Abstract

ABSTRACTDifferent corn types were used to compare ethanol production from the conventional dry‐grind process to wet or dry fractionation processes. High oil, dent corn with high starch extractability, dent corn with low starch extractability and waxy corn were selected. In the conventional process, corn was ground using a hammer mill; water was added to produce slurry which was fermented. In the wet fractionation process, corn was soaked in water; germ and pericarp fiber were removed before fermentation. In the dry fractionation process, corn was tempered, degerminated, and passed through a roller mill. Germ and pericarp fiber were separated from the endosperm. Due to removal of germ and pericarp fiber in the fractionation methods, more corn was used in the wet (10%) and dry (15%) fractionation processes than in the conventional process. Water was added to endosperm and the resulting slurry was fermented. Oil, protein, and residual starch in germ were analyzed. Pericarp fiber was analyzed for residual starch and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content. Analysis of variance and Fisher's least significant difference test were used to compare means of final ethanol concentrations as well as germ and pericarp fiber yields. The wet fractionation process had the highest final ethanol concentrations (15.7% v/v) compared with dry fractionation (15.0% v/v) and conventional process (14.1% v/v). Higher ethanol concentrations were observed in fractionation processes compared to the conventional process due to higher fermentable substrate per batch available as a result of germ and pericarp fiber removal. Germ and pericarp yields were 7.47 and 6.03% for the wet fractionation process and 7.19 and 6.22% for the dry fractionation process, respectively. Germ obtained from the wet fractionation process had higher oil content (34% db) compared with the dry fractionation method (11% db). Residual starch content in the germ fraction was 16% for wet fractionation and 44% for dry fractionation. Residual starch in the pericarp fiber fraction was lower for the wet fractionation process (19.9%) compared with dry fractionation (23.7%).

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.