Abstract
Process simulations of batch fermentations with in situ product separation traditionally decouple these interdependent steps by simulating a separate “steady state” continuous fermentation and separation units. In this study, an integrated batch fermentation and separation process was simulated for a model system of acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fermentation with in situ gas stripping, such that the fermentation kinetics are linked in real-time to the gas stripping process. A time-dependent cell growth, substrate utilization, and product production is translated to an Aspen Plus batch reactor. This approach capitalizes on the phase equilibria calculations of Aspen Plus to predict the effect of stripping on the ABE fermentation kinetics. The product profiles of the integrated fermentation and separation are shown to be sensitive to gas flow rate, unlike separate steady state fermentation and separation simulations. This study demonstrates the importance of coupled fermentation and separation simulation approaches for the systematic analyses of unsteady state processes.







Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Koutinas M, Kiparissides A, Pistikopoulos EN, Mantalaris A (2012) Bioprocess systems engineering: transferring traditional process engineering principles to industrial biotechnology. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 3(4):1–9
Darkwah K, Knutson BL, Seay J (2018) A perspective on challenges and prospects for applying process systems engineering tools to fermentation-based biorefineries. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03762
Sirigudi RR (2005) Biomass to ethanol: process simulation, validation and sensitivity analysis of a gasifier and a bioreactor. Thesis, Oklahoma State University
Abdehagh N, Tezel FH, Thibault J (2014) Separation techniques in butanol production: challenges and developments. Biomass Bioenergy 60:222–246
Nigam PS, Singh A (2011) Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Prog Energy Combust Sci 37:52–68
Ponce GH et al (2015) Simulation, analysis and optimization of sugar concentration in an in situ gas stripping fermentation process for bioethanol production. Chem Eng Trans 43:319–324
Ezeji TC, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP (2003) Production of acetone, butanol and ethanol by Clostridium beijerinckii BA101 and in situ recovery by gas stripping. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 19(6):595–603
Qureshi N, Blaschek H (2001) Recent advances in ABE fermentation: hyper-butanol producing Clostridium beijerinckii BA101. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 27(5):287–291
Ezeji TC, Qureshi N, Blaschek H (2013) Microbial production of a biofuel (acetone–butanol–ethanol) in a continuous bioreactor: impact of bleed and simultaneous product removal. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 36(1):109–116
Vane LM (2008) Separation technologies for the recovery and dehydration of alcohols from fermentation broths. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2(6):553–588
Shuler ML, Kargi F (2009) Bioprocess engineering basic concepts. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Mesfun S et al (2013) Techno-economic evaluation of butanol production via black liquor fractionation. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on sustainable energy technologies. Hong Kong: Faculty of Construction and Environment and Research Institute for Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China
Van der Merwe AB (2010) Evaluation of different process designs for biobutanol production from sugarcane molasses. Thesis, University of Stellenbosch
Wu M, Wang M, Liu J, Huo H (2007) Life-cycle assessment of corn-based butanol as a potential transportation fuel. ANL/ESD/07–10; Argonne National Laboratory: Chicago, Illinois, https://doi.org/10.2172/925379
Liu J, Wu M, Wang M (2009) Simulation of the process for producing butanol from corn fermentation. Ind Eng Chem Res 48(11):5551–5557
Nilsson R et al (2014) Techno-economics of carbon preserving butanol production using a combined fermentative and catalytic approach. Bioresour Technol 161(0):263–269
Aspen Technolgy Inc (2015) Aspen Plus V8.8 help and documentation
Votruba J, Volesky B, Yerushalmi L (1986) Mathematical model of a batch acetone–butanol fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 28(2):247–255
Carlson EC (1996) Don’t gamble with physical properties for simulations. Chem Eng Prog 92(10):35–46
Hill D, Justice FC (2011) Understand thermodynamics to improve process simulations. Chem Eng Prog 107:20–25
Dürre P (2008) Fermentative Butanol Production. Ann NY Acad Sci 1125(1):353–362
Ezeji TC, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP (2004) Acetone butanol ethanol (ABE) production from concentrated substrate: reduction in substrate inhibition by fed-batch technique and product inhibition by gas stripping. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 63(6):653–658
Ezeji TC et al (2005) Improving performance of a gas stripping-based recovery system to remove butanol from Clostridium beijerinckii fermentation. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 27(3):207–214
Ennis B et al (1986) Continuous product recovery by in-situ gas stripping/condensation during solvent production from whey permeate using Clostridium acetobutylicum. Biotechnol Lett 8(10):725–730
Ezeji TC, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP (2007) Production of acetone butanol (AB) from liquefied corn starch, a commercial substrate, using Clostridium beijerinckii coupled with product recovery by gas stripping. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 34(12):771–777
Maddox IS, Qureshi N, Roberts-Thomson K (1995) Production of acetone-butanol-ethanol from concentrated substrate using clostridium acetobutylicum in an integrated fermentation-product removal process. Process Biochem 30(3):209–215
Lu C, Dong J, Yang S-T (2013) Butanol production from wood pulping hydrolysate in an integrated fermentation–gas stripping process. Bioresour Technol 143:467–475
Cai D et al (2016) Acetone–butanol–ethanol from sweet sorghum juice by an immobilized fermentation-gas stripping integration process. Bioresour Technol 211:704–710
Xue C et al (2013) Two-stage in situ gas stripping for enhanced butanol fermentation and energy-saving product recovery. Bioresour Technol 135(0):396–402
Qureshi N et al (2008) Butanol production from wheat straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation using Clostridium beijerinckii: Part I—batch fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 32(2):168–175
Acknowledgements
This manuscript is based on the work funded by the USDA-NIFA Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI # 68-3A75-7-608) and an NSF EPSCoR Track-2 RII, Award No. OIA1632854.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix A
Ordinary differential equations representation of the fermentation kinetics of a batch culture of Clostridium acetobutylicum [18]:
Appendix B
Parameter definition for the kinetic model and their respective values
- k 1 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 8, = 0.009 L/g-substrate/h
- k 2 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 9, = 0.0008 L/g-butanol/h
- k 3 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 10, = 0.0255 L/g-biomass/h
- k 4 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 10, = 0.6764 g-substrate/g-biomass/h
- k 5 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 11, = 0.0136 g-butyric acid L/g-substrate/g-biomass/h
- k 6 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 11, = 0.1170 g-butyric acid/g-biomass/h
- k 7 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 12, = 0.0113 g-butanol L/g-substrate/g-biomass/h
- k 8 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 13, = 0.7150 g-acetic acid/g-biomass/h
- k 9 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 13, = 0.1350 g-acetic acid/g-biomass/h
- k 10 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 14, = 0.1558 g-acetone/g-biomass/h
- k 11 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 15, = 0.0258 g-ethanol/g-biomass/h
- k 12 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 16, = 0.6139 g-carbon dioxide/g-biomass/h
- k 13 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 17, = 0.0185 g-hydrogen/g-biomass/h
- k 14 :
-
kinetic constant in Eq. 17, = 0.00013 g-hydrogen L /g-substrate/g-biomass/h
- K I :
-
inhibition constant, = 0.833 g-butanol/L
- K S :
-
Monod constant, = 2.0 g-substrate/L
- K BA :
-
saturation constant, = 0.5 g-butyric acid/L
- K AA :
-
saturation constant, = 0.5 L/g-acetic acid/L
- m A :
-
acetone concentration, g/L
- m B :
-
butanol concentration, g/L
- m E :
-
ethanol concentration, g/L
- m BA :
-
butyric acid concentration, g/L
- m AA :
-
acetic acid concentration, g/L
- m S :
-
glucose concentration, g/L
- m q :
-
cell biomass concentration, g/L
- \({m_{{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{2}}}}}\) :
-
carbon dioxide concentration, g/L
- \({m_{{{\text{H}}_{\text{2}}}}}\) :
-
hydrogen concentration, g/L
- m z :
-
marker of the physiological state culture, dimensionless
Appendix C
Stoichiometric equations (Eqs. 18–22) used together with stoichiometric coefficients relative to glucose [13,14,15,16]. The stoichiometric coefficients used in the stoichiometric reactor were 0.319, 0.495, 0.080, 0.120, 0 (mole of product/mole of glucose fed) for acetone, butanol, ethanol, acetic and butyric acids, respectively, calculated from the model of Votruba et al. [18]:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Darkwah, K., Nokes, S.E., Seay, J.R. et al. Mechanistic simulation of batch acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fermentation with in situ gas stripping using Aspen Plus™. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 41, 1283–1294 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-1956-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-1956-6


