J Food Process Engineering - 2006 - LI - LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION

17454530, 2006, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4530.2006.00069.x by University of Reading, Wiley Online Library on [30/11/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION
YONG LI1, EVAN GRIFFING1, MATTHEW HIGGINS2 and

MICHAEL OVERCASH1,3
1
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
North Carolina State University
Box 7905 Raleigh, NC 27695-7905
2
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Jackson, SC
Accepted for Publication March 9, 2006
ABSTRACT
A life cycle assessment (LCA) case study was conducted on the processing
of soybeans to soybean oil. Three stages of soybean oil processing are studied
in detail: preprocessing, extraction and separation, and postprocessing. For
extraction, hexane (current industrial process) and supercritical CO2 (research
and development [R & D] laboratory-scale process) methods are compared in
detail. The initial life cycle comparison found that the laboratory-scale CO2
system was not as good in life cycle impacts as the hexane system. However,
reasonable engineering improvements typical of scale-up practices would
make the CO2 technology better than hexane and eliminate the hexane emis-
sions. Utilization of membrane techniques to separate the small molecular CO2
from the soybean oil hydrocarbon appears to be a much better R & D direction
for development. This article illustrates the ability to use life cycle as an aid to
R & D to select more advantageous directions for process improvement.
INTRODUCTION
Soybeans are the dominant oilseeds worldwide and they make up well
over one-half of world oilseed production. Soybeans on a dry weight basis
typically have about 12–25% oil and 35–50% protein (Smith et al. 1989).
Soybean oil has a unique fatty acid composition (FAC) that is relatively
unaffected by environmental factors (Erickson and Wiedermann 1989).
Soybean oil processing has three major steps: preprocessing, extraction and
separation, and postprocessing. Practically all soybean oil is produced by
3
Corresponding author. TEL: (919) 515-2325; FAX: (919) 515-3468; EMAIL: overcash@ncsu.edu
Journal of Food Process Engineering 29 (2006) 429–445. All Rights Reserved.

© 2006, The Author(s) 429
Journal compilation © 2006, Blackwell Publishing
17454530, 2006, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4530.2006.00069.x by University of Reading, Wiley Online Library on [30/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
430 Y. LI ET AL.
solvent extraction, except in some mechanical extraction facilities in small-

scale plants throughout the world (Wan and Wakelyn 1997). Mechanical
extraction has low capital cost and no solvent requirement; however, the
efficiency of mechanical oil extraction is much less than that of the solvent
extraction method. The extraction mechanism can be described in three steps:
(1) penetration of solvent into soybean solids; (2) solubilization of oil in the
solvent; and (3) oil diffusion from the solid matrix into the liquid solvent phase
(Wan and Wakelyn 1997). The oil concentration gradient from the solid matrix
to the liquid phase is the driving force of diffusion. The principle of solvent
extraction has remained basically unchanged since the practice of the first
commercial solvent extraction in the early 1900s (Erickson and Wiedermann
1989). Two innovations in solvent extraction were developed in the 1980s: one
was the moist–heat treatment of soybean before extraction (Kock 1981), the
other one was the treatment of soybean flakes before extraction using an
extrusion process (Lusas and Watkins 1988). Currently, the most prevalent
solvent used in soybean oil extraction is hexane (Berk 1992).
Although hexane is the dominant solvent of choice in commercial soybean
oil plants, alternative solvents have been proposed and studied in recent years.
Aqueous extraction process, which is based on the insolubility of oil in water
rather than on the dissolution of the oil, had been developed at Texas A&M
University (Lawhon et al. 1981). Isohexane successfully extracted cottonseed
oil in a plant trial; it could be a possible alternative solvent in soybean oil
extraction although it is more expensive than hexane (Wan et al. 1995). Lusas
et al. (1997) showed that isopropanol could be a feasible replacement of
hexane, although it did not work the same as hexane. Several researchers have
investigated the possibility of using supercritical CO2 as a solvent for the
extraction of seed oils (Brunetti et al. 1989; Reverchon and Osseo 1994).
Supercritical fluid extraction has been known for almost 100 years, but
this technology has been applied to oilseeds only recently. In the food indus-
try, supercritical CO2 extraction of caffeine has been commercially successful
(Wan and Wakelyn 1997). The key properties of an ideal solvent are high
solvent power, nontoxicity, nonflammability, low specific heat, low heat of
vaporization and low cost (Johnson 1997). Supercritical CO2 has been used
as an alternative solvent with both advantages and disadvantages. CO2 is
nonflammable and nontoxic, with virtually no residual left in soybean oil and
meal. Separation can be easily accomplished by depressurization. The disad-
vantages of CO2 extraction are electricity consumption for compression and
lower solubility of soybean oil in supercritical CO2. Although most soy
protein is used as animal food, soybean oil is mainly consumed for human
needs. The market need of all natural food products and the pressure of
practicing green engineering have given CO2 opportunities to be used as a
replacement of hexane in soybean oil production. However, without system-
LCA OF SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION 431
atic study of soybean oil production, the benefits or consequences of using

CO2 cannot be justified. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an effective tool that
can provide not only detailed environmental features of the product and
process, but also useful suggestions for improvement (Hauschild and Wenzel
1997). Thus, a LCA case study of soybean oil production was performed to
address the environmental details of the life cycle for soybean oil production,
study the environment impact of several stages of soybean oil production,
compare different extraction methods and make suggestions for process
improvement.
It must be noted in this study, the hexane processes are highly developed
and in current industrial use, while the CO2 process is still based on research
data. Hence, projections in this article are made of possible technical improve-
ments that may be developed with the maturation of CO2 processing. These
can then be used to evaluate the life cycle implications of such research and
development (R & D).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Soybean oil is considered as the main product in this study. The func-
tional unit of this LCA study is defined as 1 metric ton soybean oil production
per hour. The environmental inventory is generated based on this functional
unit. The design-based methodology for life cycle inventory was used in this
study (Jimenez-Gonzalez and Overcash 2000; Jimenez-Gonzalez et al. 2000;
Jimenez-Gonzalez and Overcash 2001). A simplified overview of soybean
production is shown in Fig. 1. This overview diagram and all other process
flow diagrams (PFD) were produced from numerous reference texts, patents
and literature citations (Kock 1981; Reverchon and Osseo 1994; Erickson
1995; Wan and Wakelyn 1997). The PFDs and the results are thus a represen-
tative reflection of industrial plants leading to corresponding representative lci
results (Overcash, 2005). In this study, we focus only on soybean oil produc-
tion. The system boundary of our study includes three stages of soybean oil
processing: preprocessing, extraction and separation, and postprocessing.
Transportation and energy supply are also included in this study using energy
submodules developed by Jimenez-Gonzalez and Overcash (2000).
Energy calculations are all engineering design determinations without
the use of software simulation, such as Aspen, Hysis, etc. All energy values
are determined directly from temperature changes, pressure changes, phase
changes and the material properties. The heat transfer efficiency is assumed to
be 0.85 for process heating and cooling units (Jimenez-Gonzalez and Overcash
2000). These calculations and principles are found in standard chemical engi-
neering texts (McCabe et al. 2005).
432 Y. LI ET AL.
Farming/Soybean production
Solvent production (Natural resources to
final product)
Raw
soybeans
Solvent Lecithin
transport and use
Solvent recycle
Solvent removal
Preprocessing Soybean oil extraction Postprocessing
Soybean oil from soybean oil
and solvent
Solvent Soybean meal
recycle and solvent Soybean oil
Required utilities: transport and use
Solvent removal Electricity, steam and
direct fuel heating
Soybean meal cooking

transport and use
FIG. 1. OVERVIEW OF THE SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION PROCESS

Broken lines indicate the system boundary of soybean oil life cycle studies.
In addition to energy use (and subsequent emissions from energy

production), chemical losses were analyzed for these alternative soybean
technologies. For these extraction and separation steps (beginning after pre-
processing of the soybeans), the only significant wastes are solvent losses by
fugitive routes (U.S. EPA 1995). These were calculated for hexane as a liquid
(1% of hexane hourly use) and for CO2 as supercritical liquid (1% of CO2
hourly use).
RESULTS
The input/output data of this study are based on the energy and material
balance calculation at each stage of soybean oil production. The same modules
of preprocessing and postprocessing were used for both the hexane and CO2
extraction method. The PFD of preprocessing is shown in Fig. 2. In the
preprocessing stage, material loss is significant but is considered necessary and
unavoidable (stones, dirt, hull, etc.). Energy consumption is also significant:
for each metric ton of crude soybean oil produced, 2380 MJ of energy is
required. The most significant consumption of energy (1186 MJ) is from
drying raw soybeans prior to mechanical cleaning. The second most significant
consumption of energy (599 MJ) is for conditioning the soybeans prior to
flaking. In conditioning, the moisture content of the bean is raised and the
beans are heated from 25–71C. The third most significant consumption of
Soybean from field

Dirt, stones, etc.
(22 MJ)
Tempering (storage for
Dryer Mechanical cleaner Cracker
24–72 h)
(1186 MJ)
(20 MJ) (599 MJ)

(513 MJ)
Heating (Steam) Expander Flaker Conditioner Dehuller
(6 MJ)
Air cooler Hulls
Soybean collets (pellets)

to extraction
FIG. 2. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM OF PREPROCESSING OF SOYBEAN

OIL PRODUCTION
energy (513 MJ) is from the expander, which compresses the soybean flakes
into pellets for a more complete oil extraction.
The PFD of postprocessing is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Postprocessing
consists of five major steps: degumming, caustic refining, bleaching, hydro-
genation and deodorization. The operations are typically performed in that
order. Process emissions for postprocessing operations are minimal. There are
142 kg of soap stock and 7 kg of spent bleaching earth emitted for every metric
ton of crude soybean oil produced in the extraction operation. Bulk soybean oil
(975 kg) is produced as the main product and 25 kg of lecithin is produced as
a by-product. The energy consumption of postprocessing is 944 MJ for every
metric ton crude soybean oil produced in extraction. With a potential heat and
electricity recovery of 287 MJ, the net energy for the process is 657 MJ.
The solvent used in extraction is hexane, a mixture of n-hexane, methyl-
pentane, methylcyclopentane and dimethylbutane, in varying proportions. In
this study, the mixture was set at 62% normal hexane, 24% methylpentane,
13% methylcyclopentane and 1% dimethylbutane (Erickson 1995). A simpli-
fied extraction PFD is shown in Fig. 5.
434 Y. LI ET AL.
Vacuum dryer Cooling Degummed soybean oil
Heating
Water
Crude soybean oil Filter Centrifuge
Bleaching agent
Fluidity agent
Agitated film evaporator
Cooling Packaging and transport of lecithin
Degumming process
FIG. 3. FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE DEGUMMING PROCESS
Caustic solution
Degummed soybean oil Mixer Heating Primary centrifuge Mixer
Hot water
Soap stock disposal
Bleaching earth
Centrifuge Mixer Centrifuge
Caustic refining process
Adsorption Filtration Hydrogenation reactor Deodorizer Bulk soybean oil
Spent earth
Hydrogen Dry-reduced nickel catalyst Steam
Bleaching process Deodorization process

Hydrogenation process
FIG. 4. FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE CAUSTIC REFINING, BLEACHING, HYDROGENATION

AND DEODORIZATION OPERATIONS IN POSTPROCESSING
We explored three methods of CO2 extraction: methods A, B and C. In all

three methods, the soybean oil is extracted from soybeans at 592 atm and 80C
(Erickson 1995), but they differed in the purification steps to remove and
recycle solvent. In method A, oil is separated from the CO2 by depressurizing
Desolventizer–Toaster Drier Air cooler Soy meal
Process steam
Cyclone Condenser
Hexane makeup
Water Crude soybean oil
Soybean collets Extractor

(pellets) to extraction
Heat exchanger
1st evaporator 2nd evaporator Oil stripper
FIG. 5. SIMPLIFIED CONVENTIONAL EXTRACTION OPERATIONS

Broken lines indicate the steps included in life cycle assessment.
to 54 atm at 20C. The gaseous CO2 is then condensed at 54 atm and pumped
back as a liquid to the supercritical phase (at 592 atm). In method B, oil is
separated at the same conditions as method A. However, in method B, the
gaseous CO2 is compressed to the supercritical phase (592 atm) rather than
being condensed to a liquid and pumped to 592 atm. In method C, oil is
separated from the CO2 stream by reducing the temperature of the stream to
20C and holding the pressure constant at 592 atm while the CO2 gas is
released. Because not all of the extracted oil can be separated from CO2 at
592 atm and 20C, a larger CO2 flow rate is required in method C to get an
equivalent yield of soybean oil, which results in larger CO2 fugitive losses.
Energy balance calculations (based on T, P and phase changes) show that
method B is the most energy-efficient method (6677 MJ/1000 kg, 2313 MJ/
1000 kg and 4949 MJ/1000 kg from methods A, B and C, respectively). There-
fore, method B has been used in comparison with conventional extraction. A
simplified PFD for method B extraction is shown in Fig. 6. It should be
repeated that the CO2 extraction process for soybean was still in the bench-
scale stage, with only a preliminary analysis of engineering variables.
Material loss in the extraction and separation phase is due almost solely
to fugitive emissions. In conventional hexane extraction, 50 kg of hexane
mixture is lost per 1000 kg of crude soybean oil produced. In CO2 extraction
(method B), 292 kg of CO2 is lost per 1000 kg of crude soybean oil produced.
Chemical losses were identical for methods A and B, but fugitive losses were
higher for method C as a result of larger CO2 flows.
Energy consumption is significant for CO2 extraction. Without account-
ing for potential energy recovery, the CO2 extraction and separation phase
436 Y. LI ET AL.
Toaster Drier Air cooler Soy meal
Process steam
Compressor 1
CO2 makeup
Crude soybean oil
Soybean collets Extractor

(pellets) to extraction (592 atm) Liquid turbine
Electricity
Separator
Turbine
(54 atm)
Electricity
FIG. 6. SIMPLIFIED CO2 EXTRACTION OPERATIONS

Broken lines indicate the steps included in life cycle assessment.
(method B) uses a total of 7547 MJ of energy per 1000 kg of crude soybean oil
produced (pre- through postprocessing).
Potential energy recovery was determined for all depressurization pro-
cesses using standard turbine energy calculations (McCabe et al. 2005). When
potential heat and energy recovery of 5234 MJ is included, only a net 2313 MJ
is required. The conventional extraction and separation with hexane uses a
total of 3188 MJ of energy per 1000 kg of crude oil produced (pre- through
postprocessing). When including 1147 MJ of potential energy recovery, the
total drops to a net 2041 MJ. The most significant source of energy consump-
tion with CO2 extraction is the compression phase (6801 MJ), while the most
significant source of energy consumption in conventional extraction is hexane
distillation from soybean oil (1377 MJ). At this stage of LCA, the CO2 bench-
scale R&D technology for soybean extraction was not better than the
conventional industrial hexane technology. Meeting with the National Science
Foundation Science and Technology Center R & D team led to a range of ideas
to improve method B. These concepts were improving the mass transfer
coefficients, adjusting pressure, and use of a co-solvent to increase solubility.
In addition, a different technology was suggested, the use of a membrane
(method D) to separate the small CO2 molecule from the larger organic
structures of soybean oil. Membrane separation for extraction has been used in
other circumstances (Wang and Shen 2005; Jakubowska et al. 2005).
Soybean oil chart
10,000 Pressure – Energy

9000
Energy (MJ/1000 kg soybean oil)
Solubility improvement – Energy

8000
7000
Extractor mass transfer
6000
efficiency improvement –
Energy
5000 Membrane efficiency
improvement – Energy
4000
Hexane extraction process
3000
2000
1000
0
0 20 40 60 80
Percentage improvement of parameters from respective base case (%)
FIG. 7. SOYBEAN CO2 EXTRACTION PROCESS ENERGY VARIATION IN RESPONSE TO

PERCENT CHANGE IN SPECIFIC PROCESS VARIABLES FOUND IN JUST THE
EXTRACTION METHODS B (PRESSURE BASE VALUE, 592 atm; SOLUBILITY BASE
VALUE, 57 g/kg CO2; EXTRACTOR EFFICIENCY BASE VALUE, 0.925) AND D (MEMBRANE
FILTER EFFICIENCY BASE VALUE, 0.9)
It was anticipated that separating the small molecular CO2 would be

efficient with membranes. The membrane used in these preliminary calcula-
tions was ceramic membrane, which on a preliminary basis was assumed to
give 90% CO2 separation (Photinon et al. 2003). With these four potential
improvements, the LCA was redone as an engineering R&D probe to assess
the life cycle improvement in these process variables as well as introducing
membrane separation efficiency as a development variable. Extraction method
B is used for describing the energy effect of improvement in pressure, solu-
bility with co-solvent and mass transfer, while the membrane separation effi-
ciency effects are studied for the membrane case. Base case calculations were
made at an extraction pressure of 592 atm and a temperature of 80C, extractor
efficiency of 92.5% and solubility of 57 g oil/1000 g CO2 (Reverchon et al.
2000). Energy consumption varies with these three parameters, as shown in
Fig. 7. When the extractor pressure is lower, energy consumption increases.
This is because the solubility of oil in CO2 dramatically decreases at lower
pressures. Increasing pressure over 592 atm is not acceptable because it will
require prohibitively expensive capital investment.
As shown in Fig. 7, the membrane method consumes about 50% of
hexane extraction energy, and energy consumption decreases with increasing
membrane efficiency. The membrane filtration avoids reducing the pressure of
main CO2 stream. Therefore, much of the compression energy needed in other
438 Y. LI ET AL.
methods is avoided in the membrane method. The improvement on membrane

efficiency has less impact on extraction energy consumption than other
variables in method B. Energy consumption also decreases with increasing
solubility and mass transfer coefficient. If a co-solvent can be found, which
improves the solubility of soybean oil in supercritical CO2, the energy con-
sumption of the extraction process will be reduced. However, this co-solvent
has to be nontoxic, because soybean oil is widely used in food industry.
The introduction of a co-solvent may require more energy and separation
units in the process, depending on how the co-solvent is separated from the
soybean oil, which compensates the reduction of energy consumption in the
extraction unit. The extractor efficiency for the base calculations was set at
92.5% (Reverchon et al. 2000). Increasing extractor mass transfer efficiency
will decrease the energy consumption directly; but the improvement of extrac-
tor efficiency is limited. After the extractor efficiency is improved to nearly
100%, the energy consumption of method B is still much more than that of the
hexane extraction process.
From Fig. 7, extraction energy consumption can be reduced by improve-
ments on certain variables of the process except pressure. The total energy
shown in Fig. 7, however, is summed up without distinguishing the different
energy types. Electricity and steam are two major energy sources consumed
in the extraction phase. Electricity is the major energy consumed in methods
B and D, while steam is the major energy consumed in hexane extraction
because of the process characteristics. Electricity and steam are converted
from fuel oil with different efficiency. Therefore, the environmental conse-
quences of consuming these two types of energy are different. After convert-
ing all types of energy to the equivalent fuel oil energy, the extraction energy
of the different methods is further compared in Fig. 8 with considering
solvent supply chain, preprocessing and postprocessing (Fig. 7 is the extrac-
tion portion of Fig. 8).
From the cradle-to-gate (CTG) point of view, the CO2 supply chain has an
advantage of a short chemistry tree compared to most organic solvents. But
hexane also has a short chemistry tree as it is a product of petroleum refinery.
The CTG total energy of CO2 and hexane soybean oil extraction is compared
in Fig. 8. All types of energy were then converted to fuel oil equivalents in
order to have the comparison on the same base. The life cycle inventory data
of CO2 production are obtained as a by-product of ammonia production (Kim
and Overcash 2000). The overall life cycle inventory of the ammonia process
is allocated based on the mass of ammonia and CO2 production (Kim and
Overcash 2000). We assume that the efficiency from fuel oil to electricity is
0.35 and the efficiency from fuel oil to steam is 0.8 (Jimenez-Gonzalez and
Overcash 2000). Figure 8 shows that the extraction stage has the most energy
consumption in the overall CTG life cycle for CO2 extraction methods B and
a
Energy response versus mass transfer efficiency improvement
20,000
Postprocessing
Extraction
Energy (MJ crude oil/1000 kg crude soybean oil)
18,000
Preprocessing
16,000
Solvent supply chain
14,000
12,000
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
CO2_B, base CO2_B, 4% mass transfer CO2_B, 8% mass transfer
Mass transfer efficiency increase (base = 0.925)
b
Energy response versus solubility improvement
20,000
Postprocessing
18,000
Extraction
16,000 Preprocessing
14,000 Solvent supply chain
12,000
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
CO2_B, base CO2_B, 36% solubility CO2_B, 72% solubility
Solubility increase (base = 57 g oil/kg CO2)
FIG. 8. CRADLE-TO-GATE (CTG) ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPARISON

(a) Energy response versus mass transfer efficiency improvement. (b) Energy response versus
solubility improvement. (c) Energy response versus filter efficiency improvement. (d) CTG energy
of hexane extraction system.
440 Y. LI ET AL.
c
Energy response versus filter efficiency improvement
20,000
18,000
16,000 Postprocessing
Extraction
14,000
Preprocessing
12,000 Solvent supply chain
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
CO2_D, base CO2_D, 5% filter CO2_D, 10.3% filter

Membrane efficiency increase (base = 0.9)
d
CTG energy profile of soybean oil production using hexane
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
Postprocessing
Extraction
12,000
Preprocessing
10,000
Solvent supply chain
8000
6000
4000
2000
Hexane
FIG. 8. CONTINUED
D and hexane extraction. The supply chain contribution is relatively small, but
the CO2 supply chain energy consumption is more than that of hexane. Even
though 1 kg CO2 from an ammonia process does have less energy consumption
than a kilogram of hexane production, the CO2 extraction method has more
fugitive emissions, which results in a larger CO2 mass demand on the CTG
chemistry tree. The extraction step has the most energy demand in all methods,
except for the membrane case.
The improvement of the membrane filter can decrease the CTG energy
demand dramatically because the more efficient the membrane is, the less CO2
needs to be compressed in the solvent recycle stream. If we can improve
the membrane filter efficiency by more than 10.3% from the base value, the
corresponding fuel oil CTG energy demand of the CO2 method becomes less
than that of the hexane method. Improvement in solubility results in similar
effects as that of the membrane filter, but the CTG energy of the CO2 method
is still higher than that of the hexane method after a 72% improvement of the
solubility from the base value. The mass transfer efficiency in the extractor has
a base value of 0.925, and improvement on mass transfer efficiency has no
significant effect on CTG energy. The major drawback in the CO2 method is
the compression of a large amount of CO2. Improvement on mass transfer
efficiency cannot reduce the amount of CO2 required in the extraction process;
it does not reduce the extraction energy significantly.
ANALYSIS
One attractive aspect of supercritical CO2 in extraction application is that

the separation of the product from the CO2 solvent is easy to achieve, which
avoids the energy demand in the traditional distillation separation. However,
the compression of CO2 requires significant energy. By replacing the tradi-
tional solvent with supercritical CO2 solvent, we actually shift the energy
demand from distillation to compression, and steam energy to electricity.
Because supercritical CO2 has a low solubility for soybean oil, extraction
with supercritical CO2 solvent always has a large solvent mass demand, which
causes intensive energy consumption in compression. We believe that the key
to improve the performance of supercritical CO2 solvent in extraction may be
to find a suitable co-solvent to improve the solubility of the product in super-
critical CO2. Then again, the separation of the co-solvent and product will
require additional energy, which will have a negative impact on the environ-
ment. Therefore, the amount of co-solvent used will require further optimiza-
tion from both economic and environmental perspectives. Membrane
separation, on the other hand, provides an opportunity to avoid compression.
Membrane filter efficiency plays a very important role in determining the
442 Y. LI ET AL.
Eco-indicator 95
4.00
3.57
3.31
3.50
3.00
2.60
2.50
Ecopoints
2.00
1.50
0.99
0.83
1.00
0.35
0.50
0.26
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GWP ODP AP NP HM C WS SS Total
Conventional hexane processing (EP)
Option B: Pressure reduction before improvements; Gas phase recovery (EP)
FIG. 9. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR THE EXTRACTION/SEPARATION PHASE OF

SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION USING THE ECO-INDICATOR 95
(Goedkoop 1995)
GWP, global warming; ODP, ozone depletion potential; AP, acidification; NP, nitrification; HM,
heavy metals; WS, winter smog; SS, summer smog.
performance of membrane separation. A combination of membrane technol-

ogy and a method to improve solubility will be the ideal solution to change the
fate of CO2 application in soybean oil production.
LCA was applied to the extraction phase using Eco-indicator 95 damage
weighting factors, which express the relative seriousness of the damage
(Goedkoop 1995). The result is shown in Fig. 9. The assessment is a cradle-
to-factory gate assessment and is based upon actual process emissions, energy
production emissions, chemical input manufacturing emissions and chemical
input manufacturing energy production emissions. Using Eco-indicator 95
damage weighting factors, CO2 extraction contributes more significantly to
global warming, acidification, nutrification, heavy metals and winter smog
than conventional extraction. However, conventional extraction contributes
much more significantly to summer smog than CO2 extraction does.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
LCA provides a broader framework for comparing two different extrac-

tion technologies for soybean oil production. The environmental burden comes
mainly from the preprocessing and extraction steps in soybean oil production.
The preprocessing step has a 2384 MJ energy demand for every 1000 kg
soybean oil production, and the supercritical extraction and separation process
consumes 5045 MJ energy for every 1000 kg soybean oil production after
taking into account potential heat and energy recovery. Our study shows that
the current laboratory-scale data for supercritical CO2 extraction technique
before R&D improvements will consume more energy. However, some attain-
able engineering improvements would make CO2 extraction better than hexane
extraction. The overall environmental burden is more complicated than the
traditional hexane extraction method in soybean production. Hexane extrac-
tion is more environmentally attractive based on several Eco-indicators, except
summer smog and cancer. The main problem of CO2 extraction is the low
solubility of soybean oil in supercritical CO2 fluid, which causes large solvent
demand and intensive energy consumption. We also find that the energy
consumption decreases as the operation pressure increases in the supercritical
CO2 extraction process. However, pressure over 592 atm is not applicable in
the industry because of expensive capital investment.
Our study shows that the extraction step contributes the most intensive
energy consumption in the overall CTG energy profile in both the CO2 and
hexane methods. Even as CO2 is environmentally benign, but the application
of it is not necessarily the same. The study also shows that the recovery of
solvent is very important not only because of the economic value, but also
from the environmental point of view. More solvent for recovery will put more
environmental burden into the overall CTG environmental profile rather than
on solvent manufacturing.
In this study, the preprocessing steps for hexane extraction and super-
critical CO2 extraction are assumed to be the same. Supercritical CO2,
however, has very low viscosity, extremely low surface tension and high
diffusivity. These properties make it easy for supercritical CO2 fluid to pen-
etrate the complex geometries and small cracks of the soybean. Thus, the
requirement of preprocessing for supercritical extraction may be lower that
the requirement for hexane extraction, and it will result in a lower energy
demand for the preprocessing step in the supercritical CO2 extraction process.
This possibility needs further study to improve the quantification of
environmental factors.
REFERENCES
BERK, Z. 1992. Technology of Production of Edible Flours and Protein

Products from Soybeans. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 97. FAO
Agricultural Services, Rome, Italy.
444 Y. LI ET AL.
BRUNETTI, L., DAGHETTA, A., FEDELI, E., KIKIC, I. and ZANDERIGHI,

L. 1989. Deacidification of olive oils by supercritical carbon-dioxide. J.
Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 66(2), 209–217.
ERICKSON, D.R. 1995. Practical Handbook of Soybean Processing and
Utilization. AOCS Press, Champaign, IL.
ERICKSON, D.R. and WIEDERMANN, L.H. 1989. Soybean Oil – Modern
Processing and Utilization. PR-63. American Soybean Association.
GOEDKOOP, M.J. 1995. The Eco-Indicator 95, Final Report. PRé Con-
sultants, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
HAUSCHILD, M. and WENZEL, H. 1997. Environmental Assessment of
Products. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
JAKUBOWSKA, N., POLKOWSKA, Z., NAMIESNIK, J. and PRZYJAZNY,
A. 2005. Analytical applications of membrane extraction for biomedical
and environmental liquid sample preparation. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem.
35(3), 217–235.
JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ, C. and OVERCASH, M. 2000. Energy sub-modules
applied in life cycle inventory of processes. Clean Products and Processes
2, 57–66.
JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ, C. and OVERCASH, M. 2001. Waste treatment
modules – A partial life cycle inventory. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.
76, 707–716.
JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ, C., KIM, S. and OVERCASH, M. 2000. Methodol-
ogy for developing gate-to-gate life cycle information. Int. J. LCA. 5(3),
153–159.
JOHNSON, L.A. 1997. Technology and Solvents for Extracting Oilseeds and
Nonpetroleum Oils. AOCS Press, Champaign, IL.
KIM, S. and OVERCASH, M. 2000. Allocation procedure in multi-output
process: An illustration of ISO 14041. Int. J. LCA. 5(4), 221–228.
KOCK, M. 1981. U.S. Patent 4, 255, 346.
LAWHON, J.T., MANAK, L.J., RHEE, K.C. and LUSAS, E.W. 1981. Com-
bining aqueous extraction and membrane isolation techniques to recover
protein and oil from soybeans. J. Food Sci. 46(3), 912–916.
LUSAS, E.W. and WATKINS, L.R. 1988. Oilseeds – extrusion for solvent-
extraction. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 65(7), 1109–1114.
LUSAS, E.W., WATKINS, L.R., KOSEOGLU, S.S., RHEE, K.C.,
HERNANDEX, E., RIAZ, M.N., JOHNSON, J.R. and DOTY,
S.C. 1997. Final report: IPA as an extraction solvent. INFORM. 8, 280–
305.
MCCABE, W., SMITH, J. and HARRIOTT, P. 2005. Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
OVERCASH, M. 2005. Chemical Life Cycle Database. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
PHOTINON, K., BODDU, A. and ILIAS, S. 2003. Recovery of liquid CO2

from cleaning solutions without phase change using ultrafiltration and
microfiltration membranes. Sep. Sci. Technol. 38(12–13), 2951–2962.
REVERCHON, E. and OSSEO, L.S. 1994. Comparison of processes for the
supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of oil from soybean seeds. J. Am.
Oil Chem. Soc. 71(9), 1007–1012.
REVERCHON, E., POLETTO, M., OSSEO, L.S. and SOMMA, M. 2000.
Hexane elimination from soybean oil by continuous packed tower pro-
cessing with supercritical CO2. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 77(1), 9–14.
SMITH, K.J., LUSAS, E.W., ERICKSON, D.R. and NIPEDS, W.K. 1989.
Food Uses of Whole Oil and Protein Seed. AOCS Press, Champaign, IL.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42.
USEPA Office of Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, NC.
WAN, P.J. and WAKELYN, P.J. 1997. Technology and Solvents for Extracting
Oilseeds and Nonpetroleum Oils. pp. 36–37, AOCS Press, Champaign,
IL.
WAN, P.J., HRON, R.J., DOWD, M., KUK, S. and CONKERTON, E.J. 1995.
Isohexane as an alternative hydrocarbon solvent. Oil Mill Gaz. 100(12),
28–32.
WANG, L.J. and SHEN, W. 2005. Chemical and morphological stability of
Aliquat 336/PVC membranes in membrane extraction: A preliminary
study. Sep. Purif. Technol. 46(1–2), 51–62.

J Food Process Engineering - 2006 - LI - LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Food Process Engineering - 2006 - LI - LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17454530, 2006, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4530.2006.00069.x by University of Reading, Wiley Online Library on [30/11/2022].

YONG LI1, EVAN GRIFFING1, MATTHEW HIGGINS2 and

Accepted for Publication March 9, 2006

Journal of Food Process Engineering 29 (2006) 429–445. All Rights Reserved.

solvent extraction, except in some mechanical extraction facilities in small-

atic study of soybean oil production, the benefits or consequences of using

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Soybean meal cooking

FIG. 1. OVERVIEW OF THE SOYBEAN OIL PRODUCTION PROCESS

In addition to energy use (and subsequent emissions from energy

Soybean from field

(20 MJ) (599 MJ)

Heating (Steam) Expander Flaker Conditioner Dehuller

Air cooler Hulls

Soybean collets (pellets)

FIG. 2. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM OF PREPROCESSING OF SOYBEAN

Vacuum dryer Cooling Degummed soybean oil

Crude soybean oil Filter Centrifuge

Agitated film evaporator

Cooling Packaging and transport of lecithin

FIG. 3. FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE DEGUMMING PROCESS

Degummed soybean oil Mixer Heating Primary centrifuge Mixer

Centrifuge Mixer Centrifuge

Caustic refining process

Adsorption Filtration Hydrogenation reactor Deodorizer Bulk soybean oil

Bleaching process Deodorization process

FIG. 4. FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE CAUSTIC REFINING, BLEACHING, HYDROGENATION

We explored three methods of CO2 extraction: methods A, B and C. In all

Desolventizer–Toaster Drier Air cooler Soy meal

Soybean collets Extractor

1st evaporator 2nd evaporator Oil stripper

FIG. 5. SIMPLIFIED CONVENTIONAL EXTRACTION OPERATIONS

Toaster Drier Air cooler Soy meal

Soybean collets Extractor

FIG. 6. SIMPLIFIED CO2 EXTRACTION OPERATIONS

Soybean oil chart

10,000 Pressure – Energy

Solubility improvement – Energy

FIG. 7. SOYBEAN CO2 EXTRACTION PROCESS ENERGY VARIATION IN RESPONSE TO

It was anticipated that separating the small molecular CO2 would be

methods is avoided in the membrane method. The improvement on membrane

Mass transfer efficiency increase (base = 0.925)

CO2_B, base CO2_B, 36% solubility CO2_B, 72% solubility

Solubility increase (base = 57 g oil/kg CO2)

FIG. 8. CRADLE-TO-GATE (CTG) ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPARISON

CO2_D, base CO2_D, 5% filter CO2_D, 10.3% filter

One attractive aspect of supercritical CO2 in extraction application is that

FIG. 9. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR THE EXTRACTION/SEPARATION PHASE OF

performance of membrane separation. A combination of membrane technol-

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

LCA provides a broader framework for comparing two different extrac-

BERK, Z. 1992. Technology of Production of Edible Flours and Protein

BRUNETTI, L., DAGHETTA, A., FEDELI, E., KIKIC, I. and ZANDERIGHI,

PHOTINON, K., BODDU, A. and ILIAS, S. 2003. Recovery of liquid CO2

You might also like