2

INTRODUCTION

Bioethanol is an alcohol that is created through fermentation. It refers to ethanol

(ethyl alcohol) produced through microbial fermentation methods as opposed to
ethanol produced synthetically from petrochemical sources. It is created by distilling
the ethanolic wash produced by the fermentation of biomass-derived sugars (Walker,
2014). Bioethanol fuel is primarily produced through sugar fermentation, although it
can also be manufactured chemically by combining ethylene with steam. The
majority of the sugar utilized in the production of ethanol is derived from fuel or
energy crops. Corn, maize, sweet potato, wheat crops, waste straw, willow, sorghum
plants, and many others are among these crops ("Bioethanol - European Biomass
Industry Association", 2022).

Figure 1: The structure of ethanol

3
 Figure 2: The physical and chemical properties

Ethanol is a material that has various applications in the chemical and

pharmaceutical sectors, as well as being a component of distilled and fermented
beverages, according to Rizzolo, Woiciechowski, Jnior, Torres, and Soccol (2021).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was also frequently used as a hand sanitizer. The
manufacturing of bioethanol for use as a biofuel is an essential environmentally
friendly alternative to fossil fuels.

Brazil is the world's second-largest producer of ethanol behind the United States,
and one of the largest producers of biodiesel. Brazil produced 35.6 billion liters of
ethanol in 2019/2020, a 7.5 percent increase over the previous harvest. According to
the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, using ethanol as a biofuel saved more
than 515 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2003 and 2020, and
renewable fuels now account for approximately 18.8 percent of the Brazilian
transportation matrix in 2018 (Rizzolo, Woiciechowski, Jnior, Torres, & Soccol, 2021).

1.1 Raw Material

Bioethanol is a popular renewable bioenergy source that may be utilized to minimize

greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Currently, it is mostly
produced from saccharose and starch-containing, and lignocellulosic biomass.

4
Biofuel production has increased dramatically in recent decades as the world's
population has grown and increased demand for resources. It is constantly utilized in
a wide range of industries, such as as an additive in gasoline manufacture. Although
ethanol/bioethanol is regarded to be a renewable energy supply, greater purification
is necessary for purposes other than fuel to extend its usage in industrial production
or daily life. There are 2 popular raw materials that are easy to produce bioethanol
which are sugarcane and corn.

Sugarcane bagasse (SCB) is a potentially renewable resource that has the potential
to be exploited to make bioethanol, one of the most important cellulosic
agro-industrial byproducts. Many attempts have been undertaken over the last
decade to maximize pre-hydrolysis and saccharification efficiency in order to produce
larger yields of fermentable sugar and ethanol from SCB.

1.2 Process Selection

Some factors that influence the production of bioethanol should be considered

before selecting the best raw material.

Selectivity:
There are some main steps that must be followed in order to manufacture
bioethanol from sugarcane. The sugar will be extracted first, then fermented into
ethanol, and finally, the ethanol will be separated and purified through distillation and
dehydration (Vohra et al., 2014). Pretreatment, saccharification, fermentation, and
distillation are the processes used in bioethanol production. Fractional distillation
units are built with a high level of quality control to assure the greatest possible final
product quality. Besides that, the fractional distillation equipment is more
energy-efficient than regular distillation equipment since it is intended to save as
much energy as possible (Terry, 2016). Methods chosen in the manufacturing of
bioethanol must always be efficient, cost-effective, and long-lasting, especially for
commercial-scale production. The selection of distillation and fermentation phases is
a significant challenge in bioethanol production across the world. As a result, the
fermentation of sugar or cellulose is the main source of bioethanol fuel.

5
 Costs :

Raw material prices have a great influence on bioethanol production costs,

accounting for 40–75 percent of total expenses depending on the kind of feedstock.
(Li, 2014). In Brazil, the cost of manufacturing bioethanol from sugarcane is between
0.20 and 0.30 USD per liter. Bioethanol made from corn has the lowest production
costs in the United States and the European Union, at 0.53 USD/L.

Sugar cane is cheaper than other bioethanol source materials (Huš, 2018) as
a result of easier processing and increased productivity (Tabak, 2009). However,
many efforts are currently being done to increase sugarcane bioethanol production.
This involves the creation of improved sugarcane varieties with better disease
resistance, higher amount of sugar, increasing productivity per hectare, and longer
lifespan.

Based on data collected by Ryan et al. in 2004, production cost of bioethanol

from corn is 241 €/1000L while bioethanol production cost from sugarcane is 195
€/1000L (Randelli, 2012). This data shows that bioethanol production costs using
corn are slightly higher than using sugarcane. Table 1 below shows equipment cost.

Table 1 Cost of Equipment in USD

Efficiency :

Sugarcane is a highly prolific crop with a potential yield of 448-538 t/ha.

Sugarcane productivity in commercial production reached 250.5 t/ha in Hawaii and

6
Australia (1967), 322.3 t/ha (1974), and 366t/ha (1975) in Hainan, China,
respectively (Editor Group for Sugarcane Cultivation in Guangxi, 1991). . Below is
the additional information of bioethanol production from various substrates:

Table 2 Different substrates for bioethanol production and their comparative

productivity, ethanol yield per ton harvested crop and annual yield of ethanol per
hectare

Impact on the environment :

Sugarcane - Sugarcane as feedstock for ethanol production, absorbs CO2 as

it rises and could offset the CO2 produced when ethanol is produced and burned,
making it a carbon±neutral agent in the atmosphere. As a result, if a resource like
sugarcane is used, bioethanol has a strong potential to reduce fossil resource use
and greenhouse gas emissions. This shows that ethanol minimizes gas emissions,
and improves energy safety and the operation of transport facilities.
Corn - When corn ethanol burns in gasoline, it produces more benzene, a
known carcinogen, and other hazardous air pollutants associated with asthma,
bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases (Faber, 2013).

7
 Safety issues :

The final important consideration should be safety concerns during the

plantation and harvesting of the raw material itself. Farmers' safety is not a major
concern during the planting of these two raw materials since they do not employ
modern mechanical equipment. Although the conventional process of preparing the
soil and planting the seed is inefficient for large production of the raw material. While
the plant is ready to be harvested, it requires careful care and protection from pests,
hence a variety of insecticides are utilized. Farmers may be exposed to dangerous
chemicals as a result of this condition, but with proper pesticide application and PPE
(Personal Protective Equipment), the chemicals will not have a significant impact on
their health. Because each plant's mechanical harvesting mechanism is unique, the
level of safety will vary. The larger the harvesting equipment, the greater the farmer's
safety risk. Farmers must comprehend the machine's control manual in order to
operate it properly and avoid major injury or death.

Figure 1 Pictures of SugarCane and Corn

China, as a major producer of sugarcane, might utilize this crop in the biofuel
industry. However, this essential feature of China's sugarcane crop has received little
attention. As a result, this research examined the country's potential, obstacles, and
policy comparison to the Brazilian model of sugarcane-derived biofuels. Brazilian
sugarcane cultivation differs greatly from Chinese circumstances for first-generation
ethanol production. Due to increasing local sugar demand, first-generation ethanol
output is also hampered. However, in this investigation, sugarcane bagasse
demonstrated better theoretical production potential, density distribution, and

8
cost-efficiency for disintegration. Plus, wet sugarcane contains 12-17% of total sugar
by weight. 90% of sugar is sucrose and 10% is glucose + fructose. As a result, it was
concluded that bagasse-based (second-generation) ethanol has outstanding
prospects since it does not require any extra transportation expenditures like other
lignocellulosic resources and has lower cell wall recalcitrance requirements.
Furthermore, the readily available enormous volumes of bagasse, as well as
government policy support, make it the ideal candidate for producing gasoline
ethanol. Although the cost-effectiveness of second-generation sugarcane ethanol
presents a challenge, recent advances in process efficiency, as well as genetic
modification of sugarcane for cell-wall digestibility, can play a critical role in
enhancing sugarcane's involvement in this sector. Moreover, sugarcane variety
development, automated production, and the investigation of genetic resources for
energy characteristics are identified as critical variables for increasing the economic
viability of sugarcane bioethanol. Sugarcane's expanded position in China's biofuels
industry will benefit energy security, sustainable sugarcane production, industrial
growth, and social development in sugarcane farming areas.

Criteria Requirement Score

Sugarcane Corn

Cost of equipment 2 1

Productivity 2 1

Ethanol yield per ton harvested crop 2 1

Annual yield of ethanol per hectare 2 1

Impact on environment 2 1

Safety issues 2 1

Total 12 6

9
 Table 3 Sugarcane and Corn Scoring Table

According to the scoring table above, sugarcane clearly outperformed corn.

As a result, we have decided to use sugarcane as the raw material for bioethanol
production since it is a potentially renewable resource that has the potential to be
exploited to make bioethanol, one of the most important cellulosic agro-industrial
byproducts. Many attempts have been undertaken over the last decade to maximize
pre-hydrolysis and saccharification efficiency in order to produce larger yields of
fermentable sugar and ethanol from SCB.

China, as a major producer of sugarcane, might utilize this crop in the biofuel
industry. However, this essential feature of China's sugarcane crop has received little
attention. As a result, this research examined the country's potential, obstacles, and
policy comparison to the Brazilian model of sugarcane-derived biofuels. Brazilian
sugarcane cultivation differs greatly from Chinese circumstances for first-generation
ethanol production. Due to increasing local sugar demand, first-generation ethanol
output is also hampered. However, in this investigation, sugarcane bagasse
demonstrated better theoretical production potential, density distribution, and
cost-efficiency for disintegration. Plus, wet sugarcane contains 12-17% of total sugar
by weight. 90% of sugar is sucrose and 10% is glucose + fructose. As a result, it was
concluded that bagasse-based (second-generation) ethanol has outstanding
prospects since it does not require any extra transportation expenditures like other
lignocellulosic resources and has lower cell wall recalcitrance requirements.

Furthermore, the readily available enormous volumes of bagasse, as well as

government policy support, make it the ideal candidate for producing gasoline
ethanol. Although the cost-effectiveness of second-generation sugarcane ethanol
presents a challenge, recent advances in process efficiency, as well as genetic
modification of sugarcane for cell-wall digestibility, can play a critical role in
enhancing sugarcane's involvement in this sector. Moreover, sugarcane variety
development, automated production, and the investigation of genetic resources for
energy characteristics are identified as critical variables for increasing the economic
viability of sugarcane bioethanol. Sugarcane's expanded position in China's biofuels

10
industry will benefit energy security, sustainable sugarcane production, industrial
growth, and social development in sugarcane farming areas.

1.3 Process Flow in Bioethanol Recovery

The raw sugarcane is cleaned and ground in the milling stage to produce a
sucrose product, which is subsequently refined using crystallization. The bagasse,
which is a byproduct of the sugarcane milling process, is separated and put through
another process to be converted into usable feedstocks (David, 2014). Separation
and purification are necessary after the fermentation process to achieve the desired
ethanol by discarding some water. As a result, the distillation process takes place at
the distillation column tower during this step. Water and ethanol are attracted to one
another because they both have a lower boiling point and contain -OH as functional
groups. As a result of the azeotropic conditions, extracting water from ethanol and
dehydrating ethanol to the maximum is required. The ethanol is then vaporized as
vapor at the top column and separated from the bottom product. The bottom
product's solvent solution is then recycled back into the extractor column, where it is
used to produce purified solvent.

1.4 Design Goals and Constraints

In the distillation process, water vapors are transformed into volatile liquids
and separated through selective boiling. It happens when two liquids with different
boiling points collide. This procedure can be used to create a pure liquid from
nonvolatile contaminants or to improve the absorption of a particular component in a
mixture. Distillation techniques include simple distillation, fractional distillation, steam
distillation, vacuum distillation, and others. There were two essential components in
a multi-component system: light key and heavy key. Light key contains a component
with a lower boiling point and represents the more volatile component in the top
product stream with higher purity, whereas heavy key contains a component with a

11
 lower boiling point and represents the less volatile component in the bottom product
stream with higher purity.

The first step in column design is determining the column's operational goals. These
are best recovered from rubbish and have a primary product component. To describe
these requirements, heavy key impurities should be employed in the top stream, and
light key impurities should be used in the bottom stream. Once the top and bottom
streams' compositions are known, the moisture of the top stream and the boiling
point of the bottom stream may be calculated at various pressures since the liquid at
the bottom must be re-boiled and the vapor from above must be condensed.
However, the distillation process has some limitations, including fouling, mechanical
issues, foaming, and internal pressure reduction.

Process Flow Diagram (PFD) for ethanol/bioethanol production, which includes complete

streams label, equipment numbering/tagging.

Figure 2: PFD for ethanol/bioethanol production

12
 2. MASS BALANCE

Figure 3: Flow diagram for mass balance

Assumptions:

1. The mass feed stream is assumed as 1000 kg.

2. The lignocellulosic is fully converted.
3. All of the Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) is reacted with lignocellulosic biomass.
4. The composition of every component in the feed stream is referred to the Table
in Appendix.
5. The composition of every component in stream 1, 2 and 3 is assumed.
6. The mass of NaOH, H₂SO₄ and H₂O is 1200 kg, 500 kg and 1000 kg
respectively.
7. Enzymatic hydrolysis for solid cellulose and hemicellulose are 42.5% and
18.5% (Wyman, 2013, 4)
8. Assume that the conversion of xylose and glucose is 90%.

13
Pre-Treatment Mass Balance

At the feed stream:

● 0.20 Lignin × 1000 kg = 200 kg Lignin

● 0.45 Cellulose × 1000 kg = 450 kg Cellulose
● 0.22 Hemicellulose × 1000 kg = 220 kg Hemicellulose
● 0.10 Organic matters × 1000 kg = 100 kg Organic matters
● 0.03 Inorganic matters × 1000 kg = 30 kg Inorganic matters

Total = 1000 kg lignocellulosic biomass

Mass of NaOH + H₂SO₄ + H₂O = 3900 kg

Total mass = 3900 kg + 1000 kg = 4900 kg

At Stream 1

Solid Fraction = 2787 kg

● 0.296 Lignin × 2787 kg = 825 kg Lignin

● 0.557 Cellulose × 2787 kg = 1553 kg Cellulose
● 0.045 Hemicellulose × 2787 kg = 125 kg Hemicellulose
● 0.097 Organic matters × 2787 kg = 270 kg Organic matters
● 0.005 Inorganic matters × 2787 kg = 14 kg Inorganic matters

Total = 2787 kg

Liquid Fraction = 2113 kg

● 0.040 Glucose × 2113 kg = 85 kg Glucose

● 0.352 Xylose × 2113 kg = 744kg Xylose
● 0.445 Organic matters × 2113 kg = 940 kg Organic matters
● 0.163 Inorganic matters × 2113 kg = 344 kg Inorganic matters

Total = 2113 kg

Assume that the input = output

14
Therefore, stream 1 = stream 2.

At Stream 2

For the Saccharification process:

Enzymatic hydrolysis for solid cellulose and hemicellulose are 42.5% and 18.5%
respectively.

𝐺𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒

Mass of glucose from solid cellulose: 42.5 = 1.11

1553
(100) = 732. 63 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒

𝑋𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒

Mass of xylose from solid hemicellulose: 18.5 = 1.14

125
(100) = 26. 36 𝑘𝑔 𝑥𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒

Total mass of glucose = 732.63 kg + 85 kg = 817.63 kg

Total mass of xylose = 26.36 kg + 744 kg = 770.36 kg

Fermentation:

3C₅H₁₀O₅ → 5C₂H₅OH + 5CO₂

C₆H₁₂O₆ → 2C₂H₃OH + CO₂

770.36 𝑘𝑔
Number of moles C₅H₁₀O₅ = 150.13 𝑘𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
= 5. 1313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

817.63 𝑘𝑔
Number of mole C₆H₁₂O₆ = 180.16 𝑘𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
= 4. 5384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

Assume that the conversion of xylose and glucose is 90%:

n C₅H₁₀O₅ = 0.1 ( 5.1313 kmol ) = 0.51313 kmol

n C₆H₁₂O₆ = 0.1 ( 4.5384 kmol ) = 0.45384 kmol

15
Atomic species balance

C balance:

5 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶 6 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶
( 5. 1313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅
) + ( 4. 5384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆
) =

5 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶 6 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶
𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ + 2𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 + ( 0. 51313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅
) + ( 0. 45384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆
)

52. 8869 = 𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ + 2𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 + 5. 28869

47. 59821 = 𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ + 2𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻

H balance:

10 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻 12 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻
( 5. 1313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅
) + ( 4. 5384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆
) =

6 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻 10 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻 12 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻

(𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻
) + (0. 51313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅
) + (0. 45384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆
))

105. 7738 = 6𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 + 10. 57738

𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 = 15. 86607 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

O balance:

5 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂 6 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂
( 5. 1313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅
) + ( 4. 5384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆
) =

2 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂 5 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂

( 𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝑂₂
) + 𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻
+ ( 0. 51313 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₅𝐻₁₀𝑂₅
)

6 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂
+ ( 0. 45384 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 1 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶₆𝐻₁₂𝑂₆
)

52. 8869 = 2𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ + 𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 + 5. 28869

47. 59821 = 2𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ + 𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻

16
47. 59821 = 2𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ + 15. 86607

𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ = 15. 86607 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

46.07𝑔 1 𝑘𝑔
𝑛 𝐶₂𝐻₅𝑂𝐻 = 15. 86607 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 = 15866. 07 𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 𝑚𝑜𝑙
× 1000𝑔
= 730. 9498 𝑘𝑔 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙

The bioethanol is aqueous.

44.01𝑔 1 𝑘𝑔
𝑛 𝐶𝑂₂ = 15. 86607 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 = 15866. 07 𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 𝑚𝑜𝑙
× 1000𝑔
= 698. 2657 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂₂

Other component:

825 kg Lignin

1553 kg - 732. 63 kg = 820.37 kg Cellulose

125 kg - 26. 36 kg = 98.64 kg Hemicellulose

588 kg Organic matter

98 kg Inorganic matter

817. 63 × 0. 1 = 81. 76 𝑘𝑔 𝐺𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒

770. 36 × 0. 1 = 77. 04 𝑘𝑔 𝑋𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒

490 kg Liquid organic

392 kg Liquid Inorganic

Total = 4900

At Stream 3

Bioethanol (aqueous) = 730. 9498 𝑘𝑔

Split component

17
825 kg Lignin

820.37 kg Cellulose

98.64 kg Hemicellulose

588 kg Organic matters

98 kg Inorganic matters

81.76 kg Glucose

77.04 kg Xylose

490 kg Liquid organic

392 kg Liquid Inorganic

698.2657 kg CO₂

Equipment Design

Figure 3: PFD for distillation column

18
 Distillation units operate to separate or remove the bioethanol from water in
the liquid mixture (Mustafa Balat, 2008). The separation sequence consists of three
distillation units. Distillation column (PDC), extraction distillation column (EDC) and
solvent recovery column (SRC). The first step is performed in a pre-concentration
distillation column (PDC). Bioethanol 5-12% to 93.5 wt% which corresponds to an
azeotropic condition. With this composition, the composition of bioethanol and water
cannot be separated by ordinary distillation. For similar distillation, an entrainer has
been used. The entrainer or keeping apart agent for this answer is ethylene glycol to
triumph over this problem. In this distillation, the dehydration of ethanol is maximal.
Concentration that exceeds the azeotropic composition. It is distilled to almost
azeotropic composition (93.5 wt%) Then dehydrated to a purity greater than 96.0
wt%. But based on the article, bioethanol can be refined to over 99.8% by weight to
meet all criteria. After that, the distillate will be sent to the second column (EDC)
where ethanol and bottom product are separated. The bottom product will then be
moved to the third column (SRC). The SRC's cooled solvent is then completely
recycled back to the EDC.

Figure 4: Boiling point diagram

19
Flows and Composition

At pre-concentration distillation column (PDC)

Composition of bioethanol at feed, product, and bottom:

𝑋𝑓 = 0. 100 𝑋𝑑 = 0. 935 𝑋𝑤 = 0. 050

𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑(𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 4) = 12 500 𝑘𝑔/ℎ 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 + 112 500 𝑘𝑔/ℎ 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 125 000 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 2. 9

𝐹=𝐷 +𝑊 125 000 = 𝐷 + 𝑊 𝑊 = 125 000 − 𝐷 — equation A

𝐹. 𝑋𝑓 = 𝐷. 𝑋𝑑 + 𝑊. 𝑋𝑤

12 500 = 0. 935 𝐷 + 0. 05 𝐷 — equation B

Insert equation A into B

12 500 = 0. 935 𝐷 + 0. 05(125 000 − 𝐷)

12 500 = 0. 935𝐷 + 6250 − 0. 1 𝐷)

6250 = 0. 835 𝐷

𝐷 = 7485. 03 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

𝑊 = 125 000 − 7485. 03 = 117514. 97 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

20
Component Feed Distillate (D) (Stream Bottom (W)
5)

Mass Xf Mass flow Xd Mass flow Xw

flow rate (kg/h) rate (kg/h)
rate
(kg/h)

Bioethanol 12 500 0.1 6998.50 0.935 5875.75 0.05

Water 112 500 0.9 486.53 0.065 111639.22 0.95

Total 125 000 1.0 7485.03 1.000 117514.97 1.00

𝐿𝑛
Reflux: 𝑅 = 𝐷
= 2. 9

𝐿𝑛 = 2. 9𝐷 → 𝐿𝑛 = 2. 9(117514. 97)

𝐿𝑛 = 340793. 413

𝑉𝑛 = 𝐿𝑛 + 𝐷 → 𝑉𝑛 = 34079. 413 + 7485. 03 = 348278. 44 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

Top operating line equation:

𝐿𝑛 𝐷 340793.413 7485.03
𝑌𝑛 = 𝑉𝑛
(𝑋𝑛 + 1) + 𝑉𝑛
𝑋𝑑 → 𝑌𝑛 = 348278.44
(𝑋𝑛 + 1) + 348278.44
(0. 935)

𝑌𝑛 = 0. 979(𝑋𝑛 + 1) + 0. 020

When,

(𝑋𝑛 + 1) = 0. 935 → 𝑌𝑛 = 0. 935 (0.935,0.935)

(𝑋𝑛 + 1) = 0. 500 → 𝑌𝑛 = 0. 510 (0.500,0.510)

𝐿𝑚 = 𝐿𝑛 + 𝐹 → 𝐿𝑚 = 340793. 413 + 125000 = 465793. 413 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

21
Material balance at bottom,

𝐿𝑚 𝑊
𝑌𝑚 = 𝑉𝑚
(𝑋𝑚 + 1) + 𝑉𝑚
(𝑋𝑤)

465793.413 117514.97
𝑌𝑚 = 348278.44
(𝑋𝑚 + 1) − 348278.44
(0. 05)

𝑌𝑚 = 1. 337(𝑋𝑚 + 1) − 0. 017

When,

(𝑋𝑚 + 1) = 0. 050, 𝑌𝑚 = 0. 050 (0.050, 0.050)

(𝑋𝑚 + 1) = 0. 300, 𝑌𝑚 = 0. 384 (0.300, 0.384)

22
According to the diagram, theoretical stages for pre-concentration distillation column,

(PDC)= 8.5 stages + 1 reboiler

23
At extractive distillation column (EDC)

𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 7485. 03 𝑘𝑔/ℎ + 1000 𝑘𝑔/ℎ 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑙 (𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑓𝑟𝑜

𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 = 0. 935(7485. 03) = 6998. 5 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = (1 − 0. 935)(7485. 03) = 486. 53 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

New composition:

6998.5
𝑋𝑓 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 = 8485.03
= 0. 825

486.53
𝑋𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 8485.03
= 0. 057

𝑋𝑓 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑙 = 1 − 0. 825 − 0057 = 0. 12

𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒:

𝐹=𝐷 +𝑊 8485. 03 = 𝐷 + 𝑊 𝐷 = 8485. 03 − 𝑊

Material balance on bioethanol:

𝑋𝑓 = 0. 825 𝑋𝑑 = 0. 96 𝑋𝑤 = 0. 057

0. 825(8485. 03) = 0. 96𝐷 + 0. 057𝑊

7000. 15 = 0. 96(8485. 03 − 𝑊) + 0. 057𝑊

7000. 15 = 8145. 63 − 0. 96𝑊 + 0. 057𝑊

− 1145. 48 =− 0. 903𝑊

𝑊 = 1268. 527 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

𝐷 = 7216. 503 𝑘𝑔/ℎ

𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟: 486. 53 = 180. 413 + 𝑋𝑤𝑏(1268. 527)

24
𝑋𝑤𝑏 = 0. 24

𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑙: 1001. 23 = 108. 25 + 𝑋𝑤𝑒(1268. 527)

𝑋𝑤𝑒 = 0. 704

Component Feed (F) (Stream 6) Distillate (D) Bottom (W) (Stream

7)

Mass Xf Mass Xd Mass Xw

flow rate flow rate flow rate
(kg/h) (kg/h) (kg/h)

Bioethanol 7000.15 0.825 6927.843 0.960 72.306 0.057

Water 483.65 0.057 180.413 0.025 303.178 0.240

Ethylene 1001.23 0.120 108.250 0.015 893.043 0.704

glycol

Total 8485.03 1.00 7216.503 1.000 1268.527 1.000

At solvent recovery column (SRC)

In this recovery, cooled solvent which is ethylene glycol is completely recycled to the
extractive distillation column (EDC).

Stream 8 = 893.043 kg/h

Water and bioethanol stream out = 72.306 + 303.178 = 375.484 kg/h

25
Composition;

Ethylene glycol at stream 8 = 1.00

Water = 0.214

Bioethanol = 1 – 0.214 = 0.786

At recovery,

Stream 6 = Stream 8 + Stream ethylene glycol (that was added from outside)

1001.23 kg/h = 893.043 kg/h + ethylene glycol

So, stream ethylene glycol (that was added from outside) = 108.187 kg/h

26
CONCLUSION

Bioethanol is generally created by the microbial fermentation of fermentable sugars

like glucose to ethanol. Bioethanol can be produced from various raw materials like
sugarcane, rice husk and corn stover. In this bioethanol recovery, sugarcane
bagasses were chosen from the selection process as the raw materials to produce
bioethanol. For recovery purity is 96% as 3 distillation columns are used where it can
up to 99% recovery.

Sugarcane clearly outscored corn, according to the scoring table above. As a

consequence, sugarcane is being chosen as the raw material for bioethanol
production since it is a theoretically renewable resource with the potential to be used
to produce bioethanol, one of the most significant cellulosic agro-industrial
byproducts. In the milling stage, raw sugarcane is cleaned and crushed to yield
sucrose, which is then refined via crystallisation. Bagasse, a byproduct of the
sugarcane milling process, is separated and turned into usable feedstocks via
another process (David, 2014). After the fermentation process, separation and
purification are required to obtain the needed ethanol by removing some water.

Next process is distillation, the existence of its binary azeotrope with water limits
ethanol purity to a maximum of 95.6 percent wt. ethanol (Kiss, 2013a,b). The feed in
this case is the diluted stream (10% wt) produced by fermentation at a rate of 100
ktpy (12,500 kg/h ethanol). To achieve the purity objective, many energy-intensive
separation procedures are necessary, owing primarily to the existence of the binary
azeotrope ethanol–water (93.5 percent wt ethanol).Because of the presence of its
binary azeotrope with water (Figure 4), ethanol purity is limited to a maximum of 93.5
percent wt. Target recovery percent is 96%, hence ethylene glycol was added into
the extractive distillation column (EDC) or this process is known as ethanol
dehydration. The presence of the EG solvent affects volatility of ethanol–water,
allowing their separation. The top distillate product of the EDC is pure ethanol
(6927.843 kg/h), whereas the bottom product is merely solvent (893.043 kg/h) and
water (303.178 kg/h). The solvent is then removed and recovered fully at the bottom
of the third column (SRC), cooled, and recycled back to the EDC. As a result of the
SRC unit's distillation, an extra water stream is obtained. Heat integration might be
used to recover heat from the solvent recycling stream as well.

27
REFERENCES

Bušić, A. (2018). PubMed Central. Bioethanol Production from Renewable Raw Materials
and Its Separation and Purification: A Review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6233010/#r12

Chen, D. (2014). Sugar Cane Ethanol Plant - processdesign.

Processdesign.mccormick.northwestern.edu.
https://processdesign.mccormick.northwestern.edu/index.php/Sugar_Cane_Ethanol_Plant#Mi
lling_and_Pre-Treatment.

Clifford, C. (2020). Sugarcane Ethanol Production.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee439/node/647

Hernawan, R., Maryana, D., & Pratiwi. (2017). Bioethanol production from sugarcane
bagasse by simultaneous sacarification and fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4978099.

Kiss, A.A., 2013a. Advanced Distillation Technologies—Design, Control and Applications.

John Wiley & Sons, Chicester, UK.

Kiss, A.A., 2013b. Novel applications of dividing-wall column technology to biofuel

production processes. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 88, 1387–1404.

Macrelli, S., Mogensen, J., & Zacchi, G. (2012). Techno-economic evaluation of 2nd
generation bioethanol production from sugar cane bagasse and leaves integrated with the
sugar-based ethanol process. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-22.

Malaysia Sugarcane Prices. Selina Wamucii. (2022).

https://www.selinawamucii.com/insights/prices/malaysia/sugarcane/.

Rahman, P., & Gunn, R. (2017). Processing of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass.
Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313836156_Processing_of_Bioethanol_from_Ligno
cellulosic_Biomass.

Randelli, F. (2012). Production Costs and Net Energy Balance of Liquid and Gaseous
Biofuels: Some Regional Studies.

28
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264859045_Production_Costs_and_Net_Energy_Ba
lance_of_Liquid_and_Gaseous_Biofuels_Some_Regional_Studies#pf12.

Updates on the pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy production–a review

- Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Composition-of-different-lignocellulosic-biomass-adapte
d-from-12_tbl1_317388663 [accessed 4 Jun, 2022]

Gernaey, K. V., Huusom, J. K., & Gani, R. (Eds.). (2015). 12th International Symposium on
Process Systems Engineering and 25th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process
Engineering: Parts A, B and C. Elsevier Science.

Wyman, C. E. (2013). Aqueous Pretreatment of Plant Biomass for Biological and Chemical
Conversion to Fuels and Chemicals (First Ed. ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dimian, A. C., Kiss, A. A., & Bildea, C. S. (2014). Integrated Design and Simulation of
Chemical Processes. Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62700-1.00010-3

Zeineb, W., Zouhour, K., Boulbaba, L., Rachid, B., & Noureddine, H. (2020). Exergetic
Analysis of Bioethanol Production from Tunisian Waste Dates. Benthamopen.com.
https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOWMJ-11-19.

Westby, Carl A. and W. D. Gibbons, "Farm-Scale Production of Fuel Ethanol and Wet Grain
from Corn in a Batch Process", Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 24, July 1982, pp.
1681-1699.

29
Appendix

a) component for lignocellulosic biomass

Updates on the pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy

production–a review - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Composition-of-different-lignocellulosic-bi
omass-adapted-from-12_tbl1_317388663 [accessed 5 Jun, 2022]

30