EPA-600/2-77-048
February 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
STATE OF THE ART: Wastewater
Management in the Beverage
Industry
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
EPA-600/2-77-048
February 1977
STATE OF THE ART:
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE BEVERAGE INDUSTRY
By
Michael E. Joyce
James F. Scaief
Max W. Cochrane
Kenneth A. Postal
Food and Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Con/all is, Oregon 97330
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on
our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (IERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and econo-
mically.
This study was designed to investigate, primarily through literature,
the impact of beverage industry wastes on water pollution and the methods
available to combat the associated problems. The report includes the malt
liquor, malting, soft drink, flavoring, wine and brandy, rum, and distilled
spirits industries. For further information contact the Food and Wood
Food and Wood Products Branch of IERL-Ci.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
m
-------
ABSTRACT
The general purpose of this paper is to investigate, through the li-
terature, the water pollution impact caused by the wastes from the beverage
industry and the methods available to combat the associated problems.
The size of each industry is discussed along with production processes,
wastewater sources and effluent characteristics. Wastewater management
techniques are described in terms of in-plant recycling, by-product recovery
and end-of-pipe treatment along with the economics of treatment.
The malt liquor, malting, soft drinks and flavoring industries primarily
dispose of their effluents in municipal sewers. In-plant recycling and by-
product recovery techniques have been developed in these industries to reduce
their raw waste load. The wine and brandy and distilled spirits industries
in many cases must treat their own effluents so they have developed waste-
water management systems including industry-owned treatment plants that yield
good effluents. The technology to adequately treat rum distillery waste-
water has not been demonstrated.
The information basis for this paper was a literature search, an
effluent guidelines report done for EPA, limited site visits, personal
communications and an unpublished report conducted for EPA that included
questionaire surveys of the industries.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i i
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
List of Abbreviations and Conversion Factors ix
I. Introduction 1
II. Summary and Conclusions 3
III. SIC 2082 Malt Liquor 5
IV. SIC 2083 Malt 23
V. SIC 2084 Wine and Brandy "37
VI. SIC 2085 Distilled Liquors Except Brandy 58
VII. SIC 2086 Canned and Bottled Soft Drinks 73
VIII. SIC 2087 Flavorings and Extracts 85
IX. Economics 96
References 100
Bibliography 106
Glossary 109
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1 Process Diagram for Malt Liquor Production 7
2 Brewery Input-Output Characteristics 8
3 Flow Diagram for Pabst's Waste Treatment Plant 18
4 Flow Diagram for Coor's Waste Treatment Plant 21
5 Bushels of Malt Produced Per Bushel of Barley 26
Processed
6 Malting Typical Standard Manufacturing Process 28
7 Malt House Input-Output Characteristics 29
8 Percentage of Municipal Plant Load Due to Malt 34
House Contribution
9 Malt House Effluent Treatment Facilities 36
10 Red Wine Production Diagram 41
11 White Wine Production Diagram 42
12 Brandy and Wine Spirits Production 45
13 Flow Diagram for Widmer's Waste Treatment 54
Facility
14 Process Diagram for Grain Distilleries 59
15 Process Diagram for Rum Distilleries 62
16 Percent of Plants Surveyed Practicing Various 68
Degrees of Cooling Water Recycle
17 Dry House Operations 69
VI
-------
No. Page
18 Flow Diagram of Standard Manufacturing Process- 77
Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks
19 Cold Pressed Citrus Oils Production Process 90
20 Beverage Base for Carbonated Drinks Production 92
Process
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1 Geographic Distribution of Breweries and 5
Capacity, 1974
2 Water Usage Within a Brewery 6
3 Brewery Total Effluent Characteristics 9
4 Effluent Characteristics for Different Classes 9
of Breweries
5 Sources of Pollutants from a Brewery 10
6 Principal Waste Streams from the Brewing 10
Process
7 Raw Waste Contributions from In-Plant Sources 11
8 Typical Concentrations of Wastes Discharged 11
from Specific Brewery Operations
9 Overall Plant Raw Waste Characteristics 15
10 Coor's Barley Malt Protein 16
11 Loading and Efficiency of City Treatment Plants 17
Containing Brewery Wastes
12 Treatment Plant Design Loadings for Pabst 19
Brewery, Perry, Georgia
13 Performance of Pabst Brewery Treatment Plant 20
14 Coors Raw Waste and Effluent Parameters 22
15 Distribution of Malt Plants 23
16 Estimated Value of Malt Shipments, 1958-67 24
17 Employment and Payroll in the Malt Industry, 24
1958-1969
vm
-------
No. Page
18 Projected Industrial Growth to 1980 25
19 Malt House Effluent Characteristics 27
20 Characteristics of the Steeping Operation 30
21 Characteristics of the Germination Operation 31
22 Characteristics of Total Process Water 31
23 Characteristics of Solid Waste 32
24 Malt House Water Temperature Characteristics 32
25 Coors Malt Pellets 33
26 Projected Industrial Growth to 1980 35
27 Gross Wine Production, By State, Crop Years 37
1967-1971
28 Bonded Winery Premises - U.S., 1963-72 39
29 Characteristics of Winery Wastewater Sources 47
30 Wastewater Treatment for New York Wineries 47
31 Wastewater Characteristics for Non-Distilling 48
California Wineries
32 Wine Stillage Characteristics 49
33 Relation of Volume of Stillage to Alcohol 55
in Distilling Material
34 Distribution of Pollution Loads of a Distilling 61
Plant Operating at an Average of 225 Metric
Tons (9000 Bushels) of Grain Per Day for Five
Days a Week
35 Average Wastewater Characteristics - Grain 63
Distillery
36 Average Wastewater Characteristics by Process 63
Area-Grain Distilling
37 Distillery and Dryhouse Wastes from a Typical 64
Plant
38 Typical Analysis of Raw Waste from Rum 65
Production
ix
-------
No. Page
39 Typical Analysis of Raw Waste from Rum 65
Production
40 Hastewater Generation in Rum Production 66
41 Waste Analyses of the Effluents from Soft 79
Drink Bottling Plants
42 Waste Loads Discharged from Soft Drink 80
Bottling Plants per Cubic Meter Finished
Product
43 Soft Drink Process Effluent BOD5 80
44 Annual Production Vs. Water Use in Thirteen 82
Soft Drink Plants
45 Critical Analysis of Soft Drink Industry 83
Survey Data
46 Decline in Number of Plants 86
47 Geographic Distribution of Plants 86
48 Water Use as a Function of Plant Size, 1967 91
49 A Comparison of Plant Employment and Water 93
Use
50 Wastewater Characteristics Cleveland Sample, 93
1970
51 Economics of Beverage Industry Treatment 97
Systems
52 Itemized Cost Summary for Aerated Lagoon 98
System - New Large Breweries
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
ABBREVIATIONS
% —percent
bbl --barrel
BOD --biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5 —5-day biochemical oxygen demand
bu --bushel
°C —degrees Celsius
cm —centimeter
COD --chemical oxygen demand
cu yd —cubic yard
gm —gram
gpd --gallons per day
gpm --gallons per minute
ha --hectare
kg --kilogram
kkg --1000 kilograms
kw-hr --kilowatt-hour
1 --liter
Ib --pound
m --meter
mg --milligram
XI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
MGD, mgd --million gallons per day
mgy --million gallons per year
ml --milliliter
sec --seconds
SIC --standard industrial classification
ss --suspended solids
yr --year
CONVERSION FACTORS
3.785 1 = 1 gal = 128 ounces
31 gal = 1 barrel (beer)
.4536 kg = 1 Ib
1 bushel = 0.03524 m3
(a) barley = 21.7 kg
(b) malt = 15.4 kg
(c) distillers grain = 25 kg
metric ton = 1000 kg
1 hectare = 2.471 acres
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. beverage industry is very large and diversified with
total shipments worth over $14 billion in 1974 (67). This report will
cover the extent and type of wastewater produced by this industry along with
wastewater management schemes that have been either employed or investi-
gated.
Available literature was used as the primary information basis and
over 80 references are cited. This was accomplished by personal survey,
three computer conducted searches and the cooperation of the represen-
tative trade associations. The libraries of certain trade associations
contain an excellent collection of waste management related literature.
A second source of information i.s an unpublished report. This was
a questionnaire survey of the beverage industry conducted for EPA under
Contract No. 1412-914. A few personal contacts with people in the
industry were made to obtain specific information along with a general
overview of the industry.
The beverage industry was divided into six segments for study.
They are listed below with their standard industrial classification
number, production value, and wastewater volume (61, 64, 66, 67).
Wastewater
Production Volume
SIC Industry IP9 $/yr 1Q6 m3/yr (1968)
2082 Malt Liquor $4.8/74 220
2083 Malt Industry 0.22/67 30
2084 Wine and Brandy 1/74 11
2085 Distilled Liquors Except
Brandy 1.6/74 68
2086 Canned and Bottled Soft
Drinks 6.5/74 23
2087 Flavorings and Extracts 1.5/71 3.8
The approach used to describe each industry and its water pollution
control problems is basically the same. The location of each industry
is investigated, including geographical location within the United States,
as is the associated climate (if it is a factor) plus the industry's
proximity to population centers (rural or urban). Total size of each
-------
industry is included along with individual plant sizes where they are
relevant. Growth projections for the industries are also included.
A general production scheme is given for each industry because
individual processes can vary between facilities. This general scheme
is also used to identify the specific wastewater sources. Whenever the
information was available, these sources along with the total effluent
were characterized using standard water quality parameters.
This report discusses the wastewater management techniques that have
been used or investigated by each industry. These management methods
are discussed in terms of recycling, by-product recovery and wastewater
treatment. An economic analysis of these methods proved very difficult
in many cases. Frequently, no cost data are presented in the original
articles or they may be too old to be relevant. However, costs estimates
are made where they are feasible and are presented in Section IX.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Waste management in the malt liquor industry is generally split
between the small and large breweries with respect to the extent of
recycling and by-product recovery. The smaller breweries are more
likely to sewer the spent grain press liquor, trub, excess yeast, and
lost beer, and dispose of spent grains and hops wet. The larger breweries
are involved in recycling and by-product recovery to varying degrees.
The technology exists for extensive by-product recovery and with increasing
municipal surcharges, the practice of this technology is likely to
increase.
Only two breweries operate their own wastewater treatment systems.
With the present trend to locate in rural areas and smaller towns,
the possible contribution to the municipal treatment system will become
more significant. This will necessitate the expansion of municipal
systems to handle the brewery waste which is high in organics, solids,
and volume, and is variable in flow and strength.
The malt industry is a large discharger of wastewater with over
7000 liters per 1000 kg of barley processed. Approximately 80 percent of the
plants discharge to municipal treatment and can contribute up to 20
percent of the flow and 50 percent of the BODg. The wastes present
no unusual waste treatment problems if the system is designed to handle
the industry's contribution.
By-product recovery is very limited in the malting industry, but a
potential exists for utilizing the malt sprouts and roots. These can be
combined with spent grains, hops, and trub from brewery operations to
produce a cattle feed. This would require a convenient source of these
wastes from the brewery operation and may not be practical for malt
houses operating independently from breweries.
The mode of wastewater management in the wine industry is dependent
upon whether the winery operates a still and upon the geographic location.
Brandy stillage can be a problem due to its high BODs (10,000 mg/1), SS,
and acidity. These characteristics along with the seasonal nature of the
industry make it difficult to treat by conventional biological methods.
At the present all U.S. brandy distilleries are located in California's
central valleys. The conditions there, hot, dry summers and sandy soils,
make for ideal land disposal of both still age and winery wastes. Eastern
wineries require biological treatment due to heavier rainfall, cooler
climate, and the recreational nature of lakes and streams receiving their
discharge.
-------
By-products of the wine industry are the fertilizer and soil condi-
tioner values of pomace and stems. Pomace is also successfully blended
into livestock feed.
A potential exists for tartrate recovery and grape seed oil production.
The tartrate is contained in the pomace, still age, lees, and argols.
The technology exists for recovery of tartrate from each of these sources,
but the market is such as to not make it feasible at present.
Grape seed oil, produced in Europe since World War I has the charac-
teristics of a good salad oil. The flavor is pleasant, it is resistant
to clouding at cool temperatures, and is stable while frying. Production
of the oil is not practiced in the United States at present.
Grain distilleries have a wastewater that is a potentially strong,
high volume effluent. Complete or partial recovery of the spent grains,
widely practiced in the industry, is essential in reducing the waste
load. The smaller distilleries haul the spent grains away wet as live-
stock feed while the larger ones operate a R"dry house" to concentrate
the still age for both livestock and poultry feed. Treatment of the
remaining wastes in biological treatment systems has been successful and
about 50 percent of the plants discharge to municipal systems.
Rum producing distilleries have a stillage waste that is of high
temperature, 80-90°C, high strength, BOD5 of 60,000 mg/1, and has a dark
brown color. Due to the predominantly soluble nature of the stillage solids,
recovery is not practiced on a commercial scale. Promising pilot-plant
work might lead to full-scale by-product recovery of potassium salts from
the still age.
Biological treatment methods center mainly on anaerobic systems due
to the high oxygen demand of an aerobic system treating these wastes.
Methane recovery has possibilities in reducing treatment costs by anaerobic
methods. For treatment prior to discharge, an aerobic system with solids
removal would be needed following the anaerobic system. Most of the
rum distilleries are located in Puerto Rico where the wastewaters are not
treated prior to disposal.
The soft drink and flavoring and extracts industries almost univer-
sally discharge to municipal treatment where they produce no significant
problem. Wastewater form the soft drink industry is chiefly bottle
washing and rinsing and washwater is the main waste generator in the
flavoring and extracts industry. For both industries, water conservation
will significantly reduce the wastewater volumes.
Estimated yearly capital and operating costs of treatment for the
industries using activated sludge vary from $49,000 for a typical soft
drink canner to $3.1 million for an old large brewery. Surcharges for
municipal treatment vary but have been estimated from $8.00 to $2700/mo
depending on the strength and volume of the wastewater.
-------
SECTION III
S.I.C. 2082 MALT LIQUOR
Industry Description
The malt liquor industry in the United States is the world's largest
with total sales of 17.4 million m3 in 1973 worth $4.3 billion. Per
capita consumption was 112 1/yr in 1973. The brewing industry is a very
heavy user of water with about 100 facilities discharging in excess of
230 million m3 of wastewater/yr (67).
Breweries are scattered through the United States with most large
facilities located in or near large urban areas. In recent years, the
southern states as a geographical area have shown the greatest percentage
increase in production but the north central states still account for
45 percent of the total U.S. brewing capacity. Table 1 gives geographic
distribution of U.S. breweries.
TABLE 1. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF BREWERIES AND CAPACITY, 1974 (39)
Region
Northeast
North Central
South
West
TOTALS
Plant
Numbers
30
30
25
15
100
Percent
30
30
25
15
100
Total Year Capacity
106 m3 (106 bbl)
3.67 (31.3)
8.34 (71.1)
4.69 (40.0)
2.03 (17.3)
18.70 (159.7)
Percent
20
45
25
10
100
In recent years, the trend has been toward more production with
fewer facilities. In 1967, 185 breweries produced about 12.7 million
m3 of beer and by 1973 129 breweries produced 17.4 million m3. This
trend will likely continue. As a whole, the industry is projected to
grow at a rate of 6.7% per year making shipments worth $7.3 billion by
1980 (67). This growth will result from an increased number of people in
the 18-44 age group.
-------
Production Methods and WastewaterSources
The basic processes and raw materials used to make beer are quite
standard throughout the industry. A general outline of these procedures
and the resulting wastes is given below. A process diagram is shown in
Figure 1.
The brewing of beer is a batch process. First, the cereal grains
(rice or corn) are cooked to solubilize the starches. Then, the grains
are mixed with malt to allow the malt enzymes to convert the starches to
sugars. This mixture of malt and grains is referred to as the "mash."
The mash is sent to the mash filter press to remove the spent grain which
is a valuable by-product. The remaining clear liquor (wort) is sent to
the brew kettle where hops are added for flavor. The mixture is boiled
to coagulate the undesirable protein (trub). Then, the hops are strained
out in the hop jack and the wort is pumped to the wort cooler where the
trub is removed as a sludge-like sediment. Frequently, the cooled wort
is filtered with diatomaceous earth to remove any residual trub. The clear
wort is sent to the fermentor where yeast is added to convert the sugars
to alcohol and carbon dioxide. After the fermentation is complete, the
excess yeast is removed and the beer is cooled and placed in primary storage.
After sufficient aging in primary storage, the beer is filtered, carbonated,
and placed in secondary storage to await packaging. The filters remove
the residual yeast. The beer may be filtered again just prior to packaging.
The product is sold in bottles, cans, or barrels.
Figure 2 gives a summary of the raw materials used to make a cubic
meter of beer and Table 2 gives a breakdown of water usage within the
brewery.
TABLE 2. WATER USAGE WITHIN A BREWERY (2)
Process Water Usage (m^/m^ beer)
Cooling Water 1.42
Process Water 3.6
Bottle Washing 2.9
Misc. 3.1
Wastewater Characteristics
Although there may be large temporal variations in production, most
breweries operate throughout the year. Generally, breweries combine all
the individual waste streams except cooling water into a single stream.
Brewing effluents are high in soluble organics, low in nutrients and
high in temperature. Table 3 lists some of the characteristics of a
brewery's total effluent and Table 4 shows the differences in effluent
-------
WATER
*
GRAIN GRAIN
ADJUNCT COOKER
r
MALT MASH
COOKER
~T T
/I WATER |
S
-' MASH
FILTER
1
SPENT GRAINS]
__ ..
i r
f WET SPENT
( GRAINS
V STORAGE
\
SCREEN
\
( PRESS }
*
/ DRYER V
t
LIVESTOCK
FEED
)
r EXCESS __,
YEAST
HOPS
J.
^r
WORT BREW
KETTLE
SPENT HOPS
1
1
1
J
JIRJJB
RESIDUAL TRUB
FILTER CAKE
1 ^
v><
< or r
uo
>-l- ._ _
to —
~I
»• HOP
1
|
i
WORT
COOLER
1
1
— wn
FIL
* '
RT
TER
FERMENTER --
! <
'
J /PRIMARY^
! STORAGE/ 1
_! i
YEAST
FILTER CAKE
CO ^4
.
•
•ERS
•
^CARBONATION)
i
•
/SECONDARY\
V STORAGE J~~
YEAST
* r-iiT-r-i-i /^AIXI-
DECANT ' IL-IL-11 VMIM-
TANK 1
OR FILTER n
rigure 1. Process diagram for 1
malt liquor production. LANC
i t
)FILL WASTEWATE
EFFLUENT
i
PROC
R PACK
FERS
f
)UCT
AGING
-------
00
252 Kg MALT
130 Kg CEREAL GRAINS
2-22 Kg HOPS
1-70 Kg YEAST
11-3 m3 WATER
3-58 Kg CAUSTIC
BREWERY
28-7 Kg
COD
1-4 m3
COOLING
WATER,
1-0 m3
BEER
26-0 Kg 10-6 Kg -131 Kg 8-3 m3
BOD,. SS PHOS- PROCESS EFFLUENT
0 PHATE
Figure 2. Brewery input-output characteristics (2 ).
-------
characteristics for different classes of breweries. Discrepancies in
flow and wastewater characteristics are due to different sources of
information.
A breakdown of individual process effluents is given in Tables 5-8.
Spent yeast and trub are major sources of pollutants accounting for
about 56% of the total 6005 and 44% of the SS assuming no recovery (30).
TABLE 3. BREWERY TOTAL EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (2, 37, 72, 58)
Characteristic
BOD5 (mg/1)
(kg/m3 beer)
SS (rng/1)
(kg/m3 beer)
PH
Temp. (°C)
Process Efflyent
Volume (m3/m3 beer)
Average
1718
10.4
817
4.18
7.4
30
6.9
Range
1622-1784
9.43-11.8
723-957
3.83-4.79
6.5-8.0
28-32
5.5-8.3
TABLE
4.
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
FOR
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF BREWERIES
(58)
Brewery
Characteristic
BOD5
SS (k
(kg/m
g/m3
beer)
beer)
New
Mean
10.5
3.86
Large
Std.
Dev.
3.01
1.58
Old
Mean
18.8
7.34
Large
Std.
Dev.
2.13
2.51
Classification
Effl.
Mean
1.74
1.08
Limited
Std.
Dev.
--
Other
Mean
8
3
.47
.63
Std.
Dev.
7.46
3.75
Process Effluent
Volume (nT/rrf beer) 5.41 — 11.03 — 1.62 -- 7.71
-------
TABLE 5. SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS FROM A BREWERY (30)
Source (
Yeast
Trub
Hops
Pressed Grain
Liquor
Drain & Rinse
Filter
Effluent
Bottling
Misc.
TOTAL
BOD5
kg/nH beer)
3.71
3.21
0.39
0.85
2.09
0.50
1.20
0.42
12.4
BOD5
(X)
30
26
3
7
17
4
10
3
100
SS
(kq/m3 beer)
2.55
1.24
0.77
0.50
0.85
1.58
0.66
0.35
8.50
SS
(X)
30
14
9
6
10
19
8
4
100
TABLE 6. PRINCIPAL WASTE STREAMS FROM THE BREWING PROCESS (4)
Source BODg (rng/1) SS (mg/1)
Washings from kettles,
cookers and grain
separators 200-7,000 100-2,000
Screen and press liquor 15,000 20,000
Trub 50,000 28,000
Yeast 150,000 800
Clarification precipitates 60,000 100
Spent filter aid
Beer 90,000 4,000
Cleaning solutions 1,000 100
10
-------
TABLE 7. RAW WASTE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM IN-PLANT SOURCES (2)
Brewery Industry Mean
Raw Waste Volume
Source of Raw Waste (m3/m3 beer)
Cooling water
House cleaning
Aging
Filtration
Fermentation
Brewing
Malting
Other
TOTAL
1.40
0.70
0.40
0.70
0.30
1.20
--
3.60
8.30
TABLE 8. TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS OF WASTES DISCHARGED FROM SPECIFIC
BREWERY OPERATIONS (36)
Brewing Operation SS (mg/1) BOD5 (mg/1)
Cereal cooker 300 700
Mash tun 300 2,000
Lauter tun 3,000 10,000
Spent grain tank (or press) 10,000 15,000
Brew kettle 100 300
Hot wort tank (inc. trub) 5,000 10,000
Wort cooler 20 30
Fermentation tanks 2,000 5,000
Ruh chiller 30 700
Ruh tanks (primary aging) 20,000 30,000
Primary filtration 30,000 40,000
Aging tanks 600 10,000
Final filtration 500 100
Finished beer tanks 200 50
NON-RETURNABLES
Rinser 3 20
Pasteurizer -- 50
RETURNABLES
Prerinse 200 500
Final rinse 10 10
Pasteurizer 20 30
11
-------
TABLE 8. TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS OF WASTES DISCHARGED FROM SPECIFIC
BREWERY OPERATIONS (36) [Continued]
Brewing Operation SS (mg/1) BODs (mg/1)
KEGS
Prerinse TOO 1,000
MISCELLANEOUS WASTES
Bottle and can filler drip — 50,000
Conveyor lube drip 1,000 5,000
Spray tunnel drip 40 3,000
Floor hosedown
Wastewater Management
The nature of the brewing industry and the resulting wastewater
present some special management problems. As previously described, the
wastewater is characteristically high in organics, solids, and volume
(a large brewery may discharge in excess of 4 million m3/yr. The combina-
tion of these factors makes disposal in natural watercourses unacceptable;
therefore, most brewing wastes are sent to municipal treatment systems.
Here, due to the strength, the brewery waste may be only 4 percent or
5 percent of the total influent but 25 percent of the total BOD loading.
Because brewery wastewaters are quite variable as to flow and strength,
a municipal system can experience severe shock loads.
Most beer is produced in large metropolitan areas so a high capacity
municipal system is available for wastewater disposal. Recently, there
has been a tendency to build new breweries in smaller cities and towns.
This situation will require brewery-owned treatment plants or expansion
of the existing municipal facilities.
Recycling
In-plant recycling of potential waste streams is practiced on a
limited basis. The glass bottle is the most important container used
for retail sales and the major portion of these bottles are the refillable
type. In fact, a Senate committee has considered a bill to make all
beer and soft drink bottles refillable as is the case in Oregon (56).
Washing of refiliable bottles is a major operation in a brewery and is
likely to remain so. The large metal containers (half-barrels, quarter-
barrels, etc.) are also recycled and must be washed. This container
washing plus plant clean-up requires an average of about 1.62 kg of caustic
per m3 of beer produced (2). Most breweries put the cleaning caustic
directly into the sewer, however, 10 percent of the very large production
breweries do recycle it. For a brewery producing hundreds of thousands
or even millions of barrels per year the cost savings and waste reduction
could be very significant.
12
-------
The liquid remaining after the spent hops are pressed can also be
recycled. Customarily, this high strength waste is put in the sewer or,
in a few large facilities, it is mixed with the spent grains. However,
a few breweries (abour 10 percent) recycle the spent hop liquid back into
the brewing process; usually right after the wort leaves the brew kettle
(2). One particular article (36) in the literature discusses several
alternatives open to a brewery facing increasing sewer surcharges including:
no changes, implement a rigid water-conservation program, treat and reuse
the packaging wastewaters and treat all brewing and packaging wastewaters
by secondary biological stabilization and carbon adsorption. Of these
alternatives the authors suggest that treating the packaging wastewater
using carbon adsorption is the most economical with increasing surcharges
as more municipal plants incorporate secondary treatment. Using this
system only the weak packaging wastewaters which are about 50-75 percent
more voluminous than the process effluents will be treated and reused
within the brewery. This will reduce sewer charges and water costs which
can be very large for a brewery.
By-Product Recovery
Recovery of waste solids from different process streams is practiced
extensively in the brewing industry and it appears to be the best method
of reducing waste loads both technically and economically. Grains, hops,
trub, yeast, and lost beer are all currently being recovered (14).
Spent grains (barley, rice and/or corn) are recovered by virtually
all breweries large and small. The grains are removed from the brewing
process after the starches have been solubilized and then converted to
sugars. Most smaller brewers and about half of the larger ones utilize1-
the Tauter tun filter, which is a gravity filtration device, to separate
the grains from the mash. A disadvantage is that it requires a large amount
of water to sluice out the spent grain. Some larger plants employ a plate
and frame filter which is showing increased use. The grains are screened
and pressed to reduce the moisture content. The press liquor is frequently
put in the sewer; however, it has been recycled back into the process or
filtered, centrifuged, evaporated and added to the spent grains (17).
Following recovery, most small breweries haul the spent grains away
wet for use as cattle feed. Large facilities dry the grains before ship-
ment to cut down on transportation costs. In either case the spent grains
make an excellent and very valuable cattle feed. A recent study of live-
stock feeding of wet brewery by-products indicated that an optimum moisture
content is between 75 percent and 80 percent and that adequate protein
is available in grain-yeast mixtures so no supplements are needed (30).
Spent hops are separated from the brewing process by a hop jack
filter after the wort leaves the brewing kettle. The smallest breweries
usually haul wet spent hops away and the largest add them to the spent
grains to be dried. A study (30) has demonstrated that up to 10 percent
wet spent hops can be added to the spent grains with no deleterious effect
on voluntary uptake by cattle. The use of hop extract in the brewing
process, which eliminates the hop disposal problem at the brewery, has
been on the increase with 17 percent of the plants employing it in 1971 (2).
13
-------
The spent hop liquor is predominantly sent to the sewer. A few very
large plants mix the liquor with the spent grains to be dried or return
it to the brewing process as previously discussed.
Trub (mostly insoluble proteins) is sewered by virtually all small
breweries and about 40 percent of the large ones. The remaining large breweries
add trub to the spent grain to be used as cattle feed. Beer production
results in an average of 1.16 kilograms of dry trub per cubic meter of
beer produced (2).
Yeast is another very important by-product of the brewing industry
that can be used for livestock feed. It is both settled and filtered
out of the brewing process after the fermentation. About 1.3 kilograms
of excess yeast are generated per m3 of beer produced (2). Most plants sewer
the excess yeast or haul it away in a wet form. A few of the larger breweries
add it to the spent grains to be dried or dry it separately. The yeast makes
an excellent feed supplement with an approximate composition (dry basis)
of (77):
Protein 47%
Carbohydrates 43%
Ash 8%
Fat 2%
The addition of steam killed spent brewers yeast to spent grains in
a 1:6 ratio can increase voluntary feed uptake, rate of gain and feed
efficiency (30). Lost beer can be another significant by-product of the
brewing industry. It results mainly from the racking, transferring and
bottling operations. The volume of lost beer is about 6.3 percent of the beer
produced based on a production weighted average (2). The vast majority
of breweries of all sizes dispose of this beer in their sewers, but a
few larger ones are recovering the beer and adding it to the spent grains
to be evaporated.
Table 9 shows how extensive by-product recovery and waste recycling
schemes can significantly reduce a brewery's raw waste load as demonstrated
by Coor's brewery. The by-product recovery consists of utilizing 154,000
kg daily of dried spent grains, spent hops, and the insoluble protein
precipitate (trub) from the cooling of the wort. Presently this is being
combined with the sprouts and roots from the malting facilities and is
pelletized using condensed beer syrup as a binder and 163,000 kg are
sold per day as cattle feed under the name "Coors Malt Pellets." Coors
is also experimenting with a barley malt protein using materials from
the brewing operation which produces a product of 50-55 percent protein
and 11 percent fat and is suitable for human consumption. See Tables
10 and 25 for chemical-nutritional analyses of the malt protein and malt
pellets respectively. From the fermenting process, the spent or surplus
yeast is concentrated to 15-25 percent solids and then spray dried and is
sold as an animal feed supplement. By-products in the final stages of
development at Coors are a yeast extract with human food possibilities
and an animal feed using waste activated sludge (34).
14
-------
TABLE 9. OVERALL PLANT RAW WASTE CHARACTERISTICS (17)
Parameter
Volume
BOD,
0
SS
Coors
Raw Waste
3 3
3.5 m /m beer
2.90 kg/m3 (825 mg/1)
1.00 kg/m3 (280 mg/1)
Brewing Industry
Mean Raw Waste*5
8.3 m3/m3 beer BOD5
11.8 kg/m3 beer (1622 mg/1)
4.8 kg/m3 beer (772 mg/1)
aBased on average at Coors for month of June, 1974
Industrial Waste Survey of the Malt Liquor Industry prepared for EPA,
Aug. 1971, by Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.
Wastewater Treatment
Presently, virtually all breweries discharge their effluent to a
municipal treatment system and this will most likely be the predominant
practice in the future. Only two U.S. breweries own and operate their
wastewater treatment facilities.
Several advantages exist for a brewery that can dispose of its
wastewater in a municipal plant. Brewing wastes are readily biodegrad-
able; therefore, they can be treated by municipal, plants which are
traditionally biological. Also, the mixing with domestic sewage adds
sufficient nutrients that are lacking in straight brewery waste and helps
to temper shock loads or periods of low wastewater production such as
Sunday. In 1971, 80 percent of the U.S. breweries paid a sewer tax and
most charges varied with the load which stimulates the use of the by-
product recovery schemes mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
A survey of the brewing industry indicated that the average percen-
tage of a municipal plants total flow due to brewery waste is 4.2 per=
cent. The corresponding average 6005 loading is about 25 percent (2).
Both of these values are averages based on data with considerable scatter,
The flow percentage varied from less than 1 percent to 12 percent and the
BOD load from less than 1 percent to 70 percent.
A few municipal waste treatment plants receive considerable volumes
of brewery wastes. Table 11 gives descriptions and performances of three
of these plants.
15
-------
Table 10. COORS BARLEY MALT
Protein
Fat
Fiber
Nitrogen Free Extract
Carbohydrates
Ash
Moisture
Ami no Acids
Lysine
Histidine
Ammonia
Arginine
Asportic Acid
Threonine
Serine
Glutamic Aicd
Pro line
Gylcine
Alanine
Half Cystine
Valine
Methionine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Tyros ine
Phenylalanine
PROTEIN (18)
Percent
50
10
2
29
31
3
6
3.25
1.74
3.06
5.60
5.62
4.10
3.98
24.56
11.56
3.62
5.38
0.99
4.63
1.88
2.44
7.05
4.05
6.45
100.00
16
-------
TABLE 11. LOADING AND EFFICIENCY OF CITY TREATMENT PLANTS CONTAINING
BREWERY WASTES (4)
City
Flow
(m^/day)
% of Flow
Contributed
by Brewery
Treatment
Plant
Influent
Strength
(mg/1 )
Efficiency
(%)
Merrimac, NH 12,000 100 BODs: 1200-5000 90
(Design 18,925) SS: 200-400
Frankenmuth, MI 2271-2650 50 BODg: 1400-1500 BODs: 90-95
SS: 50-85
Belleville, IL 25,170 20 BODs: 400-500 94
SS: 275-350
Two U.S. breweries own and operate their waste treatment facilities:
Pabst Brewery in Perry, Georgia, and Coors in Golden, Colorado. In 1970,
the Pabst Brewery at Perry, Georgia went on line in a rural area about
6 miles from Perry where no municipal treatment facilities were available.
The brewery was designated for an initial production capacity of 1.76 mil-
lion m^/yr. The receiving stream was unpolluted and had a minimum flow of
about 1000 I/sec which dictated an efficient treatment system to maintain
the water quality.
Preceeding the treatment plant is an extensive in-plant by-product
recovery and waste collection system. The brewery recovers the spent
grains, spent hops, trub and yeast using techniques similar to those
described in the previous section. Several separate waste collection sys-
tems exist at the brewery. All uncontaminated cooling water is collected
and put in the storm sewer. Cooling tower and boiler blowdown containing
corrosion inhibitors and biocides are discharged directly to the polishing
lagoon. Sanitary sewage is collected and treated separately in a packaged
extended aeration unit which eliminates the need for chlorinating the
brewery's entire effluent. The diatomite filter backwash is decanted to
remove solids and then added to the process sewer. The high strength
process waste is collected separately, put in holding tanks and metered
into the treatment system. The spent caustic cleaning solutions are
treated similarly which helps control the pH of the influent.
Figure 3 is a flow diagram for the Pabst treatment facilities and
Table 12 gives the design unit loadings. A complete description of the
system is given in the literature (37). Table 13 is a summary of the
treatment plant's performance.
-------
PROCESSI
WASTE 1
TRICKLING
FILTERS
MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN
AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
t . t
AER/
mON
t~T
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
FINAL
CLARIFIERS
10 ACRE
LAGOON
RECEIVING STREAM
Figure 3. Flow diagram for Pabst wa.ste treatment facility (37).
IRRIGATION
SPRAYS
18
-------
The Adolph Coors brewery produces 1.23 million m of beer per year.
Pollution control efforts began in 1951 with an inplant water conservation
program and construction of a waste treatment facility. An extensive
by-product recovery program is used to recover the spent grains, hops,
trub and yeast. A pslate and frame filter is used to filter out the spent
grains because it uses subsequently less water than the conventional
lauter tub. The spent grain liquor is centrifuged to remove solids and
then recycled back into the process. The trub is handled like the spent
liquor. The benefits of the water conservation program are shown in
Table 9. The treatment scheme as shown in Figure 4, utilizes a high rate
activated sludge system. Flow equalization and pH adjustment are used
to provide for optimum performance.
Table 14 gives a summary of performance. A complete discussion of
the Coors facility is given in the literature (17).
TABLE 12. TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN LOADINGS FOR PABST BREWERY, PERRY,
GEORGIA (37)
Treatment
Primary Clarifier
Surface loading
Weir loading
Detention
Metric
27.1 m3/m2 day
72.2 m3/m day
1.9 hours
English
665 gpd/ft2
5820 gpd/ft
1 . 9 hours
Trickling Filters
BOD5 loading
Hydraulic loading
including recirculation
Minimum
Maximum
Activated Sludge
BODs loading
Aeration capacity
Return sludge ratio
BODs/MLSS ratio
MLSS concentration
Contact basin
Reaeration basin
Final Clarifier
Surface loading
Weir loading
Detention
4.8 kg/nf
.68 I/sec m
1.36 I/sec
1.60 kg/nr
1.5 kg 0~/kg BOD,
50%
0.38
4.9 hours
14.5 hours
20.7 m^/m day
73.9 rtr/m day
3.7 hours
300 lb/1000 ft"
1 gpm/ft,,
2 gpm/ft*
100 lb/1000 ftT
1.5 Ib 0?/lb BOD
50%
0.38
4.9 hours
14.5 hours
509 gpd ftc
5950 gpd/ft
3.7 hours
19
-------
TABLE 12. TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN LOADINGS FOR PABST BREWERY, PERRY,
GEORGIA (37) [Continued]
Treatment
Polishing Lagoon
BODs loading
Detention
Aerobic Digestion
Solids retention
MLSS concentration
Sludge Spray Disposal
Liquid loading
Solids loading
Application interval
Metric
60.5 kg/day/ha
15 days
10 days
15,000 mg/1
2.54 cm depth/appl
0.5 kg/m2/appl.
1 to 7 weeks
English
50 Ibs/day/acre
15 days
10 days
15,000 mg/1
1 in depth/application
0.1 Ib/ft2/application
1 to 7 weeks
TABLE 13. PERFORMANCE OF PABST BREWERY TREATMENT
PLANT (39)
Characteristic Units Raw Waste
Flow
BOD5
ss
m3/day 48.45
(MGD) (1.28)
m3/m3 beer 5.48
(gal/bbl) (1.70)
kg/day 88405
(Ib/day) (18530)
mg/1 1740
kg/m beer 9.55
(Ib/bbl beer) (2.47)
kg/day 3470
(Ib/day) (7650)
mg/1 716
kg/m3 beer 3.94
(Ib/bbl beer) (1.02)
Effluent
252
(556)
58
.27
(-07)
208
(459)
40
0.23
(0.06)
Percent
Reduction
97
97
97
97
97
94
94
94
94
94
20
-------
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER'
—I I I I I
1 I I I I I
AERATION
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTER
SECONDARY
CHLORINE
CONTACT
VACUUM
FILTER
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
CAKE TO TRUCKS
AIR
FLOTATION
CELL
TO
CLEAR CREEK
SLUDGE
LIQUID
-©~" MIXED LIQUOR
Figure 4. Flow diagram for Coor's waste treatment facility (17 ).
21
-------
TABLE 14. COORS RAW WASTE AND EFFLUENT PARAMETERS (17)
Percent
Parameter Raw Waste Treated Effluent Removal
Flow 12490 m3/day
(3.3 MGD)
BOD5 825 ing/1 34 mg/1 96
Suspended Solids (SS) 280 mg/1 29 mg/1 90
22
-------
SECTION IV
S.I.C. 2083 THE MALT INDUSTRY
Industry Description
A geographical distribution of operating plants by region is given
in Table 15. It is apparent that the North-Central region has the vast
majority of the malt plants.
Table 16 presents estimated values of malt shipments for the years
1958-1967. The value of malt shipments relative to the entire beverage
industry has decreased over one percent in the period shown.
Table 17 indicates that over the 12 year period shown, (1958-69)
there has been a 400-employee decrease in employment in the malt industry
and an increase in payroll of 2.9 million dollars.
TABLE 15. DISTRIBUTION OF MALT PLANTS (61)
Regions
Estimated
Number
of Plants
Percentage of
Plants Within
Region
Percentage of
Plants Within
Division
United States (Total)
Northeast Region
New England Div.
Middle Atlantic Div.
North Central Region
East North Central Div.
West North Central Div.
43
6
1
5
34
24
10
14.0
79.1
16.7
83.3
70.6
29.4
23
-------
TABLE 16. ESTIMATED VALUE OF MALT SHIPMENTS, 1958-1967 (66)
Dollars Percentage of Total
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
(X 10d) Beverage Industry
195,327
203,264
205,484
207,456
190,834
183,515
215,542
204,366
205,539
216,500
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.0
2.7
2.9
2.6
2,5
2.4
TABLE 17. EMPLOYMENT
AND PAYROLL IN THE MALT INDUSTRY, 1958-69 (66)
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Number of Employees
(X 103)
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.3
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
Payroll
($xlQ6)
16.3
17.2
19.2
18.5
17.1
15.1
17.2
15.8
15.3
17.1
18.1
19.2
24
-------
TABLE 18. PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL GROWTH TO 1980 (4)
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Malt
Liquors
(109 liters)
14.7
15.7
16.9
18.0
19.0
20.4
21.8
23.2
24.6
26.0
Malt
(109 kg)
1.678
1.799
1.933
2.054
2.175
2.336
2.497
2.658
2.820
2.981
Malt
(109 bu)
0.108
0.117
0.125
0.133
0.141
0.151
0.162
0.172
0.183
0.193
Barley
(109 kg)
2.06
2.21
2.36
2.52
2.67
2.84
3.06
3.26
3.45
3.64
Barley
(109 bu)
0.095
0.102
0.109
0.116
0.141
0.131
0.141
0.150
0.159
0.168
For the purposes of this study, the malt industry production volumes
have been projected according to the projected malt requirements of the
malt liquor industry (4). The estimated quantity of barley to be steeped
per annum (1971-80) is shown in Table 18. No effort has been made to sepa-
rate that barley to be steeped by independent versus non-independent
maltsters. Since the malt liquor industry uses the vast majority of the malt
annually produced, projections based upon the malt liquor industry's
requirements are reasonable for estimated malt production.
It is important to note that malting operations are rated based upon
the number of bushels of barley processed. A standard barley bushel
weighs 21.7 kilograms, whereas, a standard U.S. malt bushel weighs 15.4
kilograms. As shown in Figure 5, a production weighted average of 1.15
bushels of malt are produced per bushel of barley processed.
Production Process (69)
The purpose of malting is to initiate enzymatic reactions that modify
the starch and protein in barley to produce fermentable sugars and other
substances important in the brewing of beer and similar products. The
process is conducted in such a way as to produce the desirable flavor and
aroma of malt necessary for satisfactory beer production.
The process of manufacturing malt from barley consists of three
steps: steeping, germinating, and kilning. Steeping is performed in
large cylindrical tanks in which barley is submerged in cold water for a
period of two to three days. During this time the grain absorbs moisture
and the dormant embryo in each kernel becomes activated. The water is
changed several times during the steeping operation. The disposal of
25
-------
t\3
£ 1-20
Q-LJJ
bs!
|m 1-15
oo
UJI
GQ 1-05
i.nn
1
HH» ^^
<
•
1
1
w •
<
r
...... ...
T
i
— _
1
500,000 2,000,000 4,500,000 8,000,000
BUSHELS OF BARLEY STEEPED PER YEAR
Figure 5. Bushels of malt produced per bushel of barley processed ( 4 ).
-------
the water used for steeping constitutes a large portion of the effluent
load with the first steep having a BOD5 as high as 2800 mg/1 and a fourth
steep BODs of 900 mg/1 (54).
After steeping, the barley is transferred to the germination facilities
where it remains for a period of five to eight days. During this period
some of the starch and protein are solubilized. Germination is usually
conducted either in drums or compartmented containers. In both methods,
cool, moist air is passed through the germinating barley to control the
temperature and moisture within close tolerances.
Following germination, the malt is conveyed to drying floors where
it is slowly dried for a period of 2 to 4 days to reduce the moisture to
a level satisfactory for storage and to develop the aroma and flavor
characteristics of malt. This process is known as kilning. The "typical
standard manufacturing process (SMP) for the malt industry is shown in
Figure 6. Although there are some variations within various malt houses,
this SMP is representative of the typical malting process for the entire
industry.
Malt House Waste Characteristics
The typical malt house in terms of production weighted averages in
an input-output format is shown in Figure 7. A summary of the malt house
effluent characteristics is shown in Table 19. As shown, the concentra-
tion of the process effluent suspended solids and BOD is 117 mg/1 and
700 mg/1, respectively.
The following tables are included to indicate the variability within
the malt industry as delineated by production category (Tables 20-24).
TABLE 19. MALT HOUSE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (69)
Parameter
Process Effluent Suspended Solids
Process Effluent BOD5
Process Effluent pH
Process Effluent Temperature
Process Effluent Volume
Cooling Water Effluent Temperature
Production
Weighted Mean
0.53 kg/m3 barley
117 mg/1
3
3.09 mg/m barley
700 mg/1
6.74
4.53 m3/m3 barley
14.9°C
Standard
Deviation
0.24 kg/m3 barley
77 mg/1
1.67 mg/m barley
500 mg/1
2.10 m3/m3 barley
2.5°C
27
-------
WATER
\y
RINSE
WATER
TRANSPORT
WATER
SOLIDS
LIQUID
WASTE
A STEEP TANK
B GERMINATION COMPARTMENT
C KILN
D CLEANER
E MALT STORAGE
Figure 6. Malting typical standard manufacturing
process ( 4 ).
28
-------
r\>
UD
1000 Kg BARLEY
8-10 m° PROCESS
WATER
4-46 m3 COOLING
WATER
MALT
HOUSE
SOLID WASTE
2-30 Kg
COOLING WATER PROCESS
815 Kg MALT
43-8 Kg
BY-PRODUCTS
= 3-I°C
EFFLUENT
7-32 m3
5-02 Kg BOD-
•857 Kg SS °
AT = 2-5°C
Figure 7. Malt house input-output characteristics (4 ).
-------
By-Product Recovery
Information regarding by-product recovery in the malt industry is
very limited. A literature search revealed one paper on the subject
(34). The Adolph Coors Company utilizes 10,000 kg/day of malt sprouts
and roots in producing feed. "Coor's Malt Pellets" is the feed in which
the sprouts and roots along with spent grains, hops and trub from the
brewery process are mixed and bound using condensed beer syrup and/or
steam and then pelletized into 0.64 cm pellets. 160,000 kg are produced
and sold per day. Table 25 gives the chemical-nutritional analyses for
the malt pellets.
TABLE 20. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STEEPING OPERATION (69)
Barley
Steeped3
(m3/yr)
18,000
70,000
160,000
280,000
Water
, Usage
(nr/nr Steeped) (r
3.13 ,
(1.29)b
4.29
(1.35)
3.33
(1.15)
5.10
(2.46)
Effluent
Water
n3/m3 Steeped)
2.19
(.20)
3.94
(1.39)
2.94
(1.15)
4.73
(2.48)
Effluent
BOD5
(kg/m3 Steeped)
1.29
(.90)
5.28
(3.73)
1.80
(1.03)
2.83
(1.16)
Effluent
Suspended Solids
(kg/m3 Steeped)
0.51 6
(.26)
0.64 6
(.26)
0.51 6
(.39)
0.40 6
(.13)
£H
.7
.8
.7
.7
3Mid points of surveyed production ranges
( ) designates standard deviation
30
-------
TABLE 21. CHARACTERISTICS OF
Barley
Steeped
(m3/yr)
18,000
70,000
160,000
280,000
Water
Usage
Germinated)
i.o b
0.71
(0.67)
0.99
(0.77)
0.40
(0.19)
THE GERMINATION OPERATION (69)
Effluent Effluent
Water BODs
(m3/m3 (kg/m3
Germinated) Germinated)
1.1
(0.54)
0.78
(0.60)
1.0
(0.86)
0.41
(0.09)
0.77
(0.39)
0.51
(0.39)
0.39
(0.39)
0.39
(0.13)
Effluent
Suspended Solids
Germinated) pH
0.77
(0.90)
0.39
(0.39)
0.51
(0.39)
.026
(0.013)
6.8
7.1
6.8
6.9
?Mid points of surveyed production ranges
( ) designates standard deviation
TABLE 22. CHARACTERISTICS
OF TOTAL
PROCESS WATER
(69)
Barley
Steeped3
(m3/yr)
18,000
70,000
160,000
280,000
Water
Usage
Steeped)
6.33 .
(3.28)b
6.34
(2.51)
3.56
(1.98)
5.54
(2.27)
Cooling
Water
(m3/m3
Steeped)
3.67
(3.97)
3.63
(3.68)
1.14
(0.92)
3.57
(1.95)
Effluent
Water
(m3/m3
Steeped )
5.68
(3.73)
5.90
(2.47)
3.09
(1.59)
5.09
(2.28)
Effluent
BOD5
(kg/m3
Steeped)
2.83
(3.73)
5.41
(3.35)
1.93
(1.03)
3.22
(1.29)
Effluent
Suspended
Solids
(kg/m3
Steeped
0.605
(0.219)
0.721
(0.259)
0.463
(0.386)
0.412
(0.129)
£H
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.7
j?Mid points of surveyed production ranges
( ) designates standard deviations
31
-------
TABLE 23. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID WASTE (69)
Bushels Steeped3
(m3/.yr)
18,000
70,000
160,000
280,000
Marketable Waste
(kg/m3 Steeped)
24.5 ,
(6.4)b
24.5
(7.7)
27.0
(3.9)
28.3
(6.4)
Non-Marketable Waste
(kq/m3 Steeped)
1.54
(1.54)
1.67
(1.93)
1.29
(2.06)
2.06
(0.26)
.Mid points of surveyed production ranges
( ) designates standard deviation
TABLE 24. MALT HOUSE WATER TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS (69)
Production Range
(Million bushes! of
barley steeped/year3) <1
Influent (C°)
Low
Average
High
Effluent (°C)
Low
Average
High
8.
12.
15.
11.
16.
20.
8
6
6
0
2
4
Cooling
1-3
3.2
11.9
17.5
9.4
--
20.1
3-
10.
12.
14.
13.
15.
' 18.
Water
6
8
9
2
3
0
0
>6
6.1
11.7
15.0
12.1
22.9
33.9
<
9.
13.
17.
10.
15.
20.
1
9
9
1
7
6
0
Process Water
1-3
8.5
12.6
17.7
10.9
14.0
18.1
3-6
11.1
12.8
14.3
14.2
15.7
16.9
>6
8.3
11.7
15.0
11.4
15.0
16.0
aOne bushel = .0352 m3 = 21.7 kg barley
32
-------
TABLE 25. COORS MALT PELLETS (34)
Guaranteed Analysis
Ami no Acids
Weight % of
Total Solids
Crude Protein 26% min.
Digestible Protein
Fat 6% min.
Fiber 14% max.
Total Dissolved Nitrogen
Nitrogen Free Extract
Carbohydrate
Total Dry Matter
Calcium
Phosphorus
27.5
22.0
7.0
12.5
70.0
42.0
54.5
93.5
0.31
0.46
Valine
Lysine
Isoleucine
Methionine
Leucine
Arginine
Threonine
Phenylalanine
Histidine
1.6
0.7
1.1
0.5
2.2
1.7
1.0
1.9
0.8
Waste Abatement and Treatment Practices
A survey (69) indicated that approximately 80 percent of the malt
plants discharge their process effluents directly to municipal sewers,
whereas most of the remaining plants discharge their process effluent
to waterways. Sixty-eight and thirty-two percent of the plants discharge
their cooling water to municipal systems and waterways, respectively.
Of those plants discharging to municipal systems, approximately
twenty-five percent are pretreating their wastes by means other than
equalization. Ten percent are pretreating by equalization only.
In the survey, 11 of 25 plants responded to the question of their
contribution to municipal treatment plant loads. Although these plants
contributed a production weighted average of 12 percent of the flow, the
data ranged from 0.1 to 45 percent. The BODg contribution averaged 22
percent with a range from 0.1 to 75 percent. The load contributed to muni-
cipal systems from malt plants is shown by production category in Figure 8.
Of the malt operations surveyed 85 percent or 21 plants are investi-
gating new or modified in-plant procedures to reduce their effluent load.
Sixty-seven percent (14 plants) of these 21 plants are now paying a sewer
tax. Seventy-nine percent of the 14 responding plants pay a sewer tax
which varies according to their load contributed to the municipal system.
Two maltsters operate their own waste treatment facilities; a lagooning
operation and a trickling filter, reactor-clarifier operation.
33
-------
CO
UJ
O
cr
LU
Q_
100
80
60
40
20
500,000 2,000,000 4,500,000 8,000,000
BUSHELS OF BARLEY STEEPED PER YEAR
Figure 8. Percentage of municipal plant load due to malt house contribution ( 4 ),
-------
A flow diagram of the trickling filter, reactor-clarifier is shown
in Figure 9. As shown, the wastewater flows through a screenhouse to
remove suspended solids. The wastewaters flow through two trickling
filters and a reactor-clarifier to remove most of the BOD and suspended
solids. The reactor-clarifier functions as a mixing basin, an aeration
unit and a conventional upflow clarifier in one package unit. The sludge
from the reactor-clarifier is pumped to a sludge digestor. This treatment
plant typically reduces the influent BODs and suspended solids by 78
and 40 percent, respectively.
For the purposes of this study the malt industry production volumes
have been projected according to the projected malt requirements of the
malt liquor industry. Modifications in housekeeping and changes within
the modes of manufacturing are expected to be similar for the malt and
malt liquor industries, therefore, an allowance of 3 percent per annum
has been included to account for better housekeeping within the manufac-
turing process. The projected waste load using the above assumptions
are presented in Table 26. The anticipated increase in BOD generated
per annum is only expected to require an expansion of existing waste treat-
ment facilities.
Malt wastewaters contain no exotic characteristics and are there-
fore amenable to conventional biological waste treatment. No special
considerations need to be given to wastewater treatment plant design due
to effluents from malt operations other than taking into account the flow
and strength characteristics.
TABLE 26. PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL GROWTH TO 1980 (4)
Year
Malt
(106 kg
Malt)
Barley
(106 kg
Barley)
Effluent
BOD
(kg BOD5/
kkg Barl6y)
Total
BOD5
(106 kg)
Effluent
Suspended
Solids
(kg SS/kkg
Barley)
Total
Suspended
Solids
(106 kg)
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1680
1800
1920
2050
2170
2320
2500
2650
2820
2970
2060
2210
2360
2520
2670
2840
3060
3260
3450
3640
5.02
4.87
4.72
4.58
4.43
4.
4.
30
18
4.05
3.93
3.80
10.
10.
11.
11.
11,
12.
12.
13.
13.
13.9
.860
.836
.815
.773
.752
.732
.711
.690
.669
.648
77
85
92
95
01
08
2.17
25
31
2.36
35
-------
CO
(7-32 m i /KKg Barley)
TOTAL
PROCESS
WASTE
WATER
FLOW
CODE
f
SOLID
WASTE
DESCRIPTION
1
c
0
_ CLARIFIER
EFFLUENT
fl
RECIRCULATION I
BOD5
Kg/KKg
Barley
Processet
SUS.SOLIDS
Kg/KKg
Barley
J Processed
E
1
1
DIGESTED
Figure 9. Malt house effluent treatment facilities (4 ).
-------
SECTION V
S.I.C. 2084 WINE AND BRANDY
Industry Description
The United States wine industry is one of the top eight in the
world, with wine production averaging 1.12 billion liters from 1969-71.
Grape brandy production for the same period averaged 54.9 million proof
liters. This segment of the industry has declined recently in response
to a decreased demand for fortified wines. The value of the wine and
brandy shipments in 1974 was estimated at about one billion dollars or
about 14 percent of all alcoholic beverages (75).
California produced 1.16 billion liters of wine in 1971 or 84.8
percent of the U.S. total (75). Production varies each year with weather
conditions, but California has produced between 81 percent and 85 percent
of the U.S. total each year since 1967 (Table 27). In 1972, there were
462 bonded winery premises in the U.S. of which 258 or 56 percent were in
California '76). A distribution of U.S. wineries is given in Table 28.
Within California the vast majority of the wine is produced in the Central
Valley in Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, Tulare and Stanislaus Counties.
Most of the remainder comes from the coastal counties of Mendocino, Monterey,
Napa, San Bern'to, Sonoma, and Santa Barbara. A small volume of wine is made
in the southern part of the state. Essentially all of the U.S. brandy dis-
tilleries are located in California and for the most part in the Central Valley.
All the other states combined produced about 208 million liters of
wine in 1971. New York made the majority of this or about 8.4 percent
of the U.S. total. Most of the New York wine is produced in the Finger
Lake region.
TABLE 27. GROSS WINE PRODUCTION, BY STATE, CROP YEARS 1967-1971 (75)
Quantity Produced (1,000 liters)
State 1967 T968T%9" T970 1971
California 634,158 668,105 867,863 801,224 1,161,957
New York 72,108 70,848 81,041 91,120 115,44]2
Illinois 16,904 16,313 20,341 24,069 32,377
New Jersey 16,014 15,602 15,855 15,855 17,400
37
-------
TABLE 27. GROSS WINE PRODUCTION, BY STATE, CROP YEARS 1967-1971 (75)
(Continued)
State
Virginia
Michigan
Ohio
Washington
Georgia
U.S. TOTAL
1967
7,366
9,184
3,762
7,366
5,204
779,945
Quantity Produced (1,000 liters)
1968 1969 1970 1971
7,990
7,184
4,996
7,941
5,136
8,539
7,964
3,251
5,583
3,310
8,883
7,010
5,329
4,674
3,100
9.171
6,752
5,594
5,235
4,920
811,826 1,022,434 968,691 1,396,795
Percent of U.S. Total
California
New York
Illinois
New Jersey
Virginia
Michigan
Ohio
Washington
Georgia
81.3
9.2
2.2
2.1
0.9
1.3
0.5
0.9
0.7
82.3
8.7
2.0
1.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.6
84.9
7.9
2.0
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.3
82.7
9.4
2.5
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
84.8
8.4
2.3
1.3
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Growth trends for the industry are difficult to establish at the
present time. In 1967, the per capita consumption in the United States
was 3.90 liters per year. By 1972, this figure rose 57.1 percent to
6.12 liters. Also, in the late 1960's and early 1970's an increased number
of people beqan reaching the legal drinking age each year. The per capita
disposable income also increased during this same period.
The rise in demand encouraged expansion of the wineries and increased
planting of wine grapes. By 1972, 41 percent of wine grape acreage in
California was non-bearing (76). In 1973, the Bank of America estimated
a market for U.S. wines of 1.97 billion liters by 1980 (6).
The projections for 1980 may still be reached; however, as an example
wine consumption in California for 1973-74 increased only 0.1 percent
over 1972-73 giving a decrease in per capita consumption for the first time
since 1961-62. From 1954-55 to 1972-73 the average increase in consumption
was 6.1 percent annually (9). Wine price increases that occurred mainly
in the early ,70's along with a very high overall inflation rate in 1973
and 1974 are probable reasons for this rather significant turnaround.
Supply caught up with demand in 1973 so prices should stabilize somewhat.
38
-------
GO
TABLE 28. BONDED WINERY
PREMISES - U.
S., 1963-72 (76)
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
California
237
231
233
231
231
234
240
244
245
258
New
York
46
44
44
42
44
45
42
40
38
39
Ohio
39
35
30
28
26
27
27
28
27
29
New
Jersey
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
Arkansas
13
13
13
13
13
14
13
12
13
12
Michigan
11
10
10
10
10
10
11
12
13
12
Other
States
88
92
92
89
91
89
92
92
97
98
All
States
448
438
435
426
428
432
438
441
446
462
-------
If the economy stabilizes the wine industry will likely grow substantially
in the future as the potential market is still there. A 3-4% annual growth
rate seems realistic. The Bureau of Domestic Commerce predicts a compound
annual growth rate of 7.6 percent through 1980.
Consumption of fortified wines has declined since 1967 and this
trend will probably continue for a number of years. This is significant,
since the wastes from the production of these wines and brandy are the
most difficult to handle.
Production Methods and Hastewater Sources
Table Mines
The specific methods used by individual wineries to make table wines
vary considerably; however, the basic procedures are similar. A discussion
of these basic processes will encompass the important wastewater sources.
Figures 10 and 11 are general production diagrams for red and white wine,
respectively.
The fresh grapes are usually brought to the wineries in trucks or
gondolas. They are dumped into a hopper and transported by conveyor to
a stemmer crusher. The "Garolla" crusher is used frequently in California.
The grapes are stemmed and crushed in one operation in a way to prevent
breaking the seeds or severely grinding the stems. The resulting solid
waste consists of stems and debris. The crusher, conveyor and hopper are
usually washed down periodically and at the end of the day.
Following the crusher, the grapes used to make white wine are pumped
to a tank where the free-run juice is allowed to separate from the skins,
seeds and any remaining stems. The juice (must) is pumped to a fermenter.
All the remaining skins, etc., are sent to the press to remove the juice.
The resulting solids are reffered to as pomace. The press juice may be used
for blending or making less expensive wines.
The juices and skins used to make red wines are pumped directly from
the crusher to the fermentation tank. Wine fermentation is a batch process.
Sulfur dioxide is added before the fermentation is started to control
undesirable microbial growth. After several hours a yeast culture is added
to start the fermentation. Large quantities of heat are produced so the
tanks are usually water cooled to control the temperature. Before the
fermentation is completed the red wine is drawn off the skins if enough
color and tannin have been extracted. The fermentation is completed
without the skins. The skins are pressed to extract the remaining juice
which can be used for blending or distilling material. The pressed solids
or pomace remain. The same general procedures are used to ferment white
wines except the skins are not included and the temperature is kept lower.
The fermentation tanks must be washed thoroughly after the wine is removed.
This washwater will contain the residual wine and solids (yeast cells,
some seeds and grape solids). The presses are also washed to remove residual
solids.
40
-------
GRAPES
i
STEMS
CRUSHER
STEMMER
COOLING
WASHWATER
YEAST
I
FERMENTER
WATER
z
ID
a:
UJ
uj
01
WASHWATER
UJ
PRESS >_ WASHWATER
c/)
UJ
oc
BLENDING WINE
FINISHING
OPERATIONS
a) Racking
b) Filtering
c) Fining
d) Refrigerating
e) Aging
PRESSED
UJ
= POMACE
LESS EXPENSIVE WINE
DISTILLING MATERIAL
WASHWATER
LEES AND TARTRATES
BOTTLING
Figure 10. Red wine production diagram
i
UJ CC
I- UJ
C/)H
II
41
-------
GRAPES
STEMS
(
COOLING
4
4
4
4
WATER
Figure 1
*
CRUSHER
STEMMER
oz
""••% \^
<
SEEDS
'DRAINING^
. TANK )
/
FREE-RUN JUICE
_ (MUST)
WASHWATER
PRESSED
POM AGE
J_
POMACE ^ A_A WASHWATER
| ,
_ BLENDING
YEAST
' *
a
| FERMENTER
a
^
1
FINISHING
OPERATIONS
I
LESS EXPEr
DISTILLING
I LEES AND TARTRA
'
BOTTLING
. Wh te wine
production diagra
^ WASHWATER ^
UJ^
Q^ID
Q.-0
t
vISIVE WINE
MATERIAL
WASHWATER
WASHWATER
TES ^
i
I
UJ
CO
m. ^
i
cc
UJ
1
42
-------
The processes discussed above are started as early as late August
in California and are usually completed by mid-November depending upon
location.
After the fermentation has slowed the new wine is pumped into storage
tanks for clarification and aging. These storage and aging tanks may be
made of stainless steel, redwood, concrete, oak and lined steel or iron
(23). While in storage, solids in the wine will settle out, so the wine is
periodically pulled off of its sediment (racked) and put in another con-
tainer. This process leaves a residue of lees (yeast cells and grape
residue). A winery must dispose of the lees or use them for distilling
material. After racking, the remaining wine and lees must be thoroughly
washed out of the tanks. Cream of tartar (potassium bitartrate) often
precipitates as crystals on the surfaces of the storage and aging container.
This can be scraped off or redissolved in hot water and washed out.
Wines are aged for varying lengths of time. Reds are held longer
than whites with some reds aged for 10 or more years.
Most of the aged wines are fined or filtered at least once prior to
bottling to remove any solid residue remaining in the wine. Asbestos and
diatomaceous earth filters are used frequently. The filters and retained
solids are dry enough to be easily landfilled. Fining is another method
of clarifying the wine with bentonite being the most commonly used fining
agent. The substance is added in solution or suspension to give quick-
settling coagulums. The fining agent adsorbs suspended material and clari-
fies the wine as it settles. The material which settles out consists of
the agent, tannin, acid, or protein that has reacted with the agent and the
settled solids. The wine is then racked to separate it from the settled
residue. The remaining solids can be handled like lees.
Bottling is the final wine-handling operation at the winery. Virtually
all wineries use automatic filling and corking machines. With these, the
wine is transferred directly from the storage containers to the machine
and into the bottles. The bottles are automatically corked and labelled.
A limited amount of wastewater is generated during this final operation.
Virtually all wineries use new bottles so no washing is needed and little
rinsing is required; however, the trend may be turning toward returnable
bottles (56). If this occurs, the volumes of washwater required will
greatly increase. On some bottle lines a detergent is used as a lubricant
and ends up in the floor drains. Occasionally some bottles break or wine
is spilled during filling, but these wastewater volumes are very small.
After bottling is completed the emptied storage tanks and the bottling
machine must be flushed clean.
Dessert Wines
Most of the processes used to make dessert wine are the same as
those used for table wine. One difference is that during fermentation
some fortifying spirit is added to raise the alcohol level to a predetermined
amount (more than 14 percent) and to halt the fermentation at the desired
43
-------
sugar level. Extracting sufficient color during this short fermentation
has always been difficult. Sometimes a red wine concentrate is added
or the must heated to extract color. Aging procedures may also be different.
Sometimes dessert wines are fined, filtered and refrigerated several times
to speed up the aging process. A few wine makers heat the wine for a spe-
cified period at 49° to 60°C. The usual procedure is to hold dessert wine
in the wine cellar for about one year while it is stabilized and then put
it in oak for another year or two.
Sparkling Wines
Sparkling wines are defined as those which have more than 1.5 atmos-
pheres pressure at 10°C and contain a visible excess of carbon dioxide,
approximately 3.9 grams per liter. The different methods of obtaining
this excess carbon dioxide are: by fermentation of residual sugar from pri-
mary fermentation, from malo-lactic fermentation, from fermentation of
sugar added after the process of fermentation, and by the direct addition
of carbon dioxide to the wine.
Brandy
Most of the brandy is produced during a period from early September
to late October. Brandy production is basically a distillation and aging
process as shown in Figure 12. Wine, lees and pomace are used as dis-
tillation materials. Wine is used to make beverage brandy, and unmarketable
wine, lees, pomace in ash and filter wash are used to make fortifying
brandy (1, 5). Nearly all California brandy is produced using continuous
column stills. Wine is introduced near the top of the still and steam
or indirect heat introduced near the bottom strips the alcohol from the wine.
This alcohol containing vapor is condensed to form the spirit. The disposal
of the dealcoholized solution (stillage) which comes off the bottom of the
still can be the most difficult wastewater problem in the wine industry.
The solution is high strength and concentrated though its specific charac-
teristics are dependent on the distilling material used. The stills also
require extensive volumes of cooling water which must in turn be disposed
of or cooled.
Beverage brandy is removed from the still at 170° proof or less.
It is then diluted to the desired alcohol content and put in wood containers
for aging.
Wastewater Characteristics
Although many of the waste streams from the individual processes
are mixed into a total winery effluent, an idea of what is coming from
each process can be very helpful to a waste management program. A limited
amount of information has been collected to characterize these individual
waste streams, but most of the wastewater is generated during the pressing
season which is quite short and is characterized by erratic wastewater
flows.
44
-------
PRESSED
POMACE
STEMS
DISINTEGRATOR
WINE
WASHWATER
SOLIDS
LEES
DISTILLINGV
MATERIAL
STORAGE
WASHWATER
LLI
'CONTINUOUS^
COLUMN
STILL
I
ALDEHYDE
COLUMN
UJ<
LUGO
CD
DILUTION
AND AGING
BOTTLING
STILLAGE
HEADS
WINE SPIRITS
STORAGE OR
SHIPMENT
Figure 12. Brandy and wine spirits production diagram,
UJ GC
I- UJ
co i-
II
45
-------
Table Wine
The stemming and crushing occurs over a one to two month period in
the fall. About the only liquid waste is the washwater that is used.
This washwater contains mainly juice, some debris and other grape residue.
Because this washwater occurs over a short period of the year and just
occasionally during the day, monitoring has been limited. The solid waste
from the stemmer consists of stems, leaves and debris. These solids may
amount to 30-38 kilograms per metric ton of grapes crushed and a few
wineries crush over 90,000 metric tons of grapes in a season (1).
Pomace makes up the major waste from the pressing operation. Using
a basket press, about 172 kg/metric ton result from the pressing of red
wine while 195 kg/metric ton are left from the production of white wine.
Values for screw presses are somewhat lower. Other values in the literature
for both types of wines run between 125 and 200 kg/metric ton. Skins
and seeds are the major constituents of the pomace with seeds making up
about 20 to 30 percent on a wet weight basis. Liquid accounts for 56 to
68 percent of dry wine pomace with 7 to 8 percent of the liquid being
alcohol. Pomace also contains significant amounts of tartrates; red wine
contains about 11 to 16 percent and white wine about 4 to 11 percent on
a dry weight basis. The tartrates are a source of substantial BOD if
subjected to biological attack. There are two sources of wastewater in
the fermentation process; cooling water and wash water. It is difficult
to establish a figure for the volume of water required to keep a fermentation
tank at a certain temperature because of several variables: the type of
wine, size of tank, tank material and weather conditions. The amount of
washwater used to process the wine from crushing through fermentation is
about 200 liters/metric ton of grapes (1, 5, 27, 31).
During clarification and aging the lees are the primary wastewater
problem. The lees (mainly yeast cells) are in the form of a semi-liquid
paste. About 17-29 liters are produced per metric ton of grapes processed.
Within the lees are 24-84 kg/m3 of tartrates and 5-13 percent, by volume,
alcohol (31). The lees are an extremely strong waste stream.
Filtering and fining the wine yields very little wastewater. Filtering
the wine leaves a solid cake of lees that is quite dry. Fining gives
a paste like residue similar to lees.
Table 29 gives a summary of characteristics for different wash water
streams in two California wineries. Tables 30 and 31 give summaries of
effluent characteristics for eastern wineries and non-distilling California
wineries.
46
-------
TABLE 29.
Characteristic3 Units
pH
Suspended Solids mq/1
BOD5 mg/1
Portion of Daily Flow %
CHARACTERISTICS OF WINERY WASTEWATER SOURCES (49)
Crusher
WashD
3.85
3,220
27,300
2.5
Pomace
Conveyor
Wash
4.20
3,050
4,650
5
Fermentation
Tank Wash
4.08
2,440
8,300
10
Press &
Area Wash
3.80
1,046
1,540
7.5
Storage
& Bottle
Wash
6.6
290
1,130
50
Storage
Tank
Floor Wash
7.13
108
2,800
10
Cooling &
Refriger-
ation Blow-
down & Misc.
6.65
4
373
15
Washdown from Crush, Pomace Conveyor and Press Area occurs during the one hour cleanup period from 4 p.m.-5 p.m.
TABLE 30. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FOR NEW YORK WINERIES(46)
Wi ner.y
Sold Seal
Hammonds Port
Widmer Wine
Cellars, Naples
Taylor Wine, Co.
Hammonds Port
Flow
(m3/day)
900
600
600
Influent
BODc; (mq/1)
562
1010
2424
Influent
SS (mq/1)
225
150
11
Treatment
System
Rotating biological
contactor with a sand
filter
Activated sludge with
sand filter
Extended aeration
Percent
BOD5 Removal
(yearly avg. )
93.5
a 97
94.5
Year
Data
Collected
'74
'72
'68- '73
-------
TABLE 31. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS FOR NON-DISTILLING CALIFORNIA
WINERIES (49)
Crushing Season Non-Crushing Season
Characteristic Range Mean Range Mean
PH
Dissolved oxygen
BOD5
COD
Grease
Settleable Solids
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Ni trogen
Phosphorus
Sodium
Alkalinity (CaCO-)
Chloride J
Sulfate
Boron
*—
3.5-5.5
0
2000-5000
4000-10,000
5-30
25-100
200-800
150-700
300-600
5-40
5-10
100-200
40-120
100-250
20-75
0-012
0.2
4.1
0
2500
5000
15
80
500
450
800
20
10
150
115
150
50
0.1
0
2000-5000
4000-10,000
5-50
2-10
100-400
80-350
400-800
10-50
10-25
100
10-100
100-250
20-75
0.2
4.8
0
2400
4000
40
2.5
400
300
700
40
25
140
50
150
50
0.1
All units are mg/i except p(i.
Brandy stillage (still slops) is the primary environmental problem
of the California wine industry. One of the largest distilleries may pro-
duce up to 2.3 million liters/day during a 1-1/2 month period in the fall
(50). The stillage volume and characteristics vary with still practice,
still type, and source of the distilling material (wine, pomace or lees).
Stillage is very high in COD, BOD, SS and acidity. An average still
produces about 20 liters of stillage per wine liter of brandy (45). A
still producing 7600 wine liters of brandy per day from conventional
material has a population equivalent of over 20,000. Characteristics of
the three types of stillage are given in Table 32.
Considerable volumes of cooling water are needed for any distilling
operation with condensers requiring the most. Frequently, heat exchangers
are used to cool the stillage prior to discharging it to municipal sewers
or a land disposal system. Stillage leaves the still at about 66°C and is
usually cooled to 43-49°C before discharge (50, 10).
In both cases the cooling water retains its incoming quality except
for waste heat.
48
-------
TABLE 32. WINE
STILLAGE CHARACTERISTICS
Component
(mg/1 except pH or
otherwise specified
Alcohol Content
(% by volume before
distilling)
pH
Acidity (as CaCo3)
Total Solids
SS
Soluble Solids
Volatile Solids (Total)
Total Ash
Soluble Volatile Solids
Soluble Ash
Total BOD5
Soluble BOD5
PH
Acidity (as CaCOJ
O
Total Solids
Volatile Solids (% of TS)
SS
Extractable Acids (as acetic)
Total Nitrogen (as N)
NH,-N (as N)
o
Total Phosphorus (as P)
BODC
Wine Still age
(44 Wineries)
6.37
3.74
3,700
16,700
4,470
12,410
13,120
2,900
8,870
2,400
12,300
9,660
Wine Still age
4.7
3,170
20,100
87.4
3,120
1,900
271
2.8
11,150
11,000
Average Values
Wine Still age
Detartrated
(7 Wineries)
5.82
4.34
2,300
13,950
2,940
10,900
10,420
3,490
--
—
9,825
7,745
Average Values
Lee Still age
3.8
9,860
68,000
86.5
59,000
2,480
1,532
45.1
4,284
20,000
(12)
Pomace Stillage
(8 Wineries)
5.05
3.72
3,800
29,780
18,660
13,410
27,140
3,440
9,380
2,610
17,840
11,330
(45)
Pomace Still age
6.8
1,220
13,180
77.0
--
380
330
4.0
1,310
2,400
49
-------
Mastewater Management
Before actually discussing specific management techniques, there are
some waste water disposal problems peculiar to the wine industry that
deserve attention. As previously mentioned, the bulk of the wastewater is
generated during a short 1-1/2 - 2 month season and, where stillage is
involved, the waste is strong. The combination of these two factors make
it very difficult for a municipal system to handle winery waste. The same
combination makes it very expensive for a winery to set up a conventional
treatment system that may operate at capacity for only one-sixth of the
year.
The geographical location of the U.S. wine industry also has a great
influence on the disposal techniques employed. In the Eastern States
the precipitation is distributed throughout the year. This, along with
possible freezing temperatures, makes land disposal very difficult. The
streams flow year-round which can provide some dilution to a treated
effluent; however, there is a fish population that must be protected along
with other downstream uses.
In California the period of high effluent flow comes during the latter
part of the dry season. Most streams are at low or no flow condition and
can accept very little waste load. These same dry weather conditions
are ideal for operation of a land disposal system.
Basic water conservation practices are essential for any effluent
management program. Within the wine industry these may include automatic
barrel cleaning devices, trigger handled spray nozzles, stainless steel
tankage and smooth floors.
Recycling
Recycling of waste streams is not practiced extensively nor is it
practical for most wastewater in the wine industry due to fresh water cost
and availability. The majority of the wine is never pasteurized so care
must be taken to prevent contamination throughout processing. Condenser
water and fermentation cooling water are currently being recycled at some
wineries. The common practice is to cool this water in a cooling tower
and recycle it with any make-up water that may be required. Several
of these systems are currently being used and eliminate the addition of
waste heat to receiving waters. Frequently, the stillage is cooled with
heat exchangers before it is sent to a land disposal system or to the sewer.
This cooling water can also be handled with a cooling tower.
By-Product Recovery
This aspect of wastewater management has received particular attention
recently. Recovery of a by-product can reduce both the strength and volume
of the waste stream besides yielding a product of some economic value.
50
-------
Tartrate recovery in the U.S. wine industry has generally not been
economical. Prior to World War II, the tartrates were imported mainly
from the wine producing countries of the Mediterranean area. During World
War II, the imports were cut off; consequently, tartrate production was
increased in this country to help take up the slack. This production
fell off again in the post war years and presently has almost ceased.
However, some people in the industry feel that the price of tartrates
is about high enough to make tartrate production in the U.S. economical
again.
Winery wastes are the world's major source of tartrates with pomace
and still age both containing large amounts. Red wine pomace contains about
11.1 - 16.1 percent tartrates on a dry weight basis and white wine 4.2 -
11.1 percent (31). Stillage has a tartrate content (mostly potassium
bitartrate) of 1.25 - 7.25 gm/1 depending on several factors; the weather
during the growing season, variety and maturity of grapes, and distillery
practices (1). The lees and argols are available in smaller quantities
but are also very good sources. The argols, which occur on the walls and
bottom of the storage tanks, are almost pure cream of tartar.
Besides any economic benefit, the removal of tartrates can reduce
the BOD of these wastes by 50 to 75 percent (5, 71). Tartrates are highly
biodegradable and exert a strong demand on any biological system.
Two methods for recovering tartrate from pomace have been explored
or practiced. Hot water extraction has proved to be very satisfactory.
In pomace, the tartrates are present as small crystals adhering to the
skins. These crystals are readily soluble at temperatures of 60-100°C
(31). The process may be continuous or batch. The hot water is passed
over the pomace and the solids are filtered or settled out. If the tar-
trate rich liquid is allowed to cool and stand several days the tartrates
will recrystalize.
Cold acid extraction can be used where steam is not available. This
process is similar except an acidified cold solution is used to dissolve
the cream of tartar. Both of the above processes are easy to set up and
require little additional winery equipment, but they do require additional
handling of the pomace. Since the crystallization of the cream of tartar
is slow it may be more satisfactory to precipitate the tartrate as calcium
tartrate. This process is much faster, but it requires chemical addition
and very close control.
Recovery of tartrates from still age is a more difficult problem.
One suggested method is to allow the still age to settle and cool in large
tanks, rack off the clarified liquid and then precipitate the tartrates
by chemical addition as mentioned above. This process requires large tank
volumes and the know-how to control the chemical precipitation. Ion
exchange columns have also been tried on stillage. This technique requires
further investigation but a preliminary study is given in the literature (33)
51
-------
The lees are a very rich source of tartrates. Two procedures can be
used to recover them. Whether or not they are used for distilling, the lees
are allowed to settle and then stand several days while the cream of tartar
crystallizes. Finally, the liquid is removed and the crystals washed and
dried. The crystallization step can be omitted if chemical precipitation
is used.
The argols that form on the walls and floors of wine tanks are almost
pure cream of tartar and can be marketed in that form. It is very difficult
and time consuming to chip the "winestone" off the tanks so usually it
is dissolved by applying a strong solution of sodium hydroxide to the surface.
Then the solution can be acidified which will enable the cream of tartar
to recrystallize.
All of the techniques mentioned above for tartrate recovery are
discussed in greater detail in the literature (1, 31, 32).
The grape pomace itself can and is being recovered as a usable by-
product. Ever since grapes have been cultivated, the pomace has been
returned to the soil as a conditioner and fertilizer. The past few years
it has been in great demand as an orchard fertilizer. A study (27) done
in the 1930's found that pomace has about the same ultimate fertilizer
value as standard manure. An average analysis is: 1.5 to 2.5 percent
nitrogen, 0.5 percent phosphorus and 1.5 to 2.5 percent potassium on a dry
weight basis (29). The nitrogen becomes available slowly. As the pomace
decomposes it also improves the physical nature of the soil.
The pomace can also be sold as livestock feed. Due to the seed hulls,
the crude fiber content is too high for use as the sole feed, so it is mixed
or used as a supplement. The analysis of several samples of dehydrated
grape pomace meal ranged from 12.05 to 14.88 percent protein, 5.63 to
8.90 percent fat and 17.74 to 34.99 percent fiber (1).
Oil from the grape seeds is another by-product that deserves more
attention. Grape-seed oil has been produced in Europe since before World
War I and in a plant operated in Fresno, California from before World War
I until about 1960. Seeds make up about 20 to 30 percent of the pomace
on a wet weight basis and grape seeds contain 11 to 15 percent oil on
a dry weight basis (1). One method of recovering the seeds from the pomace
is to wash, drain, thresh and sieve to achieve separation. The seeds should
then be dried, possibly with gas fired rotary drum driers. The oil that
can be obtained using solvent extraction or mechanical pressing has a
very high content of linoleic acid which is considered an essential fatty
acid for humans (28). Grape seed oil also has a pleasant flavor and is
resistent to clouding at cool temperatures which makes it a good salad
oil. It is also quite stable when used for frying.
Waste stems are disposed of by spreading them on the fields daily.
They are also utilized as a source of fermentable material after grinding
52
-------
Wastewater Treatment
In order to effectively discuss wastewater treatment, the wine in-
dustry should be divided into wineries that distill and those that do not.
The addition of stillage to the effluent greatly changes the wastewater
characteristics along with the method and degree of treatment required.
Of the wineries that do not distill, there are waste characteristics
and treatment differences that exist due to the various locations, cli-
mates, processing techniques and grape varieties. These differences have
been or will be discussed where they are significant.
Generally, from non-distilling wineries, the wastewater has a 8005
of about 800-1300 mg/1, SS of 150-500 mg/1, pH of 5.8 and a flow of 1960
liters per metric ton of grapes crushed (5, 46). (These are just average
values and will vary between seasons and parts of the country). These
characteristics along with its biodegradability, make the wastewater amen-
able to most conventional biological treatment schemes. These may consist
of biological treatment at the winery or sending the waste to a municipal
plant. The large eastern wineries in the Finger Lakes region have their
own biological treatment systems. The effluents are discharged to local
streams and lakes that have high recreational value so the lakes' quality
must be maintained. Several different types of biological systems are
currently being used as shown in Table 30. Figure 13 shows the treatment
system at Widmer's Wine Cellars in greater detail. Biological systems
appear to work well on winery wastewater that does not contain stillage.
Biological systems have also been used at non-distilling California
wineries; however, their effluents are usually put back" on the land or
sent to a municipal plant so the degree of treatment required is less.
Aerated lagoons have been used successfully in California providing BOD
reductions of 90 to 98 percent with a 30-day retention time.
Wineries that do distill have a much greater waste treatment problem.
The stills usually operate for a 1 to 2 month season which can cause ac-
climation problems for most biological systems. The wastewater is also of
high strength; conventional stillage has a BOE>5 of about 10,000 mg/1, SS
of 4,000 mg/1 and pH of 3.7 and these values increase for lees and pomace
stillage as shown in Table 32.
For any disposal system the volume of stillage produced should be kept to
a minimum by keeping the alcohol content of the distilling material at or
above 8 percent (11). The quantity of stillage produced is inversely
proportional to alcohol content of the distilling material (Table 33).
Also, the cooling water should be kept separate from the stillage.
The effective treatment of stillage using a land disposal system
depends on rapid seepage into the soil to prevent odors from developing
and insects from breeding, and an effective drying period before reappli-
cation (11). Such a treatment system may consist of an area of land di-
vided into several plots or "checks" about one acre each. The plots should
be leveled to prevent ponding and the soil is disced to make it friable.
53
-------
SOLIDS
HOPPER
SCREEN
HOUSE
WINERY
t t i
WINERY
TTT
BOTTLING
ROOM
1 ^
'X.|
t
ENTF
STRU
?ANCE
CTURE
AERATION
POND# I
AERATION
POND #4
FINAL
CLARIFIER
FILTER
HOUSE
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
AERATION
POND &2
AERATION
POND# 3
FINAL
CLARIFIER
CHLORINATION
Figure 13. Flow diagram for Widmer's waste treatment facility (74 ).
-------
The still age is flowed onto soil to a depth of about 10 cm or a loading
of 935 m3/ha and then allowed to dry completely. This drying period takes
from 7 to 14 days depending on the type of still age, soil and weather
conditions. When thoroughly dry the solid cake will crack and curl exposing
the soil. The dry cake can be disced into the soil and the plot used again.
The initial 10 cm liquid depth and adequate drying must be emphasized for
successful operation.
Fortunately, virtually all wine distilleries are located in Califor-
nia's central valleys. The climate is hot and dry and the soil is sandy.
Under these conditions properly managed systems have been operated suc-
cessfully for many years.
TABLE 33. RELATION OF VOLUME OF STILLAGE TO ALCOHOL IN DISTILLING MATERIAL
Original
12% D.M., 1
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
Water Added To
Original D.M., 1
0
20,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
500,000
Final
D.M., 1
100,000
120,000
150,000
200,000
300,000
600,000
Alcohol
In Final
D.M., %
12
10
8
6
4
2
Brandy
Produced,
# Proof 1
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
Still age
Produced3, 1
115,000
138,000
172,500
230,000
345,000
690,000
The number of liters of still age is approximately 15 percent higher than the
number of liters of distilling material. This represents the steam condensate
from the still.
Land disposal Of stillage has several benefits. It is easily operated
with no special skills or education required as compared to most other
treatment schemes. When properly managed no untreated wastewater reaches
the surface water courses and a crop can be grown on part of the land
during the off season to help defray costs. This past year, one California
winery planted wheat and barley on part of its disposal field without addi-
tional fertilization. The crop was very successful and paid for a major
portion of the operating costs.
Along with these benefits a couple of very definite drawbacks exist.
The system requires a substantial area of land, 0.74 to 1.5 hectares per
100,000 liters of stillage produced per day. Many wineries are located within
cities so the stillage must be piped to a site outside the populated
area. The city of Fresno, California currently has a system that sends
55
-------
the wastewater from three wineries 6 miles to a land disposal site (13).
Also, even undeveloped land in many parts of California's central valleys
is very expensive (more than $400 per hectare) so a substantial capital
outlay may be involved.
A second problem is the possibility of polluting the ground water.
A current study (79) of soil and water conditions in a land disposal site
is being carried out in California. For this study the samples were com-
pared to a control plot receiving only irrigation water. Some results
were: a higher microbial biomass in the surface layers of soil receiving
stillage, a higher pH only in the upper two feet (this decreased with
time when stillage applications were halted), increased soil salinity was
not found to be a problem with stillage disposal, and the phosphorus and
potassium levels were higher at depths greater than or equal to 1.8 meters
(79, 78). Very significant amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus can be
removed from the soil by raising a crop during the off-season (70).
The study also indicates that the concentration of phosphorus, nitrogen,
nitrate, and salt in soil receiving stillage wastes is lower than the
standards for potable water at depths of 1.8 to 4.9 meters (79).
The quality of the groundwater should be monitored periodically as
increasing pollution would require a re-examination of the treatment method.
Despite these problems a conscientiously designed and operated land disposal
system appears to be the most practical for wine stillage disposal.
Most attempts to treat winery stillage using conventional biological
techniques have been unsuccessful. Virtually all these attempts have been
either bench or pilot scale. One of the major problems is the very high
suspended solids content of stillage. Aerobic treatment may require that
90 percent of the solids be removed prior to aeration (51). The solids are very
difficult to settle in clarifiers, and even when separated, they represent
a huge sludge disposal problem. The BODs is also too high for standard
aerobic treatment requiring a dilution to 1000-1500 mg/1 with a subsequent
increase in volume (80). There is inadequate available nitrogen and the
pH is low as shown in table 32. These factors combined with the short
season make both aerobic and anaerobic treatment of stillage impractical
either operationally or economically.
Anaerobic treatment schemes have been tried several times on winery
stillage. One study (80) showed that about 70 percent reduction of BOD5
and volatile solids could be achieved with loadings of 1.6 to-3-.2 kg of
volatile matter per day per cubic meter of digester capacity. A recent
study (51) done with anaerobic packed beds showed similar removal rates.
However, with 70 percent removal the effluent is still of very poor quality and
probably would require additional treatment before it could be sent to a
municipal treatment plant. Also, anaerobic systems require an acclimation
period which could be a problem with such a seasonal waste. Effective
operation has traditionally been a problem with these systems. One researcher
(51) of stillage treatment states that additional study of anaerobic systems
is not recommended.
56
-------
Aerobic treatment of winery stillage has been investigated recently
using pilot scale activated sludge units (51). Effective biological treat-
ment in the aeration tank was found to be dependent on pretreatment for
solids removal. Centrifugation proved to be the only method that would
effectively remove the solids as they must be concentrated from about
2 percent to 10 percent. With this pretreatment, aerobic treatment was very
successful in converting the organic matter; however, the activated sludge
settled very slowly and contained substantial unsettleable material. This
resulting effluent had unsatisfactorily high levels of COD and SS. Another
drawback to aerobic treatment is-the large quantities of nitrogen that
must be added.
Based on the study mentioned above, a system of aerated lagoons pre-
ceeded by solids removal was recommended as the best method of biological
treatment when land disposal is not feasible. Final sedimentation would
take place in holding ponds with about a one day residence time. The final
effluent should be satisfactory, for irrigation or disposal in a municipal
treatment plant.
Presently, an extended aeration plant in Kelowna, British Columbia,
is treating a combination of winery waste including still age, fruit pro-
cessing wastes and municipal sewage (22). About 48 percent of the total BODs
load and 23 percent of the flow come from the winery. This plant produces
an excellent effluent; however, the loadings are low and the plant is
currently operating considerably under capacity.
57
-------
SECTION VI
S.I.C. 2085 DISTILLED LIQUORS EXCEPT BRANDY
Industry Description
The U.S. distilled liquors industry is of considerable size with
64 facilities producing 387 million tax liters of beverage from January to
July, 1974- This results in over 3 million m3 of wastewater assuming 8
liters are discharged for every liter of product. The industry can be divided
into rum distilleries that utilize cane molasses as a raw product and grain
distilleries that make whiskey, gin, vodka, and cordials. Whiskey con-
stitutes about 75 percent of all distilled liquor production. In 1973, 64
grain distilleries used 938 billion kg of grain of which about 1/3 is considered
waste (55). The five rum distilleries operating in Puerto Rico have a waste
equivalent of 77 percent of the island's population (2.7 million in 1970)
(55). Five distilleries in the United States also make rum but in most
cases that is not their sole product. About half of the grain distilleries
are located in Kentucky with most of the remainder being in the neighboring
states of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
The Bureau of Domestic Commerce estimates that the distilled spirits
industry will grow at a compounded annual rate of 3 percent through 1980
from a $1.6 billion production in 1974 (67).
Production Methods and Wastewater Sources
For the purposes of this discussion the distilled spirits industry
will be divided into grain distilleries which make mostly whiskey and those
that use cane molasses to make rum. Most grain distilleries use similar
processes and procedures to make their product, so a brief outline of
these techniques will be discussed with emphasis on waste generation.
Figure 14 gives a general process diagram for a grain distillery.
About 1.3 kg of grain are required to produce one proof liter of
distilled liquor (3, 55). The common grains used are corn, barley, wheat,
oats, rye and sorghum. First, the grains are milled into a meat which
breaks the cellulose around each kernel and exposes more starch surface.
Then the meal is put into a cooker and 75 to 150 liters of water are added
per bushel to form a mash. Four different cookers may be used: atmospheric
batch, pressure batch, pressure continuous and pressure semi continuous.
After cooking, the mash is cooled and milled malt is added which converts
starches in the mash to sugars by enzyme action. Water is used to cool the
cooked mash and to wash the cooker.
58
-------
MILLED MILLED
GRAINS MALT YEAST
Cooling Cooling \Cooling
, water I wafer 1 \water ,
\ I v / T x, 1
WATtK \ .
^~^
STEAM / ™
VSTOF
PI ITTIMO •«
\
VSTORAGE/
1
FILTER
i
ROTTl ING •*
"-^t UUULc.nl * r LKMLNTER •
4
BACKSET
NK ^ CONDENSATE
?AGEy"*
^ (
-^Condenser v
STILL ( k^a/er
L J STEAM
l—
C/51
. or*or~r"Hio
*
PACKAGING
fj
BEER
WELL
CONDENSATJ
1 1 y x rw
( PRESS > EVAPORATOR fl *
' 1
Steam ' ' Steam f
7\ DRYER \ 7\ DRYER \
' \ ' \
LIGHT DARK
GRAINS GRAINS
idenser
voter
Figure 14. Process diagram for grain distilleries.
59
-------
After the starches are converted, the mash is further cooled to 18-
24°C and pumped to the fermenters. Here yeast and backset (screened stillage)
are added and the mash is allowed to ferment until all sugar is converted
to alcohol and carbon dioxide (55). Cooling water is used to control the
fermentation temperature. Washwater is used for fermenter and yeast tub
clean-up and may account for 1 percent of the total waste load. The first
rinse which may contain considerable mash and alcohol is frequently dis-
charged to the beer well.
Following fermentation, the "beer" (fermented mash) which contains
about 7 percent alcohol by volume is put into a beer well. The beer is held
in the well until it is pumped into the still near the top. In the still,
which is usually a continuous whiskey separating column, steam strips the
alcohol from the beer. This vapor is condensed and used to make the product.
The residual mash (stillage), which contains 4-6 percent solids, is discharged
at the base of the still (55). Once it has been screened, 15-35 percent
of the stillage is recycled back to the fermenter as backset. This recycling
reduces the volume of the non-fermentable portion of the grain by 15-35
percent. For each proof gallon of product about 30 liters (8 gallons) of
wastewater, which contains 1.8 kg of grain, are discharged from the still.
When making Bourbon whiskey, the first distillation from the beer still
is redistilled (doubled) to remove various impurities. The doubler which
is usually a steam heated kettle increases the alcohol content of the dis-
tillage from 115 proof to 130 proof. "The hot liquid plus impurities in
the doubler are dumped periodically, usually after each day's distillation.
This wastewater is low in volume, high in strength and accounts for 1 to
2 percent of the plant load.
As they come from the still, beverage spirits are colorless and some-
what pungent and therefore must undergo a final process called maturation.
Portions are used for producing various grades of liquor by diluting with
deionized water. Then, the spirits are put in new, charged white oak barrels
and stored until the whiskey attains the desired ripeness and maturity.
During this time wood constituents are extracted from the barrel and some of
the liquid components are oxidized.
After reaching maturity in the barrels and being filtered, the pro-
duct is ready for bottling. Sometimes bottling is done at a separate
facility. In the bottle area waste can result from occasional breakage,
spillage and upkeep, but it is usually less than 1 percent of a distillers
total. Table 34 gives a summary of the wastewater sources in a grain
distillery.
Rum is made in much the same fashion as whiskey and other grain spirits;
however, the general process and wastewater sources will be briefly mentioned.
Molasses, which is the primary raw material is pasteurized, diluted with
water, and acidified with sulfuric acid. Then nutrients and yeast are added
to make up the fermentation mash. The mash is put in a fermentor to under-
go a controlled batch fermentation which leaves the mash with an 8-12
percent alcohol content (25). Next, the mash is distilled using a three
column system; one to remove all the volatiles and the other two to purify
60
-------
the ethyl alcohol. The still slops are removed from the bottom of the still
Following distillation, the spirits are transferred to holding tanks and then
to oak barrels for aging. After a legally defined period of aging the bever-
age is bottled. Figure 15 is a process diagram for the production of rum.
TABLE 34. DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTION LOAD OF A DISTILLING PLANT OPERATING
AT AN AVERAGE OF 225 METRIC TONS (9000 BUSHELS) OF GRAIN PER DAY
FOR FIVE DAYS A WEEK (3)
Source
Cooking & Mashing
Fermenting
Distilling
Feed Recovery
Rectifying & Bottling
Power House
Domestic
TOTAL
o Volume
(irr/1000 kq)
3.03
.151
.454
4.09
.151
.151
.454
8.48
BOD5
(kg/ 1000 kg)
.544
.036
.036
4.52a
.181
.072
.054
5.44
Percent of
Total BODC
12
1
1
79
4
2
1
100
— u —
a Includes BODC from barometric waters
o
Wastewater Characteristics
As a result of the stillage produced, grain distilleries have poten-
tially a very strong, high volume effluent. Several factors can signi-
ficantly affect the quality of this wastewater. Complete or partial recovery
of spent grains is essential to reducing the waste load. The extent of water
conservation reuse and inplant residue recycling is also quite important
along with the type of processing used at the distillery.
Generally, all of the individual waste streams are combined and dis-
posed as one total effluent. This effluent contains non-recoverable grain
particles, organic acids, aldehydes, esters and alcohols making both the
BOD and solids levels unacceptable for disposal in a natural water source.
The temperature of the effluent is around 41°C which could make it a source
of thermal pollution (57). Tables 34-37 list a few of the characteristics
of a distillery's total effluent.
For by-product recovery and water reuse, the characteristics of the
individual process effluents are important. The dry house effluent accounts
for about 80 percent of the total distillery organic load and 70-75 per
61
-------
CANE
MOLASSES
1
MOLASSES
STORAGE
HOLDING
TANKS
BARREL
I
BOTTLING
PASTEURIZATION^
WATER H2S04
DISTILLATION
COLUMNS
pH
ADJUSTMENT
CENTRIFUGE
^ V
• NUTRIENTS
• YEAST
F BATCH )
ERMENTATIONy
RUM SLOPS
Figure 15. Process diagram for rum distilleries.
62
-------
cent of the liquid volume. Within the dry house, the sterile evaporator
condensate makes up about 80 percent of the effluent. The liquid content
of the still age, which is received in the dry house, is affected by the
beer gallonage, the percent of backset and the method of heating the stills.
The beer gallonage is the gallons of water added per bushel of grain to make
up the mash. This volume can be kept down around 28-36 gallons per bushel.
The strength of the condensate can vary significantly with differences in
design and operation of the evaporators.
Tables 35-37 give a summary of the different wastewater sources and
the associated effluent volumes and loads.
TABLE 35. AVERAGE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - GRAIN DISTILLERY (8)
a With Without
Parameter Cooling Water Cooling Water
BOD5 (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (%)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Temperature (°C)
266
177
0.13
772
42
486
148
0.15
827
62
^Distillery processes about 138 metric tons (5500 bushels)/day
TABLE 36. AVERAGE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS BY PROCESS AREA-GRAIN
DISTILLERY (44)
Parameter3
Bottling Area
Cooker Building
Fermenters
Distillation & Feed
House
Warehouse & Power
Plant
Other & Sanitary
TOTAL
Avg.
Flow
(m3/day)
114
400
28
570
16
100
1228
Avg.
BOD5
(kg/day)
82
252
27
411
2
85
859
Avg.
SS
(kg/day)
27
363
10
481
3
103
987
aDistillery processes about 312 metric tons (12,500 bushels)/day
63
-------
TABLE 37. DISTILLERY AND DRYHOUSE WASTES FROM A TYPICAL PLANT (3)
(75 Metric Tons (3000 Bushels) Capacity)
Total Solids
Type of Volume kg/1000 kg/1000% of
Waste (m3/1000 kg) mg/1 kg mg/1 kg Total pJH Temp. I
Evaporator 2.27 130 .29 600 1.4 42 3.9 52
Condensate
Washes 1.06 1050 1.1 1000 1.1 33 6.0 21
Cooling Tower 1.20 1100 1.4 550 .64 20 8.0 46
Overflow
Doubler
TOTAL
•
4
152
.68
240
590
.036
2.8
1000
690
3
16
.2
5
100
5.
5.
0
0
77
43
Like grain distilleries rum distilleries must dispose of stillage
which has a very high pollution potential. The volume and strength of the
still age are affected by the variable sugar and ash contents of the molasses
plus the acidification of the molasses-water mixture needed to obtain an
optimal pH level for fermentation.
The total plant effluent from a rum distillery is doninated by the
presence of the stillage which gives it a high temperature and strength
and a dark brown color. Tables 38 and 39 give a summary of the effluent
characteristics.
Of the individual waste streams, the slops discharge constitutes 66
percent of the waste flow, over 98 percent of the BODs and COD, over 90
percent of the solids and essentially all the nitrogen and phosphorus.
Table 40 gives a listing of individual process effluent characteristics.
Wastewater Management
Both grain and rum distilleries must dispose of an effluent that is
high in organics and solids. The effluent strength must be drastically
reduced by in-plant recovery and treatment techniques before it can be
safely discharged to a natural water body. Even discharge to a municipal
sewer will require significant waste load reductions.
Recycling
Within a distillery, few process areas exist where recycle technology
can be applied. As previously discussed, grain distilleries recycle about
18-35 percent of the screened stillage (backset) back to the fermenter.
This practice concentrates the non-fermentable portion of the grains by
a corresponding amount.
64
-------
TABLE 38. TYPICAL ANALYSIS OF RAW WASTE FROM RUM PRODUCTION (25)
Parameter Level
pH 4.7
BOD5 20-35 g/1
COD 100-130 g/1
Sugar 1.6% (by volume)
Volatile Solids 50-75 g/1
Ash 16-40 g/1
Volatile Acids 700 mg/1 (as acetic)
Alkalinity 1000 mg/1 (as CaC03)
TABLE 39. TYPICAL ANALYSIS OF RAW WASTE FROM RUM PRODUCTION (53)
Parameter Level
COD 70-100 g/1
BODg 20-60 g/1
Total Suspended Solids 3-10 g/1
Total Dissolved Solids 75-85 g/1
Total Nitrogen 0.8-1.5 g/1
Total Phosphorus 60-100 mg/1
Sulfate 3-5 g/1
pH 4.0-4.7
Color 100,000 units
Temperature 80-90°C
65
-------
CTl
O1
TABLE 40. WASTEWATER GENERATION IN RUM PRODUCTION (53)
Waste
Parameter
or
Constituent
Vo 1 ume
COD
BOD5
Total Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Kjehldahl
Ni trogen
Total Phosphate
Total
Facility Waste
Generation
per
Proof Gallon
55.6 1 (14.7 gal)
3.0 kg (6.6 Ib)
1.0 kg (2.3 Ib)
4.2 kg (9.2 Ib)
3.9 kg (8.6 Ib)
0.25 kg (0.56 Ib)
0.06 kg (0.14 Ib)
0.003 kg (0.007 Ib)
Percent Contribution by Type of Waste Stream
Slops
Streams
66%
98%
99%
91%
91%
97%
100%
100%
Boiler/Cooling Water Treatment
Barrel Water & Fermentation & Analytical Lab.
Washings Washdown Wastewaters
5% 26% 3%
1% 1%
1%
9%
9%
3%
—
--
-------
Recycle of cooling waters is practiced extensively by both grain
and rum distilleries. A distiller will not recycle its cooling water if
a large source such as a river is readily available; however, when the supply
of water is limited, some type of recycling process is required. Cooling
towers and spray ponds are the predominant cooling devices used. The towers
are ideal when the available land area is limited. Figure 16 shows the results
of a sampling of distilleries taken in 1971 in regard to cooling water
recycle.
By-Product Recovery
The recovery of spent grains by grain distilleries is their most impor-
tant pollution abatement practice. The grains have been recovered at some
distilleries since the turn of the century and in 1973 over 360,000 metric
tons were reclaimed. Although the grain recovery operation substantially
reduces a distillery's waste load, spent grains are still responsible for
80-85 percent of the remaining load.
The stillage leaves the still at around 5-7 percent solids. Some small
distilleries haul the grains away in this wet form for livestock feed with
a few plants providing coarse screening. Generally the destination of these
wet, spent grains is close to the distiller as transportation costs can be-
come prohibitive.
Most large distilleries operate a "dry house" where the water is removed
from the stillage. First, the stillage is screened to remove the coarse
solids which are then processed. The screened stillage ("thin" stillage)
may then be centrifuged to remove some of the smaller solids. Next the
thin stillage is sent to a multiple-effect evaporator and concentrated to
a syrup of 25-30 percent solids which is dried in drum driers. The eva-
porator condensate accounts for 40-50 percent of the plant's total waste
load. The dried grain contains, fat, fiber, protein, non-fermentable
carbohydrates and a small amount of minerals which make it an excellent
livestock and poultry feed. Figure 17 is a diagram of dry house operations.
One grain drying system currently in use (26) employs a recompression
evaporator to replace the triple-effect evaporator. This unit is saving
$75,000 to $100,000 in annual operating costs while handling 378,000 liters
of stillage per day, six days a week. First, the stillage is centrifuged
and then the concentrate is sent to the recompression evaporator where
it is concentrated from 2.5 percent to 31 percent solids. This unit operates
at relatively low temperatures; therefore, the high nutritive value of the
stillage is maintained. A plate evaporator and dispersion dryer complete
the process.
At rum distilleries the nature of the raw material and the resulting
stillage make by-product recovery far less attractive. Most of the solids
in rum stillage are soluble and therefore difficult to dry. Only 30 percent
of the solids in grain stillage are soluble. Presently, recovery of rum
stillage is not practiced on a commercial scale.
67
-------
CO
Q
LU
>-
LU
>
rr
Z>
CO
CO
u_
o
LU
O
o:
u
Q_
40
30
20
0
33-3%
25%
25%
/6-6%
0% 0-20% 20-50% 50-100%
PERCENT OF COOLING WATER RECYCLED
Figure 16. Percent of plants surveyed practicing various degrees of cooling
water recycle ( 3 ).
-------
DRYER
DRIED GRAINS
WITH
SOLUBLES
SPENT
STILLAGE
STORAGE
CONDENSATE
EVAPOR-
ATOR
Figure 17. Dry house operations
69
-------
During the mid 60's a pilot plant was built in India to dry rum stillage
and recover the potassium salts as a by-product. India has a great need
for potash fertilizers. The plant used a filter press and a quadruple-effect
evaporator to drive off most of the liquid. Then, the concentrated stillage
was incinerated and the potash-rich ash collected. The potassium salts are
leached out of the ash and recrystallized. At that time the process was reported
to be economically sound (7).
Wastewater Treatment
As previously discussed, distillery wastewaters are organic in nature
and highly biodegradable. This makes them potentially very harmful to natural
streams and amenable to biological treatment systems. The effluent strength
and degree of treatment required are dependent on by-product recovery techni-
ques, the amount of water reuse, waste stream segregation, and processing
techniques.
In 1970 about 50 percent of the grain distilleries questioned in a survey
had waste treatment plants, but that percentage has certainly increased.
Most of the remaining plants discharge their effluents into municipal sewers
with just a few putting their wastes directly into large bodies of water.
Being readily biodegradable, distillery wastes require no special facilities
when discharged to a municipal plant. Of the distillery owned treatment
plants, most utilize conventional biological treatment methods. Three
existing plants are described here as examples (19).
Plant 1
This treatment system consists of three lagoons in series receiving
a total waste flow of 136,000 liters per day. The first lagoon is about
2 meters deep and provides primary treatment. Most of the solids are settled
out and digested under anaerobic conditions. This lagoon achieves 85 percent
BOD,- removal at a loading of 90 kg BODr/hectare - with an 89 day detention
period. The second lagoon is also 2 meters deep and provides secondary treat-
ment under aerobic conditions. This lagoon achieves 65 percent BOD5 removal
at a loading of 20 kg BOD5/hectare-day with a detention time of 75 days.
The third pond is 0.9 meters deep and provides tertiary treatment, mostly
nitrogen and phosphorus removal. It achieves 57 percent BODs removal at a
loading of 3.6 kg BOD5/hectare-day with a detention time of 49 days. The
whole system provides 95 percent BODs removal. This treatment scheme yields
a good effluent with minimal operation and maintenance; however, it does
require substantial land area that may not be available to many distilleries.
Plant 2
This distillery-owned treatment plant consists of a primary aeration
pond, a two stage trickling filter and two oxidation ponds. The total
distillery flow is 378,000 liters per day. The BODs of the effluent as
it leaves the distillery averages around 800 mg/1. The primary aeration
pond has two 5 H.P. aerators which supply sufficient oxygen but do not
keep the solids in suspension. It has a detention time of 5.85 days and a
surface loading of 2500 kg/hectare. This unit's BOD5 removal efficiency
varies from 45 percent in winter to 70 percent in summer.
70
-------
The two trickling filters are operated in series with an average hy-
draulic loading of 0.68 l/sec/m? (1 gpm/ft2). The filters are 4.66 meters
square, 6.7 meters deep and filled with PVC media. The first oxidation
pond has a detention period of 7.5 days and a surface area of 0.19 hectares
A_5 HP aerator is provided at the entrance of the pond. In series with the'
first oxidation pond is a second with a surface area of 0.19 hectares and a
detention period of 6 days. The final effluent BOD5 for the system averages
30 mg/1 (19). This type of system requires considerably less land area than
Plant 1, but operation is more complex and costs are higher.
Plant 3
The American Distilling Company, successfully treats its wastewaters-
using parallel operation of three activated sludge units and bio-disc treat-
ment (57). In a full-scale U.S. Environmental Protection Agency supported
demonstration project the activated sludge system with a total design flow
of 2000 m3 per day consistently removed over 90 percent of the BODs with
widely varying operating conditions. The bio-disc system, after the flow
was reduced to 170 cubic meters per day from the design flow of 450 m3,
attained a BODs removal efficiency of 90 percent. Series operation of the
bio-disc and activated sludge treatment did not improve efficiency.
Pilot scale anaerobic digestion has also been used to treat grain dis-
tillery wastes (43). Results have been quite good, but it is more attractive
when the influent waste load is abnormally higher than common grain dis-
tillery effluent.
Rum distilleries located in Puerto Rico do not treat their wastewaters
prior to disposal. Like those from a grain distillery, rum distillery ef-
fluents are readily biodegradable but they are also much stronger. A major
portion of the organics in grain distillery effluent are in the insoluble
form and are easily removed. This is not the case with rum distillery efflu-
ents. The large organic content and the resulting high oxygen demand make
economical oxygen transfer in an anaerobic system very difficult. For this
reason most research to date has concentrated on anaerobic treatment.
Both bench and pilot scale anaerobic digestion systems have been tried
on rum stillage (25, 53, 7, 52, 48). A very interesting aspect of these
investigations is the importance of feed dilution. One study (25) showed
a 70 percent COD removal with a loading of 5.9 kg COD/m3-day and a deten-
tion time of 16 days treating full strength stillage. Using diluted waste
(65 percent of full strength) 71 percent COD removal was achieved with an
organic loading of 7.7 kg COD/m3-day at a detention time of 8.4 days. This
higher loading with the diluted waste can be attributed to the high volatile
acids and low pH that develop when the raw waste is fed to the digester.
The sulfide ion was found to inhibit digestor operation so its concentration
must be controlled. Gas scrubbing with ferric chloride and recirculation
through the reactor relieves this inhibition and lowers the volatile acid
concentration.
71
-------
X
Pilot scale anaerobic contact units have also been used to treat rum
stillage. This is just a variation of the anaerobic digestor involving sludge
recycle and a lower liquid detention time. One Environmental Protection
Agency study (53) showed that the unit could produce an effluent of 30,000
rng/1 COD from an influent of 70,000-100,000 mg/1 with detention times greater
than 40 days.
Both of these anaerobic units produce methane on such a scale that it
is economical to recover as a by-product. About 25 volumes of gas are pro-
duced for every volume of wastewater treated and 60 percent of this is methane.
The anaerobic contact study indicated that methane recovery in a plant-
scale installation could reduce unit treatment costs by one-third at a design
capacity of 189 m3/day and two-thirds at 1136 m3/day.
Although they do reduce COD significantly, these anaerobic units pro-
duce an effluent that is still very strong and unacceptable for disposal
even to a municipal sewer. Most likely, a combination of anaerobic, aerobic
and solids separation processes or some type of land disposal like that used
for wine stillage will be required to produce a satisfactory effluent.
Much more research is needed in this area as rum distillery effluents con-
tinue to be one of the most serious water pollution problems in the beverage
industry.
72
-------
SECTION VII
S.I.C. 2086 BOTTLED AND CANNED SOFT DRINKS INDUSTRY
Industry Description
The soft drink industry (SDI) had 2943 plants in 1971 (18). About
half of these are small, employing fewer than twenty people. The bulk of
the product comes from medium-sized and large plants owned by major companies
offering nationally advertised products, or from medium-sized plants bottling
the same products under franchise agreements. The product is sold in stores
in a variety of containers ranging in size from 0.18 liters (six ounces)
to 1.9 liters (half-gallons). Vending machines are in common use in gaso-
line stations and canteens. Restaurants and bars used bottled or canned
products to some extent, but there is a strong trend toward the use of
dispensing equipment. Some small plants or companies serve a local market
through direct home delivery. Small locally-owned plants produce a variety
of flavors, while larger companies with many plants (and franchise agreements)
have tended toward the production of a single product. In recent years,
however, the larger companies have developed fuller lines of flavors with
several advertised brand names
A number of recent developments in the industry have had a marked
impact on industry practices and on wastewater production and disposal.
First, there is the introduction of non-returnable or one-way containers.
From the wastewater standpoint, bottle washing was and is the major contri-
butor of waste. A plant packing only one-way containers eliminates the
major source of water-borne waste. Some plants packing both returnable and
one-way bottles pass the one-way bottles through the wash cycle because of
the automatic features of their packing machines, and because new bottles
or cans contain cardboard dust or other soil from manufacturing and packing.
This affects water use, but no significant amounts of waste substances are
added to the total wastewater streams. Some plants use an air wash for new
containers.
Public acceptance of canned soft drinks is commonplace. Family-sized
packages (32 ounces) are not offered in cans. The so-called "fruit juice
drinks" are sold in 42 ounce cans in food stores, but the fruit juice drinks
are not manufactured in soft-drink packing plants. Most recently, the
leading brands of juice drinks have been introduced in the standard individual
soft drink can size (12 ounces) as have "iced-tea" beverages.
The Food and Drug Administration is pushing for nutritional labeling
of foods and beverage products (42). Such labeling could affect the market
73
-------
acceptance of beverage products. If juice drinks or other products displace
soft drinks from the market, one can expect that the soft drink packers will
take on the new types of products in the future. One of the major juice
drink brand names is owned by a major national soft drink company. A food
company brand name iced-tea beverage is being packed and is now available
on the market.
The recent public awareness of environmental quality has resulted in
some national pressure against one-way containers and in state laws banning
one-way containers (56). Success of the bottle bill in Oregon along with
a recent Maryland Supreme Court decision allowing local jurisdiction in re-
quiring refundable containers would indicate that the trend of using "throw
away" containers is reversing. In fact, a Texas soft drink bottler has urged
the industry to end its opposition to returnable bottles (73).
Another important development was the introduction and growth in popu-
larity of the sugar-free or low-calorie soft drink. Since sugar is the
major BOD substance in a soft drink packing plant waste, the waste strength
should be markedly less in a plant packing only the low-calorie products.
Industry-wide there has been a tendency for the low-calorie products to be
packed in one way containers. The banning of cyclamates hit the industry
hard, but since then new cyclamate free recipes have been developed. The
dietetic products are being heavily advertised and have captured the same
market attention as the cyclamate-sweetened products.
Over the past decade or so the soft drink industry has grown about five
times faster than the population, at a rate of about 6.5 percent a year.
There is evidence that this growth rate is leveling off (18). This can
be seen as inevitable with population growth and per capita consumption of
soft drinks leveling off. At present, per capita consumption is about 83
liters per year. There has been a very definite trend toward the loss of
small plants and thus an increase in the average size of plants in the industry
as discussed later. Another possible development that could profoundly af-
fect the character of the national industry is the regulation or banning by
the Federal Trade Commission of territorial or area-exclusive franchises,
which are the present practice (41). Such banning action would presumably
result in the swamping of smaller, poorly capitalized franchise packers by
larger franchise packers.
Soft drinks are more than 90 percent water (by volume). The water
quality requirements for this so-called product water are stringent, es-
sentially potable water requirements (68). Potable quality water is also
needed for washing process equipment and final rinsing of bottles (if prac-
ticed). Because product delivery costs are such a large part of total costs,
and because of water needs, soft drink packing plants tend to be located in
or close to the urban market and almost all plants have municipal water sup-
plies and discharge their wastewaters to municipal sewer systems.
Bottledand Canned Soft Drinks - The Product
Soft drinks are manufactured beverages consisting of sugar, syrup,
flavors, acid, and water saturated with carbon dioxide. Some soft drinks
are noncarbonated, but these are a small part of the total production.
74
-------
Flavors (also called extracts in the bottling trade) are mixtures of
flavorings extracted from fruits, roots, and other plant tissues They
also contain essential oils or aromatic chemicals in solution. ' \
xu /Cldul®nt! used ar! the acids citric: tartaric, phosphoric and lactic.
The final pH of a soft drink is 2.5 for cola and about 3.0 for fruit flavors
Root beer and similar flavors have a pH of about 4.0. A typical recipe for
pH 2.0 beverage is 780 mg of 50 percent citric acid in 100 liters of beverage
A 60° Brix syrup contains 0.77 kg/liter sugar, 0.52 kg/liter water, total
weight being 1.29 kg/liter. A typical soft drink contains in one liter
about 3 volumes (S.T.P.) of carbon dioxide equal in weight to 6.2 mg. The
100 ml of syrup contain 0.88 ml of flavoring and 38 ml water.
The typical soft drink formula or recipe is:
Syrup 100 ml
Acid 3.8 ml
Carbon dioxide 6.2 ml
Water 890 ml
TOTAL 1.0 liter
Most bottling plants do not blend their own syrups but receive them
in barrels or smaller containers, the contents of which are transferred to
holding or mixing tanks as required.
Some franchised bottles receive complete syrups from the licensor.
There are some independent syrup makers whose specialty is flavored syrups.
The largest companies refine raw sugar to the syrup stage and use this
product for blending syrup.
Several of the large franchisors produce their own extracts; however,
most flavoring syrups in use are produced from the blending of purchased
materials - sugar, essences, juice concentrates or extracts.
Standard Manufacturing Process
Compared to the other industries in the Beverage Industry, the manufac-
ture of bottled and canned soft drinks is a relatively simple process.
Developments in the past two decades have made it largely automatic, requiring
a minimum of manufacturing personnel. However, the ramifications of the
business and the low price per unit sale combine to require a high degree
of efficiency and close control of costs.
The standard manufacturing process is shown in Figure 18. The three
principal sources of waste materials are:
1. Preparation of flavoring materials
2. Carbonated water
3. Bottles
75
-------
While some beverage bottlers produce the flavors used from basic ingre-
dients, blending them according to formula, most purchase those materials
from specialists in flavor manufacture. They are received as extracts
and usually require the addition of acidulant, color, or other ingredients
which, with sugar syrups, make up the flavored base used in the finished
beverage.
Simple syrup is produced by dissolving sugar in water and used as a
major component of the flavoring base. After filtration of the simple syrup,
the flavoring material is added according to formula to make the flavored
syrup. The syrup is transferred to the filling machine by pipeline from the
mixing vessel or storage tank.
The syrup-making process is omitted in some plants where the finished
flavored syrup is made by proprietary formula at a central point and delivered
to the bottler in barrels ready for use in the filling operation.
The component carbonated water involves water treatment depending on
the characteristics of the feed water and the process water requirements.
After treatment the water is cooled to approximately 2-4°C for better adsorp-
tion of the carbon dioxide. In the carbonating apparatus, the prepared
refrigerated water is saturated with the carbonic gas under pressure and
agitation. In some cases, a modification of the foregoing process is prac-
ticed, and that involves premixing of flavor syrup with the purified water
in bulk and then subjecting it to the carbonation process.
Bottle washing is an important process in the soft drinks industry
in that it adds waste load. Various types of automatic machines are avail-
able for use in the essential bottle washing operation. These machines
must wash, clean, sterilize, and rinse clear all bottles. This operation
generally consists of four steps:
a. Feeding of bottles to the machine
b. Pre-rinsing
c. Immersion of bottles into a series of alkaline baths for washing,
cleaning and sterilization. In actual practice, only caustic
soda or caustic and sodium gluconate are used. Trisodium phosphate
is not commonly used nor are detergents, per se.
d. Final rinsing
After cleansing, an endless conveyor line takes the bottles to the
filling machine. Inspections of the bottles are carried out before and after
washing to remove the unusables and the defective ones.
Bottle washing is not practiced in about 50 percent of the plants where
either washed and sterilized bottles are delivered to them by manufacturers
or non-returnable (one-way) containers are used.
76
-------
FLAVORING
EDIBLE
ACIDS, ETC.
BOTTLES
CARBON
DIOXIDE
ALKALINE
DETERGENT
BOTTLE
WASHING
(STERILIZATION)
BOTTLE FILLING
(BEVERAGE BLENDING)
t
CROWN
CLOSURES
CROWNING
LABELLING
I
INSPECT
CASES
CARTONS
ETC.
PACKAGING
1
TO STORAGE OR
CONSUMER OUTLET
Figure 18. Flow diagram of standard manufacturing process-bottled and canned
soft drinks (18 ).
-------
The filling operation is carried out automatically. First, flavored
syrup is added to the bottle in predetermined quantity and then it is filled
with carbonated water. The metal plastic-lined crown is then placed on
the bottle, being held firmly over the mouth by crimping on the locking ring
at the top of the bottle. Because the syrup portion is heavier than the
water, the contents must be mixed. This is done by end-over-end mixing on
a machine to which the bottles are delivered by chain conveyor and from which
they continue to the labeler. Labeling (if practiced) and casing are the
two major finishing operations before packaging.
Water Uses and Wastewater Characteristics
In the production of soft drinks, water is used not only in the finished
product but also for the following purposes:
(a) Washing containers (if practiced)
(b) Cleaning production equipment
(c) Cooling refrigeration and air compressors
(d) Plant clean-up
(e) Truck washing (if bottling plant distributes own product)
(f) Sanitary purposes
(g) Low pressure heating boilers
(h) Air conditioning
The possible sources of wastes from the manufacture of soft drinks
are also as shown in the above paragraph. In addition, in-plant water
treatment will involve processes by chemical coagulation, settling, carbon
and sand filtration, chlorination, deaeration and others depending upon local
water quality and plant demands. Ion exchange units are sometimes used.
In-plant water treatment will produce waste effluents and sludges from
backwashing of filter units and from removal of settled materials following
chemical coagulation. The character and quantity of wastes arising from
treating water will depend on the quality of the local water supply and the
type of treatment units employed.
Wastewater from the bottle washing machine results from continuous
discharges from the pre-rinse and final rinse, and from intermittent dumping
of the cleaning solution. Various materials such as left-over drink, straws,
discarded cigarette butts, soil, mold, and other miscellaneous substances
are removed from dirty bottles by the pre-rinse operation of the bottle
washing machine. The wastewater leaving the pre-rinse, especially in the
case of modern machines, may be passed through a medium to coarse sieve or
water strainer to prevent discharge to the sewer of large quantities of sus-
pended matter. Solids recovered through screening of the wastewater from
bottle washing are deposited in the plant's garbage disposal system. Some
bottling plants reuse part of the final rinse as pre-rinse water which reduces
spent water volumes leaving the bottle washer. Other wastes are those which
occur intermittently as a result of cleaning of the syrup mixing tank,
syrup feed storage tanks, and syrup filters; spillage at the syrup tank and
filler; and poor housekeeping. About 10-15 percent of the products (nation-
wide) use artificial sweeteners which do not cause BOD.
78
-------
The results of a study conducted on three bottling plants by the Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center of U.S. Public Health Service (47) are given
n? Jhblct4J' i * ' VhS Taft Center Study was obsolete at the t L
of the study and went out of business shortly after the study was published
From the results it can be seen that the PH of the wastes are hiah ranninn
from 10.0 to 11.4. The BOD5 varied from 380 to 660 mg/1 a nd s pended 9 9
solids varied from 160 to 240 mg/1. auipenueu
A summary of the raw waste load is given in Table 42. The wastewater
volumes per m3 of processed drink in plants A and B are much higher than in
D. This is due to the improvement of technology through the 1960's In-
spection of the BOD values will reveal that there is a large variation
It was found from the literature that the higher values are due to bottle
washing operations and to paper labels on the containers. It was verified
by the researchers of the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, by measurements
of left over liquid from a representative number of soft drink bottles, that
waste from the bottle washing machine constituted the major source of BOD
load. Of the three plants studied, Plant C discharged the greatest amount
of BOD5 per unit of production. This was due to additional operations con-
cerning inplant mixing and blending of syrups, and the presence in the waste-
water of greater quantities of materials associated with label removal from
bottles. Both Plants A and B received simple flavored stock syrups for
plant use and processed relatively small numbers of paper-labeled bottles.
TABLE 41. WASTE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFLUENTS FROM SOFT DRINK BOTTLING PLANTS
Plant
A
B
C
Da
BOD5
mg/1
380
660
250
260
SS
mg/1
170
160
340
--
Alkalinity
Pheno. Total
230
100
110
—
390
250
220
--
Range
of pH
10.1-11.4
10.0-11.2
10.4-11.2
4.0-8.5
aPlant D is a typical value for a medium or large-sized modern plant
operating under franchise from a major national company
79
-------
TABLE 42. WASTE LOADS DISCHARGED FROM SOFT DRINK BOTTLING PLANTS PER CUBIC
METER FINISHED PRODUCT
Plant
A
B
C
Da
Wastewater
m3/m3
5.07
3.53
12.8
2.65
BODs
kg/m3
1.92
2.32
3.15
0.58
SS
kg/m3
0.88
0.57
4.33
--
aPlant D is a typical value for a medium or large-sized modern plant
operating under franchise from a major national company.
Based on 1960 technology, Table 42 shows a range of 1.9-3.2 kg g
per FIT of product, but a figure of 0.6 kg 6005 per m^ is shown for a typical
modern medium-sized franchise bottler. By using total annual production
and number of plants from the association's 1969 Sales Survey (40) and
the data of Table 43, an average of BODs waste load can be calculated.
Table 43 contains a mixture of modern and older plants and the calculated
waste loads for the minimum waste strength of 250 mg BODs/l and for the
maximum of 500 mg BODs/l are 0.97 and 1.95 kg BODs/m^ of beverage, respec-
tively.
TABLE 43. SOFT DRINK PROCESS EFFLUENT BODs (18)
103 Kilograms per Year
Kilograms per Daya of 250 Days
Plant Hin Max
A 34 68
B 66 131
C 7.2 14
D 33 66
E 14 27
F 10 20
G 9.5 18
H 35 70
80
Min
8.5
16
1.8
8.2
3.4
2.6
2.4
8.7
Max
17
33
3.6
16
6.8
5.2
4.8
17
-------
TABLE 43. SOFT DRINK PROCESS EFFLUENT BOD5 (18) (Continued)
Kilograms per Da.ya
103 Kilograms per Year
Plant
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
Min
5.4
19
9.5
37
4.5
11
8.6
19
23
Max
11
36
18
73
9.1
23
18
36
45
Min
1.4
4.6
2.4
9.2
1.1
2.8
2.2
4.6
5.7
Max
2.7
9.3
4.8
18
2.3
5.7
4.3
9.3
11
Based on BODg max/min, 500/250 mg/1 using 1970 figures
Table 44 presents wastewater volume data from the industry survey in
relation to production capacity and total water use. There is extreme
variability in the ratio of wastewater volume to total water used (or to
product water). With non-returnable containers in use, the wastewater
can be as low as 10 percent of the total water used (90 percent of water
used goes into the product). This plant does not even wash trucks, but
passes the product to distributors who pick it up at the plant. In the
case of the largest plant the wastewater produced includes an unknown amount
of wastewater arising in a complete syrup manufacturing process in the same
facility. Table 45 presents a critical check on data obtained in the soft
drink industry survey, and it shows clearly that there is a marked incon-
sistency in the data for the two smallest plants.
It was found that all respondents except for two tended to under-
estimate wastewater volume, but the error is gross in the case of the
two smallest plants. In the case of the smallest plant (#13) water use
seems very high for production capacity, and product water estimated from
water use and wastewater volume is also high in relation to production.
Due to practices in this industry such as the use of non-returnable
containers and better housekeeping procedures, the waste volume and the
waste load are reduced considerably. The waste loads from this industry do
not pose a significant problem when compared to the other industries of
the beverage category.
81
-------
It is noteworthy that some plants use only non-returnable containers.
These use forced air for cleaning containers. The wastewater volume in
these operations is minimal. The only wastewater source is washdown of
equipment and floors and backwash of water treating equipment and occasional
spillage and breakage. Truck washing is not practiced in such plants because
the products are marketed through distributors. The solid waste problem
is also at a minimum because glass enters the premises in the final deliver-
able carton. The gallon jugs or other containers for extracts or complete
syrup are resold and they do not constitute solid waste problems.
TABLE 44. ANNUAL PRODUCTION VS. WATER USE IN THIRTEEN SOFT DRINK PLANTS9 (18)
103 Cubic
Meters Beverage
Per Year
50
15
10
9.1
9.1
6.2
3.0
2.2
2.0
1.4
.57
.57
.24
Total
Water
Intake
(103/m3)
212
42
50
95
95
45
25
19
36
13
12
7.6
11
Total
Waste.
Water0
(103/m3)
170
20
22
76
66
34
14
15
33 62%
95
9.5 85%
7.1
1.1
Type
Container
1/2 RC
1/2 cans
NRC
NRC
RC
RC
RC
NRC
NRC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Waste
Water
(m3/m3)
Beverage
3.4
1.3
2.2
8.4
7.2
5.5
4.7
6.8
16
6.8
17
12
4.6
Ratio of
Wastewater
Total Water
Use %
80
48
44
80
69
76
56
79
92
73
79
93
10
L Based on 1970 production--250 days/year.
Includes cooling water
RC = returnable bottles, NRC = non-returnable bottles or cans
82
-------
TABLE 45. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOFT DRINK INDUSTRY SURVEY DATA (18)
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Product Water
Estimated From
Case Production
(103 m3)
45
14
9.2
8.2
8.2
5.7
2.8
1.9
1.8
.53
.53
.23
.1
Product Water
Estimated As
Difference
Between Water
Use and Waste-
Water (103 m3)
42
23
28
19
32
11
11
3.8
3.2
2.4
.49
8.8
3.8
Ratio
(Factor
or Error)
0.93
1.6
3.0
2.3
3.9
1.9
3.9
2.0
1.8
4.5
0.92
38
34
It has been estimated that 80 percent of the total water intake becomes
wastewater when all the containers are washed. Where non-returnable con-
tainers are in use, only 50 percent or less of the water intake becomes
wastewater, and the remainder ends up as product. A plant using entirely
one-way containers and bottling only a single flavor or switching flavors
only infrequently and not washing trucks could have a total wastewater as
little as 10 percent of the product water used. The strengths of waste-
waters from plants using returnable and one-way containers are in the range
of 380-660 mg/1 and 200-250 mg/1 BODs, respectively (18).
Treatment Processes for Soft Drink Industry Wastes
In the survey (18) of SDI companies and interviews with managers and
technical staff, none reported disposing of waste other than via a muni-
cipal sewer system. SDI wastewater is amenable to disposal via municipal
systems containing, as it does, cleaning compounds, caustic soda, sugar,
organic acids and salts from water treatment. Where phosphoric acid is used
83
-------
as acidulant in the soft drink recipe, phosphate is also included. In
BOD terms, more than ninety-seven percent of the waste load can be attributed
to materials washed out of reused bottles (47). Caustic material also ori-
ginates almost solely from bottle washing. Strong caustic washing com-
pounds may also be used for plant clean-up and truck washing. For the pre-
sent mix of plant operations in the SDI as a whole, an average of 5.3 m^
of wastewater per m^ of beverage and a waste load of 1.2 kg BODs per m^
beverage are generated.
84
-------
SECTION VIII
S.I.C. 2087 FLAVORINGS AND EXTRACTS
Indus try Descr1pti on
For 1971, the total value of shipments in the flavorings and ex-
tracts industry (FEI) was estimated at $1,475 million (64). While
employment in the FEI in 1960 was about 9,500, in 1970 it was about
13,000, a figure which indicates an increase of less than 4 percent
per year.
The value of the product for 1960 was $548 million. There was a
9 percent increase in the ten years following, making the 1970 value of
the product $1,350 million (65). A 9 percent growth rate is predicted for
the decade 1970-1980.
There is a trend towards a decreasing number of plants as shown in
Table 46 with 502 establishments in 1958 and 401 in 1967. The geographic
distribution of FEI plants in 1967 is shown in Table 47. A discrepancy
exists in the total number of plants as reported by the different sources
in Tables 46 and 47.
Note the concentration in the industrial Northeast and E. North
Central regions. Employment comparisons indicate that if the average
number of employees in a small plant can be taken as twelve, the average
employment in a large plant is about eighty.
The Product
Natural and imitation flavorings are used in almost all manufactured
food products including: bakery goods, meat, fish, and salad products,
ice cream, candy and confections, and liquors and soft drinks. Sources
of these materials are roots, seeds, leaves, stems, blossoms, exudates,
and barks of herbs, shrubs, and trees. The industry tends to be highly
proprietary.
Production methods or unit processes include milling, comminution,
maceration, digestion (using heat), fermentation, percolation, extraction,
concentration by freezing and evaporation, and distillation. Alcohol is
added to retain volatiles during concentration by freezing.
85
-------
TABLE 46. DECLINE IN NUMBER OF PLANTS (62)
Year
1958
1963
1967
Number of Plants
502
492
401
TABLE 47. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS (63)
Region
Northeast
South Atlantic and
E. So. Central
E. No. Central
W. No. Central
Mountain
Pacific
All U.S.A.
Number of
Total >20
170
51
90
30
5
51
431
Plants
Employees
43
14
26
5
0
14
no
Yields of non-citrus natural fruit flavors are about one liter of
30° Brix concentrate from 3 kg of fruit. The composition of fruit flavoring
is a mixture of fruit extract, concentrated juice, and condensed volatiles
from the vacuum distillation--the so-called essence.
Botanical flavors are classified from bitter to sweet to aromatic
in six grades.
Distillation (the middle fraction) is employed to purify or improve
alcoholic extracts prepared from macerations, digestions, and percolations.
These alcoholic solutions may be freed from terpenes by dilution with water.
Oleoresins are the extracts of botanicals by means of low boiling sol-
vents such as ethylene dichloride solvent which is recovered by condensa-
tion. Spice oils are prepared this way to preserve volatile flavor compo-
nents.
86
-------
Essential oils may be prepared by these unit processes:
1. Expression - (e.g., from citrus peel)
2. Steam distillation of plant tissues
3. Enfleurage - flowers steeping in fat or oil
4. Solvent extraction - especially from flowers with petroleum
ether accompanied by solvent recovery
5. Adsorption - air or gas passed over delicate blossoms and
adsorbed on charcoal
The basic reference text (38) lists about 300 plants as sources of
flavorings. Thousands of individual compounds have been isolated and iden-
tified as compounds of flavor and many synthetics are used as additives in
imitation flavorings.
The use of flavoring and other additives to food is controlled by a
1958 law (59). In reflection of the requirements of that law, a technical
committee of the industry association prepared the so-called list of sub-
stances "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS), which includes natural sub-
stances (like essential oils and other extracts), and pure substances both
naturally occurring and synthetic.
The first list (23) includes about 1100 substances of which about
600 are of natural origin. The second list (24) adds 125 more substances
almost all of which are pure substances available as synthetics. It is
not possible to determine how many of the approximately 600 natural sub-
stances are available as synthetics and consequently are produced in the
organic chemicals industry (as opposed to SIC 2087), but there is no doubt of
a trend toward growth of the list as synthetic organic chemical technology
grows.
Components of essential oils are esters, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones,
and hydrocarbons including cyclics and terpenes. Glucosides and alkaloids
are also flavor ingredients.
Imitiation flavors which play a large part in processed foods are
blends of aromatic chemicals, essential oils, and other substances devised
to imitate natural flavors or are extracts which are flavors by themselves.
Modern analytical techniques have permitted the separation and identi-
fication of extract components resulting in more fidelity of imitation.
Natural flavorings are added in amounts ranging from 5 percent to
25 percent to improve the imitation. Preference is shown by manufacturers
for these imitations because of better stability. Fortification of natural
flavorings (extracts) with aromatic chemicals can increase their strength
without impairing their quality.
87
-------
Standard Manufacturing Process
Because of the variety of products and their proprietary nature it is
difficult to classify the industry with regard to manufacturing processes
and wastewater production. However, rough classification is given below:
1. Citrus oils, extracts, concentrates and other flavoring products
2. Non-citrus fruit flavors and syrups - (natural and imitation)
3. Essential oils and extracts of spices and botanicals
4. Blended syrups and flavors not involving production of basic
ingredients
A typical process for a non-citrus fruit flavoring is as follows:
1. Expression of fruit, collecting juice
2. Alcohol steep of presscake and recovery of extract
3. Distillation of juice or alcohol extract of both, collecting first
condensate as an essence. The essence may be fractionally dis-
tilled
4. Vacuum distillation of juice or produce concentrate
5. Removal of alcohol from steep by distillation to effect separa-
tion of residue as concentrate - possible clarification of
extracts
6. Blending of the products of steps four and five with one or more
of the products of step three to make the flavoring
Manufacture of several of the more common flavors and extracts are
discussed below.
Vanilla Extract
Vanilla beans are finely cut up and macerated cold with three successive
portions of 35 percent ethyl alcohol. The resulting extracts are combined
to make a fine vanilla extract. Other solvents may be used, and the extrac-
tion carried further, but the product becomes coarser and less desirable as
a fine flavor. Imitation vanilla flavor has largely replaced the natural
flavoring extraction in the market.
Chocolate and Cocoa
The fermented cocoa beans are received at the manufacturing centers
after drying. The beans are then heated in rotary roasters between 104
and 121 degrees Celsius which develops the true chocolate flavor and aroma
-------
and removes unpleasant tannins and volatile matter. The roaster beans
are quickly cooled to prevent over-roasting, cracked in a conical mill
are dehusked by a winnowing air stream, and are degerminated. The product
is known as "cocoa mbs." To work up the cocoa product into chocolate,
the modern method is to grind the sugar in a closed circuit disintegrator
and the nibs in a separate water-cooled two stage disc mill with closed
circuit removal of fines. The two are then mixed making a fine and uniform
product. For cocoa, the roasted and ground beans are subjected to pressure
in hydraulic presses to remove some of the fat content. Some of the products
so produced find their way into syrups and flavorings used in the beverage
and food industries, but chocolate and cocoa per se are food products.
Citrus Oils
Citrus oils are used in many products other than foods. The method
of manufacture is unique because the oil is abundant and almost all of it
is contained in an outer layer of the peel, the flavedo (0.4 mm of the outer
layer of the peel). Citrus juices contain some oil as do the seeds. The
seed oil is not used much in food flavorings.
Cold pressed citrus oils (60) are currently recovered in the U.S.
by three methods: (1) removal of oil from the peel after juice extraction;
(2) simultaneous extraction of juice and oil emulsion from the whole fruit;
and (3) abrasion of the oil-bearing flavedo from the whole fruit. As of
1962 most oils were being produced by the first method (Figure 19).
In the second method a machine consisting of two heavy rotating cylinders
of stainless steel simultaneously extracts juice and shaves off the flavedo.
One of the cylinders revolves against a perforated grid that, presses out
the juice after the cut fruit has been flattened by passage through the
rollers. A peel shaver removes the thin flavedo after juice extraction
just before the peel is discharged from the unit. The resulting flavedo
is finely shredded, slurried with water and the oil separated as in the
primary method. No water sprays are used in this method and loss of water-
soluble fractions is minimal.
The third method involves removal of the oil-bearing flavedo by
passing whole fruit through a tunnel of horizontal, carborundum-covered
rolls. A water spray removes the oil and peel debris during the passage
of the fruit through the tunnel. A screening of this slurry is followed
by the standard centrifugation method of the previously detailed methods.
The highest yields of oil are obtained by this method. (There are other
types of abrasers or graters that can be used in this process.)
Cold pressed citrus oils may be concentrated to reduce their limonene
content by vacuum distillation. The resulting products, known as fold
oils," are mainly in beverages because of good storage stability.
Natural Citrus Base for Non-Carbonated Drinks
Often called a beverage concentrate, this product consists of a mix-
ture of natural juice or juices and sugar syrup, acidified with citric or
89
-------
PEEL FROM
JUICE
EXTRACTORS
WATER
SPRAY
WASH
TAPERED
SCREW
PRESS
WATER
OIL-JUICE
EMULSION
A cm me
SCREENING
DEVICE
DISC TYPE
CENTRIFUGE
lO-OUTo
OIL ^
(CREAM)
SOLID
BOWL
CENTRIFUGE
y»/o
Olli
DISC
CENTRIFUGE
99.9%
Oil
PEEL
PARTICLES1
rSLUDGE
vo
o
HOLD FOR
PECTIN
M'F'G.
BARRELING
AND
STORAGE
WASTEWATER
IDISC
CENTRIFUGE
POLISHER
t/t.v»**ni i c.uf
OIL.
COLD
STORAGE
T
STEROLS
AND
WAXES
Figure 19. Cold pressed citrus oils production process (20 ).
-------
tartaric acid, flavored with citrus oils, and colored with certified food
colors. Deaeration, followed by flash pasteurization, canning, and cooling
are operations necessary for the finished product. Beverages are prepared
generally using one part concentrate plus five parts of water.
Bottlers Base for Carbonated Drinks
Bottlers base is made from a juice concentrate by pasteurizing ini-
tially to stabilize the juice "cloud" essential for appearance in the
final carbonated drink and to inhibit pectic enzymes (Figure 20). The
product is canned hot, sealed, and cooled, then stored at 13-16°C for pre-
serving flavor and color. One liter of base makes from 100 to 200 liters
of beverage.
Almost all citrus-flavored soft drinks today are made from so-called
imitation flavors containing a concentrated juice-essential oil mixture
with synthetic additives.
Water Use in the Industry
Table 48 shows the distribution of water use in FEI.
TABLE 48. WATER USE AS A FUNCTION OF PLANT SIZE, 1967 (20)
Plant Water Use (mgy) <1 1-9 10-19 20-99 >100
Nominal Size of the 0.7 5.0 15.0 55.0 150
Class (mgy)
Number of Plants 300 81 22
Water Use Total
(mgy) 210 404 330
TOTAL
22 6 431
1,210 900 3,054
A comparison of Tables 47 and 48 shows that small plants (with less
than 20 employees) (321) are about equal in number to plants using less than
3.78 million liters per year of water (300).
Total water use in FEI establishments using more than 20 million
gallons per year (mgy) has been estimated to be on the order of 1,100 mgy
according to Water Use in Manufacturing (63). In order to match that
figure, it would be necessary to take smaller nominal values for the plant
size classes, since the nominal sizes used above lead to an estimate of
total water use in plants using more than 20 mgy of 2,110 mgy (the sum of
1,210 and 900 in Table 48).
91
-------
VO
SUGAR, CITRIC ACID,
OILS, COLORING, ETC.,
PRESERVATIVE
CITRUS
JUICE
PASTEURIZATION
93°C
4 SEC
65° BRIX
CONCENTRATE
REFRIGERATED
TANK
HOMOGENIZER
PASTEURIZER
CANNER
I3-I6°C
STORAGE
Figure 20. Beverage base for carbonated drinks production process (20 ).
-------
Table 49 presents a classification of FEI plants by number of employees
according to Water Use in Manufacturing (63). Some pairs of adjacent
classes are combined to give larger classes containing numbers of plants
corresponding roughly to the water-use classes.
rrt 11 ?/ecent 1ndustrial wastewater survey of Cleveland (15), seven
FEI establishments were surveyed. (All were soft drink syrup blenders)
IhMT™£ of em!?loyees ran9ed from 1 to 100 and water use ranged from 60
to 109,000 gpd (15,000-27,250,000 gallons per year). The ratifof water
use to employees ranged from 0.02 to 1.9 mgy/employee.
TABLE 49. A COMPARISON OF PLANT EMPLOYMENT AND WATER USE (63)
Number of 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250-490 500-999
Employees
Number of 19(
Plants
(Total 431)
Nominal #
of Employees
Corresponding 0.7
Water-Use
Class (mgy)
mgy/employee
0.14
>8 55 61
115
25
5.0
0.20
23 22
23 22
75 175
15.0 55.0
0.20 0.31
400
150.0
0.38
Waste and Wastewater Characteristics
The waste streams of extract producers and/or syrup blenders appa-
rently have never been seriously analyzed as most characteristics are
unknown. However, a wastewater sample was analyzed from FEI plants in a
Cleveland Industrial Wastewater Survey (15) yielding wastewater charac-
teristics as shown in Table 50.
TABLE 50. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS-CLEVELAND SAMPLE, 1970 (15)
Parameter
PH
Temperature
BODC
Value
6.3
22°C
280 mg/1
93
-------
TABLE 50. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS—CLEVELAND SAMPLE, 1970 (15)
(Continued)
Parameter Value
COD 1,294 mg/1
Total Solids 1,349 mg/1
Suspended Solids 64 mg/1
Volatile Suspended Solids 60 mg/1
Volatile Solids 1,241 mg/1
Nitrogen 3.0 mg/1
Phosphorus 1.0 mg/1
The data may well be typical for a syrup blending plant. However, it
would be unwise to assume they are typical for the basic FEI manufacturing
processes like extraction and essence distillation. Such wastes probably
resemble fruit and vegetable processing wastes more closely.
Efficient spray balls used in tank washing aid in maintaining lower
volumes of wastewater. Other sources of wastewater are filter backwash
and steeping kettle wash from extraction processes as for vanilla and boiler
blowdown and bottom drainage from steam distillation processes.
Some segments of the industry are associated as subsidiary components
of other, more major, industrial facilities - e.g., food manufacturing
and organic chemical manufacturing. Citrus oils are produced mainly in
citrus fruit processing plants covered by SIC 2033. The small amount of
waste associated with the production of citrus oils and other flavorings
is combined with the major waste stream for disposal. The production of
chocolate flavorings is associated with the manufacture of chocolate and
cocoa and produces, of itself, only insignificant wastes relative to the
main products. Many manufacturers of syrups simply blend flavoring ingre-
dients with sugar and other syrups, conducting no manufacturing of the
flavoring ingredients themselves.
Solid wastes from the making of extracts are moderate in most cases,
the major exception being the production of citrus oils and other citrus
flavor products. The citrus processing industry is geared to handle much
of its own wastes as many of these wastes are sources of useful by-products
such as animal feeds and soil mulches.
With the exception of citrus flavoring products, the universal prac-
tice on wastewater is discharge to municipal sewer systems. Some citrus
flavoring manufacturers treat the wastewaters in privately-owned activated
sludge systems.
94
-------
Wastewater Disposal
A survey (20) of the industry and interviews with technical people
revealed only one small plant which did not discharge wastewater to muni-
cipal sewers. The 1967 Water Use in Manufacturing indicated that about
half the wastewater discharged by plants polled was discharged to water
courses with or without treatment. The survey results found no way to resolve
this contradiction, but it may be that virtually all FEI plants have come
to be served by municipal sewers since 1967, or it may be that the plants
indicating direct discharge to water courses in the poll were citrus fruit
processing plants producing FEI products as a sideline to the main manufac-
turing processes in SIC 2033 and 2037.
95
-------
SECTION IX
ECONOMICS
The economics of certain waste treatment schemes for the entire bever-
age industry are summarized in Table 51. The following summary consists of
economic estimates made in the Environmental Protection Agency effluent
guidelines document dealing with miscellaneous foods and beverages (21).
The waste treatment systems available to the different segments of the be-
verage industry are very diverse, but the costs for only two basic systems
are given due to the very limited amount of cost data available. The costs
are given for aerated lagoons and activated sludge systems which in some
cases may not be practical methods of treatment but are listed as examples.
As explained in the Development Document those costs are intended
to serve only as a guide in which the following assumptions were made in
developing the figures.
1. All costs are reported in August 1972 dollars. All engineering
cost estimates were made in December 1974 costs and converted
to August 1972 dollars by the Construction Cost Index of the
Engineering News Record.
2. Annual interest rate for capital is taken to be eight percent.
3. All investment cost is depreciated over a period of 20 years
except rolling stock which is depreciated over ten years.
4. Salvage value is taken as zero at the end of the depreciation
period.
5. Depreciation is attributed by the straight line method.
6. Total yearly cost = (investment cost/2) (0.08) + yearly
depreciation cost + operating cost.
7. Power costs = $0.04/kw-hr.
8. Excavation and fill is estimated at $3.92/m3 ($3.00/cu yd)
for December 1974.
9. Personnel costs for operation is $5.00/hr plus 50 percent
fringe benefits, administration, and other overhead.
96
-------
TABLE 51. ECONOMICS OF
BEVERAGE INDUSTRY TREATMENT SYSTEMS (21)
Cost (103
Treatment
Industry Scheme Investment
Breweries 3
New Large: 1500 m
(12800 bbl.)/day
Old Large: 2600 m3
(22,000 bbl.)/day
All Other: 470 m3
(4000 bbl.)/day
Malt: 350 metric tons
(16,000 bu.)/day
Wi neri es
Without Stills: 180
metric tons grapes/day
With Stills: 700
metric tons grapes/day
Grain Distilleries
With Still age Recovery:
375 metric tons (15,000
bu)/day
Without Stills: 50
metric tons (2000 bu)/day
Molasses
Distilleries: 30,000
Proof Gallons/day
Soft Drinks ?
Canners: 309 nT (81,500
gal.)/day
Bottlers: 136 m3 (35,000
gal.)/day
3
Beverage Bases: 379 m
(0.1 MG)/day
A , a
n. L. L
A.S.b
A.L.
A.S.
A.L.
A.S.
A.L.
A.S.
A.L.
A.S.
Land
Spreading
A.L.
A.S.
A.L.
Evaporation:
With A.L. ^
With A.S.a
A.L.
A.S.
A.L.
A.S.
A.L.
A.S.
2355
3731
7125
11377
1344
1507
1200
709
413
414
382
1231
1230
134
2646
2644
205
339
244
290
290
721
dollars)
Total
Yearly
(Capital &
Operating
1056
1030
3328
3107
530
440
573
176
172
116
52
603
289
28
800
698
66
49
79
66
115
123
Estima
% Remc
) BOD5
97.4
97.4
97
97
96.4
96.4
95.2
95.2
97.8
97.8
100
95.7
95.7
85.7
99.9
99.9
94.9
94.9
89.4
89.4
95.8
95.8
ited
»val
SS
90
90
98.5
89.5
89.1
89.1
83.1
83.1
90.1
90.1
100
92.3
92.3
75
99.8
99.6
76
76
63
63
40
40
97
-------
TABLE 51. ECONOMICS OF BEVERAGE INDUSTRY TREATMENT SYSTEMS (21) (Continued)
Footnotes:
^Aerated lagoon
Activated sludge
dEvaporation with aerated lagoon treatment of the condensate
Evaporation with activated sludge treatment of the condensate
10. All capital construction work is performed by an outside
contractor using normal profit margins.
11. When between 10 and 20 aeration units are purchased, a discount
of 5.0 percent is obtained. When more than 20 units are pur-
chased, the discount is 7.5 percent.
12. The December 1974 cost of steel is $0.20/kg ($0.45/lb).
13. The December 1974 cost of concrete is $134/m3 ($175/cu yd).
14. The December 1974 cost of contracted truck hauling of liquid
sludge or wastewater is $5.28/1000 liters ($20.00/1000 gal).
Table 52 contains a sample breakdown of the costs using an aerated
lagoon system for new large breweries.
TABLE 52. ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM - NEW LARGE
•BREWERIES (21)
Treatment Modules: Designed for 97.4 percent BODj. reduction
Screening and Grit Chamber
Equalization Basin
Acid Neutralization
Nitrogen Addition
Aerated Lagoon System
Investment Costs:
1. Construction $1,879,640
2. Land 26,410
3. Engineering 187,960
4. Contingency 187,960
5. PVC Liner 73,770
TOTAL $2,355,740
98
-------
TABLE 52. ITEMIZED COST SUMMARY FOR AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM - NEW LARGE
BREWERIES (21) (Continued)
Yearly Operating Costs:
1. Labor 24,990
2. Power 678,780
3. Chemicals 74,190
4. Maintenance and Supplies 61,690
5. PVC Liner 5,200
TOTAL 844,830
Total Yearly Costs
1. Yearly Operating Cost 844,830
2. Yearly Investment Cost Recovery 94,230
3. Depreciation 116,740
TOTAL 1,055,530
The costs presented in Table 51 may not be applicable in some cases,
since many of the industries discharge to municipal treatment such as the
case for "Old Large Breweries." Because of the urban location of these
breweries, adequate land is not available for a treatment system.
Municipal wastewater rates vary widely as reported by Dupre (16) and
Maystre and Geyer (35) and are generally based on BOD5 and suspended solids
loads. Estimated surcharge costs for two hypothetical industries comparable
to the beverage industry has been calculated (21). For BODs and SS concen-
trations of 800 mg/1 and one industry having a flow of 2830 m-3 per month
and the other having a flow of 28,320 m3 per month; the surcharges for
the smaller ranged from $8/mo to $269/mo and for the larger the range was
calculated to be from $78/mo to $2,690/mo.
99
-------
REFERENCES
1. Amerine, M. A., H. W. Berg, and W. V. Cruess. Technology of Wine
Making. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, Connecticut. Second Edition,
1971.
2. Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers. Nashville, Tennessee.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Malt Liquor Industry. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, August 1971.
3. Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers. Nashville, Tennessee.
Industrial Waste Survey of the Distilled Spirits Industry. Prepared
for U.S. EPA, August 1971.
4. Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers and Environmental
Research and Applications. Status of the Art of the Malt Liquor
Industry. Prepared for U.S. EPA, December 1971.
5. Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers and Environmental
Research and Applications. Status of the Art of the Wine and Brandy
Industry. Prepared for U.S. EPA, September 1971.
6. Bank of America. California Wine Outlook. September 1973.
7. Bhaskaran, T. R. Utilization of Materials Derived from Treatment
of Wastes from Molasses Distillers. Advances in Water Pollution
Research, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, London. 1965.
8. Burkhead, C. E., C. A. Lessig, and T. R. Richardson. Pollution
Abatement of a Distillery Waste. Water and Wastes Engineering.
Vol. 6, No. 5. May 1969.
9. California Farmer. What is Happening to Wine? October 1974.
10. Chadwick, T. H. and E. D. Schroeder. Characterization and Treat-
ability of Pomace Stillage. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation. Vol. 45, No. 9. September 1973.
11. Coast Laboratories. Grape Stillage Disposal by Intermittent Irri-
gation. Report to Wine Institute. June 12, 1947.
100
-------
City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. November 1973.
14. Craine, R. W. and J. F. Zievers. Liquid/Solids Separation of
Brewery Wastes. Master Brewers Association of America Technical
Quarterly. Vol. II, No. 1. 1974.
15. Dal ton-Dai ton-Little and Resource Engineering Associates. Industrial
Wastewater Survey for Cleveland.
16. Dupre, E. E. Survey of Wastewater Rates and Charges. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation. 42(1): 33-43.
17. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Capsule Report
No. 6. Pollution Abatement in a Brewing Facility. Prepared by
U.S. EPA.
18. Environmental Research and Applications, Inc., Wilton, Conn. State
of the Art Study of Water Pollution Control from the Beverage
Industry-Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
19. Environmental Research and Applications, Inc., Wilton, Conn. State
of the Art Study of Water Pollution Control from the Beverage
Industry-Distilled Liquor Except Brandy. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
20. Environmental Research and Applications, Inc. Wilton, Conn. State
of the Art Study of Water Pollution Control from the Beverage
Industry-Flavoring Extracts and Syrups. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
21. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, Florida.
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards - Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages
Point Source Category. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
22. Gough, W. A. Treatment of Fruit Cannery and Winery/Distillery
Wastes in an Activated Sludge Plant. Presented at Pacific North-
west Pollution Control Association Meeting. Richland, Washington.
November 6-8, 1974.
23. Hall, R. L. and B. L. Oser. Recent Progress in the Consideration of
Flavoring Ingredients Under the Food Additives Amendment, III GRAS
Substances. Food Technology. 19(2):151-197. 1965.
24. Hall, R. L. and B. L. Oser. Recent Progress in the Consideration
of Flavoring Ingredients Under the Food Additives Amendment. Food
Technology. 24(5):25-28, 30-32, 34. 1970.
101
-------
25. Hiatt, William C. Anaerobic Digestion of Rum Distillery Waste.
Clemson University. December 1972.
26. Hurst, B. Convert 220,000 Gal/Day Waste Stillage Problem Into
$l,500,000/Year Feed Sales. Food Processing. Vol. 34, No. 6,
June 1973.
27. Jacob, H. E. and E. L. Proebsting. Grape Pomace as a Vineyard and
Orchard Fertilizer. Wines and Vines. October 1937.
28. Kinsella, J. E. Grapeseed Oil: A Rich Source of Linoleic Acid.
Food Technology. Vol. 28, No. 5. May 1974.
29. Lastreto, R. New Method of Developing Fertilizer and Compost Values
in Winery Pomace. Report to Wine Institute Technical Advisory
Committee Meeting. March 9, 1953.
30. Linton, J. H. Pollution Abatement Through Utilization of Wet
Brewery By-Products in Livestock Feeding. The Brewers Digest.
November 1973.
31. Marsh G. L. Recovery of Tartrates from Winery Wastes. Proceedings
of Institute of Food Technologists. 1943.
32. Marsh, G. L. and R. H. Vaughn. Slop Disposal System Based on
Tartrate Recovery. Wines and Vines. Vol. 25, No. 6. June 1944.
33. Matchett, J. R., R. R. Legault, C. C. Nimmo, and G. K. Notter.
Tartrates from Grape Wastes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.
Vol. 36, No. 9. September 1974.
34. Maurer, C. L. and G. F. Hoi den. Brewery Feed By-Products. Presented
at American Association of Feed Microscopists Annual Meeting, June
11, 1973. Denver, Colorado.
35. Maystre, Y. and J. C. Geyer. Charges for Treating Industrial Waste-
water in Municipal Plants. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. 42(7):1277-1291.
36. McKee, J. E. and A. B. Pincince. Economics of Water Reuse in a
Brewery. Master Brewers Association of America Technical Quarterly.
Vol. II, No. 1. 1974.
37. McWhoter, T. R. and R. J. Zielinski. Waste Treatment for the Pabst
Brewery at Perry, Georgia. Proceedings 26th Annual Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference. May 1971. Lafayette, Indiana.
38. Merory, J. Food Flavorings - Composition, Manufacture, and Use.
AVI Publishing Co. Westport, Conn. 1968. 784 pp.
102
-------
39. Modern Brewery Age. 1974 Blue Book issue. March 1974.
40. National Soft Drinks Association. 1969 Sales Survey of the Soft
Drink Industry. NSDA, Washington, DC. 16 pp.
41. News Notes - FDA Announces Interest to Challenge Franchising
Practices. Soft Drinks. LXXXXIX (1167). February 1971.
42. News Notes - FDA Pushing for Nutritional Labeling. Soft Drinks.
XC (1171):14. June 1971.
43. Painter, H. A., J. Hemens, and D. G. Shurben. Treatment of Malt
Whiskey Distillery Wastes by Anaerobic Digestion. The Brewer's
Guardian. August 1970.
44. Paulette, R. G. A Pollution Abatement Program for Distillery Wastes.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 42, No. 7.
July 1970.
45. Pearson, E. A. Treatment and Utilization of Winery Wastes. Pro-
ceedings 10th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference. May 9-11,
1955. Lafayette, Indiana.
46. Personal Communication with Gary Fisher, EPA Effluent Guidelines
Division.
47. Porges, R. and E. J. Struzeski. Wastes from the Soft Drink Industry.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 33, No. 2.
Feb. 1961.
48. Radhakrishnan, I., S. B. De, and B. Nath. Evaluation of the Loading
Parameters for Anaerobic Digestion of Cane Molasses Distillery Wastes.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 41, No. 11.
November 1969.
49. Ryder, R. A. Winery Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation. Proceedings
28th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference. May 1973. Lafayette,
Indiana.
50. Schroeder, E. D. Biological Treatment of Winery Stillage. Proceedings
Fourth National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, March 26-28,
1973. Syracuse, New York. Environmental Protection Technology Series,
EPA-660/2-73-031. December 1973.
51. Schroeder, E. D. Pilot-Scale Treatment of Wine Still age. Environ-
mental Protection Technology Series, EPA-660/2-75-002. February 1975.
52. Sen, B. P. and T. R. Bhaskaran. Anaerobic Digestion of Liquid
Molasses Distillery Wastes. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. Vol. 34, No. 10. October 1962.
103
-------
53. Shea, T. G., E. Ramos, J. Rodriquez, and G. Dorion. Rum Distillery
Slops Treatment By Anaerobic Contact Processes. Environmental Pro-
tection Technology Series, EPA-660/2-74-074. July 1974.
54. Simpson, J. R. Treatment and Disposal of Effluents. Brewer's
Journal. November 1969.
55. Smith, A. J. Waste Treatment in the Liquor Distilling Industry.
Proceedings 26th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 1971.
Lafayette, Indiana.
56. Suchocki, C. J. Washington Report. Food Engineering. Vol. 46,
No. 6. June 1974.
57. Thomas, J. L. and L. G. Koehrsen. Activated Sludge-Bio-Disc
Treatment of Distillery Wastes. Environmental Protection Technology
Series, EPA-660/2-74-014. April 1974.
58. United States Brewing Association. Effluent Study. Washington, DC.
November 1973.
59. United States Congress, Food Additives Amendment of 1958. PL 85-
929. September 6, 1958.
60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
Chemistry and Technology of Citrus, Citrus Products, and By-Products.
Agricultural Handbook No. 98. Revised September 1962. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, DC.
61. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1967 Census of
Manufacturers. MC 67(2)206.
62. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1967 Census of
Manufacturers, Food and Kindred Products: Beverages. MC 67(2)-
206. July 1970.
63. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1967 Census of Manu-
facturers, Water Use in Manufacturing. MC 67(1)-7. April 1971.
64. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic Commerce. 1971 U.S.
Industrial Outlook with Projections Through 1980. Washington, DC.
February 1971.
65. U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Admini-
stration, Washington, DC.
66. U.S. Department of Commerce. Industrial Profile Document. C41.2,
2/25/195869.
67. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1975, With
Projections to 1980. U.S. GPO, Washington, DC. 1974.
104
-------
M^ ^Par^ent °T Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration National Technical Advisory Committee to the
Secretary of the Interior. Water Quality Criteria. Washington,
ut. £.34 pp. 1968.
69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Waste Reference
Guide for the Malt Industry, 1971.
70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ultimate Disposal of Waste-
waters and Their Residuals. Proceedings of National Symposium,
April 26-27, 1973. North Carolina State University Water Resources
Research Institute. Raleigh, NC.
71. Vaughn, R. H. and G. L. Marsh. Disposal of California Winery
Wastes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Vol. 45, No. 12.
December 1953.
72. Von Lossberg, L. G. and S. Yorgiadis. Brewery Wastes and Treatment.
Proceedings 26th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 1971
Lafayette, Indiana.
73. Washington Report. Food Engineering. Vol. 47, No. 6. June 1975.
74. Widmers Wine Cellars. Winery Innovates Waste Treatment. Food
Engineering. Vol. 44, No. 6. June 1972.
75. Wine Advisory Board. Wine Industry Statistical Report, 1972. No.
ER-22. March 4, 1974.
76. Wines and Vines. Statistical Issue. Vol. 54, No. 4. April 1973.
77. Wysocki, G. Recover Salable Products From Waste Yeast. Food
Engineering. Vol 44, No. 10. October 1972.
78. York, G. K. Land Disposal of Stillage--Analysis of Core Samples.
Report to the Wine Institute. November 8, 1972.
79. York, G. K. Land Disposal of Vinous Stillage. Report to the Wine
Institute Environmental Studies Committee. March 14, 1974.
80. York, G. K. Statement Before California Regional Water Quality
Control Board. November 1970 Meeting.
105
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agostini, A. Utilization of By-Products of Vines and Wines. Die
Wynboer. August 1964.
Amerine, M. A. Quality Control in the California Wine Industry.
Journal Milk Food Technology. Vol. 35, No. 6. 1972.
Amerine, M. A. and M. A. Joslyn. Table Wines. University of California
Press. 1970.
Antony, P. A. and R. M. Ahlgren. Modern Handling Methods for Grain
Effluents. Presented at Meeting of Master Brewers Association of
America. June 12, 1971.
Aqua-Chem, Inc. Engineering Study of Rum Distillery Waste Treatment.
Prepared for U.S. EPA. August 1973.
Burkhead, C. E., C. A. Lessig, and T. R. Richardson. Biological Treatment
of a Distillery Waste. Proceedings 23rd Annual Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, May 7-9, 1968. Lafayette, Indiana.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region.
Statements Before the Board on the Proposed Policy for Establishment
of Waste Discharge Requirements. November 23, 1974.
Coast Laboratories. Grape Stillage Disposal by Evaporation. Report to
the Wine Institute. March 26, 1948.
Coast Laboratories. 1947 Grape Stillage Disposal. Report to the Wine
Institute. July 21, 1948.
Coast Laboratories. Improved Distilling Material Production Methods as an
Aid in Still age Disposal. Report to the Wine Institute. October
28, 1948.
Coast Laboratories. Progress Report: Winery Residues Research Experi-
ments. Performed for Winery Waste Disposal Committee of the Wine
Institute. November 30, 1946.
Coast Laboratories. Special Preliminary Report on Land Disposal of
Stillage. Report to Winery Waste Disposal Committee of the Wine
Institute. January 1, 1947.
106
-------
Ducellier, 6. Recovery of Materials from the Wastewater from Wine
of soiid
Gleizes, Claude Pollution Generated by Vindication and the Distillation
of Wine Products. Rhone-Mediterranean-Corsica Basin Agency.
Jackson, C. J. and G. T. Lines. Measures Against Water Pollution in the
Fermentation Industries. Pure and Applied Chemistry. Vol. 29, No.
I ~O • I _/ / £ *
Jewell, W. J. The Use of Pure Oxygen for the Biological Treatment of
Brewery Waste Waters. Proceedings 26th Annual Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, May 4-6, 1971. Lafayette, Indiana.
Katz, P. C. The State of the Industry. The Brewers Digest. February
I ./ / O *
Letter from Hugh Cook (Wine Institute) to Dennis Taylor (EPA) concerning
AWARE report. August 27, 1973.
Lines, G. Liquid Wastes from the Fermentation Industries. Water
Pollution Control, p. 665. 1968.
Lovan, C. F. The Anaerobic Filter for the Treatment of Brewery Press
Liquor Waste. Proceedings 26th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, May 4-6, 1971. Lafayette, Indiana.
McDonald, D. P. Methods for Handling Brewery Effluent. International
Brewing and Distilling. Vol. 3, No. 6. June 1973.
McGauhey, P. H. and R. B. Krone. Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treatment
System. Sanitary Engineering Research Lab, College of Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley. December 1967.
Pirrone, A. F. Composting of Pomace Piles. Report to the Wine Institute
Technical Advisory Committee. May 26, 1958.
Rabak, F. and J. H. Shrader. Commercial Utilization of Grape Pomace and
Stems from the Grape-Juice Industry. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Bulletin. Nos. 951-975. 1921.
Schreffler, C. Recovery of Sugar from Grape Stems. Report to the Wine
Institute Technical Advisory Committee. December 3, 1954.
Schroeder, E. D. Biological Treatment of Winery Stillage. Progress
Report to the Wine Institute. November 8, 1972.
Schwartz, H. G. and R. H. Jones. Characterization and Treatment of Brewery
Wastes. Proceedings Third National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes,
March 28-30, 1972. New Orleans, Louisiana. Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-018. November 1972.
107
-------
Shea, E. P. Survey of Wastes from Brewing Operations. Midwest Research
Institute. May 1, 1962.
Sidwick, J. M. Review of the Problems of Treating and Disposing of Liquid
Waste from Breweries and Soft Drink Plants. International Bottler
and Packer. Vol. 47, No. 11. November 1973.
Stein, J. L. Submerged Combustion Evaporator for Concentration of Brewery
Spent Grain Liquor. Environmental Protection Technology Series,
EPA-660/2-74-059.
Stokes, R. D. An Evaluation of Current Practice in the Treatment of Winery
Wastes. The Engineering and Water Supply Department, South Australian
Government. February 24, 1967.
U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration. Collected
Papers Regarding Nitrates in Agricultural Waste Waters. Water Pollu-
tion Control Research Series, 13030 ELY—12/69.
Vaughn, R. H. and G. L. Marsh. Problems in Disposal of California Winery
Wastes. American Journal of Ecology. Vol. 7, No. 1. January-March
1956.
Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. Breakfast of Champions. Dell Publishing Co., Inc.
New York. 1973.
Widmers Wine Cellars. Winery Wastewater Characteristics and Treatment.
Grant Application, EPA Project 12060 EUZ.
The Wine Institute. 1971 Wine Industry Statistical Report. October 13,
1972.
108
-------
GLOSSARY
Argols - Crystalline coating of almost pure cream of tartar on the walls
and bottom of wine storage tanks.
t - Screened or "thin" stillage that is returned from the base of
the whiskey separating column to the fermenter, as used in the distilled
spirits industry.
Barrel- As "sed in the Malt Beverage Industry, a barrel contains 117 liters
(31 gallons).
Brandy - A distil lage of wine produced at 189° or less proof.
(a) Neutral Brandy is that produced at 171° to 189° proof.
(b) Beverage Brandy - is that distilled at 170° or less proof,
usually 165 to 169°.
°Brix - A measure of percent sugar in solution.
Bushel - The weight of the grain contained in a bushel varies by industry
as follows:
(a) Barley = 21.7 kg (47.7 Ib)
(b) Malt = 15.4 kg (33.9 Ib)
(c) Distillers Grain = 25 kg (55 Ib)
Distillation - A process of evaporation and recondensation used for
separating liquids into various fractions according to their boiling
points or boiling ranges.
Fermentation - The production of alcohol and carbon dioxide from fermen-
table carbohydrates by the action of yeast.
Hops - The dried conelike fruit which is boiled with wort to impart addi-
tional flavor and aroma to beer.
Lees - The yeast, pulp, and tartrate sediment resulting from fermentation
and finishing operations in the wine industry.
109
-------
Malting - The germination of barley to develop enzymes.
Mashtun - Vessel in which the conversion of grain starches into maltose
sugar takes place.
Mashing - The process involving cooking, gelatinization of starch, and
conversion, changing starch into grain, sugars.
Must - The juice, skin, and seeds from crushed grapes.
Plate and Frame Filter - A filtering device consisting of a "screen"
fastened inside a metal frame.
Pomace - The skin, pulp, and seed solids present after separation from a
liquid such as juice or oil.
Proof - Alcoholic content of a liquid at 16°C, stated as twice the percen-
tage of alcohol by volume (United States definition).
Proof Gallon (Liter) - A standard U.S. gallon (liter) containing 50
percent alcohol.
Racking - The decanting of liquid from settled residues, as used in the
wine and malt beverage industries.
Sparkling Wine - A grape wine which has more than 1.5 atmospheres of
pressure at 10°C and less than 14 percent alcohol by volume.
Spent Beer - Residual nutrients separated from harvested yeast by
centrifugal separation.
Stillage - The de-alcoholized residue discharged from the base of the
still column.
Table Wine - A grape wine having an alcoholic content not in excess of
14 percent by volume.
Tax Gallon (Liter) - A standard U.S. gallon (liter).
Trub - Insoluble materials which collect in the brew kettle.
Wine Gallon.(Liter) - A measure of actual volume.
Wort - A mixture of maltose and water.
110
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-048
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
the reverse before completing
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
STATE OF THE ART: WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE
BEVERAGE INDUSTRY L
5. REPORT DATE
February 1977
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
_
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOt»NO.
issuing date
Michael E. Joyce, James F. Scaief, Max W. Cochrane
and Kenneth A. Postal '
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NA~ME AND ADDRESS ~ ~
Food and Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Con/all is, OR 97330
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cm., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT " ' : ~~
The general purpose of this paper is to investigate, through the literature, the
water pollution impact caused by the wastes from the beverage industry and the
methods available to combat the associated problems. The size of each industry
is discussed along with production processes, wastewater sources and effluent
characteristics. Wastewater management techniques are described in terms of in-
plant recycling, by-product recovery and end-of-pipe treatment along with the
economics of treatment.
The malt liquor, malting, soft drink, and flavoring industries primarily dispose
of their effluents in municipal sewers. In-plant recycling and by-product re-
covery techniques have been developed in these industries to reduce their raw waste
load. The wine and brandy and distilled spirits industries in many cases must
treat their own effluent so they have developed wastewater management systems
including industry-owned treatment plants that yield good effluents. The techno-
logy to adequately treat rum distillery wastewater has not been demonstrated.
The information basis for this paper was a literature search, an effluent guidelines
report done for EPA, limited site visits, personal communications and an unpublished
report conducted for EPA that included questionnaire surveys of the industries.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
*Waste Treatment, Operating Costs
industrial Wastes, *By-Products,
*Beverage Wastes,
Economics, Beverage
Industry, Treatment
Costs
13/B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
Unclassified
21 NO. OF PAGES
123
20, SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
111
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: '977-757-056/5593 Region No. 5-11
------- |