Review

High-Pressure Homogenization as a Process for Emulsion

Formation
By Stefan Schultz, Gerhard Wagner, Kai Urban, and Joachim Ulrich*

Emulsions find a wide range of application in industry and daily life. In the pharmaceutical industry lipophilic active ingredi-
ents are often formulated in the disperse phase of oil-in-water emulsions. Milk, butter, and margarine are examples of emul-
sions in daily life. In the metal processing industry emulsions are used in the form of coolants. Emulsions can be produced
with different systems. In the following, the process of high-pressure homogenization is briefly compared to other common
mechanical emulsification systems. To facilitate the selection of an emulsification system, the influence of the most important
parameters of the emulsion formulation on the resulting mean droplet diameter in the most prevalent continuous emulsifica-
tion systems is outlined. Subsequently, the most common high-pressure homogenization systems are discussed in detail. On
the basis of data from the literature and own experimental results the described high-pressure homogenization systems will
be compared regarding their attainable mean droplet diameter. It shows that homogenizers with a relatively simple geometry
like the patented ªcombined orifice valveº (Kombi-Blende) attain the smallest mean droplet diameters. The advantage of
the ªcombined orifice valveº compared to other high-pressure homogenization systems is not more efficient droplet disrup-
tion but rather more efficient droplet stabilization against coalescence immediately after the droplet breakup. The greatest
research potential concerning the development of new high-pressure homogenization systems is still to be seen in improve-
ments of droplet stabilization, i.e., the reduction of coalescence.

1 Introduction dispersion result. The increase of the lifetime is here a sub-

Dispersions of two or more in each other almost insolva-
ble liquid phases, often oil and water, are designated as
emulsions. They are manufactured or used in many branches
of modern industry. Typical examples of emulsions are milk,
butter, margarine, water-soluble lacquers, as well as creams
and ointments. In particular in the pharmaceutical and cos-
metic industries mean droplet diameters of x << 1 lm are re-
quired in order to ensure a high bioavailability and physical
stability of the emulsion1). The energy densities needed for
the production of such fine emulsions can generally only be
achieved in high-pressure systems. In order to fulfill the in-
creasing demands of industry for emulsions with smaller
mean droplet diameters and narrower droplet size distribu-
tions consistently new dispersing units are developed. With
homogenizing pressures of up to 2500 bar nowadays mean
droplet diameters less than 0.2 lm are achievable. A better
stabilization of the disrupted droplets is the center of atten-
tion in the development of new dispersion units rather than
a better droplet disruption. A just as large attention is put
on the decrease of necessary energy input holding the same
±
[*] Dipl.-Ing. S. Schultz, Dipl.-Ing. K. Urban, Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. J. Ulrich
(joachim.ulrich@iw.uni-halle.de), Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wit-
tenberg, FB Ingenieurwissenschaften, Institut für Verfahrenstechnik/
TVT, D-06099 Halle (Saale), Germany; Dr.-Ing. G. Wagner, Roche
Vitamins AG, CH-4070 CH-Basel, Switzerland.
1) List of symbols at the end of the paper.
stantial motivation because smaller energy inputs increase
the lifetime of the dispersion units. Moreover, in materials
technology large efforts are made to develop more stable
materials and coatings for the dispersion units.
2 Overview of the Emulsification Systems
Fig. 1 shows an overview of the most known and most fre-
quently used systems of emulsion production. Emulsions can
be produced in:
± rotor-stator systems,
± high-pressure systems,
± membrane systems,
± ultrasonic systems.
Here, a further distinction is made between continuous
and discontinuous processes in which different breakup
mechanisms are responsible for droplet disruption. Further
distinctive features are the possible product throughput and
the product stress during the emulsification process, which
predestines the different processes again for the industrial
production or the application in laboratories and/or product
form development. A graph listing the emulsification sys-
tems is given in Fig. 2 [1].
Rotor-stator systems can be operated discontinuously or
continuously. For the discontinuous or quasi-continuous pro-
duction agitators of different geometry or gear-rim disper-

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4 DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200406111  2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 361
 Review
Figure 1. Scheme of methods for emulsification.
Figure 2. Schematic presentation of the different emulsifying-systems [1].
sion machines are usually used. Here, the effective breakup
energy is registered in the form of forces of inertia and
shearing in turbulent flow. The product throughput lies in
the middle of the available range whereas the product stress
can be classified as medium to high depending on the num-
ber of revolutions and the geometry of the rotor-stator
systems. Mean droplet diameters below 2 lm cannot be real-
ized with these systems. The influence of relevant parame-
ters on the emulsification process in agitated vessels, as well
as the interpretation of these influences is described, e.g., by
Mersmann and Groûmann [2].
Rotor-stator systems intended for the continuous opera-
tion are colloid mills with smooth or toothed rotors and
362  2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
stators, gear-rim dispersion ma-
chines, and intensive mixers. Inten-
sive mixers are strictly speaking
gear-rim dispersion machines, how-
ever, with an axial instead of a
radial flow direction exhibiting ad-
ditional fixtures. The drops of the
disperse phase are broken up to a
large extent by forces of inertia and
shearing in turbulent flow. In col-
loid mills also shear stresses in la-
minar flow can lead to droplet
breakup. Mean droplet diameters
below 1 lm can likewise not be
achieved with these systems. With
the continuously operated rotor-sta-
tor systems high product through-
puts can be obtained, whereby the
product stress is in most cases very
high. The emulsification process in
colloid mills is examined in detail
by Anbarci [3] and Armbruster [4].
Detailed investigations for the pro-
duction of emulsions in gear-rim
dispersion machines can be found in the publications of
Koglin et al. [5], Osterhaus [6], and Karbstein [7].
High-pressure systems can be subdivided into radial diffu-
sers, counterjet dispergators, and axial nozzle aggregates, de-
pending on the flow guidance. They are always continuously
operated. Apart from forces of inertia and shearing in turbu-
lent flow here also cavitation and shear stresses in laminar
extension flows contribute to droplet disruption. With high-
pressure systems mean droplet diameters of x < 0.2 lm can
be obtained with high product throughputs. However, the
stress on the product is very high due to the high pressure
gradients and flow rates.
Membrane emulsifying with microporous glass or ceramic
membranes represents a relatively new continuous emulsifi-
cation process. The disperse phase is pressed through the
pores of a membrane. At the pore outlet the formed drops
are entrained by the continuous phase, which is flowing
along the membrane. Crucial for the attainable mean drop-
let diameter are here the pore diameters and the disperse
phase flux. Drop diameters down to 0.2 lm with very narrow
droplet size distributions can be obtained. The possible
product throughput, however, can be classified as small. The
great advantage of this process is its small product stress, so
that it is particularly suitable for stress-sensitive products.
Details about the process of membrane emulsification can
be found in the publications of Schröder and Schubert [8], as
well as Peng and Williams [9].
Emulsion production by means of ultrasonic systems is
likewise possible. In this emulsification process the energy
input takes place with so-called ultrasonic sonotrodes. As
disruption mechanisms cavitation and microturbulences ap-
pear. Due to the small product throughput this process is
http://www.cet-journal.de Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4

mainly applied in laboratories where mean droplet diame-
ters of approximately 0.4 lm can be obtained. Thereby the
product stress is very high. The production of oil-in-water
emulsions by means of ultrasonic systems is presented in de-
tail by Bechtel [10] and Behrend and Schubert [11].
Apart from the mechanical characteristics of an emulsifi-
cation process also the characteristics of the product have to
be considered when selecting an emulsification process. In
Tab. 1 the most important product parameters that have an
effect on the emulsification process are listed with respect to
the industrially relevant continuous emulsification processes.
The indicated values refer to own results and data from the
literature [7,12±14,32]. The viscosity ratio k = gd/gk has only
an influence on emulsifying in colloid mills with smooth
rotor and stator surfaces. In the Couette flow within those
systems drops can be disrupted only in the range of the mini-
mum of the critical laminar Weber number, which is in
viscosity-ratios of 0.1 < k < 1 [4]. In all other specified emul-
sification systems the drops of the disperse phase are dis-
rupted mainly in turbulent flow, in which the viscosity ratio
does not have an influence on droplet disruption.
An influence of the viscosity of the disperse phase gd is to
be registered in all specified emulsification processes. With
rising viscosity of the disperse phase the dispersion result is
reduced. Due to increasing viscosity of the disperse phase a
drop creation is made more difficult. With rising oil viscosity
the drops behave more and more like rigid spheres. In ori-
fices, jet dispergators and ªcombined orifice valvesº (Kom-
bi-Blende) this influence is somewhat smaller than in the
other high-pressure systems. Stang [32] attributes this to the
laminar extension flow available in orifices and jet disperga-
tors, which are here considerably responsible for droplet dis-
ruption. The ªcombined orifice valveº is, concerning the part
which is responsible for droplet disruption, geometrically
Table 1. Product influence on the emulsifying result for industrially relevant continuous emulsifying systems: k =
viscosity ratio, gd = viscosity of the disperse phase, gk = viscosity of the continuous phase, ge = viscosity of the ªCombined orifice valveº pro-
emulsion, x = mean droplet diameter, C = constant (to be determined by experiments), b = exponent of the
correlation function, j = fraction of the disperse phase, t = retention time.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4 http://www.cet-journal.de
Review
similar to an orifice, so that there are the same conditions
present as in the simple orifice. In Tab. 1 values and/or
ranges for the exponent b of the correlation function
x ˆ C
gbd are indicated. For C no ranges can be indicated, it
rather has to be defined by experiments for each emulsifica-
tion system and emulsion formulation.
The influence of the viscosity of the continuous phase gk
and the disperse phase fraction j is similarly small in all spe-
cified emulsification systems. What holds for the correlation
functions of the viscosity of the continuous phase gk
(x ˆ C
gbk ) also holds for the disperse phase fraction j
(x ˆ C
ej
b ). The constant C must also be determined
experimentally, since it depends on many factors of the for-
mulation of the emulsion. Rotor-stator systems are mainly
suitable for the production of emulsions with higher viscos-
ities, while high-pressure systems attain better results in the
production of emulsions with low viscosities. An optimal vis-
cosity range of emulsion for rotor-stator-systems is 20 to
5000 mPa´s and for high-pressure systems it is 1 to 200 mPa s
as indicated by Mollet and Grubenmann [14].
The interfacial adsorption velocity of the surfactant deter-
mines to a large degree the stabilization of the newly bro-
ken-up droplets against coalescence. Depending on the resi-
dence time t of the drops in the dispersion unit surfactants
with different interfacial adsorption velocities can be used.
Slow surfactants, such as salted egg yolk, can effectively only
be used in dispersion systems with high residence times, like
in colloid mills. Except for the ªcombined orifice valveº only
surfactants with high interfacial adsorption velocities can be
used successfully in high-pressure systems. Here, the resi-
dence times lie within the range of few milliseconds. The
new interfaces must be occupied in this short time, before
the emulsion leaves the dispersion unit and arrives in zones
of laminar flow. Here, the coalescence is clearly higher for
not sufficiently stabilized drop-
lets, compared to the turbulent
flow in the dispersion unit. The
vides clearly higher residence
times in turbulent flow than the
other high-pressure systems, so
that also surfactants with medium
interfacial adsorption velocities
lead to good dispersion results.
From the different influences
of each product parameter of
each emulsion formulation on
the dispersion result during the
emulsification with different pro-
cesses it becomes clear that for
the selection of an emulsification
process the formulation of the
emulsion must always be consid-
ered.
In order to compare different
emulsification processes from an
 2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 363
 Review

industrial point of view, it seems to be best to look at the thus turbulent flown through rotor-stator systems and high-
mean droplet diameter as a function of the product through- pressure dispersion systems. With the high-pressure disper-
put. This attempt fails, however, because of the very high sion systems smaller droplet diameters can be obtained with
number of manufacturers and equipment available. In addi- similar energy densities than with the rotor-stator systems.
tion, no detailed data are available for the newer processes, High-pressure dispersion systems are important due to the
like membrane and ultrasonic emulsification processes. For demands of the industry for emulsions with small droplet di-
these reasons the presentation of the droplet size as a func- ameters and the only possibility to create these when also a
tion of the energy density is selected. Fig. 3 depicts the high product throughput is desired. These systems are dis-
extended diagram adapted from Schubert [15]. It shows the cussed in detail in the following.
attainable mean droplet diameter x as a function of the ener-
gy density EV for different continuous emulsification pro-
cesses. The newly developed ªcombined orifice valveº 3 High-Pressure Dispersion Systems
(Kombi-Blende) is added. It can be recognized that depend-
ing upon the assigned process different energy densities are High-pressure homogenizers generally consist of a high-
needed to obtain certain mean droplet diameters. With mi- pressure pump, mostly in the form of a one- to three-piston
croporous membranes very small droplet diameters (0.3 lm) plunger pump which can be electrically or pneumatically ac-
can be obtained with the lowest energy input. Much higher tuated, and the actual high-pressure dispersion unit. High-
energy input is needed to make medium-size drop diameters pressure dispersion units are subdivided into radial diffusers,
of 0.4 lm with the ultrasonic systems. However, the achiev- counterjet dispergators and axially flown-through nozzle-ag-
able product throughput is small in both processes, so that gregates.
they are only interesting for laboratory use. Emulsification
systems that enable higher product throughputs, as they are
required by industry, need high energy densities to produce 3.1 Radial Diffusers
finely dispersed emulsions. The rotor-stator systems which
create a laminar flow can only be used in a limited range, as The radial diffuser, often referred to as homogenizing
for droplet disruption the viscosity ratio of the continuous to valve, is the most common high-pressure dispersion unit in
the disperse phase must be approximately equal to one [15], industry. The most frequently used types of radial diffusers
which is rarely the case with industrial products. Relevant are schematically shown in Fig. 4A). A standard radial diffu-
emulsification processes for the industrial production are ser consists of a valve face, which causes a deflection of 90 
of the direction of the flow, and an
axially mobile valve seat, which
makes a variation of the slit width
possible as well as with constant flow
rate, a variation of the homogenizing
pressure [16].
Phipps [17] has determined by ex-
perimental works the march of
pressure in a flat valve as shown in
Fig. 5. The fluid flows into the valve
with the given homogenization
pressure. In its inlet bore ªaº the
fluid is very strongly accelerated, so
that the static pressure drops very
much. When the vapor pressure of
the fluid is reached, vapor bubbles
(cavitation blisters) develop and the
single-phase flow turns into a two-
phase liquid/vapor flow ªbº. The
subsonic flow turns into a superso-
nic flow and in the further march of
the flow it comes to a compression
shock, in which the pressure sud-
denly rises to a higher level, so that
Figure 3. Mean droplet diameter as a function of energy density for different emulsifying techniques the vapor bubbles collapse and the
adapted from Schubert [15]: viscosity of the continuous phase gk = 30 mPa s, viscosity of the disperse phase
3
gd = 60 mPa s, densities of the phases rk = rd = 1003 kg/m , interfacial tension between the disperse and the flow becomes slower ªcº again. Fi-
continuous phase c = 10 mN/m, r = rotor diameter, s = width of slit. nally, the pressure in the valve out-

364  2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.de Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4

Figure 4. Different types of high-pressure homogenization systems: A) radial-
diffusers [7], B) counterjet dispergators [32], C) axial flow nozzle-systems.
let decreases to the ultimate pressure, mostly the ambient
pressure.
In two- or multistage radial diffusers the location and val-
ue of the compression shock wave can be adjusted by setting
a backpressure similar to Laval nozzles [18]. The informa-
tion about the optimal ratio between backpressure and ho-
mogenization pressure varies a lot. Jarchau [16] recommends
Figure 5. March of pressure in a flat-valve [21].
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4 http://www.cet-journal.de
Review
values between 0.1 and 0.25, Karbstein [7] even up to 0.7.
There is no complete theory for the homogenization pro-
cesses in radial diffusers until now because of the large num-
ber of influencing variables as well as the bad accessibility
for measurements due to the very small dimensions and the
extreme conditions during homogenization. A summary of
possible droplet disruption mechanisms can be found in the
publications of Mulder and Walstra [19] and Lecluse [20].
Phipps [17,21,22] stated ± based on his studies of the
march of pressure ± that the droplet disrupting mechanism is
located in the laminar extension flow at the inlet of the ho-
mogenization slit. Compared to the phenomena of droplet
disruption in the inlet slit the cavitation and turbulence may
be neglected. Walstra [19,23] and Mohr [24,25] stated that
the inertia forces in turbulent flow are responsible for drop-
let disruption. The work of Kurzhals [26] and Treiber [27]
deals with the interrelationship of the mean droplet diame-
ter and the intensity of cavitation. Karbstein [7] claims iner-
tia forces in turbulent flow as the responsible mechanisms
for droplet disruption. Furthermore, she observes an influ-
ence of the geometry of the valve on the dispersing result.
3.2 Counterjet Dispergators
In counterjet dispergators two or more opposed jets of
emulsion collide out of at least two opposing bores or canals.
The most well-known systems based on the opposing jet
principle are the jet dispergator from Bayer [28], the micro-
fluidizer [29], and the nanojet [30] (see Fig. 4B). In contrast
to radial diffusers counterjet dispergators do not have any
movable parts so that dispersing pressures up to 300 MPa
can be realized. The homogenization pressure is adjusted
only by the flow rate.
The jet dispergator is a patented development of the
Bayer AG [28] and consists of two or more axially opposing
orifices with sharp-edged inlets so that the impulses of the
colliding jets of emulsion compensate each other. The opti-
mal ratio between length and diameter of the bores is re-
ported based on experimental results in a range of 1.5 and 2.
The optimal diameter dB of the bores is between 0.3 mm
and 1 mm. The following equation was found by Klinksiek
and Koglin [31] for the attainable mean droplet diameter x
in the jet dispergator:
C
d0:165
B

c0:365
g0:495
d
xˆ (1)

p0:6
H

g0:025
k

0:235
d
C is a constant dependent on the product system and DpH
is the inclined differential pressure. Furthermore, the inter-
facial tension c the dynamic viscosities of the continuous gk,
and the disperse phase gd, as well as the density of the dis-
perse phase rd influences the attainable mean droplet diam-
eter. According to Stang [32,33] the collision of the jets of
emulsion have no considerable influence on the achievable
mean droplet diameter. He made experiments with jet dis-
 2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 365
 Review
pergators with two and four orifices as well as a single ori-
fice. The single-orifice setup produces the smallest mean
droplet diameters. Therefore, he reasoned that the laminar
extension flow at the inlet of the orifice bore is responsible
for droplet disruption. The scale-up for higher product
throughputs is easy to realize in the jet dispergator by a
higher number of orifice bores. The orifice bores have to be
arranged in pairs opposite to each other.
In the so-called interaction chamber of the microfluidizer
the premix flow is divided into at least two fractions. These
fractions are directed so that they collide with each other.
The collision of the jets is supposed to be used as an addi-
tional disruption mechanism. As in the case of the jet disper-
gator Stang [32,33] is not considering the collision of the
droplets as the most important disruption mechanism. He
holds a combination of the influence of the laminar exten-
sion flow at the inlet of the interaction chamber and the tur-
bulent flow in the interaction chamber responsible for drop-
let disruption. This hypothesis is supported by the studies of
the collisions of drops as droplet disrupting mechanism by
Kiefer and Treiber [34]. Studies of McCrae [35], Strawbridge
et al. [36], and Robin et al. [37] show that emulsions gener-
ated with a microfluidizer lead to smaller mean droplet di-
ameters than emulsions generated with radial diffusers.
In the nanojet also jets of premix collide. However, the at-
tainable mean droplet diameter is larger compared to those
obtained in the jet-dispergator [38]. A new development is
the microjet-reactor dispergator [39] from Synthesechemie
GmbH that has a flow pattern similar to the nanojet. In the
system two to three jets of raw emulsion with up to 4000 bar
admission pressure collide in a chamber filled with gas. The
gas flow, which is entering the microjet-reactor vertically to
the raw emulsion jets, transports the emulsion out of the re-
actor. Shear forces in the turbulent flow and cavitation are
the disrupting mechanisms. The erosion of the dispersing
unit is mostly prevented, therefore, the tool life is relevantly
increased because of the collision of the emulsion jets in a
gas filled chamber. The low risk of blockage in the dispersing
unit is another advantage of the system since the product is
discharged by the gas stream.
3.3 Nozzle Aggregate
Like the counterjet dispergators the nozzle-aggregates
also contain no movable parts so that they can be in use at
very high pressures. Contrary to the counterjet dispergators,
the nozzle-aggregates have an axial flow direction. The ori-
fice with a sharp-edged inlet and outlet is shown in Fig. 4C).
It is the simplest type of a nozzle-aggregate. According to
Stang [32] droplet disruption mainly occurs in the extension
flow before entering the nozzle bore. The studies of Kolb
[40,41], by a high-speed video system on the disruption of
single drops in orifices show, however, that the droplet is
breaking up behind the nozzle bore after the flow conditions
change from laminar to turbulent flow in the core of the
366  2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
open jet. She made her findings using an acrylic glass nozzle
setup and monitored the process. Her finding is therefore in
contradiction to Stang's conclusions.
The ªcombined orifice valveº (Kombi-Blende) is another
nozzle-aggregate patented by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
[42]. The ªcombined orifice valveº shown in Fig. 4C) consists
of three consecutively arranged orifices of which the first
and third one have a smaller thickness and a smaller bore di-
ameter than the second one so that a so-called turbulence
chamber is created. The first orifice (inlet orifice) has a
smaller bore diameter than the third orifice. Furthermore,
the inlet and outlet bores are arranged eccentrically to each
other. With the ªcombined orifice valveº smaller mean
droplet diameters can be produced than with simple orifices.
This can be attributed to a reduction of droplet coalescence
by the turbulence chamber [43].
4 Comparison of Different High-Pressure
Homogenization Systems
The emulsification results of the different dispersing units
can be compared using the required energy densities EV for
drop disruption. The energy density in high-pressure homo-
genizers corresponds to the pressure drop Dp over the dis-
persing unit:
EV ~ Dp (2)
Fig. 6 shows the mean droplet diameter x depicted as a
function of energy density EV for different high-pressure dis-
persing systems. The oil-in-water emulsions produced by the
use of the emulsifier LEO-10 have a fraction of disperse
phase of 30 wt.-% vegetable oil. It can be seen that the emul-
sions made with the radial diffusers (flat-valve and cutting-
edge valve) lead to the largest mean droplet diameters.
Much smaller droplets can be produced with the dispersing
systems working with the counterjet principle (jet disperga-
tor, microfluidizer, and nanojet). The best dispersing results
are obtained by the nozzle aggregates (orifice and ªcom-
bined orifice valveº). It is astonishing that the simplest con-
struction of a dispersing unit, the orifice, enables better dis-
persing results than the much more complex counterjet
dispergators. The finest emulsions could be produced with
the ªcombined orifice valveº. As already mentioned, the
reason is not a more efficient droplet breakup, but rather
the decrease of the coalescence following droplet breakup.
5 Summary and Perspective
The comparison of the best-known emulsification pro-
cesses shows that the industrial production ± that means at
high product throughput ± of emulsions with high-pressure
systems and rotor/stator systems is the only alternative to
produce emulsions in a continuous way. For the choice of an
http://www.cet-journal.de Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4
 Review

Figure 6. Mean droplet diameter x as a function

of energy density EV for different high-pressure
dispersion systems; results of flat-valve, cutting-
edge valve, jet dispergator, and microfluidizer
from Stang [32] and Schubert [15].

emulsification process the formulation of the produced try leads to an improvement of the dispersion result espe-
emulsion has always to be taken into consideration. The pro- cially in case of a decrease in coalescence [44].
duction of finely dispersed emulsions with a mean droplet A reduction of the energy input at the same quality of dis-
diameter of x < 1 lm requires high-pressure emulsification persion is a further main focus in research especially with re-
systems. spect to the efficiency of the dispersing systems. Less energy
It can be imagined by the presentation of the different input means less erosion of the dispersion units and thus
high-pressure systems how great the interest of industry is in longer tool life which again reduces in a relevant way the
this technology. The large number of quoted literature here production costs of the emulsions.
is just a small selection of the research done in the field. Received: June 18, 2003 [B 6111]
Consecutively new, improved and optimized high-pressure
systems are entering the market. Step by step they will bring
down the mean drop size towards the ªmagic borderº of
100 nm in mean drop size.
Symbols used
Particularly the comparison of the different high-pressure
b [±] exponent of correlation function
systems according to the attainable dispersing result in the
C [±] constant
last section of this presentation shows that in the develop-
d [mm] diameter
ment of new dispersing units the reduction of coalescence is
EV [J/m3] energy density
in future more important than the improvement of an in-
Dp [Pa] pressure drop
crease of droplet breakup. In Fig. 6 it can be seen that the
r [m] rotor diameter
simple orifice generates such an efficient droplet breakup
s [m] width of slit
that it attains better dispersing results than a radial diffuser
t [s] retention time
or a counterjet diffuser. Smaller droplet diameters can only
x [m] mean droplet diameter
be produced with the ªcombined orifice valveº (Kombi-
c [N´m±1] interfacial tension
Blende), however, not because of a stronger droplet breakup
g [Pa´s] dynamic viscosity
compared to the simple orifice but rather with a better stabi-
k [±] viscosity ratio gd/gk
lization of the disrupted droplets.
r [kg´m±3] density
It is certainly possible to reduce the coalescence of the dis-
f [±] fraction of disperse phase
rupted droplets, e.g., by an increased amount of surfactant
or by a choice of a faster adsorbing surfactant. But often the
product formulation does not allow this. The guidance of the
flow must be skillfully designed in a system to lead to a re- Subscripts
duction of the coalescence frequency until the surfaces of
the droplets are completely covered by the surfactant mole- B orifice
cules so that the droplets are protected against coalescence. d disperse phase
Research at the example of the ªcombined orifice valveº e emulsion
(Kombi-Blende) shows that the optimization of the geome- k continuous phase

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4 http://www.cet-journal.de  2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 367
 Review
References
[1] H. Schubert, in Hochschulkurs Emulgiertechnik am Institut für
Lebensmittelverfahrenstechnik, Karlsruhe University, March 2±4, 1998.
[2] A. Mersmann, H. Groûmann, Chem. Ing. Tech. 1980, 52 (8), 621.
[3] A. Anbarci, Der kontinuierliche Emulgierprozeû unter Berücksichti-
gung mechanischer und emulgatorspezifischer Aspekte, Ph.D. Thesis,
Karlsruhe University 1987.
[4] H. Armbruster, Untersuchungen zum kontinuierlichen Emulgierprozeû
in Kolloidmühlen unter der Berücksichtigung spezifischer Emulgator-
eigenschaften und der Strömungsverhältnisse im Dispergierspalt, Ph.D.
Thesis, Karlsruhe University 1990.
[5] B. Koglin, J. Pawlowski, H. Schnöring, Chem. Ing. Tech. 1981, 53 (8),
641.
[6] G. Osterhaus, ZFL 1990, 41(1/2), 20.
[7] H. Karbstein, Untersuchungen zum Herstellen und Stabilisieren von Öl-
in-Wasser-Emulsionen, Ph.D. Thesis, Karlsruhe University 1994.
[8] V. Schröder, H. Schubert, Chem. Ing. Tech. 1998, 70, 1071.
[9] S. Peng, R. A. Williams, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 1998, 15, 21.
[10] S. Bechtel, N. Gilbert, H.-G. Wagner, Chem. Ing. Tech. 1999, 71, 810.
[11] O. Behrend, H.Schubert, Investigation of Droplet Disruption in
Emulsions due to Ultrasound, Partec 2001, Proc., March 27±29, 2001,
Nürnberg.
[12] P. Binks, Modern Aspects of Emulsion Science, 1st ed., The Royal Society
of Chemistry, Cambridge 1998.
[13] P. Becher, Emulsions, Theory and Practice, 3rd ed., Oxford University
Press, New York 2001.
[14] H. Mollet, A. Grubenmann, Formulierungstechnik, Wiley-VCH, Wein-
heim 2000.
[15] H. Schubert, Chemie plus 1999, 5, 2.
[16] M. Jarchau, Pumpen Kompressoren 1996, (4), 201.
[17] L. W. Phipps, J. Dairy Research 1974, 41, 339.
[18] A. Treiber, ZFL 1976, 27 (11), 297.
[19] H. Mulder, P. Walstra, The Milk Fat Globule, Center for Agricultural
Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen 1974.
[20] W. J. Lecluse, Contribution Preparation of Emulsions and Dispersions
Using High-Pressure Homogenizers, Int. Symp. Mixing, Mons, Feb. 21±
24, 1978.
[21] L. W. Phipps, Nature 1971, 233 (10), 617.
______________________
368  2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
[22] L. W. Phipps, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 1975, 8, 448.
[23] H. Mulder, P. Walstra, The Milk Fat Globule, Center for Agricultural
Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen 1974.
[24] K.-H. Mohr, Lebensmittelindustrie 1980, 27 (9), 399.
[25] K.-H. Mohr, Lebensmittelindustrie 1982, 29 (3), 111.
[26] H.-A. Kurzhals, Untersuchungen über die physikalisch-technischen
Vorgänge beim Homogenisieren von Milch in Hochdruck-Homogeni-
siermaschinen, Ph.D. Thesis, TU Hannover 1977.
[27] A. Treiber, ZFL 1976, 27 (11), 297.
[28] M. Bücheler, H. Gehringer, B. Klinksiek, B.Koglin, Eur. Patent 0 101
007, 1983.
[29] E. J. Cook, A. P. Lagace, US Patent 4 533 254, 1985.
[30] Bedienungsanleitung Nanojet NJ 1600 P10L/P15L, 5/2000, Haskel
Hochdrucksysteme GmbH Wesel.
[31] B. Klinksiek, B. Koglin, in Technik der mehrphasigen Strömungen
nichtmischbarer fluider Phasen ± Schäume, Emulsionen, Preprints (Ed:
GVC), Vortrags- und Diskussionstagung, Köln, June 2±3, 1992, VDI
Verlag, Düsseldorf 1992.
[32] M. Stang, Fortschr.-Ber. VDI, 3(527), VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf 1998.
[33] M. Stang, in Hochschulkurs Emulgiertechnik am Institut für Lebensmit-
telverfahrenstechnik, Karlsruhe University, March 2±4, 1998.
[34] P. Kiefer, A. Treiber, Chem. Ing. Tech. 1975, 13, 573.
[35] C. H. McCrae, J. Soc. Dairy Technol. 1994, 47 (1), 28.
[36] K. B. Strawbridge, E. Ray, F. R. Hallet, S. M. Tosh, D. G. Dalgleish,
J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1995, 171 (2), 392.
[37] O. Robin, V. Blanchot, J. C. Vuillemard, P. Paquin, Lait 1992, 72, 511.
[38] B. Klinksiek, S. Mahiout, R. Nothelle, H. J. Hamann, J. Sdebik, German
Patent 195 42 499 A1, 1995.
[39] Microjet Reactor: Nanoparticles and Microreaction Technology, Bro-
chure, Synthesechemie GmbH, D-66265 Heusweiler-Eiweiler.
[40] G. Kolb, G. Wagner, J. Ulrich, Chem. Ing. Tech. 2001, 73 (1±2), 80.
[41] G. Kolb, Zur Emulsionsherstellung in Blendensystemen, Ph.D. Thesis,
Bremen University 2001, Shaker Verlag, Aachen 2001.
[42] G. Kolb, H. Stein, K. Viardot, Eur. Patent 1 008 380 A2, 2000.
[43] G. Kolb, G. Wagner, K. Viardot, J. Ulrich, Chem. Ing. Tech. 2001, 73
(1±2), 84.
[44] S. Schultz, G. Wagner, J. Ulrich, Chem. Ing. Tech. 2002, 74 (3), 355.
This paper was also published in German in Chem. Ing. Tech. 2002, 74 (7), 901.
http://www.cet-journal.de Chem. Eng. Technol. 2004, 27, No. 4