4.7 Article

Pilot study of countercurrent cold and mild heat extraction of sugar from sugar beets, assisted by pulsed electric fields

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
Volume 102, Issue 4, Pages 340-347

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.09.010

Keywords

Sugar beet; Sucrose; Extraction; Pulsed electric field; Pilot countercurrent extractor; Pulp pressing; Draft; Sugar loss

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes experiments on pulsed electric field (PEF)-assisted water extraction of sugar from sugar beet using a pilot countercurrent extractor with 14 extraction sections. Cossettes were prepared from sugar beet by industrial knives and PEF treatment of the cossettes was done with electric field strength E varied between 100 and 600 V/cm. The total time of PEF treatment was t(PEF) = 50 ms. The effects of the main extraction parameters (temperature of extracting water and draft) on the extraction kinetics. as well as on the juice and cossette (pulp) characteristics, were investigated. The temperature of extraction from PEF-treated cossettes was varied from 30 to 70 degrees C; the draft was varied from 120 to 90%. The principal possibility of cold (at 30 degrees C) and moderate thermal (50-60 degrees C) extraction of sucrose from sugar beet cossettes treated by PEF was confirmed on the pilot countercurrent extractor. The purity of the juice obtained by cold and moderate thermal extraction was not lower than the purity of juice obtained by conventional hot water diffusion at 70 degrees C. The sugar beet pulp can be well exhausted by cold or mild thermal extraction of cossettes treated by PEF. Decrease of draft to 100-90% permitted increasing of the extracted juice concentration, but the cossettes were worse exhausted. The pulp obtained by cold extraction of PEF-treated cossettes had dryness >30%, which was noticeably higher than dryness of the pulp obtained by conventional hot water extraction technique. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available