MF2183

Kent D. Rausch, Providing safe containers for food products: facts for niche-market food processors, Kansas State University, March 1996

INCREASING CORN THROUGHPUT IN DRY GRIND PROCESS FOR ETHANOL PROCESS

In a conventional dry grind process, corn is ground and mixed with water to produce slurry. The slurry is cooked; starch in the slurry is liquefied, simultaneously saccharified and fermented to produce ethanol. Typical solids during slurry preparation range from 30 to 34%. Higher solids result in higher ethanol concentration. High final ethanol concentration improves plant profitability by increasing plant capacity and improving plant efficiency. Corn solids higher than 34% are not used in dry grind corn process due to high mash viscosity (after cooking), increase in sugar concentration during fermentation (substrate yeast inhibition) and high final ethanol concentration (product yeast inhibition). Two new technologies have been developed which can be combined to reduce mash viscosity, maintain low sugar and ethanol concentration during fermentation and improve plant productivity. These technologies are: granular starch hydrolyzing enzymes and vacuum stripping of ethanol. Simultaneous liquefaction, saccharification, fermentation and distillation (SLSFD) can be conducted in one step with these two technologies and corn slurry solids higher than 34% can be used. In this study combination of granular starch hydrolyzing enzyme and vacuum stripping were evaluated for ethanol production with 40% slurry solids. Results were compared with conventional process using 40% slurry solids. The SLSFD process fermented slurry with negligible residual glucose content. In the conventional process residual sugar in beer started increasing at 20 hr and final residual sugar concentration of 5% (w/v) was observed. Amount of ethanol production and ethanol productivity of the SLSFD process was 20 to 40% higher compared to the conventional process

Nitrogen and Sulfur Concentrations and Flow Rates of Corn Wet‐Milling Streams

Nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) concentrations can affect the market value of coproducts from corn wet‐milling. The composition of parent streams would be expected to affect composition of the resulting coproducts but there are few published data available to examine this relationship. Concentration and flow data are needed to determine which streams are important in modifying N and S coproduct concentrations. The objective was to measure concentrations and flows of N and S in corn wet‐milling streams. Samples were taken from 21 process streams from 3 wet‐milling plants during two periods of three weeks each; N and S concentrations of each sample were determined. There were large differences in N and S concentrations among processing streams; within most streams, N and S concentrations were similar among plants. Concentrations of N and S were related inversely to flow rates. Steepwater and gluten streams contained most of the N and S flow and provide an opportunity for modification. The process water stream carried large quantities of N and S and represents another opportunity for improving process efficiency and coproduct value.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141537/1/cche0260.pd

Comparison of Hermetic Storage of Wheat with Traditional Storage Methods in India

India is among the countries experiencing high postharvest losses. Four hermetic bags, two metallic bins, and two gunny bag (also known as jute or burlap bag) piles each containing 1 tonne of wheat were instrumented with temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide sensors. Representative samples from each structure were collected each month and tests for moisture, germination, insect-damaged grain, and milling yield were performed. After nine months, wheat stored in hermetic bags had higher germination (87%) and lower insect-damaged grain percentages (0% to 0.33% with a mean value of 0.2%). Hermetic bags with deliberately introduced Rhyzopertha dominica successfully eliminated the pests. Gunny bag piles had infestations; metallic bins also were infested. Wheat moisture content in all structures varied depending upon ambient conditions; moisture variation was largest in gunny bag piles. Milling yields were lowest for gunny bag piles. Hermetic bags can be an effective and environmentally friendly solution for reducing storage losses of wheat in India

Design and Evaluation of an Optimal Controller for Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation Process

Ethanol from corn is produced using dry grind corn process in which simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) is one of the most critical unit operations. In this work an optimal controller based on a previously validated SSF model was developed by formulating the SSF process as a Bolza problem and using gradient descent methods. Validation experiments were performed to evaluate the performance of optimal controller under different process disturbances that are likely to occur in practice. Use of optimal control algorithm for the SSF process resulted in lower peak glucose concentration, similar ethanol yields (13.38 +/- 0.36% v/v and 13.50 +/- 0.15% v/v for optimally controlled and baseline experiments, respectively). Optimal controller improved final ethanol concentrations as compared to process without optimal controller under conditions of temperature (13.35 +/- 1.28 and 12.52 +/- 1.19% v/v for optimal and no optimal control, respectively) and pH disturbances (12.65 +/- 0.74 and 11.86 +/- 0.49% v/v for optimal and no optimal control, respectively). Cost savings due to lower enzyme usage and reduced cooling requirement were estimated to be up to $1 million for a 151 million L/yr (40 million gal/yr) dry grind plant.Keywords: Cybernetic model, SSF process, Process disturbances, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Optimal controller, Gradient descent, Dry grind corn ethano

QuickNGS elevates Next-Generation Sequencing data analysis to a new level of automation

BACKGROUND: Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a widely used tool in molecular biology. While time and cost for the sequencing itself are decreasing, the analysis of the massive amounts of data remains challenging. Since multiple algorithmic approaches for the basic data analysis have been developed, there is now an increasing need to efficiently use these tools to obtain results in reasonable time. RESULTS: We have developed QuickNGS, a new workflow system for laboratories with the need to analyze data from multiple NGS projects at a time. QuickNGS takes advantage of parallel computing resources, a comprehensive back-end database, and a careful selection of previously published algorithmic approaches to build fully automated data analysis workflows. We demonstrate the efficiency of our new software by a comprehensive analysis of 10 RNA-Seq samples which we can finish in only a few minutes of hands-on time. The approach we have taken is suitable to process even much larger numbers of samples and multiple projects at a time. CONCLUSION: Our approach considerably reduces the barriers that still limit the usability of the powerful NGS technology and finally decreases the time to be spent before proceeding to further downstream analysis and interpretation of the data. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1695-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Integrating sequence and array data to create an improved 1000 Genomes Project haplotype reference panel

A major use of the 1000 Genomes Project (1000GP) data is genotype imputation in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Here we develop a method to estimate haplotypes from low-coverage sequencing data that can take advantage of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray genotypes on the same samples. First the SNP array data are phased to build a backbone (or 'scaffold') of haplotypes across each chromosome. We then phase the sequence data 'onto' this haplotype scaffold. This approach can take advantage of relatedness between sequenced and non-sequenced samples to improve accuracy. We use this method to create a new 1000GP haplotype reference set for use by the human genetic community. Using a set of validation genotypes at SNP and bi-allelic indels we show that these haplotypes have lower genotype discordance and improved imputation performance into downstream GWAS samples, especially at low-frequency variants. © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

A global reference for human genetic variation

The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.We thank the many people who were generous with contributing their samples to the project: the African Caribbean in Barbados; Bengali in Bangladesh; British in England and Scotland; Chinese Dai in Xishuangbanna, China; Colombians in Medellin, Colombia; Esan in Nigeria; Finnish in Finland; Gambian in Western Division – Mandinka; Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, USA; Han Chinese in Beijing, China; Iberian populations in Spain; Indian Telugu in the UK; Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Luhya in Webuye, Kenya; Mende in Sierra Leone; people with African ancestry in the southwest USA; people with Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, USA; Peruvians in Lima, Peru; Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico; Punjabi in Lahore, Pakistan; southern Han Chinese; Sri Lankan Tamil in the UK; Toscani in Italia; Utah residents (CEPH) with northern and western European ancestry; and Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria. Many thanks to the people who contributed to this project: P. Maul, T. Maul, and C. Foster; Z. Chong, X. Fan, W. Zhou, and T. Chen; N. Sengamalay, S. Ott, L. Sadzewicz, J. Liu, and L. Tallon; L. Merson; O. Folarin, D. Asogun, O. Ikpwonmosa, E. Philomena, G. Akpede, S. Okhobgenin, and O. Omoniwa; the staff of the Institute of Lassa Fever Research and Control (ILFRC), Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Irrua, Edo State, Nigeria; A. Schlattl and T. Zichner; S. Lewis, E. Appelbaum, and L. Fulton; A. Yurovsky and I. Padioleau; N. Kaelin and F. Laplace; E. Drury and H. Arbery; A. Naranjo, M. Victoria Parra, and C. Duque; S. Däkel, B. Lenz, and S. Schrinner; S. Bumpstead; and C. Fletcher-Hoppe. Funding for this work was from the Wellcome Trust Core Award 090532/Z/09/Z and Senior Investigator Award 095552/Z/11/Z (P.D.), and grants WT098051 (R.D.), WT095908 and WT109497 (P.F.), WT086084/Z/08/Z and WT100956/Z/13/Z (G.M.), WT097307 (W.K.), WT0855322/Z/08/Z (R.L.), WT090770/Z/09/Z (D.K.), the Wellcome Trust Major Overseas program in Vietnam grant 089276/Z.09/Z (S.D.), the Medical Research Council UK grant G0801823 (J.L.M.), the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council grants BB/I02593X/1 (G.M.) and BB/I021213/1 (A.R.L.), the British Heart Foundation (C.A.A.), the Monument Trust (J.H.), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (P.F.), the European Research Council grant 617306 (J.L.M.), the Chinese 863 Program 2012AA02A201, the National Basic Research program of China 973 program no. 2011CB809201, 2011CB809202 and 2011CB809203, Natural Science Foundation of China 31161130357, the Shenzhen Municipal Government of China grant ZYC201105170397A (J.W.), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating grant 136855 and Canada Research Chair (S.G.), Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (M.K.D.), a Le Fonds de Recherche duQuébec-Santé (FRQS) research fellowship (A.H.), Genome Quebec (P.A.), the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation – Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Investigator Award (P.A., J.S.), the Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Exports grant PSR-SIIRI-195 (P.A.), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grants 0315428A and 01GS08201 (R.H.), the Max Planck Society (H.L., G.M., R.S.), BMBF-EPITREAT grant 0316190A (R.H., M.L.), the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Emmy Noether Grant KO4037/1-1 (J.O.K.), the Beatriu de Pinos Program grants 2006 BP-A 10144 and 2009 BP-B 00274 (M.V.), the Spanish National Institute for Health Research grant PRB2 IPT13/0001-ISCIII-SGEFI/FEDER (A.O.), Ewha Womans University (C.L.), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship number PE13075 (N.P.), the Louis Jeantet Foundation (E.T.D.), the Marie Curie Actions Career Integration grant 303772 (C.A.), the Swiss National Science Foundation 31003A_130342 and NCCR “Frontiers in Genetics” (E.T.D.), the University of Geneva (E.T.D., T.L., G.M.), the US National Institutes of Health National Center for Biotechnology Information (S.S.) and grants U54HG3067 (E.S.L.), U54HG3273 and U01HG5211 (R.A.G.), U54HG3079 (R.K.W., E.R.M.), R01HG2898 (S.E.D.), R01HG2385 (E.E.E.), RC2HG5552 and U01HG6513 (G.T.M., G.R.A.), U01HG5214 (A.C.), U01HG5715 (C.D.B.), U01HG5718 (M.G.), U01HG5728 (Y.X.F.), U41HG7635 (R.K.W., E.E.E., P.H.S.), U41HG7497 (C.L., M.A.B., K.C., L.D., E.E.E., M.G., J.O.K., G.T.M., S.A.M., R.E.M., J.L.S., K.Y.), R01HG4960 and R01HG5701 (B.L.B.), R01HG5214 (G.A.), R01HG6855 (S.M.), R01HG7068 (R.E.M.), R01HG7644 (R.D.H.), DP2OD6514 (P.S.), DP5OD9154 (J.K.), R01CA166661 (S.E.D.), R01CA172652 (K.C.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01GM59290 (L.B.J., M.A.B.), R01GM104390 (L.B.J., M.Y.Y.), T32GM7790 (C.D.B., A.R.M.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01HL87699 and R01HL104608 (K.C.B.), T32HL94284 (J.L.R.F.), and contracts HHSN268201100040C (A.M.R.) and HHSN272201000025C (P.S.), Harvard Medical School Eleanor and Miles Shore Fellowship (K.L.), Lundbeck Foundation Grant R170-2014-1039 (K.L.), NIJ Grant 2014-DN-BX-K089 (Y.E.), the Mary Beryl Patch Turnbull Scholar Program (K.C.B.), NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-1147470 (G.D.P.), the Simons Foundation SFARI award SF51 (M.W.), and a Sloan Foundation Fellowship (R.D.H.). E.E.E. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Corn processing coproducts from ethanol production

Increase in demand for ethanol as a fuel additive has resulted in growth in ethanol production. Ethanol is produced from corn by either wet milling or dry grind processing. In wet milling, the corn kernel is fractionated into different components, resulting in several coproducts. Wet mill plants are capital intensive because of equipment requirements and typically are corporate owned. In dry grind processing, the corn kernel is not fractionated and only one coproduct, distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), is generated. Dry grind plants require less equipment and capital than wet mills. They typically are producer owned and add direct benefits to rural economies. Most of the increase in ethanol production during the past decade is attributed to growth in the dry grind industry. The marketing of coproducts provides income to offset processing costs. For dry grind plants, this is especially important, because only one coproduct is available. Several issues affect DDGS marketing. The increasing volume of DDGS accompanying ethanol production could reduce market value; high phosphorus content could limit use of DDGS, because of animal waste disposal issues. Technologies to remove germ and fiber from DDGS could produce a coproduct suitable for feeding to nonruminants; this would expand the markets for DDGS. Reducing phosphorus in DDGS would sustain markets for conventional DDGS. New technologies could contribute to long term stability of dry grind plants.Crop Production/Industries, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,