Biosystems Engineering (2002) 81 (2), 193d199

doi:10.1006/bioe.2001.0029, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

PH*Postharvest Technology

Palm Kernel and Shell Separator

C. O. Akubuo; B. E. Eje
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria; e-mail of corresponding author: misunn@aol.com
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Enugu, Nigeria

(Received 3 October 2000; accepted in revised form 2 October 2001; published online 15 January 2002)

Based on relevant physical properties of palm kernels and shells, a separator was designed to remove the palm
kernels from the shells. The separator has two sections: one to remove and collect the shells; and a second to
collect the kernels. The separator is power-driven and can reciprocate at three di!erent crank speeds of 93, 120
and 200 min\ and "ve crank radii of 20, 25, 35, 40 and 45 mm. At the crank speed of 93 min\ and crank
radius of 35 mm, kernel purity was 82%, kernel recovery 86)2% and separation e$ciency 82)1%. The capacity
of the separator is 446 kg h\ against a manual hand-picking rate of 60 kg h\ that characterize the dry method
of separation in local palm kernel oil mills in Nigeria.
 2002 Silsoe Research Institute

1. Introduction
The oil palm is a single stemmed plant growing to
heights of 8 m or more at maturity. The leaves or fonds
are arranged spirally on the trunk and it has an extensive
root system. The ovaries of the female in#orescence de-
velop into large bunches and each bunch may contain
about 800}1000 fruits (FAO, 1970; NIFOR, 1981). The
climate which prevails in the southern part of Nigeria
favours the growth of the crop. The sizes of the fruits
depend mainly on the thickness of the shell. As a drupe,
each fruit is made up of three major layers: an outer
epicarp, a middle "brous mesocarp from which palm oil
is extracted and a hard breakable endocarp, known as
the shell, which encloses the kernel. The kernel consists of
a small embryo embedded in a mass of hard oily endo-
sperm, surrounded by a tough black integument known
as the testa (Corley et al., 1976; Wood et al., 1976). The
varieties usually grown in Nigeria are Dura, Tenera and
Pisifera. A substantial quantity of palm kernels is ex-
ported by Nigeria. In 1966, when 6 Mt of palm kernels
were sold in the international market, Nigeria played
a leading role with the export of 4 Mt, representing over
65% of the world's total export that year (Elaine, 1968;
FAO, 1970). Since then, palm kernels have continued to
be a source of foreign exchange earning for Nigeria.
Locally, the palm kernels are crushed for the kernel oil
1537-5110/02/020193#07 $35.00/0
and kernel cake. The kernel oil is used extensively in the
local industries for the production of edible oil, margar-
ine, confectionery, soaps, animal feeds and candles. Palm
kernel cake has been identi"ed as one of the cheapest
source of protein in the formulation of animal feeds,
while the lauric acid constituent of the oil is used to
produce the best-quality soap with superior lathering
quality (Elaine, 1968; VON, 1987). Palm kernel shells are
locally used as fuel for kitchen stoves and for decorating
apartment premises.
The processing of the palm kernels into palm kernel oil
involves the cracking of the palm nut, separation of the
shells from the kernels, washing, cleaning, kernel milling
and kernel oil extraction. The separation of the kernels
from the shells is a very di$cult process and an issue
which continues to be of great importance within
the industry. Presently, two main methods of separation
are used. These are the wet and dry methods. The wet
method uses clay suspension, brine solution or the hy-
droclone for separating the kernels from the shells. The
principle is based on the speci"c gravities of the shells
and kernels, which are very close and this leads to ine!ec-
tive separation. In addition, the wet kernels must be
sterilized against moulds and dried for about 14}16 h in
silos to remove the moisture picked up by the kernels.
The lost kernels are recovered by hand picking and
this is time consuming. Hartley (1969) reported on the
193  2002 Silsoe Research Institute
194 C. O . A K U BU O ; B. E . E JE

Fig. 1. A common variety (Dura) of palm kernels and shells: (a) a palm nuts; (b) cracked palm nuts (mixture of palm kernels and shells);
(c) palm kernels and (d) palm shells

improvement of this system by the use of "ne clay and
achieved up to 45% separation e$ciency. The dry
method, usually prevalent in local palm kernel oil mills,
involves winnowing, followed by hand picking either on
trays or belts. This gives a high separation e$ciency but
with a very low capacity of 60 kg h\ (Hartley, 1963;
Ezenwa, 1992; Eje, 1998). Hartley (1963) reported on
trials of dry kernels and shells separation using repeated
winnowing. His work showed that only fragments of light
shells and small nuts were blown o!. Gebr (1963) re-
ported on trials of dry separation of palm kernels and
shells on moving inclined belts and pneumatic conveying
in vertical tunnels but partial separation was achieved.
The unit operations in palm kernels processing have
been e!ectively mechanized with the exception of the
kernels and shells separating unit (Eje, 1998). The e!orts
made by some researchers (Hartley, 1963; Gebr, 1963;
Corley et al., 1976) resulted in partial separation and low
material capacity even though nut cracking had been
mechanized. Separation by hand picking is labour inten-
sive and time consuming and the di!erential e$ciency in
the wet and dry methods of separation is attributed to the
physical properties of the palm kernels and shells. The
physical properties for the design of suitable machines for
separating crops have been emphasized for cowpea (Ige,
1977), sorghum (Dev et al., 1982) and maize (Anazodo
et al., 1981) but similar information for palm kernels and
shells is unavailable in the literature. The preliminary
e!ort by Ezenwa (1992), to construct a palm kernel and
shell separator, did not yield any practical result as the
machine was complex in design and consequently was
not built. The present study considers the physical char-
acteristics of palm kernels and shells in the design and
testing of a palm kernel and shell separator with the aim
of achieving complete separation of the shells and kernels.
2. Materials and methods
A photograph of the common variety (Dura) of palm
nuts, kernels and shells is shown in Fig. 1. The palm nuts
are more elliptical in shape, whereas the kernels are
smooth and nearly spherical and the shells are semi-
circular in shape but with greater tendency to being #at.
When whole palm nuts are cracked, the kernels are
released due to the fragmentation of the shells. High
levels of fragmentation enable the kernels to be easily
removed. The degree of fragmentation of the shells de-
pends on the type of nut cracker used. The most preva-
lent nut cracker is the hammer mill type, locally designed
 P AL M K ER NE L A N D SHE L L S E PA R AT O R 195

Table 1
Physical characteristics of palm kernels and shells with an average moisture content of 9'5% w.b. for kernels, 8'5% w.b. for shells and
9'1% w.b. for nuts

Mean values

Parameters Palm nut Palm kernel Palm shell

Major diameter, cm 2)68 (3)4)* 1)57 (2)25) 1)39 (3)0)

Intermediate diameter, cm 1)97 (3)3) 1)21 (1)62) 0)94 (2)03)
Minor diameter, cm 1)57 (2)0) 0)92 (1)40) 0)48 (2)15)
Geometric mean diameter, cm 2)02 (0)40) 1)20 (0)5) 0)85 (0)3)
SphericityR 0)80 (0)02) 0)8 (0)01) 0)60 (0)3)
Bulk density, kg m\ 594)31 (2)40) 568)90 (1)74) 565)30 (1)23)
Speci"c gravity 1)15 (0)01) 1)10 (0)02) 1)30 (0)01)
Static angle of repose, deg 43)20 (0)98) 38)0 (0)56) 47)90 (1)50)
Unit weight, g 1)86 (0)36) 1)11 (0)32) 0)40 (0)33)

*Values in parentheses are standard deviations.

RSphericity is the ratio of geometric mean diameter to the major diameter (Mohsenin, 1986).

for palm nut cracking, with a cracking e$ciency of up to
98% (Ezenwa, 1992; Eje, 1998). For this study, three lots
of mixed palm kernels and shells were obtained from
three local farmers, giving a total weight of 100 kg. The
kernels were separated from the shells by hand picking.
A sample of 100 kernels and 100 shells were taken from
each source making a total of 300 kernels and 300 shells.
These were used in determining the physical properties;
characteristic dimensions (major, intermediate and mi-
nor diameters), bulk density, speci"c gravity and angle of
repose. The results are presented in Table 1. The spheric-
ity values of 0)8 for kernels and 0)6 for shells show that
kernels and shells have distinctive shapes. The kernel
shape may approximate to that of a sphere while the
shape of the shell is close to being semi-circular with
greater tendency of being #at. These values are e!ectively
utilized in designing a separator for separating kernels
from the shells. The speci"c gravity of kernels is 1)1 while
that of shells is 1)3. These values are not signi"cantly
di!erent (probability P"0)05) and therefore show that
the speci"c gravity method will not be e!ective in separ-
ating the kernels from the shells, and in addition shows
that the bulk densities of kernels and shells are very close
(Table 1). The angle of repose of about 383 for kernels and
47.93 for shells will aid in the design of hopper and spouts
for a palm kernels and shells separator.
3. The palm kernel and shell separator
ing section (E) made up of parallel rods spaced 6)5 mm
apart; the kernel separating section (F) with circular
holes 15 mm in diameter; the outlet tray (G); the hopper
(H) for feeding the mixture of palm kernels and shells
onto the separator; the v-belt (I) for power transmission;
the spout (J) for shell collection and the spout (K) for
kernel collection. The shell and kernel separating sec-
tions are referred to in this work as the &separating tray'.
Switching the electric motor on, transmits motion from
the crank shaft (C) to the connecting rods (D), which
results in reciprocating and vibrating motions of the
separating tray. Vibration is accomplished by a crank
mechanism of adjustable radius. A mixture of kernels and
shells introduced directly by hand into the hopper (H) is
let out onto the reciprocating separating tray through
a chute. As the mixture moves down, it is agitated by the
vibratory motion of the separating tray. The shells pass
through the spaces between the rods and discharge into
the spout (J) for collection. The kernels move down to the
kernels section (F) where they pass through the holes and
are discharged into the spout (K) for collection. The
diameter of the holes in the kernel separation section is
su$cient to allow most of the kernels to pass through,
while the shells pass through the spacings between the
rods by their minor diameters. The uncracked nuts, over-
sized shells and oversized kernels are moved along to the
outlet tray (G) where they are collected for further crack-
ing and separation. Descriptions of the major component
parts of the separator are given in the following sections.

The physical characteristics of the palm kernels and

shells (Table 1) were used to design the separator (Fig. 2). 3.1. ¹he separating tray
The separator is supported on a frame (A) and is powered
by a 1)5 kW electric motor (B). It consists mainly of the Figure 3 shows the separating tray. It consists of the
crank shaft (C); the connecting rods (D); the shell separat- shell (E) and kernel sections (F). The shell section has
196 C. O . A K U BU O ; B. E . E JE

Fig. 2. Palm kernel and shell separator: A, frame; B, electric motor; C, crank shaft; D, connecting rods; E, shells separating section; F,
kernels separating section; G, outlet tray; H, hopper; I, v-belt; J, spout for shells; K, spout for kernels

&parallel rods' while the kernel section is &sieved'. The
sizes of the parallel rods and sieve depend on the dimen-
sions of the shells and kernels (Table 1). Since kernels and
shells have di!ering shapes, they can be separated by the
use of sieves. However, the use of standard sieves has
proved ine!ective since such sieves were not designed for
Fig. 3. The separating tray: (a) top view; (b) front view; E, shells
separating section made up of parallel rods spaced 6)5 mm apart;
F, kernels separating section with 15 mm diameter holes; K, tray
shaft for connecting rods
separating palm kernels and shells (Ezenwa, 1992; Eje,
1998). The shells separating section (E) is 84 cm long and
60 cm wide. The size of the parallel slots was arrived at by
considering sieves having enlongated slots with the
length of the slots greater than the dimension of the
minor axis of the largest shell, while its width being wider
than the dimension of the major axis. This is in line with
the recommendation by Henderson and Perry (1981) that
#at materials adapt themselves best to oblong or
elongated holes and the material passing through such
elongated holes are engaged in the holes by their
minimum diameter. Straight rods arranged parallel to
one another were then used (Fig. 3). The rods are each
6)5 mm in diameter and spaced 6)5 mm apart. The kernel
separating section (F) is 60 cm long and 60 cm wide. It is
made from a mild steel sheet of 3 mm thickness with
15 mm diameter holes drilled in rows and columns at
17 mm centres over the entire surface. The kernels with
sphericity up to 0)8 (Table 1) will pass easily through
round holes. The two sections are joined together to form
a single unit called the separating tray. This unit is
connected to the crank shaft through the connecting rods
(Fig. 2). Below the shell separating unit is an array of
stationary spikes "xed to the frame and projects into the
space between the parallel rods. The spikes are spaced
 P AL M K ER NE L A N D SHE L L S E PA R AT O R 197

Table 2
Performance data* for palm kernel and shell separator, kernel average moisture content 9'5% w.b., shell average moisture content
9'1% w.b.

speed, Crank Time of Kernel Kernel Shell Shell Seperation ezciency, % Separation
min!1 radius, operation, purity ( kp ), recovery ( kr ), purity (sp ) recovery (sr ) rate, kg h!1
mm s % % % % y Yk R

20 180 79)4 (1)5)S 86)2 (0)9) 94)5 (2)0) 91)3 (0)4) 78)7 (1)9) 77)5 (2)6) 208)0 (3)5)
25 150 78)0 (2)0) 84)7 (1)5) 92)8 (1)9) 93)7 (2)0) 79)4 (1)3) 76)8 (2)3) 249)6 (2)0)
93 35 84 82)0 (3)1) 86)2 (0)8) 95)2 (0)6) 95)2 (1)3) 82)1 (2)0) 78)9 (3)0) 445)6 (2)0)
40 78 73)6 (1)1) 72)4 (1)6) 89)4 (1)1) 89)4 (2)1) 64)7 (1)5) 62)9 (1)9) 480)0 (3)0)
45 60 71)1 (1)7) 63)8 (1)3) 86)5 (1)3) 86)5 (2)0) 55)2 (1)6) 53)7 (2)0) 624)0 (2)6)
20 150 78)7 (1)0) 81)4 (2)0) 93)2 (3)0) 91)3 (2)4) 73)3 (2)0) 74)9 (2)1) 249)6 (2)0)
25 120 81)4 (2)1) 81)4 (0)7) 93)2 (1)7) 92)7 (1)8) 75)5 (2)1) 75)4 (3)1) 312)0 (1)8)
120 35 90 56)5 (1)5) 44)8 (0)5) 81)2 (2)0) 92)0 (1)7) 41)2 (1)4) 37)7 (2)2) 416)0 (2)3)
40 60 50)5 (0)9) 41)3 (1)4) 78)8 (2)5) 84)0 (2)1) 34)7 (2)3) 25)4 (2)0) 624)0 (2)3)
45 60 47)4 (1)0) 31)0 (1)4) 76)5 (2)0) 86)7 (1)2) 26)9 (2)0) 19)2 (1)8) 624)0 (2)7)
20 50 68)1 (1)9) 51)7 (0)6) 92)5 (1)6) 91)4 (3)0) 47)3 (2)5) 47)5 (2)0) 748)8 (2)3)
25 50 70)6 (0)5) 41)4 (0)8) 91)8 (0)3) 93)7 (1)6) 38)8 (1)0) 36)8 (1)7) 748)8 (2)3)
200 35 40 55)6 (1)6) 34)5 (1)1) 85)2 (1)0) 79)9 (1)0) 27)6 (2)1) 28)9 (2)6) 936)0 (3)0)
40 40 47)1 (0)3) 27)6 (1)9) 79)4 (2)1) 89)4 (2)1) 24)7 (1)5) 22)9 (2)0) 936)0 (3)5)
45 30 41)2 (1)8) 24)1 (1)0) 76)5 (1)9) 86)5 (2)0) 20)8 (1)0) 19)8 (1)4) 1248)0 (3)0)

*Each value is the mean of six replicates, two test runs at each crank radius for each of the three samples from three farmers.
R> , separation e$ciency computed using the original expression detailed by Kashayap (1965).

SValues in parentheses are standard deviations.

7 cm apart along the whole length of the shell unit and
serve to dislodge any shells that may get stuck between
the parallel rods. The separator can run at three crank
speeds of 93, 120 and 200 min\ and "ve crank radii of
20, 25, 35, 40 and 45 mm.
3.2. ¹he hopper
The hopper (H) shown in Fig. 2 is trapezoidal in shape
with the rectangular section running through the entire
width of the separating tray and with a slope greater than
the angle of slope of the kernels and shells. This facilitates
the free #ow of the kernels and shells by gravity on the
separating tray. The hopper is made from a mild steel
sheet of 3 mm thickness. The rectangular section of the
hopper is partitioned with ba%es spaced 10 cm apart.
The ba%es facilitate even distribution of the mixture of
kernels and shells, across the entire width of the separat-
ing tray, for e!ective separation.
4. Performance test
Some tests were performed to evaluate the perfor-
mance of the separator in terms of its capacity and its
e!ectiveness of separation with respect to kernel/shell
purity, kernel/shell recovery and separation e$ciency.
The order followed in running the tests was given by
a 5 by 3 factorial experiment in completely randomized
design (Steel & Torrie, 1960; Box et al., 1978; Obi, 1995)
since the separator was designed to run at "ve crank radii
and three di!erent speeds. About 10)4 kg of the palm
kernel and shell mixture was taken from the quantity
collected from each farmer and used in each test run in
turn. This was done to maintain the uniformity of the
mixture from each farmer which may not be achieved if
the three quantities were combined. The 10)4 kg weight
of the mixture is the weight that the hopper can hold at
a time and also a weight an operator can conveniently
load in the hopper at a time. At each crank radius, for
a given crank speed, there were two replicate runs for
each of the three samples from three farmers. This result-
ed to six runs at one particular speed and one crank
radius. The separator was "rst run empty for about 20 s.
This allowed the set speed to be attained before releasing
the mixture from the hopper. The sample was manually
loaded into the hopper and the hopper gate at the feed
chute was opened to allow steady #ow of the mixture into
the separating tray. The shell and kernel fractions were
collected from the respective collection points and
weighed. The kernel that passed through the shell section
of the separating tray were hand picked and weighed.
The shell that passed through the kernel section were
also hand picked and weighed. All measurements were
done with the Mettler PM-30 analytical balance. The
times for actual separation were recorded (Table 2). In
every test run, the same procedure was followed. The
198 C. O . A K U BU O ; B. E . E JE
operator maintained continuous operation of the separ-
ator by topping up the hopper whenever the level of the
mixture dropped su$ciently. The data obtained were
used to calculate the performance parameters described
in Section 4)1 and the values tabulated in Table 2.
4.1. Performance parameters
The six criteria used to evaluate the performance of the
separator were: capacity; kernel purity; kernel recovery;
shell purity; shell recovery and separation e$ciency. The
capacity was determined as the material output per unit
time, in kg h\. Kernel purity refers to the shells, un-
cracked nuts and other impurities in the separated ker-
nels. The smaller the amount, the higher the purity of
kernels separated. Kernel purity k in % was calculated
N
from the expression


a radii at which the separator was operated. Generally, at
k " 1! 100 (1)
N a#b
where a is the weight of shells, uncracked nuts and other
impurities contained in the separated kernels in grams;
and b is the weight of separated kernels in grams.
Kernel recovery k in % is a measure of the amount of
P the separating tray was increased at lower crank radius
kernels separated to the total amount of kernels
contained in the kernel/shell mixture sample, and was
calculated by using the expression


b and 200 min\ with corresponding higher crank radii
k" 100 (2)
P b#c
where c is the weight of kernels mixed with the shells and
the weight of oversized kernels in the outlet tray in grams.
The shell purity s in % refers to the amount of kernels,
N each crank radius.
uncracked nuts and other impurities in the separated
shells. The smaller the amount, the higher the purity of
the shells separated. The shell purity was calculated from
the expression


d and shell recovery (Table 2). The overall separation e$-
s " 1! 100 (3)
N d#e
where d is the weight of kernels, uncracked nuts and
other impurities in the separated shells; and e is the
weight of separated shells in grams.
Shell recovery s in % is a measure of the amount of
P
shells separated to the total amount of shells contained in
the kernel/shell mixture sample. It was calculated by
using the expression


e reported by Hartley (1963), Ezenwa (1992) and Eje (1998).
s" 100 (4)
P e#f
where f is the weight of shells in the separated kernels and
the weight of oversized shells in the outlet tray in grams.
The separation e$ciency y in %, also known as the
screening e$ciency is a measure of the overall e$ciency
of the separator in separating the kernels from the shells.
It is the combined e!ectiveness of the individual separ-
ator units (the shell and kernel units) and was computed
by using the expression given by Otubelu (1989) and Eje
(1998). The expression as reported was a modi"cation of
the original expression detailed by Kashayap (1965). The
modi"ed form used is given by
y"100 k s (5)
P P
4.2. Results and discussion
The results obtained from the performance evaluation
of the kernel and shell separator are presented in Table 2.
The times for separating a given quantity of the ker-
nels/shells mixture varied because of the di!erent crank
any particular speed, the lower the crank radius the more
time was available for separation and the more the ker-
nels and shells were recovered, giving high percentage
purity and separation e$ciency. This is, however ex-
pected. It may be that the resident time of the mixture on
and speed of operation which gives the mixture ample
time for separation. The lower values in kernel/shell
purity, recovery and separation e$ciency at speeds of 120
may be attributed to the speed of operation which results
to the shortness of time for the kernels and shells to
present themselves for separation. Figure 4 shows that
separation e$ciency increases with decrease in speed for
The highest separation e$ciency of 82)1% was ob-
tained at a speed of 93 min\ and crank radius of 35 mm
with corresponding results of 82% in kernel purity,
86)2% kernel recovery and 95)2% in both shell purity
ciency of 82)1% is much higher than that of the clay bath
method which has been reported (Hartley, 1969; Eje,
1998) to have a separation e$ciency of up to 45%. At the
same speed of 93 min\ and crank radius of 35 mm,
the kernels/shells mixture was separated in the average
time of 84 s giving a separator capacity of about
446 kg h\. This capacity is far above that of manual
hand-picking rate of 60 kg h\ associated with the dry
method of separation usually practiced in local mills as
The separation e$ciency computed using the original
expression detailed by Kashayap (1965) is also shown in
Table 2. The values as shown do not appreciably di!er
from those obtained from the modi"ed expression as
 P AL M K ER NE L A N D SHE L L S E PA R AT O R
Fig. 4. Ewect of crank radius on separation ezciency and their
error bars at three speeds: , 93 min!1; , 120 min!1;
, 200 min!1
used in this work. All the results indicate that the separ-
ator has a great measure of usefulness.
5. Conclusions
On the basis of the physical characteristics of palm
kernels and shells, a separator was designed, constructed
and tested. At the crank speed of 93 min\ and crank
radius of 35 mm, kernel purity was 82%, shell purity
95)2%, kernel recovery 86)2%, shell recovery 95)2% and
separation e$ciency 82)1%. The separation rate was
446 kg h\ which is far above the manual hand-picking
rate of 60 kg h\ that characterizes the prevailing dry
method of separation.
199
References
Anazodo U G N; Wall G L; Norris E R (1981). Corn physical
and mechanical properties as related to combine cylinder
performance. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 23, 23}30
Box G E P; Hunter W G; Hunter J S (1978). Statistics for
Experimenters. John Wiley & Sons, New York
Corley R H V; Hardson J J; Wood B J (1976). Oil Palm
Research. Elsevier Scienti"c Publishing Company, Inc.,
Amsterdam
Dev D K; Satwadhar P N; Ingle U M (1982). E!ect of variety
and moisture content on selected physical properties of sor-
ghum grain. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
20, 43}48
Eje B E (1998). Design, construction and evaluation of oil palm
kernels and shells separator. M Eng Project Report. Depart-
ment of Agricultural Engineering, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, Nigeria
Elaine M M A (1968). Vegetable Oils and Fats, their Produc-
tion and Commercial Extraction. Unilever Educational
Booklet, London
Ezenwa E I (1992). Design of palm kernels and shells separator.
B Eng Project Report. Department of Agricultural Engineer-
ing, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
FAO (1970). The Oil Palm. Food and Agricultural Organiza-
tion, Rome, Italy
Gebr S (1963). Kernel Recovery. Palm Oil Review. Elsevier
Scienti"c Publishing Company, Inc. Vol. 3, pp. 4}5. Amsterdam
Hartley C W S (1963). The Decline of Oil Palm Industry in
Nigeria. Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research, Benin,
Nigeria
Hartley C W S (1969). The Oil Palm. Longman Group Limited,
London
Henderson S M; Perry R L (1981). Agricultural Process Engin-
eering (3rd Edn.). AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Westport,
CT
Ige M T (1977). Measurement of some parameters a!ecting the
handling losses of some varieties of cowpea. Journal of Agri-
cultural Engineering Research, 22, 27}133
Kashayap M M (1965). Study of winnowing indices. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 10(3), 255}258
Mohsenin N N (1986). Physical Properties of Plant and Animal
Materials. Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc., New
York
NIFOR (1981). A Manual on Oil Palm Production (2nd Edn.).
Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research, Benin, Nigeria
Obi I U (1995). Introduction to Factorial Experiments. Optimal
Computer Solutions Limited, Enugu, Nigeria
Otubelu N U (1989). Design, fabrication and testing of small to
medium scale maize sheller. M Eng Project Report. Depart-
ment of Agricultural Engineering, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, Nigeria
Steel R G D; Torrie J H (1960). Principles and Procedures of
Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York
VON (1987). Palm Kernel Oil and Cake. Vegetable Oil of
Nigeria Limited, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria
Wood B J; Hardo J; Corley R H V (1976). Development in Crop
Science. Oil Palm Research. Elsevier Scienti"c Publishing
Company, Inc., Amsterdam