| Literature DB >> 35521162 |
L Handojo1, A K Wardani1, D Regina1, C Bella1, M T A P Kresnowati1, I G Wenten1,2.
Abstract
With an increase in the organic acid requirement, the production of organic acids has been increased over the years. To achieve cost-effective production of organic acids, efficient recovery processes are needed. Electro-membrane processes, including electrodialysis (ED), electrometathesis (EMT), electro-ion substitution (EIS), electro-electrodialysis (EED), electrodialysis with bipolar membrane (EDBM), and electrodeionization (EDI), are promising technologies for the recovery of organic acids. In the electro-membrane processes, organic acids are separated from water and other impurities based on the electro-migration of ions through ion-exchange membranes. These processes can recover various types of organic acids from the fermentation broth with high recovery yield and low energy consumption. In addition, the integration of fermentation and the electro-membrane process can improve the acid recovery with lower byproduct concentration and energy consumption. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35521162 PMCID: PMC9061277 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra09227c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1The number of reported studies related to the search term organic acid recovery, as indexed by Scopus (TITTLE-ABS-KEY (terms); September 2018).
Recovery yields of organic acids using conventional technologies
| Acid | Method | Recovery yield (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acetic acid | Extraction | 66–97 |
|
| Adsorption | 94 |
| |
| Pressure-driven membrane | 88 |
| |
| Citric acid | Extraction | 90 |
|
| Formic acid | Extraction | 87 |
|
| Fumaric acid | Extraction | 70.7 |
|
| Adsorption | 85–93 |
| |
| Lactic acid | Extraction | 37–97 |
|
| Adsorption | 74–95 |
| |
| Precipitation | 92 |
| |
| Pressure-driven membrane | 60–100 |
| |
| Picolinic acid | Extraction | 75–96.6 |
|
| Propionic acid | Extraction | 75 |
|
| Adsorption | 64 |
| |
| Pyruvic acid | Extraction | 40–82 |
|
| Succinic acid | Extraction | 67–95 |
|
| Precipitation | 93.3 |
| |
| Adsorption | 96–99 |
| |
| Tartaric acid | Extraction | 90 |
|
| Adsorption | 75–99 |
|
Comparison of the technologies for organic acid recovery
| Technology | Advantages | Disadvantages | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Precipitation | Very low technological barriers and risks | Resulting CaSO4 sludge (notorious for solid pollution) |
|
| Low selectivity | |||
| Extraction | High purity product | Undesirable distribution coefficients |
|
| Low energy consumption | Environmental problems due to the use of hazardous solvents | ||
| Expensive extraction agent and diluent | |||
| Adsorption | Easy to operate | Short lifetime of adsorbents |
|
| Low capacity | |||
| Ion exchange | Easy to operate | Consumes a great amount of acid, base, and water to regenerate ion exchange resins |
|
| Pressure-driven membrane | High selectivity | Fouling formation |
|
| Easy to operate | |||
| Easy to scale-up | |||
| Electro-membrane processes | High purity product | Fouling formation |
|
| No need salt introduction or discharge |
Fig. 2Schematic of the stack configuration for: (a) ED, (b) EMT, (c) EIS, (d) EED, (e) EDBM, and (f) EDI to produce organic acids.
Performance of electro-membrane processes for the recovery of organic acids
| Organic acid | Technology | Operation condition | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetic acid | ED | Membrane effective area: 10 cm2 | Current efficiency: 80–98% |
|
| Voltage: 5, 10, 15 V | Recovery rate: 24.05–40.82% (configuration 1) and 91–394% (configuration 2) | |||
| EED | Membrane effective area: 32 cm2 | Removal efficiency: >90% |
| |
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 98 cm2 | Acid recovery: up to 70% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 0.2% | Current efficiency: 40% | |||
| Voltage: 30 V | ||||
| Amino acid | ED | Membrane effective area: 36 cm2 | Recovery rate: up to 63% |
|
| pH: 12.5 | Current efficiency: up to 83% | |||
| Acid concentration: 25, 50, 75, 100 mM | Energy consumption: 3 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EDBM | Lysine concentration: 146.19 M | Acid concentration increase 35–50 times |
| |
| Arginine concentration: 174.21 M | ||||
| Histidine concentration: 155.16 M | ||||
| Membrane effective area: 20 cm2 | ||||
| Current density: 2–10 mA cm−2 | ||||
| EDBM | Methionine concentration: 24.65 g L−1 | Acid purity: 99.98% |
| |
| Membrane effective area: 945 cm2 | Current efficiency: 75.10% | |||
| Current density: 150–300 mA cm−2 | Energy consumption: 2.156–3.265 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EDI | Membrane effective area: 50 cm2 | Current efficiency: 60–85% |
| |
| Voltage: 20 V | Energy consumption: 1–1.6 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Resin filling: 0, 5, 10, 20 mL | ||||
| Butyric acid | ED | Current: 0.05 A | Acid purity: 85% |
|
| Current efficiency: 52% | ||||
| EDI | Membrane effective area: 10 cm2 | Recovery rate: 82–89% |
| |
| Voltage: 3.6–4.7 V | Current efficiency: 81–85% | |||
| pH: 2–4.5 | Energy consumption: 0.197–0.204 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EDI | Membrane effective area: 0.001 m2 | Acid purity: 92% |
| |
| Current: 0.05 A | Current efficiency: 59% | |||
| Citric acid | ED | Membrane effective area: 3900 cm2 | Optimum p: 7.5 |
|
| Voltage: 10, 15, 20 V | Optimum voltage: 20 V | |||
| Flow rate: 4, 8, 12 mL min−1 | Optimum flow rate: 4 mL min−1 | |||
| pH: 2, 4.5, 7.5 | ||||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 50 cm2 | Final acid concentration: up to 0.65 mol dm−3 |
| |
| Acid concentration: 0.1 mol dm−3 | ||||
| Current density: 52, 78, 104 mA cm−2 | ||||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 220 cm2 | Current efficiency: 73.7–100% |
| |
| Current density: 30, 40, 50 mA cm−2 | Energy consumption: 4–8 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EDI | Membrane effective area: 50 cm2 | Current efficiency: 40–96% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 500–10 000 ppm | Energy consumption: 1.16 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Flow rate: 1–4 L h−1 | ||||
| Formic acid | EED | Temperature: 30 °C | Concentration ratio: 1.2–1.5 |
|
| Current density: 8–29 mA cm−2 | Current efficiency: 70–140% | |||
| EED | Membrane effective area: 7.07 cm2 | Current efficiency: >100% |
| |
| Current density: 3, 5, 10, 15 mA cm2 | Formic acid transport through the membranes: 0.004–0.120 M | |||
| Temperature: 20–40 °C | ||||
| Acid concentration: 0.05–0.5 M | ||||
| Anolyte and catholyte concentration: 0.1 M | ||||
| Fumaric acid | EDBM | Membrane effective area: 0.0064 m2 | Recovery ratio: up to 75% |
|
| Current density: 90, 120, 150 mA cm−2 | Current efficiency: 80–90% | |||
| Acid concentration: 1.45–2.90 g L−1 | Energy consumption: 5–13 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Circulation flow rate: 6.2 L h−1 | ||||
| Glyceric acid | ED | Membrane effective area: 550 cm2 | Acid recovery: 75–95% |
|
| Acid concentration: 32.3–130.2 g L−1 | Current efficiency: 87.2–100% | |||
| pH: 7 | Energy consumption: 0.19–0.31 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Lactic acid | ED | Membrane effective area: 58 and 180 cm2 | Current efficiency: 45–83% |
|
| Voltage: 1.5 V | Final acid concentration: up to 157 g L−1 | |||
| Current: 1.4 A | Energy consumption: 0.26–0.87 kW h kg−1 | |||
| ED | Membrane effective area: 200 cm2 | Acid recovery: 96.4–98.7% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 80–100 g dm−3 | Current efficiency: 77.3–83.0% | |||
| Energy consumption: 1.2–3.8 | ||||
| Current: 8–12 A | ||||
| ED | Feed: 0.1 N lactic acid and 0.1 N sodium sulfate | Final acid concentration: up to 4 g L−1 |
| |
| Flow rate: 150 mL min−1 | ||||
| ED | Membrane effective area: 57.6 and 180 cm2 | Current efficiency: 66–84% |
| |
| Voltage: 1.5 V | Final acid concentration: up to 173 g L−1 | |||
| Current density: 7.8 mA cm2 | Energy consumption: 0.24–0.32 kW h kg−1 | |||
| ED | Voltage: 0–15 V | Acid recovery: 40–100% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 40 g L−1 | Energy consumption: 0.163–0.910 kW h kg−1 | |||
| ED | Membrane effective area: 100 cm2 | Acid recovery: up to 97% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 0, 1, 5 g L−1 | Energy consumption: 0.25 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Voltage: 10, 15, 20 | ||||
| Temperature: 32 °C | ||||
| ED | Voltage: 7 V | Mineral removal: 90% |
| |
| Current density: 10–300 A m−2 | Energy consumption: 0.004–0.014 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EIS | Membrane effective area: 25 cm2 | Final acid concentration: up to 9 g L−1 |
| |
| Feed: 0.1 N lactic acid and 0.1 N sodium sulfate | ||||
| Flow rate: 150 mL min−1 | ||||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 57.6 and 180 cm2 | Current efficiency: 61–92% |
| |
| Voltage: 12 V | Final acid concentration: up to 173 g L−1 | |||
| Current density: 67.7 mA cm−2 | Energy consumption: 0.84–1.38 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EDI | Membrane effective area: 90 cm2 | Final acid concentration: up to 185 g L−1 |
| |
| Voltage: 0–70 V | ||||
| Current density: 0–45 mA cm−2 | ||||
| Acid concentration: 0–80 g L−1 | ||||
| Malic acid | EDBM | Membrane effective area: 0.02 m2 | Current efficiency: 30% |
|
| Acid concentration: 24.4 g L−1 | Energy consumption: 1.15–1.27 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Circulation flow rate: 300 L h−1 | ||||
| Propionic acid | EED | Membrane effective area: 20 cm2 | Current efficiency: 90.5–99.2% |
|
| Acid concentration: 40 g L−1 | Final acid concentration: 150 g L−1 | |||
| Current density: 70 mA cm−2 | ||||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 20 cm2 | Current efficiency: 85.2–100% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 40 g L−1 | Final acid concentration: 145 g L−1 | |||
| Current density: 70 mA cm−2 | ||||
| Salicylic acid | EDBM | Feed acid concentration: 1 M | Current efficiency: 80–90% |
|
| Flow rate: 90 L h−1 | Final acid concentration: up to 45 M | |||
| Circulation rate: 4.6 cm s−1 | Energy consumption: 14–38 W h m2 kg−1 | |||
| Current density: 30, 50, 75 mA cm−2 | ||||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 7.07 cm2 | Current efficiency: 99.6% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 0.05–0.4 mol L−1 | Energy consumption: 2.1 W h m2 kg | |||
| Current density: 14–50 mA cm−2 | ||||
| Succinic acid | ED | Membrane effective area: 178 cm2 | Final acid concentration: 63–77.6 g L−1 |
|
| Acid concentration: 51.5 g L−1 | Current efficiency: 76.2–78.9% | |||
| ED | Membrane effective area: 64 cm2 | Current efficiency: 15–25% |
| |
| Voltage: 0–20 V | Total carboxylate basis: 50–60% | |||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 80 cm2 | Final acid concentration: 0.25–0.60 M |
| |
| Acid concentration: 0.05 M | Current efficiency: 90% | |||
| Circulation rate: 15 L h−1 | Energy consumption: 1–4 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Current density: 12.5, 25, 37.5 mA cm−2 | ||||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 80 cm2 | Current efficiency: 96.8% |
| |
| Current density: 12.5–37.5 mA cm−2 | Energy consumption: <4 kW h kg−1 | |||
| EDBM | Membrane effective area: 207 cm2 | Current efficiency: 75.4% |
| |
| Current density: 90 and 120 A m−2 | Energy consumption: 1.5–3.2 kW h kg−1 | |||
| Acid concentration: 43, 100, and 200 g L−1 | ||||
| EDBM | Current density: 90 and 120 mA cm−2 | Current efficiency: 14.3–19% |
| |
| Acid concentration: 15 and 16.9 g dm−3 | Final acid concentration: 13 and 15.7 g dm−3 | |||
| Feed flow rate: 100 dm2 h−1 | ||||
| Tartaric acid | ED | Temperature: 25–40 °C | Current efficiency: 33–65% |
|
| Feed: 10 kg m−3 tartaric acid and 60 kg m−3 glucose | Final acid concentration: 170–300 kg m−3 | |||
| Energy consumption: 5.103–12.103 kJ kg−1 |
Advantages and disadvantages of electro-membrane processes in organic acid recovery
| Technology | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| ED | Simple process, low energy consumption | Relatively low recovery rate |
| EMT | Can realize double composition reactions | Acid requirement |
| EIS | Can realize double composition reactions | Low current efficiency, acid requirement |
| EED | High current efficiency, can be operated continuously | Low product concentration, low membrane stability and selectivity |
| EDBM | High separation efficiency, high acid purity | Expensive bipolar membrane price |
| EDI | High recovery rate, self-regeneration, can be operated continuously | Requires pretreatment |
Fig. 3Schematic of (a) a side-stream bioreactor, (b) an immobilized separative bioreactor, (c) the stack configuration for EDF, and (d) the stack configuration of MEDCC.
Fig. 4Comparison of energy consumption for various electro-membrane processes for the production of organic acids.