Water Reconditioning in the Food Industry. Where are we and where are we going, a case study.

Transcription

1 Water Reconditioning in the Food Industry. Where are we and where are we going, a case study. Rolando Flores, Yulie Meneses Food Science and Technology Department May The Food Processing Center

2 Water usage in the food industry U.S Freshwater Withdrawal, 2005 (1) Domestic, 8.5% Public Suplly, 5.40% Irrigation, 37.0% Aquaculture, 2.60% Thermoelectric, 41.50% Manufacturing, 5.00% Food Industry, Others, 70% 1. Agency, U.S.E.P. Water use today 2013 [cited /11/2013] 2. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, F.a.F. Australian Food Statistics [cited /11/2013].

3 UNESCO- Sustainable development goals Reduce water use in agricultural irrigation by 20% industrial water use by 20% domestic water use by 15% Increase water productivity by 50% in all sectors adopting the water demand management approach, less water demanding crops saving technologies and increasing safe reuse of wastewater Water in the post-2015 development agenda and sustainable development goals. UNESCO IHP. 2014

4 Current realities Water is present at different points in the supply chain (agricultural production, processing, preservation and distribution) Water contamination at any stage impacts the whole process Regulation based on risk assessment are becoming more frequently implemented Cost associated with water treatment can be a limiting factor for water reuse Robert E. Brackett. Water as Essential Element in Food Safety. Conference on Food Safety, Security, and Defense: Focus on Food and Water. Institute on Science for Global Policy. UNL. October 2013.

5 Recondition and recycle Potential opportunity for water conservation and waste reduction Limitations Lack of public information on how to recover valuable components Information about the economic benefit of recovery and reuse Lack of legislation and incentives for recovery and reuse Low cost and fines for water use and waste discharge

6 Holistic approach Efficient water recovery and reuse Food Safety- Risk assessment Life cycle assessment Cost analysis Sustainability framework

7 Dairy Processing Scenario Other Trade wash Mannual Washing Cooling tower Operational processes Crate Wash Pasteurisation CIP 3% 4% 6% 6% 12% 16% 25% 28% Rad, S.J. and M.J. Lewis, Water utilization, energy utilization and waste water management in the dairy industry: A review. International Journal of Dairy Technology, (1): p

8 Water for food processing: Regulations Codex alimentarius Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) USDA Reconditioned water

9 Cheese making process 10% 90%

10 fat protein lactose ash minerals 90% Whey 94% water

11 Case study in the dairy sector Cheese whey ( 94% water) Treatment UF/RO Reuse in CIP-Systems 28% water usage Risk assessment Life cycle assessment Cost analysis UF Permeate UF concentrate RO permeate

12 General experiment Cheese whey Permeate UF Recovered Water CIP Whey P-1 / V-101 Storage P-2 / UF-101 Ultrafiltration P-3 / RO-101 Reverse Osmosis P-5 / V-103 Storage P-9 / WSH-101 Washing (Bulk Flow ) Protein concentrate Lactose concentrate Cost analysis Water Life cycle assessment Risk assessment P-4 / V-102 Storage S-102 P-6 / V-104 Storage S-103 S-104 P-8 / MX-101 Mixing P-7 / SDR-101 protein/lactose powder Spray Drying

13 Characterization of reverse osmosis streams RO concentrate Parameter Units Whey RO Permeate Rejection % RO membrane Conductivity µs/cm Ammonia NH4 N mg/l Nitrate NO3 mg N/L UF permeate Nitrite NO2 mg N/L TOC ppm 23, RO permeate = Recovered water COD mg/l 84,

14 Protein and lactose powder characteristics Parameter Protein powder Lactose powder a 25 C Protein content (%) Lipid content (%) Total dry mater(%) Moisture (%) Recovery % Water %

15 Reuse in CIP operations Rotation speed 120 rpm 5 min rinse 10 min wash with alkaline solution at 65 ±1 C Pump flow 10 ml/min 5 min rinse 10 min wash with acid solution at 65 ±1 C 5 min final rinse

16 Experiment 2. Results Log 10 (cfu/cm2) Pseudomonas aeruginosa counts before and after CIP a a TW before CIP ROW before CIP TW after CIP ROW after CIP TW = tap water ROW = recovered water p-value: 0.87 ; α: 0.05

17 Cost Analysis Whey (Million L/year) Investment (Million $) Revenue (Millions $/year) Operating Cost (Millions $/year) IRR after taxes (%) Payback Time (years) Software: SuperPro Designer Whey production: Based on Wisconsin cheddar cheese production Input data: Yield, concentration, flows, membrane area from water recovery experiments Reference cost: equipment manufactures, Lincoln water service, default values from software, published prices for WPC and lactose

18 Cost Analysis Impact of water treatment price increment on savings during payback period Impact of water treatment price increment on savings per year Contribution of Saving to total investment (%) Contribution of Saving to operational cost /year (%) Increments over present cost (40 $/unit) (%) Increments over present cost (40 $/unit) (%) Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

19 Water conservation For efficient plants using 1 L of water /L milk processed, up 80% of water usage can be supplied with this intervention By recycling recovered water, there is not need to use water from the environment The amount of water not consumed by the food company is available for other uses in the community Depending on the location, the per capita water consumption changes but significant impacts are observed special in large scale companies

20 Conclusions 1. A water recovery percentage of 47.3 was obtained from the UF/RO system, and 80% in the overall intervention. 2. The quality of the recovered water (ROW) allows to achieve the same level of sanitation of using potable water, when applied in CIP systems. 3. Good quality lactose and protein powder with commercial value are obtained from the concentrate streams. 4. The proposed intervention is economically feasible for different cheese production scales. 5. Water conservation initiatives in food industries have potential for sustainable production, without competing with the community for the use of natural resources

21 Thank you! Rolando A. Flores, PhD 143 Filley Hall Lincoln, NE Yulie E. Meneses G. Department of Food Science and Technology The Food Processing Center