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

net/publication/326375421

Development, Testing and Optimization of a Screw Press Oil Expeller for

Moringa (Moringa oleifera) Seeds

Article  in  Agricultural Research · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s40003-018-0342-6

CITATIONS READS

6 426

2 authors:

Olugbenga Abiola Fakayode Ajav Emmanuel Atoo

University of Uyo University of Ibadan
35 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   729 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Enhancing the quality of cherry tomato by non-thermal treatments View project

Design and construction of a Jatropha oil extractor. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olugbenga Abiola Fakayode on 05 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agric Res
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-018-0342-6

FULL-LENGTH RESEARCH ARTICLE

Development, Testing and Optimization of a Screw Press Oil

Expeller for Moringa (Moringa oleifera) Seeds
Olugbenga Abiola Fakayode1 • Emmanuel Atoo Ajav2

Received: 20 July 2017 / Accepted: 18 June 2018

Ó NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences) 2018

Abstract A screw press moringa oil expeller was developed and evaluated in terms of oil expression efficiency (OEE),
material balance efficiency (MBE) and expression loss (EL). Four different models were fitted to the output variables.
Maximum OEE of 81.66% was obtained at moisture content of 11% wet basis, heating temperature of 80 °C, heating time
of 30 min and applied pressure of 20 MPa. The coefficient of determination (R2) for the OEE was 0.77. Predicted optimum
OEE of 80.62% at moisture content of 11.30% wet basis, temperature of 85.55 °C, time of 27.17 min and pressure of
19.64 MPa was obtained with a desirability of 0.867. Under these optimal conditions, the experimental value was 80.74%.
Deviations between experimental and predicted values were low and statistically insignificant which implies the model
chosen can effectively predict the OEE. Maximum MBE and EL were 95.47 and 4.53%, respectively, which shows a better
conversion of input (seeds) to output (oil and cake) materials with minimal losses along the production line. However, it
was observed that the mean is a better predictor for the MBE and EL than any of the models considered as the experimental
values obtained were very close and statistically insignificant.

Keywords Oil expeller  Moringa seeds  Oil expression efficiency  Material balance efficiency  Expression loss 
Oil and cake outputs  Screw press

Introduction
Oil extraction is defined as the process of recovering oil
from oil-bearing agricultural materials using manual,
mechanical or chemical extraction methods [19]. The high
oil content of moringa which is between 30 and 40%
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-018-0342-6) contains supple-
mentary material, which is available to authorized users.
& Olugbenga Abiola Fakayode
gbengafakayode@uniuyo.edu.ng
Emmanuel Atoo Ajav
ea.ajav@mail.ui.edu.ng
1
Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, University
of Uyo, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
2
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
[1, 7, 8, 17, 23, 25, 27, 36, 41] justifies interests in the oil.
Moringa seed oil contains approximately 13 and 82% sat-
urated and unsaturated fatty acids, respectively. It contains
high proportion of oleic acid (70%) as compared to other
vegetable oils [15]. The various uses include cooking,
cosmetics, fuel and lubrications amongst others. Oil
extraction in most developing nations is usually manually
done with hand, which makes it unhygienic, laborious,
time-consuming and with low extraction efficiency. The
potential of moringa in producing oil and fat is far from
being fully exploited, especially in developing countries,
due to lack of processing equipment. Some of the
requirements prompting technology innovation in the oil
extraction sector which includes cost savings, environ-
mental and safety considerations are easily achievable by
successful development of oil expeller. Expellers represent
one of the best choices for the extraction of oil from oil-
seeds. To design an efficient equipment for the expression
of oil from moringa, the engineering properties of moringa

123
 Agric Res

seeds have been determined and reported by several
researchers [3, 4, 6, 9, 16, 26]. These results serve as useful
data in the development of a moringa oil expeller. Several
researchers have developed different oil expellers for dif-
ferent crops, but none has been reported for moringa seeds.
Although the use of other oil expellers for moringa may
mislead oil processors, an engineering approach of
streamlining the design of moringa seed oil expeller based
on its unique engineering properties will sure provide a
more effective and an efficient expeller for moringa seeds,
while the optimization of the expeller at various processing
combinations will provide true optimal conditions for the
expression process.
r = radius of roasting cylinder, m; h = height of roasting
cylinder, m
Assuming a height of 0.5 m, the radius of the roasting
cylinder is r = 0.08 m and the diameter is 0.16 m.
Stirring Clearance
To allow for easy stirring of products within the roasting
chamber, the roaster volume is designed to be 1.5 times
greater than the calculated volume VR as adopted by Okoh
[29]. Hence, the total volume of the roasting chamber is
0.0137 m3.
Determination of Heater Capacity

Materials and Methods The initial moisture content of the moringa seeds was
7.31% wet basis (Supplementary Table 1).
Design Considerations for the Moringa Oil Expeller
Mass of moringa ¼ 6 kg
The design was based on simple engineering principles and The amount of initial water content at 7:31% moisture content
the machine was conceived as a simple equipment which is ¼ 0:0731  6 kg ¼ 0:439 kg
easy to operate and maintain.
Amount of dry matter and oil ¼ 6  0:439 ¼ 5:56 kg
Design Calculations
0:0731
Initial moisture content ðdbÞ ¼  100
1  0:0731
Several calculations were made based on measured phys- ¼ 7:89%
ical and mechanical properties of moringa seeds as given
by Ajav and Fakayode [3, 4]. Some design steps used in the 0:02
Final moisture content ðdbÞ ¼  100 ¼ 2:04%
fabrication of a beniseed expeller [34] were also adopted. 1  0:02
7:892:04
The amount of water removed ¼ 5:56 
Determination of the Mass of Oil extracted 100
per Batch ¼ 0:325 kg
The quantity of heat required; Q
If 2 kg of oil is extracted per batch (small-scale process- Amount of water  specific heat of air
ing), assuming oil content of 35% since the oil content of ¼ ð4Þ
Roaster efficiency
moringa seed is between 30 and 40%
[1, 7, 8, 17, 23, 25, 27, 36, 41] Assuming a roaster efficiency of 80%;
Mass of oil Quantity of heat required; Q ¼ 408:28 kcal=h
¼ 0:35 ð1Þ
Mass of moringa ¼ 0:662 kW
Therefore, about 6 kg of moringa seed is required. For adequate supply of heat and to accommodate for heat
losses through convection and radiation, a heating element
Determination of the Roaster Volume of 1.0 kW was chosen.

To estimate the roaster volume, the volume of moringa Roasting Time

(v) with bulk density (q) 662 kg/m3 and mass (m) 6 kg is
calculated as: The time needed for the roasting is computed from New-
m ton’s law as:
volume; v ¼ ¼ 0:0091 m3 ð2Þ
q dx
¼ kar ðT2  T1 Þ ð5Þ
dh
The volume of the cylindrical roaster, VR , is given as:

VR ¼ pr 2 h ð3Þ

123
Agric Res

dw = amount of water removed, kg; dh = time needed for
roasting, min; k = constant = 0.2; ar = area of roaster, m2;
T1 = initial temperature, °C; T2 = final temperature, °C
For a roasting temperature between 60 and 100 °C,
dh ¼ 0:34h  20 min
If a minimum of 50 seeds are crushed at the feed end
portion of the machine at a time, a minimum average force
of 6.87 kN will be required to express the oil.
Torque on Screw Thread

Design Capacity of the Expeller Torque (T) is calculated as given by Hall et al. [18] as:
T ¼ W½rm tanða þ /Þ þ fc rc  ð11Þ
The theoretical capacity of an expeller is calculated as
T = torque on screw thread, Nm, F = axial force required
given by Varma [42]:
to expel oil, N, rm = screw radius, mm; fc = frictional force
Q ¼ pDNHcosaðP cos a  eÞ ð6Þ at the collar, N; rc = collar radius, mm. Using a well
Q = theoretical capacity of the expeller, kg/h; D = mean lubricated bearing, the frictional force at the collar is
diameter of screw, mm; N = speed of rotation, rpm; neglected. Thus, fcrc becomes zero.
H = depth of worm, mm; P = worm pitch, mm; T ¼ Wrm tanða þ /Þ ð12Þ
e = thickness of worm, mm; a = helix angle, given,
From Eq. 10, F = W tan(a ? /). The torque transmitted by
D = 50 mm, N = 45 rpm, H = 6.25 mm, P = 50 mm;
worm action is given by:
e = 6.25 mm; a = 10°
T ¼ Frm ð13Þ
Q ¼ 1:87  106 mm3 =min ¼ 0:1122 mm3 =h
Given the mean diameter of screw Dm = 54 mm
Average bulk density of moringa seeds = 662 kg/m3
(Supplementary Table 1). T ¼ 185:5 Nm
Therefore, Q = 74.30 kg/h Power Requirements
According to Olayanju [34], in a single-pass operation,
74:30 The power drive mechanism uses a reduction gear motor,
Q¼ ¼ 24:76 kg=h  25 kg=h
3 pulley and belts arrangement. The chosen speed for the
expeller Nc is 45 rpm. The angular speed we is given by:
Forces acting on Screw Thread
2pN
we ¼ ð14Þ
The forces acting on the screw thread is shown in Sup- 60
plementary Figure 1. we ¼ 4:71 rad=s
The frictional force required to translate and compress
the moringa seeds is given as: The power input to the expeller is computed from
Pe = Twe = 0.874 kW.
W ¼ K cosða þ /Þ ð7Þ The power of the electric motor to drive the expeller was
W = maximum compressive force at peak of moringa estimated as given by Onwualu et al. [35] as:
seeds = 67 N (Supplementary Table 2); K = force Pe
Pm ¼ ð15Þ
component; / = friction angle = tan-1l; a = Helix angle, g
while the frictional force resulting from the screw’s motion
Pm = power of the electric motor; Pe = power requirement
is given as
of the expeller; g = drive efficiency. Assuming a drive
F ¼ K sinða þ /Þ ð8Þ efficiency of 75% = 0.75
F = axial force required to expel oil, N Pm ¼ 1:165 kW ¼ 1:55 hp
By taking equilibrium of forces,
To give allowance for power used in driving pulleys and
F Ksinða þ /Þ the shaft, a 2.0-hp (1.50 kW) electric reduction gear motor
¼ ¼ tanða þ /Þ ð9Þ
W Kcos(a þ /Þ with a speed of about 180 rpm is chosen.
F ¼ W tanða þ /Þ ð10Þ
-1
Belt Design
/ = tan l; l = coefficient of static friction = 1.376
(Supplementary Table 3); / = tan-1(1.376) = 53.99 * Diameter d = 75 mm is used at the gear motor shaft. The
54°; F = 137.37 N ratio of the pulley for the electric motor to that of the

123
 Agric Res

expellant shaft would be 1:2 [2], and the allowable diam- b = belt width = 17 mm; t = belt thickness = 11 mm;
eter of the pulleys is calculated as given by Olaomi [32]: e = belt density = 970 kg/m3 for leather belt,
N1 D1 ¼ N2 D2 ð16Þ m = 0.18 kg/m l = coefficient of friction between
belt = 0.15 for leather belt on steel, v = belt velocity
N1 = speed of the driving motor, rev/min; N2 = speed of
v ¼ rwe ð24Þ
the expellant shaft, rev/min; D1 = diameter of driving
pulley, m; D2 = diameter of driven pulley, m. The expeller 2pN
we ¼ ð25Þ
pulley’s diameter is calculated as: 60
N1 D1 Therefore, v ¼ rwe ¼ 2prN 60 ¼ 0:71 m=s h = 40° (most
D2 ¼ ð17Þ
N2 common angle of groove) For small pulley,
el1 a1 =sin h =2 ¼ 5:44For big pulley, el2 a2 =sin h =2 ¼ 5:86
D2 ¼ 300 mm
According to Olayanju [34], the pulley with the smaller
The total length of the belt is calculated as given by value governs the design. Therefore,
Khurmi and Gupta [22] as: T1  mv2
2 ¼ 5:44
p ðD2  D1 Þ T2  mv2
L ¼ 2C þ ðD1 þ D2 Þ þ ð18Þ
2 4C 5:44T2  T1 ¼ 0:403
L ¼ Total length of belt; mm; C
From (T1 - T2)V = P
¼ Minimum centre to centre distance; mm
P ¼ 2 hp = 1:50 kW, V ¼ 0:71 m=s
The minimum centre-to-centre distance is calculated as
given by Ajao et al. [2]: T1 ¼ 2:237 kN, T2 ¼ 0:127 kN

D1 þ D2 The bending load on the worm shaft is due to the weight of

C¼ þ D1 ð19Þ
2 the pulley, the summation of tensions on the belts acting
C ¼ 262:5 mm vertically downward and the weight of the threaded shaft
(Supplementary Figure 3). The shaft will be supported at the
The total length of the belt ¼ 1162 mm two ends A and B by two bearings (Supplementary Figure 3).
The nearest standard pitch is 1110 mm for which the The reactions RA and RB at the two supports are determined as:
nominal length is 1067 mm [24] (Supplementary Table 4). RA þ RB ¼ Ws þ ðT1 þ T2 Þ þ Wp ð26Þ
A 2 B42- synchronous (toothed) belt arrangement will be
Ws = weight of threaded shaft = 50 N; T1 ?T2 = sum of
used.
tensions on vertical belts = 2364 N; Wp = weight of pul-
ley = 50 N; RA? RB = 2464 By taking moments, RA-
Determination of Belt Tensions
= 2104.55 N and RB = 209.45 N. The shear force and
bending moment diagrams are shown in Supplementary
The angle of wrap is calculated as given by Hall et al. [18]:
Figure 4.
a ¼ 180  2 sin1 ½ðR2  R1 Þ=C  ð20Þ
R1 = radius of the smaller pulley = 37.5 mm; R2 = radius The Power Transmission Shaft
of the larger pulley = 150 mm, C = centre-to-centre dis-
The required diameter for a solid shaft having combined
tance = 262.5 mm a = 180 ? 2sin-1[(150 - 37.5)/
262.5] = 230.8° = 4.03 rad a = 180 - 2sin-1[(150- bending and torsional loads is given as obtained from
ASME code equation and adopted by Hall et al. [18]:
- 37.5)/262.5] = 129.2° = 3.86 rad qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
To obtain the tensions in the tight and slack sides, 16
D3 ¼ ðKb Mb Þ2 þðKt Mt Þ2 ð27Þ
Eqs. (21) and (22) are solved simultaneously pSs
ðT1  T2 ÞV ¼ P ð21Þ D = diameter of solid shaft, mm, Ss = allowable combined
T1  mv 2 shear stress for bending and torsion = 40 MPa for steel
¼ ela= sin h =2 ð22Þ shaft with keyway, Kb = combined shock and fatigue fac-
T2  mv2
tor applied to bending moment = 1.5–2.0 for minor shock
P = power transmitted kW; T1 = tension in the tight side [18] Kt = combined shock and fatigue factor applied to
kN; T2 = tension in the slack side kN. torsional moment = 1.0–2.0 for minor shock [18] Mb-
m ¼ bte ð23Þ = bending moment, Nm = 160 Nm; Mt = torsional
moment, Nm = 185.5 Nm. By selecting maximum values

123
Agric Res
for Kb and Kt, D = 39.7 mm. The calculated diameter is
less than the chosen diameter of 40 mm. Therefore,
strength criterion is satisfied.
Machine Parts Description
The moringa oil expeller consists of an electric gear motor,
feed hopper, roasting chamber, expression chamber, stirrer,
heater, worm shaft, shaft housing, oil barrel, oil barrel
cover, belts and pulleys, bevel gears, bearings, temperature
regulator, oil outlet, cake outlet and machine frame.
The Roasting Chamber
This is the unit where the seeds are being heated. It consists
of a roasting drum with dimensions 320 mm 9 250 mm, a
1 kW rated capacity heater to provide the energy required
to vaporize moisture from the wet products inside the
roasting drum and a temperature regulator which controls
the air temperature inside the drying chamber. The heater
normally causes a difference in relative humidity and
temperature of the inlet air and that of the air in the drying
chamber and if not controlled, it leads to overheating and
subsequent burning of products. The temperature regulator
therefore controls the heater.
The Feeding Assembly
This consists of a hopper which is directly located under
the roasting chamber. It is made of mild steel. The hopper
has dimensions of 200 mm 9 220 mm 9 225 mm. The
roasted seeds flow down from the roasting chamber into the
feed hopper from where they enter the expelling chamber.
The Expression Chamber
This was made of 90-mm diameter, 790-mm long and 12.7-
mm thick stainless steel pipe. This was split into two equal
halves (top and bottom parts). Perforations were provided
on the bottom part of the barrel so that the expressed oil
can drain through them. The two halves were bolted
together using bolts and nuts. The expression chamber is
enclosed in a cover to prevent expressed oil from coming in
contact with dust and foreign materials.
The Worms and Worm shaft Assembly
The worm shaft assembly consists of a special worm shaft
fitted with six worms of different pitches. The worm flight
was designed such that the materials do not wrap around
more than 320°. This causes an axial gap in the flight which
enables the products being compressed to slide in either
direction with respect to the velocity generated by worm
pitch. This causes a balance of pressure over a group of
worm section and decreases the tendency of material to
lock in individual section and rotate with the shaft. The
configuration of the worm section is such that the volume
displacement at the discharge end of the press is lower than
that at the feed end. The whole assembly rotates in the
barrel. The worm shaft consists of a mild steel solid rod of
diameter 80 mm and length 970 mm. The worm shaft is
placed in the cylindrical barrel having a clearance of
1.5 mm between the screw diameter and the barrel’s inside
diameter. Two pillow bearings (90 mm diameter) are ele-
vated to a height where the worm shaft can rotate con-
centrically. The worms have a dual role of conveying the
oilseeds through the barrel and at the same time exerting
pressure on the material. Besides increasing the pressure in
the barrel, the shear action on the barrel breaks the oilseeds
into smaller particles. The oil flows out of the oil-solid
matrix through the perforations in the oil barrel due to the
pressure created by the worms and choke.
The Power Unit
This consists of a 2.0-hp, 180-rpm, three-phase AC electric
gear motor, a set of belts and pulleys (one connected from
the electric gear motor to the main shaft and the other from
the main shaft to the roaster).
The Oil and Cake Troughs
These are made of mild steel. They are inclined at an angle
of 60o to the horizontal to allow for the free flow of oil and
cake. The oil trough is located at the front of the machine
for oil collection, while the cake trough is located at the
back of the machine for cake collection.
The Machine Frame
This supports all the other components and units of the oil
expeller. It consists of a base and supports which are made
from mild steel. The front, right-end, left-end and plan
views of the expeller are shown in Fig. 1, while the sche-
matic and exploded views are shown in Figs. 2 and 3,
respectively.
Working Principles of the Moringa Oil Expeller
The seeds are introduced into the machine through the
roasting drum where they are heated. Thereafter, the seeds
flow down to the feed hopper through a sliding gate pro-
vided on the roasting drum. The machine conveys, grinds
and presses the seeds inside the cylindrical barrel with the
aid of the worm shaft until oil is squeezed out of the seed.
The oil extracted is drained though the oil barrel into the oil
123
 Agric Res

Fig. 1 Different views of the moringa screw press oil expeller showing a the front view b the right-end view c the left-end view and d the plan
view

materials. A factorial experimental design (4 9 5) was

used in the test at various moisture contents, heating tem-
peratures, heating times and applied pressures. The initial
moisture content of the sample was determined using
standard method. One kg each of moringa seeds was con-
ditioned to different moisture content levels viz 8, 9, 10, 11
and 12% wet basis as adopted by Fakayode et al. [14]:
 
100  Mi
Q¼  1  Ws ð28Þ
100  Mf
Q = volume of water to be added, mL; Mi = initial mois-
ture content of the sample, % wet basis; Mf = final (de-
sired) moisture content of sample % wet basis;
Ws = weight of the sample, g
Fig. 2 Schematic view of the moringa screw press oil expeller
They were then heated at 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 °C for
15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 min duration. Applied pressures of 5,
trough where it is collected, while the residual cake is
10, 15, 20 and 25 MPa were used in the experiment. The
discharged to the cake trough at the cake outlet where it is
expressed oil was collected, while the cake output was also
collected. The machine is powered by a 2.0-hp three-phase
weighed. Experiments were performed in triplicates.
electric motor.
To determine the initial total oil content of the moringa
seeds, the method as described by Orhevba et al. [36] was
Performance evaluation
adopted. The samples collected were washed with distilled
water. They were then air-dried and ground. Ten grams of
Moringa seeds were procured from the market, dehulled
the ground sample was weighed and placed on a filter paper
and thereafter, manually cleaned to remove foreign

123
Agric Res

Fig. 3 Schematic exploded view of the moringa screw press oil expeller

which was folded carefully. The filter paper containing the g = oil expression efficiency, %; OY = oil yield, %;
sample was then inserted into the Soxhlet apparatus. The OT = total oil content, %. The oil yield was determined
weights of the filter paper and sample were recorded. Two as adopted by Fakayode and Ajav [13]:
hundred millilitres of the solvent (hexane) was measured Wo
using a measuring cylinder and then poured into a 500-mL OY ¼  100 ð31Þ
Wg
round bottom flask with the sample and heated at 60 °C for
5 h after which the sample was removed and transferred Y = oil yield, %; Wg = weight of moringa seed, kg; Wo-
into the air oven to dry at 105 °C for 15 min. The sample = weight of oil expressed, kg
was then weighed, and the difference was calculated. The The material balance efficiency in terms of the oil and
oil was recovered by solvent evaporation. It was heated at a cake output was determined as:
low temperature until the solvent finally evaporated leaving Wo þ Wc
behind the oil extracted. u¼  100 ð32Þ
WT
Wsbe  Wsae
Total oil content ¼  100 ð29Þ u = material balance efficiency, %; Wo = weight of oil, g;
Wsbe Wc = weight of cake, g; WT = total weight of moringa
Wsbe = weight of sample before extraction, g; seeds used for the experiment, g. The expression losses
Wsae = weight of sample after extraction, g. The oil (EL) in percentage were determined as:
expression efficiency was determined as: EL ¼ 100  u ð33Þ
OY
g¼  100 ð30Þ
OT

123

Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
A Design Expert (version 6.0.6) software package was
utilized for the analysis and generation of model equations
for the output variables. The linear, two factorial interac-
tion (2FI), quadratic and cubic models were used and fitted
to the experimental data using Design Expert software.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to deter-
mine the significance and fitness of the model and to check
the effect of significant individual terms and their inter-
actions on the chosen responses. The P value (probability
of error value) was used to determine the significance of
each regression coefficient which also indicated the inter-
action effect of each cross-product.
Results and Discussion
The average total oil content of the moringa seeds was
found to be approximately 35% (Table 1). This was uti-
lized in calculating the OEE. The average summary of the
OEE, MBE and EL at the various processing factors
combinations is presented in Table 2.
Oil Extraction Efficiency (OEE)
The OEE ranges from 32.63 to 81.66% (Table 2). This
compares favourably with the maximum OEEs of other
developed machines for soft oilseeds viz: 81% for les-
querella [12], 68% for groundnut [28], 36.55% for soybean
[31] and 71.12% for sunflower [10] amongst others. Fig-
ures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 show the effects of processing
factors on OEE.
In Fig. 4, an increase in moisture content with heating
temperature leads to an increase in OEE after which there
was corresponding decrease in OEE at higher temperatures.
Moisture addition ensures saturation point is achieved
earlier during oil expression, while an increase in temper-
ature leads to protein coagulation, increase in oil fluidity,
oil-cells breakdown and moisture content adjustment to the
Table 1 Total oil content of moringa seeds
Weight of filter paper (g)
Weight of sample (g)
Weight of filter paper ? sample before extraction (g)
Weight of filter paper ? sample after extraction (g)
Loss in weight (g)
Total oil content (%)
123
Agric Res
optimum level. However, beyond the optimum tempera-
ture, hardening of samples took place which led to a
decrease in OEE as increase in moisture content makes the
cake less compressible and restricts the oil flow. This was
in agreement with the findings of Samuel and Alabi [38]
which observed that an increase in moisture content of
kernels/seeds reduces expulsion ability of expeller which
results in decline in effective performance of oil expeller
and rapid wear of the worm shaft. Therefore, corresponding
increase in the heating temperature is required at high
moisture content levels. In Fig. 5, an increase in moisture
content with heating time leads to an increase in OEE, after
which there was a decline. At high heating times, protein
coagulation, increase in oil fluidity, oil-cells breakdown
and moisture content adjustment to the optimum level are
achieved faster. This was in agreement with the findings of
Olatunde et al. [33] while working on groundnut extraction
which observed an increase in OEE at high heating tem-
peratures up to 25 min, after which it declined. As
observed in the findings of Samuel and Alabi [38], corre-
sponding increase in heating time is required at high
moisture content levels for high OEE. In Fig. 6, an increase
in moisture content with applied pressure leads to an
increase in OEE and then a decrease in OEE. Moisture
content affects seed hardness and compactness. At lower
moisture content levels, evaporation causes the surface of
the sample to harden, thus requiring a higher pressure to
overcome the hardened sample during expression. This
agrees with the findings of Willems et al. [43] which
observed a similar trend during rapeseed, palm kernel,
jatropha and dehulled jatropha extraction. However, at
higher moisture content levels, increasing the pressure
leads to a decrease in OEE. This is because water acts as
plasticizer between the cake and oil, forming paste-like
plasticized material which encourages cake compaction
and oil flow restriction. This was consistent with the find-
ings of Subroto et al. [40] which observed a similar trend
while working on jatropha kernel extraction. In Fig. 7, an
increase in heating temperature and time leads to a corre-
sponding increase in OEE. However, at higher
Sample A Sample B Sample C
0.54 0.52 0.52
10.00 10.00 10.00
10.54 10.52 10.52
6.81 6.89 6.82
3.73 3.63 3.70
35.4 34.5 35.2
Agric Res

Table 2 OEE, MBE and EL at different processing condition combinations

Run Mc (%wb) HT (°C) Ht (min) Ap (MPa) OEE (%) MBE (%) EL (%)

1 10.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 69.54 94.72 5.28

2 11.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 66.46 92.75 7.25
3 11.00 80.00 30.00 10.00 74.74 93.03 5.82
4 9.00 80.00 30.00 10.00 53.94 94.45 6.97
5 10.00 70.00 35.00 15.00 52.09 93.92 5.55
6 10.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 68.83 93.45 6.08
7 11.00 80.00 20.00 10.00 72.37 93.93 6.55
8 12.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 49.34 93.89 6.07
9 11.00 80.00 20.00 20.00 79.40 93.05 6.11
10 9.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 46.63 94.73 6.95
11 10.00 70.00 25.00 25.00 67.60 94.24 5.27
12 11.00 60.00 30.00 20.00 70.14 92.42 5.76
13 9.00 80.00 30.00 20.00 59.09 93.27 7.58
14 9.00 60.00 30.00 20.00 49.14 94.37 6.73
15 8.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 39.09 93.17 5.63
16 11.00 60.00 20.00 10.00 55.31 93.52 6.83
17 10.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 68.80 93.74 6.48
18 10.00 70.00 25.00 5.00 32.63 93.58 6.26
19 11.00 80.00 30.00 20.00 81.66 94.76 6.42
20 10.00 70.00 15.00 15.00 40.66 94.18 5.24
21 10.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 69.14 95.47 4.53
22 10.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 69.26 93.79 6.21
23 11.00 60.00 30.00 10.00 57.71 94.00 6.00
24 9.00 60.00 20.00 10.00 42.60 92.87 7.13
25 10.00 70.00 25.00 15.00 69.43 93.33 6.67
26 10.00 50.00 25.00 15.00 49.89 93.48 6.52
27 9.00 80.00 20.00 20.00 48.57 94.60 5.40
28 10.00 90.00 25.00 15.00 58.11 94.48 5.52
29 9.00 80.00 20.00 10.00 46.00 92.91 7.09
30 9.00 60.00 30.00 10.00 41.31 93.98 6.02

temperatures and times, OEE decreased. At higher tem-

Fig. 4 Response surface plot of the interactive effects of moisture
content and heating temperature on oil expression efficiency
peratures, protein coagulation and viscosity reduction take
place at a faster rate leading to increased yield at short
durations; while extending the heating duration at higher
temperatures caused substantial moisture loss leading to
hardening of samples which consequently leads to a
decrease in OEE. This was similar to the findings of Ola-
tunde et al. [33] while working on groundnut extraction
using a roaster cum expeller. In Fig. 8, an increase in
heating temperature with pressure leads to a corresponding
increase in OEE; however, at higher temperature and
applied pressure, OEE decreases. Heating the samples
makes the seed tissues soft with a consequent reduction in
oil viscosity. The softening of tissues weakens the cellular
structure, making it highly liable to failure under applied
pressures [20]. However, according to Bargale et al. [11],

123

Fig. 5 Response surface plot of the interactive effects of moisture
content and heating time on oil expression efficiency
Fig. 6 Response surface plot of the interactive effects of moisture
content and applied pressure on oil expression efficiency
Fig. 7 Response surface plot of the interactive effects of heating
temperature and heating time on oil expression efficiency
the interaction of temperature and pressure at higher levels
tends to become counteractive as increasing the
123
Agric Res
Fig. 8 Response surface plot of the interactive effects of heating
temperature and applied pressure on oil expression efficiency
Fig. 9 Response surface plot of the interactive effects of heating time
and applied pressure on oil expression efficiency
temperature decreases the viscosity of the oil thereby
increasing its fluidity through the compressed medium,
whereas an increase in pressure makes the cake harder
which restricts the flow of oil. This agrees with the findings
of Pradhan et al. [37] and Subroto et al. [40] which
observed a similar trend during jatropha kernel extraction.
In Fig. 9, an increase in heating time with applied pressure
leads to corresponding increase in OEE, and then OEE
decreases at higher pressure. Heating the samples at pro-
longed times makes the seed tissues soft with a consequent
reduction in oil viscosity. The softening of tissues weakens
the cellular structure, making it highly liable to failure
under applied pressures. However, prolonged heating times
lead to sample hardening and consequent decrease in OEE.
This was in line with the findings of Olajide [30] during
groundnut and sheanut extraction. Overall, maximum OEE
of 81.66% was obtained at moisture content of 11% wet
Agric Res
basis, heating temperature of 80 °C, heating time of 30 min
and applied pressure of 20 MPa. These represent the
optimum values for the processing parameters beyond
which OEE decreases.
Material Balance Efficiency (MBE) and Expression
Loss (EL)
The MBE ranges from 92.42 to 95.47% and correspond-
ingly, the EL ranges from 4.53 to 7.58% (Table 2). This
compares favourably with the ELs of other reported
developed machines viz: 7.41% for soybean [31] and
7.95% for palm kernel [31] amongst others. It was
observed that the mean is a better predictor for the MBE
and EL when the linear, 2FI, quadratic and cubic models
were fitted to the experimental values. This was because
the values obtained are very close and statistically
insignificant leading to a low coefficient of determination
R2 obtained for them (neglecting the cubic model that is
aliased) as shown in Tables 3 and 4. There was no sig-
nificant effect amongst the processing factors and their
interactions which shows a better material (oil and cake)
conversion irrespective of the processing conditions with
minimal losses along the production line. The ‘‘Model F-
value’’ of 0.48, 0.53 and 0.41 for the linear, 2FI and
quadratic models, respectively (for both models), implies
the models are not significant relative to the noise. There is
a 75.33, 85.09 and 94.64% chance that a ‘‘Model F-value’’
this large could occur due to noise for the models,
respectively. This indicates that it is better to represent the
MBE and EL by their respective mean than selecting a
model.
Optimization of the Oil Expression Efficiency (OEE)
In selecting a model, the highest-order polynomial where
the additional terms are significant and the model is not
aliased, insignificant lack of fit and the maximization of the
Table 3 Model selection for material balance efficiency (MBE)
Model Linear
SD 0.74
R2 0.08
Mean 93.80
Adjusted R2 - 0.08
C.V. 0.79
Predicted R2 - 0.32
PRESSo o 19.53
Adeq. precision 2.65
‘‘Adjusted R2’’ and the ‘‘Predicted R2’’ were considered. It
is worthy of note, however, that the cubic model is aliased
and cannot be selected.
For the OEE, the linear and quadratic models were
suggested. However, in terms of higher coefficient of
determination (R2) and lower standard deviation values, the
quadratic model was chosen to predict the OEE (Table 5).
The final equation is given as:
OEE ¼ 582:22 þ 84:12Mc þ 1:16HT þ 7:83Ht
þ 3:19Ap 4:51Mc2 0:02HT2 0:16Ht2 0:12A2p
þ 0:19Mc HT 0:11Mc Ht þ 0:22Mc Ap
þ 0:02HT Ht 0:02HT Ap þ 0:02Ht Ap
ð34Þ
Mc = moisture content, %wb; HT = heating temperature,
°C; Ht = heating time, min; Ap = applied pressure, MPa
The positive terms in the equation signify direct rela-
tionship between processing factors and their interactions
with OEE, while the negative terms signify an inverse
relationship between them. It was observed that all the
processing factors have direct relationship with OEE. This
implies that OEE exhibited an increase with increasing
processing factors. Moisture content was found to be the
most significant factor affecting OEE. This was consistent
with the findings of several researchers on oil expression
viz: Khan and Hanna [21] on soybean, Sivakumarran [39]
on peanut, Olajide [30] on groundnut and sheanut and
Akinoso [5] on sesame seeds, Fakayode and Ajav [13] on
moringa seeds amongst others. The model F-value of 3.57
implies the model is significant (Supplementary Table 5).
There is only a 0.99% chance that a ‘‘Model F-Value’’
this large could occur due to noise. Values of ‘‘Prob [ F’’
less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant. In
this case A, B, D, A2 and C2 are significant model terms,
where A, B, C and D represent moisture content, heating
temperature, heating time and applied pressure, respec-
tively (Supplementary Table 5). Values greater than 0.1000
indicate the model terms are not significant. If there are
2FI Quadratic Cubic
0.78 0.84 0.86
0.22 0.28 0.65
93.80 93.80 93.80
- 0.20 - 0.39 - 0.45
0.83 0.90 0.92
- 1.81 - 2.13 - 15.60
41.61 46.35 245.63
2.93 2.32 3.43
123
 Agric Res

Table 4 Model selection for expression loss (EL)

Model Linear 2FI Quadratic Cubic

SD 0.74 0.78 0.84 0.86

R2 0.08 0.22 0.28 0.65
Mean 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20
2
Adjusted R - 0.08 - 0.20 - 0.39 - 0.45
C.V. 11.97 12.60 13.61 13.87
Predicted R2 - 0.32 - 1.81 - 2.13 - 15.60
PRESS 19.53 41.61 46.35 245.63
Adeq. precision 2.65 2.93 2.32 3.43

Table 5 Model selection for oil expression efficiency (OEE)

Model Linear 2FI Quadratic Cubic

SD 9.52 10.65 8.79 9.07

R2 0.55 0.57 0.77 0.89
Mean 58.32 58.32 58.32 58.32
Adjusted R2 0.48 0.35 0.55 0.52
C.V. 16.33 18.26 15.07 15.56
Predicted R2 0.36 0.22 - 0.33 - 15.52
PRESS 3195.81 3892.62 6673.87 82,918.12
Adeq. precision 10.16 6.13 6.95 5.08

many insignificant model terms (not counting those
required to support hierarchy), model reduction may
improve the model. However, that is not necessary for the
selected model as there are several significant terms.
The ‘‘Lack of Fit F-value’’ of 1243.25 implies the lack
of fit is significant (Supplementary Table 5). There is only
a 0.01% chance that a ‘‘Lack of Fit F-value’’ this large
could occur due to noise. Significant lack of fit is bad as the
aim is for the model to fit. ‘‘Adeq Precision’’ measures the
signal-to-noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable.
Therefore, the ratio of 6.95 indicates an adequate signal
(Table 5). This model can be used to navigate the design
space. The model was significant with a very low proba-
bility value (\ 0.0001) and a satisfactory coefficient of
determination (R2 = 0.77). The high coefficient of deter-
mination showed excellent correlations between the inde-
pendent variables. This value indicates that the response
model can explain 77% of the total variability in the
responses.
Validation of model
There was an excellent agreement between the observed
and predicted values for the OEE (Fig. 10). In the range of
8–12% wet basis for moisture content, 50–90 °C for
heating temperature, 15–35 min for heating time and
5–25 MPa for applied pressure where the goal for OEE was
maximum, the predicted OEE of 80.62% at moisture con-
tent of 11.30% wet basis, temperature of 85.55 °C, dura-
tion of 27.17 min and pressure of 19.64 MPa was obtained
with a desirability of 0.867. Under these optimal condi-
tions, the experimental value was 80.74%. Deviations
between experimental and predicted values were low and
statistically insignificant. This shows that the model chosen
can adequately predict OEE.
Conclusions
The performance of the developed moringa oil expeller
was satisfactory as evident from the oil expression effi-
ciency, material balance efficiency and expression loss.
The quadratic model was chosen to predict the OEE. It was
ascertained that processing factors influence the OEE. For
the range of variables considered in this study, maximum
OEE of 81.66% was obtained at moisture content of 11%
wet basis, heating temperature of 80 °C, heating time of
30 min and applied pressure of 20 MPa. The coefficient of

123
Agric Res
Fig. 10 Comparison of the
predicted and actual values for
the oil expression efficiency
determination (R2) for the OEE was 0.77. Predicted opti-
mum OEE of 80.62% at moisture content of 11.30% wt
basis, temperature of 85.55 °C, duration of 27.17 min and
pressure of 19.64 MPa was obtained with a desirability of
0.867. Under these optimal conditions, the experimental
value was 80.74%. Deviations between experimental and
predicted values were low and statistically insignificant.
This shows that the model chosen can effectively predict
the OEE. Maximum MBE and EL were 95.47 and 4.53%,
respectively, which shows a better conversion of input
materials (moringa seeds) to output materials (oil and cake)
with minimal losses along the production line. However, it
was observed that the mean is a better predictor for MBE
and EL than any of the models considered as the experi-
mental values obtained were very close and statistically
insignificant. The expeller serves as a viable option for
moringa oil expression since the use of solvent is only
economic on large scale and not suitable for small-scale
processing because of high capital and operating costs, risk
of fire and explosions and complexity of the process. The
cake obtained from the expeller thereafter can be dried and
used as animal feed, thereby making the expeller a more
viable option for moringa oil expression.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Fakayode OA and Ajav EA declare that they
have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Adejumo BA, Alakowe AT, Obi DE (2013) Effect of heat
treatment on the characteristics and oil yield of Moringa oleifera
seeds. Int J Eng Sci 2(1):232–239
2. Ajao KR, Ajimotokan HA, Olaomi J, Akande HF (2009)
Development and performance evaluation of a groundnut oil
expelling machine. New York Sci J 2(6):76–79
3. Ajav EA, Fakayode OA (2013) Mechanical properties of moringa
(Moringa oleifera) in relation to an oil expeller design. Agro-
search J 13(3):206–216
4. Ajav EA, Fakayode OA (2013) Physical properties of moringa
(Moringa oleifera) in relation to an oil expeller design. Agro-
search J 13(1):115–129
5. Akinoso R (2006) Effects of moisture content, roasting duration
and temperature on yield and quality of palm kernel (Elaeis
guineensis) and sesame (Sesamum indicum) oils. Dissertation,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria
6. Al-kahtani HA, Abou-Arab AA (1993) Comparison of physical,
chemical and functional properties of Moringa peregrina (Al-
Yassar or Aö-Ban) and soybean proteins. Cereal Chem
70:619–626
7. Anwar F, Rashid U (2007) Physico-chemical characteristics of
Moringa oleifera seeds and seed oil from a wild provenance of
Pakistan. Pak J Bot 39(5):1443–1453
8. Anwar F, Zafar SN, Rashid U (2006) Characterization of Mor-
inga oleifera seed oil from drought and irrigated regions of
Punjab, Pakistan. Grasas Y Aceites 57(2):60–168
9. Aviara NA, Power PP, Abbas T (2013) Moisture-dependent
physical properties of Moringa oleifera seed relevant in bulk
handling and mechanical processing. Ind Crops Prod 42:96–104
10. Bamgboye AI, Adejumo AOD (2012) Development of a sun-
flower oil expeller. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 6:1–7
11. Bargale PC, Ford RJ, Sosulski FW, Wulfsohn D, Irudayaraj J
(1999) Mechanical oil expression from extruded soybean sam-
ples. J Am Oil Chem Soc 76:223–229
12. Evangelista RL (2009) Oil extraction from lesquerella seeds by
dry extrusion and expelling. Ind Crops Prod 29:189–196
13. Fakayode OA, Ajav EA (2016) Process optimization of
mechanical oil expression from moringa (Moringa oleifera)
seeds. Ind Crops Prod 90:142–151
14. Fakayode OA, Ajav EA, Akinoso R (2016) Effects of processing
factors on the quality of mechanically expressed moringa (Mor-
inga oleifera) oil: a response surface approach. J Food Proc Eng
40(4):1–12
15. Ferrao AM, Mendez FJ (1970) Acidos gordos em oleo de mor-
ingueiro (Moringa oleifera Lam.). Agro Ang 8:3–16
16. Foidl N, Makkar HPS, Becker K (2001) The potential of Moringa
oleifera for agricultural and industrial uses: Moringa review. Dar
es salaam, Tanzania
17. Goja AM (2013) Physico-chemical properties of oil produced
from Moringa oleifera, Jatropha curcas and Carthamus tincto-
rius L. seeds. Int J Adv Res 1(4):181–187
123

18. Hall AS, Holowenko AR, Laughlin HG (1980) Schaum’s outline
theory and problem of machine design. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, London
19. Ibrahim A, Onwualu AP (2005) Technologies for extraction of oil
from oil-bearing agricultural products: a review. J Agric Eng
Tech 13:58–70
20. Indrasari SD, Koswara S, Muchtadi D, Nagara LM (2001) The
effect of heating on the physicochemical characteristics of rice
bran oil. Indon J Agric Sci 2:1–5
21. Khan LM, Hanna MA (1984) Expression of soybean oil. Trans
ASAE 27(91):190–194
22. Khurmi RS, Gupta JK (2004) Theory of machine. Eurasia Pub-
lishing house, New Delhi
23. Mohammed AS, Lai OM, Muhammad SKS, Long K, Ghazali HM
(2003) Moringa oleifera, potentially a new source of oleic acid-
type for Malaysia. J Innov Biosci Biotech 3:137–140
24. Mubeen A (1998) Machine design. Khanna Publishers, 2-B Nath
Market, Naisarak Delhi, pp 698–730
25. Nzikou JM, Matos L, Moussounga JE, Ndangui CB, Kimbonguila
A, Silou T, Linder M, Desobry S (2009) Characterization of
Moringa oleifera seed oil variety Congo-Brazzaville. J Food
Tech 7(3):59–65
26. Ogunsina BS (2014) Some engineering properties of drumstick
(Moringa oleifera) seeds. J Agric Eng Tech 22(1):52–65
27. Ogunsina BS, Indira TN, Bhatnagar AS, Radha C, Debnath S,
Gopala Krishna AG (2014) Quality characteristics and stability of
Moringa oleifera seed oil of Indian origin. J Food Sci Tech
51(3):503–510
28. Ojomo AO, Ologunagba FO, Alagha SA (2011) Evaluation of a
locally fabricated oil screw expelling machine. Glob J Res Eng
11(7):28–34
29. Okoh AE (2012) Design, modification and performance evalua-
tion of a combined groundnut roaster and oil expeller. Disserta-
tion, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
30. Olajide, JO (2000) Process optimization and modelling of oil
expression from groundnut and sheanut kernels. Dissertation,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria
31. Olaniyan AM, Yusuf KA, Wahab AL, Afolayan KO (2012)
Design, development and testing of a screw press expeller for
palm kernel and soybean oil extraction. CIGR J Sci Res Dev
8:1–9
123
View publication stats
Agric Res
32. Olaomi J (2008) Design and construction of a motorized
groundnut oil expelling machine. Dissertation, University of
Ilorin, Nigeria
33. Olatunde OB, Ajav EA, Fatukasi SO (2014) Design and fabri-
cation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) roaster cum expeller. Int
J Sci Tech 3(3):177–184
34. Olayanju TMA (2002) Design, fabrication and evaluation of a
beniseed (Sesanum indicum L.) oil expeller. Dissertation,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria
35. Onwualu AP, Akubuo CO, Ahaneku IE (2006) Fundamentals of
engineering in agriculture, 1st edn. Immaculate Publications Ltd,
Lagos
36. Orhevba BA, Sunmonu MO, Iwunze HI (2013) Extraction and
characterization of Moringa oleifera seed oil: research and
reviews. J Food Dairy Tech 1(1):22–27
37. Pradhan RC, Mishra S, Naik SN, Bhatnagar N, Vijay VK (2011)
Oil expression from jatropha seeds using a screw press expeller.
Biosyst Eng 109:158–166
38. Samuel OD, Alabi AGF (2012) Problems and solutions involved
in oil processing from kernel seeds. Pac J Sci Tech
13(1):372–383
39. Sivakumaran K, Goodrum WJ, Bradley AR (1985) Expeller
optimization of peanut oil production. Trans Ame Soc Agric Eng
28(1):316–320
40. Subroto E, Manurung R, Heeres HJ, Broekhuis AA (2014)
Optimization of mechanical oil extraction from Jatropha curcas
L. kernel using response surface method. Ind Crops Prod
63:294–302
41. Uzama D, Thomas SA, Orishadipe AT, Clement OA (2011) The
development of a blend of Moringa oleifera oil with diesel for
diesel engines. J Emerg Trends Eng Appl Sci 2(6):999–1001
42. Varma RK (1998) Design of an oil expeller. processing and
storage of oilseeds and products for food uses. Course manual for
summer school. Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering,
Bhopal, pp 378–388
43. Willems P, Kuipers NJM, De Haan AB (2008) Hydraulic pressing
of oilseeds: experimental determination an modelling of yield and
pressing rates. J Food Eng 89:8–16