
.0966
.1051
.1156
.1255
.1332
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.997
♦997
.997
.996
.995
.993
.990
.988
GRAMS 99 MT.Z ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
88*0
82*08
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
5 3 .2 8
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 .9 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
.12585
34.31
106.71
6 5 .6 9
2 1 .9 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
5 2 .6 3
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.6 5
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
13.06
1 9.8 9
3 8 .0 7
GRAMS
PERCENT.
PERCENT
81
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 59
1 . 5 “ X 2 4 “ COLUMN
MASS FLUX .209 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 “ HAMMER MILLED
REGENERATION RUN NUMBER 2
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
6 .7 5
1 1.8 3
1 6.7 3
2 1 .3 2
2 5 .9 2
2 8 .8 4
3 1 .9 6
3 6 .8 2
4 7 .3 0
.0169
.0296
.0418
♦0533
.0648
.0721
♦0799
.0921
.1182
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.995
.995
.995
.99 5
♦994
.994
.988
.971
.941
GRAMS 99 MT.X ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 6 .0
6 8 .2 6
C
.
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
4 7 .3 0
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .1 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.07671
2 1 .5 0
1 00 .79
5 1 .6 0
1 7 .2 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 4 .5 0
2 .8 0
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
7 .0 9
1 3 .7 5
3 3 .0 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
82
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 60
1 . 5 ' X 24" COLUMN
MASS FLUX .2 3 6 GM/MIN SQCM
grr e b e n e r a t io n 2run Anumber IL 3ED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
1-1
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.994
.995
.995
.995
.0180
.0345
.0440
.0530
,0612
.0712
.0960
7 .2 1
13.81
1 7.5 8
21.2 0
2 4 .4 8
2 8 .4 8
3 8 .3 8
.966
.07552
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 4 .0
6 0 .4 8
C
^
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
3 8 .3 8
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
4 .7 0
PERCENT
19.73
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT. OF WATER IN PRODUCT
9 6 .0 8
4 3 .5 8
1 4 .5 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 7 .0 6
1 .3 2
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
6 .5 2
1 4 .9 5
3 3 .0 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
83
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 61
2 , 5 ' X 2 3 ' COLUMN
.1 1 3 GM/MIN SQCM
MASS FLUX
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 “ HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
1 -3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
'
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
1 5 .1 8
3 0 .7 7
4 6 ,4 8
5 4 .6 8
5 9 .7 1
6 5 .0 0
7 1 .3 4
8 1 ,6 9
8 9 .8 2
9 9 .1 9
.0 1 6 9
.0 3 4 2
.0 5 1 6
.0 6 0 8
,0 6 6 3
,0 7 2 2
.0 7 9 3
.0 9 0 8
.0 9 9 8
.1 1 0 2
CUMULATIVE
PERCENT El
.9 9 3
.9 9 5
.9 8 8
.9 7 3
.9 6 3
.9 5 2
.9 3 9
.921
.9 0 9
.8 9 7
'
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN: TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 5 ,0
1 3 5 .6 5
.0 4 6 1 5
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
9 9 .1 9
GRAMS ,
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
7 .0 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
6 7 .7 4
1 2 3 .0 6
1 2 5 .2 0
4 1 .7 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
8 8 .9 2
1 0 .2 7
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
. FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
3 6 ,2 7
2 8 .9 7
5 3 .5 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
84
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 62
2 , 5 " X 23" COLUMN
MASS FLUX
,1 1 6 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 4
I-
5
I- 6
I-
1
9
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
1 6 .9 2
3 0 .2 7
.0 1 8 8
,0 3 3 6
.9 9 6
,9 9 6
:n&
:8I?27
.9 8 5
.9 7 6
.9 6 5
.9 5 6
.9 4 3
,0 6 9 2
.0 7 6 9
.0 8 4 8
.0 9 2 2
,1 0 3 5
6 2 .3 1
6 9 .1 8
s i -? !
9 3 .1 2
.0 5 8 7 5
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 4 .0
1 2 7 .8 7
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
9 3 .1 2
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .1 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
1 1 0 .6 5
1 0 6 .1 2
3 5 .3 7
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
4 8 .3 7
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
8 7 .8 4
5 .2 8
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN
GRAMS
ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
.
GRAMS
1 8 .2 8
1 7 .2 2
3 7 .7 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 63
2 * 5 " X 23° COLUMN
MASS FLUX
,2 2 5 GMXMIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 / 3 2 ° HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
,9 9 5
.9 8 3
,9 6 7
.9 4 3
,941
.0191
.0 3 6 3
.0 4 7 9
.0 6 3 9
,0 7 1 9 .
.0 7 8 3
.0 8 4 9
.0 9 2 8
.1041
.1 2 4 5
.1 2 6 2
1 7 .2 0
3 2 .6 6
4 3 .1 5
5 7 ,5 2
6 4 ,7 5
7 0 .4 7
7 6 ,4 0
8 3 .5 3
9 3 .7 1
1 1 2 .0 4
1 1 3 .5 9
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
1 -4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
1 -1 1
'
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
/
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
1 0 1 ,0
152. 93
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
.08 8 0 4
C
GRAMS
1 1 3 .5 9
5 ,9 0
'
GRAMS
'
PERCENT
5 6 .4 3
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
PERCENT
1 1 1 ,1 8
1 2 7 .5 1
4 2 .5 0
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
1 0 6 ,9 3
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
6 .6 7
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 0 .5 9
1 6 .1 5
3 6 ,4 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
86
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 64
1 , 5 ' X 2 4 ' COLUMN■
GRAIN S I Z E 1 / 3 2 * * HAMMER MILLED
REGENERATION RUN NUMBER 4
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
I- I
I- 2
10.39
16,64
.0260
,0416
.995
♦9 9 6
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
30.21
34.02
38.97
43.98
48.94
53.93
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
i
:® §
,0755
.0851
.0974
.1099
.1223
.1348
.
$ $
.
,991
.985
•973
,960
♦9 4 9
♦9 3 9
GRAMS 9 9 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
93.0
7 3 . 44
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
53.93
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5.40
PERCENT
22.83
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
104.53
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.07734
57.57
19.19
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
50.64
3.29
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQU ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
6.94
12.05
30.38
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
87
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 65
2 . 5 " X 23" COLUMN
.0 3 2 GM/MIN SQCM
MASS FLUX
GRAIN SIZE I / 8" HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE '
NUMBERS
IIIIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0 1 5 3
.0 3 1 6
.0 4 8 4
.0 6 5 4
.0 7 7 6
.0 8 6 9
.0 9 5 8
.1 0 5 0
.1 1 3 7
.9 9 7
.9 9 8
♦998
.9 9 8
.9 9 7
.9 9 5
.991
.9 8 7
.9 8 3
1 3 .8 0
2 8 .4 1
4 3 .5 3
5 8 .8 7
6 9 .8 7
7 8 .1 9
8 6 .2 0
9 4 .4 7
1 0 2 .3 0
.
.0 9 8 7 3
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 0 .0
1 5 5 .5 2
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
C
GRAMS
1 0 2 .3 0
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .3 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
6 0 .5 1
1 0 4 .6 9
1 2 2 .1 1
4 0 .7 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
1 0 0 .5 5
AMOUNT OF WATER I N 1 PRODUCT
1 .7 5
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 1 .5 6
1 7 .6 6
3 5 .6 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
88
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 66
2 , 5 » X 2 3 » COLUMN
MASS FLUX , 3 0 4 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN S I Z E 1 / 1 6 " HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
V-I
I- 9
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
13.52
31.24
39.55
49.60
5 8 .8 3 ,
6 7.30
♦0 1 5 0
.0347
,0439
,0551
.0654
,0748
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
,997
.997
.996
.993
.987
♦9 7 7
m
,1064
*953
♦9 3 1
k4:l?
95.74
GRAMS 9 9 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
100.0
127.87
.06040
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
95.74
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5,20
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF L I Q U I D ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL I N PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
49.37
113.48
108.83
3 6 .2 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
89.14
6 .60
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L I Q U I D
GRAMS
GRAMS
19.69
18.09
39.88
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
89
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 67
2 .5 "
X 23" COLUMN
StiI uW RflIBl E I eb
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I-
3
I-1
I- 6
I-
7
V
-?
1-10
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
1 4 .3 7
3 0 .5 7
4 8 .5 6
6 4 .8 6
7 6 .8 2
8 8 .1 4
9 6 .5 8
.0 1 6 0
.0 3 4 0
.0 5 4 0
.0721
.0 8 5 4
.0 9 7 9
.1 0 7 3
.9 9 8
.9 9 9
♦999
'9 9 9
.9 9 9
.9 9 7
.9 9 5
HfcK
-M
.1 3 5 5
. 986
1 2 1 ,9 7
-M
>12371
GRAMS 99 UT.X ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 2 .0
1 7 7 .5 5
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
C
GRAMS
1 2 1 .9 7
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
8 .0 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
7 8 .2 6
1 1 2 .7 7
1 5 0 .1 7
5 0 .0 6
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
1 2 0 .2 1
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
1 .7 7
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 9 .9 7
1 9 .9 6
3 8 .2 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
90
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 68
2 , 5 " X 23" COLUMN
MASS FLUX
.3 0 8 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8" HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
II-
I
2
I:
I
I- 5
I™ 6
i1:1
I-
9
CUMULATIVE
. WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
HEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
1 7 .1 8
2 8 .9 9
4 0 .7 6
5 0 .1 6
5 8 .0 3
6 5 .5 2
.0191
.0 3 2 2
.9 9 9
.9 9 9
:S
$
.0 6 4 5
.‘I??
Ibll
9 5 .6 1
.-O
0I12I
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.9 9 0
.9 7 8
.0 7 2 8
.9 2 7
.1 0 6 2
,0 6 4 1 3
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 6 ,0
1 2 9 ,6 0
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
9 5 .6 1
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 ,4 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
5 1 ,3 7
1 1 3 ,4 1
1 1 0 .2 4
3 6 .7 5
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
8 8 ,6 1
7 .0 0
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L IQ U ID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 1 .6 3
1 9 ,6 2
4 2 .1 1
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
(
91
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 70
2 , 5 ° X 23° COLUMN
MASS,FLUX
,1 1 4 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 / 1 6 “ HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
X-
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
1 2 .8 2
2 7 ,9 9
3 9 .0 7
5 0 .5 8
5 8 .4 3
6 4 .5 1
.0 1 4 2
»0311
»0434
.0 5 6 2
.0 6 4 9
.0 7 1 7
,9 9 8
.9 9 9
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
.9 9 6
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
8 7 ,9 0
1 0 4 .1 8
‘. 0 8 7 6
.0 9 7 7
.1 1 5 8
*.?8§
.9 7 2
.9 5 0
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 5 .0
1 4 6 .8 8
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
C
GRAMS
1 0 4 ,1 8
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
5 .0 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT, OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.0 8 0 2 6
4 7 .3 7
1 0 3 ,1 8
1 1 3 ,6 6
3 7 ,8 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
9 8 .9 6
5 .2 2
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
1 4 .7 0
1 2 .9 3
3 1 ,0 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
92
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 71
2 ,5 = X 23= COLUMN
MASS FLUX
,1 0 8 GiVMIN SQCM
GRAIN S IZ E 1 /3 2 = HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
I
2
3
1 5 .4 7
3 3 .3 6
5 1 .4 8
5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
1-10
1-1 1
7 9 ,3 8
8 8 .1 0
9 3 .8 9
1 0 5 .2 5
1 1 6 ,6 4
1 2 9 .1 5
III-
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0 1 7 2
.0 3 7 1
.0 5 7 2
,9 9 7
,9 9 8
.9 9 8
.0 8 8 2
,0 9 7 9
.1 0 4 3
,1 1 6 9
.1 2 9 6
♦ 1435
,9 9 6
.9 8 7
.9 8 0
.9 6 6
.9 5 3
.9 4 2
m
H:J)
GRAMS 99 UT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
'
9 6 ,0
1 7 8 ,8 5
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
C
GRAMS
1 2 9 .1 5
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
,09 4 8 1
5 .9 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ABSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
5 6 .4 3
1 0 3 .7 6
1 3 9 ,1 8
46,3.9
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
1 2 1 .6 1
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
7 .5 4
GRAMS
GRAMS
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQU ID
1 7 .5 7
1 2 .6 2
3 1 .1 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
93
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 72
2 . 5 ' X 23" COLUMN
MASS FLUX
.2 0 7 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE I / 8 ' HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.9 9 8
.9 9 8
,9 9 5
.9 8 5
.9 7 4
.9 4 7
.0 1 8 6
.0 3 5 3
,0501
,0 6 3 2
.0721
,0 9 0 2
1 6 .7 7
3 1 ,7 6
4 5 .1 2
5 6 .8 4
6 4 .8 6
8 1 ,2 1
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 5 .0
1 1 4 .0 5
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
8 1 .2 1
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .2 0
PERCENT
5 9 .4 9
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.0 5 7 0 6
PERCENT
1 2 3 .3 7
1 0 5 .5 2
3 5 .1 7
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
7 6 .8 9
4 .3 2 '
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 8 .6 3
2 7 .1 3
4 8 .1 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
94
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 73
2 . 5 " X 23" COLUMN
.3 2 3 GM/MIN SQCM
MASS FLUX
GRAIN SIZE 1 /3 2 " HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIIIII-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRQM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0 2 0 4
.0381
.0 5 2 7
.0 6 3 5
.0 7 3 9
.0 8 2 9
.0 9 9 7
.9 9 8
.9 9 9
♦999
.9 9 9
.9 9 7
.9 8 6
.9 6 2
1 8 .3 8
3 4 .3 2
4 7 .4 6
5 7 .1 3
6 6 .4 9
7 4 .6 2
8 9 .7 0
GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 8 .0
1 4 6 .0 2
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
8 9 .7 0
GRAMS .
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .0 0
PERCENT
5 7 .4 5
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
. 07973
-
1 0 0 .7 7
1 1 0 .3 6
3 6 .7 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
8 6 .3 0
3 .4 0
AMOUNT OE ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
2 4 .0 6
2 1 .8 0
4 1 .8 8
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
95
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 74
2 . 5 ° X 2 3 ' COLUMN
,0 3 6 GM/MIN SQCM
MASS FLUX
GRAIN SIZE 1 / 1 6 “ HAMMER MILLED
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
IIIII1“
I-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
.0 2 0 2
.0 3 9 6
.0 5 9 3
,0 7 6 9
.0 8 9 3
.0 9 7 0
.1 1 1 4
.9 9 6
.9 9 7
.9 9 7
.9 9 7
,9 9 5
.9 9 3
,9 8 6
1 8 .1 4
3 5 .6 0
5 3 .3 3
6 9 .1 7
8 0 .3 7
8 7 ,3 2
1 0 0 .2 9
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 2 .0
1 4 4 .2 9
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
C
GRAMS
1 0 0 .2 9
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .0 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.1 0 3 4 8
5 7 .4 5
1 0 9 .3 2
1 1 8 .3 0
3 9 .4 3
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
9 8 .8 9
1 .4 0
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
.
GRAMS
GRAMS'
1 9 .4 1
1 6 .4 1
3 3 .7 9
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
96
RESULTS RUN NUMBER 75
1 , 5 ° X 2 4 ' COLUMN
MASS FLUX
,2 3 6 GM/MIN SQCM
GRAIN SIZE 1 / 3 2 ' HAMMER MILLED
REGENERATION RUN NUMBER 5
SAMPLE
NUMBERS
I- I
I- 2
I- 3
I- 4
I- 5
I- 6
I- 7
I- 8
I- 9
WEIGHT OF
PRODUCT PER
GRAM BARLEY
CUMULATIVE
WEIGHT
(GRAMS)
1 1 ,4 0
1 7 .6 6
2 2 .1 4
2 8 .2 9
3 4 ,3 1
3 8 .8 9
4 2 .8 1
4 6 .3 1
5 2 .1 7
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT
PERCENT ETHANOL
,0 2 8 5
.0 4 4 2
.0 5 5 4
.0 7 0 7
.0 8 5 8
,0 9 7 2
,1 0 7 0
.1 1 5 8
.1 3 0 4
.
»996
.9 9 6
.9 9 5
.9 9 2
.9 8 5
.9 7 9
.971
.9 6 3
.9 5 0
GRAMS 99 WT,% ETHANOL PRODUCED PER GRAM DRIED BARLEY
FINAL GRAIN TEMPERATURE
FEED ADDITIONS
9 3 ,0
7 6 .9 0
C
GRAMS
TOTAL SAMPLE WEIGHT
5 2 .1 7
GRAMS
BARLEY MOISTURE CONTENT
6 .1 0
PERCENT
AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED FOR
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN FEED
AMOUNT OF WATER IN FEED
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN PRODUCT
AMOUNT OF WATER IN PRODUCT
.0 7 5 1 5
2 5 ,9 9
1 0 1 .6 4
5 8 .6 2
1 9 .5 4
GRAMS
PERCENT
GRAMS
GRAMS
4 9 .5 5
2 .6 2
AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY
FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED LIQUID
GRAMS
GRAMS
9 .0 7
1 5 ,4 7
3 4 .9 0
GRAMS
PERCENT
PERCENT
97
APPENDIX B
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM USED TO
CALCULATE YIELD AND PRINT RESULTS
i
98
DIMENSION X ( 2 0 ) » ETOH( 2 0 ) ? CUMPER( 2 0 ) ? TOTALW( 2 0 ) » TQTALF( 2 0 )
& ,IG (3 ),A R E A (3 ),D IA (3 ),IH E IG H T (3 ),G R W T (3 )
556
REAL MOIST
K=I
TOTAL=O
TETOH=O
R E A D ( 1 0 , 5 ) N R U N , N , F E E D , M O I S T , T I M E , I C O L , ! G R A I N , GTEMP
5
F0RM AT(8F.4)
IF (NRUN.EQ.99) GOTO 558
IG (1)=85IG (2)=16?IG (3)=32$DIA(1)=1.5?DIA(2)=1.5
D I A( 3 )= 2. 5 ?I HEI GHT( 1 )= 14 5I HE IG HT( 2 )= 24 $I HE I6 HT (3 >= 23
AREA(1)=11. 4?AREA(2)=U. 4?AREA(3)=31.67
6
100
GRHT( I ) = 2 3 1 ♦ JGRUT( 2 ) = 4 0 0 *
DO 5 5 , 1 = 1 , N
R E A D ( 1 0 , 6 ) X ( I ) , E T O H (I)
F0RMAT(2F*3)
E T O H (I)= E T O H (I)S X (I)
TETOH=TETOHtETOH(I)
TOTAL=TOTALtX(I)
TOTALW(I)=TOTAL
TOTALF(I)=TOTALZGRWT(ICOL)
CUMPER(I)=TETOHZTOTAL
I F ( C U M P E R d ) , L T , , 9 9 , A N D .K .E Q ,I )
GOTO 100
GOTO 55
K=O
YEILD= ( , 99-CUMPER ( I - I ) ) Z ( ( CUMPER ( I ) -CUMPER ( I - D ) Z X ( D )
ItT O T A L -X (I)
YEILD=YEILDZGRWT(ICOL)
55
CONTINUE
WR1TE(108,2> NRUN
2
FORMAT( ZZZ, 2 0 X ? ' RESULTS RUN NUMBER',1 3 , Z)
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 4 1 ) D I A ( I C O L ) , !HEIGHT(ICOL)
41 F 0 R M A T ( Z ,2 2 X ,F 3 ,I , ' “ X ' , I 2 , ,g COLUMN')
SPACE=(FEEDS, 846ZTIM E) ZAREA( ICOL)
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 4 2 ) ' SPACE
42 FORMAT( 17X,'MASS FLUX ' , F 5 . 3 , ' GMZMIN SQCM')
W RITE(1 0 8 , 4 3 ) IG (IG R A IN )
43 F0RMAT(16X,'GRAIN SIZE 1 Z ' , I 2 , ' ° HAMMER M IL L E D ')
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 3 )
3
FORMAT (Z Z Z ,1 2 X ,'C U M U L A T IV E ',5 X ,'W E IG H T OF )
99
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 1 3 )
F0RMAT(X,'SAMPLE',7X,'WEIGHT'% 6X,'PRODUCT PER'SX,'CUMULATIVE'
WEIGHT')
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 1 4 )
14
FORMAT( X , ' NUMBERS' , 5 X , ' ( GRAMS) ' , 6 X , ' GRAM BARLEY',6X,'PERCENT '
% ,'E T H A N O L ',/)
WRITE( 1 0 8 , 2 0 ) ( ! ,T O T A L W d ) , TOTALF( I ) ,CUM
S P E R (I)),1 = 1 ,N
20 . FORMAT(X,' I - ' »I 2 , 8 X , F 6 « 2 , 1 0 X , F 5 , 4 , 1 3 X , F 5 * 3 )
W R IT E (1 0 8 ,1 9 )
19
FORMAT( / / / )
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 2 5 ) YEILD
25
FORMAT(/,X,'GRAMS 99 WT.% ETHANOL PRODUCED',
S' PER GRAM DRIED B A R L E Y ',4 X ,F 7 ,5)
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 9 4 3 ) GTEMP
943
F O R M A T (/,X ,'F IN A L GRAIN TEMPERATURE ' , F A . I , '
O
FEED=FEEDW,864
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 3 5 ) FEED
35
F O R M A T (/,X ,'F E E D A D D I T I O N S ' , 5 X , F 7 . 2 , 2 X ,'G R A M S ')
W RITE(1 0 8 , 4 5 ) TOTAL
45
FO R M A T(/,X,'TO TA L SAMPLE W E IG H T ',5 X ,F 7 .2 , 2 X ,'G R A M S ')
ADS=( MO1 S T / ( I - M O IS T ) ) WGRWT( I COL)
XMOIST=MOISmOO
W R ITE(1 0 8 , 3 6 ) XMOIST
36 FORMAT(/,X,'BARLEY MOISTURE C O N T E N T ',F 7,2 , '
PERCENT')
W RITE(1 0 8 , 6 5 ) ADS
65
FORMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF LIQUID ADSORBED INTO BARLEY',
S 5 X , F 7 . 2 , 2X,'G R A M S')
Acc=((TOTALtADS)ZFEED)WlOO
W RITE(1 0 8 , 7 5 ) ACC
75
FORMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF FEED ACCOUNTED F O R ' , 5 X , F 7 . 2 » '
PERCENT')
FEED=FEEDWACC/100
ETOHI=FEEDW,75
H20=FEEDW,25
H200=TQTAL-TETOH
W RITE(1 0 8 , 8 5 ) ETOHI
85
FORMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN F E E D ' , 5 X , F 7 . 2 , 2X ,'G R A M S ')
WRITE(1 0 8 , 9 5 ) H20
95
FORMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF WATER IN F E E D ' , 5 X , F 7 , 2 , 2X,'G R A M S')
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 9 6 ) TETOH
13
100
96
105
125
135
F0RMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF ETHANOL IN P R O D U C T ',5 X ,F 7 ,2 , 2X,'G R A M S')
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 1 0 5 ) H200
FORMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF WATER IN P R O D U C T ',5 X ,F 7 .2 , 2 X ,'G R A M S ')
ADSB=ETOHI-TETOH
H R IT E (1 0 8 » 1 2 5 ) ADSB
FORMAT(/,X,'AMOUNT OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY',
& 5 X ,F 7 ,2 , 2X ,'G R A M S ')
FRAC=ADSB/ET0HI8100
W R IT E (1 0 8 ,1 3 5 ) FRAC
FORM AT;/,X,'FRACTION OF ETHANOL ADSORBED INTO BARLEY',
& 5 X ,F 7 .2 ,'
PERCENT')
PE R =(A D S B /(A D S B iH 20-H 200))8100
W R ITE;1 0 8 , 1 4 5 ) PER
145
FORM AT;/,X,'FRACTION OF ETHANOL IN ADSORBED L I Q U I D ' ,
8 5 X ,F 7 .2 ,'
PERCENT')
WRITE ( 1 0 8 , 5 5 5 )
555
FORMAT ( / / / / / / / / / )
GOTO 556
558 END
101
APPENDIX C
CALCULATIONS
102
CALCULATIONS
A.
Calculation o f the number o f regenerations required to dehydrate the ethanol pro­
duced from fermenting the barley:
Amount o f ethanol produced by fermenting barley:
0.3 grams 99-wt% ethanol produced/gram barley fermented [32]
Yield for the first run:
0.094 grams 99-wt% ethanol produced/gram dried barley
,
Yield for each additional run:
*
.
0. 075.grams 99-wt% ethanol produced/gram dried barley
/
I
Number o f runs required to consume barley produced by fermentation:
0 .3 0 -0 .0 9 4
I + — o"075----- = ^
B.
^ ^ regenerations
Calculation o f the approximate time required to regenerate the barley.
The method o f regeneration is to blow hot air (120 C) in the top o f the adsorption
column to drive off the liquid from the barley.
I
Assumptions:
1. All the liquid is on the surface—none has been absorbed into the interior o f the
barley. This assumption is made because absorption is important only when the
concentration o f water in the effluent is 15-20 wt%. Under actual operating con­
ditions, the process would be shut down when the concentration o f the effluent
dropped below 99-wt%.
2. AU the adsorbed liquid has the properties o f liquid water.
3. There is no heat loss in the adsorption column during regeneration.
This example uses run number 57 as an example; 425 grams o f barley were charged to the
adsorber.
I
103
From the results on page 87:
mass o f liquid adsorbed into barley = 19.5 grams
Since the final grain temperature, is nearly at the boiling point o f water, the only energy
required to remove the water is the latent heat.
q = mX
KJ
q = 0.0195kg X 2256 — = 44KJ
kg
The energy required to heat the grain from 95 to 120 C is:
q = CpmAT
Cp = 1.4 H _
KJ .
q = 1.4 — — X 0.425kg X (120-95) C = 14KJ
kg C
The total energy required for regeneration is the sum o f the two previous quantities:
1
.
44KJ + 14KJ = 58KJ
:
'
The hot air is blown through the adsorption column at the same velocity the run was made
(2.4 grams/min). Using the ideal gas law:
nRT
V = M moles x 62400 crfm m H g x 3
29 mm
mole K
I
640 mmHg
The heat given off by the air:
q = VpCp AT
q
= 3171
KJ
X 8.95X10"7 —
X 1.1 ------- X (120-95) C
min
cm3
kg C
= 0.078 KJ/min
The total regeneration time is:
58KJ/0.078
min
743 min = 12.4 hours
3171
cm"
min
M ONTANA ST A T E U N IV E R SIT Y L IB R A R IE S
stksN378.L412@Theses
RL
Dehydration of an ethanol-water mixture
3 1762 00173445 6
MAIN LIB.
N378
L412
c o p .2
DATE
Law, James P atrick
Dehydration o f an
ethanol-w ater mixture by
so rp tio n using barley as
the sorbent
I S S U E D TO