Search This Blog

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Ethanol fuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Saab 9-3 SportCombi BioPower was the second E85 flexifuel model introduced by Saab in the Swedish market.
Ethanol fuel is ethyl alcohol, the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages, used as fuel. It is most often used as a motor fuel, mainly as a biofuel additive for gasoline. The first production car running entirely on ethanol was the Fiat 147, introduced in 1978 in Brazil by Fiat. Ethanol is commonly made from biomass such as corn or sugarcane. World ethanol production for transport fuel tripled between 2000 and 2007 from 17×109 liters (4.5×109 U.S. gal; 3.7×109 imp gal) to more than 52×109 liters (1.4×1010 U.S. gal; 1.1×1010 imp gal). From 2007 to 2008, the share of ethanol in global gasoline type fuel use increased from 3.7% to 5.4%. In 2011 worldwide ethanol fuel production reached 8.46×1010 liters (2.23×1010 U.S. gal; 1.86×1010 imp gal) with the United States of America and Brazil being the top producers, accounting for 62.2% and 25% of global production, respectively. US ethanol production reached 57.54×109 liters (1.520×1010 U.S. gal; 1.266×1010 imp gal) in 2017-04.

Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency" (GGE) value of 1.5, i.e. to replace the energy of 1 volume of gasoline, 1.5 times the volume of ethanol is needed.

Ethanol-blended fuel is widely used in Brazil, the United States, and Europe. Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and ethanol represented 10% of the U.S. gasoline fuel supply derived from domestic sources in 2011. Furthermore, many used cars today are flexible-fuel vehicles able to use 100% ethanol fuel. 

Since 1976 the Brazilian government has made it mandatory to blend ethanol with gasoline, and since 2007 the legal blend is around 25% ethanol and 75% gasoline (E25). By December 2011 Brazil had a fleet of 14.8 million flex-fuel automobiles and light trucks and 1.5 million flex-fuel motorcycles that regularly use neat ethanol fuel (known as E100). 

Bioethanol is a form of renewable energy that can be produced from agricultural feedstocks. It can be made from very common crops such as hemp, sugarcane, potato, cassava and corn. There has been considerable debate about how useful bioethanol is in replacing gasoline. Concerns about its production and use relate to increased food prices due to the large amount of arable land required for crops, as well as the energy and pollution balance of the whole cycle of ethanol production, especially from corn. Even though this debate has the counterpart of animal agriculture being already a source of massive arable land, therefore making ethanol a lower resource consumer in constrast. Recent developments with cellulosic ethanol production and commercialization may allay some of these concerns.

Cellulosic ethanol offers promise because cellulose fibers, a major and universal component in plant cells walls, can be used to produce ethanol. According to the International Energy Agency, cellulosic ethanol could allow ethanol fuels to play a much bigger role in the future.

Chemistry

Structure of ethanol molecule. All bonds are single bonds
During ethanol fermentation, glucose and other sugars in the corn (or sugarcane or other crops) are converted into ethanol and carbon dioxide.
C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH+ 2 CO2 + heat
Ethanol fermentation is not 100% selective with side products such as acetic acid and glycols. They are mostly removed during ethanol purification. Fermentation takes place in an aqueous solution. The resulting solution has an ethanol content of around 15%. Ethanol is subsequently isolated and purified by a combination of adsorption and distillation. 

During combustion, ethanol reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, water, and heat:
C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 3 H2O + heat
Starch and cellulose molecules are strings of glucose molecules. It is also possible to generate ethanol out of cellulosic materials. That, however, requires a pretreatment that splits the cellulose into glucose molecules and other sugars that subsequently can be fermented. The resulting product is called cellulosic ethanol, indicating its source. 

Ethanol is also produced industrially from ethylene by hydration of the double bond in the presence of a catalyst and high temperature.
C2H4 + H2O → C2H5OH
Most ethanol is produced by fermentation.

Sources

Sugar cane harvest
Cornfield in South Africa
Switchgrass
About 5% of the ethanol produced in the world in 2003 was actually a petroleum product. It is made by the catalytic hydration of ethylene with sulfuric acid as the catalyst. It can also be obtained via ethylene or acetylene, from calcium carbide, coal, oil gas, and other sources. Two million short tons (1,786,000 long tons; 1,814,000 t) of petroleum-derived ethanol are produced annually. The principal suppliers are plants in the United States, Europe, and South Africa. Petroleum derived ethanol (synthetic ethanol) is chemically identical to bio-ethanol and can be differentiated only by radiocarbon dating.

Bio-ethanol is usually obtained from the conversion of carbon-based feedstock. Agricultural feedstocks are considered renewable because they get energy from the sun using photosynthesis, provided that all minerals required for growth (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) are returned to the land. Ethanol can be produced from a variety of feedstocks such as sugar cane, bagasse, miscanthus, sugar beet, sorghum, grain, switchgrass, barley, hemp, kenaf, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, sunflower, fruit, molasses, corn, stover, grain, wheat, straw, cotton, other biomass, as well as many types of cellulose waste and harvesting, whichever has the best well-to-wheel assessment. 

An alternative process to produce bio-ethanol from algae is being developed by the company Algenol. Rather than grow algae and then harvest and ferment it, the algae grow in sunlight and produce ethanol directly, which is removed without killing the algae. It is claimed the process can produce 6,000 U.S. gallons per acre (5,000 imperial gallons per acre; 56,000 liters per hectare) per year compared with 400 US gallons per acre (330 imp gal/acre; 3,700 L/ha) for corn production.

Currently, the first generation processes for the production of ethanol from corn use only a small part of the corn plant: the corn kernels are taken from the corn plant and only the starch, which represents about 50% of the dry kernel mass, is transformed into ethanol. Two types of second generation processes are under development. The first type uses enzymes and yeast fermentation to convert the plant cellulose into ethanol while the second type uses pyrolysis to convert the whole plant to either a liquid bio-oil or a syngas. Second generation processes can also be used with plants such as grasses, wood or agricultural waste material such as straw.

Production

Although there are various ways ethanol fuel can be produced, the most common way is via fermentation. 

The basic steps for large-scale production of ethanol are: microbial (yeast) fermentation of sugars, distillation, dehydration (requirements vary, see Ethanol fuel mixtures, below), and denaturing (optional). Prior to fermentation, some crops require saccharification or hydrolysis of carbohydrates such as cellulose and starch into sugars. Saccharification of cellulose is called cellulolysis (see cellulosic ethanol). Enzymes are used to convert starch into sugar.

Fermentation

Ethanol is produced by microbial fermentation of the sugar. Microbial fermentation currently only works directly with sugars. Two major components of plants, starch and cellulose, are both made of sugars—and can, in principle, be converted to sugars for fermentation. Currently, only the sugar (e.g., sugar cane) and starch (e.g., corn) portions can be economically converted. There is much activity in the area of cellulosic ethanol, where the cellulose part of a plant is broken down to sugars and subsequently converted to ethanol.

Distillation

Ethanol plant in West Burlington, Iowa
Ethanol plant in Sertãozinho, Brazil.
For the ethanol to be usable as a fuel, the yeast solids and the majority of the water must be removed. After fermentation, the mash is heated so that the ethanol evaporates. This process, known as distillation, separates the ethanol, but its purity is limited to 95–96% due to the formation of a low-boiling water-ethanol azeotrope with maximum (95.6% m/m (96.5% v/v) ethanol and 4.4% m/m (3.5% v/v) water). This mixture is called hydrous ethanol and can be used as a fuel alone, but unlike anhydrous ethanol, hydrous ethanol is not miscible in all ratios with gasoline, so the water fraction is typically removed in further treatment to burn in combination with gasoline in gasoline engines.

Dehydration

There are three dehydration processes to remove the water from an azeotropic ethanol/water mixture. The first process, used in many early fuel ethanol plants, is called azeotropic distillation and consists of adding benzene or cyclohexane to the mixture. When these components are added to the mixture, it forms a heterogeneous azeotropic mixture in vapor–liquid-liquid equilibrium, which when distilled produces anhydrous ethanol in the column bottom, and a vapor mixture of water, ethanol, and cyclohexane/benzene. 

When condensed, this becomes a two-phase liquid mixture. The heavier phase, poor in the entrainer (benzene or cyclohexane), is stripped of the entrainer and recycled to the feed—while the lighter phase, with condensate from the stripping, is recycled to the second column. Another early method, called extractive distillation, consists of adding a ternary component that increases ethanol's relative volatility. When the ternary mixture is distilled, it produces anhydrous ethanol on the top stream of the column. 

With increasing attention being paid to saving energy, many methods have been proposed that avoid distillation altogether for dehydration. Of these methods, a third method has emerged and has been adopted by the majority of modern ethanol plants. This new process uses molecular sieves to remove water from fuel ethanol. In this process, ethanol vapor under pressure passes through a bed of molecular sieve beads. The bead's pores are sized to allow adsorption of water while excluding ethanol. After a period of time, the bed is regenerated under vacuum or in the flow of inert atmosphere (e.g. N2) to remove the adsorbed water. Two beds are often used so that one is available to adsorb water while the other is being regenerated. This dehydration technology can account for energy saving of 3,000 btus/gallon (840 kJ/L) compared to earlier azeotropic distillation.

Recent research has demonstrated that complete dehydration prior to blending with gasoline is not always necessary. Instead, the azeotropic mixture can be blended directly with gasoline so that liquid-liquid phase equilibrium can assist in the elimination of water. A two-stage counter-current setup of mixer-settler tanks can achieve complete recovery of ethanol into the fuel phase, with minimal energy consumption.

Post-production water issues

Ethanol is hygroscopic, meaning it absorbs water vapor directly from the atmosphere. Because absorbed water dilutes the fuel value of the ethanol and may cause phase separation of ethanol-gasoline blends (which causes engine stall), containers of ethanol fuels must be kept tightly sealed. This high miscibility with water means that ethanol cannot be efficiently shipped through modern pipelines, like liquid hydrocarbons, over long distances.

The fraction of water that an ethanol-gasoline fuel can contain without phase separation increases with the percentage of ethanol. For example, E30 can have up to about 2% water. If there is more than about 71% ethanol, the remainder can be any proportion of water or gasoline and phase separation does not occur. The fuel mileage declines with increased water content. The increased solubility of water with higher ethanol content permits E30 and hydrated ethanol to be put in the same tank since any combination of them always results in a single phase. Somewhat less water is tolerated at lower temperatures. For E10 it is about 0.5% v/v at 21° C and decreases to about 0.23% v/v at −34° C .

Consumer production systems

While biodiesel production systems have been marketed to home and business users for many years, commercialized ethanol production systems designed for end-consumer use have lagged in the marketplace. In 2008, two different companies announced home-scale ethanol production systems. The AFS125 Advanced Fuel System from Allard Research and Development is capable of producing both ethanol and biodiesel in one machine, while the E-100 MicroFueler from E-Fuel Corporation is dedicated to ethanol only.

Engines

Fuel economy

Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle reduces miles per US gallon 34%, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline. However, since ethanol has a higher octane rating, the engine can be made more efficient by raising its compression ratio. Using a variable geometry or twin scroll turbocharger, the compression ratio can be optimized for the fuel, making fuel economy almost constant for any blend.

For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect is small (~3%) when compared to conventional gasoline, and even smaller (1–2%) when compared to oxygenated and reformulated blends. For E85 (85% ethanol), the effect becomes significant. E85 produces lower mileage than gasoline, and requires more frequent refueling. Actual performance may vary depending on the vehicle. Based on EPA tests for all 2006 E85 models, the average fuel economy for E85 vehicles was 25.56% lower than unleaded gasoline. The EPA-rated mileage of current United States flex-fuel vehicles should be considered when making price comparisons, but E85 is a high performance fuel, with an octane rating of about 94–96, and should be compared to premium.

Cold start during the winter

The Brazilian 2008 Honda Civic flex-fuel has outside direct access to the secondary reservoir gasoline tank in the front right side, the corresponding fuel filler door is shown by the arrow.
High ethanol blends present a problem to achieve enough vapor pressure for the fuel to evaporate and spark the ignition during cold weather (since ethanol tends to increase fuel enthalpy of vaporization). When vapor pressure is below 45 kPa starting a cold engine becomes difficult. To avoid this problem at temperatures below 11 °C (52 °F), and to reduce ethanol higher emissions during cold weather, both the US and the European markets adopted E85 as the maximum blend to be used in their flexible fuel vehicles, and they are optimized to run at such a blend. At places with harsh cold weather, the ethanol blend in the US has a seasonal reduction to E70 for these very cold regions, though it is still sold as E85. At places where temperatures fall below −12 °C (10 °F) during the winter, it is recommended to install an engine heater system, both for gasoline and E85 vehicles. Sweden has a similar seasonal reduction, but the ethanol content in the blend is reduced to E75 during the winter months.

Brazilian flex fuel vehicles can operate with ethanol mixtures up to E100, which is hydrous ethanol (with up to 4% water), which causes vapor pressure to drop faster as compared to E85 vehicles. As a result, Brazilian flex vehicles are built with a small secondary gasoline reservoir located near the engine. During a cold start pure gasoline is injected to avoid starting problems at low temperatures. This provision is particularly necessary for users of Brazil's southern and central regions, where temperatures normally drop below 15 °C (59 °F) during the winter. An improved flex engine generation was launched in 2009 that eliminates the need for the secondary gas storage tank. In March 2009 Volkswagen do Brasil launched the Polo E-Flex, the first Brazilian flex fuel model without an auxiliary tank for cold start.

Fuel mixtures

Hydrated ethanol × gasoline type C price table for use in Brazil
EPA's E15 label required to be displayed in all E15 fuel dispensers in the U.S.
In many countries cars are mandated to run on mixtures of ethanol. All Brazilian light-duty vehicles are built to operate for an ethanol blend of up to 25% (E25), and since 1993 a federal law requires mixtures between 22% and 25% ethanol, with 25% required as of mid July 2011. In the United States all light-duty vehicles are built to operate normally with an ethanol blend of 10% (E10). At the end of 2010 over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. was blended with ethanol. In January 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a waiver to authorize up to 15% of ethanol blended with gasoline (E15) to be sold only for cars and light pickup trucks with a model year of 2001 or newer.

Beginning with the model year 1999, an increasing number of vehicles in the world are manufactured with engines that can run on any fuel from 0% ethanol up to 100% ethanol without modification. Many cars and light trucks (a class containing minivans, SUVs and pickup trucks) are designed to be flexible-fuel vehicles using ethanol blends up to 85% (E85) in North America and Europe, and up to 100% (E100) in Brazil. In older model years, their engine systems contained alcohol sensors in the fuel and/or oxygen sensors in the exhaust that provide input to the engine control computer to adjust the fuel injection to achieve stochiometric (no residual fuel or free oxygen in the exhaust) air-to-fuel ratio for any fuel mix. In newer models, the alcohol sensors have been removed, with the computer using only oxygen and airflow sensor feedback to estimate alcohol content. The engine control computer can also adjust (advance) the ignition timing to achieve a higher output without pre-ignition when it predicts that higher alcohol percentages are present in the fuel being burned. This method is backed up by advanced knock sensors – used in most high performance gasoline engines regardless of whether they are designed to use ethanol or not – that detect pre-ignition and detonation.

Other engine configurations

ED95 engines
Since 1989 there have also been ethanol engines based on the diesel principle operating in Sweden. They are used primarily in city buses, but also in distribution trucks and waste collectors. The engines, made by Scania, have a modified compression ratio, and the fuel (known as ED95) used is a mix of 93.6% ethanol and 3.6% ignition improver, and 2.8% denaturants. The ignition improver makes it possible for the fuel to ignite in the diesel combustion cycle. It is then also possible to use the energy efficiency of the diesel principle with ethanol. These engines have been used in the United Kingdom by Reading Buses but the use of bioethanol fuel is now being phased out.
Dual-fuel direct-injection
A 2004 MIT study and an earlier paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers identified a method to exploit the characteristics of fuel ethanol substantially more efficiently than mixing it with gasoline. The method presents the possibility of leveraging the use of alcohol to achieve definite improvement over the cost-effectiveness of hybrid electric. The improvement consists of using dual-fuel direct-injection of pure alcohol (or the azeotrope or E85) and gasoline, in any ratio up to 100% of either, in a turbocharged, high compression-ratio, small-displacement engine having performance similar to an engine having twice the displacement. Each fuel is carried separately, with a much smaller tank for alcohol. The high-compression (for higher efficiency) engine runs on ordinary gasoline under low-power cruise conditions. Alcohol is directly injected into the cylinders (and the gasoline injection simultaneously reduced) only when necessary to suppress ‘knock’ such as when significantly accelerating. Direct cylinder injection raises the already high octane rating of ethanol up to an effective 130. The calculated over-all reduction of gasoline use and CO2 emission is 30%. The consumer cost payback time shows a 4:1 improvement over turbo-diesel and a 5:1 improvement over hybrid. The problems of water absorption into pre-mixed gasoline (causing phase separation), supply issues of multiple mix ratios and cold-weather starting are also avoided.
Increased thermal efficiency
In a 2008 study, complex engine controls and increased exhaust gas recirculation allowed a compression ratio of 19.5 with fuels ranging from neat ethanol to E50. Thermal efficiency up to approximately that for a diesel was achieved. This would result in the fuel economy of a neat ethanol vehicle to be about the same as one burning gasoline.
Fuel cells powered by an ethanol reformer
In June 2016, Nissan announced plans to develop fuel cell vehicles powered by ethanol rather than hydrogen, the fuel of choice by the other car manufacturers that have developed and commercialized fuel cell vehicles, such as the Hyundai Tucson FCEV, Toyota Mirai, and Honda FCX Clarity. The main advantage of this technical approach is that it would be cheaper and easier to deploy the fueling infrastructure than setting up the one required to deliver hydrogen at high pressures, as each hydrogen fueling station cost US$1 million to US$2 million to build.

Nissan plans to create a technology that uses liquid ethanol fuel as a source to generate hydrogen within the vehicle itself. The technology uses heat to reform ethanol into hydrogen to feed what is known as a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC). The fuel cell generates electricity to supply power to the electric motor driving the wheels, through a battery that handles peak power demands and stores regenerated energy. The vehicle would include a tank for a blend of water and ethanol, which is fed into an onboard reformer that splits it into pure hydrogen and carbon dioxide. According to Nissan, the liquid fuel could be an ethanol-water blend at a 55:45 ratio. Nissan expects to commercialize its technology by 2020.

Experience by country

The world's top ethanol fuel producers in 2011 were the United States with 13.9×109 U.S. gallons (5.3×1010 liters; 1.16×1010 imperial gallons) and Brazil with 5.6×109 U.S. gallons (2.1×1010 liters; 4.7×109 imperial gallons), accounting together for 87.1% of world production of 22.36×109 U.S. gallons (8.46×1010 liters; 1.862×1010 imperial gallons). Strong incentives, coupled with other industry development initiatives, are giving rise to fledgling ethanol industries in countries such as Germany, Spain, France, Sweden, China, Thailand, Canada, Colombia, India, Australia, and some Central American countries.
Annual fuel ethanol production by country
(2007–2011)
Top 10 countries/regional blocks
(Millions of U.S. liquid gallons per year)
World
rank
Country/Region 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
1  United States 13,900.00 13,231.00 10,938.00 9,235.00 6,485.00
2  Brazil 5,573.24 6,921.54 6,577.89 6,472.20 5,019.20
3  EU 1,199.31 1,176.88 1,039.52 733.60 570.30
4  China 554.76 541.55 541.55 501.90 486.00
5  Thailand

435.20 89.80 79.20
6  Canada 462.30 356.63 290.59 237.70 211.30
7  India

91.67 66.00 52.80
8  Colombia

83.21 79.30 74.90
9  Australia 87.20 66.04 56.80 26.40 26.40
10 Other

247.27


World Total 22,356.09 22,946.87 19,534.99 17,335.20 13,101.70

Environment

Energy balance

All biomass goes through at least some of these steps: it needs to be grown, collected, dried, fermented, distilled, and burned. All of these steps require resources and an infrastructure. The total amount of energy input into the process compared to the energy released by burning the resulting ethanol fuel is known as the energy balance (or "energy returned on energy invested"). Figures compiled in a 2007 report by National Geographic Magazine point to modest results for corn ethanol produced in the US: one unit of fossil-fuel energy is required to create 1.3 energy units from the resulting ethanol. The energy balance for sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil is more favorable, with one unit of fossil-fuel energy required to create 8 from the ethanol. Energy balance estimates are not easily produced, thus numerous such reports have been generated that are contradictory. For instance, a separate survey reports that production of ethanol from sugarcane, which requires a tropical climate to grow productively, returns from 8 to 9 units of energy for each unit expended, as compared to corn, which only returns about 1.34 units of fuel energy for each unit of energy expended. A 2006 University of California Berkeley study, after analyzing six separate studies, concluded that producing ethanol from corn uses much less petroleum than producing gasoline.

Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is emitted during fermentation and combustion. This is canceled out by the greater uptake of carbon dioxide by the plants as they grow to produce the biomass. When compared to gasoline, depending on the production method, ethanol releases less greenhouse gases.

Air pollution

Compared with conventional unleaded gasoline, ethanol is a particulate-free burning fuel source that combusts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water and aldehydes. The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an attractive alternative additive. Current production methods include air pollution from the manufacturer of macronutrient fertilizers such as ammonia.

A study by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University found that E85 fuel would increase the risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9% in Los Angeles, US: a very large, urban, car-based metropolis that is a worst-case scenario. Ozone levels are significantly increased, thereby increasing photochemical smog and aggravating medical problems such as asthma.

Brazil burns significant amounts of ethanol biofuel. Gas chromatograph studies were performed of ambient air in São Paulo, Brazil, and compared to Osaka, Japan, which does not burn ethanol fuel. Atmospheric Formaldehyde was 160% higher in Brazil, and Acetaldehyde was 260% higher.

Carbon dioxide

UK government calculation of carbon intensity of corn bioethanol grown in the US and burnt in the UK.
Graph of UK figures for the carbon intensity of bioethanol and fossil fuels. This graph assumes that all bioethanols are burnt in their country of origin and that previously existing cropland is used to grow the feedstock.
The calculation of exactly how much carbon dioxide is produced in the manufacture of bioethanol is a complex and inexact process, and is highly dependent on the method by which the ethanol is produced and the assumptions made in the calculation. A calculation should include:
  • The cost of growing the feedstock
  • The cost of transporting the feedstock to the factory
  • The cost of processing the feedstock into bioethanol
Such a calculation may or may not consider the following effects:
  • The cost of the change in land use of the area where the fuel feedstock is grown.
  • The cost of transportation of the bioethanol from the factory to its point of use
  • The efficiency of the bioethanol compared with standard gasoline
  • The amount of carbon dioxide produced at the tail pipe.
  • The benefits due to the production of useful bi-products, such as cattle feed or electricity.
The graph on the right shows figures calculated by the UK government for the purposes of the Renewable transport fuel obligation.

The January 2006 Science article from UC Berkeley's ERG, estimated reduction from corn ethanol in GHG to be 13% after reviewing a large number of studies. In a correction to that article released shortly after publication, they reduce the estimated value to 7.4%. A National Geographic Magazine overview article (2007) puts the figures at 22% less CO2 emissions in production and use for corn ethanol compared to gasoline and a 56% reduction for cane ethanol. Carmaker Ford reports a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions with bioethanol compared to petrol for one of their flexible-fuel vehicles.

An additional complication is that production requires tilling new soil which produces a one-off release of GHG that it can take decades or centuries of production reductions in GHG emissions to equalize. As an example, converting grass lands to corn production for ethanol takes about a century of annual savings to make up for the GHG released from the initial tilling.

Change in land use

Large-scale farming is necessary to produce agricultural alcohol and this requires substantial amounts of cultivated land. University of Minnesota researchers report that if all corn grown in the U.S. were used to make ethanol it would displace 12% of current U.S. gasoline consumption. There are claims that land for ethanol production is acquired through deforestation, while others have observed that areas currently supporting forests are usually not suitable for growing crops. In any case, farming may involve a decline in soil fertility due to reduction of organic matter, a decrease in water availability and quality, an increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and potential dislocation of local communities. New technology enables farmers and processors to increasingly produce the same output using less inputs.

Cellulosic ethanol production is a new approach that may alleviate land use and related concerns. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from any plant material, potentially doubling yields, in an effort to minimize conflict between food needs vs. fuel needs. Instead of utilizing only the starch by-products from grinding wheat and other crops, cellulosic ethanol production maximizes the use of all plant materials, including gluten. This approach would have a smaller carbon footprint because the amount of energy-intensive fertilisers and fungicides remain the same for higher output of usable material. The technology for producing cellulosic ethanol is currently in the commercialization stage.

Using biomass for electricity instead of ethanol

Converting biomass to electricity for charging electric vehicles may be a more "climate-friendly" transportation option than using biomass to produce ethanol fuel, according to an analysis published in Science in May 2009 Researchers continue to search for more cost-effective developments in both cellulosic ethanol and advanced vehicle batteries.

Health costs of ethanol emissions

For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or switchgrass).

Efficiency of common crops

As ethanol yields improve or different feedstocks are introduced, ethanol production may become more economically feasible in the US. Currently, research on improving ethanol yields from each unit of corn is underway using biotechnology. Also, as long as oil prices remain high, the economical use of other feedstocks, such as cellulose, become viable. By-products such as straw or wood chips can be converted to ethanol. Fast growing species like switchgrass can be grown on land not suitable for other cash crops and yield high levels of ethanol per unit area.

Crop Annual yield (Liters/hectare, US gal/acre) Greenhouse-gas savings
vs. petrol[a]
Comments
Sugar cane 6800–8000 L/ha,
727–870 g/acre
87%–96% Long-season annual grass. Used as feedstock for most bioethanol produced in Brazil. Newer processing plants burn residues not used for ethanol to generate electricity. Grows only in tropical and subtropical climates.
Miscanthus 7300 L/ha,
780 g/acre
37%–73% Low-input perennial grass. Ethanol production depends on development of cellulosic technology.
Switchgrass 3100–7600 L/ha,
330–810 g/acre
37%–73% Low-input perennial grass. Ethanol production depends on development of cellulosic technology. Breeding efforts underway to increase yields. Higher biomass production possible with mixed species of perennial grasses.
Poplar 3700–6000 L/ha,
400–640 g/acre
51%–100% Fast-growing tree. Ethanol production depends on development of cellulosic technology. Completion of genomic sequencing project will aid breeding efforts to increase yields.
Sweet sorghum 2500–7000 L/ha,
270–750 g/acre
No data Low-input annual grass. Ethanol production possible using existing technology. Grows in tropical and temperate climates, but highest ethanol yield estimates assume multiple crops per year (possible only in tropical climates). Does not store well.
Corn 3100–4000 L/ha,
330–424 g/acre
10%–20% High-input annual grass. Used as feedstock for most bioethanol produced in USA. Only kernels can be processed using available technology; development of commercial cellulosic technology would allow stover to be used and increase ethanol yield by 1,100 – 2,000 litres/ha.
Source (except those indicated): Nature 444 (7 December 2006): 673–676.
[a] – Savings of GHG emissions assuming no land use change (using existing crop lands).

Reduced petroleum imports and costs

One rationale given for extensive ethanol production in the U.S. is its benefit to energy security, by shifting the need for some foreign-produced oil to domestically produced energy sources. Production of ethanol requires significant energy, but current U.S. production derives most of that energy from coal, natural gas and other sources, rather than oil. Because 66% of oil consumed in the U.S. is imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (figures from 2006), the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produces a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources. 

According to a 2008 analysis by Iowa State University, the growth in US ethanol production has caused retail gasoline prices to be US $0.29 to US $0.40 per gallon lower than would otherwise have been the case.

Motorsport

Leon Duray qualified third for the 1927 Indianapolis 500 auto race with an ethanol-fueled car. The IndyCar Series adopted a 10% ethanol blend for the 2006 season, and a 98% blend in 2007. 

In drag racing, there are Top Alcohol classes for dragsters and funny cars since the 1970s. 

The American Le Mans Series sports car championship introduced E10 in the 2007 season to replace pure gasoline. In the 2008 season, E85 was allowed in the GT class and teams began switching to it.

In 2011, the three national NASCAR stock car series mandated a switch from gasoline to E15, a blend of Sunoco GTX unleaded racing fuel and 15% ethanol.

Australia's V8 Supercar championship uses Shell E85 for its racing fuel. 

Stock Car Brasil Championship runs on neat ethanol, E100.

Ethanol fuel may also be utilized as a rocket fuel. As of 2010, small quantities of ethanol are used in lightweight rocket-racing aircraft.

Replacement cooking fuel

Project Gaia is a U.S. non-governmental, non-profit organization involved in the creation of a commercially viable household market for alcohol-based fuels in Ethiopia and other countries in the developing world. The project considers alcohol fuels to be a solution to fuel shortages, environmental damage, and public health issues caused by traditional cooking in the developing world. Targeting poor and marginalized communities that face health issues from cooking over polluting fires, Gaia currently works in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Brazil, Haiti, and Madagascar, and is in the planning stage of projects in several other countries.

Research

Ethanol plant in Turner County, South Dakota
Ethanol research focuses on alternative sources, novel catalysts and production processes. INEOS produced ethanol from vegetative material and wood waste. The bacterium E.coli when genetically engineered with cow rumen genes and enzymes can produce ethanol from corn stover. Other potential feedstocks are municipal waste, recycled products, rice hulls, sugarcane bagasse, wood chips, switchgrass and carbon dioxide.

Bibliography

  • J. Goettemoeller; A. Goettemoeller (2007). Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence (Brief and comprehensive account of the history, evolution and future of ethanol). Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri. ISBN 978-0-9786293-0-4.
  • Onuki, Shinnosuke; Koziel, Jacek A.; van Leeuwen, Johannes; Jenks, William S.; Grewell, David; Cai, Lingshuang (June 2008). Ethanol production, purification, and analysis techniques: a review. 2008 ASABE Annual International Meeting. Providence, Rhode Island. Retrieved 16 February 2013.
  • The Worldwatch Institute (2007). Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Energy and Agriculture (Global view, includes country study cases of Brazil, China, India and Tanzania). London, UK: Earthscan Publications. ISBN 978-1-84407-422-8.
  • Junk food

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A poster at Camp Pendleton’s 21-Area Health Promotion Center describes the effects of junk food that many Marines and sailors consume.
     
    Junk food is a pejorative term, dating back at least to the 1950s, describing food that is high in calories from sugar or fat, with little dietary fiber, protein, vitamins or minerals. It can also refer to high protein food like meat prepared with saturated fat. The term HFSS foods (high in fat, salt and sugar) is used synonymously. Fast food and fast food restaurants are often equated with junk food, although fast foods cannot be categorically described as junk food. Concerns about the negative health effects resulting from a junk food-heavy diet, especially obesity, have resulted in public health awareness campaigns, and restrictions on advertising and sale in several countries.

    Origin of the term

    The term junk food dates back at least to the early 1950s, although its coinage has been credited to Michael F. Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in 1972. In 1952, the phrase appeared in a headline in the Lima, Ohio, News, "'Junk Foods' Cause Serious Malnutrition", over a reprint of a 1948 article from the Ogden, Utah, Standard-Examiner, originally titled, "Dr. Brady’s Health Column: More Junk Than Food". In the article, Dr. Brady writes, "What Mrs. H calls 'junk' I call cheat food. That is anything made principally of (1) white flour and or (2) refined white sugar or syrup. For example, white bread, crackers, cake, candy, ice cream soda, chocolate malted, sundaes, sweetened carbonated beverages." The term cheat food can be traced back in newspaper mentions to at least 1916.

    Definitions

    A homemade vegetarian pizza on whole-grain bread with multiple types of vegetables
    Whether foods such as pizza are considered junk food depends upon how they are made.
     
    In Andrew F. Smith's Encyclopedia of Junk Food and Fast Food, junk food is defined as "those commercial products, including candy, bakery goods, ice cream, salty snacks and soft drinks, which have little or no nutritional value but do have plenty of calories, salt, and fats. While not all fast foods are junk foods, most are. Fast foods are ready-to-eat foods served promptly after ordering. Some fast foods are high in calories and low in nutritional value, while other fast foods, such as salads, may be low in calories and high in nutritional value."

    Junk food provides empty calories, supplying little or none of the protein, vitamins, or minerals required for a nutritious diet. Many foods, such as hamburgers, pizza, and tacos, can be considered either healthy or junk food, depending on their ingredients and preparation methods. The more highly processed items usually fall under the junk food category, including breakfast cereals that are mostly sugar or high fructose corn syrup and white flour or milled corn.

    The United Kingdom's Advertising Standards Authority, the self-regulatory agency for the UK ad industry, uses nutrient profiling to define junk food. Foods are scored for "A" nutrients (energy, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium) and "C" nutrients (fruit, vegetables and nut content, fiber and protein). The difference between A and C scores determines whether a food or beverage is categorized as HFSS (high in fat, salt and sugar; a term synonymous with junk food).

    In Panic Nation: Unpicking the Myths We're Told About Food and Health, the junk food label is described as nutritionally meaningless: food is food, and if there is zero nutritional value, then it isn't a food. Co-editor Vincent Marks explains, "To label a food as 'junk' is just another way of saying, 'I disapprove of it.' There are bad diets - that is, bad mixtures and quantities of food - but there are no 'bad foods' except those that have become bad through contamination or deterioration."

    History

    According to an article in the New York Times, "Let Us Now Praise the Great Men of Junk Food", "The history of junk food is a largely American tale: It has been around for hundreds of years, in many parts of the world, but no one has done a better job inventing so many varieties of it, branding it, mass-producing it, making people rich off it and, of course, eating it." Cracker Jack, the candy-coated popcorn-and-peanuts confection, is credited as the first popular name brand junk food; it was created in Chicago, registered in 1896, and became the best-selling candy in the world 20 years later.

    Popularity and appeal

    Junk food in its various forms is extremely popular, and an integral part of modern popular culture. In the US, annual fast food sales are in the area of $160 billion, compared to supermarket sales of $620 billion (a figure which also includes junk food in the form of convenience foods, snack foods, and candy). In 1976, the US Top 10 pop song, "Junk Food Junkie", described a junk food addict who pretends to follow a healthy diet by day, while at night gorges on Hostess Twinkies and Fritos corn chips, McDonald's and KFC. Thirty-six years later, Time placed the Twinkie at #1 in an article titled, "Top 10 Iconic Junk Foods": "Not only...a mainstay on our supermarket shelves and in our bellies, they've been a staple in our popular culture and, above all, in our hearts. Often criticized for its lack of any nutritional value whatsoever, the Twinkie has managed to persevere as a cultural and gastronomical icon."

    America also celebrates an annual National Junk Food Day on July 21. Origins are unclear; it is one of around 175 US food and drink days, most created by "people who want to sell more food", at times aided by elected officials at the request of a trade association or commodity group. "In honor of the day," Time in 2014 published, "5 Crazy Junk Food Combinations". Headlines from other national and local media coverage include: "Celebrate National Junk Food Day With… Beer-Flavored Oreos?" (MTV); "National Junk Food Day: Pick your favorite unhealthy treats in this poll" (Baltimore); "Celebrities' favorite junk food" (Los Angeles); "A Nutritionist's Guide to National Junk Food Day" with "Rules for Splurging" (Huffington Post); and "It's National Junk Food Day: Got snacks?" (Kansas City).

    As for junk food's appeal, there is no definitive scientific answer, both physiological and psychological factors are cited. Food manufacturers spend billions of dollars on research and development to create flavor profiles that trigger the human affinity for sugar, salt, and fat. Consumption results in pleasurable, likely addictive, effects in the brain. At the same time, massive marketing efforts are deployed, creating powerful brand loyalties that studies have shown will trump taste.

    It is well-established that the poor eat more junk food overall than the more affluent, but the reasons for this are not clear. Few studies have focused on variations in food perception according to socio-economic status (SES); some studies that have differentiated based on SES suggest that the economically challenged don't perceive healthy food much differently than any other segment of the population. Recent research into scarcity, combining behavioral science and economics, suggests that, faced with extreme economic uncertainty, where even the next meal may not be a sure thing, judgment is impaired and the drive is to the instant gratification of junk food, rather than to making the necessary investment in the longer-term benefits of a healthier diet.

    Health effects

    When junk food is consumed very often, the excess fat, simple carbohydrates, and processed sugar found in junk food contributes to an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and many other chronic health conditions. A case study on consumption of fast foods in Ghana suggested a direct correlation between consumption of junk food and obesity rates. The report asserts that obesity resulted in related complex health concerns such upsurge of heart attack rates. Studies reveal that as early as the age of 30, arteries could begin clogging and lay the groundwork for future heart attacks. Consumers also tend to eat too much in one sitting, and those who have satisfied their appetite with junk food are less likely to eat healthy foods like fruit or vegetables.

    Testing on rats has indicated negative effects of junk food that may manifest likewise in people. A Scripps Research Institute study in 2008 suggested that junk food consumption alters brain activity in a manner similar to addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin. After many weeks with unlimited access to junk food, the pleasure centers of rat brains became desensitized, requiring more food for pleasure; after the junk food was taken away and replaced with a healthy diet, the rats starved for two weeks instead of eating nutritious fare. A 2007 study in the British Journal of Nutrition found that female rats who eat junk food during pregnancy increased the likelihood of unhealthy eating habits in their offspring.

    Other research has been done on the impact of sugary foods on emotional health in humans, and has suggested that consumption of junk food can negatively impact energy levels and emotional well-being.

    In a study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the frequency of consumption of 57 foods/drinks of 4000 children at the age of four and a half were collected by maternal report. At age seven, the 4000 children were given the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), with five scales: hyperactivity, conduct problems, peer problems, emotional symptoms and pro-social behavior. A one standard deviation increase in junk food was then linked to excessive hyperactivity in 33% of the subjects, leading to the conclusion that children consuming excess junk food at the age of seven are more likely to be in the top third of the hyperactivity scale. There was no significant correlation between junk food and the other scales.

    Anti-junk food measures

    A number of countries have adopted, or are considering, various forms of legislated action to curb junk food consumption. In 2014, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Anand Grover, released his report, "Unhealthy foods, non-communicable diseases and the right to health", and called for governments to "take measures, such as developing food and nutrition guidelines for healthy diets, regulating marketing and advertising of junk food, adopting consumer-friendly labeling of food products, and establishing accountability mechanisms for violations of the right to health."

    An early, high-profile and controversial attempt to identify and curb junk food in the American diet was undertaken by the McGovern Committee (United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Senator George McGovern) between 1968 and 1977. Initially formed to investigate malnutrition and hunger in the US, the committee's scope progressively expanded to include environmental conditions that affected eating habits, such as urban decay, then focused on the diet and nutritional habits of the American public. The committee took issue with the use of salt, sugar and fat in processed foods, noted problems with overeating and the high percentage of ads for junk food on TV, and stated that bad eating habits could be as deadly as smoking. The findings were heavily criticized and rebutted from many directions, including the food industry, the American Medical Association, and within the committee itself. In 1977, the committee issued public guidelines under the title, Dietary Goals for the United States, which became the predecessor to Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published every five years beginning in 1980 by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Taxation

    In an attempt to reduce junk food consumption through price control, forms of Pigovian taxation have been implemented. Targeting saturated fat consumption, Denmark introduced the world's first fat-food tax in October, 2011, by imposing a surcharge on all foods, including those made from natural ingredients, that contain more than 2.3 percent saturated fat, an unpopular measure that lasted a little over a year. Hungary has imposed taxes on foods and beverages high in added sugar, fat, and salt. Norway taxes refined sugar, and Mexico has various excises on unhealthy food. On April 1, 2015, the first fat tax in the US, the Navajo Nation's Healthy Diné Nation Act of 2014, mandating a 2% junk food tax, came into effect, covering the 27,000 sq mi (70,000 km2) of Navajo reservation; the Act targeted problems with obesity and diabetes among the Navajo population.

    Restriction on advertising to children

    Junk food lines both sides of tall shelves at a grocery store
    Some governments have considered taxes and limits on advertising or displaying junk food for sale.
     
    Junk food that is targeted at children is a contentious issue. In "The Impact of Advertising on Childhood obesity", the American Psychological Association reports: "Research has found strong associations between increases in advertising for non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity." The World Health Organization recommends that governments take action to limit children's exposure to food marketing, stating, "Many advertisements promote foods high in fats, sugar and salt, consumption of which should be limited as part of a healthy diet. ... Food advertising and other forms of marketing have been shown to influence children’s food preferences, purchasing behaviour and overall dietary behaviour. Marketing has also been associated with an increased risk of overweight and obesity in children. The habits children develop early in life may encourage them to adopt unhealthy dietary practices which persist into adulthood, increasing the likelihood of overweight, obesity and associated health problems such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."

    In the UK, efforts to increasingly limit or eliminate advertising of foods high in sugar, salt or fat at any time when children may be viewing are ongoing. The UK government has been criticized for failing to do enough to stop advertising and promotion of junk food aimed at children. A UK parliamentary select committee recommended that cartoon characters advertising unhealthy food to children should be banned, supermarkets should have to remove unhealthy sweets and snacks from ends of isles and checkout areas, local authorities should be able to limit the number of fast food outlets in their area, brands associated with unhealthy foods should be banned from sponsoring sports clubs, youth leagues and tournaments, and social media like Facebook should cut down junk food advertising to children—all are currently just recommendations.

    In Australia, a Wollongong University study in 2015 showed that junk food sponsors were mentioned over 1,000 times in a single Australian cricket match broadcast, which included ads, and branding worn on players' uniforms and on the scoreboard and pitch. A coalition of Australian obesity, cancer and diabetes organizations called on Cricket Australia, the sport's governing body, to "phase out sponsorships with unhealthy brands", emphasizing that cricket is a "healthy, family-oriented sport" with children in the audience.

    High-fructose corn syrup

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Structural formulae of fructose (left) and glucose (right)
     
    High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), also known as glucose-fructose, isoglucose and glucose-fructose syrup, is a sweetener made from corn starch. As in the production of conventional corn syrup, the starch is broken down into glucose by enzymes. To make HFCS, the corn syrup is further processed by glucose isomerase to convert some of its glucose into fructose. HFCS was first marketed in the early 1970s by the Clinton Corn Processing Company, together with the Japanese Agency of Industrial Science and Technology where the enzyme was discovered in 1965.

    As a sweetener, HFCS is often compared to granulated sugar, but manufacturing advantages of HFCS over sugar include that it is easier to handle and more cost-effective. The United States Food and Drug Administration has determined that HFCS is a safe ingredient for food and beverage manufacturing, where "HFCS 42" refers to 42% and "HFCS 55" to 55% fructose composition in manufacturing, respectively. HFCS 42 is mainly used for processed foods and breakfast cereals, whereas HFCS 55 is used mostly for production of soft drinks.

    There is debate over whether HFCS presents greater health risks than other sweeteners. The number of uses and exports of HFCS from American producers have grown steadily during the early 21st century.

    Food

    In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that mostly replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors in the rise of HFCS use include production quotas of domestic sugar, import tariffs on foreign sugar, and subsidies of U.S. corn, raising the price of sucrose and lowering that of HFCS, making it cheapest for many sweetener applications. The relative sweetness of HFCS 55, used most commonly in soft drinks, is comparable to sucrose. HFCS (and/or standard corn syrup) is the primary ingredient in most brands of commercial "pancake syrup", as a less expensive substitute for maple syrup.

    Because of its similar sugar profile and lower price, HFCS has been used illegally to "stretch" honey. Assays to detect adulteration with HFCS use differential scanning calorimetry and other advanced testing methods.

    Production

    Process

    In the contemporary process, corn is milled to extract corn starch and an "acid-enzyme" process is used, in which the corn-starch solution is acidified to begin breaking up the existing carbohydrates. It is necessary to carry out the extraction process in the presence of mercuric chloride (0.01 M) in order to inhibit endogenous starch-degrading enzymes. High-temperature enzymes are added to further metabolize the starch and convert the resulting sugars to fructose. The first enzyme added is alpha-amylase, which breaks the long chains down into shorter sugar chains – oligosaccharides. Glucoamylase is mixed in and converts them to glucose; the resulting solution is filtered to remove protein, then using activated carbon, and then demineralized using ion-exchange resins. The purified solution is then run over immobilized xylose isomerase, which turns the sugars to ~50–52% glucose with some unconverted oligosaccharides and 42% fructose (HFCS 42), and again demineralized and again purified using activated carbon. Some is processed into HFCS 90 by liquid chromatography, and then mixed with HFCS 42 to form HFCS 55. The enzymes used in the process are made by microbial fermentation.

    Composition and varieties

    HFCS is 24% water, the rest being mainly fructose and glucose with 0–5% unprocessed glucose oligomers.

    The most common forms of HFCS used for food and beverage manufacturing contain fructose in either 42% ("HFCS 42") or 55% ("HFCS 55") amounts, as described in the US Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 184.1866).
    • HFCS 42 (≈42% fructose if water were removed) is used in beverages, processed foods, cereals, and baked goods.
    • HFCS 55 is mostly used in soft drinks.
    • HFCS 65 is used in soft drinks dispensed by Coca-Cola Freestyle machines.
    • HFCS 90 has some niche uses,  but is mainly mixed with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.

    History

    Commercial production of corn syrup began in 1864. In the late 1950s, scientists at Clinton Corn Processing Company of Clinton, Iowa, tried to turn glucose from corn starch into fructose, but the process was not scalable. In 1965–1970 Yoshiyuki Takasaki, at the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) developed a heat-stable xylose isomerase enzyme from yeast. In 1967, the Clinton Corn Processing Company obtained an exclusive license to a manufacture glucose isomerase derived from Streptomyces bacteria and began shipping an early version of HFCS in February 1967. In 1983, the FDA approved HFCS as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), and that decision was reaffirmed in 1996.

    Prior to the development of the worldwide sugar industry, dietary fructose was limited to only a few items. Milk, meats, and most vegetables, the staples of many early diets, have no fructose, and only 5–10% fructose by weight is found in fruits such as grapes, apples, and blueberries. Most traditional dried fruits, however, contain about 50% fructose. From 1970 to 2000, there was a 25% increase in "added sugars" in the U.S. After being classified as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1976, HFCS began to replace sucrose as the main sweetener of soft drinks in the United States. At the same time, rates of obesity rose. That correlation, in combination with laboratory research and epidemiological studies that suggested a link between consuming large amounts of fructose and changes to various proxy health measures, including elevated blood triglycerides, size and type of low-density lipoproteins, uric acid levels, and weight, raised concerns about health effects of HFCS itself.

    United States

    Consumption of sugar and corn-based sweeteners in the United States from 1966 to 2013, in dry-basis pounds per capita
     
    Since 1789, the U.S. sugar industry has had trade protection against tariffs imposed by foreign-produced sugar, while subsidies to corn growers cheapen the primary ingredient in HFCS, corn. Industrial users looking for cheaper replacements rapidly adopted HFCS in the 1970s.

    HFCS is easier to handle than granulated sucrose, although some sucrose is transported as solution. Unlike sucrose, HFCS cannot be hydrolyzed, but the free fructose in HFCS may produce hydroxymethylfurfural when stored at high temperatures; these differences are most prominent in acidic beverages. Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi continue to use sugar in other nations but transitioned to HFCS for U.S. markets in 1980 before completely switching over in 1984. Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midland, lobby for the continuation of government corn subsidies.

    Consumption of HFCS in the U.S. has declined since it peaked at 37.5 lb (17.0 kg) per person in 1999. The average American consumed approximately 27.1 lb (12.3 kg) of HFCS in 2012, versus 39.0 lb (17.7 kg) of refined cane and beet sugar. This decrease in domestic consumption of HFCS resulted in a push in exporting of the product. In 2014, exports of HFCS were valued at $436 million, a decrease of 21% in one year, with Mexico receiving about 75% of the export volume.

    In 2010, the Corn Refiners Association petitioned the FDA to call HFCS "corn sugar", but the petition was denied.

    European Union

    In the European Union (EU), HFCS, known as isoglucose in sugar regime, is subject to a production quota. In 2005, this quota was set at 303,000 tonnes; in comparison, the EU produced an average of 18.6 million tonnes of sugar annually between 1999 and 2001.

    Japan

    In Japan, HFCS is manufactured mostly from imported U.S. corn, and the output is regulated by the government. For the period from 2007 to 2012, HFCS had a 27–30% share of the Japanese sweetener market.

    Health

    High-fructose corn syrup
    Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
    Energy1,176 kJ (281 kcal)

    76 g
    Dietary fiber0 g

    0 g

    0 g

    VitaminsQuantity %DV
    Riboflavin (B2)
    2%
    0.019 mg
    Niacin (B3)
    0%
    0 mg
    Pantothenic acid (B5)
    0%
    0.011 mg
    Vitamin B6
    2%
    0.024 mg
    Folate (B9)
    0%
    0 μg
    Vitamin C
    0%
    0 mg

    MineralsQuantity %DV
    Calcium
    1%
    6 mg
    Iron
    3%
    0.42 mg
    Magnesium
    1%
    2 mg
    Phosphorus
    1%
    4 mg
    Potassium
    0%
    0 mg
    Sodium
    0%
    2 mg
    Zinc
    2%
    0.22 mg

    Other constituentsQuantity
    Water24 g

    Percentages are roughly approximated using US recommendations for adults.
    Source: USDA Nutrient Database

    Health concerns have been raised about a relationship between HFCS and metabolic disorders, and with regard to manufacturing contaminants. In general, however, the United States Food and Drug Administration has declared HFCS as a safe ingredient in food manufacturing, and there is no evidence that retail HFCS products contain harmful compounds or cause diseases.

    Nutrition

    HFCS is composed of 76% carbohydrates and 24% water, containing no fat, no protein, and no essential nutrients in significant amounts (table). In a 100 gram serving, it supplies 281 kilocalories, while in one tablespoon of 19 grams, it supplies 53 calories (table link).

    Obesity and metabolic disorders

    In the 1980s and 1990s some publications cautioned consumption of sucrose and of HFCS. In subsequent interviews, two of the study's authors stated the article was distorted to place emphasis solely on HFCS when the actual issue was the overconsumption of any type of sugar. While fructose absorption and modification by the intestines and liver does differ from glucose initially, the majority of the fructose molecules are converted to glucose or metabolized into byproducts identical to those produced by glucose metabolism. Consumption of moderate amounts of fructose has also been linked to positive outcomes, including reducing appetite if consumed before a meal, lower blood sugar increases compared to glucose, and (again compared to glucose) delaying exhaustion if consumed during exercise.

    In 2007, an expert panel assembled by the University of Maryland's Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy reviewed the links between HFCS and obesity and concluded there was no ecological validity in the association between rising body mass indexes (a measure of obesity) and the consumption of HFCS. The panel stated that since the ratio of fructose to glucose had not changed substantially in the United States since the 1960s when HFCS was introduced, the changes in obesity rates were probably not due to HFCS specifically, but rather a greater consumption of calories overall. In 2009 the American Medical Association published a review article on HFCS and concluded it was unlikely that HFCS contributed more to obesity or other health conditions than sucrose, and there was insufficient evidence to suggest warning about or restricting use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in foods. The review did report that while some studies found direct associations between high intakes of fructose and other sugars and adverse health outcomes, including obesity and the metabolic syndrome, there was insufficient evidence to ban or restrict use of HFCS in the food supply or to require warning labels on products containing HFCS.

    Epidemiological research has suggested that the increase in metabolic disorders such as obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is linked to increased consumption of sugars and/or calories in general and not due to any special effect of HFCS. A 2014 systematic review found little evidence for an association between HFCS consumption and liver diseases, enzyme levels or fat content. A 2012 review found that fructose did not appear to cause weight gain when it replaced other carbohydrates in diets with similar calories. One study investigating HFCS as a possible contributor to diabetes and obesity states that, "As many of the metabolic consequences of a diet high in fructose-containing sugars in humans can also be observed with high-fat or high-glucose feeding, it is possible that excess calories may be the main culprit in the development of the metabolic syndrome." Another study compared similar intakes of honey, white cane sugar, and HFCS, showing similar rises in both blood sugar level and triglycerides. High fructose consumption has been linked to high levels of uric acid in the blood, though this is only thought to be a concern for patients with gout.

    Numerous agencies in the United States recommend reducing the consumption of all sugars, including HFCS, without singling it out as presenting extra concerns. The Mayo Clinic cites the American Heart Association's recommendation that women limit the added sugar in their diet to 100 calories a day (~6 teaspoons) and that men limit it to 150 calories a day (~9 teaspoons), noting that there is not enough evidence to support HFCS having more adverse health effects than excess consumption of any other type of sugar. The United States departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services recommendations for a healthy diet state that consumption of all types of added sugars be reduced.

    People with fructose malabsorption should avoid foods containing HFCS.

    Safety and manufacturing concerns

    Since 2014, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared HFCS to be safe as a food ingredient. In 2015, production of HFCS in the United States was 8.5 million tons from some 500 million bushels of corn.

    One consumer concern about HFCS is that processing of corn is more complex than used for “simpler” or “more natural” sugars, such as fruit juice concentrates or agave nectar, but all sweetener products derived from raw materials involve similar processing steps of pulping, hydrolysis, enzyme treatment, and filtration, among other common steps of sweetener manufacturing from natural sources. In the contemporary process to make HFCS, an "acid-enzyme" step is used in which the cornstarch solution is acidified to digest the existing carbohydrates, then enzymes are added to further metabolize the cornstarch and convert the resulting sugars to their constituents of fructose and glucose. Analyses published in 2014 showed that HFCS content of fructose was consistent across samples from 80 randomly selected carbonated beverages sweetened with HFCS.

    One prior concern in manufacturing was whether HFCS contains reactive carbonyl compounds or advanced glycation end-products evolved during processing. This concern was dismissed, however, with evidence that HFCS poses no dietary risk from these compounds.

    Through the early 21st Century, some factories manufacturing HFCS had used a chlor-alkali corn processing method which, in cases of applying mercury cell technology for digesting corn raw material, left trace residues of mercury in some batches of HFCS. In a 2009 release, The Corn Refiners Association stated that all factories in the American industry for manufacturing HFCS had used mercury-free processing over several previous years, making the prior report outdated. As of 2017, the USDA, FDA and US Centers for Disease Control list HFCS as a safe food ingredient, and do not mention mercury as a safety concern in HFCS products.

    Other

    Taste difference

    Most countries, including Mexico, use sucrose, or table sugar, in soft drinks. In the U.S., soft drinks, including Coca-Cola, are typically made with HFCS. Some Americans seek out drinks such as Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries because they prefer the taste over that of HFCS-sweetened Coca-Cola. Kosher Coca-Cola, sold in the U.S. around the Jewish holiday of Passover, also uses sucrose rather than HFCS and is highly sought after by people who prefer the original taste. While these are simply opinions, a 2011 study further backed up the idea that people enjoy sucrose (table sugar) more than HFCS. The study, conducted by Michigan State University, included a 99-member panel that evaluated yogurt sweetened with sucrose (table sugar), HFCS, and different varieties of honey for likeness. The results showed that, overall, the panel enjoyed the yogurt with sucrose (table sugar) added more than those that contained HFCS or honey.

    Beekeeping

    In apiculture in the United States, HFCS is a honey substitute for some managed honey bee colonies during times when nectar is in low supply. However, when HFCS is heated to about 45 °C (113 °F), hydroxymethylfurfural, which is toxic to bees, can form from the breakdown of fructose. Although some researchers cite honey substitution with HFCS as one factor among many for colony collapse disorder, there is no evidence that HFCS is the only cause. Compared to hive honey, both HFCS and sucrose caused signs of malnutrition in bees fed with them, apparent in the expression of genes involved in protein metabolism and other processes affecting bee health.

    Public relations

    There are various public relations concerns with HFCS, including how HFCS products are advertised and labeled as "natural". As a consequence, several companies reverted to manufacturing with sucrose (table sugar) from products that had previously been made with HFCS. In 2010, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) applied to allow HFCS to be renamed "corn sugar", but that petition was rejected by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2012.

    In August 2016 in a move to please consumers with health concerns, McDonald's announced they would be replacing all HFCS in their buns with sucrose (table sugar) and would cut out preservatives and other artificial additives from their menu items. Marion Gross, senior vice president of McDonald's stated, "We know that they [consumers] don't feel good about high-fructose corn syrup so we're giving them what they're looking for instead." Over the early 21st century, other companies such as Yoplait, Gatorade, and Hershey's also phased out HFCS, replacing it with conventional sugar because consumers perceived sugar to be healthier. Companies such as PepsiCo and Heinz have also released products that use sugar in lieu of HFCS, although they still sell HFCS-sweetened products.

    Lifelong learning

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning ...