See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222590070

Recovery of butanol from

fermentation broth by gas
stripping. Renew Energy

Article in Renewable Energy · April 2001

Impact Factor: 3.48 · DOI: 10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00108-7

CITATIONS READS

86 593

2 authors:

N. Qureshi
United States Department of A…
158 PUBLICATIONS 6,098 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Hans P Blaschek
University of Illinois, Urbana-Ch…
150 PUBLICATIONS 5,104 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: N. Qureshi

Retrieved on: 15 April 2016
 Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564
www.elsevier.nl/locate/renene

Recovery of butanol from fermentation broth by

gas stripping
N. Qureshi*, H.P. Blaschek
Biotechnology and Bioengineering Group, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1207 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Received 1 September 1999; accepted 5 May 2000

Abstract

This is an overview of the butanol (usually called acetone butanol ethanol, ABE) fermen-
tation in various types of reactor systems and recovery by gas stripping. Gas stripping is a
simple technique which does not require expensive apparatus, does not harm the culture, does
not remove nutrients and reaction intermediates and reduces butanol toxicity (inhibition). As
a result of butanol removal by gas stripping, concentrated sugar solutions can be used to
produce butanol/ABE. Compared to sugar utilization of 30 gl⫺1 in a control batch reactor,
sugar utilization of 199 gl⫺1 has been reported with 69.7 gl⫺1 solvent production. In fed-batch
reactors concentrated sugar solutions (350 gl⫺1) have been used. Additionally, the process of
ABE production results in concentrated product streams containing 9.1–120 gl⫺1 butanol/ABE.
In the integrated ABE production and recovery systems, selectivities of 4–30.5 have been
reported.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Depletion of fossil fuels and fluctuating prices have rekindled an interest in the
development of renewable fuels/energy sources such as butanol. Butanol can be pro-
duced from a variety of renewable biomass resources including whey permeate (a
by-product of the dairy industry which contains lactose), corn, wood hydrolysate,
and other monomer sugars such as glucose. The most commonly used microorganism
which converts these sugars into butanol is Clostridium acetobutylicum. However,
the newly developed culture of C. beijerinckii BA101 [1] is more attractive because

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-217-244-6354; fax: +1-217-244-2517.

E-mail address: nqureshi@uiuc.edu (N. Qureshi).

0960-1481/01/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 0 - 1 4 8 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 0 8 - 7
558 N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564

it can produce a higher concentration of butanol. Typically C. acetobutylicum pro-

duces 10–16 g l⫺1 butanol, while C. beijerinckii BA101 produces 18⫺25 g l⫺1 buta-
nol. The concentration of butanol in the fermentation broth is limited due to butanol
toxicity to the culture. This results in the utilization of dilute sugar solutions, and
the removal of large quantities of water during the recovery process from the fermen-
tation broth by distillation.
Various alternative techniques to recover butanol from the fermentation broth have
been investigated. These techniques include adsorption, liquid–liquid extraction, per-
straction, pervaporation, reverse osmosis, and gas stripping [2]. The application of
some of these techniques results in the use of a concentrated sugar solution in the
fermentor and a reduction in butanol inhibition. As a result, production of a larger
amount of butanol than in control batch fermentation has been reported. Gas stripping
is one of the techniques, which can be used to remove liquid fuels such as butanol.
This technique is simple and does not require expensive apparatus. Gas can be
sparged through the fermentor/bioreactor and volatile butanol can be condensed and
recovered from the condenser. The concentration of butanol in the recovered stream
is higher than present in the fermentation broth. Gas stripping also does not harm
the culture
Comparison of an adsorbent resin, a molecular sieve and nitrogen gas stripping
has been carried out to study product removal during a two-stage continuous process.
Nitrogen gas stripping was found to be superior to the other techniques, possibly
because nutrients and reaction intermediates were not removed from the reaction
mixture [3]. Solvent stripping using nitrogen gas has also been shown to be advan-
tageous in a batch process for relief of product inhibition [4]. The objective of the
present work was to review butanol removal by gas stripping and evaluate its advan-
tages.

2. Calculations

The selectivity of butanol is calculated as a=[y/(1⫺y)]/[x/(1⫺x)], where x and y

are weight fractions of butanol in fermentation broth and condensate, respectively.
The rate of removal of butanol/ABE is given as W/Lh, where L is the liquid volume
in the bioreactor/fermentor, and h is the time during which condensate W is collected.
Productivity is defined as grams of butanol/ABE produced per liter reactor volume
per hour, while yield is defined as grams of butanol/ABE produced per gram of
sugar utilized.

3. Removal of butanol by gas stripping

Table 1 shows butanol/ABE recovery studies conducted by various authors, while

Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of butanol removal by gas stripping from the
fermentation broth. Ennis et al. [4] applied the technique of gas stripping to remove
butanol from a model butanol solution. They achieved a rate of ABE removal of 0.3
Table 1
Removal of ABE by gas stripping from the fermentation broth and model solutions

Reference Rate of removal Temperature Gas recycle rated Condensation temp. Selectivity Comments
of ABE (g (°C) (°C)
l⫺1h⫺1)

Model solution
[4] 0.30 34 2.7 l min⫺1 ⫺60 19.3b
Fermentation broth
[4] 0.45 34 2.7 l min⫺1 ⫺60 23.4 Removed butanol from a batch
reactor
[5] 0.30 35 3.2 l l⫺1 min⫺1 0–3 Concentrated substrate (350 g l⫺1)
whey permeate used in a fed-batch
reactor
[6] 0.10 65–67 2.5 l min⫺1 3–4 30.5 Continuous immobilized cell
fluidized bed reactor. Whey
permeate 150 g l⫺1 used. Separate
stripper used
[7] 0.31 35 3–3.2 l l⫺1 min⫺1 0–3 6–23 350 g l⫺1 whey permeate was used
to feed a fed-batch reactor.
Fermentation gases sparged through
the fermentation broth
[8] 0.32a 34 1.5–3.3 l l⫺1 min⫺1 ⫺0.8 9.5–13 Concentrated lactose (200 g l⫺1)
fermentation. Fermentation gases
sparged through the broth
[9] 1.00a 30 10 l l⫺1 min⫺1 ⫺5 to ⫺40 4 Continuous fermentation and packed
bed separate stripper used
c
N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564

[10] 37 18.4 l l⫺1 min⫺1a

[11] 0.18 37 0.67 l l⫺1 min⫺1 Immobilized cell continuous
fluidized bed reactor used

a
Calculated value.
b
Butanol.
c
Water absorber used.
d
559

l min⫺1 — liter gas per minute; l l⫺1 min⫺1 — liter gas per liter broth per minute.
560 N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of butanol/ABE removal from fermentation broth by gas stripping. (A)
Removal from the fermentor; (B) removal using a separate stripper; (C) removal using a separate packed-
bed stripper.

g l⫺1 h⫺1 at 34°C. The rate of recycle of N2 gas was 2.7 l min⫺1 and the condensation
temperature was ⫺60°C. Selectivity of butanol was found to be 19.3. This technique
was then applied to a fermentor to remove ABE while solvents were produced from
whey permeate. The fermentation temperature, rate of gas recycle and condensation
temperature were the same as above. In this fermentation-recovery experiment the
 N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564 561

authors reported a rate of removal of ABE of 0.45 g l⫺1 h⫺1. These experiments
demonstrated that ABE can be removed successfully from a batch reactor of C.
acetobutylicum without harming the culture. The reactor productivity increased by
41% while lactose utilization increased by almost 50% (Table 2). In addition to the
increase in reactor productivity and lactose utilization, the concentration of ABE in
the recovered stream was 75.9 g l⫺1, which is several times higher than achieved in
a control batch reactor (Table 2).
Qureshi and Maddox [5] applied gas stripping to a fed-batch reactor of ABE pro-
duction using whey permeate as substrate. In this experiment there were two objec-
tives: first to feed the reactor with concentrated commercial fermentation sugar sol-
ution (to avoid substrate inhibition and to reduce process stream) to the fermentor
and, second, to simultaneously remove toxic butanol by gas stripping. The concen-
tration of whey permeate in the feed medium was 350 g l⫺1, which is six times that
used in a batch reactor. The feed stream was controlled in such a way that the lactose
concentration in the reactor was less than 50 g l⫺1. ABE were removed continuously
from the fermentor by using gas stripping. Fermentation gases (CO2 and H2) were
sparged through the fermentation broth to remove ABE. The rate of removal of ABE
was 0.30 g l⫺1 h⫺1 at 35°C using a gas flow rate of 3.2 l l⫺1 min⫺1 and a condensation
temperature of 0–3°C (Table 1). In this integrated system, ABE productivity
increased from 0.07 to 0.17 g l⫺1 h⫺1 and lactose utilization increased almost 10
times that of a batch reactor (Table 2).
In a similar fed-batch reactor system integrated with product removal by gas strip-
ping, Qureshi et al. [7] improved productivity from 0.07 to 0.26 g l⫺1 h⫺1. Solvent
yield increased from 0.32 to 0.38 due to utilization of acids in the system. The
selectivity of ABE ranged from 6 to 23 (Table 1) and the concentration of ABE in
the condensate was 26.7 g l⫺1 (Table 2).
Further, Qureshi and Maddox [6] investigated an integrated system of continuous
ABE production and recovery in an immobilized cell fluidized bed reactor. ABE
were produced at a high rate of 4.8 g l⫺1 h⫺1 in the control continuous system at a
dilution rate of 1.00 h⫺1 [12] (Table 2). The effluent of the continuous reactor was
fed to a stripper, where ABE were removed from the broth. The stripped broth was
then recycled to the fluidized bed reactor and a concentrated solution containing 150
g l⫺1 whey permeate was fed to maintain a lactose concentration of 40–52 g l⫺1 at
the inlet of the reactor. Maintaining a lactose concentration above 30 g l⫺1 at the
inlet of the reactor is essential for solvent production [13]. In the integrated system,
selectivity of ABE was 30.5 (Table 1). A comparison of reactor productivity, lactose
utilization, and solvent yield is given in Table 2. The ABE concentration in the
condensate was 53.7 g l⫺1. Under steady state, a lactose utilization of 97.5 g l⫺1
was achieved. The continuous reactor-stripper was operated for 16 days in the inte-
grated mode.
In fermentation industries, batch fermentation is still considered as a viable option.
Keeping this in view Maddox et al. [8] produced ABE in a batch reactor from
lactose/whey permeate containing initially 199 g l⫺1 lactose. ABE were removed
using fermentation gases (CO2 and H2) and condensed in a condenser. The gases
were sparged through the fermentation broth in the fermentor. A rate of removal of
Table 2 562
Removal of ABE from fermentation broth by gas stripping: a comparison of different parameters

Reference Control fermentation parameter values Fermentation parameters with gas stripping

Productivity ABE yield, Sugar Productivity ABE yield, Sugar Recovered Comments
(g l⫺1 h⫺1) Yp/s (g g⫺1) utilization (g (g l⫺1 h⫺1) Yp/s (g g⫺1) utilization (g ABE
l⫺1) l⫺1) concentration
(g l⫺1)a

[4] 0.22 0.39 29.0 0.31 0.27b 60.0 75.9 Whey permeate batch
fermentation
[5] 0.07 0.36 19.4 0.17 0.25b 182.5 Whey permeate fed-batch
fermentation
[6] 4.80c 0.36 12.5 5.12d 0.40 97.5a 53.7 Immobilized cell
continuous fermentation
[7] 0.07 0.32 22.6a 0.26 0.38 182.5 26.7 Fed-batch fermentation
[8] 0.07 0.26 31.0 0.32 0.35 199.0 20–120 Batch fermentation of
high lactose conc.
[9] 0.17e 0.37 37.0 1.00 0.34 126.0 9.1 Continuous glucose
fermentation
[11] 0.34 0.33 Continuous glucose
fermentation

a
Calculated value.
b
Low values due to loss of solvents.
c
Dilution rate of 1.00 h⫺1.
d
Dilution rate of 1.37 h⫺1.
e
N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564

Batch system.
 N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564 563

ABE of 0.32 g l⫺1 h⫺1 was achieved with a selectivity of 9.5–13 (Table 1). A com-
parison of reactor productivity, yield and lactose utilization is given in Table 2.
Interestingly, the culture utilized all of the 199 g l⫺1 lactose initially present. This
is several times higher than that utilized by the culture in the batch reactor, which
is usually about 30 g l⫺1. The reader is advised to note that in a batch reactor the
culture produces a maximum of 10–20 g l⫺1 total solvents (ABE) of which butanol
is usually 7–13 g l⫺1 with a yield of 0.29–0.30 g solvents/g substrate. This integrated
system produced 69.7 g l⫺1 total ABE.
Groot et al. [9] studied production of ABE in a continuous reactor and recovery
by gas stripping. These authors used a separate packed-bed stripper. The broth was
sprayed on top of the column and withdrawn at the bottom. Oxygen free nitrogen
was used as a strip gas in a closed circuit. The gas was introduced at the bottom of
the column by a compressor, and the alcohol/water vapors were condensed in a
condenser at ⫺5°C and a cold trap at ⫺40°C. In their experiments the rate of removal
of ABE was 1.00 g l⫺1 h⫺1 as compared to 0.30–0.45 g l⫺1 h⫺1 reported by various
authors (Table 1). The selectivity of ABE was 4, which is lower than that reported
by other authors. The possible reason for the low selectivity is that a large amount
of water was removed due to large contact area between gas and liquid. These authors
used a very high gas recycle rate (10 l l⫺1 min⫺1). This type of gas stripper may,
possibly, get clogged due to excessive cell growth.
Mollah and Stuckey [11] produced ABE in a fluidized bed reactor of C. acetobutyl-
icum and removed solvents by gas stripping. Details of selectivity were not presented,
however, a rate of removal of ABE of 0.18 g l⫺1 h⫺1 was achieved. These authors
used a mixture of gases (CO2, H2, and N2) to fluidize immobilized cell particles in
the reactor and remove solvents from the fermentation broth.
From the results reported by various authors it is clear that the application of
gas stripping resulted in reduced butanol inhibition, thereby improving total solvent
productivity and yield (Table 2). Improved yield has been achieved because gas
stripping does not remove acids [3] which are converted to solvents [6]. Sugar utiliz-
ation as high as 199 g l⫺1 has been reported as compared to about 30 g l⫺1 in non-
integrated systems. In addition, concentrated sugar solutions (350 g l⫺1 whey
permeate) have been used thus reducing the volume of the process streams in the
fed batch reactors. A higher ABE concentration (9.1–120 g l⫺1) in the recovered
stream was achieved. In conclusion, gas stripping can be performed within the fer-
mentor and it does not harm the culture. Gas stripping does not remove nutrients
and reaction intermediates, it reduces butanol toxicity and concentrated sugar sol-
utions can be used.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an Illinois Corn Marketing Board (ICMB) grant.
564 N. Qureshi, H.P. Blaschek / Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 557–564

References

[1] Formanek J, Mackie R, Blaschek HP. Enhanced butanol production by Clostridium beijerinckii
BA101 grown in semidefined P2 medium containing 6 percent maltodextrin or glucose. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1997;63:2306–10.
[2] Maddox IS. The acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation: recent progress in technology. Biotechnol
Genet Eng Rev 1988;7:189–220.
[3] Ennis BM, Qureshi N, Maddox IS. Inline toxic product removal during solvent production by con-
tinuous fermentation using immobilized Clostridium acetobutylicum. Enz Microbial Technol
1987;9:672–5.
[4] Ennis B, Marshall CT, Maddox IS, Paterson AHJ. Continuous product recovery by in-situ gas
stripping/condensation during solvent production from whey permeate using Clostridium acetobutyl-
icum. Biotechnol Lett 1986;8:725–30.
[5] Qureshi N, Maddox IS. Application of fed-batch culture to the ABE fermentation process: relief of
product inhibition by product separation techniques. In: Proceedings of 18th Australasian Chemical
Engineering Conference; Auckland, New Zealand.
[6] Qureshi N, Maddox IS. Integration of continuous production and recovery of solvents from whey
permeate: use of immobilized cells of Clostridium acetobutylicum in a fluidized bed reactor coupled
with gas stripping. Bioproc Eng 1991;6:63–9.
[7] Qureshi N, Maddox IS, Friedl A. Application of continuous substrate feeding to the ABE fermen-
tation: relief of product inhibition using extraction, perstraction, stripping, and pervaporation.
Biotechnol Prog 1992;8:382–90.
[8] Maddox IS, Qureshi N, Roberts-Thomson K. Production of acetone–butanol–ethanol from concen-
trated substrates using Clostridium acetobutylicum in an integrated fermentation-product removal
process. Process Biochem 1995;30:209–15.
[9] Groot WJ, van der Lans RGJM, Luyben KChAM. Batch and continuous butanol fermentations with
free cells: integration with product recovery by gas-stripping. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
1989;32:305–8.
[10] Park C-H, Okos MR, Wankat PC. Acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fermentation and simultaneous
separation in a trickle bed reactor. Biotechnol Prog 1991;7:185–94.
[11] Mollah AH, Stuckey DC. Feasibility of in-situ gas stripping for continuous acetone–butanol fermen-
tation by Clostridium acetobutylicum. Enz Microb Technol 1993;15:200–7.
[12] Qureshi N, Maddox IS. Reactor design for the ABE fermentation using cells of Clostridium acetobu-
tylicum immobilized by adsorption onto bonechar. Bioproc Eng 1988;3:69–72.
[13] Qureshi N, Maddox IS. Continuous solvent production from whey permeate using cells of Clostrid-
ium acetobutylicum immobilized by adsorption onto bonechar. Enz Microbial Technol
1987;9:668–71.