Feasibility Report Feasibility for the testing and ... for the testing and... · Feasibility for the testing and demonstration of an oscillatory baffle ... OBR demonstrator and lab

Feasibility Report

Feasibility for the testing and demonstration of an oscillatory baffle reactor as a novel AD technology

A feasibility report from the ‘Driving Innovation in AD’ programme which looks at testing and demonstrating an oscillatory baffle reactor as a novel AD technology

Project code: OIN001-425 Research date: March – June 2012 Date: October 2012

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk This report was commissioned and financed as part of WRAP’s ‘Driving Innovation in AD’ programme. The report remains entirely the responsibility of the author and WRAP accepts no liability for the contents of the report howsoever used. Publication of the report does not imply that WRAP endorses the views, data, opinions or other content contained herein and parties should not seek to rely on it without satisfying themselves of its accuracy.

Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Front cover photography: Pilot scale ‘oscillatory baffle reactor’ at CPI While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in

connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is

accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or

suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

Feasibility for the testing and demonstration of an oscillatory battle reactor

as a novel AD technology 1

Executive summary

This report is the result of a phase 1 (feasibility study) project awarded to CPI under the WRAP/SBRI ‘Driving Innovation in AD – Optimisation’ funding initiative. The report sets out the rationale for and feasibility of performing a testing and demonstration programme on a known technology (OBR) applied to a novel purpose (anaerobic digestion). Phase 2 will last for 12 months and will use a pilot scale OBR demonstrator unit that has already been designed and built by CPI. The unit has not yet been commissioned and the phase 2 funding will allow this to take place, followed by scientific testing protocols using two distinct feedstocks. Phase 2 will be undertaken at CPI – in the AD Development Centre. The centre is a state-of-the-art testing and development facility, established as a national, open access resource for the UK. CPI’s endorsement by UK government as part of the Catapult for high value manufacturing makes the centre an ideal test bed for the technology.

The overall aims of phase 2 of this project are:

To design and execute scientific testing and demonstration of the pilot scale OBR at CPI’s AD Development Centre

To establish a rigorous data set that compares OBR technology to an incumbent benchmark technology

To produce a final design specification and revised commercial plan - for an OBR system for AD

It is anticipated that a range of benefits will be observed, including potential improvements in throughput/biogas yield, process control and a marked reduction in the costs of manufacture. These will be measured against a ‘null hypothesis’ according to scientific good practice, to avoid any bias. Financial projections show that, assuming positive data is obtained during the testing and demonstration programme, the technology offers a cost effective solution for the end user and a sound investment for both CPI and its partners.



Contents

1.0 Introduction and background ...................................................................... 4 1.1 Company Background ................................................................................ 4 1.2 Introduction to Oscillatory Baffle Reactor (OBR) Technology .......................... 5 1.3 Application of OBR technology to the anaerobic digestion (AD) process .......... 5 1.4 Pilot Scale OBR .......................................................................................... 7

2.0 Project Objectives ........................................................................................ 9 2.1 Project aims .............................................................................................. 9 2.2 Alignment with WRAP ‘Driving Innovation’ programme .................................. 9

3.0 State of Technology ................................................................................... 10 3.1 Development history of the technology ...................................................... 10

4.0 Legislation .................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Identification of the relevant regulations and legislation .............................. 13

5.0 Detailed technical appraisal ....................................................................... 13 5.1 Life cycle of technology ............................................................................ 13 5.2 Risk analysis - for phase 2 and the market place ........................................ 14

6.0 Economic/Cost benefit analysis ................................................................. 17 6.1 The market ............................................................................................. 17 6.2 Route to market ...................................................................................... 18 6.3 Marketing ................................................................................................ 18 6.4 Return on investment and financial projections .......................................... 18

Individual business – end user .................................................................. 19 6.5 Comparison to incumbent technology ........................................................ 20

7.0 Overall environmental impacts .................................................................. 20 8.0 Methodology for demonstration ................................................................. 20

8.1 Delivery of proposal ................................................................................. 20 8.2 Demonstration site ................................................................................... 21

9.0 Project Plan ................................................................................................ 22 9.1 Project communication plan ...................................................................... 27 9.2 Industry groupings................................................................................... 27 9.3 Government ............................................................................................ 27 9.4 Universities ............................................................................................. 28 9.5 Innovation Centres .................................................................................. 28 9.6 Private sector .......................................................................................... 28 9.7 Investors ................................................................................................ 28

9.7.1 Briefing document ......................................................................... 29 9.7.2 Website and flyer .......................................................................... 29 9.7.3 Presentations ................................................................................ 29 9.7.4 Press releases ............................................................................... 29 9.7.5 Networking ................................................................................... 29 9.7.6 On-going strategy .......................................................................... 30

10.0 Commercialisation of technology post demonstration ............................... 30 10.1 Intellectual Property Review ..................................................................... 30 10.2 Patent searches ....................................................................................... 31 10.3 Influence on WRAP phase 2 ...................................................................... 31

11.0 Evaluation and monitoring ......................................................................... 32 12.0 Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 32 13.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 32



Abbreviations

AD – Anaerobic Digestion CD – Discharge coefficient (0.7) D – OBR tube diameter (m) Dc – Axial dispersion coefficient (m2/s) De – Effective tube diameter (m) Do – Orifice diameter (m) Ds – Diameter of the impeller in an STR (m) Dv – Diameter of the STR (m) Eθ – Exit age or residence time expressed in dimensionless time f – Frequency of oscillation (Hz) HAZOP – Hazard and Operability Study IRR – Internal Rate of Return kLa – Oxygen transfer coefficient (hr-1) L – Baffle spacing (m) Lh – Height of liquid in the STR (m) Lt – Length of the OBR N – Rotational speed of the impeller (rps) NB – Number of baffles per unit length (baffles/m) NPV – Net Present Value Nt – Number of CSTRs in series for the ‘tanks-in-series’ model OBR – Oscillatory baffle reactor Po – Power number of the impeller Q – Net flow rate (mL/min) Ren – Net flow Reynolds number Reo – Oscillatory Reynolds number RTD – Residence time distribution SOP – Standard Operating Procedure SPC – Smooth periodic constriction tube STR – Stirred tank reactor ť – Mean residence time (s) ti – Time at point i (s) u – Net flow velocity (m/s) Ug – Gas superficial velocity (m/s) Xo – Centre to peak amplitude of oscillation (m) α – Ratio of orifice open area to OBR cross-sectional area δ – Baffle thickness (mm) θ – Dimensionless time (ti/ť) μ – Fluid viscosity (Pa.s) ρ – Fluid density (kg/m3) ψ – Velocity profile



1.0 Introduction and background 1.1 Company Background The Centre for Process Innovation (CPI) was established in 2004 in Wilton, Teesside, to support and enhance the UK’s process industry sector. CPI allows novel processes to be tested at bench and pilot scale, in purpose-built facilities. In this way, ideas can be refined and risks mitigated before large investments are made. CPI occupies the gap between academia and industry – to make it simpler and more cost effective for organisations to develop novel products and services. As a key partner in the UK’s first ‘Catapult’ – in High Value Manufacturing, CPI has been endorsed by the UK government as a national resource for the process industry. CPI employs a team with a broad skill set – ranging from scientists, engineers and plant technicians through to business professionals in the fields of marketing, finance, business development and project management. Key facilities at CPI include:

The National Industrial Biotechnology Facility (NIBF). The NIBF helps clients to develop biotechnology based products and processes quickly and cost effectively (e.g. platform chemicals, biofuels and pharmaceuticals) at scales from bench top to 10,000 litres;

The Smart Chemistry Facility applies novel technologies to deliver innovative solutions to traditional chemical industry challenges. The centre uses OBR technology in a variety of smart chemistry projects;

The Printable Electronics Technology Centre is a design, development and prototyping facility for the emerging printable electronics industry;

The Thermal Technologies Centre (TTC) is a joint venture between CPI and Tata Steel - focussed on innovations in the field of pyrolysis and gasification; and

The Anaerobic Digestion Development Centre - the CPI facility that will be used during this project. Further details are given below.

The AD Development Centre at CPI gives organisations the opportunity to test and de-risk AD concepts at laboratory and pilot scale before investing in AD plant. The facility includes:

A fully equipped laboratory for the comprehensive appraisal of the bio-methane potential of feedstocks;

Pre and post treatment facilities for pilot scale AD;

Pasteuriser, suitable for Category 3 compliance;

2 x buffer tanks;

2 x vertical digesters (working volume 1,000 litres);

A novel horizontal digester;

OBR demonstrator and lab based OBR technology;

Centrifuge and centrate storage;

Gas monitoring and collection infrastructure; and

Combined heat and power engine.

The AD Development Centre has been designed to allow additional equipment to be introduced and integrated, allowing CPI to work with clients on tailored projects. NB: CPI Innovation Services is a wholly owned trading subsidiary of CPI.



1.2 Introduction to Oscillatory Baffle Reactor (OBR) Technology Companies in the chemical and life sciences industries (including the pharmaceutical, food and drink, and farm industries) are looking for low cost, high performance solutions to improve production efficiency, minimise waste and enhance carbon footprint. Whilst the efficiency of continuous production is recognised, many products and waste streams are subject to batch processing. The opportunity to replace batch process reactors with smaller-scale, smaller footprint, continuous processing reactors is, therefore, recognised as essential for the delivery of major reductions in capital and operating costs alongside significant improvements in production efficiency. Continuously or discretely fed tubular reactors have long been recognised as alternatives to batch or batch fed reactors. They are often used in the chemical industry, particularly where reactants are mixed together and products formed in a relatively short period of time. Biological production processes require longer reaction times (for enzyme processing or microbial growth) and to conduct such reactions in a continuously fed tubular reactor would require unrealistically long tube reactor lengths. The application of fluid oscillations to a cylindrical column, containing evenly spaced baffles (doughnut-shaped rings) is the basic concept of OBR technology (see figure 3.3). Unlike conventional tank/tubular reactors, mixing in an OBR enables enhanced mass/heat transfer rates and prolonged residence times to be achieved in reactors of greatly reduced length to diameter ratio. These are innovative concepts in fermentation technology and are of fundamental importance to improving their efficiency. Moreover, unlike conventional stirred tank reactors, the flow patterns in an OBR can be reproduced at different scales. Therefore, the results obtained in the laboratory can be related directly to larger-scale production processes, enabling reasonable extrapolation - and making the OBR a scalable technology. In terms of economics, OBRs are tubular and scalable and therefore amenable to the principles of modular design, providing economically attractive, micro- and macro- solutions for biomass conversions. 1.3 Application of OBR technology to the anaerobic digestion (AD) process CPI has extensive experience, acquired over a five-year period, of the setting up and operation of baffle reactors at laboratory and pilot scale. CPI has taken the OBR reactor design and modified it significantly, making it appropriate for the batch, fed-batch, and continuous growth of obligate anaerobic microbial cells growing on recalcitrant lignocellulosic feedstocks. CPI’s work to date has focused on the degradation of straw particles using a microbial consortium obtained directly from the rumen of a cow, or on the production of biogas from food and farm waste using a microbial consortium from a waste water treatment AD plant. From these preliminary studies, we would conclude that our modified OBR reactor has generic application in AD, biogas production, waste water treatment, bioremediation, and the conversion of organic feed-stocks to useful by-products. The technical challenge from our preliminary work was to take a conventional laboratory-scale OBR reactor, designed as a mixing technology for the chemical industry, and to modify it such that it could be used for the anaerobic cultivation of microbial cells. The major modifications needed to do this involved structural and material changes to permit the exclusion of air from the reactor and enable it to operate under anaerobic conditions. Other major design additions, not entirely relevant to the AD process, included the in situ facility for steam sterilisation, making it possible to operate our laboratory scale, glass reactors with axenic microbial populations, and a system of computer controlled synchronously operated pneumatic valves to permit addition of culture medium and removal of liquid effluent from the reactor.



In laboratory experiments, CPI has made comparisons between AD biogas production in conventional and OBR batch reactors. Figure 1.1 shows a representation of the equipment used in CPI’s initial experiments. Figure 1.2 summarises the methane data obtained from one conventional and two OBR reactors. All three digesters were operated at ambient pressure and at mesophilic temperature (35oC). As all three lines were parallel to each other, it was concluded from this work that biogas production in each system proceeded at the same rate (i.e., the motion of the piston did not inhibit biogas production). However, gas accumulated to a greater extent in the conventional reactor, mainly because the OBR reactors took longer to generate gas at start-up. This was caused by the OBR reactors not being seeded with ‘acclimatised’ populations but with populations from conventional reactors.

Figure 1.1 Schematic overview of the laboratory batch and OBR digesters

Figure 1.2 Linear regression of steady state methane production rates for conventional (upper line) and two OBR (lower lines) laboratory batch reactors. All three digesters were operated at ambient pressure and mesophilic temperature (35oC).

y = 102.9x - 1856.1R² = 0.9994

y = 97.136x - 2775R² = 0.9993

y = 101.61x - 3045.7R² = 0.9994

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Vo

lum

e (

mL)

Time (days)

AD (minimally mixed)

AOBD (Reo1600)

AOBD (Reo 2300)

Linear (AD (minimally mixed))

Linear (AOBD (Reo1600))

Linear (AOBD (Reo 2300))



Having mastered these technical challenges, CPI has succeeded in generating a portfolio of data from our laboratory OBRs. This has enabled us to submit two patents establishing the inoculated OBR reactor as a generic technology suitable for anaerobic cultivation and harvesting of microbial cells and their liquid and gaseous fermentation end-products. The design of CPI’s more advanced laboratory reactors are shown in Fig. 1.3, and the baffles of these laboratory reactors are shown in Fig. 1.4. The laboratory reactors can be positioned either vertically or horizontally, depending upon purpose

Figure 1.3 Schematic representation of the continuous OBR laboratory reactor showing the culture tube, offset piston housing, feed reservoir, gas outlet and effluent collection vessel

Figure 1.4. Advanced OBR laboratory reactor showing baffles held within a jacketed glass tube

1.4 Pilot Scale OBR Following on from initial work with these glass reactors, CPI designed and built the pre-production prototype shown in Fig.1.5 (at a cost of approximately £100,000). This reactor is of a snake-like, convoluted design. The upper arms of each convolution are designed to trap and evict biogas from the reactor. Baffles run the length of the tube and are unique in any AD biogas system. Mixing is achieved using a piston to ‘push and pull’ the contents of



the reactor through the baffles, holding the particles in suspension while keeping sheer forces low. The convoluted shape of the prototype is deliberate to permit ‘pseudo plug-flow’, enabling segregation and zoning of reactions in a reactor of relatively short length. During operation, it is envisaged that hydrolysis and primary fermentation will be dominant in the initial part of the tubular reactor while methanogenesis will dominate further along the tube. The gas produced in the initial part of the tubular reactor will be mainly carbon dioxide, whilst methane will dominate in the gas phase taken from further along the tube. The convoluted design also permits the introduction of essential control points along the reactor; for example, different parts of the reactor can be held at different temperatures and under different pH/redox levels. By ensuring that a small percentage of the effluent is returned and mixed with the influent, the feed to the reactor is inoculated via a feed-back loop.

Figure 1.5. CPI’s OBR demonstrator. The convoluted tubular reactor is baffled throughout with the biogas collection and release sites arranged at the top of each convolution

This reactor has been designed and built as an AD pilot unit. A novel aspect of the reactor design is the ability to continuously feed and move particles through the reactor, making it suitable for continuous as opposed to batch processing of biomass. Due to its convoluted shape, a form of plug-flow (pseudo-plug-flow) can be achieved in the reactor whereby the progress of the reaction(s) in any one convoluted segment differs from that in the next segment. This is an important and novel aspect of the technology. Under these conditions, the processes of colonisation and degradation, and the conversion of plant to microbial biomass occur in succession as ‘reactants’ progress from the beginning to the end of the tube. The ability to operate continuously in this way in an industrial-scale process has significant economic and environmental advantages over conventional batch AD processing. The WRAP phase 2 study will provide the first opportunity to evaluate the performance of our pilot-scale OBR reactor alongside conventional pilot-scale vertical digesters.



2.0 Project Objectives In phase 2, CPI will optimise and demonstrate AD using the pilot-scale OBR technology. Like-for-like comparisons will be made to a classic AD plant design, using CPI’s pilot scale 1,000L vertical digesters at the AD Development Centre. The project will aim to set out a clear, evidence-based case that OBR technology can be incorporated into new build AD plants to significantly improve efficiency, versatility and value for money. CPI anticipates that a cheaper, more effective and more versatile option for new build digester technology will be the main outcome of this project. This blue print will incorporate cost effective pre-fabricated materials that can be easily scaled to be fit-for-purpose. In this way, a range of ‘off the shelf’ and ready to assemble products will be developed for the AD/bioremediation marketplace. 2.1 Project aims The overall aims of the WRAP Phase 2 project are:

1. Commission the AD OBR including a HAZOP and production of SOPs 2. Produce benchmarking data from one of CPI’s conventional 1,000L vertical pilot AD

for comparison to OBR 3. Test and optimise the pilot-scale OBR 4. Collate, interpret and present the data generated to strengthen the overall

commercial plan 5. Produce a finalised design specification for the overall system

2.2 Alignment with WRAP ‘Driving Innovation’ programme WRAP (the Waste & Resources Action Programme) has a specific focus on the development and growth of a safe, sustainable and profitable AD industry and is working to deliver specific actions from Defra’s AD Strategy and Action Plan. Its ‘Driving Innovation in AD’ programme aims to support delivery of some of those actions by:

1. The optimisation of processing and product manufacture at all scales of AD 2. The reduction of costs and complexity of small scale AD

With regard to optimisation, the identification of technologies, processes and/or modifications from any sector that will enable the enhancement of the AD process are sought. As described above, this project will apply an existing technology (OBR) to a novel setting (AD) in order to provide a step change in efficiency and costs. Specific details of how the technical improvements relate to the economics of the overall concept are given in section 6.



3.0 State of Technology 3.1 Development history of the technology B J Bellhouse (1973)1 developed a high efficiency membrane oxygenator using a periodically constricted tube that generated vortices when pulsed. The resulting flow pattern gave rise to separation and reattachment of fluid relative to the tube wall, increasing mass transfer of oxygen through a membrane. This application was later patented in 19782 and the principles of OBR technology were developed. A diagram of the apparatus described in the Bellhouse patent is reproduced in figure 3.1. One of the main purposes of this design was to achieve effective mixing, and therefore mass transfer, without turbulence, thereby avoiding trauma, which is especially important for negating damage to blood components. Figure 3.1: A reproduction of the blood oxygenator described in the Bellhouse patent using pulsatile (oscillatory) flow through a periodically constricted tube, giving enhanced heat or mass transfer without turbulent flow

The device described by Bellhouse was designed as a methodology for enhancing heat or mass transfer between two fluids, one inside the tube (blood) and the other outside (oxygen) through a membrane under non-turbulent flow conditions. Particular attention was paid to the application of blood oxygenation with typical improvements in oxygen transfer of five to six fold compared to other oxygenators available at the time. These enhancements were due to a reduced boundary layer effect caused by vortex formation as fluid is forced through the constrictions. It was proposed that vortices formed during deceleration of the fluid subjected to pulsations which were ejected from the furrow into the main stream during acceleration. A photograph of a horizontally orientated OBR located at CPI is shown in figure 3.2. This apparatus is based upon the principles of the Bellhouse patent but the design has been significantly modified to permit the introduction and culture of anaerobic microorganisms within the central tube of the reactor. The essence of this new design is captured in CPI’s anaerobic process patent (pending) published in 20103. Further modifications to allow gas bubbling and illumination enable aerobic or photosynthetic organisms to be cultured, providing a novel reactor for a wide range of bioprocesses, both anaerobic and aerobic. Although distinct from chemical processes, the low shear and enhanced mass transfer described by Bellhouse could prove beneficial to specific bioprocesses requiring either low shear environments or enhanced mass transfer rates, or both.

Mainstream

Furrow

Constriction

Net flow

(blood)

Vortex

Pulsatile flow

Membrane

O

2



Figure 3.2: Photographs showing a typical OBR configuration consisting of a central tube, cooling / heating jacket, reciprocating (piston motion) pump to create oscillations and ports for sampling and monitoring (A1 and A2).

At a laboratory scale of 500mL to 6L, the CPI OBR consists of a central tube and jacket constructed of glass and containing a run of equally spaced, stainless steel baffle plates down its length. These baffles perform a similar function to the constrictions in the blood oxygenator by producing vortices when fluid is oscillated relative to them. It is these vortices that produce intimate, efficient and uniform mixing at exceptionally low shear. In addition to the oscillations created by the reciprocal pump, a second pumping motion can be introduced to the OBR allowing net flow and continuous operation. In this way, oscillatory motion can be achieved as liquids, gases and suspended solids flow through the tubular reactor. Importantly, it is possible to achieve plug flow conditions using this combination of oscillatory motion and net flow, with mixing intensity being decoupled from the net flow rate. This is possible because mixing in the OBR is dependent on the extent of vortex formation which is controlled by oscillatory motion and not the net flow rate. Unlike continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) and conventional tubular reactors which rely on stirring mechanisms and / or turbulent flow conditions for mixing4, 5, the OBR uses oscillations to produce vortices. These form in each inter-baffle zone along the entire length of the reactor, effectively causing each baffle compartment to act as a CSTR; the entire reactor therefore consists of a finite number of CSTRs connected in series. The key difference between a conventional tubular reactor and an OBR is that mixing intensity in the latter can be controlled, not by altering the flow rate, but instead by changing the oscillating

Equally spaced orifice plates (baffles) located in the

central tube.

Reciprocating piston

motion pump

A1 A2

Jacket



conditions which in turn affects the size and frequency of vortex formation. Figure 3.3 shows a diagram depicting the formation of vortices during the forward and back stroke of one oscillation.

Figure 3.3: Vortex formation during the forward (left) and back (right) stroke of one oscillation. The furrow is coloured in red and the mainstream flow in blue.

Sobey (1980)6 used solutions from the Navier-Stokes equations, which describe the motion of fluid substances, to calculate the resultant flow patterns generated inside a periodically constricted tube, such as that used for the blood oxygenator. The solutions predicted a two phase cycle for oscillatory flow: during acceleration a vortex forms behind the baffle in the furrow (red region, figure 3) which grows as the oscillation reaches its peak; as the flow reverses, the vortex is forced out of the furrow and into the mainstream flow (blue region, figure 3) where it fades. This cycle repeats for each oscillation with vortices forming either side of the baffle plate. These predictions were observed experimentally by Stephanoff et al. (1980)7 and can be applied to OBRs because the orifice plates act in a similar way to constrictions present in the Bellhouse oxygenator. This method of mixing provides two major advantages over conventional tubular and stirred tank reactors: mixing intensity is decoupled from the flow rate; and the resultant mixing is more uniform with lower shear compared to STRs. The OBR may therefore offer a suitable

Furrow

Mainstream

flow

Interbaffle

zone

Forward stroke BBacsfBack stroke

Net flow



platform for developing continuously operated bioprocesses which require a long residence time, typically in excess of 12 hours. Except for the blood oxygenator, which uses a biological substance, the first mention of using this type of reactor for a bioprocess was published in 1992 by Harrison and Mackley8. They cultured Alcaligenes eutrophus H16: a rapidly growing, oxygen demanding bacterium used for the production of poly-β-hydroxybutyrate (PHB). The apparatus used by these authors was constructed at laboratory scale, using an OBR with a working volume of 500 mL, and operated as a batch culturing system. A maximum specific growth rate (μmax) of 0.39 h-1 was achieved using the OBR compared to 0.36 h-1 and 0.35 hr-1 when using Erlenmeyer flasks at 10 and 40% working volumes, respectively. The similarity in growth rates for the Erlenmeyer flasks at different volumes suggested that oxygen transfer was not limiting. The OBR matched and exceeded these growth rates, demonstrating its suitability for culturing rapidly growing, oxygen demanding microorganisms. However, as the apparatus was designed for batch culture, parameters required for continuous operation were omitted. 4.0 Legislation 4.1 Identification of the relevant regulations and legislation In mid 2011 CPI was endorsed as a key partner in the UK’s first elite ‘Catapult’ for high value manufacturing. Prior to this, CPI established the AD Development Centre, as described in section 1a. A prerequisite of this status is the strict adhesion to the relevant legislation and the regulations that apply to AD installations/operations. CPI has considered the WRAP legislation guidance document and is confident that it already meets all of the permitting, employee duty of care and health and safety requirements. An overall risk analysis for the entire project has been completed (see section 5). CPI will review the status of these requirements as the project progresses and make the necessary changes as required (e.g. on the introduction of a new feedstock etc.). 5.0 Detailed technical appraisal 5.1 Life cycle of technology The life span of a given OBR system is highly dependent on two factors: the material used to construct the OBR (e.g. glass, stainless steel); and the process that is being carried out within the OBR. To date, OBR technology has been used in the chemical process industries and their use for biological processes has not been common place. Until pilot and field trials have been carried out under test conditions it is not possible to put firm numbers against the likely life span of the envisaged hardware. In phase 2 of this project, a pilot scale OBR will be used to conduct a scientific appraisal of the concept. The OBR pilot has been constructed using stainless steel and engineered to high specification. The lifespan of the reactor can be assumed to be in the order of 15 years, with intermittent experimental use. The supporting equipment is manufactured to last for a similar timescale. The pilot scale OBR has generic application; it can be cleaned, sterilised and adapted and used for other purposes once phase 2 has come to an end.



The ‘end product’ – a concept for small scale, modular OBRs that can be built under license and used adjacent to farms, food processing factories, breweries etc. requires some further assumptions at this stage:

The OBR is likely to be constructed from a durable plastic/synthetic/composite material;

The process will involve AD conditions with feedstocks likely to include farm slurries, grass silages and food wastes; and

The microbial population within the system will be under process control and well understood. It will consist of the typical consortium of microorganisms necessary for AD (dominated by clostridia and methanogenic Archaea) – leading to COD reduction, biogas and digestate production.

The plastics used for construction will be cost effective to manufacture and able to be cleaned and recycled once the hardware has served its purpose. Based on the above assumptions, a life span of ~10 years can be envisaged. The modular nature of the design and build (i.e. unit modules constructed off-site and transported and assembled on site) means that if degradation of a particular unit became a problem, it could be replaced, as opposed to the need for renewal of the entire system. 5.2 Risk analysis - for phase 2 and the market place The following risk register was developed using an established methodology whereby a group of team members – in this case a mixture of scientists, engineers and business managers - each worked independently to identify risks and consider mitigating measures. The group then reformed and had a further brainstorm session to identify any missing risks, before agreeing collectively on how likely each risk was likely to occur and what level of impact it would have if it did occur. Mitigating actions were agreed upon. Each risk has been classified according to the PESTLE method (political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental) and no attempt has been made to rank the risks as this can lead to complacency or a distorted and unjustified focus on certain risks above others. Inevitably, there is a degree of subjectivity and conjecture at this stage and it is important to review all risks and add to or amend the register as the project progresses. The risk register will be reviewed at regular intervals (during project meetings) throughout the project. The risks below include those associated with the delivery of WRAP phase 2 demonstration as well as the period afterwards where the project will lead to a product being taken to market (in this case through a license agreement(s)). At this stage, these risks are linked and, therefore no attempt has been made to separate these stages of development. However, as a rule of thumb, the risks classified as technological or environmental relate to the WRAP phase 2 demonstration project and those classified as economic, political or legal relate to the ‘taking to market’ stage.



Table 1: Risk Register - for phase 2 and the market place No Risk Proba-

bility

Impact Mitigation Type

1 Parasitic load of the pumps on

the OBR takes up too large a proportion of the energy

contained with the biogas,

making the system unviable

L-M H Seek to minimise the parasitic

load during engineering and testing phase of the project.

Phase 2 will address this issue

directly

T

2 Feedstock variations cause

technical issues with operability

L-M M Partner with an existing AD

plant that has consistency and

a well understood feedstock for testing the OBR

T

3 Gas production rates are not shown to be improved by OBRs

M M Focus on other key benefits of OBR if this proves to be the

case (throughput rates, down

time between batches etc.); cost benefits versus

incumbent technology

T

4 Complexity of OBR causes issues with maintenance if

problems occur

M M Use CPI’s engineering background knowledge across

various disciplines to learn lessons

T

5 The un-baffled zone in the

reactor (top u bend) does not prevent axial mixing –

therefore causing the OBR to become one mixed vessel

M-L H Address this issue during

commissioning to ensure that this phenomenon is not

occurring (assess using pulse tests - using an acidic solution

and appraise pH along the

length of the reactor to view axial dispersion)

T

6 Concentration of substrate is

limited due the nature of OBRs – feedstock has to be relatively

fluid

L M Adopt appropriate pre-

treatment of feedstock to ensure correct consistency for

the reactor

T

7 Valve blockages/blockages in

general

L-M M Ensure correct feedstock

consistency and adopt a

suitable feed protocol

T

8 Settling of particulates in the

reactor (in u bends)

L-M M Increase mixing intensity and

adjust frequency/amplitude to

create optimum conditions. Ensure the design is easily

disassembled for maintenance in case of blockages.

Document all lessons with respect to full scale design

T

9 Gas pockets in the top u-bends

dampen the oscillations in the reactor

L-M M Easily mitigated through

adjustments of valves in system design

T

10 Feedstock changes due to

fermentation whilst in storage

L M Control scientifically for the

purpose of phase 2 tests by pasteurisation

T

11 The market shows inertia to

the novelty of OBR due to perceived risks or lack of

understanding

M H Refer to the communication

plan – a clear and concise document and slide set

explaining the concept and

Ec



benefits of the technology,

alongside a rigorous business case

12 Costs of the system and

projected pay back periods are not seen as viable by the

market

L H Projections based on

assumptions previous data indicate strongly that the

plastic, modular system will be cheap and robust – ensure

that this rationale is revisited

regularly

Ec

13 Cost of technology too

expensive for scale of operation

L H Ensure the materials used and

modular design is suitable to

allow a relatively low unit cost

Ec

14 Difficult to attract finance for

build of novel technology for end users

L-M H Ensure a clear and rigorous

business case and implementation plan is

tailored to the audience as

appropriate

Ec

15 Operating procedures require

additional legislation to make

system viable for end users

L-M M Maintain close cooperation

with relevant authorities,

monitoring operating procedures and lessons

learned. Produce clear and concise SOPs

L

16 Further considerations of

legislation become necessary due to the type of wastes being

processed at small scale

L-M L-M Seek clarity on the types of

feedstocks that OBRs can handle and any associated

legal considerations with each. This information will

become clear once testing has

begun e.g. liquid-sold ratios etc.

L

17 Environmental issues arise

(odour, transport and disposal of digestate) from introduction

of numerous small-scale units

L-M M Ensure that smell issues are

clearly allowed for and mitigated against in the

finalised design of the system to be taken to market

En

18 Human infection by pathogens

present in feedstocks, during demonstration

L H Adhere to CPI’s well

established hygiene protocols (e.g. lab coats, hand gels,

hand washing etc.)

En & S

19 Contaminated wastes results in additional environmental

hazard with regard to process and digestate disposal

L H Identify safe and approved methods of disposal of

digestate, building on knowledge gained to date on

other CPI AD projects. Use contracted digestate approval

testing through trusted

providers

En

20 UK government incentives

make small scale AD systems

less attractive to the end user

L H Keep close contact with key

decision makers/lobbying

groups to monitor and encourage small scale AD

incentives

P

P, political; Ec, economic; S, social; T, technological; L, legal; En, environmental

L, low; M, medium; H, high



6.0 Economic/Cost benefit analysis 6.1 The market Anaerobic digestion has grown strongly in the last 10 years, particularly in markets that have provided strong financial incentives. In Germany, for example, thousands of farm-based plants and shared facilities saw capital expenditure total > £12 billion during the period 1999 to 2011. There are clear differences between the UK and German markets. Germany generally fosters a more cooperative approach, pooling feedstocks into large, central facilities, often using purpose grown AD crops such as maize – viable in some geographical scenarios – but a complex economic and ethical conundrum overall. The UK market is generally more dispersed, and a small scale, cost effective, on-site AD solution provides a clear route for the accelerated uptake of AD in the UK. The UK’s relative lag in deployment of AD presents a clear opportunity to embrace the next generation of AD technologies, more accurately matching feedstock scenarios and supply chains to suitably tailored facilities. Many of the operational and technical issues being experienced across Germany and the UK’s existing ‘bolt on’ infrastructure can be avoided by taking a more considered and strategic approach. There is currently around 145 MWe or approximately 1.08 TWh of installed AD capacity in the UK. Given this relatively low level and the quantities of feedstock likely to be available, there is no doubt that the industry has the capacity to grow substantially. The UK government’s current suite of financial incentives, including renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), renewable heat incentive (RHI) and feed in tariffs (FiTs) are inevitably offset against the initial capital investment required and the resulting pay back period. In simple terms, cheaper, more efficient and more productive technologies would improve the economics of the incentive framework and result in increased uptake. Recent figures indicate the order of magnitude of the current UK market demand (correct as of September 2011).

There are currently 78 waste fed plants which have received planning consent in the UK;

There are a further 27 farm fed plants which have received planning consent in the UK; and

There are another 80 plants within the planning system awaiting the outcome of their application.

These data give an indication of the current AD industry within the UK. Careful interpretation is needed as there is uncertainty about the number of plants progressing from planning through to operation. The OBR technology, applied to AD in this project presents a potential opportunity to provide scalable solutions for the micro to medium sized AD market. There is clearly an opportunity to create a highly distributed market, based on OBR technology, capable of being sited adjacent to the biomass which is to be converted, i.e. adjacent to the farm, supermarket, factory or crop-growing environment. The envisaged business model is based on the concept of technology licensing - to yield up front license payments, a royalty on sales and the potential for maintenance and upgrade packages.



6.2 Route to market The most viable route to market for CPI is to develop, protect and license the technology. This process is, as can be seen from the existing CPI patents, already well underway (see section 10). Phase 2 of this project will provide the key scientific evidence to take the technology through to market. Once the OBR has been developed and tested in phase 2, a key deliverable of the project will be a final design specification of the system, based on a scalable, modular philosophy. The technology will be taken to market through CPI’s wholly owned trading subsidiary, CPI Innovation Services Limited (CPIIS). Sales would be made via a network of distributers who would pay CPI to be licensor on appropriate terms. This would give rise to part of the income stream. For the first year, license fees would be deferred to year end. A royalty would also be taken on every unit sold. The reactor would be manufactured by, in the first instance, a single OEM to supply the equipment to a distribution network. A similar partnership would be established with a partner to provide the rest of the combined heat and power (CHP) delivery package and ancillary items. CPIIS will work in partnership with both parties to develop a sustainable servicing and maintenance package. Over the past 12 to 18 months, CPI has been in preliminary communication with several UK based blue chip companies and SMEs that could potentially have a use for OBR technology – both as an AD solution and as a potential route to manufacture compounds such as acetone, butanol and ethanol. All of these conversations are taking place under non-disclosure agreements and so the companies will not be named in this study. Phase 2 of this project will allow the conversations to move to the next level in terms of AD – as the evidence produced fosters confidence in the technology. It is not prudent to commit to a particular supplier of feedstock at this stage. On completion of commissioning, CPI will be in a position to make an informed decision on the most appropriate form of liquid and particulate based feedstock. This could include, for example, dairy wastes or ice cream wastes. CPI has an ample contact list on which to draw. 6.3 Marketing Understanding the various market sectors that offer most potential for OBR technology for AD will be critical to future business development. Adopting a technology license model, as described, requires the ability to clearly identify the players that are most likely to adopt innovative processes for their respective sectors’ waste management and sustainable energy needs. The communication plan sets out all of the target groups that will be addressed in the first instance. In the early stages, the key task will be to raise awareness across the board and then to build on feedback received to focus in on the best candidates for initial uptake. A CPI business manager will initially lead the marketing activity aimed at identifying attractive market sectors and key prospective customers beyond the obvious. 6.4 Return on investment and financial projections The following examples are based on assumptions for the scenarios given in terms of predicted cash flow, estimated discount factors and government incentives schemes (in this



case feed-in tariffs). They are designed to give a snapshot prediction of how the technology that stems from this project could be expected to pay back over a ten year period. The model involves assessing the predicted income based on an OBR system supplying a 100 kW gas engine for delivery of power (and heat) either locally or to the grid (for electricity). Discounted cash flow (DCF) methodology has been used to show scenarios for return on investment. A discount rate has been applied to allow for:

Inflation;

Corporate risk;

Opportunity cost (potential for return on an alternative investment); and

Potential impact of FIT degression.

Based on the above, the applicable discount rate has been estimated to be somewhere between 5 and 15%. The discount factor (DF) was calculated using the formula: 1/(1 + r)n Where r = discount rate and n = number of years The predicted cash flow for a given year is then multiplied by the DF to give the present value. Individual business – end user

Assumes the purchase of a single unit by an end-user business;

Feedstocks would typically consist of waste streams generated at point of installation (i.e. free of charge). For example, food wastes, animal slurries, silage, animal bedding;

Assumes retail price per 100kW OBR of £100,000;

Total initial investment: - 100 kW OBR = £100,000 - 100 kW engine/ancillaries/grid connection = £150,000 - Total = £250,000

On-going annual costs (including staff, maintenance etc.) of £50,000 (with an annual 3% increase on this estimate);

A conservative income estimate, below, assumes a FIT value at the time of writing and considers uncertainty around RHI details and degression, as well as cost benefits of waste disposal and availability of digestate;

To allow for parasitic load and on-site usage, a conservative estimate of 25% electricity generation has been factored in;

The residual 75% of electricity produced is sold to the grid for the price offered at the time of writing;

Assumes 24/7 operation with an overall down of time of 2 weeks for maintenance; and

Annual potential overall income generation of ~£150,000.

Applying a discounted cash flow analysis based on the above assumptions and an estimated discount rate of between 5 and 15%, the end user would be back into positive cash flow by year 4. In this scenario, the internal rate of return (IRR) for the project over ten years is just over 32%.



In addition to the clear benefits associated with the above – cash income, waste disposal, digestate supply for use on land etc. there are less obvious latent benefits to individual companies. These include intangible brand perception benefits through the end user’s association with cutting edge third generation AD technology and environmental responsibility. 6.5 Comparison to incumbent technology No detailed comparison to typical incumbent technology has been made and it is not yet possible to compare like with like in terms of scale of plant, on-going costs, incentives or initial capital investment. Phase 2 of the WRAP project will allow the pilot scale OBR to be appraised relative to a traditional, vertically oriented, 1,000L CSTR digester. This work will allow evidence based comparisons to be made. The main hypothesised benefits of the OBR system compared to existing technologies are dramatically reduced capital costs and improved throughput efficiency. It is in these variables that the WRAP phase 2 project hopes to demonstrate a step change in added value. The full picture will not become clear until the testing and demonstration work has been carried out under scientific conditions. 7.0 Overall environmental impacts The overall environmental impact is anticipated to be significantly lower than the existing impact for a conventional AD facility. This is largely because (a) the OBR design is amenable to modular construction using pre-fabricated materials – fostering an efficient design and build supply chain; (b) the focus is on optimising efficiency, thereby minimising the overall footprint and; (c) the technology is intended for a localised solution to waste management. Evidence for these anticipated benefits will be gathered throughout phase 2. 8.0 Methodology for demonstration 8.1 Delivery of proposal The demonstration equipment has already been designed, procured and built – through funding secured previously by CPI. A description of the existing equipment is given in the introductory sections of the report. The OBR technology is currently installed in the AD Development Centre, located within the east semi-tech area of the Wilton International Complex in an enclosed bay (25m x 12m x 13m high), complete with roller shutter door access. As all design and build work is complete, the project does not require identification of additional suppliers or contractors. The demonstration site and operational personnel are those already associated with the AD Development Centre at CPI. Feedstock supply will include one particulate and one liquid based substrate. A decision on the most appropriate type and origin of feedstock will be decided upon during the commissioning phase. This will allow an evidence based decision process and CPI has a wide range of contacts on which to draw – from SMEs to multi-national businesses. The standard operating procedure (SOP) description for the OBR pilot is complete and relates to those parts of the plant that have been tested prior to bringing the various pumps, vessels and tubular reactor modules together to complete the OBR pilot. The SOP for the tubular reactor and its integrated functioning within the completed facility will form part of the WRAP phase 2 programme of work and will be developed in line with commissioning.



This may include modification/elaboration of the existing SOP drafted below as they are likely to be influenced by the overall process. Please refer to section 9 for further details. 8.2 Demonstration site The demonstration site will be the AD Development Centre at CPI, Wilton Centre, Teesside, UK.



9.0 Project Plan

Work Package 1: Commissioning

Start date: Week 1 End date: Week 8 Anticipated total person days: 71

Work Package Objectives

Commission the AD OBR including development of HAZOP and SOP

Description of work The tasks below will include the following key aspects as appropriate:

Pressure tests to ensure OBR can operate without leakage/loss/ingress of gas/air. Tests with water and straw particles in water to ensure pump function and

continuous feed action, and to calibrate feed rate and feedback loop function of OBR.

Tests to ensure effective operation of feed and effluent vessels V1 and V2, including stirrer function, temperature control and exclusion of air from vessels.

Tests with water and straw particles in water to ensure oscillatory motion throughout OBR (with all baffles in place; plug flow operation).

Tests with water and straw particles in water to ensure oscillatory motion throughout OBR (with baffles removed from upper U-bends; pseudo-plug flow operation).

Test valve function by sparging gas (CO2) to column and quantifying collection. Test pH and temperature controls of OBR, including ability to control reactor zones. Test all addition/removal ports for correct function.

Tasks 1-9 T1: Health and safety studies – HAZOPs on OBR system T2: Commission with water and check for leak tight operation in current set up. T3: Check valve function T4: Ensure oscillation transmission T5: Ensure pseudo plug flow operation T6: Ensure continuous operation using a liquid feedstock T7: Ensure continuous operation using a particulate feedstock T8: Verify gas collection methodology T9: Based on T1-8, verify and expand SOPs

Equipment and facilities Pilot-scale OBR and general plant/laboratory facilities available in CPI’s AD Development Centre. CPI maintenance and workshop facilities to permit OBR modification as appropriate.

Summary of deliverables

Ref Title Due date Comments / Notes

D1 HAZOP study completed Week 8 CPI/Wilton sign-off required

D2 SOP’s (Standard Operating Procedures) written, approved and available to operator

Week 8 CPI/Wilton sign-off required



Work Package 2: Benchmarking in Conventional Digester


Work Package Objectives

Produce benchmarking data from one of CPI’s conventional 1,000 L vertical pilot AD for comparison to OBR

Description of work The experimental protocol for WPs 2 and 3 has been designed to test the null-hypothesis; that the rate of production and composition of biogas from the OBR reactor at steady state does not differ from produced by the conventional reactor. The objective of the experimental programme described in this WP is to provide benchmarking data which, when compared to the data obtained in WP3 will prove or disprove the null hypothesis.

CPI’s AD Development Centre houses two identical conventional, vertical AD reactors, each of 1,000 L capacity.

One of these will be made available to the WRAP study to permit bench marking for the purpose of comparison between the OBR and a conventional AD reactor.

The vertical reactor will be operated according to existing SOP and measurements for benchmarking purposes will be made at weekly intervals over the measurement intervals identified in the Gantt Chart

The reactor will ‘benchmark’ two feedstocks, with feedstock one being a liquid and the second, a slurry feedstock; both will be of high BOD. The same feedstocks will be used in comparative studies, conducted in parallel, in the OBR.

Benchmarking measurements will be made during steady state and will include biogas production rate and gas compositional analysis (CO2, CH4 H2S H2) as well as determinations of BOD and volatile solids reductions. Individual volatile fatty acids will be measured and pH and temperature recorded.

Residence time in the reactor for both feedstocks will be determined according to best practice, following discussions with feedstock providers, once the feedstock sources have been identified.

For each of the two feedstocks, a six week ‘run-in’ period, to bring the reactor to steady-state is programmed prior to the 8-week benchmarking period.

Two weeks of overlap between the run-in and benchmarking periods, have been included to ensure that the analytical measurements are defining steady state.

A 2-week clean down/transition/completion period is included between-feedstock. Tasks 10-15 T10: Introduce feedstock 1 to vertical digester and bring to steady state T11: Collect bench marking data (feedstock 1) T12: Clean down and transition T13: Introduce feedstock 2 to vertical digester and bring to steady state T14: Collect bench marking data (feedstock 2) T15: Clean down and completion



Equipment and facilities

Vertical (1,000 L capacity) AD plant and general plant/laboratory facilities available in CPI’s AD Development Centre.

CPI analytical facilities to permit benchmarking measurements to be made appropriate.



D3 Benchmarking data for feedstock 1 available

Week 22 Complete data set available following analytical chemistry at week 26

D4 Benchmarking data for feedstock 2 available


Work Package 3: OBR Testing


Work Package Objectives Optimising the pilot-scale OBR and data acquisition for benchmarking against the conventional 1,000 L vertical pilot AD plant.

Description of work The experimental protocol for WPs 2 and 3 has been designed to test the null-hypothesis; that the rate of production and composition of biogas from the OBR reactor at steady state does not differ from that produced by the conventional reactor. The objective of the experimental programme described in this WP is to optimise OBR productivity and to provide data which, when compare to the benchmarking data obtained in WP2 will prove or disprove the null hypothesis.

CPI’s AD Development Centre houses a pilot scale OBR reactor to be investigated in the WRAP project as a novel AD plant. The reactor has not yet been used for AD studies.

The OBR will be operated according to the HAZOP and SOP studies conducted in WP 1.

The OBR reactor will be optimised for AD in studies involving two feedstocks, with feedstock one being a liquid and the second, a slurry feedstock; both will be of high BOD. The same feedstocks will be used in comparative studies, conducted in parallel to benchmarking.

OBR measurements will be made during steady state and will include biogas production rate and gas compositional analysis (CO2, CH4 H2S H2) as well as determinations of BOD and volatile solids reductions. Individual volatile fatty acids will be measured and pH and temperature recorded.

Residence time in the reactor for both feedstocks will be determined according to best practice, following discussions with feedstock providers, once the feedstock sources have been identified.

For each of the two feedstocks, a six week ‘run-in’ period, to bring the reactor to steady-state is programmed prior to the 8-week data collection period.

Two weeks of overlap between the run-in and data collection periods, have been included to ensure that the analytical measurements are defining steady state.

A 2-week clean down/transition/completion period is included between-feedstock. A third experimental period is included (weeks 40 – 48) to permit pseudo-plug flow



studies, following removal of the U-bend baffled region from the upper part of the reactor. The feed for this period will be feedstock 2, the slurry.

One week period (week 39) has been set aside for removal of the U-bend baffles. Tasks 16-26 T16: Introduce feedstock 1 to OBR and bring to steady state T17: Investigate optimisation strategies (pH zoning, temp transition, loading, recycle) T18: Collect data T19: Clean down and transition T20: Introduce feedstock 2 to OBR and bring to steady state T21: Investigate optimisation strategies (pH zoning, temperature transition, loading, recycle) T22: Collect data T23: Baffle removal from upper arms T24: Use optimal feed and optimal conditions for pseudo-plug flow operation T25: Collect data T26: Clean down and completion

Equipment and facilities Pilot scale OBR and general plant/laboratory facilities available in CPI’s AD Development Centre. CPI analytical facilities to analyse samples and enable quantification of OBR performance.



D5 Data for OBR performance on feedstock 1 available


D6 Data for OBR performance on feedstock 2 available




Work Package 4: Data Reporting and Commercial planning


Work Package Objectives To collate, interpret and present the data generated to strengthen the overall commercial plan

Description of work Data collation will take place throughout WPs 2 and 3. In the first instance, this will involve the presentation of the associated data in tabular format (from the results of the tests as described in WPs 2 and 3 above). Once these work packages have been completed, an interpretation of the data in its entirety will be made and reported upon. Adhesion to scientific rigour will prevent any pre-judgement of the outcome of testing through premature interpretation of data. An ‘investor friendly’ presentation slides set and briefing document will be developed, based on the evidence generated during the project. Project outcomes will be used to add scientific merit to the commercial plan, strengthening the business case and facilitating further investment and licensing opportunities. Finally, a complete design specification will be produced, based on evidence from the entirety of the project. This will allow the commercial product to be taken to market, as described in section 6. Tasks 27-30 T27: Data interpretation, reporting and conclusions T28: Production of briefing document and presentation slides for general consumption T29: Revised commercial plan and next steps T30: Complete design specification suitable for market

Equipment and facilities Microsoft Excel, Word and PowerPoint IT and telephone equipment



D7 Briefing document and presentation slides for general consumption

Week 52 See sections 6 and

D8 Revised commercial plan and next steps

Week 52 See section 6

D9 A complete design specification suitable for market

Week 52 Draws upon all knowledge from the project and requires input from, in particular, WP3



9.1 Project communication plan The objectives of this plan are:

To identify the communication activities required to create a high level of initial visibility for the appropriate elements of the project, product and commercial offering - throughout the UK, Europe and key regions of the world. The detail of exactly what is communicated will be driven by the state of play of the project at a given moment in time, the relevant opportunities and, in particular, the audience being addressed.

To identify the organisations, groupings and events that can act as vehicles for marketing, communication and sales.

To assist with the execution of marketing and communication activities – starting within the timeframe of the demonstration project and continuing post project completion.

The project will aim to engage a number of stakeholders across a range of levels and sectors. CPI’s existing contacts database will facilitate this and it will be expanded throughout the project as further contacts are developed. Contacts will be segregated into categories based upon prior knowledge of AD and OBRs (high, medium and low). This will enable tailored communication materials to be targeted as necessary. Target groups have been identified as follows: 9.2 Industry groupings Key industry groupings can multiply the potential audience by disseminating material to their contact lists. The following UK industry groupings will be addressed in the first instance:

Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA);

Renewable Energy Association (REA);

National Farmers’ Union (NFU);

National Non-Food Crops Centre (NNFCC); and

Energy and Environment Industries Forum (EEIF).

Equivalent international groupings in the key target regions will be approached in a similar way, building on lessons learned when addressing the UK market. 9.3 Government Government agencies and funding bodies will be engaged. For example:

Central UK government departments: Defra, DECC and BIS;

Technology Strategy Board (TSB);

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP);

Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTNs);

European Commission e.g. Framework Programme groupings; and

The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera).

It is very important to identify the correct individuals within these settings in order to have the intended impact. CPI’s prior knowledge of these organisations and strong working relationships with key people will be used to facilitate the process.



9.4 Universities Universities with a high level of activity in AD and/or recognised centres of AD excellence should be addressed with respect to raising overall awareness. In the first instance, the following universities have been identified as being particularly relevant:

University of Southampton;

Newcastle University;

Harper Adams University College;

University of Glamorgan; and

University of Aberystwyth.

Internationally, universities with centres of AD excellence will be targeted in the longer term as an awareness raising exercise. 9.5 Innovation Centres A broad range of innovation centres currently form part of the existing UK and European technology landscape. Traditionally, these centres have been more dispersed in the UK, often linked to individual universities. The recent creation of the ‘Catapult’ centres has formalised this on a national level. CPI is a key member of the first Catapult – in high value manufacturing. This status will be used to link to other key players in the sector. There is a tendency towards a Catapult style system in other larger European countries (for example Fraunhofer in Germany and VTT in Finland). These will be targeted, once the UK market has been addressed. 9.6 Private sector The range of potentially interested private sector organisations is vast and CPI has a well-established database of contacts that will be used to address these companies. These include, for example:

AD technology manufacturers;

Farms;

The water industry;

Consultancies (e.g. ADAS);

Food processing companies; and

Breweries.

Licensing of the technology to technology manufacturers will be a key part of the strategic approach when engaging the private sector (see commercial plan). 9.7 Investors Dissemination tools will be tailored to suit the needs of investors. Scientific jargon and acronyms will be minimised and the key features and benefits of AD should be set out in plain English. This could include, for example, tailored press releases, flyers and presentation slides when addressing an investor audience. The ‘brand’ of next generation AD should be portrayed as a clean, high-tech industrial opportunity, supportive of jobs for the future, energy security, the mitigation of climate change and benefits to UK plc. Tried and trusted methods of communication will be employed to address the target groups identified above.



9.7.1 Briefing document A clear and concise document will be tailored to the audience to quickly convey the principles of the concept and benefits of the technology. Alongside this, the potential cost benefits and return on investment will be set out. 9.7.2 Website and flyer CPI has a team of marketing experts and the existing CPI web site will be used to showcase the OBR technology, once a suitable level of confidence and data has been achieved. It is anticipated that this will be the case approximately half way in to the 12 month project, see timetable below. A flyer will be used to disseminate an overview of the project at events and by email. 9.7.3 Presentations PowerPoint presentations will be used at events and in private meetings. The presentation will be tailored depending on the audience and time available. 9.7.4 Press releases Press releases will be used to announce significant project achievements. In general, specific AD-linked publications and organisations will be used as platforms, specifically the industry groupings identified above and their associated publications and web sites. 9.7.5 Networking The events identified below will provide a platform for networking. Open day at CPI On completion of the project, evidence collated during the demonstration phase will be used to foster confidence with investors and technology manufactures through an open day at CPI. The format will include detailed presentation of the project, the evidence for step change technological improvements, a tour of the AD Development Centre and viewing of the OBR demonstrator, the business case and a question and answer session. Interested parties will be invited to return to CPI on a confidential one to one basis for further discussion. A calendar of events has been developed and CPI staff will attend as appropriate. The majority of events will be UK based but there is an intention to attend European events, as and when necessary. These trips will be matched with other existing CPI projects as and when appropriate to maximise efficiency in terms of event fees, travel and subsistence. Presentation of the project will vary according to the event. Where possible, speaking slots will be secured. Project flyers and briefing documents will be distributed and CPI’s exhibition stand will be used to showcase the project where possible. Key events calendar The following events will take place during or shortly after the project has been completed, presenting an ideal platform to showcase the findings through exhibition, speaking slots and networking. CPI is due to attend these events and will seek to present the concepts and results of the demonstration project as appropriate.



Table 4: Key Events Calendar

Date Event title Comments

10th July 2012

WRAP investors’ day

Technical and business expertise required for presentation to 20-30 investors

July 2012/13 ADBA conference Speaking slots available at various exhibition seminars

October 2012/13

European Bio-energy Exposition and Conference (EBEC)

Speaking slots available at various exhibition seminars

Prov. October 2012/13

Innovate12/13 CPI may attend and exhibit as part of the national Catapult centre

9.7.6 On-going strategy The above activities are designed to raise general awareness across all key groups and sectors in the early stages - i.e. throughout phase 2 and in the weeks immediately after phase 2 completion. It is important not to exclude any one group until this ‘testing the water’ period has been completed. Communication and marketing activities will be refined as feedback is received, the level of interest is assessed and the most promising candidates for early uptake become apparent. A flexible approach to communication and marketing will be adopted so that CPI can respond to market pull and tailor information as appropriate to the audience. In this way, features and benefits of the technology will be matched to the interests and needs of specific groups. For example, certain groups may have more of interest in scalability for waste management across multiple sites, whereas others may be more concerned with capital costs and payback periods. 10.0 Commercialisation of technology post demonstration 10.1 Intellectual Property Review CPI has conducted a thorough review of the intellectual property (IP) status with regard to the novel application of oscillatory baffle reactors (OBRs) to the field of anaerobic digestion (AD). Patent searches have been conducted with respect to the development and publication of two related (but distinct) patents, as set out below. The patents are broader than AD alone, but AD is explicitly covered as an anaerobic process in patent 1. Both patents are international applications with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): 1. ANAEROBIC PROCESS PATENT This patent was filed on 11th December 2008 and published on 18th June 2009. It covers anaerobic processes (including both AD and fermentations) carried out in OBRs.



2. CONTINUOUS CULTURE OF ANAEROBIC SOLVENT-PRODUCING BACTERIA This patent was filed on 22nd March 2011 and published on 29th September 2011. It covers the anaerobic production of solvents by bacteria, carried out in OBRs. 10.2 Patent searches Patent searches have been carried out by a Patent Attorney. They have not been included here due to the large number of pages involved. These patent searches were carried out in relation to the filing of the above patents ahead of the filing dates given above. 10.3 Influence on WRAP phase 2 In general, there is quite a lot of cross over in the above patents. This is due to the way that the patents have evolved and does not cause an issue for this project - as both have been filed by CPI’s wholly owned trading subsidiary company – CPI Innovation Services Limited. A combination of the above patents gives CPI the necessary IP protection to proceed through to exploitation of the concept, post phase 2. It is hoped that phase 2 will lead to robust scientific evidence to support the efficacy of AD in OBRs - and their suitability for small scale, on site AD solutions across a range of sectors. In this way, the project will lead to a clear optimisation of AD, beyond the existing state-of-the-art and will be an avenue for deployment and commercial exploitation of a novel technology.



11.0 Evaluation and monitoring CPI will adhere to a project review meeting schedule. These meetings will include a teleconference update with WRAP personnel. A calendar of meetings with WRAP will be scheduled. This will include direct observation of the work being undertaken. Sharing of information will be agreed with respect to the applicable contractual terms for phase 2. 12.0 Health and Safety HAZOPs and other appropriate health and safety considerations are a key part of phase 2 WP1, to ensure safe operation of the equipment throughout the project. 13.0 Conclusions The following key conclusions can be inferred from phase 1:

The rationale for an OBR to be applied to AD testing and development is sound and CPI recommends that a testing and demonstration phase is the sensible next step.

The projected return on investment, as set out in section 6, is predicted to be attractive with respect to CPI, manufacturers and end users.

CPI believes that there is a clear market opportunity for a scalable, modular AD product, based on OBR technology and phase 2 of this project will assist in bringing this opportunity to fruition.

WRAP funding for phase 2 will enable the generation of scientific evidence that will show whether OBR technology has a place in the AD market.



References 1. Bellhouse, B.J., Bellhouse, F.H., Curl, C.M., MacMillan, T.I., Gunning, A.J., Spratt, E.H., MacMurray, S.B. & Nelems, J.M. A high efficiency membrane oxygenator and pulsatile pumping system, and its application to animal trials. ASAIO Journal 19, 72-79 (1973). 2. Bellhouse, B.J. Method for effecting heat or mass transfer. United States Patent 4075091 (1978, Published Feb. 21). 3. Cooper, J., Dowle, C.J., Donegan, S., Theodorou, M.K. & Houten, B.V. Anaerobic process. United States Patent US 2010/0291621 (2010, Published Nov. 18). 4. Rossi, G. The design of bioreactors. Hydrometallurgy 59, 217-231 (2001). 5. van Vliet, E., Derksen, J.J. & van den Akker, H.E.A. Turbulent mixing in a tubular reactor: Assessment of an FDF/LES approach. AIChE Journal 51, 725-739 (2005). 6. Sobey, I.J. On flow through furrowed channels. Part 1. Calculated flow patterns. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 96, 1-26 (1980). 7. Stephanoff, K.D., Sobey, I.J. & Bellhouse, B.J. On flow through furrowed channels. Part 2. Observed flow patterns. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 96, 27-32 (1980). 8. Harrison, S.T.L. & Mackley, M.R. A pulsatile flow bioreactor. Chemical Engineering Science 47, 490-493 (1992). 9. Brunold, C.R., Hunns, J.C.B., Mackley, M.R. & Thompson, J.W. Experimental observations on flow patterns and energy losses for oscillatory flow in ducts containing sharp edges. Chemical Engineering Science 44, 1227-1244 (1989). 10. Ni, X., Brogan, G., Struthers, A., Bennett, D.C. & Wilson, S.F. A systematic study of the effect of geometrical parameters on mixing time in oscillatory baffled columns. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 76, 635-642 (1998). 11. Neves-Saraiva, R.M.C. The characterisation of mixing for oscillatory flow within baffled tubes. [PhD dissertation], University of Cambridge, Cambridge (1998). 12. Harvey, A.P., Mackley, M.R. & Stonestreet, P. Operation and optimization of an oscillatory flow continuous reactor. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 40, 5371-5377 (2001). 13. Ni, X. & Gough, P. On the discussion of the dimensionless groups governing oscillatory flow in a baffled tube. Chemical Engineering Science 52, 3209-3212 (1997). 14. Dickens, A.W., Mackley, M.R. & Williams, H.R. Experimental residence time distribution measurements for unsteady flow in baffled tubes. Chemical Engineering Science 44, 1471-1479 (1989). 15. Mackley, M.R. & Stonestreet, P. Heat transfer and associated energy dissipation for oscillatory flow in baffled tubes. Chemical Engineering Science 50, 2211-2224 (1995). 16. Ni, X., Gao, S., Cumming, R.H. & Pritchard, D.W. A comparative study of mass transfer in yeast for a batch pulsed baffled bioreactor and a stirred tank fermenter. Chemical Engineering Science 50, 2127-2136 (1995). 17. Smith, K.B. The scale-up of oscillatory flow mixing. [PhD dissertation] (1999). 18. Smith, K.B. & Mackley, M.R. An experimental investigation into the scale-up of oscillatory flow mixing in baffled tubes. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 84, 1001-1011 (2006). 19. Stonestreet, P. & van der Veeken, P.M.J. The effects of oscillatory flow and bulk flow components on residence time distribution in baffled tube reactors. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 77, 671-684 (1999). 20. Levenspiel, O. Chemical Reaction Engineering, Edn. Third (Wiley, 1999). 21. Ni, X.-W. Continuous oscillatory baffled reactor technology Innovations in Pharmaceutical Technology 20, 90-96 (2006).



22. Ni, X., Cosgrove, J.A., Arnott, A.D., Greated, C.A. & Cumming, R.H. On the measurement of strain rate in an oscillatory baffled column using particle image velocimetry. Chemical Engineering Science 55, 3195-3208 (2000). 23. Anderson, C.J., Harris, M.C. & Deglon, D.A. Flotation in a novel oscillatory baffled column. Minerals Engineering 22, 1079-1087 (2009). 24. Hewgill, M.R., Mackley, M.R., Pandit, A.B. & Pannu, S.S. Enhancement of gas-liquid mass transfer using oscillatory flow in a baffled tube. Chemical Engineering Science 48, 799-809 (1993). 25. Jian, H. & Ni, X. A numerical study on the scale-up behaviour in oscillatory baffled columns. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 83, 1163-1170 (2005). 26. Stonestreet, P. & Harvey, A.P. A mixing-based design methodology for continuous oscillatory flow reactors. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 80, 31-44 (2002). 27. Biology-online. Shear rate. Accessed 15/12/11 (2010) - (available at http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Shear_rate). 28. Metzner, A.B. & Otto, R.E. Agitation of non-Newtonian fluids. AIChE Journal 3, 3-10 (1957). 29. Harnby, N., Edwards, M.F. & Nienow, A.W. Mixing in the process industries, Edn. 2nd. (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997). 30. Nagata, S. Mixing - principles and applications. (Kodansha, Tokyo, Japan; 1975). 31. Tanguy, P.A., Thibault, F. & De La Fuente, E.B. A new investigation of the Metzner-Otto concept for anchor mixing impellers. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 74, 222-228 (1996). 32. Harnby, N., Edwards, M.F. & Nienow, A.W. Mixing in the process industries, Edn. 2nd. (Butterworth-Heinemann, London; 1992). 33. Holland, F.A. & Chapman, F.S. Liquid mixing and processing in stirred tanks. (Reinhold, 1966). 34. van der Pol, L. & Tramper, J. Shear sensitivity of animal cells from a culture-medium perspective. Trends in biotechnology 16, 323-328 (1998). 35. Tramper, J., Williams, J.B., Joustra, D. & Vlak, J.M. Shear sensitivity of insect cells in suspension. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 8, 33-36 (1986). 36. Reese, E.T. & Ryu, D.Y. Shear inactivation of cellulase of Trichoderma reesei. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 2, 239-240 (1980). 37. Kaya, F., Heitmann, J.A. & Joyce, T.W. Deactivation of cellulase and hemicellulase in high shear fields. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology 30, 49-56 (1996). 38. Ganesh, K., Joshi, J.B. & Sawant, S.B. Cellulase deactivation in a stirred reactor. Biochemical Engineering Journal 4, 137-141 (2000). 39. Gunjikar, T.P., Sawant, S.B. & Joshi, J.B. Shear deactivation of cellulase, exoglucanase, endoglucanase, and β-glucosidase in a mechanically agitated reactor. Biotechnology Progress 17, 1166-1168 (2001). 40. Gudin, C. & Chaumont, D. Cell fragility - The key problem of microalgae mass production in closed photobioreactors. Bioresource Technology 38, 145-151 (1991). 41. Koh, P.T.L. & Schwarz, M.P. CFD modelling of bubble-particle collision rates and efficiencies in a flotation cell. Minerals Engineering 16, 1055-1059 (2003). 42. Troeger, C.N. & Harvey, A.P. The production of polyhydroxyalkanoates using an oscillatory baffled bioreactor Chemical Product and Process Modeling 4 (2009). 43. Jenzsch, M., Lange, M., BÃ¤r, J., Rahfeld, J.U. & Lubbert, A. Bioreactor retrofitting to avoid aeration with oxygen in Pichia pastoris cultivation processes for recombinant protein production. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 82, 1144-1152 (2004). 44. Finn, R.K. Agitation-aeration in the laboratory and in industry. Bacteriological Reviews 18, 254-274 (1954).

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Shear_rate)



45. Van't Riet, K. Review of measuring methods and results in nonviscous gas-liquid mass transfer in stirred vessels. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 18, 357-364 (1979). 46. Ni, X. Residence time distribution measurements in a pulsed baffled tube bundle. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 59, 213-221 (1994). 47. Deublein, D. & Steinhauser, A. Biogas from waste and renewable resources. (Wiley-Vch, Verlag; 2008). 48. Masngut, N., Harvey, A.P. & Ikwebe, J. Potential uses of oscillatory baffled reactors for biofuel production. Biofuels 1, 605-619 (2010). 49. Harvey, A.P., Mackley, M.R. & Seliger, T. Process intensification of biodiesel production using a continuous oscillatory flow reactor. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 78, 338-341 (2003). 50. Wilson, B., Sherrington, D.C. & Ni, X. Butylation of phenylacetonitrile in an oscillatory baffled reactor. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 44, 8663-8670 (2005). 51. Mignard, D., Amin, L.P. & Ni, X. Determination of breakage rates of oil droplets in a continuous oscillatory baffled tube. Chemical Engineering Science 61, 6902-6917 (2006). 52. Mignard, D., Amin, L. & Ni, X.-W. Modelling of droplet breakage probabilities in an oscillatory baffled reactor. Chemical Engineering Science 59, 2189-2200 (2004). 53. Zhang, Y., Ni, X. & Mustafa, I. A study of oil–water dispersion in a pulsed baffled reactor. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 66, 305-311 (1996). 54. Gao, P., Han Ching, W., Herrmann, M., Kwong Chan, C. & Yue, P.L. Photooxidation of a model pollutant in an oscillatory flow reactor with baffles. Chemical Engineering Science 58, 1013-1020 (2003). 55. Fabiyi, M.E. & Skelton, R.L. The application of oscillatory flow mixing to photocatalytic wet oxidation. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 129, 17-24 (1999). 56. Ni, X., Zhang, Y. & Mustafa, I. Correlation of polymer particle size with droplet size in suspension polymerisation of methylmethacrylate in a batch oscillatory-baffled reactor. Chemical Engineering Science 54, 841-850 (1999). 57. Brown, C.J. & Ni, X.-W. Evaluation of growth kinetics of antisolvent crystallization of paracetamol in an oscillatory baffled crystallizer utilizing video imaging. Crystal Growth & Design 11, 3994-4000 (2011). 58. Brown, C.J. & Ni, X. Online evaluation of paracetamol antisolvent crystallization growth rate with video imaging in an oscillatory baffled crystallizer. Crystal Growth & Design 11, 719-725 (2011). 59. Ni, X.-W., Valentine, A., Liao, A., Sermage, S.B.C., Thomson, G.B. & Roberts, K.J. On the crystal polymorphic forms of L-glutamic acid following temperature programmed crystallization in a batch oscillatory baffled crystallizer. Crystal Growth & Design 4, 1129-1135 (2004). 60. Ni, X. Continuous crystallization: Right here, right now. Speciality Chemicals Magazine 29, 28-30 (2009). 61. Lawton, S., Steele, G., Shering, P., Zhao, L., Laird, I. & Ni, X.-W. Continuous crystallization of pharmaceuticals using a continuous oscillatory baffled crystallizer. Organic Process Research & Development 13, 1357-1363 (2009). 62. Chew, C.M. & Ristic, R.I. Crystallization by oscillatory and conventional mixing at constant power density. AIChE Journal 51, 1576-1579 (2005). 63. Chew, C.M., Ristic, R.I., Dennehy, R.D. & De Yoreo, J.J. Crystallization of paracetamol under oscillatory flow mixing conditions. Crystal Growth & Design 4, 1045-1052 (2004). 64. Ristic, R.I. Oscillatory mixing for crystallization of high crystal perfection pharmaceuticals. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 85, 937-944 (2007). 65. Lee, C.T., Mackley, M.R., Stonestreet, P. & Middelberg, A.P.J. Protein refolding in an oscillatory flow reactor. Biotechnology Letters 23, 1899-1901 (2001).



66. Lee, C.T., Buswell, A.M. & Middelberg, A.P.J. The influence of mixing on lysozyme renaturation during refolding in an oscillatory flow and a stirred-tank reactor. Chemical Engineering Science 57, 1679-1684 (2002). 67. Reis, N. Novel oscillatory flow reactors for biotechnological applications. [PhD dissertation] (2006). 68. Ikwebe, J. & Harvey, A.P. Intensification of bioethanol production by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) in an oscillatory baffled reactor (OBR). World Renewable Energy Congress 2011 - Sweden Bioenergy Technology (BE) (2011). 69. Ni, X., Cosgrove, J.A., Cumming, R.H., Greated, C.A., Murray, K.R. & Norman, P. Experimental study of flocculation of bentonite and Alcaligenes eutrophus in a batch oscillatory baffled flocculator. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 79, 33-40 (2001). 70. Takriff, M.S., Masngut, N., Kadhum, A.A.H., Kalil, M.S. & Mohammad, A.W. Solvent fermentation from palm oil mill effluent using Clostridium acetobutylicum in oscillatory flow bioreactor. Sains Malaysiana 38, 191-196 (2009). 71. Cooper, J., Dowle, C.J., Donegan, S., Theodorou, M.K., van Houten, B. & Perez, G.V. Continuous culture of anaerobic solvent-producing bacteria. World Intellectual Property Organisation WO 2011/117625 (2011, Published Sep. 29). 72. Gaidhani, H.K., McNeil, B. & Ni, X. Fermentation of pullulan using an oscillatory baffled fermenter. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 83, 640-645 (2005). 73. Reis, N., Gonçalves, C., Aguedo, M., Gomes, N., Teixeira, J. & Vicente, A. Application of a novel oscillatory flow micro-bioreactor to the production of γ-decalactone in a two immiscible liquid phase medium. Biotechnology Letters 28, 485-490 (2006). 74. Reis, N., Gonçalves, C.N., Vicente, A.A. & Teixeira, J.A. Proof-of-concept of a novel micro-bioreactor for fast development of industrial bioprocesses. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 95, 744-753 (2006). 75. Harvey, A.P. & Lee, J. Continuous oscillatory baffled photobioreactors. [Online], Available at: http://pig.ncl.ac.uk/continuous_obpr.htm (2012). 76. Lynd, L.R. & Wang, M.Q. A product-nonspecific framework for evaluating the potential of biomass-based products to displace fossil fuels. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7, 17-32 (2003). 77. Sarkar, N., Ghosh, S.K., Bannerjee, S. & Aikat, K. Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: An overview. Renewable Energy 37, 19-27 (2012). 78. Abdel-Rahman, M.A., Tashiro, Y. & Sonomoto, K. Lactic acid production from lignocellulose-derived sugars using lactic acid bacteria: Overview and limits. Journal of Biotechnology 156, 286-301 (2011). 79. Saha, B.C. & Cotta, M.A. Ethanol production from alkaline peroxide pretreated enzymatically saccharified wheat straw. Biotechnology Progress 22, 449-453 (2006). 80. Gao, P., Qu, Y., Zhao, X., Zhu, M. & Duan, Y. Screening microbial strain for improving the nutritional value of wheat and corn straws as animal feed. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 20, 581-584 (1997). 81. Agbor, V.B., Cicek, N., Sparling, R., Berlin, A. & Levin, D.B. Biomass pretreatment: Fundamentals toward application. Biotechnology Advances 29, 675-685 (2011). 82. Saha, B.C., Iten, L.B., Cotta, M.A. & Wu, Y.V. Dilute acid pretreatment, enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of wheat straw to ethanol. Process Biochemistry 40, 3693-3700 (2005). 83. Xiao, Z., Zhang, X., Gregg, D. & Saddler, J. Effects of sugar inhibition on cellulases and beta-glucosidase during enzymatic hydrolysis of softwood substrates. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 115, 1115-1126 (2004). 84. Kumakura, M. Effect of calcium ions on the irradiation induced inactivation of cellulase. Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies 32, 411-419 (1996). 85. Demerdash, M. & Attia, R.M. Thermal deactivation kinetics of Cm-cellulase from a local isolate of Aspergillus niger. Zbl. Mikrobiol 147, 477-482 (1992).

http://pig.ncl.ac.uk/continuous_obpr.htm



86. Gan, Q., Allen, S.J. & Taylor, G. Kinetic dynamics in heterogeneous enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: an overview, an experimental study and mathematical modelling. Process Biochemistry 38, 1003-1018 (2003). 87. Adney, B. & Baker, J. Measurement of Cellulase Activities. NERL/TP-510-42628. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Goldon, CO. (1996). 88. Singh, R.S., Saini, G.K. & Kennedy, J.F. Pullulan: Microbial sources, production and applications. Carbohydrate Polymers 73, 515-531 (2008). 89. Leathers, T.D. Biotechnological production and applications of pullulan. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 62, 468-473 (2003). 90. Bombac, A. & Zun, I. Individual impeller flooding in aerated vessel stirred by multiple-Rushton impellers. Chemical Engineering Journal 116, 85-95 (2006). 91. Rau, U., Gura, E., Olszewski, E. & Wagner, F. Enhanced glucan formation of filamentous fungi by effective mixing, oxygen limitation and fed-batch processing. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 9, 19-25 (1992). 92. Leib, T.M., Pereira, C.J. & Villadsen, J. Bioreactors: a chemical engineering perspective. Chemical Engineering Science 56, 5485-5497 (2001). 93. Madi, N.S. Exoplysaccharide elaboration by the polymorphic fungus Aureobasidium pullulans. [PhD dissertation], Strathclyde University (1995). 94. Rho, D., Mulchandani, A., Luang, J. & LeDuy, A. Oxygen requirements in pullulan fermentation. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 28, 361-366 (1988). 95. McNeil, B. & Kristiansen, B. Influence of impeller speed upon the pullulan fermentation. Biotechnology Letters 9, 101-104 (1987). 96. Wecker, A. & Onken, U. Influence of dissolved oxygen concentration and shear rate on the production of pullulan by Aureobasidium pullulans. Biotechnology Letters 13, 155-160 (1991). 97. Gibbs, P.A. & Seviour, R.J. Influence of bioreactor design on exopolysaccharide production by Aureobasidium pullulans. Biotechnology Letters 14, 491-494 (1992). 98. Ni, X. Method and apparatus for phase separated synthesis. United States Patent US 006429268 (2002, Published Aug 6). 99. Wu, J., Hu, X., Li, X. & Yuan, C. Tubular oscillatory flow reactor with multiple conical ring baffles inside for reaction mixture of high solid content. Chinese Patent CN 100398191 (2008, Published July 2). 100. Ni, X., Laird, I. & Liao, A. Apparatus and method for temperature controlled process. United States Patent US 2009/0304890 (2009, Published Dec. 10). 101. Ni, X., Fitch, A.W. & Laird, I. Apparatus and method for applying oscillatory motion. United States Patent US 2009/0245015 (2009, Published Oct. 1). 102. Ni, X., Fitch, A.W. & Laird, I. Method and apparatus for fluid liquid reactions. United States Patent US 2010/0216631 (2010, Published Aug. 26). 103. Loyd, J., Cooper, J., Dowle, C.J. & Donegan, S. The reduction of redox-sensitive substances by bacteria of the genus Alteromonas or Shewanella. UK Patent GB 2461695 (2010, Published Jan. 13). 104. Ni, X., Fitch, A.W. & Laird, I. Mixing apparatus and process. United States Patent US 2010/0124145 (2010, Published May 20). 105. Mang, M.E., Lawrynowiez, K., Young, E.F. & Sweeney, M.A. Continuous process for producing toner using an oscillatory flow continuous reactor. United States Patent US 2012/0021351 (2012, Published Jan. 26).

www.wrap.org.uk/diad

Documents

Feasibility Report Feasibility for the testing and ... for the testing and... · Feasibility for the testing and demonstration of an oscillatory baffle ... OBR demonstrator and lab