The effect of incorporating alum in the clarification stage of raw juice in sugarcane processing on the juice quality and sucrose loss was investigated. Alum was incorporated in both intermediate and hot liming clarification processes of cane juicing. One portion of the cane juice was used for With Pretreatment Treatment (WPT) while the other portion constituted No Pre-treatment (NPT) juice. Alum at levels of 0 mg L−1 , 50 mg L−1 , 100 mg L−1 and 150 mg L−1 was incorporated in both intermediate and hot liming clarification processes in each of the two cane juice portions. Sugar concentration (sucrose, glucose and fructose), ◦Brix, pH, colour, settling performance (initial settling rates (ISR), final mud volume (MV∞), and turbidity) and residual aluminium ion concentration were evaluated. Any significant variations (p < 0.05) in these parameters were assessed. The study found significantly lower (p < 0.05) sucrose losses in clarified juice from intermediate liming of WPT after alum treatment than in the rest of the clarified juices. Colour and turbidity in the pre-treated cane juice of intermediate liming was reduced by 36.9% and 98.1%, respectively at 150 mg L−1 alum level. An initial settling rate of 260 ml min−1 in WPT cane juice of intermediate liming at 150 mg L−1 alum level resulted in the most compact final mud volume of 10.3%. The residual aluminium concentration (0.025 to 0.048 mg L−1 ) in alum treated clarified juices was lower than the natural aluminium concentration (0.088 mg L−1 ) in untreated cane juice. This study showed the potential for the use of alum in cane juice clarification to improve on clarification efficiency and lower sucrose loss.
Anon. Sugar Process Research Institute (SPRI) Annual Report. 2005;
2.
Anon. Sugar Process Research Institute (SPRI) Annual Report. 2006;
3.
Davis S. Annual congress of south african sugar technologists association. 2001;328–36.
4.
De Armas R, Martinez M, Vicente C, Legaz M. Free and conjugated polyamines and phenols in raw and alkalineclarified sugarcane juices. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1999;(8):3086–92.
5.
Degremont P. Water treatment handbook. 1991;(6).
6.
Eggleston G. Hot and cold lime clarification in raw sugar manufacture i: juice quality differences. International Sugar Journal. 2000;406–16.
7.
Eggleston G, Amorim H. Reasons for the chemical destruction of sugars during the processing of sugar cane for raw sugar and fuel alcohol production. International Sugar Journal. 2006;271–82.
8.
Eggleston G, Clarke M, Pepperman A. Mixed juice clarification of fresh and deteriorated sugarcane. International Sugar Journal. 1999;296–300.
9.
Eggleston G, Monge A. Minimization of seasonal sucrose losses across robert’s-type evaporators in raw sugar manufacture by ph optimization. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2005;(16):6332–9.
10.
Eggleston G, Monge A, Ogier B. Sugarcane factory performance of cold, intermediate, and hot lime clarification processes. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2002;(6):433–54.
11.
Eggleston G, Monge A, Pepperman A. Preheating and incubation of cane juice prior to liming: a comparison of intermediate and cold lime clarification. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2002;(3):484–90.
12.
Eggleston G, Vercellotti J, Edye L, Clarke M. Effects of salts on the initial thermal degradation of concentrated aqueous solutions of sucrose. Journal of Carbohydrate Chemistry. 1996;(1):81–94.
13.
Eggleston G, Grisham M, Antoine A. Clarification properties of trash and stalk tissues from sugar cane. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2010;(1):366–73.
14.
Eggleston G, Legendre D, Pontif K, Gober J. Improved control of sucrose losses and clarified juice turbidity with lime saccharate in hot lime clarification of sugarcane juice and other comparisons with milk of lime. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2014;(1):311–25.
15.
Godshall M, Clarke M, Dooley C. Proceedings of the sugar processing research conference. 1991;244–64.
16.
Godshall M, Mckee M, Triche R, Moore S. Proc. issct processing workshop. 2006;
17.
Hamerski F, Da Silva V, Corazza M, Ndiaye P, De Aquino A. Methods book. international commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2012;(2):422–8.
18.
Icumsa. Methods book. international commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis. 2005;3–10.
19.
Jiang J, Graham N. Prepolymerised inorganic coagulants and phosphorus removal by coagulation -a review. Water SA. 1998;(3):237–44.
20.
Lionnet G, Ravn A. Annual congress of south african sugar technologists association. 1976;177–8.
21.
Maseko Q, Singh R, Motsa N. Annual congress of south african sugar technologists association. 2011;499–509.
22.
Muisa N, Hoko Z, Chifamba P. 11th WaterNet/WARFSA/GWP-SA Annual Symposium. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 2011;(14–15):853–64.
23.
Nguyen D, Doherty W. Optimisation of process parameters for the degradation of caffeic acid in sugar solutions. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2012;(12):2477–86.
24.
Nguyen D, Doherty W. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. 2012;
25.
Ravina L, Moramarco N. Everything you want to know about coagulation & flocculation. Zeta-Meter Inc. 1993;19–24.
26.
Rein P, Bento L. Proc. issct processing workshop. 2006;
27.
Sas. User’s guide. 2002;61–77.
28.
Saska M, Zossi B, Liu H. International society of sugar cane technologists. 2010;1–14.
29.
Saska M, Zossi B, Liu H. Removal of colour in sugar cane juice clarification by defecation, sulfitation and carbonation. International Sugar Journal. 2010;258.
30.
Schaffler K, Muzzell D, Schorn P. Annual congress of south african sugar technologists association. 1985;73–8.
31.
Schoonees-Muir B, Gwegwe B. Annual congress of south african sugar technologists association. 2008;160–4.
32.
Spri. Reduction of lime usage with cationic aluminium coagulants in juice clarification. Sugar Processing Research Institute. 2006;
33.
Zouboulis A, Traskas G. Comparable evaluation of various commercially available aluminium-based coagulants for the treatment of surface water and for the post-treatment of urban wastewater. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 2005;(10):1136–47.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
