4.7 Article

Energy consumption for sugar manufacturing. Part I: Evaporation versus reverse osmosis

Journal

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 1270-1276

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.01.002

Keywords

Reverse osmosis; Evaporation; Sugar thin juice concentration; Energy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Removing water from various feeds is usually carried out using evaporation process especially in food industry. Due to the high latent heat of water, this unit operation results in consumption of unacceptable amount of energy. Finding low energy consuming processes which could be replaced with this process is still a challenge. The processes with no phase inversion may be considered for concentration purposes with reasonable energy consumption in comparison with the other various separation procedures. Reverse osmosis and most of the other membrane technologies are separation techniques without any change in the phase and therefore consume low amount of energy. Concentrating the sugar thin juice in the classical sugar manufacturing procedure is carried out using conventional evaporation. Reverse osmosis membranes may be used as a pre-concentration step to partially separate water from the sugar thin juice in combination with this part of the plant. Final concentration and thick juice preparation for crystallization may be carried out in the evaporation unit. In this study, membranes were employed for sugar thin juice concentration using a two-stage reverse osmosis process in two different arrangements. The energy consumption was calculated and compared for conventional evaporation versus reverse osmosis combined with evaporation. The results indicate that the employment of revers osmosis membranes for concentrating the sugar thin juice leads to sensibly lower energy requirements. Furthermore, there is no thermal loss of sugar in the membrane process. (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