Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Analysis and simulation of an industrial vegetable oil refining process

Gabriele Landucci a,⇑, Gabriele Pannocchia a, Luigi Pelagagge b, Cristiano Nicolella a
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale, Università di Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino, 56126 Pisa, Italy
b
SALOV – Società Alimentare Lucchese Oli E Vini S.p.A. 1582, Via Montramito, San Rocchino 55054, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work focuses on the performance analysis of an industrial vegetable oil refinery. Using a commercial
Received 10 August 2012 process simulator, a process model was developed and validated against actual vegetable oil refinery field
Received in revised form 1 November 2012 data. The simulator allowed investigating both energy and safety aspects related to the presence of resid-
Accepted 27 January 2013
ual extraction solvent (extraction grade hexane) in the processed crude vegetable oil. The critical nodes
Available online 4 February 2013
for hexane accumulation in the process were evaluated, both considering ordinary operative conditions
and undesired process deviations due to increase of the hexane content. In this latter case, the control
Keywords:
actions able to restore the normal operation were simulated, in terms of increased utility consumption
Vegetable oil refining
Process simulation
(e.g., motive steam for ejectors and cooling water) or by modifying and optimizing equipment operating
Advanced thermodynamic models conditions. Finally, the possibility of flammable mixtures formation inside process vent pipes, caused by
Formation of flammable mixtures the entrainment of air due strong vacuum conditions, was also investigated.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (such as drying, bleaching and deodorization). In these operations,

Edible oil production by extraction processes greatly increased
in the last century due to both higher request and consumption
(FAO, 2011) and the progressive availability of more efficient pro-
cess technologies and equipment (Bockisch, 1998; Mielke, 1990;
Shahidi, 2005; Veloso et al., 2005; Calliauw et al., 2008; Cuevas
et al., 2009; Haslenda and Jamaludin, 2011; Szydłowska-Czerniak
et al., 2011; Zulkurnain et al., 2012). A critical phase of the edible
oil production chain is the final refining aimed at removing free
fatty acids, which, in too high concentrations, lead to the rancidity
of the oil (Cavanagh, 1976; Sullivan, 1976; Keurentjes et al., 1991;
Bhosle and Subramanian, 2005; Martinello et al., 2007; Calliauw
et al., 2008; Cuevas et al., 2009; Carmona et al., 2010; Akterian,
2011), and other minor components such as phospholipids, pig-
ments, proteins, oxidation products and the possible residual con-
tent of the solvent used for the extraction process. The main
operations involved in conventional refining for removing the
mentioned components are degumming, neutralization, washing,
drying, bleaching, deodorization and filtration (Gunstone et al.,
1994; Mag, 1990; Loft, 1990; Shahidi, 2005; Santori et al., 2012).
This stage of the production chain is crucial for the quality
enhancement of the final product.
One the more critical aspects of vegetable oil refining is related to
the presence of residual volatile solvent used for the extraction. In
particular, due to the low vapor pressure, the residual solvent may
cause a loss of efficiency in high temperature vacuum operations
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 050 2217907; fax: +39 050 2217866.
E-mail address: gabriele.landucci@diccism.unipi.it (G. Landucci).
vacuum conditions are often obtained by ejector systems (Bockisch,
1998; Mag, 1990; Loft, 1990; Muth et al., 1998; Akterian, 2011),
whose costs are mainly related to the consumption of steam and
cooling water for condensation. A possible increase of the residual
solvent concentration has a negative impact on these costs, besides
worsening the environmental impact related due to higher emission
factors (odors, pollutant, etc.) (MRI, 1995; Muth et al., 1998).
Another criticality is due to the fact that the extraction solvent is
typically technical hexane (extraction grade hexane) (Dunford and
Zhang, 2003; MRI, 1995) a highly flammable liquid and vapor (GHS
hazard statement, Shell, 2012). In some critical nodes of the process,
the solvent accumulates in the vapor phase and mixing with air may
occur, potentially leading to the formation of flammable mixtures and
confined explosion of the equipment in case of accidental ignition
(NFPA, 2007; Lees, 1996; Tugnoli et al., 2012). As reported in a previ-
ous work (Landucci et al., 2011) this mainly affects crude oil storage
tanks, as also experienced in two recent severe accidents which in-
volved several fatalities (La Repubblica, 2006; El Economista, 2007).
Nevertheless, since very low pressure vacuum operations character-
ize several stages of the process (Bockisch, 1998; Mag, 1990; Loft,
1990; Shahidi, 2005; Muth et al., 1998; Akterian, 2011; Santori
et al., 2012), a low but significant amount of atmospheric air is en-
trained by seals or gaskets mixing with the process vents. This may
lead to the formation of flammable mixtures also in process lines.
Even if the vegetable oil refining process is well known, the
industrial facilities are continuously subjected to modifications,
revamping and new technologies implementation in order to
achieve a higher process efficiency (Shahidi, 2005). In the literature,
several examples of simulation and experimental analysis of each

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.01.034
 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851 841

single stage of the refining process are available (Keurentjes et al., consisted in the schematization of the typical process operations
1991; Wills and Heath, 2005; Zin, 2006; Ceriani and Meirelles, for oil refining, with definition of operative conditions for process
2006; Didi et al., 2009; Farhoosh et al., 2009; Sampaio et al., equipment and evaluation of energy requirements (steam con-
2011), while a systematic performance analysis, which has been sumption and other utilities). Then, a thermodynamic model was
extensively applied in the framework of process/chemical industry applied in order to reproduce the vapor/liquid equilibrium of the
(Motard et al., 1975; Shaw, 1992; Biegler et al., 1997; Vadapalli and crude vegetable oil system (step 3 in Fig. 1), implementing the
Seader, 2001; Hoyer et al., 2005; Towler and Sinnott, 2013) and presence of water and residual solvent content. The model was val-
aimed at taking into account the mentioned critical aspects, is still idated against available experimental data.
lacking. Next (step 4 in Fig. 1), the refining process was simulated with
The present analysis was therefore addressed at investigating Honeywell UniSimÒ Design. Specific subroutines were imple-
the vegetable oil refining process by the development of detailed mented for the simulation of non-standard utilities such as the
simulation model using the commercial software ‘‘Honeywell Uni- ejectors used for keeping vacuum conditions in process vessels
SimÒ Design’’ (Honeywell, 2010a,b). The analysis was aimed at and the deodorization operation.
identifying the main process streams, the reference substances, The process simulator was used to perform the optimization of
and quantifying the mass and energy fluxes among the refining operative conditions given the optimal composition of the feed-
plant. The process simulator was applied to case studies represen- stock, in order to minimize the costs related to utilities (step 5 in
tative of the current industrial applications, deriving the input data Fig. 1). A sensitivity analysis was performed (step 6 in Fig. 1) aimed
from inlet conditions of an actual vegetable oil refinery. In at identifying the system response to the increasing residual sol-
particular, the vegetable oil refinery of SALOV S.p.A., located in vent content in the feedstock and possible restoration control mea-
San Rocchino (Massarosa) (Italy), was considered in the analysis. sures. Finally, the possibility of formation of flammable mixtures
The simulation model was validated against actual field data of inside process lines was investigated (step 7 in Fig. 1).
the same plant and a sensitivity analysis was performed in order to
evaluate the utility consumption and potential safety relevant sit-
uations depending on the quality of the input feedstock, in partic- 2.2. Characterization of the crude vegetable oil
ular evidencing the effect of the residual solvent content on the
whole process efficiency. Crude edible oil is a complex multicomponent system. Recent
studies were focused on the detailed experimental or numerical
characterization of the vapor/liquid equilibrium of this system
2. Materials and methods (Christov and Dohrn, 2002; Rodrigues et al., 2004; Calliauw et al.,
2008; Ceriani et al., in press). Furthermore, advanced modeling
2.1. Methodological approach tools were implemented for the analysis of the refining process
taking into account different relevant triacylglycerols (TAGs), par-
The flowchart of the methodology is reported in Fig. 1, and is tial acylglycerols (monoacylglycerols MAGs, diacylglycerols DAGs),
based on the approach followed in a previous work by Landucci and the possible residual acid components, such as free fatty acids
et al. (2011) for the analysis of crude vegetable oil storage systems. of different type (Rodrigues et al., 2004; Farhoosh et al., 2009; Chi-
The first step of the methodology was related to characteriza- yoda et al., 2010; Silva et al., 2011; Sampaio et al., 2011; Gera-
tion of the crude vegetable oil composition, which, for each type simenko and Tur’yan, 2012; Teles dos Santos et al., in press;
of seed or fruit, is determined by environmental conditions during Ceriani et al., in press). Nevertheless, since the aim of the present
plant grow and farming soil characteristics. A reference composi- study was to evaluate the effect of residual hexane content on
tion representative of different types of oil was used to perform the safety and energy performance of process equipment, a simpli-
the further steps of the methodology. The second step (see Fig. 1) fied reference composition was considered. The same approach
was followed in several studies on edible oil processing available
in the literature (Zhang et al., 2003; Ruiz-Mendez and Dobarganes,
2007; Cerutti et al., 2012).
Characterization of the
crude vegetable oil The reference composition implemented in the simulation mod-
1
composition Collection of typical el is reported in Table 1. Such composition is based on the typical
operations and
crude sunflower oil feedstock used in SALOV S.p.A. vegetable oil
process conditions
Schematization of the oil from actual plants refinery, as already considered by Landucci et al. (2011). The oil
2 refining process phase of the edible oil was schematized as pure triolein (reference
Validation with TAG), while the free fatty acids content is assumed as pure oleic
Thermodynamic model experimental data acid. Minor components such as sterols, tocopherols and squalene
3 for the estimation of are also present and were implemented in the UniSimÒ Design list
vapor/liquid equilibrium
UniSim tool of components as ‘‘hypo component’’ (Honeywell, 2010a). The hex-
ane residual content (schematized as pure n-hexane) was taken as
Software implementation Set up of optimal
4 of the refining process equipment operative
conditions
Table 1
Reference composition of the crude vegetable oil
Analysis of a case study considered in the present study based on SALOV
Assessment of
5 and optimization of refinery data.
utilities requirement
process conditions
Components Mass fraction (%)
Increase of residual
solvent concentration Triolein 97.29
6 Sensitivity analysis Oleic acid 2.00
n-Hexane 0.10
n-C29H60 0.15
7 Safety aspects
Sterols 0.40
Tocopherols 0.06
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the methodology.
842 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851

0.1% in the baseline case, the maximum value allowed for the crude
oil processed by SALOV S.p.A. Nevertheless, this value may be high-
er, up to 8–10 times the reference value, depending on the type of
seed and oil origin. Moreover, the presence of residual and/or pro-
cess water was also taken into account in the evaluation of vapor/
liquid equilibrium (see Section 2.4).
2.3. Schematization of the oil refining process
In order to consider typical refining process conditions, the
purification of sunflower oil was simulated assuming a free fatty
acid content of 2% to be reduced up to 0.04% (percentages are ex-
pressed on a weight basis). A schematization of SALOV process is
reported in the Process Flow Diagram (PFD) shown in Fig. 2. This
process is similar to others reported in the literature (Bockisch,
1998; Ceriani and Meirelles, 2006; Mag, 1990; Loft, 1990; Muth
et al., 1998; Shahidi, 2005; Santori et al., 2012). The oil is first neu-
tralized by adding sodium hydroxide to an intermediate grade of
acidity removing the neutralized soaps and waxes with a centrifu-
gal separator. Next, the oil is degummed by adding water and sub-
sequently it is sent to centrifugal separation to split the oil fraction
from the solid waste. During this step, the oil is washed with water
and consequently it is dried in a flash separator under vacuum con-
ditions. Next the oil is sent to the bleaching treatment, aimed at the
removal of color-producing substances and further impurities. In
this operation the oil is mixed with bleaching earth and activated
carbon in a stirred reactor operating under vacuum conditions
for the adsorption of the mentioned contaminants. The stream con-
taining bleaching earth and activated carbon is modeled as pure
water in the process simulator.
Next the oil is filtered and sent to the deodorization treatment.
This section consists of a ‘‘physical neutralization’’ with low pres-
sure steam at high temperature under vacuum conditions. The free
fatty acids are stripped by steam in a tray tower and then con-
densed in a spray tower, while steam with non-condensable vapors
are sent to the ejectors section. Ejectors are also used to keep the
required vacuum conditions in other low-pressure sections (flash
separator and bleaching reactor, see Fig. 2).
Table 2 provides the detailed operative conditions used in each
section of the refining process.
2.4. Thermodynamic model
The choice and the software implementation of the thermody-
namic model is a crucial step for a sound modeling of the refining
process, since it allows determining the operative conditions in
each equipment unit. The UniSimÒ Design software can implement
the thermodynamic model with different ‘‘property-packages’’
(Honeywell, 2010b) for determining the correct vapor/liquid equi-
librium of complex mixtures. The use of the process simulator for
the thermodynamic modeling of complex multicomponent sys-
tems is extensively diffused in both scientific and technical studies
(Harwardt et al., 2008; Szabo et al., 2011; Towler and Sinnott,
2013). It is worth mentioning that equation of state models, in gen-
eral, and the Peng–Robinson one and its variants, in particular, are
recommended models in most commercial simulators for hydro-
carbon mixtures, also in the presence of water, over a wide range
of pressure and temperature combinations. More details on the
UniSimÒ Design code validation are reported elsewhere (Honey-
well, 2010a,b).
In the present study, the selected Property Package is based on
the Peng–Robinson equations (Peng and Robinson, 1976) corrected
with the Twu Alpha function (Twu et al., 1995; Honeywell, 2010b),
which takes into account the excess free energy in order to have
more accurate prediction of vapor pressure. More details on the
thermodynamic model implemented in software are reported

V
E5 E6 E8

W W
W
EJ3c
E7

W
MPS
EJ1a/b EJ2a/b EJ3a/b

EA C2 E4
PI1
W

SH TI4
G5
P1 E1a P2 E1b E2 F1
FFA
FO
C1

S1 R3
R1 R2 EE
TI1 TI3 FI1
G1 G2 G3 G4 RO
SW WW TI2 E3
LPS

NEUTRALIZATION
WASHING DRYING BLEACHING DEODORIZATION
DEGUMMING

Equipment items: C: column; E: heat exchanger/condenser; EJ : steam ejector; F: filter; G: pump; P: centrifugal separator; R: reactor; S: flash separator.
Material streams : EA: bleaching earth & activated carbon; EE: exhausted earth; FFA: free fatty acids; FO: feedstock oil; LPS: low pressure steam; MPS:
medium pressure steam; RO: refined oil; SH: sodium hydroxide; SW: soaps & waxes; V: vents; WW: Waste water; W: Water.

Fig. 2. Schematization of the vegetable oil refining process. Tags represent the process variables used for model validation.
 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851
Table 2
Operative conditions of the main sections of the refining process.
Process section Operative temperature (°C) Operative pressure (kPa)
Neutralization 20 100
Degumming 60–70 100
Washing 90 100
Drying 90 5 potentialities of the method, the Supplementary information file re-
Bleaching 105 6
Deodorization 230 0.2
elsewhere (Honeywell, 2010b), while Appendix A summarizes the
key parameters and equations used to predict enthalpy, entropy,
the fugacity coefficients for each component of the mixture and
thus the vapor/liquid equilibrium.
In order to test the validity of the model, a comparison with
available experimental data was carried out. A significant number
of literature studies focuses on vegetable oil/hexane mixtures at
high concentrations of hexane in the liquid phase (Fornari et al.,
1994; Ceriani and Meirelles, 2004; Smith and Florence, 1951), typ-
ical of extraction processes. The only available data for diluted
solutions, which are significant in the present case, are reported
by Smith and Wechter (1950). Data are referred to the soybean
oil/n-hexane solutions with a residual solvent content in the range
0.2–1.32% by weight. The hexane vapor pressure is measured in the
experiments as a function of the temperature. The model was fitted
on the experimental results by setting the triolein–hexane binary
interaction coefficient to 0.095 (Honeywell, 2010b). Notice that
for all other pairs of compounds, the default values of binary inter-
action coefficients were used. All binary interaction coefficients are
reported for completeness of exposition in Appendix A.
Fig. 3 reports a comparison between experimental data and val-
ues calculated with UnisimÒ Design of n-hexane partial pressure in
the vapor phase as a function of temperature and hexane concen-
tration in the oil phase. As can be observed in this figure, the model
gives a quite accurate prediction with major deviations on the safe
side (e.g., 17% overprediction of n-hexane vapor pressure). The data
were linearly extrapolated for temperatures lower than 75 °C as al-
ready performed in a recent publication (Landucci et al., 2011), in
which, however, the effect of water on the vapor phase composi-
tion was neglected and the model was set up only for the analysis
of storage conditions.
2.5. Simulation model implementation
The process simulation model, implemented in the UniSimÒ
Design software, was aimed at evaluating the energy consumption
of the plant and the more critical nodes in which hexane is
Fig. 3. Validation of the thermodynamic model developed in UniSimÒ Design. HEX:
residual hexane content in the crude vegetable oil (% by weight basis). Experimental
data were derived from Smith and Wechter (1950).
843
accumulated, both in ordinary process conditions and following
unexpected process deviations. For the sake of brevity only the main
issues related to vegetable oil refining simulator and innovative as-
pects connected with the analysis of the more important equipment
are summarized in the following sections. In order to highlight the
complexity of the developed process simulation model and the
ports samples of the UniSimÒ Design process flow diagrams (PFDs).
2.5.1. Condensers
The condensers are critical units under the point of view of
energetic efficiency of the process. These units are aimed at con-
densing the steam outlets from the ejectors connected to the main
process equipment to keep vacuum conditions (see specific
description in Section 2.5.3) by the use of cooling water available
in the refinery plant. Fig. 2 shows the condensers associated to
the ejector of the drying section (E5), bleaching (E6) and deodor-
ization (E7 for the first and second stage ejectors, E8 for the third
stage ejector). The sample UniSimÒ Design PFD for the condenser
E5 is shown in Supplementary information.
The cooling water flowrate is the variable manipulated by the
software (ADJ 1 operator) which determines its value by imposing
a fixed temperature of 20 °C for the condensate. This implementa-
tion allows for a better stability of the model in presence of input
deviations on the crude oil composition. The condenser parameters
were determined after a preliminary rating operation. The typical
range of cooling water flowrates, derived from actual plant design
data, was imposed in a preliminary dedicated simulation model to-
gether with the geometry documented in the equipment data-
sheets, thus calculating in the so-called rating mode an average
value for the pressure drops and heat transfer coefficient.
Then, condensers are implemented in the overall simulation
model by imposing the pressure drops on both tubes and shell sides,
and the product of the geometry area times the overall heat transfer
coefficient (‘‘design mode’’, see Honeywell (2010a) for more details).
This modeling approach was associated to the condensers E5,
E6 and E7 (see Fig. 2), while for condenser E8 a different approach
was followed. Since this unit receives the cooling water already
used in condenser E7, associated to ejectors EJ3a and EJ3b (see
Fig. 2), its modeling using an a priori fixed value for the overall
transfer coefficient may be inaccurate. In fact, the cooling water
is manipulated to satisfy specifications on other upstream units
and may vary significantly. Therefore, the so-called ‘‘rating mode’’
(see Honeywell (2010a) for more details on this procedure) was
used, in which one specifies the exchanger geometry (number/
dimensions/arrangements of tubes, shell passes, etc.) and appro-
priate correlations are internally used to evaluate the heat transfer
coefficients and pressure drops on the basis of actual flowrates.
2.5.2. Deodorization column
The deodorization stage is aimed at removing minor compo-
nents (e.g., squalene and polycyclic aromatic compounds) which
cause odor and the loss of quality of the final product. The deodor-
ization column (C1 in Fig. 2) is a stripping column made of five
chambers, each fed with low pressure steam (LPS, at 1.5 bar). The
total LPS mass flowrate is set as the 1.8% of the total refined oil
flowrate. The hot exhausted vapors from each chamber are col-
lected and fed to a water scrubber (C2 in Fig. 2), where the fatty
acids are removed and purged.
In order to reach the required strong vacuum conditions (in par-
ticular, 0.2 kPa pressure and temperature higher than 220 °C) the
ejector system depicted in Fig. 2 is required.
The column was modeled in the UniSimÒ Design software by
implementing six separators in series, aimed at representing the
five chambers of the column C1 plus the bottom of the column,
in which the separation is also carried out thus reaching the
844 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851

vapor/liquid equilibrium conditions. For the first four separators an
energy stream is added in addition to the LPS stripping stream in
order to simulate the presence of high pressure steam (saturated
steam at 40 bar) fed to internal heating coils inside the C1 column
chambers in order to keep high temperature conditions. The Uni-
simÒ Design PFD is reported in Supplementary information.
2.5.3. Ejectors
Several steam driven ejectors are used in the refinery to obtain
the needed vacuum conditions in the process equipment. As evi-
denced in Section 2.5.1 these pieces of equipment are critical for
the energy performance assessment of the refinery plant. However,
no dedicated model is available in the process simulator for ejec-
tors. Thus, a specific modeling tool was implemented in the soft-
ware in order to achieve an accurate performance evaluation
exploiting the UniSimÒ Design software ‘‘User Unit Operation’’
function. The function allows inserting the data derived from ac-
tual ejector systems datasheets, in particular the design curves.
These curves report the entrainment ratio (1/l), given by the suc-
tion flow related to air at 20 °C respect to the motive steam flow, as
a function of the ratio between the discharge and suction pressures
(Pd/Ps). The curves vary according to the parameter given by the ra-
tio between suction and motive steam pressures (Ps/Pm). The anal-
ysis of the design curves and optimization of ejector systems is
extensively described in the technical literature (Meherwan,
1999; Akterian, 2011).
Hence, by setting the pressures of the equipment in vacuum
conditions (e.g., Ps), of the motive steam (e.g. Pm) and of the dis-
charge (Pd) it is possible to derive by reading on the curves the
entrainment ratio and calculating the necessary mass flows as
follows:
1 ma 1
¼ ð1Þ
l MS K ej

Table 3 where ma is the entrained flow of air at 20 °C, MS is the flow of mo-
Fitting parameters for the approximation of the ejectors tive steam and Kej is a correction factor for suction flows other than
design curves (see Eq. (3)).
air, expressed as follows:
Parameter (Ps/Pm) X1 X2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0.001 4.14 0.983 RS T S
0.002 3.81 0.910
K ej ¼ ð2Þ
RL T L
0.005 3.38 0.732
0.010 3.03 0.673
0.020 2.70 0.615
where RS is the gas constant of suction flow, RL the gas constant of
0.050 2.26 0.489 air (=287 J kg1 K1), TS the temperature (in K) of suction flow, TL
the reference air temperature for the ejector (=293 K).

Table 4
Comparison between the process parameters evaluated by the model and the available field data. For tags locations, see Fig. 4.

TAG Description Units Model results Field data

FI1 Refined oil exit flow kg/h 14,558 14,075
PI1 Pressure in the deodorization column kPa 0.2 0.22
TI1 Temperature of the bleaching reactor °C 104.8 110.1
TI2 Temperature of crude oil at the deodorization inlet °C 231.7 230.7
TI3 Refined oil exit temperature °C 160.9 154.8
TI4 Temperature of the deodorization column top side °C 135.8 153.0

E1 C1 C2 V1

CW2

1 2
Crude oil from C3 C4 V2
neutralization Drying

CW4
C5 E5 E6 E7 V3
CW1
3
CW6
Bleaching
Bleaching
earth & 5 H1 H2 H3
activated 4
carbon Refined oil
CW3 W1 Deodorization
to storage
LEGEND:
C Condensed steam
CW Cooling water H4 H5 H6 E2 W2
E Energy stream CW5
H Low or medium pressure steam
V Vent
W Process waste H7 H8 H9 E3 E4
Material stream tag

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the heat and material balance on the analyzed plant sections.
 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851 845

Table 5
Heat and material balance on the plant sections analyzed in the present study. For the identification of the streams, refer to Fig. 4. Composition is expressed in percentages by
weight basis.

Item Material streams

1 2 3 4 5b W1 W2
a a
Temperature (°C) 90.0 84.3 105.2 20.0 25.0a 105.0 48.4
Pressure (kPa) 195.0 200.0a 210.0a 186.0 200.0a 8.0 0.2
Flowrate (kg/h) 14,887.5 14,795.2 14,695.0 14,558.4 14.8 97.8 133.0a
Triolein (%) 98.14 98.74 98.75 99.62 0.0 100.0 5.2
Water (%) 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
n-Hexane (%) 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.3
Oleic acid (%) 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other (%) 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.38 0.0 0.0 27.5c
a
Value imposed to process simulator.
b
The stream containing bleaching earth and activated carbon is modeled as pure water.
c
Spent bleaching earth.

Table 6
Heat and material balance on the plant utilities. For the identification of the streams, refer to Fig. 4. C = steam condensate; CW = cooling water; E = energy stream; H = steam;
V = vent.

ID Physical Description Thermal power Flowrate Temp. Pressure

state (kW) (kg/h) (°C) (kPa)
Drying section
C1 Liquid Steam condensate associated to ejector EJ1a 150.1 19.0 16.5
C2 Liquid Steam condensate associated to ejector EJ1b 1153.0 127.5 250.0
CW1 Liquid Cooling water fed to the drying section condensers 9282.0 8.0 150.0
CW2 Liquid Cooling water exiting the drying section condensers 9282.0 18.0 149.9
H1 Vapor Motive steam fed to first stage ejector EJ1a 70.1 175.5 900.0
H2 Vapor Motive steam fed to second stage ejector EJ1b 53.4 175.5 900.0
H3 Vapor Drying steam pre-heating in E1a 1153.0 127.5 250.0
V1 Vapor Vent exiting from drying section 70.6 123.2 108.0
E1 – Heat removed in downstream degumming section with heat exchanger 142.0
Bleaching section
C3 Liquid Steam condensate associated to ejector EJ1a 301.0 127.5 250.0
C4 Liquid Steam condensate associated to ejector EJ1b 30.4 19.8 16.5
CW3 Liquid Cooling water fed to the bleaching section condensers 1180.8 8.0 150.0
CW4 Liquid Cooling water exiting the bleaching section condensers 1180.8 20.0 150.0
H4 Vapor Motive steam fed to first stage ejector EJ2a 15.6 175.5 900.0
H5 Vapor Motive steam fed to second stage ejector EJ2b 27.6 175.5 900.0
H6 Vapor Bleaching steam pre-heating in E1b 301.0 127.5 250.0
V2 Vapor Vent exiting from bleaching section 35.4 134.0 108.0
E2 – Bleaching pre-heating 11.0
Deodorization section
C5 Liquid Steam condensate associated to ejector EJ3 1537.0 19.8 102.5
CW5 Liquid Cooling water fed to the deodorization section condensers 240,000.0 8.0 150.0
CW6 Liquid Cooling water exiting the deodorization section condensers 240,000.0 12.0 140.9
H7 Vapor Motive steam fed to first stage ejector EJ3a 1100.1 175.5 900.0
H8 Vapor Motive steam fed to second stage ejector EJ3b 157.1 175.5 900.0
H9 Vapor Motive steam fed to third stage ejector EJ3c 26.0 175.5 900.0
V3 Vapor Total vent flowrate exiting from deodorization section condensers (E7 and 33.8 132.4 108.0
E8)
E3 – C1 chambers external coil heating 89.0
E4 – Steam (40 bar) for oil preheating 448.0
E5 – Cooling of scrubber C2 recycle 53.0
E6 – Air cooler 1055.0
E7 – Cooling unit 163.0

In order to obtain more realistic results, the actual datasheet of steam flow which is necessary to keep an imposed discharge
industrial ejector systems were obtained (Körting Hannover AG, pressure.
1994) inserting in the UniSimÒ Design software ‘‘Unit Operation’’ Therefore, by varying the input conditions, e.g. due to devia-
function the numerical interpolation of the design chart curves tions in the process (in particular, the increase of volatile com-
as follows: pounds affect the suction flow), the energetic consumptions are
 X 2 evaluated by calculating the necessary motive steam flow needed
ma X1 to restore the optimum process conditions.
¼ ð3Þ
MS Pd =P s

where X1 and X2 are fitting constants reported in Table 3 for differ-
ent values of the parameter Ps/Pm.
In the process simulator, for each equipment operating in vac-
uum conditions the suction temperature, the suction pressure
and the motive steam pressure are specified as input parameters;
hence the software applies Eqs. (1)–(3) to evaluate the motive
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model validation and case study analysis
In order to validate the process simulator, actual field data were
derived from SALOV S.p.A. refinery during typical working
846 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851
Fig. 5. (a) Example of optimization for ejector EJ1a/b for the base case with hexane
residual content of 0.1% by weight basis; (b) optimization of intermediate pressure
(Pint) as a function of different hexane residual content in the inlet crude oil (% by
weight basis) for the three ejectors groups reported in Fig. 2. MS = motive steam.
operations, and compared with the ones predicted by the model in
the correspondent locations. The results of the validation are re-
ported in Table 4, in which the tags of the monitored process vari-
ables are indicated in the PFD shown in Fig. 2. As shown in the
table, the simulator allows for a good reproducibility of actual pro-
cess conditions, such as temperature, pressure and material
streams, with a maximum relative error of 11%.
The simulator was used to investigate the criticalities of the veg-
etable oil refining process and the influence of the residual solvent
content on the process efficiency. In particular, the simulator al-
lowed identifying the more critical nodes in which the solvent is
accumulated and tracing the different sections respect to the initial
crude oil content. The main hexane accumulation node is the drying
flash, in which 76.6% of hexane is removed, while minor residual are
accumulated in the other sections, in particular 12.7% and 10.7%
respectively in bleaching and deodorization sections. Thus, a possi-
ble increase of hexane residual may lead to process efficiency decre-
ment, in terms of motive steam consumption for the ejector system.
In order to systematically quantify the refinery energy con-
sumption and to determine the critical factors affecting the effi-
ciency, the process simulator results were analyzed.
Fig. 4 reports the block diagram of the process evidencing the
main material streams together with the energy and utility lines.
The main product streams are marked together with the possible
process vent and wastes/residuals (respectively labeled with ‘‘V’’
and ‘‘W’’ in Fig. 4). The cooling utility is mainly water (‘‘CW’’ in
Fig. 4), while steam at different pressures is the heating utility, also
Fig. 6. Variation of the main process parameters as a function of the increasing
hexane concentration in the inlet crude oil: (a) cooling utility (water) and heating
utility (ejectors motive steam) consumption; (b) hexane removal (% of the initial
residual content in the crude oil) in the different refinery sections.
Table 7
Air infiltration considered in the process vents of the different plant sections
operating under vacuum conditions.
Type of infiltration Air infiltration (kg/h)
Drying Bleaching Deodorization
Type 1 3 3 3
Type 2a 5 5 6
Type 3 8 8 10
a
Value derived from manufacturer data (Körting Hannover AG,1994).
employed in the mentioned ejector system. The steam entering
each block are labeled with ‘‘H’’ in Fig. 4, while the exit condensate
is labeled with ‘‘C’’. In order to simulate further heat exchanges in
and out of the simulator boundaries and passing between unit
operations (steam coils, air coolers, etc.) several ‘‘energy streams’’
were added to the scheme (labeled with ‘‘E’’ in Fig. 4) using a spe-
cific UniSimÒ Design software function.
The quantification of the heat and material balance for the
scheme (Fig. 4) is reported in Tables 5 and 6, respectively for pro-
cess streams and utilities.
As can be seen in Table 5, the oil content (schematized as pure
triolein) increases passing through the different sections. The ma-
jor part of water is eliminated in the drying section, as expected,
while the acid fats content, residual of the upstream neutralization
is totally removed in the deodorization section.
Considering the energy consumptions, synthetically repre-
sented by the results shown in Table 6, the bleaching section fea-
tures the lowest thermal requirements, both in terms of hot and
cold utilities. On the contrary, it clearly appears that the most crit-
ical section, under the point of view of energy requirements, is the
 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851
Fig. 7. Comparison between the flammability range of hexane considering two
inert reference gases (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) and vapor concentration in the
venting line for (a) drying, (b) bleaching and (c) deodorization considering a
residual hexane content of 0.1% by weight basis in the inlet crude oil. For air
infiltration types characterization, see Table 7.
deodorization. Both steam and cooling water utilities have the
highest requirements in order to keep the severe operative condi-
tions imposed by the process. In particular, low pressure (0.2 kPa)
leads to major motive steam consumption and associated cooling
water for condensation, while the high operative temperature of
the column (230 °C) is kept also by the use of additional heating
(energy stream E4 in Table 6) carried out with high pressure steam.
Besides, additional heat exchangers are needed for cooling the
scrubber C2 (see Fig. 2) recycle and the vents before the treatment
and the discharge in the atmosphere.
3.2. Process optimization and sensitivity analysis
The analysis of the refinery in the baseline case (0.1% hexane by
weight basis in the inlet crude oil) highlighted the criticalities re-
lated to the energy consumptions in the refinery low pressure units
(e.g., drying, bleaching and deodorization). Since the ejector sys-
tems operative conditions affect the whole refinery energetic per-
formance, the process simulator was applied in order to optimize
847
the operating conditions for the minimization of motive steam
consumption. The optimization was carried out on the three ejec-
tor systems considering that the motive steam is available in the
plant at the same pressure (medium pressure steam, MPS at 9 bar).
Fig. 5a reports an example of optimization, in particular related
to the ejector system connected to the drying flash drum (EJ1a/b
with condenser E5, see Fig. 2). As can be seen in the scheme, the
ejector is constituted by two different sections in which Ps is the
suction pressure, representative of the equipment operative
conditions, Pout the system discharge pressure, MSA and MSB the
motive steam streams respectively for the first and second stage,
and Pint is the intermediate pressure, which is the degree of free-
dom (DOF) to specify for the optimization. The optimization is car-
ried out by varying both MSA and MSB and finally obtaining the Pint
which minimizes the overall steam consumption (e.g., the sum of
MSA and MSB), as shown in Fig. 5a. Determining the intermediate
ejectors pressure allows for the process energetic efficiency
enhancement.
The described optimization method can be performed also by
considering a possible increase of the inlet residual hexane con-
tent, as reported in Fig. 5b. In particular the figure shows the opti-
mized intermediate pressure for all the considered ejector systems
(see Fig. 2 for tags and equipment representation). These outcomes
might be potentially applied when a different feedstock quality is
accepted and processed by the refinery for a mid- or long-term
period, with the need of a systematic improvement of the operat-
ing conditions. As shown in Fig. 5b, the increase of the residual
hexane content has a stronger influence on the drying and bleach-
ing sections respect to the deodorization, since in these sections
the major part of hexane is removed (see Section 3.1). This results
in the increase of the intermediate pressure for optimizing the mo-
tive steam consumption.
The results of the sensitivity analysis carried out by varying the
inlet hexane concentration and optimizing the operating condi-
tions and process variables are reported in Table B1 of Appendix
B. The table allows determining the optimized operating condi-
tions referring to the base case discussed in Section 3.1.
On the basis of the sensitivity analysis results, the overall utili-
ties requirements were derived and shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6a shows
the increase of the overall motive steam and cooling water con-
sumption by varying the inlet hexane concentration of one order
of magnitude (e.g., ranging from 0.1% to 1.5% by weight basis). Mo-
tive steam consumption is increased by 40%, showing a more sig-
nificant variation respect to cooling water utility, which increase
is limited to 1%. This is due to the fact that the highest flowrate
of cooling water is a fixed simulation parameter, since it is fed to
the condenser of the third ejector (EJ3c, see detailed description
of simulation set up in Section 2.5.1). This flowrate is almost
twenty times higher than the sum of the other cooling water util-
ities, which can be varied in order to control the condensate tem-
perature (see Section 2.5.1).
In order to determine the variation in the process vents behav-
ior due to the increase of inlet hexane concentration, Fig. 6b pre-
sents the change in the hexane removal percentage (thus,
starting from the values evaluated at 0.1% residual hexane content,
see Section 3.1) in each process section. The results highlight that
the excess hexane is mainly removed in the drying section, due to
the oversizing of the equipment. Hence, this allows decreasing the
hexane amount fed to the downstream units, which hexane re-
moval decreases as shown in Fig. 6b.
Therefore, the sensitivity analysis allowed determining the
change in process parameters and utility requirements for restor-
ing the process operating conditions given unforeseen changes of
the inlet feedstock. It clearly appears that the increase of volatile
solvent residual has a negative impact on the energetic costs of
the refining process.
848 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851

3.3. Formation of flammable mixtures inside process streams
The process simulator pointed out the more critical nodes for
hexane accumulation, also considering the potential variation of
the initial hexane residual in the process feed. Among the possi-
ble hazards related to the presence of hexane inside process
pipes, one of the critical issues is related to the possibility of
air entrainment from gaskets and seals in strong vacuum operat-
ing pipes, thus leading to the formation of flammable mixtures
in confined spaces. This might lead to fire and explosion hazards
in case of accidental ignition of the flammable mixture, already
highlighted for the storage equipment in a previous work (Land-
ucci et al., 2011).
Therefore, the process simulator was employed to investigate
this problem, considering an additional air flow in the three vent
lines (V1, V2 and V3, see Fig. 4) given a reference air entrainment
value, specified by the ejector manufacturer (Körting Hannover
AG,1994) for the vent discharge line. Table 7 reports the considered
entrainment value (infiltration type 2), also considering a possible
negative or positive variations respect to this reference value
(respectively, infiltration types 1 and 3 in Table 7).
Fig. 7 reports the evaluated residual hexane concentration in
the vent lines evidencing the possibility of formation of flammable
mixtures in the drying (Fig. 7a), bleaching (Fig. 7b) and deodoriza-
tion (Fig. 7c) sections as a function of the different air entrainment
rates given a fixed hexane residual content in crude oil feed (e.g.,
0.1% by weight basis). A flammable mixture is potentially formed
if the calculated concentration point enters inside the flammable
range, i.e. the region of the chart included inside the reference con-
tinuous lines. In absence of data for water as inerting fluid, the ef-
fect of nitrogen (bright lines in Fig. 7) and carbon dioxide (dark
lines in Fig. 7) as diluents was taken into account in order to obtain
preliminary indications for the methodology (Mashuga and Crowl,
1998; Zabetakis, 1965). Furthermore, the flammability range is af-
fected by operative pressure and temperature, but the use of data
referred to 25 °C temperature and 1.01 bar allows for evaluation of
the flammability hazards on the safe side in the considered process
sections (Lees, 1996).
The results make clear that in the case of higher hexane concen-
tration in the vent line, the entrained air is not sufficient to form
flammable mixtures, thus leading to a less hazardous situation.
This is the case of the drying section, in which the major part of
hexane is removed and, as shown in Fig. 7a, and in which none
of the calculated points fall under the flammable region even for
high air entrainment rates. On the contrary, for the other two sec-
tions, the hexane vent content is lower and some points calculated
for high air entrainment rates especially in the deodorization sec-
tion vent (see Fig. 7c), fall into the hazardous zone. This evidences a
safety criticality for strong vacuum operating equipment in pres-
ence of flammable vapors.
Hence, this type of hazard might be taken into account during
the vent pipeline design and in maintenance operations.

Table A1
Main parameters and equations implemented in the thermodynamic model (Honeywell, 2010b).

ID Equation Description Parameters

Eq. (1) RT a Peng–Robinson state equation P = Pressure (Pa)
P ¼ Vb  VðVþbÞþbðVbÞ
R = 8314 (J kmol1 K1) universal gas
constant
T = Temperature (K)
V = Volume (m3)
a = see Eq. (6)
b = see Eq. (5)
Eq. (2) Z3 - (1 - B)Z2 + (A - 2B - 3B2)Z - (AB - B2 - B3) = 0 Peng–Robinson expressed in terms Z = Compressibility factor = (PV)/
of the compressibility factor Z (RT)
A = see Eq. (3)
B = see Eq. (4)
Eq. (3) A = aP/(RT)2 Parameter in Eq. (2) a = see Eq. (6)
Eq. (4) B = bP/(RT)2 Parameter in Eq. (2) b = see Eq. (5)
Eq. (5) P RT c;i 1st Peng–Robinson equation xi = mass fraction of the ith
b¼ N i¼1 xi bi ; bi ¼ 0:077796 Pc;i
coefficient for mixtures component of the mixture of N
components.
Tc,i = critical temperature of the ith
component
Pc,i = critical pressure of the ith
component
PN PN
Eq. (6) a¼ 0:5
a 2nd Peng–Robinson equation Tr,i = T/Tc,i
i¼1 j¼1 xi xj ðai aj Þ ð1  kij Þ; ai ¼ ac;i i
ðRT c;i Þ2 coefficient for mixtures – original kij = system specific experimental
ac;i ¼ 0:457235 Pc;i a; 0:5
i ¼ 1 þ mi ð1  T 0:5r;i Þ
formulation binary interaction factor
mi = see Eq. (7)
Eq. (7) mi ¼ 0:37464 þ 1:5422xi  0:26992x2i ; xi 6 0:49 Polynomial factor for Eq. (6) – xi = Acentric factor of the ith
mi ¼ 0:379642 þ ð1:48503  ð0:164423  0:016666xi Þ original formulation component
xi Þxi ; xi > 0:49
Eq. (8) ai ¼ T Nr;ii =ðMi 1Þ expðLi ð1  T Nr;ii Mi ÞÞ Twu Alpha function for Peng– Li, Mi, Ni = Parameters of pure ith
Robinson correction for Eq. (6) substance (see details in Honeywell
(2010b))
Eq. (9) HHID
  V þð20:5 þ1Þb Enthalpy equation H = predicted enthalpy
RT ¼ Z  1  21:51bRT a  T dT
da
ln V þð20:5 1Þb
HID = reference enthalpy evaluated
at 25 °C and 1.01 bar
   
Eq. (10) SSID
¼ lnðZ  bÞ  lnðP=P  Þ  A T da
ln Vþð20:5 þ1Þb Entropy equation S = predicted entropy
R 21:5 bRT a dT Vþð20:5 1Þb
SID = reference entropy evaluated at
25 °C and 1.01 bar
P° pressure in the reference state
(1.01 bar)
    PN  
Eq. (11) ln /i ¼  ln Z  RTPb
þ ðZ  1Þ bbi  1:5a 1
2a0:5 0:5 bi Evaluation of fugacity coefficient / = mixture fugacity coefficient of
2 bRT a i j¼1 xj aj ð1  kij Þ  b 
 0:5
 for the ith component
ln V þð20:5 þ1Þb
V þð2 1Þb
 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851 849

4. Conclusions Acknowledgement

In the present work a quantitative methodology was developed
for the performance analysis of the vegetable oil refining process.
An advanced thermodynamic model was implemented in order
to reproduce the vapor/liquid equilibrium of crude vegetable oil –
residual solvent system. The model was validated against available
experimental data and was implemented in the refining process
simulator, developed on the Honeywell UniSimÒ Design software.
The simulator allowed for a detailed performance analysis of
the process. The results were compared with field data obtained
from an actual vegetable oil refinery showing good agreement in
reproducing the refining process in the reference conditions.
The effect of the residual solvent content increase on the pro-
cess efficiency was investigated, determining the most significant
nodes of solvent accumulation among the plant process operations
and evaluating its influence on the global energy requirements. In
particular, the ejector systems, aimed at keeping vacuum operating
conditions, were deeply investigated, evaluating the utility con-
sumption increment. Both motive steam and cooling water for con-
densers were analyzed by varying the residual hexane content in
the input crude oil and determining the modification in the opera-
tive conditions for minimizing the energy costs. The study evi-
denced the criticalities related to the management of inlet crude
oil quality, in terms of residual solvent content control, for the
enhancement of the global process efficiency.
Finally, the simulator also allowed investigating the potential
hazards due to formation of flammable mixtures inside the process
vent lines, in presence of purged hexane vapors and air entrained
by gaskets and/or seals of vacuum operating pipelines. The results
evidenced the conditions in which flammable mixtures might
potentially be formed inside the process vents, with fire and explo-
sion hazards in presence of accidental ignition.
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support received
from Regione Toscana (Bando Unico R&S n.2009DUA/526090469/
1).
Appendix A
The present section provides details on the thermodynamic
model implemented in UnisimÒ Design (Honeywell, 2010a,b).
The selected model is based on the Peng–Robinson equations (Peng
and Robinson, 1976) corrected with the Twu Alpha function (Twu
et al., 1995; Honeywell, 2010b), which takes into account the ex-
cess free energy in order to have more accurate prediction of vapor
pressure. Table A1 summarizes the key parameters and equations
used to predict enthalpy, entropy, the fugacity coefficients for each
component of the mixture and thus the vapor/liquid equilibrium.
Tables A2 and A3 report the specific parameters selected for each
substance considered in the present study.
Appendix B
Table B1 reports the results of the process optimization and
sensitivity analysis, comparing the baseline case results (BC) and
the optimized cases (OCs) by varying the residual hexane content
(HEX in the following, expressed in % by weight basis) up to one
order of magnitude respect to the BC, which features HEX = 0.1%.
The first column of the table reports the process variable of
interest (EJ: ejector, MS: motive steam, CW: cooling water, see
Figs. 4 and 5). The second column report the results obtained for
the baseline case with HEX = 0.1%, while the third column shows
the correspondent optimization of process variables aimed at

Table A2
Main parameters selected for the present analysis (Honeywell, 2010b). For parameters definition see Table A1.

Parameter (see Table A1) Equation (see Table A1) Units (SI) Assigned parameter for each component – UnisimÒ Design library
Triolein Oleic acid n-Hexane n-C29H60 Sterols Tocopherols Water
Tc,i 5 °C 680.9 496.9 234.7 564.9 668.1 646.7 374.1
Pc,i 5 kPa 360.2 1390 3032 826 999.7 945.9 22,120
Li 8 – –a 0.7760 0.1363 0.3688 –a –a 0.3831
Mi 8 – –a 0.8235 0.8620 0.8247 –a –a 0.8701
Ni 8 – –a 0.8235 0.8620 0.8247 –a –a 0.8701
L0 see note (a) – 0.1253 – – – 0.1253 0.1253 –
M0 see note (a) – 0.9118 – – – 0.9118 0.9118 –
N0 see note (a) – 1.9482 – – – 1.9482 1.9482 –
L1 see note (a) – 0.5116 – – – 0.5116 0.5116 –
M1 see note (a) – 0.7841 – – – 0.7841 0.7841 –
N1 see note (a) – 2.8125 – – – 2.8125 2.8125 –
xi see note (a) – 1.6862 – – – 0.9863 0.9624 –
a
The parameters Li, Mi and Ni depend on individual compounds and were retrieved from UniSimÒ Design library for the application of Eq. (8) of Table A1. Nevertheless, for
ð0Þ ð1Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ N0=ðM01Þ
non-library compounds, the Twu alpha function can be estimated by the following expressions: ai ¼ ai ðTÞ þ xi ðai ðTÞ  ai ðTÞÞ where ai ¼T r;i
ð1Þ N1=ðM11Þ
expðL0ð1  T N0M0
r;i ÞÞ; ai ¼ T r;i expðL1ð1  T N1M1
r;i ÞÞ; T r;i ¼ T=T c;i .
In this case, Table A2 reports the relevant parameters for the estimation of the Twu alpha function (L0, M0, N0, L1, M1, N1 and xi).

Table A3
Determination of system specific binary interaction factor ki,j (i: columns; j: rows) (see Eq. (11) in Table A1).

ki,j i ? j; Triolein Oleic acid n-Hexane n-C29H60 Sterols Tocopherols Water

Triolein – 0 0.095 0 0 0 0
Oleic acid 0 – 0 0 0 0 0
n-Hexane 0.095 0 – 0.031 0 0 0.48
n-C29H60 0 0 0.031 – 0 0 0.48
Sterols 0 0 0 0 – 0 0
Tocopherols 0 0 0 0 0 – 0
Water 0 0 0.48 0.48 0 0 –
850 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851

Table B1
Results of the sensitivity analysis. BC = base case; OC: optimized case; RHC: residual hexane content.

Process variable HEX = 0.1% HEX = 0.5% HEX = 1.0%

a
BC OC BC OC BC OCa
EJ1a/b operative pressure (kPa) 16.5 14.0 16.5 25.5 16.5 26.0
EJ2a/b operative pressure (kPa) 16.5 20.0 16.5 22.5 16.5 24.0
EJ3a/b operative pressure (kPa) 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.0
EJ3c operative pressure (kPa) 20.0 11.0 20.0 12.0 20.0 12.0
MSA for EJ1a/b flowrate (kg/h) 70.1 55.2 90.4 165.7 115.2 223.1
MSB for EJ1a/b flowrate (kg/h) 53.4 64.1 177.1 66.0 342.3 63.0
MSA for EJ2a/b flowrate (kg/h) 15.6 20.7 18.8 28.6 22.2 38.4
MSB for EJ2a/b flowrate (kg/h) 27.6 21.7 47.5 32.7 68.7 42.5
MSA for EJ3a/b flowrate (kg/h) 1100.1 1138.3 1113.9 1171.7 1127.3 1205.3
MSB for EJ3a/b flowrate (kg/h) 157.2 55.0 216.6 78.7 275.4 95.7
MSA for EJ3c flowrate (kg/h) 26.0 50.3 42.0 69.0 61.3 94.5
CW1&CW2 flowrate (kg/h) 9282.2 9061.0 10,330.0 12,026.2 11,604.5 14,534.7
CW3&CW4 flowrate (kg/h) 1180.8 1316.0 1375.0 1664.2 1637.4 2099.6
CW5&CW6 flowrate (kg/h) 240,000.0 240,000.0 240,000.0 240,000.0 240,000.0 240,000.0
a
Respect to the base case.

keeping the same operative condition in process equipment. The
other column of the table shows the results in case of higher
HEX values. In particular, the third column shows the variation
of the process variables able to restore the normal operative condi-
tions in presence of HEX = 0.5%, while the fourth column reports
the correspondent optimized process variables and operative con-
ditions. The same type of results are shown in the fifth and sixth
column for HEX = 1.0%.
Appendix C. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.
01.034.
References
Akterian, S., 2011. Improving the energy efficiency of traditional multi-stage steam-
jet-ejector vacuum systems for deodorizing edible oils. 11th International
Congress on Engineering and Food (ICEF11). Procedia Food Science 1, 1785–
1791.
Bhosle, B.M., Subramanian, R., 2005. New approaches in deacidification of edible
oils – a review. Journal of Food Engineering 69 (4), 481–494.
Biegler, L.T., Grossmann, I.E., Westerberg, A.W., 1997. Systematic Methods of
Chemical Process Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Bockisch, M., 1998. Fats and Oils Handbook. AOCS Press, Champaign (IL).
Calliauw, G., Vila Ayala, J., Gibon, V., Wouters, J., De Greyt, W., Foubert, I.,
Dewettinck, K., 2008. Models for FFA-removal and changes in phase behavior of
cocoa butter by packed column steam refining. Journal of Food Engineering 89
(3), 274–284.
Carmona, M.A., Jiménez, C., Jiménez-Sanchidrián, C., Peña, F., Ruiz, J.R., 2010.
Isolation of sterols from sunflower oil deodorizer distillate. Journal of Food
Engineering 101 (2), 210–213.
Cavanagh, G.C., 1976. Miscella refining. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’
Society 53 (6), 361–363.
Ceriani, R., Meirelles, A.J.A., 2004. Predicting vapor–liquid equilibria of fatty
systems. Fluid Phase Equilibria 215 (3), 227–236.
Ceriani, R., Meirelles, A.J.A., 2006. Simulation of continuous physical refiners for
edible oil deacidification. Journal of Food Engineering 76 (3), 261–271.
Ceriani, R., Gani, R., Liu, Y.A., in press. Prediction of vapor pressure and heats of
vaporization of edible oil/fat compounds by group contribution, Fluid Phase
Equilibria, doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2012.09.039.
Cerutti, M.L.M.N., Ulson de Souza, A.A., Ulson de Souza, Ulson., 2012. Solvent
extraction of vegetable oils: numerical and experimental study. Food and
Bioproducts Processing 90 (2), 199–204.
Chiyoda, C., Peixoto, E.C.D., Meirelles, A.J.A., Rodrigues, C.E.C., 2010. Liquid–liquid
equilibria for systems composed of refined soybean oil, free fatty acids, ethanol,
and water at different temperatures. Fluid Phase Equilibria 299 (1), 141–147.
Christov, M., Dohrn, R., 2002. High-pressure fluid phase equilibria-experimental
methods and systems investigated (1994–1999). Fluid Phase Equilibria 202 (1),
153–218.
Cuevas, M.S., Rodrigues, C.E.C., Meirelles, A.J.A., 2009. Effect of solvent hydration
and temperature in the deacidification process of sunflower oil using ethanol.
Journal of Food Engineering 95 (2), 291–297.
Didi, M.A., Makhoukhi, B., Azzouz, A., Villemin, D., 2009. Colza oil bleaching through
optimized acid activation of bentonite. A comparative study. Applied Clay
Science 42 (3–4), 336–344.
Dunford, N.T., Zhang, M., 2003. Pressurized solvent extraction of wheat germ oil.
Food Research International 36 (9–10), 905–909.
El Economista, January, 19th 2007, <http://www.eleconomista.es/economia/
noticias/131964/01/07/Muere-un-obrero-y-otro-herido-grave-en-explosion-
en-tanque-aceite-en-Sevilla.html>.
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization, 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture
2010–2011. FAO, Rome (I).
Farhoosh, R., Einafshar, S., Sharayei, P., 2009. The effect of commercial refining steps
on the rancidity measures of soybean and canola oils. Food Chemistry 115 (3),
933–938.
Fornari, T., Bottini, S., Brignole, A.E., 1994. Application of UNIFAC to vegetable oil-
alkane mixture. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 71 (4), 391–395.
Gerasimenko, E.O., Tur’yan, Ya.I., 2012. Automated flow pH-method for the
determination of total free fatty acids content in edible oils. Food Chemistry
132 (3), 1562–1565.
Gunstone, F.D., Harwood, J.L., Padley, F.B., 1994. The Lipid Handbook, second ed.
Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 265–279.
Harwardt, A., Kossack, S., Marquardt, W., 2008. Optimal column sequencing for
multicomponent mixtures. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 25, 91–96.
Haslenda, H., Jamaludin, M.Z., 2011. Industry to industry by-products exchange
network towards zero waste in palm oil refining processes. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 55 (7), 713–718.
Honeywell, 2010a. UniSim DesignÒ Design – User Guide. Honeywell, London,
Ontario.
Honeywell, 2010b. UniSim DesignÒ Design – Simulation Basis Reference Guide.
Honeywell, London, Ontario.
Hoyer, M., Schumann, R., Premier, G.C., 2005. An approach for integrating process
and control simulation into the plant engineering process. Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering 20, 1603–1608.
Keurentjes, J.T.F., Doornbusch, G.I., Van’t Riet, K., 1991. The removal of fatty acids
from edible oil. Removal of the dispersed phase of a water-in-oil dispersion by a
hydrophilic membrane. Separation Science and Technology 26 (3), 409–423.
Körting Hannover AG, 1994. Reference Data for Application of Jet Ejectors and
Vacuum Processing. Körting Hannover AG, Hannover.
La Repubblica, 2006. Section: Perugia local news. Gruppo Editoriale L’Espresso,
Rome. November, 26th 2006 p. 6.
Landucci, G., Nucci, B., Pelagagge, L., Nicolella, C., 2011. Hazard assessment of edible
oil refining: formation of flammable mixtures in storage tanks. Journal of Food
Engineering 105 (1), 105–111.
Lees, F.P., 1996. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, second ed. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Loft, S.C., 1990. Deodorization – theory and practice. In: Erickson, D.R. (Ed.), Edible
Fats and Oils Processing: Basic Principles and Modern Practices. The American
Oil Chemists’ Society, Boulder Urbana, pp. 117–123.
Mag, T.K., 1990. Bleaching – theory and practice. In: Erickson, D.R. (Ed.), Edible Fats
and Oils Processing: Basic Principles and Modern Practices. The American Oil
Chemists’ Society, Boulder Urbana, pp. 107–116.
Martinello, M., Hecker, G., Pramparo, M.d.C., 2007. Grape seed oil deacidification by
molecular distillation: analysis of operative variables influence using the
response surface methodology. Journal of Food Engineering 81 (1), 60–64.
Mashuga, C.V., Crowl, D.A., 1998. Application of the flammability diagram for
evaluation of fire and explosion hazards of flammable vapors. Process Safety
Progress 17 (3), 176–183.
Meherwan, P.B., 1999. Transport and storage of fluids, section 10. Perry’s Chemical
Engineers’ Handbook, seventh ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
Midwest Research Institute – MRI, 1995. Emission factor documentation for AP-42
(section 9.11.1) Vegetable oil processing final report. Midwest Research
 G. Landucci et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 116 (2013) 840–851
Institute, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Research Triangle Park.
Mielke, T., 1990. Current world supply, demand and price outlook for oils and fats.
In: Erickson, D.R. (Ed.), Edible Fats and Oils Processing: Basic Principles and
Modern Practices. The American Oil Chemists’ Society, Boulder Urbana, pp. 1–9.
Motard, R.L., Shacham, M., Rosen, E.E., 1975. Steady state chemical process
simulation. American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE Journal 21 (3),
417–436.
Muth, M.K., Depro, B.M., Domanico, J.L., 1998. Vegetable Oil Production: Industry
Profile. Research Triangle Institute, Center for Economics Research, NC.
NFPA – National Fire Protection Association, 2007. NFPA 68: standard on explosion
protection by deflagration venting. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy.
Peng, D.Y., Robinson, D.B., 1976. A two constant equation of state. Industrial
Engineering Chemical Fundamentals 15 (1), 59–64.
Rodrigues, C.E.C., Filho, P.A.P., Meirelles, A.J.A., 2004. Phase equilibrium for the
system rice bran oil + fatty acids + ethanol + water + c-oryzanol + tocols. Fluid
Phase Equilibria 216 (2), 271–283.
Ruiz-Mendez, M.V., Dobarganes, M.C., 2007. Combination of chromatographic
techniques for the analysis of complex deodoriser distillates from an edible oil
refining process. Food Chemistry 103 (4), 1502–1507.
Sampaio, K.A., Ceriani, R., Silva, S.M., Tahama, T., Meirelles, A.J.A., 2011. Steam
deacidification of palm oil. Food and Bioproducts Processing 89 (4), 383–390.
Santori, G., Di Nicola, G., Moglie, M., Polonara, F., 2012. A review analyzing the
industrial biodiesel production practice starting from vegetable oil refining.
Applied Energy 92, 109–132.
Shahidi, F., 2005. Edible oil and fat products: edible oils, . 6th ed. Bailey’s Industrial
Oil and Fat Products 6th ed., vol. 2 Wiley & Sons, New York.
Shaw, J.F.G., 1992. The integration of process simulation and engineering design. In:
Proceedings of the European symposium on computer aided process
engineering (ESCAPE-1) No. 1. Elsevier, Kidlington. (pp. S465–S472)
Shell Chemicals Europe B.V., 2012. Hexane (extraction grade) material safety
datasheet (version 3.2). Shell Chemicals Europe B.V., Rotterdam.
Silva, S.M., Rocco, S.A., Sampaio, K.A., Taham, T., Meller da Silva, L.H., Ceriani, R.,
Meirelles, A.J.A., 2011. Validation of a method for simultaneous quantification of
total carotenes and tocols in vegetable oils by HPLC. Food Chemistry 129 (4),
1874–1881.
Smith, A.S., Florence, B., 1951. Vapor pressure of hexane–soybean oil solutions at
high solvent concentrations. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 28
(8), 360–361.
Smith, A.S., Wechter, F.J., 1950. Vapor pressure of hexane–soybean oil solutions at
low solvent concentrations. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 27
(10), 381–383.
851
Sullivan, F.E., 1976. Steam Refining. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 53
(6), 358–360.
Szabo, L., Nemeth, S., Szeifert, F., 2011. Analysis of separation possibilities of
multicomponent mixtures. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 29, 341–345.
Szydłowska-Czerniak, A., Trokowski, K., Karlovits, G., Szłyk, E., 2011. Effect of
refining processes on antioxidant capacity, total contents of phenolics and
carotenoids in palm oils. Food Chemistry 129 (3), 1187–1192.
Teles dos Santos, M., Gerbaud, V., Le Roux, G.A.C., in press. Modeling and simulation
of melting curves and chemical interesterification of binary blends of vegetable
oils, Chemical Engineering Science. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2012.09.026.
Towler, G., Sinnott, R., 2013. Process simulation,, .. Chemical Engineering Design,
second ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-096659-
5.00004-3 (Chapter 4).
Tugnoli, A., Landucci, G., Salzano, E., Cozzani, V., 2012. Supporting the selection of
process and plant design options by Inherent Safety KPIs. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (5), 830–842.
Twu, C.H., Coon, J.E., Cunningham, J.R., 1995. A new generalized alpha function for a
cubic equation of state: Part 1. Peng–Robinson equation. Fluid Phase Equilibria
105, 49–59.
Vadapalli, A., Seader, J.D., 2001. A generalized framework for computing bifurcation
diagrams using process simulation programs. Computers and Chemical
Engineering 25 (2–3), 445–464.
Veloso, G.O., Kriouko, V.G., Vielmo, H.A., 2005. Mathematical modeling of vegetable
oil extraction in a counter-current crossed flow horizontal extractor. Journal of
Food Engineering 66 (44), 477–486.
Wills, A.G., Heath, W.P., 2005. Application of barrier function based model
predictive control to an edible oil refining process. Journal of Process Control
15 (2), 183–200.
Zabetakis, M.G., 1965. Flammability characteristics of combustible gases and
vapors. US dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington.
Zhang, Y., Dubé, M.A., McLean, D.D., Kates, M., 2003. Biodiesel production from
waste cooking oil: 1. Process design and technological assessment. Bioresource
Technology 89 (1), 1–16.
Zin, R.B.M., 2006. Process design in degumming and bleaching of palm oil. Research
vote no. 74198, Centre of lipids engineering and applied research (CLEAR),
University of Technology, Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Zulkurnain, M., Lai, O.M., Latip, R.A., Nehdi, I.A., Ling, T.C., Tan, C.P., 2012. The effects
of physical refining on the formation of 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol esters in
relation to palm oil minor components. Food Chemistry 135 (2), 799–805.