Home Distiller

I ran across this article today and it's quite interesting: http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/arti ... 830c5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

It also lead me to read this paper which talks about using ozone, carbon dioxide and activated carbon to remove 100% of impurities (word document): http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewconte ... e_eng_conf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Abstract from the paper:

"The total ethanol production in the United States became over 9 billion gallons/year in
2007. Only about 3% of this is used in producing food-grade alcohol, but this represents a higher
value product. The ethanol production process includes corn milling, cooking, saccharification,
fermentation, and separation by distillation. To achieve industrial and food-grade quality, additional
purification is required. Impurities in ethanol could threaten human health and cause unpleasant
flavors. This purification is currently achieved by further distillation. Further distillation is costly and
not totally effective in removing all impurities. We have tested an advanced approach to purify
ethanol by using ozone, activated carbon, and carbon dioxide. In previous research, we have shown
that ozone can remove several undesirable compounds that remain in ethanol after distillation. Also,
additional treatment with activated carbon can adsorb ozonolysis byproducts and some non-
oxidizable compounds. In this study, we have focused on method development for analysis of volatile
by-products using solid phase microextraction (SPME) of headspace volatiles and gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). We have also determined which of the mechanisms
(ozonation, gas stripping, and activated carbon treatment) is responsible for removal of impurities. To
date, we have confirmed up to 100% reduction of particular impurities by ozonation alone, but
additional removal of some compounds occurs through gas stripping and GAC adsorption. The cost
of the proposed treatment process is expected to be below 0.02 dollars per gallon. It is much lower
than the cost of additional distillation, ca. 0.30 dollars per gallon."

It seems to me that perhaps this could be applied on a hobby level with an ozone generator, some carbon dioxide and a carbon filter. What do you think?

Ozonation is easy with the right equipment. Some people do it in their kitchen sinks to break down pesticides on their fruits and veggies.

I ozonate my garden area when it is empty to kill anything and everything between cycles. It smells like a hospital. My friend lets me borrow the equipment, as it is commercial and scary expensive.

My aquarium has an ozone generator. Co2 injection and activated Carbon filtering. Shame about the silicone sealing and plastic hoses and pump ect.
The fish would much like a drink either. I did read somewhere about a scientist using a molecular sieve to purify also

Two things that stand out to me are that it's really a small amount of ozone and that they shook the hell out of the container with the GAC for 4.5 hours and it still cleaned things up.

We often hear that filtering with carbon has to be done slow because the ethanol can strip things off the carbon. That didn't seem to be the case in these experiments.

I would imagine that it has to do with the amount of times the alcohol is being passed through the carbon granules.

700G wrote:I would imagine that it has to do with the amount of times the alcohol is being passed through the carbon granules.

It would seem that way. I was just pointing out that in these experiments they used a rough technique and the carbon still held on to the adsorbed congeners.

I had started to calculate how much would be needed for the treatments, thinking that they were treating 10% abv ethanol but, I noticed that the treatments were carried out on what they call industrial ethanol. That term seems vague but, I'm guessing that it means high ABV ethanol because they say that they water it down before analyzing the samples. Maybe even 96%ABV ethanol.

That, of course swings both ways because industrial ethanol would most likely be a product of a fractionating column so, who knows what the requirements would be for treating low wines from a pot still.

I may try an ozonator like this:
with a stainless air stone like this:
Just gotta figure out how long to pass the 2 gasses through the alcohol before carbon filtration.

700G wrote:I may try an ozonator like this

How much does that unit produce?

Just gotta figure out how long to pass the 2 gasses through the alcohol before carbon filtration.

That would depend on the amount of liquid and the ozone output of that unit.

From what I understood, the steps are:
1. ozone
2. carbon
3. Co2

I'd probably just use air to do step 3.

Am I reading this wrong or are you guys cracking jokes?. Do I understand you wish to filter alcohol in deadly poisonous ozone. If so another thing you might take into account, ozone is soluble in water and alcohol and the solution will be very unstable and will at some point detonate. I'm thinking I'm reading this wrong and you guys are not racing for the Darwin awards comp.

thecroweater wrote:Am I reading this wrong or are you guys cracking jokes?.

It's already a proven concept.

Did you read the docs linked in the OP?

It is my understanding that ozone dissipates rather quickly according to the home drinking water ozone units on the market.

It doesn't just dissipate either. It reacts with molecules and stops being ozone. Here is some interesting but very technical info on Oxidation kinetics and product formation

But will it make a good Pantydropper?

tp

T-Pee wrote:But will it make a good Pantydropper?

tp

Indded!

and thanks for the link Bagasso!

Bagasso wrote:

700G wrote:I may try an ozonator like this

How much does that unit produce?

That unit produces 10g an hour, but I'm gonna go with something like this since I can use it for other purposes:

Ill have to backtrack my thoughts, beacuse I would like to see this topic continue in a safe and informative fashion... There needs to exist a proper safety disclaimer inside the OP. Safety is more important than anything else.

Ozone generators carry safety concerns that need to be fully understood before someone goes and buys one for any purpose. It is illegal to market these devices in many US states because of these concerns. Not to mention the often false marketing claims regarding human health. Take any manufacture info with a grain of salt.

Safety, safety, safety!

For the record. I will not be using the generator that I have access to, to try this. However, I will be watching closely.

bearriver wrote:Ill have to backtrack my thoughts, beacuse I would like to see this topic continue in a safe and informative fashion... There needs to exist a proper safety disclaimer inside the OP. Safety is more important than anything else.

Ozone generators carry safety concerns that need to be fully understood before someone goes and buys one for any purpose. It is illegal to market these devices in many US states because of these concerns. Not to mention the often false marketing claims regarding human health. Take any manufacture info with a grain of salt.

Safety, safety, safety!

For the record. I will not be using the generator that I have access to, to try this. However, I will be watching closely.

What I've read so far regarding safety is that ozone is safe for purifying water (or in my case alcohol), but it's important for everyone to decide that for themselves with their own research.

A paper from the Connecticut Gov. states ( http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environme ... sheet.pdf9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow ):

"Why is it safe to use ozone to purify water, but not air?
Ozone can be used successfully to purify water in some applications. This is because very high levels of ozone can be
used in water, and the reactions are taking place under water, where people are not generally exposed.
The amount of ozone emitted from devices that purify the air need to remain very low in order to avoid creating lung
damage in exposed individuals. Such levels are not high enough to kill microorganisms in the air."

I've finally got the ozone machine, Co2 and stainless airstone rounded up and tested the connections and equipment today. It would be REALLY handy to have a GC/MS to determine optimal times for both the O3 and Co2.

700G wrote:It would be REALLY handy to have a GC/MS to determine optimal times for both the O3 and Co2.

If that ozone machine puts out 10g/h you would only have to run it 15 seconds for every liter of distillate to get the 40mg/l stated in the document in the OP.

I have no idea how you could measure how much Co2 is being used or its flow rate. Since the idea is to air out volatiles, you might be able to just smell it after it has been running for a while.

Not to be a pessimist but did any of you read the actual literature? It stated that 10% concentration is the best value to extract the contaminates and that at higher concentrations it much harder to get them out. What are you going to do, dilute your distillate to 10%, run the O3 and CO2 through it and re-distill? Also, the O3 only removed 2 compounds, of the many that can be giving your vodka off flavors. Also, the CO2 got rid of the volatiles. They are called volatiles because left to their own devices, they are so volatile that they escape on their own. Simply air your distillate out and give it some time and POOF they are gone. It did confirm that activated carbon removes the other ethyls, which we already knew. So I'm not sure why people are trying to rig up an ozonator or run CO2 through their distillate. Why not just distill well and use some activated carbon? All this other stuff seems like a titanic waste of time to me. No?

roberto188 wrote:Not to be a pessimist but did any of you read the actual literature? It stated that 10% concentration is the best value to extract the contaminates and that at higher concentrations it much harder to get them out. What are you going to do, dilute your distillate to 10%, run the O3 and CO2 through it and re-distill? Also, the O3 only removed 2 compounds, of the many that can be giving your vodka off flavors. Also, the CO2 got rid of the volatiles. They are called volatiles because left to their own devices, they are so volatile that they escape on their own. Simply air your distillate out and give it some time and POOF they are gone. It did confirm that activated carbon removes the other ethyls, which we already knew. So I'm not sure why people are trying to rig up an ozonator or run CO2 through their distillate. Why not just distill well and use some activated carbon? All this other stuff seems like a titanic waste of time to me. No?

10% concentration was used for analysis, not ozonation and C02 treatment. I will be trying this after my first run of the year in a month or so and will report results.

Any updates?

Bagasso wrote:Any updates?

I'm getting closer. I'm actually gonna send off some sample for analyses.

I would be interested to see a comparison, including a taste test, of this method to an additional distillation cycle. I see the author's claim that his method costs 2 cents compared to 30 cents to distill, but I think that probably ignores the up front equipment costs.

skow69 wrote:I would be interested to see a comparison, including a taste test, of this method to an additional distillation cycle. I see the author's claim that his method costs 2 cents compared to 30 cents to distill, but I think that probably ignores the up front equipment costs.

That's exactly what I'm going to do. I will send in a sample of store bought vodka for comparison.

I know that personal opinions can be biased but did you notice a difference?

Bagasso wrote:I know that personal opinions can be biased but did you notice a difference?

I haven't ran it yet, I'm waiting on parts for my cooling system now. Should have it sent out by next week. I already make super clean neutral by doing a second run, so I'm curious to see how much if any benefit I'll get with the o3 and co2.

700G wrote:I already make super clean neutral by doing a second run, so I'm curious to see how much if any benefit I'll get with the o3 and co2.

Would be cool to know how they work on low wines from a pot still but I guess that any improvement, even on super clean neutral, could mean an improvement on them as well.

Maybe I'll eventually try that too if it works out on the first round.

700G wrote:

Bagasso wrote:I know that personal opinions can be biased but did you notice a difference?

I haven't ran it yet, I'm waiting on parts for my cooling system now. Should have it sent out by next week. I already make super clean neutral by doing a second run, so I'm curious to see how much if any benefit I'll get with the o3 and co2.

I strive for a clean neutral also. Not sure what you mean by a second run. I do a potstill strip, then a spirit run in a packed VM with cuts, then run the hearts through again, make a small heads cut (whatever is necessary) and leave the tails in the pot. I consider it a triple distillation. Looking forward to your results. BTW where do you find a lab to do the analysis, and is it expensive?