Computer simulation of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs for alternative methods of processing fluid milk.

Computer simulation is a useful tool for benchmarking electrical and fuel energy consumption and water use in a fluid milk plant. In this study, a computer simulation model of the fluid milk process based on high temperature, short time (HTST) pasteurization was extended to include models for processes for shelf-stable milk and extended shelf-life milk that may help prevent the loss or waste of milk that leads to increases in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for fluid milk. The models were for UHT processing, crossflow microfiltration (MF) without HTST pasteurization, crossflow MF followed by HTST pasteurization (MF/HTST), crossflow MF/HTST with partial homogenization, and pulsed electric field (PEF) processing, and were incorporated into the existing model for the fluid milk process. Simulation trials were conducted assuming a production rate for the plants of 113.6 million liters of milk per year to produce only whole milk (3.25%) and 40% cream. Results showed that GHG emissions in the form of process-related CO₂ emissions, defined as CO₂ equivalents (e)/kg of raw milk processed (RMP), and specific energy consumptions (SEC) for electricity and natural gas use for the HTST process alone were 37.6g of CO₂e/kg of RMP, 0.14 MJ/kg of RMP, and 0.13 MJ/kg of RMP, respectively. Emissions of CO2 and SEC for electricity and natural gas use were highest for the PEF process, with values of 99.1g of CO₂e/kg of RMP, 0.44 MJ/kg of RMP, and 0.10 MJ/kg of RMP, respectively, and lowest for the UHT process at 31.4 g of CO₂e/kg of RMP, 0.10 MJ/kg of RMP, and 0.17 MJ/kg of RMP. Estimated unit production costs associated with the various processes were lowest for the HTST process and MF/HTST with partial homogenization at $0.507/L and highest for the UHT process at $0.60/L. The increase in shelf life associated with the UHT and MF processes may eliminate some of the supply chain product and consumer losses and waste of milk and compensate for the small increases in GHG emissions or total SEC noted for these processes compared with HTST pasteurization alone. The water use calculated for the HTST and PEF processes were both 0.245 kg of water/kg of RMP. The highest water use was associated with the MF/HTST process, which required 0.333 kg of water/kg of RMP, with the additional water required for membrane cleaning. The simulation model is a benchmarking framework for current plant operations and a tool for evaluating the costs of process upgrades and new technologies that improve energy efficiency and water savings.

[1]  M. Tunick,et al.  Pilot-scale crossflow-microfiltration and pasteurization to remove spores of Bacillus anthracis (Sterne) from milk. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  H. Burton Ultra-High-Temperature Processing of Milk and Milk Products , 1989 .

[3]  W. Hoffmann,et al.  Processing of extended shelf life milk using microfiltration , 2006 .

[4]  C. Alan Rotz,et al.  THE INTEGRATED FARM SYSTEM MODEL , 2009 .

[5]  Jean-Louis Maubois,et al.  Current developments of microfiltration technology in the dairy industry , 2000 .

[6]  Gunnar Rysstad,et al.  Extended shelf life milk—advances in technology , 2006 .

[7]  P. Mañas,et al.  Microbial inactivation by new technologies of food preservation , 2005, Journal of applied microbiology.

[8]  Joris Flapper,et al.  Energy use and implications for efficiency strategies in global fluid-milk processing industry , 2009 .

[9]  Felix K. Adom,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from milk production and consumption in the United States: A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008 , 2013 .

[10]  M. Perkins,et al.  Ultra-high temperature (UHT) treatment of milk: Comparison of Direct and Indirect modes of heating , 2002 .

[11]  M. Griffiths,et al.  Major advances in fresh milk and milk products: fluid milk products and frozen desserts. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  Xuetong Fan,et al.  Cost analysis of commercial pasteurization of orange juice by pulsed electric fields , 2013 .

[13]  D. Barbano,et al.  High temperature, short time pasteurization temperatures inversely affect bacterial numbers during refrigerated storage of pasteurized fluid milk. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  D. Barbano,et al.  Use of microfiltration to improve fluid milk quality. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[15]  Klaus D. Timmerhaus,et al.  Plant design and economics for chemical engineers , 1958 .

[16]  E. Worrell,et al.  Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the Pharmaceutical Industry. An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and Plant Managers , 2008 .

[17]  A. Drewnowski,et al.  Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact , 2010, Food & nutrition research.

[18]  G. Gésan-Guiziou Removal of bacteria, spores and somatic cells from milk by centrifugation and microfiltration techniques , 2010 .

[19]  O. Martín-Belloso,et al.  Review: Potential of High-Intensity Pulsed Electric Field Technology for Milk Processing , 2010 .

[20]  Wayne Turner,et al.  Energy Management Handbook , 2020 .

[21]  D. Nutter,et al.  Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of fluid milk. , 2011, Advances in food and nutrition research.

[22]  M. Burger,et al.  Isoflux® ceramic membranes — Practical experiences in dairy industry , 2010 .

[23]  A. McAloon,et al.  Computer simulation of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and process economics of the fluid milk process. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  Adrian Brush Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the Dairy Processing Industry , 2012 .

[25]  S. Toepfl,et al.  Review: Potential of High Hydrostatic Pressure and Pulsed Electric Fields for Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Food Processing , 2006 .

[26]  P. Torcellini,et al.  Source Energy and Emission Factors for Energy Use in Buildings (Revised) , 2007 .