4.7 Article

Aqueous extraction of residual oil from sunflower press cake using a twin-screw extruder: Feasibility study

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 29, 期 2-3, 页码 455-465

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.09.001

关键词

Sunflower; Twin-screw extruder; Aqueous extraction process; Oil and extraction; Proteins; DSC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an aqueous process to extract the residual oil from sunflower press cakes using a co-rotating twin-screw extruder. Two different configurations were tested: the expression from whole seeds followed by the aqueous extraction, in two successive apparatus or in the same one. For the aqueous extraction stage, the oil yield depended on the operating conditions including screw rotation speed, screw profile, and inlet flow rates of press cakes and water. Liquid/solid separation required the addition of a lignocellulosic residue (wheat straw), upstream from the filtration zone. However, even with : maximum fiber inlet flow (around 20% of the inlet flow rate of the solid matters for the,highest amount of wheat straw), drying of the cake meal did not improve. The lixiviation of the material was also incomplete. oil yield was better when the expression and the aqueous extraction were conducted in the same extruder. For all the trials carried out using such a configuration, the corresponding cake meal contained less than 10% residual oil, and the total oil yield was 78% in the best operating conditions. Nevertheless, the contribution of the aqueous extraction stage was extremely limited, less than 5% in the best trial, partly due to a ratio of the water to the press cake too low. For the aqueous extraction stage, the oil was extracted in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion whose stability was minimized because of its low proteins content due to their thermo-mechanical denaturation during the expression stage. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据