Production of Acetic Acid for CMA Deicer, HR-304, 1988

Although the overall objective for undertaking this project is to help decide on the best way to produce CMA, the tasks to be performed deal primarily with acetic acid itself. The objectives of our part of this project can be restated here: A. Evaluate the cost and composition of potential low-cost fermentation substrates that are available in large quantity at central locations in Iowa. B. Compare the nutritional and physiological properties of a variety of homoacetogenic bacteria relative to acetic acid production, based on information available in the literature. C. Using both of these pools of information, evaluate the possibilities for use of substrates for acetic acid production that are significantly cheaper than the previous sugar, starch hydrolysate or whole corn based studies; also, compare the different acetogens encountered with the most commonly discussed acetogen, Clostridium thermoaceticum; arrive at conclusions on 1-3 of the best agriculture-derived substrates that should be further examined, and on 1-3 of the best organisms to evaluate experimentally. D. Collect experimental data at the tube and fermentor scale on 1-2 of the possibilities in C above. E. Comment on our understanding of acetic acid production possibilities from our perspective as microbiologists, and provide all this above information to Paul Peterschmidt for him to consider for his portion of this report. F. In addition, we would like to point out the possible advantage of examining the use of an agricultural by-product, corn steep liquor, as a direct, non-fermented feedstock for a non-acetic acid deicer.

IDED Tools and Trends, Fall 2002

Newsletter for Economic Development

An Examination of Iowa's School Liaison Program, 2001

In the early 1990’s the Chief Juvenile Court Officers (JCOs) and other key players desired to provide services, such as school support, family support, and community support to both juvenile court and at-risk youths within the school setting. With strong support from both Iowa’s Attorney General and Governor the Iowa State Legislature first appropriated funds for school liaisons in 1994. The liaison program is currently funded with 75 percent state dollars appropriated to the Department of Human Services and a minimum of 25 percent match from the local school districts. In some cases the schools do not actually match funds with “school money,” rather they may utilize community money from other sources, such as the local decategorization process. In 1994, the state legislature funded this effort at $400,000. Since that time the amount has grown to more than $3,000,000. In the early years there were just a handful of liaisons working in a few school districts, but by the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year there were 304 schools served by 147 liaisons. The cost per liaison, including salary and benefits, was estimated at approximately $34,324 including both the DHS and school contributions. It was a desire of the Chief JCOs to place the liaisons under the school districts and thus allow them to be independent of the juvenile court. Agreements were developed between the schools and juvenile court regarding employee status, funding, information sharing, and other such issues.

Sieve Analysis of Combined Aggregate Samples by Different Test Methods, MLR-84-05, 1982

This past winter the sieve analysis of combined aggregate was investigated. This study was given No. 26 by the Central Laboratory. The purpose of this work was to try and develop a sieve analysis procedure for combined aggregate which is less time consuming and has the same accuracy as the method described in I.M. 304. In an attempt to use a variety of aggregates for this investigation, a request was made to each District Materials Office to obtain at least 3 different combined aggregate samples in their respective districts. At the same time it was also requested that the field technician test these samples, prior to submitting them to the Central Laboratory. The field technician was instructed to test each sample as described in method I.M. 304 and also by a modified AASHTO T27 method which will be identified in the report as Method A. The modified AASHTO Method A was identical to T27 with the exception that a smaller sample is used for testing. The field technicians submitted the samples, test results and also comments regarding the modified AASHTO procedure. The general comments of the modified AASHTO procedure were: The method was much simpler to follow; however, it took about the same amount of time so there was no real advantage. After reviewing AASHTO T27, T164, I.M. 304 and Report No. FHWA-RD-77-53 another test method was purposed. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-53 is a report prepared by FHWA from data they gathered concerning control practices and shortcut or alternative test methods for aggregate gradation. A second test method was developed which also was very similar to AASHTO T27, The test procedure for this method is attached and is identified as Method B. The following is a summary of test results submitted by the Field Technicians and obtained by the aggregate section of the Central Laboratory.