See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266204540

Energy efficiency of a confectionery plant – Case study

Article  in  Journal of Food Engineering · February 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.08.019

CITATIONS READS

11 3,138

10 authors, including:

Janusz Wojdalski Józef Grochowicz

Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW Agricultural University in Lublin
29 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bogdan Dróżdż Paulina Zdanowska

Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW
16 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE BY IMPROVING PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY IN FOOD INDUSTRY View project

XVIII Conference of science and technology construction and utilization of food industry equipment-BEMS 2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulina Zdanowska on 25 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

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

Energy efficiency of a confectionery plant – Case study

Janusz Wojdalski, Józef Grochowicz ⇑, Bogdan Drózd
_ z,
_ Katarzyna Bartoszewska, Paulina Zdanowska,
_
Adam Kupczyk, Adam Ekielski, Iwona Florczak, Aleksandra Hasny, Grazyna Wójcik
Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Department of Production Management and Engineering, Nowoursynowska 164, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland

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

Article history: The characteristic features of confectionery plants are determined by the type and quantity of processed
Received 28 March 2014 raw materials, the applied production technology, structure of technical equipment and degree of auto-
Received in revised form 18 July 2014 mation. The above factors contribute to variations in the consumption of different energy carriers. This
Accepted 25 August 2014
paper analyzes the energy consumption profile of a randomly chosen confectionery plant. It describes
Available online 17 September 2014
technical and technological factors that can be applied in a detailed analysis of energy efficiency in the
confectionery industry to facilitate the selection of the best available techniques. The discussed indicators
Keywords:
can also be used to create a database that tracks the energy efficiency characteristics of confectionery
Confectionery plant
Energy consumption
plants.
Energy efficiency Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Energy efficiency indicators can include additional information

The consumption of energy carriers in food processing plants is
determined by various factors, including the thermophysical prop-
erties of raw materials, production technology, technical equip-
ment, degree of automation, production volume and structure,
product requirements, capacity of utilization and organization of
the production process. Energy efficiency (EE) is defined as the
ratio of the output of a given device, system or production facility
operating under standard conditions to the amount of energy con-
sumed by that device, system or production facility to deliver the
output. Energy efficiency can be increased by lowering the amount
of energy consumed during processing, distribution or use due to
changes in production technology. Changes in production technol-
ogy should also account for cleaner production (CP) requirements.
Rational energy use is closely correlated with the concept of eco-
effectiveness, which aims to improve environmental results by
conserving energy, reducing the use of natural resources, reducing
pollution and minimizing waste production at every stage of raw
materials processing. Research studies also analyze carbon dioxide
emissions, whose magnitude is determined by the distance over
which raw materials, energy carriers and final products are trans-
ported (Grimaldi et al., 2000; Lunghi and Burzacca, 2004; Wilhite,
2008; Wojdalski and Drózd _ z,
_ 2012).
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: University of Vincent Pol, Choiny 2, 20-816
Lublin.
E-mail address: jozef@jozefgrochowicz.com (J. Grochowicz).
about a production facility or a production line (e.g. power of
electrical motors, employment). Energy efficiency in the food pro-
cessing industry has been researched extensively by numerous
authors, including Elkin and Stevens (2008), Fernández et al.
(2012), Kowalczyk and Netter (2008), Meyer et al. (2000),
Pimentel et al. (2008), Therkelsen et al. (2014), Wang (2008),
Wojdalski and Drózd _ z_ (2012).
In the food processing business, confectionery plants receive
significant attention for economic reasons (Balasubramanyan and
Mohan, 2010; Eriksson et al., 1996; Pellegrino et al., 2004). In
Poland, the confectionery sector is represented by four large com-
panies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (Confectionery
companies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, 2011). In
2011, they generated sales of nearly PLN 1.8 billion (around USD
0.6 billion), with an average of PLN 450 million per company
(around USD 142 billion) (OnTime Analyzes, 2012). The structure
of the Polish confectionery sector in 2012 is presented in Table 1.
In the last two decades, Polish confectionery plants ranked 11th
in terms of their total energy consumption among all food process-
ing plants, after sugar refineries, dairy plants, meat processing
plants, fish processing plants, bakeries, fruit and vegetable process-
ing plants, breweries, flour mills and pasta processing plants, egg
and poultry processing plants, distilleries and plants manufacturing
alcoholic beverages (Wojdalski et al., 1998; Central Statistical Office,
2013). In Germany, the manufacture of cocoa, chocolate and confec-
tioneries (excluding bakery products) accounts for one of the 15
most energy-intensive sub-sectors of the food industry. In 1998,
the German food processing industry consumed 11,904 MW h of
energy (Elkin and Stevens, 2008; Meyer et al., 2000).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.08.019
0260-8774/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191
Nomenclature
Symbols
a coefficient in a regression equation
ATE monthly consumption of thermal energy (ATE = Brz Q rw ;
for Q rw = 34 MJ/m3 of gas fuel), MJ/month
Ae total monthly consumption of electrical energy in the
plant (Ae = Aep + Aeb), kW h/month
Aep monthly consumption of electrical energy in the plant’s
production departments, kW h/month
Aeb monthly consumption of electrical energy in the plant’s
office building, kW h/month
At total monthly energy consumption [At = 3.6
(Aep + Aeb) + ATE, converted at 1kW h = 3.6 MJ], MJ/
month
Ath hourly energy consumption (Ath = P s + D i for s = 1 h,
converted at 1kW h = 3.6 MJ), MJ
Aw monthly water consumption, m3/month
b coefficient in a regression equation
Bce monthly consumption of the coal equivalent based on
the converted value of At, kg c.e./month
Brz monthly consumption of gas fuel, m3/month
D consumption of the steam equivalent, kg/h
EE energy efficiency, kg of product/kW h, kg of product/GJ,
kg of product/kg c.e.
EW water consumption efficiency, kg of product/m3 water
eeCO2 CO2 emissions per 1 kW h of generated electrical energy
(0.90–1.02 kg CO2/kW h)
egCO2 CO2 emissions associated with gas fuel combustion
(55.82 kg/GJ)
i enthalpy of the steam equivalent (2.6796 MJ/kg of s.e.)
Km installed capacity of electrical equipment per 1 Mg of
processed products per month, kW/Mg
K monthly production per plant employee, Mg/person
n total employment in the plant, persons
P total installed capacity of electrical devices in produc-
tion departments, kW
R2 coefficient of determination (R2 = r2 100%), %
Qce calorific value of coal equivalent (29.3076 MJ/kg c.e.)
The consumption of energy carriers in confectionary plants is
determined by specific factors, including the applied production
technology, the number of periodically-operated machines, range
of processing temperatures, and the thermophysical properties of
raw materials and final products (Afoakwa et al., 2007; Beckett,
2009; Energy Solutions Center, 2005; Keijbets et al., 2010;
Kliopova and Lieščinskienė, 2011; Reinheimer et al., 2010, 2012;
United States Department of Energy, 2002). Specific technologies
relating to energy efficiency in the confectionery industry are pro-
tected by patents (Sieghart, 2012).
The energy consumption structure of a confectionery plant is
determined by the type of production processes, mainly caramel
cooking, rolling, granulation, drying and chilling. In Polish plants,
the structure of energy consumption was as follows: heat from
steam and hot water – 56.3%, fossil fuels – 36.3%, electricity –
7.4% (Neryng et al., 1990). According to the authors’ unpublished
results, this structure has been preserved to this day. In a study
of a German confectionery plant (Working Group . . ., 2009) con-
suming 9 757 731 GJ of energy per year, heat accounted for
63.5% and electricity – for the remainder of the consumed energy.
Confectionery plants implement energy management policies
that require the generation of databases for analyzing energy effi-
ciency in food processing operations (Swords et al., 2008).
The demand for energy carriers is specified in, for example, inte-
grated permits that set environmental protection requirements,
183
Qst heat introduced by the steam equivalent, W
Q rw calorific value of fuel (gas fuel), 34 MJ/m3
Uen installed capacity of electrical equipment per employee,
kW/person
WA aggregate indicator of specific energy consumption
(SECA)
Wce specific consumption of the coal equivalent calculated
based on Wt (specific energy consumption in the plant,
WZ), kg c.e./Mg of product
Wep specific energy in the plant’s production departments
(specific energy consumption in the production process,
WP), kW h/Mg
W specific energy consumption in the plant’s production
departments and office building (specific energy con-
sumption in the plant, WZ), kW h/Mg of product
WP specific energy consumption in the production process
(SECP)
WT specific energy consumption in technological processes
(SECT)
Wt overall specific energy consumption, converted at
1 kW h = 3.6 MJ
Ww specific water consumption in the plant (SWCZ), m3/Mg
WZ specific energy consumption in the plant (SECZ)
Z monthly production, Mg of product/month
r standard error of estimate
Lowercase symbols:
ce coal equivalent
e electricity
ep electricity consumed in production
g fuel gas
st steam
t total energy
TE thermal energy
technical standards based on the best available techniques and
requirements for the management of post-production waste. The
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC, 2006a) reference
document lists the confectionery industry, but does not quote any
data about the energy efficiency of confectionery production
processes.
The efficiency of a production plant or an applied technology
can be evaluated with the use of the specific energy consumption
indicator (W) or the energy efficiency indicator (EE).
The energy efficiency of confectionery plants has been
addressed by relatively few publications (Singh, 1986; Neryng
et al., 1990). Singh (1986) presented diagrams for production lines
of hard candy, cocoa powder, chocolate candy, chewing gum, sweet
and milk chocolate, with an indication of their demand for energy.
The energy efficiency of production processes is expressed by var-
ious units, and the reasons for variations in plants’ energy con-
sumption profiles have not been fully explained. The energy
efficiency of the confectionery plants cited in literature is pre-
sented in Table 2. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive
overview of the available research results and process data.
Various ranges of specific energy consumption indicators (WA,
WT and WP) shown in Fig. 1 (Section 4 – Methods) have been ana-
lyzed. Other documents and reports detailing energy consumption
statistics of confectionery plants, including Ferrero (AB Energy for
Ferrero, 2012), German guidelines (Working Group . . ., 2009) and
184 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Table 1
The structure of the Polish confectionery industry in 2012. Source: Central Statistical Office (2013).

Products Measurement Output

unit
Molasses Mg 442700.00
Chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa, weighing more than 2 kg, containing 18% and more cocoa butter and milk fat Mg 86996.00
Chocolates Mg 58424.00
Chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa, with added cereal; fruit or nuts (excl. filled chocolate blocks) Mg 47021.00
Toffees, caramels and similar sweets Mg 42607.00
Filled chocolate blocks and other preparations containing cocoa Mg 36856.00
Eastern sugar confectionery Mg 12294.00
White chocolate Mg 5464.00

Table 2
Energy consumption in reference confectionery plants.

Energy Symbols and units Products Indicators Source

carrier
Range Numeric
value
Electrical We kW h/Mg of product Halva WT 40 Neryng et al. (1990)
energy Chocolate WT 250–400
Pralines WT 400
Caramel produced by the continuous method WT 10
Caramel produced by the batch method WT 42
We kJ/kg of product (kW h/Mg Hard candy WT 744.32 (206.7) Hagler, Bailley and Co. (cited in
of product) WP 1558.42 (432.89) Singh 1986)
Chocolate candy WT 1256.04 (348.9)
WP 2070.14 (575.0)
Candy packaging WA 116.30 (32.3)
Cocoa butter WT 674.54 (187.37)
WP 790.84 (219.67)
Packaged sticks of chewing gum WT 1581.70 (439.36) Singh (1986)
WP 1699.0 (471.94)
Thermal WTE GJ/Mg of product Chocolate WT 6.7 Neryng et al. (1990)
energy WTE Mg of steam Caramel produced by the continuous method WT 0.15
(1.15 MPa)/Mg of product Caramel produced by the batch method WT up to 1.25
WTE kJ/kg of product Hard candy WT 3489 Hagler, Bailley and Co. (cited in
WP 4884.6 Singh, 1986)
Chocolate candy WT 3954.2
WP 5349.8
Cocoa butter WT 930.4
WP 2093.4
Packaged sticks of chewing gum WT 1860.8 Singh, (1986)
WP 3814.64
WST kg of steam/kg of product Batch Cooker (type TBT 200) WA 0.33 Hosokawa (2012)
Feeding, mixing and cooking plant (Hotmix type WT 0.43
twin)
Flexible continuous caramel cooker (Candyflex WT 0.50
type twin mega)
Wg m3/Mg of product Heat energy intensity within the pilot plant WZ 152 (before CPa) Kliopova and Lieščinskienė
128 (after CPa) (2011)
a
CP – implementation of cleaner production initiatives.

an Egyptian report (Confectionary Industry Self-Monitoring
Manual, 2002), are valuable sources of knowledge about rational
energy use in the confectionery industry, but they do not propose
detailed methods for determining indicators WA, WT or WP. Accord-
ing to the Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator (2010), stoving
products, such as gums and jellies, account for around 25% of
energy consumption in the sugar confectionery sub-sector. It has
been estimated that total annual production of stoved sweets
reaches 76,000 Mg and requires 294 GW h of primary energy.
CO2 emissions from stoving products have been estimated at
60,000 Mg a year, 32% of which (around 20,000 Mg) can be attrib-
uted to the stoving process. The annual cost of energy associated
with stove products is estimated at £6.5 million, including
£1.6 million for the stoving process itself.
Grimaldi et al. (2000) studied the effect of air-conditioning in
production facilities on a confectionary plant’s energy consumption
in different seasons of the year. They analyzed energy saving
options in two operating variants:
– when the product was cold stored,
– when the refrigerating plant was situated inside the packaging
building.
Lunghi and Mariani (2003) analyzed the reductions in energy
usage and costs that could follow from changes in ventilation
and air-conditioning system in production facilities in confection-
ery plants.
In many studies and reports, the energy efficiency of confec-
tionery plants or production technologies is expressed by indica-
tors that are difficult to compare because they are not relevant
for the specific conditions of individual plants. There is a general
scarcity of publications investigating the energy efficiency of
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 185

13
Raw materials

Caramel candy
14
production line,
Tablet candy 15
production line
Milk candy 16
production line
Water from own Water treatment, Process and cleaning water Wastewater 19
1 evacuated
supply source pumping station Sugar mill 17
Make-up water to a transitional
5 Mixing unit
Steam tank
Sugar melting tank
Natural Dryer
2 Steam production
gas
Granulation unit
9 Tableting press
Ekoterm
3 Fuel oil storage Evaporator
fuel oil Heating for End products for
6 Cooling table
production distribution (Z)
departments Pull broach
and hot water Packaging unit
production Multihead weigher
12
Batch roller
Electrical energy Transformer Aep Rope sizer
4
(medium voltage 15 kV) station Die forming machine
7 20

Cooling tunnel Waste

Cooling Cooling energy
Aeb 10 Twist wrapper
Closed cooling water circuit
Extruder

Office building, Compressed air station Compressed

workshop, warehouses
11 air energy WA
8

18
WT
Wp, EEep
WZ, EE, EW

Fig. 1. Energy consumption in a confectionery plant.

Table 3
Annual employment structure and production profile.

Experimental period (year) Year 1 Year 2

Total employment, n Total employment in plant, n1 196 183
Employment in production departments, n2 130 120
Share of total production, % Tablet candy 32 45
Soft milk candy 34 30
Caramel fudge candy 34 25

confectionery plants producing tablet candy, caramels and soft The correlations between CO2 emissions and the output of confec-
milk candy. The operating characteristics of bakery plants were tionery plants are investigated. The study also makes a reference to
_ z_ (2012).
presented by Wojdalski and Drózd the work of Bunse et al. (2011), which demonstrates that the con-
tent of scientific publications fails to meet the demands voiced by
2. Objective manufacturing plants.

The objective of this study was to propose a method for deter-
mining direct energy consumption and energy efficiency of a con-
fectionery plant manufacturing tablet candy, soft milk candy and
caramel fudge candy, and to compare the plant’s technical and
operating parameters with literature data. The paper provides
source materials for modeling confectionery plants as energy
consumers and for analyzing the correlations between production
volume and energy consumption in evaluations of energy effi-
ciency in industrial plants. The results of this study can be used
to create databases of energy efficiency in the confectionery sector,
an issue which remains insufficiently explored in the literature.
3. Materials
The investigated confectionery plant is situated in the Region of
Mazowsze, Poland. In the analyzed period, monthly production (Z)
ranged from 88.07 to 216.87 Mg. According to the data presented
in Table 1, the average monthly output of toffees, caramels, similar
sweets and eastern sugar confectioneries in the Polish confection-
ery industry is estimated at 4575 Mg. The above items make up the
production profile of the analyzed plant. The plant’s employment
structure and production profile in two annual periods are pre-
sented in Table 3.
186 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Table 4
Maximum hourly energy demand of equipment in production lines.

No. Device No. of devices Installed capacity P Steam consumption D Demand for Steam energy Qst Total energy consumption
[unit] (kW) (kg/h) electricity, A = P (W) Ath (MJ)
s
(kW h) (MJ)
Caramels
1 Syrup tank 1 16 600 16 57.6 446.6 1665.36
2 APV (I) evaporation 1 22 600 22 79.2 446.6 1686.96
system (I)
3 APV (II) evaporation 1 30 800 30 108 595.47 2251.68
system
4 Wrist wrapper 2 4 – 8 28.8 – 28.80
5 Ishida weighing scale 1 1.5 – 1.5 5.4 – 5.40
6 Radpak packaging line 1 3 – 3 10.8 – 10.80
Total 7 76.5 2000 80.5 289.8 1488.67 5649.00

Tablet candy
1 Sugar mill 1 20 – 20 72 – 72.00
2 Batch confectioner 2 2.2 – 4.4 15.84 – 15.84
3 Wet granulator 2 1.5 3 10.8 – 10.80
4 Dryer 3 7.5 300 22.5 81 669.9 2492.64
5 Dry granulator 2 1.5 – 3 10.8 – 10.80
6 MANESTRY tableting 10 3 – 30 108 – 108.00
press
7 TR-5 tableting press 3 4 – 12 43.2 – 43.20
8 Packaging unit 1 7 – 7 25.2 – 25.20
9 Lozenge hemmer 2 3 – 6 21.6 – 21.60
10 Dedusting system 1 30 – 30 108 – 108.00
11 Dragées 1 7 – 7 25.2 – 25.20
Total 28 86.7 300 144.9 521.64 669.9 2933.28

Soft milk candy

1 Evaporator 2 10 300 20 72 446.6 1679.76
2 DUO evaporator 5 4.5 150 22.5 81 558.25 2090.70
3 Cooling system 1 14 – 14 – – 50.4
4 NAGEMA system 5 7.5 – 37.5 – – 135
5 Pull broach 2 3 – 6 – – 21.6
6 Air-conditioning 1 30 – 30 – – 108
Total 16 69 450 130 153 1004.85 4085.46

The plant comprises three main production departments. The
energy requirements of the equipment operated in the discussed
production lines (Fig. 1, items 14–17) and the theoretical maxi-
mum hourly demand for energy (Ath) are presented in Table 4.
The plant’s total energy consumption was determined based on
the numeric value of enthalpy of the steam equivalent (i).
The above departments receive support from auxiliary depart-
ments (Fig. 1, items 9–12) where energy conversion takes place.
The indicator of specific energy consumption in the production
process (WP) is calculated for auxiliary departments, their
equipment (Fig. 1, item 17) and production lines (Fig. 1, items
14–16).
The plant’s main equipment (energy receivers) and estimated
maximum hourly demand for energy are presented in Table 5.
The total installed capacity of all electrical devices in the plant’s
production departments (P) was determined at 411.4 kW (Table 5).
The installed capacity of electrical devices in the office building
was not taken into account.
The indicator of specific energy consumption in the plant (WZ)
was calculated for equipment (Fig. 1, items 5–7), warehouses and
the office building (Fig. 1, item 8). Waste and wastewater (Fig. 1,
item 18–20) are evacuated outside plant premises.
4. Methods
A new diagram of a confectionery plant as an energy con-
sumer (Fig. 1) and indicators of specific energy consumption in
production processes and in the plant (WP and WZ) (Wojdalski
_ z,
and Drózd _ 2006, 2012) were used in this study. In this study,

Table 5
Process equipment operated by the plant’s production departments.

No. Department Installed capacity of electrical Consumption of the steam Share of total installed Share of steam
devices (kW) equivalent ( kg/h) capacity (%) consumption (%)
1 Soft milk candy department 130 1500 31.60 27.78
2 Tablet candy department 144.9 900 35.22 16.67
3 Caramel fudge candy department 80.5 2000 19.57 37.04
4 Boiler house for central heating/hot 20 1000 4.86 18.51
water supply
5 Compressed air station 21 0 5.10 0
6 Water treatment station 15 0 3.65 0
Total 411.4 5400 100 100
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 187

the above indicators were applied on the example of a confec-
tionery plant. The indicators cover all electrical devices responsi-
ble for the conversion and utilization of energy in the entire
plant.
Indicators WA and WT (Fig. 1) are less specific indicators of
energy efficiency in the evaluated plant, and their determination
was not the objective of this study. They are mentioned in litera-
ture and listed in Table 2, which is why they have been included
in Fig. 1. The sites where energy consumption was measured are
indicated in Fig. 1, where: 1 – measurements of water consump-
tion (Aw), 2 – measurements of natural gas (gas fuel) consumption
(Brz), 3 – measurements of heating oil (back-up energy source
which was not used in the analyzed period) consumption, 4 – mea-
surements of total electricity consumption (Ae). Separate measure-
ments were conducted for the municipal water supply network
which can be used for emergency purposes. The calculations were
performed based on the values of monthly consumption of
electricity, GZ-50 gas fuel and water covering a period of
24 months and the volume of different product groups manufac-
tured in that period. Water is an energy carrier, and the demand
for water is determined by the operating time of well pumps and
the energy consumption of water pumping and treatment stations
(Fig. 1, item 5).
The energy efficiency of the analyzed plant was investigated
with the use of the indicator method, which supports an evaluation
of the plant’s current operations. The plant’s energy efficiency was
determined based on the indicators shown in Table 6, including WP
and WZ over the range of values given in Fig. 1. The indicators given
in items 1–3 apply to the confectionery plant analyzed in this
study. The remaining indicators in items 4–17 provide detailed
information about energy consumption for production processes.
Indicators 4–7 apply to electricity, fuel gas and heat consumption.
Indicator Wep (item 4) is used to calculate the electrical efficiency
of the plant’s production departments EEep. Indicators 8–9 refer
to the plant’s total energy consumption per product unit. The envi-
ronmental aspects the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions are illus-
trated by indicators 18 and 19. Those indicators have been used
by Maxime et al. (2006) to determine the eco-efficiency of food
processing plants in Canada. The applied method could be modi-
fied to support evaluations of combined heat and power generation
(CHP) or analyses of energy conversion efficiency (Bhatt 2000;
_ z,
Wojdalski and Drózd _ 2012).
4.1. General characteristics of technological processes in the analyzed
plant
The analyzed plant manufactures three types of products: soft
milk candy, caramel fudge candy and tablet candy. Schematic
diagrams of process lines applied in each department are shown
in Figs. 2–4. Production lines and devices are listed in items
14–17 in Fig. 1, and their general parameters are given in Table 4.
It has been assumed that monthly production volume (Z) influ-
ences the demand for energy in the analyzed confectionery plant.
Previous research into the food processing industry demon-
strated that monthly production volume is also the most useful
indicator that supports assessments of industrial plants’ environ-
mental impact and the determination of the best available produc-
tion techniques (Wojdalski and Drózd _ z,
_ 2012). The effect of
production volume (Z) on actual production volume (Y) observed
in practice was determined with the use of the below formula:
Y ¼ b þ aZ
where Y is the energy consumption (dependent variables, e.g. Aep,
WTE, Wg, Ww); Z the production volume of the confectionery plant
(independent variable), on the assumption that the following condi-
tions are met and aZ P b and Z > 0.
The resulting regression equations with coefficients of correla-
tion (r) and determination (R2) partially explained the discussed
problem in the analyzed confectionery plant. The range of variation
of independent variables Y is presented in Table 8. The results were
processed to produce linear regression equations demonstrating
the variations in energy consumption (Table 9). Calculations were
performed in the Statistica v. 10 application. Regression equations
have also been used to determine the energy efficiency of food pro-
cessing plants in various seasons of the year by Neryng et al.
(1990). The methods for determining the energy efficiency of pro-
duction plants proposed by Kannan and Boie (2003), Markis and
Paravantis (2007), Muller et al. (2007) and Simona et al. (2012)
can also be applied in the confectionery industry.

Table 6
Performance indicators of the analyzed confectionery plant.

No. Physical meaning/significance (range) Formula Unit

1 Monthly production per employee K ¼ nZ1 Mg/person
2 Installed capacity of electrical devices in production departments per 1 Mg of products per month K m ¼ PZ kW/Mg
3 Installed capacity of electrical devices per employee in production departments U en ¼ nP2 kW/person
4 Electricity consumption in production departments per 1 Mg of products (WP) W ep ¼
Aep kW h/Mg of product
Z
5 Total electricity consumption in the plant (production plants and office building) per 1 Mg of products (WZ) We ¼ ZAe kW h/Mg of product
6 Gas fuel consumption per 1 Mg of products (WZ) W g ¼ BZrz m3 of gas fuel/Mg of product
7 Specific consumption of thermal energy (WZ) W TE ¼ AZTE MJ/Mg of product
8 Overall specific energy consumption, converted at 1 kW h = 3.6 MJ (WZ) 3:6Ae þBrz Q rw MJ/Mg of product
W t ¼ AZt ¼ Z
9 Specific consumption of the coal equivalent, converted at 1 kW h = 3.6 MJ (WZ) W ce ¼ QWcet kg c.e./Mg of product
10 Specific water consumption in the plant (WZ) W W ¼ AZw m3/Mg of product
11 Energy efficiency in production departments EEep ¼ AZep Mg of product/kW h
12 Energy efficiency in the plant EEe ¼ AZe Mg of product/kW h
13 Energy efficiency of gas fuel in the plant EEg ¼ BZrz Mg of product/m3 of gas fuel
14 Thermal energy efficiency in the plant Z kg of product/MJ
EETE ¼ ATE
15 Total energy efficiency in the plant Z kg of product/MJ
EEt ¼ 3:6A r
e þBrz Q w

16 Energy efficiency of the coal equivalent in the plant EEce ¼ BZce kg of product/kg c.e.
17 Water consumption efficiency in the plant EW ¼ AZw kg of product/m3
18 Specific CO2 emission associated with electricity generation in the plant Ee CO2 = We  ee CO2 kg CO2/Mg of product
19 Specific CO2 emission associated with gas fuel combustion in the plant ETE CO2 = WTE  eTE CO2 kg CO2/Mg of product
188 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

PREPARING THE INGREDIENTS

WEIGHING THE INGREDIENTS

PREPARING THE SUGAR SYRUP

BOILING THE CARAMEL MASS

PREPARING FLAVORINGS AND DYES

BOILING THE CARAMEL MASS

COOLING AND FLAVORING THE

CARAMEL MASS

KNEADING THE CARAMEL MASS PULLING THE CARAMEL MASS

HEATING THE CARAMEL MASS

PREPARING THE FILLINGS

ROLLING THE CARAMEL MASS

INSERTING THE FILLINGS

PULLING AND LEVELLING THE

CARAMEL BAR

FORMING CARAMELS

CRYSTALLIZING
OR SPRINKLING ROLLING
CARAMELS CARAMELS

WRAPPING

TRANSPORT TO WAREHOUSE

Fig. 2. Caramel production process.

5. Results and discussion energy consumption (Wt), amounting to 2.456–8.575 GJ/Mg of

The range of technical and organizational indicators describing
the analyzed plant is presented in Table 7. Indicators Km and Uen
illustrate the correlations between technical equipment,
production volume and employment in the plant’s production
departments. The value of Km which expresses the degree of
production automation on a monthly basis ranged from 1.89 to
4.67 kW/Mg of final production. Indicator K can also be partially
used to evaluate the efficiency of the entire plant. The indicators
listed in Table 7 can also be calculated in view of the plant’s
total installed capacity and total employment in production
departments.
The range of variation in monthly energy consumption, includ-
ing the median and the 90th percentile, is presented in Table 8.
An indicator of the plant’s total energy consumption (Wt –
Table 8) is a highly useful metric for the assessment of costs and
the applied technology, including in Life Cycle Assessments (LCA)
(Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003). The indicator of overall specific
product, can also be converted to energy that can be obtained from
alternative sources, such as biomass combustion. The results have
a largely theoretical significance because the substitution of an
energy carrier requires the modification of the energy conversion
system in the boiler house. This issue has been discussed at length
by Thompson (2006). The indicator of water consumption effi-
ciency (EW), correlated with the demand for cooling energy and
total energy consumption, is a supplementary metric. The indicator
of specific water consumption (Ww) has been used by Orhon et al.
(1995). The numeric value of indicator BOD5 (Five-Day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand) can be applied to estimate pollutant loads in
evacuated wastewater. Wastewater can be used in biogas produc-
tion to improve the plant’s energy balance and support the intro-
duction of cleaner production methods.
The median of indicators We and WTE in Table 8 (calculated
based on formulas 18 and 19 from Table 8) and IPCC data
(2006b) were used to determine the plant’s carbon dioxide emis-
sions at 261.73 and 156.02 kg CO2/Mg of the product, respectively,
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 189

Table 7
Technical and organizational indicators of the analyzed plant calculated on a monthly
PREPARING THE INGREDIENTS basis.

No. Indicator Unit Range

PREPARING THE TABLET MASS Minimum Maximum

1 Km kW/Mg of product 1.89 4.67
2 Uen kW/person 3.16 3.42
FIRST GRANULATION 3 K Mg of product/person 0.449 1.185

DRYING
emissions per product unit. The equations where the correlation
SECOND GRANULATION coefficient (r) reached the highest value, i.e. the equations which
are useful for industrial practice, are presented in Table 9. It should
also be noted that the evaluated plant’s capacity was not fully uti-
FLAVORING lized, as indicated by lower values of correlation coefficients (r)
and coefficients of determination (R2) for other variables Y not
included in Table 9. The above observations suggest that thermal
TABLET FORMING processing parameters should be controlled. The number of peri-
odically operating machines should be reduced and production
areas characterized by different temperature should be separated
PACKAGING (by insulating hot water storage tanks, separating steam, hot water
and product tanks from cooling lines).
Fig. 3. Tablet candy production process.
The results presented in Table 9 can also be used to improve
energy management by determining the production volume at
which variables Aep and WTE have the lowest value. They can also
be used to compare the analyzed plant with other confectionery
PREPARING THE INGREDIENTS plants in view of the applied production technology, research
methods and technical solutions. In a study by Kliopova and
WEIGHING THE INGREDIENTS Lieščinskienė (2011), the introduction of cleaner production initia-
tives decreased specific natural gas consumption by approxi-
mately 15.7%. The above authors proposed an algorithm for a
feasibility analysis to assess the possibility of increasing heat
BOILING THE CANDY BOILING THE CANDY
MASS MASS energy efficiency in industrial plants on the example of a confec-
tionary plant. The algorithm includes a method for modeling
materials and energy balances, feasibility analysis of CP, imple-
COOLING AND COOLING mentation of CP initiatives through process control, assessment
FLAVORING of environmental costs and methods supporting environmental
impact assessment. The cited authors also presented a diagram
of a control system for monitoring significant environmental
PULLING THE CANDY impacts of the analyzed pilot confectionary plant. Various
MASS scenarios for lowering the energy consumption of a confectionary
plant with production volume of 1600 Mg/year were analyzed:
electric energy consumption in a boiler house (and compressor)
– by 0.01 MW h/Mg of product, water consumption in a boiler
MIXING CANDY MASSES house – by 1.1 m3/Mg of product, and emissions from heat pro-
(OPTIONAL) duction – by 0.1 Mg/Mg of product. According to Kliopova and
Lieščinskienė (2011), the introduction of cleaner production initia-
tives in a confectionary plant would deliver the following
benefits:
FORMING
– the efficiency of heat production would increase by 14.4%,
ROLLING – general energy consumption in the analyzed plant would
decrease by 17.6%,
– the pay-back period on CP investments worth EUR 210,900 was
PACKAGING estimated at 1.63 years.

The characteristic features of confectionery plants and selected

TRANSPORT TO
WAREHOUSE
Fig. 4. Soft milk candy production process.
with total emissions of 417.75 CO2/Mg. According to Nieburg
(2012), large confectionery plants monitor their greenhouse gas
aspects of post-production waste management have been dis-
cussed by Abou-Elela et al. (2008), Fernández et al. (2012), Hall
and Howe (2012) and Kothari et al. (2010).
The results of this study (in particular indicator Wt) facilitate a
comprehensive analysis of a plant’s operations as part of the LCA
approach, and they complement the findings of Carlsson-
Kanyama et al. (2003).
190 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Table 8
Energy and water consumption in the analyzed confectionery plant.

Dependent variable, consumption indicators Symbols and units Range Median 90th Percentile
Electrical energy Aep (kW h/month) 27886.8–58498.6 39061.1 49863.5
Ae (kW h/month) 29914.8–60981.6 41406.6 52347.7
Wep (kW h/Mg of product) 184.1–335.8 241.9 309.3
We (kW h/Mg of product) 195.2–353.5 256.6 329.2
EEep (kg of product/kW h) 2.978–5.433 4.135 5.340
EEe (kg of product/kW h) 2.829–5.123 3.898 4.976
Gas fuel Brz (m3/month) 6583.0–26206.0 14202.5 23155.7
Wg (m3/Mg of product) 44.6–222.2 82.2 186.7
EEg (kg prod./m3 of gas) 4.500–22.421 12.169 20.136
Thermal energy ATE (GJ/month) 223.8–891.0 482.9 787.3
WTE (GJ/Mg of product) 1.517–7.553 2.795 6.347
EETE (kg of product/MJ) 132.40–659.20 357.78 157.55
Total energy At (GJ/month) 356.4–1014.8 645.3 952.1
Wt (GJ/Mg of product) 2.456–8.575 3.885 7.462
EEt (kg of product/MJ) 116.6–407.2 257.4 134.0
Coal equivalent Bce (Mg. c.e./month) 12.16–34.62 22.02 32.49
Wce (kg c.e./Mg of product) 83.80–292.58 132.56 254.61
EEce (kg of product /kg c.e.) 3.42–11.93 7.54 3.93
Water Aw (m3 water/month) 509.0–1272.0 909.0 1206.3
Ww (m3 water/Mg of product) 3.2–8.1 5.4 7.5
EW (kg of product/m3 water) 123.4–312.5 185.2 133.3

Table 9
The effect of monthly production volume Z (Mg/month) on the consumption of selected energy carriers.

No. Dependent variable Average value of dependent variable Regression equation Standard error of estimate r
1 Aep (kW h) 40187.50 Aep = 155.29Z + 14484 6417.3
3 Wg (m3/Mg) 98.70 Wg = 1.0922Z + 279.48 40.7
4 WTE (MJ/Mg of product) 3355.70 Wc = 37.134Z + 9502.1 1383.5
5 Ww (m3/Mg) 5.71 Ww = 0.0191Z + 8.8713 1.15

7. Conclusions Further work is needed to determine the optimal use of energy

The analyzed confectionery plant was characterized by lower
specific energy consumption in comparison with reference plants
in the cited literature. In this study, measurements were conducted
over a period of 24 months, therefore, they are a source of reliable
data for industrial practice. The median and the 90th percentile
were used to describe energy consumption trends, and they supply
information about the actual distribution of energy efficiency indi-
cators. The analyzed facility can serve as a model example for con-
fectionery plants with a similar production profile (caramels, soft
milk candy, tablet candy) and estimated monthly output of
200 Mg. The energy consumption of the plants indicated in Table 2
is approximately 40% higher than in the analyzed facility.
Our findings demonstrate that production volume significantly
determines a plant’s energy efficiency. The consumption of various
energy carriers should be regularly monitored to improve the
effectiveness of energy management solutions. Regression equa-
tions support the determination of monthly production volume
at which the indicators of specific energy consumption take on
the smallest values and the plant achieves the highest level of
energy efficiency. The results of this study can be used to establish
environmental standards. Our findings relate to specific production
conditions and specific utilization of installed capacity of electrical
devices, and they can be useful in the process of estimating pro-
duction costs and pollutant emissions in production plants with
similar performance parameters. The presented results expand
our knowledge of factors that influence the energy efficiency of a
confectionary plant. The applied methods supported the achieve-
ment of the research objective.
The presented detailed methods can be used in detailed com-
parisons of confectionery plants as large industrial consumers of
energy and technology.
in a confectionery plant in view of its installed capacity, area and
cubic capacity of production departments and employment. Future
research could also determine the energy conversion efficiency and
energy consumption of the largest consumers of heat and electric-
ity (evaluated with the use of indicators WA, WT and WP) defined in
this study. The significance of water as a carrier of energy for steam
boilers and cooling systems could also be analyzed.
The results of this study and the findings of Swords et al. (2008)
have significant implications for energy management in industrial
practice. The plant’s performance can be compared with the results
reported in other industrial sites to suggest measures for improv-
ing the plant’s energy efficiency. Follow-up research could involve
an assessment of the environmental impact of confectionery plants
which produce biogas for auxiliary or external purposes. Attempts
should also be made to determine the water and carbon footprint
of confectionery plants.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Reviewers for their valuable inputs,
which helped us improve this paper and provided us with useful
guidelines for future publications.
The authors would also like to thank Aleksandra Poprawska, MA
for editing and proofreading this manuscript.
References
AB Energy for Ferrero, 2012. Cogeneration for the Energy Efficiency and Social
Responsibility of Leading Company in the Confectionery Industry. <http://
epsenergy.ca/doc/Case-History-FERRERO-Food-CHP.pdf> (08.07.14).
Abou-Elela, S.I., Nasr Fayza, A., El-Shafai, S.A., 2008. Wastewater management in
small- and medium-size enterprises: case studies. Environmentalist 3 (28),
289–296.
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191
Afoakwa, E.O., Paterson, A., Fowler, M., 2007. Factors influencing rheological and
textural qualities in chocolate – a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 6 (18), 290–
298.
Balasubramanyan, L., Mohan, R., 2010. How well is productivity being priced? J.
Econ. Finance 4 (34), 415–429.
Beckett, S.T., 2009. Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use. Wiley-Blackwell,
ISBN: 1405139498.
Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating
energy efficiency performance in production management – gap analysis
between industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Cleaner Prod. 19, 667–679.
Bhatt, M.S., 2000. Energy audit case studies I – steam systems. Appl. Therm. Eng. 20,
285–296.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekström, M.P., Shanahan, H., 2003. Food and life cycle energy
inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2–3
(44), 293–307.
Confectionary Industry Self-Monitoring Manual, 2002. A general inspection
manual; Egyptian pollution abatement project, http://industry.eeaa.gov.eg/
publications/Confectionary.pdf (08.07.14).
Confectionery Companies Traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, 2011. Cukiernicy
na GPW (in Polish). Published on 3 May, 2011. <http://www.stockwatch.pl/
forum/wpisy-2589_Cukiernicy-na-GPW.aspx> (08.07.14).
Elkin, D., Stevens, Ch., 2008. Environmental and consumer issues regarding water
and energy management in food processing. In: Klemeš, J., Smith, R., Kim, J.-K.
(Eds.), Handbook of Water and Energy Management in Food Processing, vol. 33.
CRC Press – Cambridge Woodhead Publishing LTD, ISBN: 9781420077957.
Working Group ‘‘Machines and Equipment in the Confectionery industry’’, 2009.
Guideline: Energy Efficiency in Confectionery Industry. Stand 2. <https://
nuv.vdma.org/documents/256988/1137998/
3_Guideline+Energy+Efficiency+in+the+Confectionery+Industry.pdf/bfc0ac7e-
0569-4d59-803a-af26c9aec471> (08.07.14).
Energy Solutions Center (ESC), 2005. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company: Chocolate
Manufacturer Gets Free Cooling Through Waste Heat Recovery. Washington,
D.C., March.
Eriksson, P., Fowler, C., Whipp, R., Räsänen, K., 1996. Business communities in the
European confectionery sector: a U.K. – Finland comparison. Scand. J. Manage. 4
(12), 359–387.
Fernández, I., Renedo, C.J., Pérez, S.F., Ortiz, A., Mañana, M., 2012. A review: energy
recovery in batch processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 4 (16), 2260–2277.
Central Statistical Office, 2013. Official website. Industrial Production in 2012.
Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny 2013. Portal informacyjny, Produkcja wyrobów
przemysłowych w 2012 r (in Polish). Published on 2013-07-30.
Grimaldi, C.N., Lunghi, P., Mariani, F., 2000. Energy saving strategies in an actual
confectionery plant. Int. J. Energy Res. 24 (9), 769–777.
Hall, G.M., Howe, J., 2012. Energy from waste and the food processing industry.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 3 (90), 203–212.
Hosokawa, 2012. Caramel Processing Equipment. Hosokawa Confectionery and
Bakery Technology and Systems. <www.greatkhan.com> (08.07.14).
Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator, 2010. Guide to the Confectionery Stoving
Sector. Carbon Trust (CTG035). <https://www.carbontrust.com/media/206480/
ctg035-confectionery-stoving-industrial-energy-efficiency.pdf> (08.07.14).
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 2006a. Reference Document on
Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. Brussels,
European Commission, 99-101. <http://www.ineris.fr/ippc/sites/default/files/
files/fdm_bref_0806.pdf> (08.07.14).
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 2006b. Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl>
(08.07.14).
Kannan, R., Boie, W., 2003. Energy management practices in SME – case study of a
bakery in Germany. Energy Convers. Manage. 44, 945–959.
Keijbets, E.L., Chen, J., Vieira, J., 2010. Chocolate demoulding and effects of
processing conditions. J. Food Eng. 1 (98), 133–140.
Kliopova, I., Lieščinskienė, R., 2011. Minimization of heat energy intensity in food
production companies applying sustainable industrial development methods
environmental research. Eng. Manage. 3 (57), 46–56, ISSN: 2029-2139. <http://
erem.ktu.lt>.
Kothari, R., Tyagi, V.V., Pathak, A., 2010. Waste-to-energy: a way from renewable
energy sources to sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 9 (14),
3164–3170.
Kowalczyk, R., Netter, J., 2008. A new look at the energetic factors consumption in
food industry (in Polish: Nowe spojrzenie na zuzycie _ czynników
energetycznych w zakładzie przemysłu spozywczego). _ Poste˛py Techniki
_
Przetwórstwa Spozywczego 1, 45–47.
Lunghi, P., Mariani, F., 2003. Developing a new cost-efficient control strategy for an
actual confectionery plant through the combined exploitation of experimental
and numerical analysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 27, 575–588. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/er.896.
Lunghi, P., Burzacca, R., 2004. Energy recovery from industrial waste of a
confectionery plant by means of BIGFC plant. Energy 12–15 (29), 2601–2617.
View publication stats
191
Meyer, J.K., Kuhn, M., Sieberger, G., Bonczek, P., 2000. Rationelle Energienutzung in
der Ernahrungsindustrie. Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, Vieweg.
Markis, T., Paravantis, J.A., 2007. Energy conservation in small enterprises. Energy
Build. 39, 404–415.
Maxime, D., Marcotte, M., Arcand, Y., 2006. Development of eco-efficiency
indicators for the Canadian food and beverage industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 14,
636–648.
Muller, D.C.A., Marechal, F.M.A., Wolewinski, T., Roux, P.J., 2007. An energy
management method for the food industry. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 2677–2686.
Neryng, A., Wojdalski, J., Budny, J., Krasowski, E., 1990. Energy and Water in Agro-
Food Industry (in Polish: Energia i woda w przemyśle rolno-spozywczym). _
WNT, Warszawa, 99-103, 184-189; ISBN: 83-204-1075-4.
Nieburg, O., 2012. Big Confectioners and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. <http://
www.confectionerynews.com/Processing-Packaging/Big-confectioners-and-
greenhouse-gas-emissions> (08.07.14).
OnTime Analyzes, 2012. Financial results for 2011 of confectionery companies
listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Słodkie wyniki Spółek cukierniczych z
GPW za 2011 rok (in Polish). Published on 22 March 2012. <http://
www.analizyontime.pl/pdf/22.03.2012slodycze_gpw.pdf> (08.07.14).
Orhon, D., Yildiz, G., Çokgör, E.U., Sözen, S., 1995. Respirometric evaluation of the
biodegradability of confectionery wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 12 (32), 11–
19.
Pellegrino, J.L., Margolis, N., Justiniano, M., Miller, M., 2004. Energy Use, Loss and
Opportunities Analysis. U.S. Manufacturing and Mining. Prepared by Energetics,
Incorporated and E3M, Incorporated. For the U.S. Department of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Industrial Technologies Program. <http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/intensiveprocesses/pdfs/
energy_use_loss_opportunities_analysis.pdf> (08.07.14).
Pimentel, D., Williamson, S., Alexander, C.E., Gonzalez-Pagan, O., Kontak, C., Mulkey,
S.E., 2008. Reducing energy inputs in the US food system. Human Ecol. 36, 459–
471.
Reinheimer, M.A., Mussati, S.F., Scenna, N.J., 2012. Optimization of operating
conditions of a cooling tunnel for production of hard candies. J. Food Eng. 109
(1), 22–31.
Reinheimer, M.A., Mussati, S., Scenna, J., 2010. Influence of product composition and
operating conditions on the unsteady behavior of hard candy cooling process. J.
Food Eng. 101 (4), 409–416.
Sieghart, P., 2012. Method and Device for Energy-efficient Production of
Confectionary Masses. EP2428121(A1): 2012-03-14. <http://
worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/
biblio?CC=EP&NR=2428121&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP> (08.07.14).
Simona, C., Andreassi, L.A., Vito, I., Fabrizio, M., Stefano, U., 2012. Energy
Management Systems. Methodology Development for a Comprehensive and
Cost-Effective Energy Management in Industrial Plants.
<www.intechopen.com>.
Singh, R.P., 1986. Energy accounting of food processing operations. In: Energy in
Food Processing. Elsevier, Amsterdam – Oxford – New York – Tokyo, pp. 49–51.
Swords, B., Coyle, E., Norton, B., 2008. An enterprise energy-information system.
Appl. Energy 85, 61–69.
Therkelsen, P., Masanet, E., Worrel, E., 2014. Energy efficiency opportunities in the
U.S. commercial baking industry. J. Food Eng. 130, 14–22.
Thompson, H., 2006. The applied theory of energy substitution in production.
Energy Econ. 28, 410–425.
United States Department of Energy (US DOE), 2002. Compressed Air System Project
Improves Production at Candy-Making Facility. Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Industrial Technologies Program, Washington, D.C. Report
DOE/GO-102001-1482.
Wang, L.J. (Ed.), 2008. Energy Efficiency and Management in Food Processing
Facilities. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group LLC., Boca Raton, FL, USA, ISBN:
1420063383. <http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/sciruslink?src=webandurl=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crcpress.com%2Fproduct%2Fisbn%2F9781420063387>.
Wilhite, H., 2008. New thinking on the agentive relationship between end-use
technologies and energy-using practices. Energ. Effi. 2 (1), 121–130.
Wojdalski, J., Domagała, A., Kaleta, A., Janus, P., 1998. Energy and Energy
Consumption in the Food Processing Industry (in Polish: Energia i jej
_
uzytkowanie _
w przemyśle rolno-spozywczym). SGGW, Warsaw, pp. 184–186.
_ z,
Wojdalski, J., Drózd _ B., 2006. A rudimental analysis of energy consumption during
production at agri-food industry work. Podstawy analizy energochłonności
produkcji zakładów przemysłu rolno-spozywczego _ (in Polish). MOTROL,
Motoryzacja i Energetyka Rolnictwa. Tom 8A, 294-304. <http://www.pan-
ol.lublin.pl/wydawnictwa/Motrol8a/Wojdalski2.pdf>.
Wojdalski, J., Drózd_ z,
_ B., 2012. Energy efficiency of food processing plants. Key
issues and definitions (in Polish: Efektywność energetyczna zakładów
_
przemysłu spozywczego Zarys problematyki i podstawowe definicje). Pol. J.
Food Eng. 3/3, 37–49, ISSN 2084-9494. <http://www.ips.wm.tu.koszalin.pl/doc/
3.2012/IPS_3_2012_WOJADALSKI.pdf>.