Drying Technology

An International Journal

ISSN: 0737-3937 (Print) 1532-2300 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

Energy efficient spray drying by increased feed dry

matter content: investigations on the applicability
of Air-Core-Liquid-Ring atomization on pilot scale

Marc O. Wittner, Heike P. Karbstein & Volker Gaukel

To cite this article: Marc O. Wittner, Heike P. Karbstein & Volker Gaukel (2019): Energy efficient
spray drying by increased feed dry matter content: investigations on the applicability of Air-Core-
Liquid-Ring atomization on pilot scale, Drying Technology, DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2019.1635616

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2019.1635616

Published online: 01 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ldrt20
DRYING TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2019.1635616

Energy efficient spray drying by increased feed dry matter content:

investigations on the applicability of Air-Core-Liquid-Ring atomization on
pilot scale
Marc O. Wittner, Heike P. Karbstein, and Volker Gaukel
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Process Engineering in Life Sciences, Chair of Food Process Engineering,
Karlsruhe, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Spray drying is the main process for production of powdered products from liquid sources. Received 16 October 2018
One way to reduce energy consumption of spray drying processes is preconcentration of Revised 6 June 2019
feed liquids by using more energy efficient techniques, such as membrane reactors or falling Accepted 20 June 2019
film evaporators. As feed viscosity increases with dry matter content, efficient atomization at
KEYWORDS
high viscosities is necessary. In contrast to standard pressure swirl (PS) atomizers, Air-Core- Spray drying; sustainability;
Liquid-Ring atomization may be an option. Experiments on a pilot scale show its high ACLR; high viscosity;
potential for application in spray drying processes as feed dry matter content may be maltodextrin; whey protein
increased up to 50% compared to PS atomization. The theoretical energy savings associated concentrate
with the 50% feed solids increment is about 29%. Further investigations are required
to assess the complexity, the practicality and the potential benefits for industrial-
scale operations.

1. Introduction atomization for all known atomization techniques.[5]

Water removal is very energy consuming in spray dry-
ing processes, especially since internal energy recovery
is restricted.[1,2] Moreover, the powder throughput of
a spray dryer is limited by its specific water evapor-
ation rate at given process conditions. As a result,
industrial applications aim to increase the feed dry
matter content to the highest possible value prior to
the actual spray drying process.[3] According to a
model calculation on industrial spray drying by Fox
et al.,[4] an increase in feed dry matter content by 1%
point leads to a decrease in thermal energy consump-
tion of the spray dryer by 3.8% and a decrease of total
energy consumption of 2.5% when the energy for pre-
concentration in an evaporator is taken into account.
Alternatively, an increase in powder production cap-
acity of 4.5% is possible. Although thermal losses may
lead to reductions of these values in practical applica-
tions, increases in feed dry matter contents promise
reductions in energy consumption during spray drying
processes.[3] The major drawback of increased feed
dry matter contents is that viscosity increases sharply
for many liquids. An increase in viscosity complicates
To achieve sufficient drying, all droplets must be
small enough to dry within the residence time inside
the spray dryer. Incompletely dried particles often
show an enhanced stickiness, leading to process dis-
turbances due to material depositions within the dryer
or to unforeseen changes of powder properties during
storage.[6] Moreover, the droplet size distribution dir-
ectly influences the size distribution of resulting pow-
der particles.[7]
For droplet formation, generally wheel or nozzle
type atomizers are used in spray drying processes.[3]
Concerning nozzle type atomizers, pressure-swirl noz-
zles are most commonly used in spray drying proc-
esses on industrial scale. However, for pressure swirl
(PS) nozzles the highest processable viscosity is con-
siderably low, compared to pneumatic atomizers.[8] In
practical use, the exact value of the maximum pro-
cessable viscosity is dependent of the required atom-
ization result, atomizer geometry, feed liquid
properties, and applied liquid pressure.
In contrast, external mixing pneumatic atomizers
allow atomization of highly viscous liquids as the

CONTACT Marc O. Wittner marc.wittner@kit.edu Institute of Engineering in Life Sciences, Chair of Food Process Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, Kaiserstrasse 12, Karlsruhe, 76131 Germany.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ldrt.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M. O. WITTNER ET AL.
Figure 1. Different types of internal mixing pneumatic atom-
izers: (a) Y-Jet atomizer, (b) Effervescent Atomizer, and (c) Air-
Core-Liquid-Ring atomizer.
kinetic energy of compressed gas is used for droplet
disintegration.[9] Another advantage is that liquid flow
rate and droplet size distribution can be adjusted
independently of each other in a relatively wide range.
However, high gas consumption rates of external mix-
ing pneumatic atomizers restrict economic operation
on a larger scale. For ExMP atomizers, ALRs from 1
to 10 are usually applied.[3] As a result, this type of
atomizer is mostly used in laboratory or pilot scale
spray dryers.[3]
As an alternative, internal mixing atomizers are
reported to atomize high viscous feeds at low gas con-
sumption rates with typically applied ALRs below a
value of 0.2.[10–12] In this group of atomizers, com-
pressed gas and feed liquid are brought into contact
in a mixing zone and leave the atomizer through an
exit orifice. For gas injection, several geometries have
been suggested so far (e.g.[5,11,13–16]). In Figure 1, a
selection of three different types of IMP atomizers is
shown. These are (a) Y-Jet atomizer; (b) Effervescent
Atomizer (EA); and (c) Air-Core-Liquid-Ring (ACLR)
atomizer. Depending on the injection geometry and
process conditions used, different two phase flow pat-
terns are developed inside the exit orifice.[17] It is
known that unregulated internal flow patterns, such as
those occurring in a Y-Jet atomizer or in an EA at
low ALR and high liquid viscosity, directly lead to
temporal instabilities in the spray produced.[18–20]
Since stable spray droplet sizes are required in spray
drying processes, the ACLR atomizer was devel-
oped[21] based on investigations of internal flow pat-
terns of an EA.[18,22] For ACLR atomizers, a high
temporal stability of the Sauter mean diameter (SMD)
was found in short time measurements of spray drop-
let sizes with liquid feed viscosities of up to
0.69 Pa
s.[12] However, the gas pressure applied must
be increased as viscosity levels rise in order to ensure
temporal stability of the SMD.[12]
To investigate the general applicability of ACLR
atomization in spray drying processes, pilot scale
spray drying experiments with feed liquids of different
total dry matter contents were performed in the study
presented. Based on previous studies on ACLR atom-
ization performance,[12,23] a viscosity range between
0.03 and 0.39 Pa
s was chosen for the spray drying
experiments for this study. The corresponding dry
matter range is between 30 and 47% for the model
system used. For atomization, gas pressures of 0.6 and
0.8 MPa are applied. Since an increase in gas pressure
enhances spray stability with increasing viscosity,[12]
we hypothesize that the stability of subsequent drying
processes also increases. Here spray stability is defined
by the fluctuation of the SMD over time, while pro-
cess stability and product quality of the drying process
are assessed through observation of material deposits
within the dryer. Resulting powder characteristics,
such as particle size distribution, water content, water
activity and bulk density were investigated. In the
second part of the study, potential energy savings of a
theoretical application of ACLR atomization in indus-
trial spray drying processes involving high feed dry
matter contents were estimated, based on the above
mentioned model calculation of Fox et al.[4]
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Model system
Aqueous solutions of maltodextrin (CDry MD01958,
Overlack GmbH, M€ onchengladbach, Germany) were
used as the model system. In order to ensure uniformity
of surface tension for all solutions, a concentration of
2% powdered whey protein concentrate WPC80
(Sachsenmilch GmbH, Leppersdorf, Germany) was
added. As a result, total dry matter contents of 30, 40,
45, and 47% were adjusted in a combination of WPC 80
and maltodextrin. For feed liquid preparation, the pow-
der moisture contents (dry basis) of 4.50% (MD) and
4.59% (WPC) were taken into account. The values were
validated repeatedly during storage by means of the
method described in Section 2.3. The solutions were
characterized by viscosity (m), surface tension (r), and
density (q). All measurements were performed in tripli-
cate at a temperature of 25  C. This temperature was
selected as the reference for room temperature,[12] as
the feed was not preheated prior to injection into the
spray dryer (see Section 2.2.3). Mean values and relative
uncertainty values ur(c) of these parameters, as well as
the total dry matter composition of the solutions used,
are summarized in Table 1. Viscosity measurements
were performed using a rotary rheometer (MCR 101/
301, Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) with coaxial
cylinder geometry (CC27). Within the measurement
range of shear rates between 1 and 1000 s1, all
 DRYING TECHNOLOGY 3

Table 1. Physical properties of the investigated solutions at 25  C: viscosity (m), surface tension (r), density (q), and correspond-
ing uncertainty values ur (c).
ctotal (% d.b.) cWPC 80 (% d.b.) cMD (% d.b.) m (Pa
s) ur(m) (%) r (N
m–1) ur(r) (%) q (kg
m–3) ur(q) (%)
30 2 28 0.03 2.33 0.049 1.08 1139 0.07
40 2 37 0.12 7.23 0.049 0.27 1185 0.74
45 2 43 0.22 2.87 0.049 0.57 1211 0.69
47 2 45 0.39 4.61 0.049 1.03 1234 0.06
Concentrations of total dry matter content ctotal, maltodextrin (cMD) and WPC 80 (cWPC 80) are given as dry base values (d.b.).

solutions demonstrated Newtonian behavior. Surface
tensions and densities were measured using a Wilhelmy
plate system (DCAT 21, DataPhysics Instruments
GmbH, Filderstadt, Germany).
2.2. Process equipment and procedure
2.2.1. ACLR atomization
In an ACLR atomizer, the compressed atomization
gas is injected into the feed liquid stream through a
capillary closely before the exit orifice. This results in
a characteristic annular two phase flow pattern gener-
ated inside the exit orifice. To date, no information
on the process dependent liquid film thickness is
available. However, current research seeks to estimate
these parameters. For further information on operat-
ing principal and geometry, refer to the literature on
ACLR atomization.[8,12,21,23–25] In the atomizer used,
the mixing area had a length of 2.4 mm. Diameter and
length of the exit orifice, as well as diameter of the
gas capillary, were 1.5 mm each.
2.2.2. Media supplies
For atomization, the model system was supplied by an
eccentric screw pump (MD 006-12, seepex GmbH,
Bottrop, Germany). The flow rate could be adjusted
within a range of 5–20 L
h1 and was measured by a
flow meter (VSI 044/16, VSE GmbH, Neuenrade,
Germany). Compressed air was used as the atomiza-
tion gas. It was supplied by a compressor (Renner
RSF-Top 7.5, Renner GmbH, G€ uglingen, Germany)
that delivered a maximum gas pressure of 0.9 MPa.
The gas pressure was adjusted to 0.6 and 0.8 MPa
using a pressure regulator. The gas volume flow
through the atomizer’s mixing chamber resulted from
gas pressure and liquid flow rate and was measured
by a gas flow meter (ifm SD6000, ifm electronic,
Essen, Germany). Gas flow rates are given at standard
conditions (273.15 K, 0.1013 MPaabs) and varied
between 4.9 and 7.7 Nm3
h1.
2.2.3. Pilot scale spray drying
A one-stage pilot scale spray dryer (Werco SD20, Hans
G. Werner Industrietechnik GmbH, Reutlingen,
Germany) with maximum water evaporation capacity of
20 kg h–1 was used. The total height of the drying
chamber was 3 m, including a cylindrical part with a
height of 2 m and a diameter of 1.5 m. For powder
separation, a cyclone was used that was connected to
the bottom of the drying chamber with a flexible
pipe of 100 mm in diameter. The drying processes
were operated in co-current flow at an air inlet tem-
perature of 180  C and an air flow rate of 500 kg
h–1.
The resulting outlet temperature was adjusted to
90 ± 3  C by variation of the feed liquid flow in a
range between 15 ± 2 L h–1. The feed liquid was sup-
plied at room temperature of 23 ± 2  C. All drying
trials were performed in triplicate.
2.3. Powder characterization
Powders were characterized by particle size distribu-
tion, moisture content, water activity and bulk density.
Particle size distributions were measured by laser dif-
fraction spectroscopy (Horiba LA950, Retsch
Technology GmbH, Haan, Germany). In this measure-
ment device, a gas flow with maximum pressure of
0.4 MPa was applied for dispersion of particles in an
air filled measurement chamber. Moisture contents
were calculated by weight loss after oven drying at
105  C to constant mass. The applied drying tempera-
ture is a standard temperature for food and dairy
powders such as WPC80.[26] This temperature is also
well below the onset temperature of decomposition of
MD.[27] Water activities were measured by a dedicated
measuring instrument (AquaLAB 4TE, METER Group
Inc., Pullman, USA). Bulk density was measured
according to DIN-ISO-697, 1984. All measurements
were performed in triplicate.
2.4. Calculation of applied atomization energy
The energy consumption of the atomization step is
calculated by the applied energy density per mass of
resulting powder Em, powder according to the following
Equation (1). In this calculation, the moisture content
after drying (c moisture) is included:
EV
Em;powder ¼ (1)
qL
ðctotal þ cmoisture Þ
4 M. O. WITTNER ET AL.
Here, Ev is the volumetric energy density applied to
the liquid flow. Density and dry matter content of the
liquid medium are qL and ctotal, respectively.
According to St€ahle et al.,[8] EV is calculated for
ACLR atomization as follows:
pG;abs
pL
QL þ MG
R
T
ln pG;0
Ev ¼ (2)
QL
The energy delivered by the liquid flow is calculated
by multiplying the relative liquid pressure pL and the
volume flow of the liquid QL. The energy calculation of
the gas flow is based on isothermal gas compression.
This calculation includes the mass flow of the gas MG,
temperature T, ideal gas constant R, absolute gas pres-
sure pG,abs and atmospheric gas pressure pG,0.
According to St€ahle et al.,[8] we can assume an equilib-
rium of pressure between gas and liquid in the mixing
chamber of the ACLR atomizer, as the pressure inside
the mixing chamber is dominated by the pressure loss
over the exit orifice. Accordingly, pL is replaced by rela-
tive gas pressure pG in further calculations. In PS atom-
ization, the atomization energy is completely delivered
by the liquid flow. As a result, the following equation
can be used for calculating EV in PS atomization:[8]
P pL
QL
Ev ¼ ¼ ¼ pL (3)
QL QL
Here P is the power applied by the used pump, pL
is the relative liquid pressure and QL is the liquid flow
rate. According to this equation, EV equals the liquid
pressure pL in this case.
2.5. Theoretical energy consumption of
concentration and spray drying
Energy consumption for liquid concentration and dry-
ing in industrial scale spray dryers is estimated based
on the literature data cited in the study presented here.
Although there are several more advanced models for
prediction of dryer specific energy consumption avail-
able in the literature (e.g.[28–31]), the assumptions made
here are kept simple, as the intention is to provide an
idea of potential energy savings through the application
of ACLR atomization in industrial spray drying proc-
esses. According to Fox et al.,[4] the following assump-
tions are made: For liquid concentration, a single stage
falling film evaporator with thermal vapor recompres-
sion is used. Here 0.5 kg of steam per kg of water evap-
oration are needed. The energy consumption of the
spray dryer is 2 kg of steam per kg of water evaporation.
For production of 1 kg of steam an energy equivalent of
2.25 MJ is required. Based on these considerations, the
total energy consumption of a hypothetical industrial
powder production process is calculated by adding
together the energy consumptions of liquid concentra-
tion, atomization and drying. Of course, these assump-
tions must be adapted carefully whenever we aim to
estimate the energy consumption of a specific process.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Influence of feed dry matter content on
process stability and powder characteristics
Spray drying processes are highly dependent on the
combination of atomization and drying conditions.
When droplets are insufficiently atomized for the given
drying conditions, the residence time in the spray dryer
is too short to convert the largest droplets into dry par-
ticles. Incompletely dried particles tend to stick to the
dryer walls, especially at the bottom of the drying
chamber. As a consequence, severe material deposits
can be created over time. Thus for a general evaluation
of process stability, the development of material depos-
its at the bottom of the drying chamber was visually
assessed after one hour of operation. In Figure 2, typ-
ical depictions illustrate the dependency of applied gas
pressure pgas and feed dry matter content ctotal. The
hole, visible in the center of the images, represents the
exit of the drying chamber. Here dried particles and
humidified drying air are supposed to leave the drying
area in the direction of the cyclone for powder separ-
ation. The exit hole and attached piping have a diam-
eter of 100 mm. In case of ctotal ¼ 47% and pgas ¼ 0.6
no stable operation was possible over the required
operation time of one hour. Therefore, no image is
presented for this process condition in Figure 2.
From the given images, we see that material depos-
its qualitatively increase as dry matter content
increases and gas pressure decreases. These tendencies
were present in all repetitions performed. Moreover,
it was observed that material deposits generated at
ctotal ¼ 40% (pgas ¼ 0.6 and 0.8 MPa), as well as at
ctotal ¼ 45% and pgas ¼ 0.8 MPa appeared powdery
and dry. In contrast, deposits generated at ctotal ¼
45% and pgas ¼ 0.6, as well as at ctotal ¼ 47% and
0.8 MPa appeared very moist and sticky. These charac-
teristics can be explained by a decrease of spray stability
as dry matter contents increase or gas pressure
decreases.[12] Here, the residence time in the drying
chamber is apparently not sufficient to dry the largest
generated spray droplets. Resulting large particles
remain wet and stick to the dryer wall. Once this adhe-
sion process starts, a sticky layer of material develops
that holds back an increasing amount of particles. As

Figure 2. Material deposits at the bottom of the drying chamber, in dependency of feed dry matter content (ctotal ¼ 40, 45, and
47%) and atomization gas pressure (pgas ¼ 0.6 and 0.8 MPa).
well, smaller particles that are already dried can adhere
to this sticky layer. As a consequence, a small number
of large droplets can begin a kind of chain reaction,
leading to fast development of severe deposits inside
the dryer. According to results on ACLR atomization
performance,[12,23] the described increase in mean
droplet size and distribution width due to increasing
viscosity can be compensated by an increase in specific
atomization energy. This can be done by increasing the
gas pressure at a constant liquid flow rate.[12]
Consequently, production of non-sticky particles is
possible for dry matter contents of up to 45% under
the applied drying conditions when gas pressure is
increased from 0.6 to 0.8 MPa. Compared to the refer-
ence point of PS atomization at a dry matter content
of 30% in the model system used, an increase by 15
percentage points can be achieved using ACLR atom-
ization, even on a pilot scale.
In addition to process stability, the powders pro-
duced were characterized by particle size distribution,
moisture content, water activity and bulk density. In
Figure 3, values of moisture content (A), water activity
(B), and bulk density (C) are presented depending on
feed dry matter content and applied gas pressure.
An increase in feed dry matter content from 40 to
45% significantly increases the moisture content of the
powder produced from 5.7 to 8.4% at pgas ¼ 0.8 MPa. A
further increase of ctotal to 47% results in a moisture
content of 8.9%; however, the increase is not statistically
significant, compared to ctotal ¼ 45%. In case of ctotal ¼
40 and 45%, a decrease in applied gas pressure to
0.6 MPa results in a significant increase of moisture con-
tent to 7.5 and 9.8%, respectively. Taking into account
the above-described observations of material deposits in
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 5
the dryer, the moisture content of the powder produced
from ctotal ¼ 47% at 0.8 MPa is unexpectedly low, com-
pared to the value of the powder produced from ctotal ¼
45% at 0.6 MPa. Since wet and sticky deposits were
found for both processes, similar moisture contents for
both processing conditions were expected. The lower
moisture content of samples at ctotal ¼ 47% may result
from potentially lower specific humidity of the inlet dry-
ing air or increased outlet temperatures. This should be
investigated in further studies.
Water activity resembles the tendencies found from
moisture content measurements. However, the differ-
ence in water activities at ctotal ¼ 45% is not statistic-
ally significant. As water activity and final moisture
content are directly connected to the drying condi-
tions, it can be assumed that lower values can be
reached in an industrial process with a longer drying
time. For bulk density, no significant differences were
observed between the processes (0.38 – 0.41 kg
L1).
Moreover, no correlations between processing condi-
tions and particle size distributions were found. For
all processes x50,3 values of 93 ± 14 mm were measured.
It must be considered that particle size distributions
are fractionated by the process, because droplets larger
than the process specific threshold value for dryable
particles are held back in deposits in the drying cham-
ber. Nevertheless, high x90,3-values of up to 777 mm
were found in combination with high uncertainty val-
ues of up to 48% in repeated measurements of the
same sample. It is most likely that occasional large
values of x90,3 are based on the development of
agglomerates during powder transport, separation or
storage. This assumption is supported by spray
droplet size measurements under similar conditions
6 M. O. WITTNER ET AL.

Figure 3. Moisture content xwb (A), water activity aw, (B) and bulk density qb, and (C) of produced powders in dependency of
feed dry matter content (ctotal ¼ 40, 45, and 47%) and applied gas pressure (pgas ¼ 0.6 and 0.8 MPa).

Figure 4. Energy consumption of process steps evaporation, atomization and spray drying, as well as of the complete process in
dependency of the feed dry matter content supplied to the spray dryer.

(ctotal ¼ 47%, pgas ¼0.8 MPa, QL ¼ 20 L
h1), where
x90,3 did not exceed values of 270 ± 25 mm.[23]
3.2. Potential energy savings by applying ACLR
atomization in industrial spray drying processes
Like all pneumatic atomization techniques, ACLR
atomization has been reported to be less energy
efficient than PS atomization.[8] Nevertheless, energy
consumptions of ACLR atomization is only 4–7 times
higher than PS atomization. This is well below the
level of external mixing pneumatic atomizers, which
are reported to consume up to 20 times the energy of
PS atomizers.[6] Based on the trials performed we can
conclude that the application of ACLR atomization

Table 2. Energy densities EV of feed solution and Em powder of
produced powder (cmoisture ¼ 5%) an correlated uncertainty
values ur(c) in dependency of feed dry matter content ctotal.
ctotal (% d.b.) EV (kJ
L–1) Em powder (kJ
kg–1)
30 70 174
40 78 148
45 86 144
47 86 135
offers the possibility of increasing ctotal from 30% for
PS atomization to 45%, even in pilot scale spray dry-
ing. This increase in dry matter content equals an
increase in viscosity from 0.03 to 0.22 Pa
s. In order
to evaluate the potential energy savings of an indus-
trial spray drying process while using ACLR atomiza-
tion for increased feed dry matter contents, Figure 4
shows the specific energy consumption of the process
steps involved. These steps include concentration,
atomization and drying. Theoretical energy consump-
tion of concentration and drying on an industrial
scale are taken from the literature[4] (see Section 2.5.).
For estimation of the energy consumption of ACLR
atomization, volumetric energy density Ev and Energy
density per mass of produced powder Em powder are
calculated based on the pilot scale trials performed
(see Section 2.4). Results are shown in Table 2. For
calculation of Em powder, a moisture content of cmoisture
¼ 5% is assumed for the powders produced. For
ACLR atomization, a gas pressure of 0.8 MPa is
assumed in all calculations. We make these assump-
tions because a conservative approximation of energy
savings is desired and lower gas pressures or higher
moisture contents would result in lower values of
Em powder.
Finally, all process steps are added to create a total
energy consumption of the drying process. A feed
with ctotal ¼ 30% is considered as the starting point of
concentration, since this value is considered as the
highest possible concentration for PS atomization in
the high viscous model system.
It is obvious that energy consumption of evapor-
ation increases with increasing ctotal, as more water
has to be removed from the feed concentrate before
entering the spray dryer. In consequence, energy con-
sumption of spray drying decreases with increasing
ctotal. As more energy can be recovered in the evapor-
ator than in the spray dryer, the absolute gradient is
higher in the case of the spray dryer. The energy con-
sumption of atomization is very low compared to
dehydration (concentration and drying).
Comparing total energy consumptions at ctotal ¼
30% (A) and at ctotal ¼ 45% (B), a reduction in energy
consumption of 29% (9.2to 6.5 MJ kgpowder–1)
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 7
theoretically can be achieved. This value is composed
of a reduction of the energy consumption of the spray
drying step from 9.0 to 5.3 MJ kg powder–1 and an
ur(c) (%)
increase in energy consumption of the preconcentra-
4.1
7.6 tion from 0 to 1.1 MJ kg powder–1. The difference in
11.1 energy consumption of the atomization step is consid-
2.7
erably small, as it decreases from 0.17 to 0.14 MJ kg
–1
powder (see Table 2). The decrease in total energy
consumption equals a reduction of approximately 2%
(0.17 MJ kg powder–1) per percentage point of increase
in feed dry matter content. This value is well in the
range of the energy consumption of ACLR atomiza-
tion. Consequently, application of ACLR atomization
can lower the total energy consumption of spray dry-
ing processes from the first percentage point of
increase in feed dry matter content over the specific
threshold value of PS atomization for the high viscous
model system.
4. Conclusion
In our study, the applicability of ACLR atomization
in spray drying of highly concentrated feeds was
investigated on a pilot scale. In the spray dryer, a
maltodextrin based solution with a maximum viscos-
ity of 0.22 Pa
s (feed dry matter content of 45%) was
processed. An increase in gas pressure from 0.6 to
0.8 MPa led to a clear reduction of material deposits
in the dryer. This is most likely based on an
increased spray stability. In the hypothetical indus-
trial spray drying process we evaluated, an increase
in dry matter content from 30 to 45% led to possible
energy savings of 29%. This value consists of a the-
oretical reduction of the specific energy consumption
of the drying step by 3.7 MJ
kgpowder1, while the
energy consumption of the assumed concentration
step is 1.1 MJ
kgpowder1. The reduction in energy
consumption of the atomization step
(–0.03 MJ
kgpowder1) is considerably small.
Moreover, it was shown that the application of
ACLR atomization can theoretically lower the total
energy consumption of spray drying processes from
the first percent point of increase in feed dry matter
content above the threshold value of PS atomization.
Moisture content and water activity should be
decreased to meet industrial demands. For the same
reason, longer drying times in industrial processes
would be beneficial. Therefore, further investigations
on the scale-up potential of ACLR atomizers are
needed for successful implementation in industrial
spray drying processes.
8 M. O. WITTNER ET AL.
Acknowledgments
The authors further express their thanks to Holger
Schubert, Fabian Wendelberger and Andrea Butterbrodt for
experimental support.
Funding
The IGF Project AiF 18299 N of the FEI was supported via
AiF within the program for promoting the Industrial
Collective Research (IGF) of the German Ministry of
Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), based on a reso-
lution of the German Parliament.
References
[1] Baker, C. G. J.; McKenzie, K. A. Energy
Consumption of Industrial Spray Dryers. Drying
Technol. 2005, 23, 365–386. DOI: 10.1081/DRT-
200047665.
[2] Kemp, I. C. Reducing Dryer Energy Use by Process
Integration and Pinch Analysis. Drying Technol.
2005, 23, 2089–2104. DOI: 10.1080/
07373930500210572.
[3] Masters, K. Spray Drying in Practice;
SprayDryConsult International: Charlottenlund,
Denmark, 2002.
[4] Fox, M.; Akkerman, C.; Straatsman, H.; Jong, P. d.
Energy Reduction by High Dry Matter
Concentration and Drying. New Food 2010, 6,
60–62.
[5] Omer, K.; Ashgriz, N. Spray Nozzles. In Handbook
of Atomization and Sprays; Ashgriz, N., Ed.;
Springer: New York, NY, 2011; pp 497–597.
[6] Mujumdar, A.S., Ed. Handbook of Industrial Drying,
4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2015.
[7] Schuck, P.; Mejean, S.; Dolivet, A.; Beaucher, E.;
Famelart, M. H. Pump Amperage: A New Method
for Monitoring Viscosity of Dairy Concentrates
before Spray Drying. Lait 2005, 85, 361–367. DOI:
10.1051/lait:2005014.
[8] St€ahle, P.; Schuchmann, H. P.; Gaukel, V.
Performance and Efficiency of Pressure-Swirl and
Twin-Fluid Nozzles Spraying Food Liquids with
Varying Viscosity. J. Food Process. Eng. 2017, 40,
12317
[9] Lefebvre, A. H. Atomization and Sprays;
Hemisphere: Philadelphia, PA, 1989.
[10] Jedelsky, J.; Jicha, M. Unsteadiness in Effervescent
Sprays: A New Evaluation Method and the Influence
of Operational Conditions. Atomization. Spray. 2008,
18, 49–83. DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v18.i1.20.
[11] Mlkvik, M.; St€ahle, P.; Schuchmann, H. P.; Gaukel,
V.; Jedelsky, J.; Jicha, M. Twin-Fluid Atomization of
Viscous Liquids: The Effect of Atomizer
Construction on Breakup Process, Spray Stability
and Droplet Size. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 2015, 77,
19–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2015.06.010.
[12] Wittner, M. O.; Karbstein, H. P.; Gaukel, V. Spray
Performance and Steadiness of an Effervescent
Atomizer and an Air-Core-Liquid-Ring Atomizer for
Application in Spray Drying Processes of Highly
Concentrated Feeds. Chem. Eng. Process. 2018, 128,
96–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2018.04.017.
[13] Sovani, S. D.; Sojka, P. E.; Lefebvre, A. H.
Effervescent Atomization. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
2001, 27, 483–521. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-
1285(00)00029-0.
[14] Mlkvik, M.; St€ahle, P.; Gaukel, V.; Zaremba, M.;
Jedelsky, J.; Jıcha, M.; Dancova, P.; Vıt, T.
Performance of Twin-Fluid Atomizers for
Atomization of Viscous Solutions. EPJ Web Conf.
2015, 92, 2052.
[15] Jedelsky, J.; Jıcha, M. Spray Characteristics and
Liquid Distribution of Multi-Hole Effervescent
Atomisers for Industrial Burners. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2016, 96, 286–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2015.11.079.
[16] Zaremba, M.; Weiß, L.; Maly, M.; Wensing, M.;
Jedelsky, J.; Jıcha, M. Low-Pressure Twin-Fluid
Atomization: Effect of Mixing Process on Spray
Formation. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 2017, 89,
277–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.10.
015.
[17] Kim, J. Y.; Lee, S. Y. Dependence of Spraying
Performance on the Internal Flow Pattern in
Effervescent Atomizers. Atomization. Spray. 2001,
11, 735–756.
[18] St€ahle, P.; Gaukel, V.; Schuchmann, H. P. Influence
of Feed Viscosity on the Two-Phase Flow inside the
Exit Orifice of an Effervescent Atomizer and on
Resulting Spray Characteristics. Food Res. Int. 2015,
77, 55–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.04.047.
[19] Avulapati, M. M.; Ravikrishna, R. V. An
Experimental Study on Effervescent Atomization of
Bio-Oil Fuels. Atomization. Spray. 2012, 22,
663–685. DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.2012006482.
[20] Mlkvik, M.; Zaremba, M.; Jedelsky, J.; Wigley, G.
Investigation of the spray generated by a Y-jet atom-
izer. Presented at the Proceedings of 20th
International Conference Engineering Mechanics,
Brno, CZ, 2014, pp 404–407.
[21] St€ahle, P.; Gaukel, V.; Schuchmann, H. P.
Comparison of an Effervescent Nozzle and a
Proposed Air-Core-Liquid-Ring (ACLR) Nozzle for
Atomization of Viscous Food Liquids at Low Air
Consumption. J. Food Process. Eng. 2017, 40, 12268.
[22] St€ahle, P.; Gaukel, V.; Schuchmann, H. P.
Investigation on the Applicability of the Effervescent
Atomizer in Spray Drying of Foods: Influence of
Liquid Viscosity on Nozzle Internal Two-Phase Flow
and Spray Characteristics. J. Food Process. Eng. 2015,
38, 474–487. DOI: 10.1111/jfpe.12178.
[23] Wittner, M. O.; Karbstein, H. P.; Gaukel, V.
Pneumatic Atomization: Beam Steering Correction
in Laser Diffraction Measurements of Spray Droplet
Size Distributions. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1738. DOI: 10.
3390/app8101738.
[24] Kleinhans, A.; Georgieva, K.; Wagner, M.; Gaukel,
V.; Schuchmann, H. P. On the Characterization of
Spray Unsteadiness and Its Influence on Oil Drop
Breakup during Effervescent Atomization. Chem.

Eng. Process. 2016, 104, 212–218. DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.
2016.03.011.
[25] Kleinhans, A.; Hornfischer, B.; Gaukel, V.;
Schuchmann, H. P. Influence of Viscosity Ratio and
Initial Oil Drop Size on the Oil Drop Breakup dur-
ing Effervescent Atomization. Chem. Eng. Process.
2016, 109, 149–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2016.09.006.
[26] Schuck, P.; Jeantet, R.; Dolivet, A. Analytical
Methods for Food and Dairy Powders; Wiley-
Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, 2012.
[27] Saavedra-Leos, Z.; Leyva-Porras, C.; Araujo-Dıaz,
S. B.; Toxqui-Teran, A.; Borras-Enrıquez, A. J.
Technological Application of Maltodextrins accord-
ing to the Degree of Polymerization. Molecules 2015,
20, 21067–21081. DOI: 10.3390/molecules201219746.
[28] Bimbenet, J.-J.; Schuck, P.; Roignant, M.; Brule, G.;
Mejean, S. Heat Balance of a Multistage Spray-Dryer:
principles and Example of Application. Lait 2002,
82, 541–551. DOI: 10.1051/lait:2002031.
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 9
[29] Schuck, P.; Jeantet, R.; Tanguy, G.; Mejean, S.; Gac,
A.; Lefebvre, T.; Labussiere, E.; Martineau, C. Energy
Consumption in the Processing of Dairy and Feed
Powders by Evaporation and Drying. Drying
Technol. 2015, 33, 176–184. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.
2014.942913.
[30] Silva, CRd.; Martins, E.; Silveira, A. C. P.; Sime~ao,
M.; Mendes, A. L.; Perrone, I. T.; Schuck, P.;
Carvalho, A. F. d. Thermodynamic Characterization
of Single-Stage Spray Dryers: Mass and Energy
Balances for Milk Drying. Drying Technol. 2017, 35,
1791–1798. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2016.1275675.
[31] Domınguez-Ni~ no, A.; Cant u-Lozano, D.; Ragazzo-
Sanchez, J. A.; Andrade-Gonzalez, I.; Luna-Solano,
G. Energy Requirements and Production Cost of the
Spray Drying Process of Cheese Whey. Drying
Technol. 2018, 36, 597–608. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.
2017.1350863.