ENGR 417: Engineering Design V

Project Progress Report

Resource Recovery of Spent Brewing

Products from Deadfall Brewing Company

Claire Brightman Matthew Robinson

Jared Lynd Spencer Spannier
Mohini Nema Hao Zhou

Industry Sponsor: Deadfall Brewing

Academic Supervisor: Dean Deborah Roberts

October 25, 2022

 ONE PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The process of brewing beer results in three main types of solid waste streams: brewer’s
spent grain, yeast, and hops. Although these waste products are no longer functional in brewing,
the wastes themselves still retain resources that may be recovered and used in other processes.
For small-scale breweries, the potential of recovering waste to increase value as well as limit
disposal needs is a problem with great benefits if solved. The Integrated Process Analytics
(IPA) design team will be exploring potential alternatives that utilize such waste streams and
this document outlines the progress made towards a solution to this problem. IPA will be
working with Deadfall Brewing (Deadfall), a new small-scale brewery located in Prince
George, British Columbia. Based on the values outlined by Deadfall, the team has identified a
list of objectives and constraints which also translate into a decision matrix for the adjudication
of potential alternatives. The main categories of such include cost, operational feasibility,
sustainability or environmental impacts, social perception, and efficiency.

Three primary alternatives have been tested as potential solutions to the problem
outlined -- these include: anaerobic digestion for biogas production, heat treatment of yeast to
produce animal feed, and fabrication of composite products such as beer coasters. Research has
been conducted on these options to obtain data to compare to laboratory testing. To date, the
team has conducted site visits to Deadfall, begun operating a bench scale anaerobic digester,
conducted COD testing on spent hops, conducted inactivation testing on spent yeast, and has
created resin coasters for testing. The IPA team has used apparatuses at the UNBC Civil and
Environmental Engineering Laboratory and the Wood Innovation Design Center to conduct the
experimentation stated above. Environmental, social, and economic impacts have been
identified for each alternative and a risk matrix has been established by which to rate the impacts
in terms of severity and likelihood for each alternative.

Using the information from lab testing along with the environmental, social, and
economic impacts of the alternatives, a preliminary design has been chosen using the decision
matrix criteria. The selected design combines the yeast to feed and beer coaster production
alternatives. The entirety of the yeast and hops waste streams are dried completely in the same
commercial dehydrator. The yeast is tested for inactivation and then packaged into feed and
sent to agriculture or aquaculture partners. The hops are blended into a powder, weighed, mixed
with a pre-determined portion of resin based on a selected recipe, placed into silicone molds
designed herein, and allowed to cure into solid coasters. The process is expected to produce up
to 61kg of dried feed and 900 coasters per year. The capital cost of the project is expected to be
$3300 plus a recurring annual cost of $530 which includes additional raw materials and/or
operational costs. Revenue is expected to be $4555 per year, with a return period of one year.

Using the resources available and the principles of the engineering design process the
next steps for the project will be to iterate on the preliminary design, meet with the client for
feedback, and refine the final design for presentation.
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project locations including relevant industries as well as facilities to be used in

experimentation and design (Google 2022) ................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Anaerobic digester schematic for obtaining biogas adapted from documents provided
by Jan Allen, P.E. CMQ/OE, and President of Impact Bioenergy Inc. ........................ 5
Figure 3. Anaerobic digestion process flow chart (Gunes et al. 2019) ...................................... 6
Figure 4. IPA team members Spencer Spannier (far left), Matthew Robinson (middle left), Hao
Zhou (middle right), and Mohini Nema (far right) at the CEEP conducting a COD
experiment. ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5. Process flow diagram including the additional BSY food additive processing boxed
in grey ......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Preliminary risk assessment for converting BSY to animal feed .............................. 19
Figure 7. Preliminary risk assessment for biogas heat production by anaerobic digestion of BSY
and BSH ..................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8. Preliminary risk assessment for producing drink coasters by dry BSH and BSY mixed
with resin .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9. Waste product coasters made using resin; from left to right: Recipe 1, Recipe 2, Recipe
3 .................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 10. Results of yeast inactivation at 66ºC; from left to right: control, 15min heating,
30min heating, and 45min heating ............................................................................. 24
Figure 11. Process flow diagram of the proposed solution ...................................................... 24
Figure 12. Benchfoods Model: 16-CUD for drying BSY and BSH (Commercial Dehydrators
2022a) ......................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 13. 3D render of beer coaster mold ............................................................................... 27
Figure 14. Beer coaster mold specifications featuring responsible consumption caption........ 27
Figure 15. Project Implementation Schedule (Preliminary) ..................................................... 28
Figure 16. Risk assessment of the preliminary solution ........................................................... 33
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of applicable stakeholders and their connections to the design project ................ 4
Table 2. Saccharomyces cerevisiae inactivation times under various heat treatment conditions
(LÓPEZ-MALO, GUERRERO, and ALZAMORA 1999) .......................................... 7
Table 3. Complete design project timeline ............................................................................... 11
Table 4. Solution alternatives with descriptions ....................................................................... 12
Table 5. Alternatives considered but deemed infeasible .......................................................... 12
Table 6. Lab test results ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 7. Expected risk categories with descriptions ................................................................ 18
Table 8. Completed decision matrix and total alternative ratings ............................................ 20
Table 9. Solution ranking using decision matrix ...................................................................... 21
Table 10. Coaster testing criteria .............................................................................................. 22
Table 11. Results of quality testing of various coaster recipes ................................................ 22
Table 12. Moisture content of BSY from Deadfall Brewing ................................................... 23
Table 13. Potential consumer partners for yeast feed additive ................................................. 30
Table 14. The market price of each inventory .......................................................................... 31
Table 15. Project evaluation criteria ......................................................................................... 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROBLEM SPECIFICATION 2
1.2 PROJECT NEEDS AND CONSTRAINTS 2
1.3 USERS AND STAKEHOLDERS 3
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
2.1 Anaerobic Digestion 5
2.2 Yeast Inactivation 7
2.3 Epoxy Resins 7
3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 8
4 MATERIALS AND METHODS 9
4.1 MATERIALS AND TOOLS 9
4.2 METHODS 9
4.3 PROJECT PHASES AND SCHEDULING 10
5 SOLUTION ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 12
5.1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 13
5.1.1 BSY FOR ANIMAL FEED 13
5.1.2 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF BREWING WASTE FOR BIOGAS PRODUCTION 14
5.1.3 USE OF BSH FOR COASTERS ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT 15
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 16
5.3 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 16
5.4 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 17
5.5 RISK ASSESSMENT 18
5.6 CONCLUSION 20
6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 21
6.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 21
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 28
6.3 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 30
6.4 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 31
6.5 RISK ASSESSMENT 32
6.6 PROJECT EVALUATION 33
6.7 DISCUSSION 34
7 CONCLUSIONS 35
8 REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX A - RECORDS OF SUPERVISION 39
APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES 47
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 51
C.1 Estimation of CH4 Potential from Hops 51
C.2 RNG Facility Capacity Estimation 51
1

1 INTRODUCTION

Within beer production, three main components of waste are produced: brewers’ spent
grain (BSG), brewers’ spent yeast (BSY), and brewers’ spent hops (BSH) (Rachwał et al. 2020).
Approximately 39 million tonnes of BSG are produced by breweries annually (Lynch, Steffen,
and Arendt 2016). This annual mass of waste does not include the additional waste hops and
yeast also created, however, specific annual production of BSY and BSH has not been reported
in the literature. These lesser value products comprise a small fraction of the overall brewery
waste production, but still present the opportunity for further exploration into post-production
use.

There is a desire within the brewing community to find alternative pathways for brewery
waste that may be redirected from landfills or wastewater systems, the traditional endpoint for
post-production materials. Moreover, utilizing this waste stream for other value-added products
may transform the current industry into a more circular economy. In 2020, 1,210 licensed
breweries operated in Canada, producing approximately 17.86 million hectolitres of beer
(Statista n.d.; 2020). Beer brewing produces around 20 kg of BSG per 100 L of beer resulting
in approximately 360,000 tonnes of wet BSG production per year (Lynch, Steffen, and Arendt
2016). Quantities of yeast and hops produced per litre of beer are dependent on the brewing
process for different beer types; as such this will be addressed in terms of weekly output values
given to the IPA team by Deadfall Brewing (Deadfall).

Deadfall, a craft brewery located within Prince George, BC is a sustainably minded craft
brewery which has been in operation since May 2022. Deadfall produces approximately 17,500
kg of BSG, 800 kg of BSH, and 1,500 kg of BSY each year. Currently, the brewery redirects
its BSG to a local agriculture partner, Willowcale Equestrian Club, for pig, sheep, and cattle
feed. The BSY is either disposed of at the landfill or sent to Deadfall’s agriculture partner to be
spread on their fields. BSH produced from Deadfall’s operations is allowed to dry and is
disposed of in the landfill. Deadfall is currently in partnership with the IPA team to find
alternative solutions for their brewery waste. Figure 1 identifies relevant project locations.
2

Figure 1. Project locations including relevant industries as well as facilities to be used in experimentation and
design (Google 2022)

1.1 PROBLEM SPECIFICATION

To develop a solution to address Deadfall’s waste streams (which includes BSG, BSY,
and BSH), that is economically viable while considering sustainability, logistical feasibility,
and social influence.

1.2 PROJECT NEEDS AND CONSTRAINTS

Objectives and expectations for the proposed design project were developed in
association with Deadfall and are provided below:

• Primarily address uses for spent brewery products that are currently being wasted; BSY
and BSH.
• Optimize resource recovery and aim to utilize the entirety of the waste products (BSY
and BSH) in the final design.
• Convert current waste streams into a value-added product and/or reduce overall
operating costs of the brewing process.
• Design equipment to fit within the brewing area at Deadfall.
• Tailor the final design to have positive marketability for Deadfall to increase patronage
and their overall image.
• Design the solution for a ten-year lifespan
3

Constraints have been imposed on our project to ensure the feasibility of design and
safety throughout implementation, and are outlined below:

• The use of electricity will require modification to the building fuse box because the fuse
box is currently at capacity.
• Ensure safety during implementation and operation of the proposed design, specifically,
compliance with federal and provincial health and safety regulations must be
maintained.
o Comply with regulatory requirements as described in Section 0.
• Project cost, under reasonable variation, must be within Deadfall’s allotted budget.
• Any addition to the brewing process must be operable by one brewer without impacting
the ability to maintain all other brewing processes under current and expected capacities.
• Any additional equipment must fit within the brewing area of Deadfall Brewing or be
stored at an off-site location.
• All analysis and testing of proposed alternatives must be completed and documented by
November 27th, 2022, with a recommendation for a final design.

1.3 USERS AND STAKEHOLDERS

The IPA team has identified multiple stakeholders with varying degrees of influence
and investment in the project. Table 1outlines these stakeholders with a brief description of the
role of each. It should be noted that Deadfall has been identified as the only critical stakeholder
whose requirements will be taken into great consideration throughout the project's progress.
Other stakeholders will be considered by the team and informed as needed but will not have
direct input to project progression.
4

Table 1. List of applicable stakeholders and their connections to the design project
Stakeholder Description of role
Deadfall Brewing Craft brewery located in Prince George, BC. Deadfall is the primary
industry partner for the project. IPA will design a solution based on
Deadfall’s criteria (which are heavily weighted in the decision
matrix, Section 4.2). The project will serve to add to Deadfall’s value
of sustainability in using more of their waste streams.
aGRO Systems A resource recovery company based out of Calgary, Alberta has
loaned the IPA team a test scale anaerobic digester. aGRO Systems is
interested in the findings of this project especially related to biogas
output from brewers’ spent yeast and hops.
City of Prince Municipal regulations set out by the City of Prince George will be
George and followed in all designs. Environmental protection and sustainability
Government of BC goals laid out by the government of BC will be supported by the
achievement of this project. Details are provided in Section 0.
Public Safety for the public is paramount and will be kept by following
regulations and guidelines surrounding waste disposal and use.
Designs must meet workplace regulations and have correct safety
measures or protocols in place for their use. The team will also be
taking into account the potential bias towards working with a waste
stream produced from alcohol that some members of the public may
hold and to be cognisant that working within the alcohol industry
may present ethical concerns from the public.
Willowcale BSG is currently given to Willowcale Equestrian Club for low-grade
Equestrian Club animal feed. BSY is sent to this location to be disposed of (via
scattering on the field for minor fertilization benefits). Willowcale
Equestrian Club has been identified as a potential recipient of
processed spent brewery products. They may be considered for any
output stream from the proposed solution.
Potential Farm In the event a feed is produced and sold, the conditions of the product
Partners from the perspective of the client must be considered, including but
(prospective clients not limited to, demand, feed quality, as well as frequency and
for sale of waste consistency of feed deliveries.
products)
Other local Improvements to the small-scale brewing process at Deadfall
breweries such as Brewing could benefit all breweries with advancements in applicable
Trench Brewing & technology or knowledge. The possibility of collaborative effort
Distilling and exists should an offsite system be the final design; in such a case
Crossroads other local breweries may be approached to reach a feasible economy
Brewing & of scale.
Distilling
5

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Anaerobic Digestion

The process of anaerobic digestion limits oxygen availability and promotes the
decomposition of feed material using bacteria stored in the decomposing materials (US EPA
2019). The product of this process is a methane-rich gas (biogas) that may be used as a clean
energy source for other industrial processes (F. Xu and Y. Li 2017). For exploring the use of
brewery waste streams, a simple bench scale anaerobic digester (schematic shown in Figure
2) will be used. Both reactors have 75% waste product and 25% anaerobic mud from the Fraser
River near Cottonwood Island Nature Park. In Reactor 1, the anaerobic digester is reacting 7.6
L hops with 2.6 L anaerobic mud. In Reactor 2 the anaerobic digester is reacting 2.6 L yeast
with 0.84 L anaerobic mud (5.0 cm yeast, 6.6 cm with mud). Reactions are currently being
conducted at room temperature of approximately 21ºC because the centrifugal pump required
for the water heater is out of order and repair timelines are not within the project’s timeline.
Reacting at room temperature results in varying bacteria strains dominating due to the reactor
acting under psychrophilic conditions (10-20 ºC) rather than mesophilic conditions (30-40 ºC)
(Gunes et al. 2019). Generally, decomposition occurs faster at higher temperatures, however,
higher temperatures require greater energy inputs to maintain the ambient temperature and
control for temperature fluctuations (Aboderheeba and Eng, n.d.).

Figure 2. Anaerobic digester schematic for obtaining biogas adapted from documents provided by Jan Allen, P.E.
CMQ/OE, and President of Impact Bioenergy Inc.
6

The anaerobic digestion process takes place over a series of four distinct steps illustrated
in Figure 3. The primary limiting step in this process is the initial hydrolysis of the feed, where
complex organic components including carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins are decomposed into
component monomers (Gunes et al. 2019). Subsequently, acidogenic fermentative bacteria
convert the monomers into short-chain volatile acids. Acetogenesis breaks the acids down into
their hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and acetate components (Gunes et al. 2019). The final
methanogenesis produces biogas, however, final upgrading is required to purify the product
(Gunes et al. 2019).

Figure 3. Anaerobic digestion process flow chart (Gunes et al. 2019)

The production of methane from anaerobic digestion can be approximated by the

𝑛𝑅𝑇
chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the of the feed material (𝑉 = 𝑃
24.14𝐿 ⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝐻4
Equation 1 𝐶𝐻4 𝐸𝑄 = Equation
64𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝐻4
2𝐶𝐻4 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = (𝑋𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑)(0.376 𝐿 𝐶𝐻4 ⁄𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 ) Equation 3). The
approximation assumes room temperature conditions of 21 ºC and 1 atm with applicability of
the ideal gas law for one mole of methane (Metcalf and Eddy 2014):
𝑛𝑅𝑇
𝑉= Equation 1
𝑃
(1 𝑚𝑜𝑙)(0.082057 𝑎𝑡𝑚 ∗ 𝐿/𝑚𝑜𝑙 ∗ 𝐾)(293.15 𝐾)
𝑉=
1.0 𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝑉 = 24.14 𝐿
24.14𝐿 ⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝐻
𝐶𝐻4 𝐸𝑄 = 64𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝐻4 Equation 2
4
𝐶𝐻4 𝐸𝑄 = 0.377 𝐿 𝐶𝐻4 ⁄𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷
7

𝐶𝐻4 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = (𝑋𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑)(0.376 𝐿 𝐶𝐻4 ⁄𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 ) Equation 3

COD is measured using spectrophotometric analysis. To gain an accurate COD

measurement, the waste products were diluted by adding 1g of wet waste (with known moisture
content) to beakers and diluted to volumes of 250 mL, 500 mL, and 1000 mL. The samples
were homogenized using a blender and added to high range (15 mg/L – 1500 mg/L) acid
digestion vials for COD analysis along with a blank deionized water sample. The samples were
allowed to react in a DRB200 Hach reactor for two hours. After two hours, the sample vials
were allowed to cool to room temperature and measured for COD in a DR1900 Hach
spectrophotometer.

2.2 Yeast Inactivation

Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the yeast species used at Deadfall may require inactivation
before being used in various alternatives. Inactivation can be done using organic acids or heat
treatment (Rachwał et al. 2020). Heat treatment is preferable for IPA’s needs as heat treatment
can occur during a drying process to remove moisture. Table 2 provides log-inactivation times
for S. cerevisiae over various temperatures.

Table 2. Saccharomyces cerevisiae inactivation times under various heat treatment conditions (LÓPEZ-MALO,
GUERRERO, and ALZAMORA 1999)
Temperature (ºC) Time to 90% inactivation (min)
45.0 739.0 ± 13.4
47.5 72.5 ± 3.5
50.0 18.3 ± 0.4
52.5 4.8 ± 0.4
55.0 2.7 ± 0.1

2.3 Epoxy Resins

For the coaster design, a number of binding alternatives used for keeping the waste material
intact and structurally sound were considered, including various epoxies, thermoplastics, and
glues. It was determined that an epoxy-based resin would be best suited as a binding agent for
the BSG/BSH waste residues. Epoxy is a thermosetting matrix that has one or more epoxide
groups within its molecular structure and exists as a polymer (Saba et al. 2016). Most
commercially available epoxy-based resins are oligomers of diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A
(Saba et al. 2016). When these oligomers react with a hardener, the epoxy resin “cures”, and is
transformed into a thermosetting polymer (Saba et al. 2016).

The advantages of epoxy resins include that they result in minimal shrinking when curing,
they are inexpensive, are impact resistant, and have exceptional moisture resistance (Saba et al.
2016). This characteristic is especially important for the purpose of a drink base that would
inevitably be exposed to liquids in the form of cold beverages, as well as any condensation that
may collect and drip down the beverage vessel.
8

3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Deadfall currently holds a waste discharge permit under the City of Prince George
Sanitary Sewer Use Bylaw No. 9055 that authorizes the brewery to discharge non-domestic
waste to a municipal sewer system (Brandon Baerwald 2022). Deadfall must limit its effluent
discharge to less than 2 m3/day with both BOD and TSS less than 350 mg/L or be subject to
additional fees laid out in the City of Prince George Bylaw No.9339 (Brandon Baerwald 2022;
Prince George City Council 2022).

For the proposed BSG to animal feed alternative, regulations under the federal Feeds
Act and the Health of Animals Act state that all feeds must be safe for livestock; humans; and
the environment (C. F. I. A. Government of Canada 2012). Feed must also be fit for purpose
and be properly labelled to ensure appropriate use (C. F. I. A. Government of Canada 2012).
Thus, IPA will ensure that if BSY is turned into a livestock feed, it complies with the regulations
laid out in the Feeds Act, with appropriate guarantees, standards, and labeling (C. F. I. A.
Government of Canada 2012).

Current prototyping for one of the alternative solutions is to create coasters from BSH
using resin. There is concern that the resin used may contain bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial
chemical. In 2008, a Health Risk assessment of BPA from food packaging applications was
completed (Canada 2008).The findings of this assessment showed that most people have low
to very low exposure levels of BPA with no health risk (Canada 2013). Infant exposure is of
potential concern which has led to more protective measures (Canada 2013). The final coaster
design will ensure that a BPA free resin is being used to ensure compliance with the protective
measures put in place for infants, under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (Legislative
Services Branch 2020). The proposed solution will follow any regulations and guidelines under
the British Columbia Environmental Management Act (EMA) (EMA 2022).
9

4 MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1 MATERIALS AND TOOLS

Equipment and facilities required for the project progression and exploration of all
potential options have been preliminarily identified by the IPA team. Facilities to be used
include the laboratory space in the Wood Innovation and Design Centre (WIDC) and the UNBC
Civil and Environmental Engineering Laboratory (CEEP), both located in Prince George, BC.
The team have operated and run a bench scale anaerobic digester manufactured by Impact
Bioenergy and loaned to the IPA team from aGRO Systems (a by-product and food waste rescue
removal service based out of Calgary, Alberta). The system has been previously operated by an
IPA team member using BSG and bovine manure and is available for use until end of term
(December 2022). Required inputs such as energy, water, and tools needed for operation were
sourced from the WIDC laboratory. The IPA team have used available equipment such as the
drying ovens (Quincy Lab Inc. oven, model number 51-550) and a 3D printer (model: Original
Prusa i3 MK3S) located at the CEEP to explore the alternative of manufacturing novelty
coasters. Drying ovens at the CEEP were used to test the duration required to dry BSY and
BSH. Coaster materials include resin and molds purchased from a local craft supply store as
well as CEEP laboratory supplies and space. All laboratory equipment within the CEEP,
applicable supplies (such as chemicals, substrates, or standard laboratory tools), and the CEEP
itself are available to the team during regular office hours as needed. Thus far the team has been
frequenting the lab, at a minimum, twice a week to conduct all the tests described above. The
IPA team has a background in resource recovery as well as laboratory analysis via academic
courses and, for some members of the team, work experience.

4.2 METHODS
There will be three main streams of design methodology that will be followed until
concluding on a final design: exploring the anaerobic digestion of BSY and BSH, exploring
methods to inactivate and dry wet BSY and BSH, and manufacturing a composite product from
BSY and BSH for use as coasters. All three streams began with preliminary research – a phase
already completed. Yeast inactivation was assessed by rehydrating dried yeast and assessing
biological activity through visual analysis (i.e., the presence of respiration noted by bubbles
indicating yeast was not inactivated). The goal was to achieve full inactivation. The first batch
of coasters was created via combining an air-drying resin (requires 72 hours to set) with BSH,
BSG, and a combination of waste products. Test results on the viability (in terms of appearance,
strength, stack-ability, and odour) of this first batch is listed in section 6.1. Further prototypes
and testing will be conducted going forward to refine the final design. Anaerobic digestion of
BSY and BSH continues to be monitored at the WIDC by regularly taking readings on the gas
meters for each substance. COD values for BSH were determined in the CEEP laboratory using
a DR1900 HACH Spectrophotometer and a DRB200 HACH Reactor. See Figure 4 and
APPENDIX B: Additional Tables and Figures for images of the IPA team conducting the lab
work described above.
10

Figure 4. IPA team members Spencer Spannier (far left), Matthew Robinson (middle left), Hao Zhou (middle
right), and Mohini Nema (far right) at the CEEP conducting a COD experiment.

4.3 PROJECT PHASES AND SCHEDULING

The project timeline is split into three phases delineated by written reports and oral
presentations. During Phase 1 the IPA team conducted a preliminary literature review of
potential alternatives for uses of BSY and BSH to present in the proposal report to gain approval
for continuing the design project and beginning lab-scale experimentation. Phase 2 included
lab-scale experimentation for all the proposed alternatives, completion of literature reviews for
each alternative, and selection of an alternative to be refined into a final design. Phase 3 will
include the interpretation of the experimental results within the project’s context, comparison
of experimental results to published literature, final alternative selection, and presentation of
the chosen solution in a report and presentation on November 29, 2022.
11

Table 3 provides a schedule of project tasks and critical milestones highlighted in grey.
A visual representation of the project timeline is provided as a Gantt chart in APPENDIX B:
Additional Tables and Figures. A timeline for project implementation is provided with the
preliminary design in Section 6.1.
12

Table 3. Complete design project timeline

Task/Phase Start End
Phase 1: Preliminary Research for Project Proposal 13-Sep-22 27-Sep-22
Phase 2: Alternative Experimentation/Complete Literature 28-Sep-22 25-Oct-22
Review
Phase 3: Analysis of Experimental Results and Final 26-Oct-22 29-Nov-22
Design
Preliminary Biogas Production Research 13-Sep-22 20-Sep-22
Preliminary BSY/BSH to Feed Research 13-Sep-22 20-Sep-22
Preliminary Beer Can Holder/Coaster Research 13-Sep-22 20-Sep-22
Interpret Deadfall Brewing Dataset 13-Sep-22 20-Sep-22
Deadfall Site Visit 16-Sep-22 Milestone
Set Up Anaerobic Digester 16-Sep-22 Milestone
Research Regulations 16-Sep-22 20-Sep-22
Write Proposal Report 20-Sep-22 22-Sep-22
Edit/Format Proposal Report 23-Sep-22 26-Sep-22
Proposal Report Due + Oral Presentation 27-Sep-22 Milestone
Complete Digester Setup and Start AD of BSY and BSH 28-Sep-22 02-Oct-22
Anaerobic Digestion Experimentation 02-Oct-22 20-Oct-22
Find Potential Green Grants 03-Oct-22 13-Oct-22
Beer Coaster Experimentation 28-Sep-22 20-Oct-22
BSY Drying Experimentation 15-Oct-22 20-Oct-22
Complete Literature Review for All Alternatives 28-Sep-22 20-Oct-22
Use Decision Matrix to Choose Solution 13-Oct-22 Milestone
Conduct Preliminary Economic Analysis 13-Oct-22 20-Oct-22
Contact Potential Agriculture/Aquaculture Partners 13-Oct-22 16-Oct-22
Create Preliminary Design Solution 13-Oct-22 20-Oct-22
Document any Uncertainties with the Design Solution 13-Oct-22 22-Nov-22
Define Testing Procedures to Evaluate Project 13-Oct-22 20-Oct-22
Write Progress Report 13-Oct-22 20-Oct-22
Edit/Format Progress Report 21-Oct-22 24-Oct-22
Progress Report Due + Oral Presentation 25-Oct-22 Milestone
Finalize Experimentation and Interpret Results 26-Oct-22 01-Nov-22
Compare Published Literature to Experimental Results 26-Oct-22 01-Nov-22
Conduct Complete Risk Assessment 26-Oct-22 10-Nov-22
Brainstorm/Draw Alternative Designs 26-Oct-22 10-Nov-22
Refine Economic Analysis 26-Oct-22 10-Nov-22
Refine Decision Matrix Results 10-Nov-22 Milestone
Choose Final Design 10-Nov-22 Milestone
Create Engineering Drawings for Final Design 10-Nov-22 15-Nov-22
Conduct Complete Economic Analysis for Final Design 10-Nov-22 22-Nov-22
Complete Triple Bottom Line Analysis of Final Design 10-Nov-22 22-Nov-22
Address Ways to Reduce Uncertainties in Future Work 10-Nov-22 22-Nov-22
Complete Project Evaluation 10-Nov-22 22-Nov-22
Write Final Report 10-Nov-22 22-Nov-22
Edit/Format Final Report 23-Nov-22 28-Nov-22
Final Report Due + Oral Presentation 29-Nov-22 Milestone
13

5 SOLUTION ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

At the current stage, three alternatives have been identified for use of BSY and BSH as
potential alternatives for analysis. Table 4 identifies these alternatives that will be further
investigated herein.

Table 4. Solution alternatives with descriptions

Alternative Description
1. Treatment of BSY for use as animal feed Incorporate a drying system into the yeast
purging process to inactivate the BSY and allow
for mixing with BSG for shipment to Deadfall’s
agriculture partner or sale as an independent
product to aquaculture companies.
2. Anaerobic digestion of BSY and BSH for Considers the implementation of onsite
biogas heat production anaerobic digestion of BSH and BSY to
produce biogas. Biogas is then combusted to
subsidize heating and thereby decrease energy-
related costs.
3. Use dried BSH and BSY mixed with Design a process, recipe, and plastic mold to
protein binding agents to produce drink produce drink coasters from BSY and BSH.
coasters

Table 5 provides alternatives that have been considered but have been deemed infeasible
or out of project scope and will not be considered for further analysis.

Table 5. Alternatives considered but deemed infeasible

Alternative
BSH and BSY for production of beer can
holders
Treatment of BSH for use as animal feed
Use of BSH and BSY as fertilizer
Reason for Infeasibility
Major production companies, Trebudor and
E6PRTM produce similar products and hold
patents for them.
BSH is not appetizing to most livestock; only
viable feed for pigs if it is mixed in a low
quantity with BSG (Rachwał et al. 2020)
BSY is currently being used as fertilizer on
certain occasions, however, this solution does
not provide a revenue stream as the agreement
is mutually beneficial for both Deadfall and
Willowcale equestrian society.
14

5.1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

5.1.1 BSY FOR ANIMAL FEED

Deadfall uses strains of S. cerevisiae (brewer’s yeast) in the fermentation of their beer
products. Each batch produces approximately 15 kg of BSY slurry which is currently being
discarded as waste. BSY is an effective additive to feed fish, horses, ruminants, poultry, and
pigs (Rachwał et al. 2020). BSY has shown success in supplementing fish feed, showing no
negative side effects, and increasing the growth of carnivorous marine fish when included in
up to 30% (by weight) of total feed (Estévez et al. 2021). However, before use as animal feed,
BSY inactivation is required to reduce gastrointestinal issues in animals consuming the feed
(Rachwał et al. 2020). Inactivation was conducted by the IPA team using heat treatment to
produce dried and inactivated BSY. Figure 5 provides the proposed addition to the brewing
process.

Figure 5. Process flow diagram including the additional BSY food additive processing boxed in grey
15

BSY is removed from fermentation tanks in a slurry with average moisture contents of
86.0 ± 0.05% (by mass) (Mathias et al. 2015). Therefore, fully drying the yeast slurry will yield
approximately 2.1 kg of dried BSY per batch and require the evaporation of 12.9 kg of water.
Lab scale testing will be conducted at the CEEP to determine the efficacy of drying and
approximate drying times. S. cerevisiae inactivation times are provided in Table 2, Section 2.2
for various temperatures. It is expected that the drying process will heat the BSY to
temperatures higher than 55 ºC for much longer than 2.7 minutes, indicating significant
inactivation potential. If significantly efficient, this alternative will meet the goals of the project
by eliminating the BSY waste stream and converting it into a value-added product that can be
sold to Deadfall.

5.1.2 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF BREWING WASTE FOR BIOGAS

PRODUCTION

The primary waste produced by the brewing process is BSG, with smaller quantities of
BSY and BSH being generated. Consequently, most literature focused on investigating the
viability of anaerobic digestion of BSG. For effective anaerobic digestion of a feedstock,
numerous factors must be considered and maintained. The anaerobic digestion operating
parameters include temperature, pH, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C/N ratio), organic loading rate
(OLR), and total solids content (F. Xu and Y. Li 2017). BSG provides an adequate base
feedstock for anaerobic digestion, however, BSG is lignocellulosic which inhibits the
hydrolysis step of anaerobic digestion, thus reducing the biogas yield (Gunes et al. 2019). Initial
research suggests this can be mitigated by pre-treating BSG through chemical, physical, or
biological pre-treatments (Gunes et al. 2019). The most effective pre-treatment for the
lignocellulosic BSG is mechanical pre-treatment through grinders, mills, high shear
homogenizers, or a screw press. This pre-treatment step increases the surface area of the
feedstock and can enhance the hydrolysis yield by 5-25%, thus increasing biogas yield
(JavkhlanAriunbaatar et al. 2014). As there is limited literature on the anaerobic digestion of
BSY, the IPA team opted to conduct research into digestion of BSG and BSH to establish a
baseline of information. The team has conducted theoretical approximations as described in
Section 2.1 to determine the maximum potential for CH4 production from BSY and BSH. The
team has also been conducting bench-scale anaerobic digestion as described in Section 2.1 and
0 of BSY and BSH to understand the practical applications of this alternative.

Table 6 provides results for testing methane production potential from BSH by COD
conversions as described in Section 2.1. COD testing was not conducted on BSY because this
alternative was deemed infeasible and continued testing was found to be out of scope. From six
tests of BSH, the mean CH4 production potential is 0.097 L CH4/g BSH with standard deviation
of 0.021 L CH4/g BSH. Under 95% confidence, and assuming BSH has 100% COD to CH4
conversion, BSH will produce 0.075 to 0.119 L CH4 / g BSH. Sample calculations are provided
in Appendix C: Sample Calculations. Assuming 8 kg of hops are discarded per batch of beer,
on average, the maximum CH4 potential ranges from 600L to 952L CH4. However, bench scale
testing was conducted on both BSH and BSY as described in Section 2 to obtain practical data.
After 22 days of reacting at ~21ºC the BSH-anaerobic mud mixture yielded no methane.
16

Similarly, after 15 days of reacting at ~21ºC the BSY-anaerobic mud mixture yielded no
methane.

Table 6. Lab test results

Mass of Total Volume
Measured COD Calculated CH4 potential
Waste Product Waste after Dilution
(mg/L) (L CH4/g Waste Product)
Product (g) (mL)
BSH 1.02 1000 238 0.0880
BSH 1.02 1000 278 0.1028
BSH 1.02 1000 268 0.0991
BSH 1.02 1000 212 0.0784
BSH 1.00 500 718 0.1353
BSH 1.00 250 841 0.0791

At this time, Fortis B.C. is working to expand the production and sale of renewable
natural gas (RNG) through partnership with municipalities and private businesses that produce
organic waste (FortisBC n.d.). Contact was made with Fortis B.C. to identify the feasibility of
developing a partnership between Deadfall and Fortis B.C. to develop the facilities required for
an anaerobic digestion system. The information provided by Fortis B.C. outlined that in order
to be viable for partnership and investment, an RNG facility would require a projected capacity
of approximately 20,000 GJ/year (Joseph Broda 2022). With the preliminary data presented
above in Table 6 and calculations presented in Appendix C: Sample Calculations, the BSY
produced by Deadfall would require a capacity of approximately 1.7 GJ/yr.

Moreover, the Fortis B.C. representative provided the IPA team with a recommendation
for a small-scale anaerobic digester that could be placed at proposed biogas upgrading facilities
in Prince George (Joseph Broda 2022). The digester recommended is produced by BIOFerm
and has a capacity of 1,000-6,500 tonnes of waste per year and has a capital cost of $1.2 million
(BIOFerm 2022).

5.1.3 USE OF BSH FOR COASTERS ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Another avenue that wad investigated for repurposing the waste biomass from
Deadfall involves incorporating the use of compostable beer cap holders. Six-ring beer can
holders are commonly used by craft breweries and are traditionally made from polyethylene
in the soft ring form, or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) in their hard plastic form. It was
initially proposed that Deadfall may be able to incorporate their BSG or BSH into
compostable beer can holders. Upon further investigation, however, it was identified that
several companies have piloted this product and thus may hold patents that meet the utility
and function of this compostable beer can holder. Currently, two major companies, Trebudor
and E6PRTM (German and American companies, respectively) are creating compostable beer
can holders with the latter offering entire canning production equipment - scalable based on
brewery size (“TREBODUR – the mabeerial.” 2022; “E6PR” 2022). This presents a barrier
for the IPA team to investigate the viability of a similar product sourced and produced entirely
at Deadfall.
17

Thus, the IPA team has redirected their efforts to investigate the potential of another
compostable, biodegradable product that may be produced from BSG or BSH that does not
pose any patent or trademark barriers. The team has explored the manufacturing of novelty
coasters with the Deadfall logo that may be available for consumers to use at the brewery or
for sale. Preliminary experimentation to develop this product has been conducted at the
UNBC CEEP.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

A concern with anaerobic digestion and the subsequent use of biogas as a fuel source is
the release of greenhouse gases from the digestion process (Valerio Paolini et al. 2018).
Anaerobic digestion produces three primary gasses: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide, which are greenhouse gases. As such, additional measures will need to be taken to limit
the release of these into the atmosphere (Nickolas J.Themelis and Priscilla A.Ulloa 2007). In
the case that the BSG is not used by the farmer, the waste would be deposited in a landfill (as
the BSH currently is) where uncontrolled anaerobic digestion would occur (Nickolas
J.Themelis and Priscilla A.Ulloa 2007). By utilising the waste in a controlled bio reactor,
however, this waste stream is turned into a value-added product, making it a more sustainable
post-consumer waste pathway. Additionally, the team has also investigated the application of
anaerobic digestion to address Deadfall’s BSY production. If feasible, using BSY as an
additional feed source for controlled anaerobic digestion will provide an alternative to disposal
in a landfill, thus, eliminating the uncontrolled methane production that takes place within
landfill waste (Nickolas J.Themelis and Priscilla A.Ulloa 2007).

When considering the application BSY as animal feed, it is important that the customers
proximity to Prince George is considered to mitigate emissions from transportation. As well, it
is important to note that ineffective deactivation of BSY can have negative health impacts on
livestock (Rachwał et al. 2020).

Finally, a consideration that must be made during the production and use of the coasters
created with BSH is the use of polymer-based resin. While the use of resin provides the binding
agent for the coasters, it also produces a product that is very difficult to recycle at the end of its
life cycle and will result in disposal in landfill. It is hoped that the long term use of these coasters
(as opposed to the short term life of disposable ones) will increase their overall sustainability.

5.3 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The transformation of BSY into a viable food additive for fish, ruminants, and other
domesticated livestock has the potential to appeal to farmers and members of the public that
may wish to choose feed sources with transparent processing and a short supply chain in tune
with “farm-to-table” principles. By extension, customers of this product may be able to utilize
these principles in the marketing of their products, be it processed meat or other animal
products.

For the anaerobic digestion alternative, the biogas produced may be able to be sold to
energy producers such as Fortis. If viable, this solution could be scaled and/or reproduced at
18

the other two craft breweries located in Prince George: Trench Brewing & Distilling, and
Crossroads Brewing & Distilling. A collaborative operation between the local breweries would
benefit all enterprises and put Prince George on the map, so to speak in, terms of local,
sustainable innovation. From a marketing perspective, this may present a boon for local craft
beer sales and increase revenue, as the concept of sustainability adds to positive public
perception (Heidbreder et al. 2019). Deadfall has indicated that they are enthusiastic about
collaborating with the other local operations if this alternative can be scaled and/or benefit all.

The production of compostable coasters may provide aesthetic and marketing value to
Deadfall’s beer products, garnering positive public attention and encouraging increased
patronage.

5.4 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The treatment of BSY for use as an animal feed (either mixed in with BSG or distributed
as a separate product) can provide businesses with the opportunity to generate a revenue stream
from a waste stream. Moreover, this waste would likely be taken from the facility by farmers,
reducing costs for the brewery. By treating BSY to ensure the yeast has been deactivated,
businesses could explore the opportunity to sell a high-quality animal feed that, has shown
promising results in feedstock growth.

Anaerobic digestion of BSY and BSH for heat production can help businesses reduce
the amount of natural gas they consume by offsetting it with the biogas produced in the
anaerobic digestion process. This would result in cash savings for the company as less natural
gas would need to be purchased. The scale at which significant offsets can be achieved is
unknown currently and may require more BSY and BSH than is being generated. The
appropriate equipment would also be required to be purchased to ensure the safe handling and
combustion of the biogas. In the case that trace contaminants are produced, equipment to purify
the gas would also be required, further raising upfront capital costs.

Using BSY and BSH slurries mixed with binding agents to manufacture beer coasters
could have similar economic considerations as the prior alternative. Creating products from
waste streams on site reduces the demand to source these products externally and could
potentially save money for the company. IPA will be exploring the feasibility of replacing
Deadfall’s current disposable coasters with ones made in-house as well as the option of selling
them to customers as a novelty item.
19

5.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment plays a vital role for clients in deciding amongst several alternatives
based on their own acceptable level of risk. Table 7 lists six categories of expected risks
including their descriptions.

Table 7. Expected risk categories with descriptions

Risk
Risk Type Risk Description
ID
R1 Over Budget Capital and maintenance costs exceed expectation
R2 Decreased Income Prices of raw materials increase and/or numbers of
customers decrease
R3 Environmental Effluents above emission standards, potential toxicity to
Impact animals and/or people, GHG emissions of equipment, etc.
R4 Contaminated Input Wort, yeasts, or hops have been contaminated
R5 Equipment Failure Some equipment needs to be repaired or replaced
R6 Potential Accidents Any major accidents that could occur

A preliminary risk assessment is provided for the new three alternatives (Figure 7,
Figure 8, Figure 8). These risk assessment heat maps use criteria provided in APPENDIX B:
Additional Tables and Figures. As the project progresses, the risk assessments have undergone
major changes in terms of corresponding changes of the three alternatives. The severity of
potential risks will be used along with Deadfall’s risk tolerance to help compare the potential
alternatives when choosing the design solution. For the final report, the risk assessments will
be refined again as more certainty is gained for the impacts and probabilities of each risk.
20

Figure 6. Preliminary risk assessment for converting BSY to animal feed

Figure 7. Preliminary risk assessment for biogas heat production by anaerobic digestion of BSY and BSH

Figure 8. Preliminary risk assessment for producing drink coasters by dry BSH and BSY mixed with resin

According to the three preliminary risk assessments above, the overall risk of
Alternative 3 is the smallest one, and Alternative 2 has the most overall risk, while Alternative
1 stays in the middle of both. Alternative 2 has a high likelihood of causing very high impact
regarding over budget, because its capital cost is over a million dollars. Meanwhile, Alternative
1 is similar to an old alternative in proposal report, which is converting BSH to animal feed, so
the new risk assessment is also relatively similar. Alternative 3 has the best risk tolerance,
because it has a simple design with a relatively low investment, as well as a one-year return
period.
21

5.6 CONCLUSION
A decision matrix was used to help the IPA team determine the best solution alternative to
the problem statement. Five factors were selected based on client objectives and constraints:
cost, functional feasibility, efficiency, sustainability, and social. Descriptions of these factors
are visible in

Table 8. To assign a weighted value for each factor the factors were ranked from most to
least important by the team, Deadfall, and the mentor. The ratings from Deadfall held more
influence and the ratings from the team and mentor were evenly distributed for the remaining
(𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ×0.5)+(𝐼𝑃𝐴 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ×0.25)+(𝑀𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔×0.25)
amount; 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 15
Equation 4 indicates the equation used to apply this relationship. Scores were then assigned by
the IPA team based on research and data findings thus far (1 being the highest score and 5 being
the lowest score). Ratings may yet change as the final design is refined and new data is
collected. However, to date the decision matrix indicates the most viable solution alternative is
alternative 1: yeast to feed (score: 1.9), followed by alternative 3: coasters (score: 3.1).
Alternative 2: anaerobic digestion, was deemed infeasible due to unattainable cost and
operation requirements. As the yeast to feed alternative solely uses the BSY stream and the
coasters alternative primarily uses the BSH stream, the IPA team has decided to move forward
with both alternatives and present a combined solution to Deadfall that would address both
currently unused wastes streams, BSY and BSH.
(𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ×0.5)+(𝐼𝑃𝐴 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ×0.25)+(𝑀𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔×0.25)
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = Equation 4
15

Table 8. Completed decision matrix and total alternative ratings

Alternative 2:
Weighted Alternative 1: Alternative 3:
anaerobic
value yeast to feed coasters
digestion
Factor Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted
(out of 1)
(_/5) Score (_/5) Score (_/5) Score
Cost (i.e., capital, and
operational costs to
0.28 2.5 0.7 5 1.4 2.5 0.7
Deadfall over project
lifetime)
Functional Feasibility (i.e.,
is this reasonable for
0.24 1 0.24 5 1.2 3.5 0.84
Deadfall to implement,
meets regulations)
Efficiency (i.e., amount of
BSY and BSH does this
0.12 3 0.36 3 0.36 3 0.36
alternative use, how much
end product is yielded)
Sustainability (i.e., how
much outside input is
required in terms of 0.24 1 0.24 2.5 0.6 4 0.96
material, energy, water,
etc. and waste produced)
Social (i.e., how can this
be marketed for Deadfall
0.12 3 0.36 2 0.24 2 0.24
or any community
interactions relevant)
Totals 1 1.9 3.8 3.1
22

N.B. ratings are out of 5 (1 being the highest score and 5 being the lowest) based on results which are applied the weighted
values of each factor and used to determine the best alternative (lowest overall score).

6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN

6.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The chosen solution for enhancing the waste streams at Deadfall is to dehydrate both
the BSY and BSH. The BSY will be tested for inactivation, packaged, and then sold to
agriculture or aquaculture partners for a profit. The BSH will be blended into a powder, mixed
with resin, and shaped into cup coasters using molds. These coasters will be used in the brewery
to replace their current paper coasters and/or sold as a novelty product to customers. The use of
two alternatives helps meet the project objectives by planning to use the entirety of the BSY
and BSH waste streams while producing products that can be sold for profit. A preliminary cost
estimate for the proposed design is provided in Section 6.4. It is notable that there are few
equations used within this section because the chosen alternative is more process design focused
and does not require significant engineering calculations to reach the desired goal.

The criteria used to decide on the chosen solution includes cost, functional feasibility,
efficiency, sustainability, and social impacts. The ranking of the alternatives considered is
provided in Section 5.6. However, a new ranking is assigned to the solution incorporating the
alternatives of yeast to feed and coasters as shown in Table 9. It is notable that the cumulative
score for the solution is greater than the individual score of the yeast to feed alternative. The
incorporation of two alternatives is beneficial because the major project cost for both the BSY
to feed and coasters alternatives is the purchase and maintenance of a drying oven. However,
both alternatives can use the same oven, reducing the revenue requirement imposed on each
alternative and thereby reducing the return period for the project.

Table 9. Solution ranking using decision matrix

Weighted Preliminary Solution:
value yeast to feed and coasters
Factor (out of 1) Score (_/5) Weighted Score
Cost (i.e., capital, and operational costs to Deadfall
0.28 2 0.56
over project lifetime)
Functional Feasibility (i.e., is this reasonable for
0.24 3 0.72
Deadfall to implement, meets regulations)
Efficiency (i.e., amount of BSY and BSH does this
0.12 1 0.12
alternative use, how much end product is yielded)
Sustainability (i.e., how much outside input is required
0.24 3 0.72
in terms of material, energy, water, etc.)
Social (i.e., how can this be marketed for Deadfall or
0.12 2 0.24
any community interactions relevant)
Totals 1 2.36

Recipe testing for the coaster development involved manipulating two main variables:
the proportion of BSG:BSH used, and the volume of resin used to create each coaster. The main
criteria for testing then included drop stability, stack-ability, odour, and aesthetic. The goal of
23

testing was to create a product that passes all the testing criteria with the highest waste to resin
ratio. The criteria to determine if a coaster recipe is acceptable is provided in Table 10.

Table 10. Coaster testing criteria

Quality Tests Test Description Acceptability Criteria
Drop Drop 3x from table height After 3 drops on concrete the coaster has no cracks or breaks.

Stack-ability Abrasion from other When two coasters are rubbed against each other, no
coasters scratching or failure occurs.
Odour Smell test No detectable odour presents to human senses.
Aesthetic Visual inspection The recipe allows for molding into the desired shape with all
surfaces flat enough to apply branding stickers.

Table 11 provides the results from acceptability testing of coaster recipes under the
criteria described in Table 10. Under the drop criteria, all coasters showed no notable damage
or failure. Because the resin used in coaster production is inert, none of the coasters produced
any notable odour. The two coasters that used BSG resulted in surfaces that were notably
rougher than the surfaces of the total BSH coasters; leading to difficulty in placing logo stickers
onto the BSG coasters due to the non-flat surfaces. Furthermore, the coasters containing grain
resulted in greater abrasion due to full grain kernels protruding from the coaster surface. The
greater abrasion caused scratching on other coasters and breaking of the protruding kernels.
Blending of the grain kernels may result in a product suitable for use, however, the BSH
coasters are preferable due to the high waste:resin content and the use of a non-utilized waste
stream. Figure 9 provides pictures of the various preliminary coasters.

Table 11. Results of quality testing of various coaster recipes

Acceptable Result (Y/N)
Recipe BSH BSG Resin Waste:Resin Drop Stack-ability Odour Aesthetic
(g) (g) (mL) (g:mL)
1 20.75 0 20 1.04 Y Y Y Y
2 0 5.37 40 0.13 Y N Y N
3 7.00 5.44 40 0.31 Y N Y N
24

Figure 9. Waste product coasters made using resin; from left to right: Recipe 1, Recipe 2, Recipe 3

BSY was dried in the UNBC CEEP drying oven to determine the moisture content of
the waste material for determining feed yield. BSY was also dried at a lower temperature (50-
100 degrees Celsius) and tested for inactivation by addition to water with sugar to test for
respiration. Results from drying are provided in Table 12. Moisture content is calculated using
𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠−𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠
𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = ( ) ∗ 100% Equation 5.
𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠

Table 12. Moisture content of BSY from Deadfall Brewing

Average Standard
Tray Tray + Tray + Moisture
Moisture Deviation of
Tray # Mass Wet BSY Dry BSY Content
Content Moisture
(g) (g) (g) (%)
(%) Content (%)
1 1.57 31.86 5.27 87.8
2 1.56 31.52 5.24 87.7 87.8 0.07
3 1.59 27.63 4.75 87.9

𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠−𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠

𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = ( ) ∗ 100% Equation 5
𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠

As shown in Table 2 (Section 2.2), yeast inactivation occurs rapidly at temperatures

above 50ºC, therefore, heating for long enough to completely dry the yeast is expected to
completely inactivate yeast used for feed. Lab testing was completed to confirm this and
provide an estimate of yeast-slurry moisture content. Three inactivation tests were conducted
using drying times of 15 mins, 30 mins, and 45 mins at 66ºC plus a non-heated control; each
test used 20 mL of yeast slurry. After heating, the slurry was mixed into Erlenmeyer flasks with
50mL of warm water (25ºC) and 5g of white sugar. The mixture was tested for respiration by
mixing and noting any bubbling forming after 15 minutes. Results of this testing are provided
in Figure 10. As the figure illustrates, the unheated mixture produced a significant amount of
respiration while the remaining inactivation attempts showed no notable respiration; this
corroborates the literature researched.
25

Figure 10. Results of yeast inactivation at 66ºC; from left to right: control, 15min heating, 30min heating, and
45min heating

Figure 11 provides a visual of the proposed solution alternative as a process flow

diagram. The entirety of the BSY and BSH waste streams are dried in the same commercial
dehydrator. A small portion of BSY is removed to allow for inactivation testing and the
remaining BSY is packaged into feed. The BSH is blended into a powder, weighed, mixed with
a pre-determined portion of resin, placed into molds, and allowed to cure into solid coasters.

Figure 11. Process flow diagram of the proposed solution

The expected average purged amount of BSY from the fermenting tank at Deadfall is
15 kg per batch. However, the amount of purged yeast is highly variable due to the reuse of
yeast slurry in subsequent beer batches. The IPA team has found that the maximum purged
26

amount during the three previous batches of beer brewed at Deadfall was less than 5 kg. As
such, the drying system will be designed for 5.0 kg of wet BSY. The expected production of
dried BSY for feed is therefore 0.61 kg per batch, or 61 kg per year. Each batch of beer produces
approximately 8.0 kg of wet BSH with a moisture content of 77.2% +/- 0.37%. Therefore, the
expected production of dried BSH is 1.8 kg per batch or 180 kg per year. Each batch of hops is
expected to produce an average of 90 coasters with the recipe of 20 g dried BSH to 20 mL resin.

The sizing of the drying oven/commercial dehydrator assumes that all the BSY and BSH
will be drying at the same time. BSH and BSY are purged at different times of the brewing
process, however, the drying of one product may overlap with the drying of the other product.
The assumption is also made that the average amount of BSY and BSH plus 20% is purged
under the largest batch conditions. Under these assumptions, the drying oven/commercial
dehydrator will be required to dry 15.6k g (9.6 kg BSH and 6 kg BSY) of wet waste product.
Density of BSY is averaged as 1.01 kg/L and density of BSH is averaged as 0.90 kg/L
(Bionumbers 2022; Barth Haas Group 2014). Therefore, each batch will require the drying of
0.017 m3 of waste product. Assuming a thickness of 0.75-1.25 cm, the drying area required
within the oven is 1.4-2.3 m2. To meet these requirements, the drying oven/commercial
dehydrator to be used in this process is a Benchfoods Model: 16-CUD commercial food
dehydrator with total drying area of 2.56 m2 shown in Figure 12 (Commercial Dehydrators
2022a).

Figure 12. Benchfoods Model: 16-CUD for drying BSY and BSH (Commercial Dehydrators 2022a)
27

Once BSH is dried and blended, it will be mixed with commercial craft resin and
allowed to cure in molds designed herein. The coasters will be flat without raised edges with
diameter of 10 cm and thickness of 0.5 cm. Coasters require 3 days to completely cure and will
require storage during this time. Each mold is notched, allowing molds to be stacked, reducing
the lateral space required during the curing process and pressing the product into a uniform
thickness and shape. Deadfall Brewing’s logo is raised 0.5 mm off the mold’s surface so that
the logo is stamped onto the coasters during the molding process. The coaster molds will be
created from silicone to allow for easy coaster removal. Design drawings for the coaster molds
provided in

Figure 13 and Figure 14.

28

Figure 13. 3D render of beer coaster mold

Figure 14. Beer coaster mold specifications featuring responsible consumption caption
29

A schedule for project implementation is provided for planning from the completion of
this design project to when the process is operational and running at a steady state as shown in
Figure 15. The schedule will be subject to change at this stage as it must be confirmed with the
client and is dependant on project approval.

Figure 15. Project Implementation Schedule (Preliminary)

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

The use of BSY as animal feed presents an opportunity to divert the yeast from landfill and
instead, use it for feeding livestock or fish. Although this provides an opportunity to use the
BSY waste stream, it is important to mitigate additional emissions or environmental impacts
the process may produce. One consideration is the emission of pollutants and greenhouse gasses
from vehicle transportation to move the BSY feed material from the brewery to the receiving
customer. To mitigate these anticipated emissions, the IPA team has reached out to 5 farms and
hatcheries within a 25 km radius of the City of Prince George. An exception to this is a sturgeon
30

conservation centre located in Vanderhoof, B.C. which members of the IPA team had
previously worked with for a previous project. This facility was also contacted and is located
approximately 100km from the City of Prince George.

Animal health impacts in relation to using BSY as an animal feed should also be
considered. The primary concern in this regard is that the yeast is properly and completely
deactivated. Failure to do so has the potential to cause gastrointestinal issues for animals which
can lead to long term health problems (Rachwał et al. 2020).

Additionally, it must be noted that any fish hatcheries that have been contacted are land
based, closed tank operations. This consideration has been made due to the well-known impacts
that open-net aquaculture can have on the natural environment through organic and inorganic
nutrient loss, discharge of veterinary products, and the release of fish wastes (Dosdat, n.d.).
Therefore, in order to avoid the indirect association with the environmental impacts of certain
aquaculture operations, only land-based systems have been identified as possible recipients of
inactivated BSY for fish feed.

Regarding the production of novelty coasters using BSH, the main concern is the use of
epoxy as a binding agent. Using epoxy to bind the BSH and produce a solid material results in
a plastic like material that is difficult to recycle and will require disposal in landfill at the end
of its life cycle. It should be reiterated, however, that the quality testing outlined in the previous
section (6.1 Preliminary design) incorporated a structural integrity criterion which passed the
acceptability test for the chosen coaster design. It is projected that a robust coaster would result
in higher longevity of an otherwise routinely disposed product, thus providing more uses (in
terms of drinks held) than the current paper-based coasters used at the brewery. A more
quantifiable sustainability comparison of the current coasters in use and the proposed BSH
resin-based product will be explored in the form of a life cycle analysis (LCA) in the final
report.

With regards to the production and use of BSH coasters, some potential human health
hazards during the processing phase should be considered. In particular, epoxy resins contain
toxic chemicals that should not be absorbed through direct skin contact, inhaled, or ingested
(Nils Malmgren AB 2022). Exposure to these harmful compounds is hazardous with the resin
and hardener are in their liquid phase prior to and during curing (Nils Malmgren AB 2022).
Once solid, the end product is inert and does not pose a danger to human health (Nils Malmgren
AB 2022). In order to prevent over exposure to the harmful effects of epoxy, donning the
appropriate PPE including safety goggles, gloves, and a respirator is highly recommended.
Finally, it should be noted that epoxy resin cures via an exothermic, or, heat releasing chemical
reaction (Nils Malmgren AB 2022). As such, during the curing phase, the mixed compound
will get hot and may melt the heating vessel it is contained in (I.e., if the mold is made of
plastic). Moreover, if handled directly, the curing product may cause burns or ignite flammable
materials in close proximity (Nils Malmgren AB 2022). The larger the mass of mixed epoxy,
the more heat it will generate, and this should be controlled diligently. For the IPA team’s
design, silicone molds were used, which mitigates the risk of any melting of the mold.
31

Finally, the preparation of both BSY and BSH requires drying using an industrial
dehydrator. While this will require an energy input, British Columbia’s electricity is produced
primarily through renewable means (e.g., hydroelectric, solar, wind, and biomass) (BC Hydro
2022). Moreover, being able to combine two alternatives that require the use of a dehydrator
means that energy costs and consumption will produce two products that may produce
additional income for Deadfall and address two waste streams of the brewery.

6.3 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

A feed additive created from BSY has the potential to appeal to local farmers whose
demand is low and share similar values to Deadfall (such as supporting local, short supply
chains, sustainability, and overall wellbeing). There are several farms surrounding the Prince
George area that have been identified as potential partners based on their operational size and
company values. Potential partners include those listed in Table 13. These operations have been
contacted to gauge interest, establish a line of communication, and to help formulate logistical
parameters of this alternative (such as cost, timelines, and quantity). Furthermore, customers of
this product may be able to utilize these principles in the marketing of their products. From a
societal perspective, limited economic operators, commitment to local collaboration, local
economic development, and tight relations between consumers and feed producers foster more
sustainable consumption practices (SmartChain 2020).

Table 13. Potential consumer partners for yeast feed additive

Potential Partner
Freshwater Fisheries Society
of BC (FFSBC 2022)
Nechako White Sturgeon
Conservation Centre
(NWSRI 2022)
Spruce City Wildlife
Association (SCWA 2022)
Tenish Farm (Tenish Farm
2022)
Whispering Maples Hobby
Farm (Whispering Maples
Hobby Farm 2022)
Harvest Angus (Harvest
Angus 2022)
Description Location
Operate a Trout distribution Prince George
facility in the area
A sturgeon hatchery focused Vanderhoof
on research and education
Volunteer run Salmon and Prince George
Trout hatchery
Pork farm with a focus on Prince George area
supporting local, hand
feeding, and quality feed.
Farm specializing in Prince George area
breeding purebred poultry
and honeybees.
250 head cattle farms prided Prince George area
in their quality bulls and
products.

The production of compostable coasters may provide aesthetic and marketing value to
Deadfall’s beer products, garnering positive public attention and encouraging increased
patronage. Whether the coasters are used in house, sold as merchandise, or both, they present
an opportunity for Deadfall to differentiate themselves from other local breweries and create an
additional level of uniqueness to their brand identity – a critical component for small businesses
in today's society (Jones 2021).
32

The overall social perception of working within the alcohol industry must also be
considered. As this is a controlled substance that has had a varied history from illegality to
playing an intricate role in many cultural or religious customs, there are a range of perspectives
regarding this industry (Mark Keller and George E. Vaillant 2021). The IPA team and Deadfall
have acknowledged the potential negative impacts that alcohol can hold if abused, however, we
remain confident that working to address waste streams from the brewing process is necessary
and has the potential to improve the environmental, social, and economic status of the brewery.
Moreover, the substances used and produced in this project do not hold the same properties of
alcohol. It is for these reasons the IPA team believes the solution presented still has the
opportunity to encourage positive social engagement. Notably, the final coaster design (section
6.1 Preliminary design, Figure 14) features a text caption promoting the responsible
consumption of alcohol.

6.4 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

According to the solution chosen in the preliminary design, both the BSY and BSH will
be dried first by a dehydrator whose mode is shown in Figure 12. The BSY will then be tested
for inactivation through a rehydration process then be packaged and ready to be sold for profit.
Meanwhile, the BSH will be blended into powder by a blender then shaped into cup coasters
after mixing with resin and finally sold for profit.

Therefore, regarding to a preliminary cost estimate, the major capital cost for the
solution will be dehydrator, rehydration device, and blender. Operating costs will include the
epoxy resin and molds. Other costs such as labor cost, energy cost, and maintenance cost are
considered as minor costs in the preliminary design. Table 14 lists a market price for each
required inventory excluding taxes, and their detailed information can be found in APPENDIX
B: Additional Tables and Figures.

Table 14. The market price of each inventory

Equipment / Inventory Description Cost
Dehydrator with 16 pan trays (Commercial Dehydrators 2022a;
$1514
2022b)
Blender (Waring Laboratory 2022) $903
Resin with molds (Nerpa Polymers 2022) $889
Packaging boxes (Clearbags 2022) $122

The dehydrator and the blender are designed to be used for at least 10 years, thereby
they are considered as one-time cost in the design. The price of resin is $849 for 30 L, which is
enough to produce 1500 coasters in total, hereby the individual cost of consuming resin is
$0.566 per coaster or $51 per batch. Meanwhile, the mold cost is also one-time cost and can be
reused for 10 years whose price is $40 for 10 molds. The cost of buying boxes for packaging
coasters is $122 for 1000 pieces, hereby the individual cost is $0.122 per coaster or $11 per
batch. Since there will be a 10%-20% potential discount for resin and boxes, the optimal overall
cost will be $2417 for the capital cost plus $530 for the operating cost per year. As a result,
including taxes, the total cost in the first year will be about $3300.
33

The potential income will be obtained from selling BSY for feed to customers on farms
and selling coasters to customers in Deadfall. At present, the highest asking price of BSY used
for fish feed is $1800 per 2 tons (CANGYU 2022), hereby the individual cost is $0.55 per batch
or $55 per year. For the selling price of each coaster, it’s temporarily set to be $5 per coaster in
this progress report. Assuming all the products will be sold out, the total income in the first year
will be $4555. As a result, the whole investment will not only be taken back in the first year,
but also there will be a total profit of $1255. Therefore, the return period of this solution will
be one year.

Considering that Deadfall has just recently begun operations, the IPA team has looked at
potential sources of funding that Deadfall could apply for to fund the capital costs associated
with implementing the design solution. At this stage, a variety of private, provincial, and federal
grants have been compiled. The grants deemed most appropriate, relevant, and with the highest
possibility of being awarded will be included in the final design report.

Some grants and programs of note thus far include financial backing for R&D and
commercialization from the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) (I. Government of Canada 2022).
If successful, the SIF could contribute up to 50% of eligible expenses to conduct R&D that will
accelerate technology transfer (I. Government of Canada 2022). The SIF is currently accepting
statements of interest (I. Government of Canada 2022). Another potential source of interest is
the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program (Canada Revenue
Agency 2021). Through incentives like deductions against income or investment tax credits,
the SR&ED encourages businesses to conduct R&D in Canada (Canada Revenue Agency
2021). Deadfall will ideally have already applied for and secured the grant funding before being
presented with the final design solution.

In the final report, to improve accuracy and reliability of the economic analysis, the inventory
prices will be averaged among at least three similar merchandises. The total cost will also
consider more costs in detail such as maintenance cost, labor cost, and energy cost. A selling
price of the coaster will be estimated again in terms of an appraisal survey.

6.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

Since the preliminary solution is a combination of Alternative 1 and 3, the preliminary
risk assessment of this solution is formed correspondingly. The risk assessment heat map,
shown in Figure 16, uses the same risk categories listed in Table 7 and is ranked according to
the same criteria in APPENDIX B: Additional Tables and Figures.
34

Figure 16. Risk assessment of the preliminary solution

Benefiting by the combination of both alternatives, the overall risk reduces to an

acceptable level. The risks required to be concerned mostly are possible environmental impacts
and potential accidents. Both have the same high impact with possibility of low likelihood.
Furthermore, considering a low budget expenditure and a return period of only one year, the
preliminary solution has relative low risks associated with money.

In the final report, a more detailed risk assessment will be implemented. Those potential
risks will be complied with the major concerns of Deadfall and the concept of sustainability.

6.6 PROJECT EVALUATION

Upon implementation of the proposed design solution(s), the efficacy, feasibility, and
overall success of the design solution will be evaluated by Deadfall. The criteria in Table 15
will aid in assessing whether the solutions presented have long term viability in Deadfall’s
enterprise and in creating value added resources from their waste streams. The current
expectation is to evaluate the project 3 months after full scale launch of the process (see Figure
15 in Section 6.1 for further details on projected timelines).

Table 15. Project evaluation criteria

Type of Assessment Criteria Feedback from Deadfall
Technical Assessment Does the implemented system
maximize waste conversion?
Do the value-added waste products
break even?
Qualitative Can Deadfall operate the
Assessment process(es) independently?
Does the proposed system fit in the
current Deadfall footprint?

The IPA team will propose the above criteria to Deadfall and request feedback on how
the implementation/evaluation process may be improved. It is critical that Deadfall be able to
conduct the evaluation independently of the IPA team as team members will not be present to
assist. The IPA team will, however, interpret results from Deadfall in the interim and provide
guidance remotely. Once Deadfall agrees with the set criteria, and indicates their approval to
the presented alternatives, the refined criteria will be formalised in the final report.
35

6.7 DISCUSSION
As explained above, the proposed final design will be a combination of alternatives
evaluated; yeast to animal feed and coasters. Results of experimental tests indicate the solutions
are viable at present stage – i.e., inactivation of yeast is easily achievable with available
technology and coasters are able to be produced with a simple combination of resin and BSH.
While significant progress has been made on the chosen solution, there remains uncertainties
and questions to be answered. Improvements to said designs are needed and the IPA team has
identified potential avenues to explore in this regard. Some such questions arising from current
findings and results are as follows.

• How can the team optimize coaster production to be less labour intensive?
• Can coasters of the same quality be achieved with wet hops rather than needing to dry
the hops?
• Is it feasible to anticipate 100% use of BSH waste conversion to coasters or will this
need to be scaled down?
• How will dried yeast be stored in the interim between drying and sending to farm
partners?
• Will there be enough dried yeast to be of benefit to farm partners? Or should smaller
partnerships be explored?

The above questions indicate a starting point for advancements on the current design
and how the results currently established, while conclusive in some regards (such as basic
feasibility), highlight the gaps in knowledge to be addressed prior to submitting a final design.
36

7 CONCLUSIONS

The final option chosen by the IPA team to transform Deadfall’s BSY and BSH waste
stream is a combination of two of the three presented solutions: implementing the BSY to
animal feed in addition to the fabrication of novelty coasters from BSH. The solutions have
been designed to use the same main operating equipment (by way of the dehydrator, and lab
blender), and have presented a feasible option that do not exceed the constraints held by
Deadfall’s brewing production/operations. Moreover, they require minimal additional human
hours to implement and have been projected to provide Deadfall with a revenue stream after
initial capital and operational costs (i.e., dehydrator, epoxy resins, and molds) have been
covered.

Once the dehydrator is purchased, BSY and BSH can immediately be dried in
preparation for the production of animal feed and coasters, respectively. For BSY to feed, an
inactivation step is required to ensure that the yeast can no longer respire and is animal safe.
For the production of BSH coasters, once the hops are blended, they are combined with the
epoxy resin and placed into molds. Both of these processes require minimal production time
and were designed with the human hours available at Deadfall in mind.

The main uncertainty associated with this joint alternative is that the volume of BSY
produced is variable and therefore there is not a definitive projection of available product to
transform to feed. This uncertainty does not affect the BSY to feed process itself, however,
farmers who are in the market for the feed may expect a regular installment of product. With
regards to the BSH coasters, the success of this venture is largely dependent on public reception
and willingness to purchase the product. There may be some initial marketing required by
Deadfall to promote this product for purchase. As the brewery already does have branded
merchandise for sale (including, t-shirts, hats, glassware, and stickers with logo) it is
recommended that the new coasters be advertised at the front of the taproom alongside visible
merchandise. Any final implementation requirements will require approval from Deadfall, and
the IPA team will await feedback from the evaluation form to finalise the implementation
logistics of the selected alternative.
37

8 REFERENCES

Aboderheeba, Ayad Khalifa Mohamed, and M Eng. n.d. “Novel Approach to Pre-Treatment of
Agricultural Products and Food Waste to Improve Biogas Production,” 242.
Barth Haas Group. 2014. “Hop Pellets (Type 90 Pellets) Safety Data Sheet.”
https://www.johnihaas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Pellet_Type-901.pdf.
BC Hydro. 2022. “Our Clean System.” 2022.
https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/about/sustainability/our-clean-system.html.
BIOFerm. 2022. “BIOFerm Anaerobic Digester: FERMIGMA Small-Scale Technology.”
https://www.biofermenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/MA_R015-Allen-
Farms-Case-Study-FERMIGMA-Small-Scale.pdf.
Bionumbers. 2022. “Cell Density - Budding Yeast Saccharomyces Ce - BNID 103876.” 2022.
https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?&id=103876&ver=2.
Brandon Baerwald. 2022. “Deadfall Brewing Data,” July 2, 2022.
Canada, Health. 2008. “ARCHIVED - Health Risk Assessment of Bisphenol A from Food
Packaging Applications.” Transparency - other. June 16, 2008.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-
safety/packaging-materials/bisphenol/health-risk-assessment-bisphenol-food-
packaging-applications.html.
———. 2013. “Bisphenol A (BPA).” Education and awareness. April 16, 2013.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/home-garden-safety/bisphenol-
bpa.html.
Canada Revenue Agency. 2021. “Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax
Incentive - Overview.” Service description. December 24, 2021.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/scientific-research-experimental-
development-tax-incentive-program/overview.html.
CANGYU. 2022. “Yeast Cell Wall Powder For Animal Feed - Buy Yeast Extract Powder,Yeast
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae,Brewers Yeast Product on Alibaba.Com.” 2022.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/yeast-cell-wall-powder-for-
animal_60383683945.html.
Clearbags. 2022. “Kraft Paper Window Box | 4 1/8" x 7/8" x 4 1/8" | 25 Pack | WKR245.” 2022.
https://www.clearbags.com/4-1-8-x-7-8-x-4-1-8-kraft-paper-box-window-box-25-
pieces-wkr245.html.
Commercial Dehydrators. 2022a. “Premium 1 Zone / 16 Tray / 2.56m2 Tray Area.” 2022.
https://www.commercialdehydrators.ca/product/16-tray-2-56m2-tray-area.
———. 2022b. “Premium 40 x 40cm Stainless Steel Pan Trays.” 2022.
https://www.commercialdehydrators.ca/product/40-x-40-stainless-steel-pan-trays.
Dosdat, A. n.d. “Environmental Impact of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean: Nutritional and
Feeding Aspects,” 15.
“E6PR.” 2022. e6pr. 2022. https://www.e6pr.com.
EMA. 2022. “Chapter 53 - Environmental Management Act.” October 19, 2022.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03053_00.
Estévez, A., L. Padrell, B. Iñarra, M. Orive, and D. San Martin. 2021. “Brewery By-Products
(Yeast and Spent Grain) as Protein Sources in Gilthead Seabream (Sparus Aurata)
Feeds.” Aquaculture 543 (October): 736921.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736921.
F. Xu and Y. Li. 2017. “Biomass Digestion.” Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies, July,
197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10108-3.
FFSBC. 2022. “Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC - About Us.” 2022.
https://www.gofishbc.com/About-Us.aspx#contact-us.
38

FortisBC. n.d. “Become a Renewable Natural Gas Supplier.” Www.Fortisbc.Com. Accessed

October 21, 2022. https://www.fortisbc.com/services/sustainable-energy-
options/renewable-natural-gas/become-a-renewable-natural-gas-supplier.
Government of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2012. “RG-1 Regulatory
Guidance:Feed Registration Procedures and Labelling Standards.” Reference material.
February 13, 2012. https://inspection.canada.ca/animal-health/livestock-
feeds/regulatory-guidance/rg-1/eng/1329109265932/1329109385432.
Government of Canada, Innovation. 2022. “Strategic Innovation Fund - Home.” Home page;
October 17, 2022. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/strategic-innovation-
fund/en/strategic-innovation-fund.
Gunes, Burcu, Joseph Stokes, Paul Davis, Cathal Connolly, and Jenny Lawler. 2019. “Pre-
Treatments to Enhance Biogas Yield and Quality from Anaerobic Digestion of Whiskey
Distillery and Brewery Wastes: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 113 (October): 109281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109281.
Harvest Angus. 2022. “Harvest Angus Prince George BC | Harvest Angus.” 2022.
https://harvestangus.com/about-us/.
Heidbreder, Lea Marie, Isabella Bablok, Stefan Drews, and Claudia Menzel. 2019. “Tackling
the Plastic Problem: A Review on Perceptions, Behaviors, and Interventions.” Science
of The Total Environment 668 (June): 1077–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437.
JavkhlanAriunbaatar, AntonioPanico, GiovanniEsposito, FrancescoPirozzi, and Piet N.L.Lens.
2014. “Pretreatment Methods to Enhance Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid
Waste.” Applied Energy 123 (June): 143–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.02.035.
Jones, Kristopher. 2021. “The Importance Of Branding In Business.” Forbes. March 24, 2021.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2021/03/24/the-importance-of-
branding-in-business/.
Joseph Broda. 2022. “FortisBC RNG Partnership Inquiry,” October 13, 2022.
Legislative Services Branch. 2020. “Consolidated Federal Laws of Canada, Canada Consumer
Product Safety Act.” July 1, 2020. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-
1.68/index.html.
Lynch, Kieran M., Eric J. Steffen, and Elke K. Arendt. 2016. “Brewers’ Spent Grain: A Review
with an Emphasis on Food and Health.” Journal of the Institute of Brewing 122 (4):
553–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.363.
Mark Keller and George E. Vaillant. 2021. “Alcohol Consumption - Alcohol and Society.” In .
Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/alcohol-
consumption/Alcohol-and-society.
Mathias, Thiago Rocha dos Santos, Verônica Marinho Fontes Alexandre, Magali Christe
Cammarota, Pedro Paulo Moretzsohn de Mello, and Eliana Flávia Camporese Sérvulo.
2015. “Characterization and Determination of Brewer’s Solid Wastes Composition.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing 121 (3): 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.229.
Metcalf and Eddy. 2014. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. 5th ed.
McGraw-Hill Education.
Nerpa Polymers. 2022. “Casting Epoxy.” Nerpa Polymers. 2022.
https://www.nerpa.ca/products/casting-epoxy.
Nickolas J.Themelis and Priscilla A.Ulloa. 2007. “Methane Generation in Landfills.”
Renewable Energy 32 (7): 1243–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.04.020.
Nils Malmgren AB. 2022. “Safety When Working with Epoxy and Hardener.” 2022.
https://www.nilsmalmgren.com/epoxy-chemistry/safety-when-working-with-epoxy-
and-hardener/.
39

NWSRI. 2022. “Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative | NWSRI - Home.” Nechako
White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative. 2022. https://www.nechakowhitesturgeon.org/.
Prince George City Council. 2022. CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE BYLAW NO. 9336. 2022.
https://bylaws.princegeorge.ca/Modules/bylaws//Bylaw/Details/4fa0e269-26ec-4f0e-
b5c6-7b9a8c00f67d.
Rachwał, Kamila, Adam Waśko, Klaudia Gustaw, and Magdalena Polak-Berecka. 2020.
“Utilization of Brewery Wastes in Food Industry.” PeerJ 8 (July): e9427.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9427.
Saba, Naheed, Mohammad Jawaid, Othman Y Alothman, MT Paridah, and Azman Hassan.
2016. “Recent Advances in Epoxy Resin, Natural Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites
and Their Applications.” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35 (6): 447–
70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684415618459.
SCWA. 2022. “About SCWA.” Spruce City Wildlife Association. 2022.
https://scwa.bc.ca/about/.
SmartChain. 2020. “Short Food Supply Chains.” SmartChain (blog). 2020.
https://www.smartchain-h2020.eu/short-food-supply-chains/.
Statista. 2020. “Domestic Beer Production Volume Canada 2020.” Statista. November 1, 2020.
https://www-statista-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/statistics/951755/beer-domestic-
production-volume-canada/.
———. n.d. “Number of Breweries in Canada 2020.” Statista. Accessed September 24, 2022.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009623/number-of-breweries-in-canada/.
Suhartini, S, Y P Lestari, and I Nurika. 2019. “Estimation of Methane and Electricity Potential
from Canteen Food Waste.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
230 (February): 012075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/230/1/012075.
Tenish Farm. 2022. “Home - Tenishfarm.” 2022. https://www.tenishfarm.ca.
“TREBODUR – the mabeerial.” 2022. 2022. https://trebodur.de/.
US EPA, OAR. 2019. “How Does Anaerobic Digestion Work?” Overviews and Factsheets.
March 18, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/agstar/how-does-anaerobic-digestion-work.
Valerio Paolini, Francesco Petracchini, Marco Segreto, Laura Tomassetti, Nour Naja, and
Angelo Cecinato. 2018. “Environmental Impact of Biogas: A Short Review of Current
Knowledge.” Journal of Environemntal Science and Health, Part A 53 (10): 899–906.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2018.1459076.
Waring Laboratory. 2022. “Waring Laboratory 7010S 1L 2 Speed Blender w/Timer and
Stainless Steel Container, 120 Volts 50/60 Hz.” 2022.
https://www.itm.com/product/waring-laboratory-7010s-1l-2-speed-blender-w-timer-
and-stainless-steel-container.
Whispering Maples Hobby Farm. 2022. “Whispering Maples Hobby Farm.” 2022.
https://m.facebook.com/WhisperingMaplesHobbyFarm/?ref=py_c.
40

APPENDIX A - RECORDS OF SUPERVISION

Record of Supervision
Date: June 13, 2022, 19:30 PST
Students: Claire Brightman (230134993) brightman@unbc.ca; Spencer Spannier (230134023)
spannier@unbc.ca; Mathew Robinson (230136752) mrobinson@unbc.ca; Mohini Nema
(230133547) nema@unbc.ca; Jared Lynd (230135898) lynd@unbc.ca
Program: Environmental Engineering
Project Title: Investigating the feasibility of waste recovery and the creation of a value added
product from spent brewery components in a craft brewery scale operation in Prince George.
Supervisor(s): Dr. Natalie Linklater, natalie.linklater@unbc.ca
Progress
o Introductions were made
o Goals/project info:
▪ objectives from deadfall: environmental impact, low budget (zero dollars
to negative dollars), feasibility (small brewery so it's got to be realistic)
▪ waste: spent grain, spent yeast, spent hops
• all easily separated
o Over summer:
▪ creating our work plan
▪ creating team rules
▪ YouTube brewery video
o LAB
▪ talk to Oliver
▪ Natalie can take samples and do testing over the summer
• if we need equipment, we need to let her know ASAP (stuff takes
for-heckin-ever to reach PG)
o effluent must be captured in PG
▪ stored in effluent vessels (200L each)
▪ must be below certain BOD, TSS, and pH before dumping (always over
in BOD)
o waste goes to…
▪ farmers (yeast and grain)
▪ landfill (hops)
▪ WWTP (effluent)
Action Items
o Get numbers from Deadfall and other data regarding brew process/waste streams
etc.
o Research and understand the Craft Brewing Process & anaerobic digestion
o Figure out if and what we need from Natalie for potential lab equipment and/or
sampling this summer
o Refine scope to coordinate more in depth research goals
o Come up with a DOPE team name
Upcoming Deadlines
41

• Proposal submission and oral presentation – Sep 30

• Progress report submission and oral presentation – Oct 28
• Final report submission and oral presentation – Dec 02
• Poster presentation – Dec 09
Next Meeting: Early September (time and date TBD)

Record of Supervision
Date: June 13, 2022, 19:30 PST
Students: Claire Brightman (230134993) brightman@unbc.ca; Spencer Spannier (230134023)
spannier@unbc.ca; Mathew Robinson (230136752) mrobinson@unbc.ca; Mohini Nema
(230133547) nema@unbc.ca; Jared Lynd (230135898) lynd@unbc.ca; Hao Zhou (230127911)
zhou2@unbc.ca
Program: Environmental Engineering
Project Title: Investigating the feasibility of waste recovery and the creation of a value added
product from spent brewery components in a craft brewery scale operation in Prince George.
Supervisor(s): Dr. Deborah Roberts, deborah.roberts@unbc.ca
Progress
o We have new team member: Hao Zhou
He cannot make this meeting time and he is working to join another lab
section to make this work, or we will change meeting time
o New meeting time: Monday at 10am to 11am (so this will be starting September
26th)
o Have connected with Deadfall and proposed the following preliminary ideas:
Using waste to create beer can holders
Anaerobic digestion for:
hops to feed
biogas production
o Will be visiting Deadfall later this week to do a brewery tour and discuss further
objectives/constraints from Deadfall (Friday 16th)
o Will be setting up the digester Friday 16th
o NWT brewery
designed a conveyor belt to offload spent mash into trucks rather than
investigating anaerobic digestion (as this was out of scope for the
brewery)
o Things from Dr. Roberts:
important to have the process in place and go through it
specifications to determine early on:
needs/objectives/constraints
budget of company
data and regulatory items
need to have design and research piece
likely difficult to design around a patent - potentially change to
focus to determine whether their waste stream is usable for said
option (e.g., figure out how to get Deadfalls waste to a company
that creates holders and then in return get the holders? not sure if
this is possible)
42

experimental piece is less important

likes to involve industry partner if possible
have a chair and rotate this responsibility
Action Items
o Send Dr. Roberts an email with this new meeting time (recurring on Monday)
we will find an alternate time for the week of September 19th due to
holiday
o Dr. Roberts will be asking who is grading these projects
o Investigate coaster idea
o Continue researching brew to moo and biogas? see if we want to explore this or
not
o Have project proposal ready for supervisor review by Sept 22, 2022
Upcoming Deadlines
o Proposal submission and oral presentation – Sep 27
o Progress report submission and oral presentation – Oct 25
o Final report submission and oral presentation – Nov 29
o Poster presentation – Dec 06
Next Meeting: Sep 26, 2022, at 10:00 AM

Record of Supervision

Date: Sept 26, 2022, 10:00 PST

Students: Claire Brightman (230134993) brightman@unbc.ca; Spencer Spannier
(230134023) spannier@unbc.ca; Mathew Robinson (230136752) mrobinson@unbc.ca;
Mohini Nema (230133547) nema@unbc.ca; Jared Lynd (230135898) lynd@unbc.ca
Program: Environmental Engineering
Project Title: Investigating the feasibility of waste recovery and the creation of a value-added
product from spent brewery components in a craft brewery scale operation in Prince George.
Supervisor(s): Dr. Deborah Roberts, deborah.roberts@unbc.ca

Progress
• Proposal report written, team revisions completed
• Proposal presentation partially completed, to be completed by the end of day Sept 26th
• Stakeholders section: good amount of stakeholders
• At this stage, we have done more work than Deb expected
• Deb will take a full read-through to help us with the next steps by the end of the week
• We should not be including a preliminary design (Yay!!)
• The preliminary report should show that we have been thinking about issues to be
applied in further work rather than just looking for a design
o I think we have done this well and we don’t need to worry about it
• A 10-year project timeline is a good life because, within 10 years, technology will
advance to a point where it is worthwhile to replace
o This may change if we are creating a large process such as anaerobic digestion
that will have long return periods
43

• Look into sending used methane to gas companies or industrial partners for profit
o Fortis etc.
• When drying, find the moisture content of materials before and after drying
• We should be attempting to capture all methane produced from the anaerobic
digestion
o Theoretically, if not captured, the methane should be passively vented but this
is not ideal
o Potentially use party balloons to capture the methane
o We will have a few weeks to work on how to test for methane as we wait for
methane production
o Potentially get some waste-activated sludge from the WWTP to speed up the
process
o June may have anaerobic mud from their wetlands
o Mud from any swamp that is dark and stinky may work well as an inoculant
o We could also look into manure from the agriculture partner
o Usually use about 10% (1L) mud in the reactor
• The market for waste comes and goes based on demand and competition
o It is quite difficult to project costs and demand
o It may require a more dedicated partner than the barter system currently going
on with Deadfall and the horse farm
• Potentially contact the City of PG about their anaerobic digester project to see if we
could send waste to them rather than design this on a small-scale
• See what Brandon’s plans for company growth are
• Look into green grants for this project
o Some grants are specifically for small businesses that would fit this project
scale
• Consider talking about each of our expectations for what we want to get out of this
group and how well we want to do
Action Items
• Finish editing and revising the proposal report including advice given by Dr. Roberts
• Report edits done at 6:30 pm
• Spencer: Figure formatting
• Mohini: Final Edits
• Claire: References formatting (After 6:30pm)

Upcoming Deadlines
• Proposal submission and oral presentation – Sep 27
• Progress report submission and oral presentation – Oct 25
• Final report submission and oral presentation – Nov 29
• Poster presentation – Dec 06

Next Meeting: Oct 3, 2022, 10:00am, 10-3518

Record of Supervision

Date: Sept 26, 2022, 10:00 PST

Students: Claire Brightman (230134993) brightman@unbc.ca; Spencer Spannier
(230134023) spannier@unbc.ca; Mathew Robinson (230136752) mrobinson@unbc.ca;
Mohini Nema (230133547) nema@unbc.ca; Jared Lynd (230135898) lynd@unbc.ca; Hao
Zhou (230127911) zhou2@unbc.ca
44

Program: Environmental Engineering

Project Title: Investigating the feasibility of waste recovery and the creation of a value-added
product from spent brewery components in a craft brewery scale operation in Prince George.
Supervisor(s): Dr. Deborah Roberts, deborah.roberts@unbc.ca

Progress
• Proposal report written, team revisions completed
• Proposal presentation partially completed, to be completed by the end of day Sept 26th
• Stakeholders section: good amount of stakeholders
• At this stage, we have done more work than Deb expected
• Deb will take a full read-through to help us with the next steps by the end of the week
• We should not be including a preliminary design (Yay!!)
• The preliminary report should show that we have been thinking about issues to be
applied in further work rather than just looking for a design
o I think we have done this well and we don’t need to worry about it
• A 10-year project timeline is a good life because, within 10 years, technology will
advance to a point where it is worthwhile to replace
o This may change if we are creating a large process such as anaerobic digestion
that will have long return periods
• Look into sending used methane to gas companies or industrial partners for profit
o Fortis etc.
• When drying, find the moisture content of materials before and after drying
• We should be attempting to capture all methane produced from the anaerobic
digestion
o Theoretically, if not captured, the methane should be passively vented but this
is not ideal
o Potentially use party balloons to capture the methane
o We will have a few weeks to work on how to test for methane as we wait for
methane production
o Potentially get some waste-activated sludge from the WWTP to speed up the
process
o June may have anaerobic mud from their wetlands
o Mud from any swamp that is dark and stinky may work well as an inoculant
o We could also look into manure from the agriculture partner
o Usually use about 10% (1L) mud in the reactor
• The market for waste comes and goes based on demand and competition
o It is quite difficult to project costs and demand
o It may require a more dedicated partner than the barter system currently going
on with Deadfall and the horse farm
• Potentially contact the City of PG about their anaerobic digester project to see if we
could send waste to them rather than design this on a small-scale
• See what Brandon’s plans for company growth are
• Look into green grants for this project
o Some grants are specifically for small businesses that would fit this project
scale
• Consider talking about each of our expectations for what we want to get out of this
group and how well we want to do

Action Items
• Finish editing and revising the proposal report including advice given by Dr. Roberts
45

• Report edits done at 6:30 pm

• Spencer: Figure formatting
• Mohini: Final Edits
• Claire: References formatting (After 6:30pm)

Upcoming Deadlines
• Proposal submission and oral presentation – Sep 27
• Progress report submission and oral presentation – Oct 25
• Final report submission and oral presentation – Nov 29
• Poster presentation – Dec 06

Next Meeting: Oct 3, 2022, 10:00am, 10-3518

Record of Supervision

Date: June 13, 2022, 19:30 PST

Students: Claire Brightman (230134993) brightman@unbc.ca; Spencer Spannier
(230134023) spannier@unbc.ca; Mathew Robinson (230136752) mrobinson@unbc.ca;
Mohini Nema (230133547) nema@unbc.ca; Jared Lynd (230135898) lynd@unbc.ca; Hao
Zhou (230127911) zhou2@unbc.ca
Program: Environmental Engineering
Project Title: Investigating the feasibility of waste recovery and the creation of a value added
product from spent brewery components in a craft brewery scale operation in Prince George.
Supervisor(s): Dr. Deborah Roberts, deborah.roberts@unbc.ca

Progress
• The anaerobic digester is setup and digesting (at room temp)
o The pump is broken so water heating is non-viable
o Hops are being digested with 20% by volume mud found at Cottonwood park
▪ Mud testing was completed by Claire and Matt
o Yeast is being digested without mud currently, might add some once we are
back in the lab to retrieve it
• Picking up more yeast on Thursday to be used in lab tests at the CEEP
o need to return to CEEP to take final mass measurements on hops and grain for
water content data
Upcoming Deadlines
• Progress report submission and oral presentation – Oct 25
• Final report submission and oral presentation – Nov 29
• Poster presentation – Dec 06

Minutes:
• Talked about Grant money, need to know more and to present them the grants and
what they can get, something to include in our final proposal,
• Fortis BC, ask fortis for what is the min amount for gas they will accept, then can
calculate how much methane is expected, Buswell’s equation, Buswell’s and Simon’s
equation, convert COD to expected amount of Methane, model based on glucose,
46

difficult because its a solid material in water, balance between diluting and
maintaining accuracy to main sample. Bunch of replicates of COD main takeaway,
will be a bit tricky. Volatile solids test may be missing the equipment. Try to find
the amount of volatile solids compared to ash, biomethane potential test. Acetate is
good for methanogens. ratio of acetate vs proprietate.
o add acetate maybe? Does the brewing process create/accumulate acetate, how
to measure acetate, nells volatile fatty acid measurement (small ones), IC
machine
- check if organic solids are decreasing, weekly test,
• Keep pH reasonable, or else they might take over, may cause a problem, keep an eye
out, different equations for yeast bacteria due to high protein content.
• Foothills landfill creating a facility to treat biogas/WWTP, ask fortis
• Other alternatives:
o Yeast to feed is pretty straightforward, should we do another alternative?
o novelty coaster not really an alternative? if we include it in a process and the
machine. Would want to design the mold, 3D print it, our job is to give the
client what they need, a simple solution is still a solution, go through several
solutions, simple is often best. its about the process
• In regard to Professor Dziedzic’s comment about ethics, worried about bias, going
forward try to keep it focused on waste streams, Dr. Roberts will keep an eye out.
maybe explore/acknowledge impacts of alcohol consumption in our next stakeholders,
maybe mention pros/cons of alcohol consumption.
• Send Dr. Roberts Outlook calendar invite for our October 25 oral presentation.
• Meeting before presentation to practice presentation, no meeting next week (Oct 10)
due to holiday, borrowing a book from Dr. Roberts for the Buswell’s equation. extra
meeting before presentation tbd.
Next Meeting: Oct 17, same time, same location

Record of Supervision

Date: October 20, 2022, 10:00 PST

Students: Claire Brightman (230134993) brightman@unbc.ca; Spencer Spannier
(230134023) spannier@unbc.ca; Mathew Robinson (230136752) mrobinson@unbc.ca;
Mohini Nema (230133547) nema@unbc.ca; Jared Lynd (230135898) lynd@unbc.ca; Hao
Zhou (230127911) zhou2@unbc.ca
Program: Environmental Engineering
Project Title: Investigating the feasibility of waste recovery and the creation of a value added
product from spent brewery components in a craft brewery scale operation in Prince George.
Supervisor(s): Dr. Deborah Roberts, deborah.roberts@unbc.ca

Progress
47

• Evaluation of proposal report

o Mention the solution section
• Based on further research and prelim decision matrix application chosen solution is a
combo between yeast to feed and coasters
• yeast to feed
o have reached out to farms to gauge interest in a yeast feed product
o will be testing inactivation this week
• coasters
o have made 3 coasters - will do strength testing on these
o try making more coasters with less resin and/or wet hops to see if we can lower
inputs (time, materials, energy)
o should we consider paper coasters mixed with spent hops?
• we need to come up with a plan for project evaluation - do you have advice for us?
o does this need to be something that addresses economic, environmental, and
social factors or can it be simpler?
o need to evaluate against the criteria we set
o product
▪ need to first set what performance guidelines are
▪ give out a survey or 3rd party aesthetic test
o design
▪ where could it go wrong?
▪ can someone who didn’t write this process follow this
• Progress report writing in progress
o We have been told we are being evaluated as if this is a final report, how
complete and detailed should this report be compared to what our final report
should be
o lots of images and lots of details (such as measurements, cost estimates, etc.)
o describe process that we took to reach final design, the different designs we
have tried, and people we have spoken to (ex/ Fortis), the actual process we are
undertaking to create the products
o basically, put EVERYTHING in the final design section
Action Items
• finish report writing and send to Dean Roberts by Friday and include the rubric

Upcoming Deadlines
• Progress report submission and oral presentation – Oct 25
• Final report submission and oral presentation – Nov 29
• Poster presentation – Dec 06

Next Meeting: Oct. 24, 2022, 10:00 PST

48

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure B1: Project Schedule September 13, 2022, to October 25, 2022

Figure B1: Project Schedule October 25, 2022, to November 27, 2022
49

Figure B3: Waring Laboratory 7010S 1L 2-Speed Blender w/Timer and Stainless-Steel
Container (Waring Laboratory 2022)

Figure B4: Nerpa Polymers Casting Epoxy Resin 30L (Nerpa Polymers 2022)
50

Figure B5: Kraft Paper Window Box WKR245 (Clearbags 2022)

Table B6: The factors of risk rating used to generate the risk heatmap
51

Figure B7: IPA team members Spencer Spannier (left), Hao Zhou (centre), and Matthew
Robinson (right) conducting COD testing in CEEP.

Figure B8: IPA team members Spencer Spannier (left) and Claire Brightman (right) conducting
moisture content test of BSG and BSH samples.
52

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

C.1 Estimation of CH4 Potential from Hops

𝐶𝐻4 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = (𝑋𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑)(0.376 𝐿 𝐶𝐻4 ⁄𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 )

𝐶𝐻4 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐶𝑂𝐷 1000𝑚𝐿 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 1𝐿 1𝑔
= [(238𝑚𝑔 )( )( )( )](0.376 𝐿 𝐶𝐻4⁄𝑔 𝐶𝑂𝐷 )
𝐿 1.02𝑔 𝐵𝑆𝐻 1000𝑚𝐿 1000𝑚𝑔

𝐶𝐻4 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.088𝐿 𝐶𝐻4 ⁄𝑔 𝐵𝑆𝐻

Average CH4 production = 0.097 L CH4/g BSH

CH4 production standard deviation = 0.021 L CH4/g BSH

Confidence of 95%, n = 6

95
𝛼 = 1−( )
100
𝛼 = 0.05

𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1

𝑑𝑓 = 6 − 1

𝑑𝑓 = 5
𝛼
𝑃(𝑋 ≤ 𝜇) = 1 − ( )
2
0.05
𝑃(𝑋 ≤ 𝜇) = 1 − ( )
2
𝑃(𝑋 ≤ 𝜇) = 0.975

𝑡 − 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑑𝑓 = 5, 𝑃(𝑋 ≤ 𝜇) = 0.975) = 2.57

𝐶𝐼 = 𝜇 ± 𝑡 − 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ∗ 𝜎/√𝑛

𝐶𝐼 = 0.097 ± 0.022 CH4 /g BSH

C.2 RNG Facility Capacity Estimation

Average CH4 production = 0.097 L CH4/g BSH

Mass of BSH = 8 kg/Batch

Number of brewed batches = 100/year (Brandon Baerwald 2022)

Energy potential of Methane = 22 MJ/m3 (Suhartini, Lestari, and Nurika 2019)

53

𝐿 𝐶𝐻4 8000 𝑔 100 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 1 𝑚3 22 𝑀𝐽 1 𝐺𝐽

𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.097 × × × 1000 𝐿 × × 1000𝑀𝐽
𝑔 𝐵𝑆𝐻 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑚3

𝑀𝐽
𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 1.7 𝑌𝑟