Cleaner Production (CP) in Olive Oil Industryin Jordan

“Integrated Waste Management for the Olive Oil PressingIndustries in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan”

UNDP-MoEnv.

Dr. Adnan I. Khdair, PM

The 2nd Arab Cleaner Production WorkshopAmman, August 28-30, 2007Results, Conclusion an Recommendations

٢

Cleaner Production Definition

“The continuous application of an integratedpreventive environmental strategy applied toprocesses, products, and services to increaseoverall efficiency and reduce risks to humansand the environment.”

United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP)

٣

Statistics: Mills In Jordan (2004)

• 112 olive mills

• Geographic Distribution:– North Jordan (68 %)– Mount Jordan (25%),– South Jordan (7%),

• Traditional Mills (7%)• Individual Owners (80%)• Average prod.(2000 kg/hr)

٤

Background Information• Olive Mills generates:

– Olive Mill Wastewater (Zibar)– Pomace (Jeft) & Earthly waste (leaves, stones,etc)– Noise– Odor

• Refinery generates:– Odor (VOC)– Gas Emissions (CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, CxHy. )– Oil wash water & Air control unit wastewater– Soap Stock

٥

٦

٧

٨

٩

١٠

١١

١٢

Background Information• Olive Mills consumes large quantities of fresh water during normal

production process• OMW is the most polluting waste generated from mills• OMW is among the “strongest” industrial effluents• OMW characteristics:

– PH (Acidic – 4.5)– BOD (100g/l)– COD (220 g/l)– Phenols (Phytotoxic/anti-bacterial affect� non-biodegradable)– Residual oil (thin film on surface water � reflect sunlight)– Phosphorous (eutrophication)– TSS, Color and Odor

• All OMW samples did not meet any of the National discharge Standards

• It is estimated that 1 m3 of OMW is approximately 100-200 times morepowerful than 1 m3 of domestic WW (Niaounakis, 2006)

١٣

THINK OF ALL FORMS OF WASTES ASPOLLUTION

(REGULATED OR NOT)

١٤

AND IF YOU CONTROL, TREAT, DISPOSE OF WASTES- IT COSTS YOU MORE MONEY!

١٥

Possible causes for wastePossible causes for wastePossible causes for wastePossible causes for wastegenerationgenerationgenerationgeneration

Process

ManagementPlanning &Information

Systems

PersonnelSkills &

Motivation

Wastes &Emissions

Choice &Quality of

Input Materials

TechnicalStatus ofEquipment

Choice ofProductionTechnology

ProcessEfficiency

ProductSpecifications

١٦

The essential elements of Cleaner Production

ContinuousContinuous ServicesServices HumansHumans

PreventivePreventive RiskReduction

RiskReduction

Integrated(air, water,

land)

Integrated(air, water,

land)

Productsand

Process

Productsand

ProcessEnviron-

mentEnviron-

ment

Strategyfor

Strategyfor

١٧

Cleaner Production Includes:

• Source Reduction,

• Raw Material Substitution,

• Clean Technology,

• Preventive Maintenance,

• In-Process Recycling.

١٨

Cleaner Production proceduresThe recognized need

to minimise waste

Planning andOrganization

AssessmentPhase

Feasibility AnalysisPhase

Implementation

Successfully implemented CP projects

The firststep

The secondstep

The thirdstep

The fourthstep

١٩

WASHINHG CRUSHING MECHANICALPRESSING

DECANTING

Cold WaterHot Water

Wastewater Press Cake Wastewater

OliveOilOlives

Press Olive Extraction (Traditional)

Process Assessment PhaseProcess Assessment PhaseProcess Assessment PhaseProcess Assessment Phase

٢٠

٢١

٢٢

٢٣

٢٤

WASHINHG CRUSHINGMALAXING

DECANTING

Cold Water

Wastewater Sludges

OliveOil

Olives

Dual Phase Olive ExtractionDual Phase Olive ExtractionDual Phase Olive ExtractionDual Phase Olive Extraction

٢٥

WASHINHG CRUSHING

CENTRIFUGALDECANTING of

SLUDGES

DECANTING

Cold WaterHot Water

Wastewater

WastewaterOliveOil

CENTRIFUGALDECANTING of

LIQUIDS

PressCake

OliveOil Wastewater

Olives

Triple Phase Olive ExtractionTriple Phase Olive ExtractionTriple Phase Olive ExtractionTriple Phase Olive Extraction

Hot Water

٢٦

٢٧

٢٨

٢٩

٣٠

٣١

ProcessProcess

Raw materialsRaw materials

WaterWater

EnergyEnergy

TransportTransport

InputInput OutputOutput

Waste streamsWaste streams

EmissionsEmissions

Waste water streamsWaste water streams

Waste disposalWaste disposal

TransportationTransportationConsumptionConsumption

StorageStorage

PRODUCTPRODUCT

٣٢

Material and energy balancesMaterial and energy balancesMaterial and energy balancesMaterial and energy balances

The IndustrialProcess

Heat Power TheEnergyBalance

Cooling

RawMaterials

Products& Waste

TheMass

Balance

٣٣

Input Output Analysis of the Different Oil Extraction Processesin Jordan

257.4 Kg735 Kg

100-150 liters

OilPomace

Wastewater

1000 Kg100-120 liters90-117 kWh

OliveWashing Water

Energy

2

256.4 Kg581.16 Kg

1500 Liters

OilPomace

Wastewater

1000 Kg100-120 liters

700-1000 liters90-117 kWh

OliveWashing Water

Hot Water AddedEnergy

3

257.4 Kg500Kg

666 liters

OilPomace

Wastewater

1000 Kg100-200 liters

40-60 kWh

OliveWashing Water

Energy

T

AmountOutputAmountInput

٣٤

Typical olive oil extraction wastewater characteristicsaccording to method of production in Jordan

222-7490 (3695)Total potassium K (mg/l)١٤

62-1015 (592)Total Chlorine (mg/l)13

20-15444 (3373)Fats and Oils (mg/l)12

289-2118(1201)Total Phenols (mg/l)11

927-11540(7134)EC uS/cm10

4947-278222(141355)COD (mg/l)9

2050-82775(24425)BOD5 (mg/l)8

4.87-7.2 (5.25)pH (SU)7

29-1793(918)Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l)6

6.1-438 (208)Total phosphorous (mg/l))5

238-106500 (35886)Total Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/l)4

55-5400 (1593)Total Fermented Suspended Solids(mg/l)

٣

368-111900 (37479)Total suspended solids (mg/l)2

2574-110417 (46333)Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)1

Range (average)Parameter

٣٥

Typical olive oil extraction solid waste characteristics according tomethod of production

526.89-627.5150.47-601.1537.45-639.95C/P Ratio11

54.426-64.93452.137-62.20355.348-66.052C/N Ratio1023.345-27.39526.713-31.34739.66-46.324Total Carbon (%)9

0.293-0.3470.357-0.4230.495-0.585Potassium as K2O (%)8

2.28-2.580.291-0.3611.08-1.2Phenols (%)7

0037-0.0430.046-0.0540.065-0.075Phosphorous as P2O5 (%)6

0.424-0.4360.503-0.5170.7-0.72Kjeldahl Nitrogen (%)5

1.33-11.511.60-1.812.22-2.5Ash (%)4

2.86-2.883.41-3.454.75-4.79Proteins (%)3

2.91-6.392.44-5.345.47-11.97Fats and Oils (%)2

54.61-58.9948.30-52.1726.15-28.25Moisture (%)1

2-Phase3-PhaseTraditionalParameter

٣٦

Environmental Evaluation of the Different OilExtraction Processes.

•Greater amount of wet pomace.•High energy consumption

•Lower amount of hot waterconsumption•Lower amount of wastewater

2- Phase

•Greater amount of wastewater•Greater amount of hot waterconsumption•High Energy consumption

• Low moisture pomace.• Best Quality wastewater

3- Phase

• Worst quality wastewater• Low energy consumption• Production of lowest moisturepomace• Low water addition

Traditional

DisadvantagesAdvantagesProcess

٣٧

CP optionsCP optionsCP optionsCP options

Process

On-siteRecovery/Reuse

Production ofUsefulBy-Product

ProductModification

EquipmentModification

InputSubstitution

GoodHousekeeping

TechnologyChange

Better ProcessControl

٣٨

The basic CP criteria for the establishment of anolive press are the following:

• Maximization of olive oil production.

• Minimization of by products (wastes) such as vegetation water andpomace.

• Maximum economical recovery of by products.

• Conservation of resources such as water and energy.

• Manage wastes at the source trying to avoid its occurrence.

• Minimization of environmental impacts due to olive cultivation,transportation, storage, and pressing.

٣٩

Source Reduction :

Technology modification Options

1) Exchange between the Dual Phase and the TriplePhase systems

2) Another option is the two and a half oil decanter

3) De-stoning Olives before Malaxation..

An average of 50% reduction in added water and aconsequent 50% reduction in generated wastewater.Added to that, an expected 1.5 X increase in the oil millcapacity and 50% reduction of solid (Pomace) due to de-stoning of olives. Also, stones can be used as animalfeed or add to soil conditioner

٤٠

)Water Conservation Options (Washing water recycling

Products (Pomace):-By

1) Use as Soil Conditioner

2) Use as Fuel

3) Other uses of Pomace include further oil extraction usingsolvents, adsorbent of heavy metals in water treatmentplants, and as foodstuff for animals.

٤١

٤٢

٤٣

٤٤

Housekeeping practices:

• Proper and faster cultivation, packaging, transportation, andstorage of olives.

• Regular preventive maintenance of equipment at the olivepress.

• Proper containment of pomace and wastewater to prevent anyleakage to any parts of the environment.

• Proper collection of refuse and transportation to designatedlandfill.

• Proper packaging, storage, and transportation of olive oil andother products.

٤٥

How can governments promote CP?

• Applying regulations

• Using economic instruments

• Providing support measures

• Obtaining external assistance

٤٦

Water Consumption Rate

0000

500500500500

1000100010001000

1500150015001500

2000200020002000

2500250025002500

3000300030003000

Water Water Water Water

Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional 2222 Phase Phase Phase Phase3333 Phase Phase Phase Phase2.52.52.52.5 Phase Phase Phase PhaseRefinery Refinery Refinery Refinery

Liter/Ton processed

٤٧

Energy Consumption Rate

0000

50505050

100100100100

150150150150

200200200200

EnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy

Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional 2222 Phase Phase Phase Phase3333 Phase Phase Phase Phase2.52.52.52.5 Phase Phase Phase PhaseRefinery Refinery Refinery Refinery

Kw/ton processed

*Converted refinery’s boiler 764,400 MJ energy to Kw rate based on 36.4 MJ/l energy content of diesel oil (US DoE, 2004)

٤٨

Effluent Generation Rate

0000

500500500500

1000100010001000

1500150015001500

2000200020002000

OMWOMWOMWOMW

Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional 2222 Phase Phase Phase Phase3333 Phase Phase Phase Phase2.52.52.52.5 Phase Phase Phase PhaseRefinery Refinery Refinery Refinery

Liters/Ton processed

٤٩

OMW Characteristics

• The following Table compares the:– Actual Lab results for collected OMW samples

from the 6 different olive mills and single wastewater sample from refinery

– WW parameter characteristics cited in different literature references

– NSEQ/Environmental Limit Value (ELV) for discharge into surface water (8/1-2001)

٥٠

Pomace Generation Rate

0000

20202020

40404040

60606060

80808080

Pomace Pomace Pomace Pomace

Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional 2222 Phase Phase Phase Phase3333 Phase Phase Phase Phase2.52.52.52.5 Phase Phase Phase Phase

% of processed

olives

٥١

Factors of Influence• The composition of OMW and pomace are not

constant both qualitatively and quantitatively. • Factors of influence, collectively or individually,

include: – Seasonal and climatic conditions;– Olive fruit composition; – Harvesting time and technique; – Storage time; and– Olive oil extraction technique.

• Noise pollution fluctuation is influenced by the presence of noisy machinery

• % of Residual oil in WW is a factor of decanting system used (natural vs centrifuge)

٥٢

Cleaner Production Options• Cleaner Production is a cost efficient protective and

preventative approach which aim to deal with the problems at their source, trying to avoid their occurrence

• The discussed cleaner production options on the National Scale include: – Technology Replacement

• Clustering and Shift to Two Phase Technology• Replacement of 3 phase decanters with 2.5 decanters

– Targeted modifications and adjustments• Install water meters and water saving equipment• OMW Holding tanks & pre-treatment system (lime+aeration+mixing)• Fresh water treatment • Install centrifuge machines in Traditional mills

– Good house keeping and Proper Hygienic Conditions

٥٣

Feasibility Analysis

1- Technical feasibility

2- Environmental Feasibility

3- Economical Feasibility

٥٤

GHاEF اBC>Dج ا?<=>

Cleaner Production

Option

Objective Benefits Cost

Clustering & Shift to Two Phase Technology

(National Level)

Substitution of:

� Traditional mills

� Three-phase mills

�In parallel encourage small individual mills to combine together and form a larger centralized mill

(example each 3-5 small traditional mills combine together to form a single larger 2-phasemill)

�Reduction in water consumption since no water is added in the decanter. This creates a reduction of 36,000–45,000 t/year of water for 45,000 t/year of processed olives (Gurbuz et al., 2002)

�Reduce national OMW generation from a total of 200,000 m3/year to approximately 60,000 m3/year or by reduction by 65%.

�Future savings in wastewater treatment costs (range between 47% for aerobic treatment and 64% for Anaerobic/aerobic treatment and 68%for membrane process treatment (Gurbuz et al., 2002)

�Less labor is required

� Full replacement € 600,000–671,000 as investment costs for every 5 traditional mills (assuming a 1:5ratio) or ranging from € 120,000 to €134,000 per mill.

� Total cost for converting the entire Three phase traditional mills as investment costs figure to be € 12� € 15 million

� Each 2 phase decanter cost around € 90,000

� Additional cost for wet pomacedrying in dryer kilns with small capacity could cost €100,000 to €125,000 with additional investment cost by no less than €20,000 to € 25,000.

٥٥

GHاEF اBC>Dج ا?<=>

Shift to Two and Half Phase Technology

(National Level)

�Substitution of all three phase decanters in 72 mills in Jordan

�Reduce water consumption need by 35-40% compared to its descendant three phase decanter (Alfa Laval).

�Reduction in OMW generation

�No major modification needed to existing system within three phase mills

�Similar capital and operation cost of typical 3-phase decanter which provides incentive for replacement- estimated to be around €70,000 or € 5 million for replacing all three phase decanters in Jordan

Installation of Centrifuge machines in Traditional mills

(National & Mill Level)

�Install after each press machine in Traditional mills not fitted with centrifuge machines to improve oil recovery efficiency

�Reduction in residual oil discharged in wastewater

�Protection of aquatic marine life and water bodies quality from excessive residual oil

�Improve mill’s oil recovery efficiency

�The cost of single centrifuge machine ranges between €20,000 and €25,000 depending on brand name, capacity and origin.

٥٦

GHاEF اBC>Dج ا?<=>

Install water monitoring and saving measures

(National Level)

�Monitor and control water consumption in traditional mills which are characterized by excessive water consumption rates in Lebanon (in some cases 6 times higher than literature values)

�Reduction in excessive water consumption in the production process with direct impact on preserving a vital natural resource, reducing OMW generation and reducing OMW pollution load through reduction in Phenol (water soluble) and residual oil concentration in generated OMW.

�Based on possible water savings amounting to 100,000 m3/year and an average cost of water of 150 cents per m3, total annual savings in water could amount to about USD 150,000

�The cost of a fully integrated water monitoring and saving system, depending on each mill’s case by case, is estimated to be between $250 and $350.

�Payback period of the investment is on average 1.7 years

Pre-treatment of OMW

(National Level)

�Pre-treatment using lime and aeration prior to final discharge as a preliminary measure on individual mill level to minimize pollution load (gaining popularity among small scale mills in Greece)

�Minimizing OMW pollution load: �100 % removal of o-diphenolswhich are highly phototoxic�Removal of fatty compounds (95 %) which allows evaporation more easily (no more thin film on top layer)�Removal of nutrients inhibiting the use of vegetable water as fertilizer �55 % COD reduction �25 % BOD reduction �60 % Nitrogen reduction �30 % Total solid s removal �70 % color removal �pH neutralization �Reduction in sludge formation

�Future savings in wastewater treatment costs

�Pre-treatment investment cost: �Cost of lime = 15 $/m3

�Cost of Dosing system approximately $ 200�Cost of aeration diffuser system: approximately $ 500�Concrete holding tank with 2 days capacity approximately 200$/m3

�Total cost of pre-treatment with lime on national level of all annual generated OMW is approximately $4.2 million per year. �Capital cost of installing lime dosing system and aeration system for all mills is estimated to be around $321,000.

٥٧

Treatment Options on Individual Mill Level

• Majority of mills discharge their OMW without any treatment,

• Lack of knowledge, complexity and capital and operation costs for efficient treatment options are limiting factors,

• Literature review identified large number of options for treatment of OMW and several patented technologies for treatment. However, the majority of these options are not commercially used,

• No individual treatment option is capable of achieving efficient treatment results,

•• The most common and cheapest treatment option identified is lagooning

(natural evaporation), widely used in Greece, France, Tunisia, and Cyprus (Niaounakis, 2003),

• Most feasible treatment options evaluated:

٥٨

IJKBLMKرات اBPQ

Treatment Technology

Option

Treatment Cost rate Total Cost on National Level

Anaerobic treatment

18-41 $/m3 Cost: $5 �$11.5 million/year

Aerobic treatment

20-25 $/m3 Cost: $5.6�$7.0 million/year

Irrigation 0.005 $/m3 (depending on storage + distance)

National Level:

Operational Cost: $1,400/year

Thermal evaporation

7-14 $/m3 for a 5,000 m3 /year capacity & $180,000 installation costs (or 56

evaporation plants)

Capital Cost = $10 million

Operation Cost = $1.9 � $3.8 million /year

Natural evaporation

< 0.03$/m3 Capital Cost = $5.5�$11 million (at 100�200$/m3 construction cost) for a proposed total of 56 large lagoons

with 5,000 m3 capacity each

Operation Cost = $8,400/year

Aerobic ���� Lime treatment

15$/m3 Capital Cost = $321,000 installing 459 dosing & aeration systems without cost of concrete storage tanks

Operational Cost = $4.2 million/year

Membrane processes

40-50$/m3 National Level = $11.2 � $14 million/year

٥٩

TUVWKى اWCYMKا Z[\ IJKBLMKرات اBPQTreatment Option Number Capital Cost Operation Cost

Centralized Anaerobic Treatment Plants

12 Range between 45 and 150$/m3

Equivalent to $12.6�$42 million without the cost transportation

Minimum land requirement for 12 large anaerobic treatment plants is estimated to be 134,400 m2

(based on 0.48m2/m3) with average land cost of 10$/m2

�total land cost needed = $1.4 million

Range between 3.5 and 5 $/m3

Equivalent to $980,000 �$1.4million/year

Centralized Thermal Evaporation

Plants

12 Range between 35 and 50 $/m3

Total cost on national scale: $9.8 � $14 million without cost of transportation

Minimum land requirement for 12 large thermal plants

is estimated to be 70,000 m2 (based on 0.25m2/m3) with average land cost of 10$/m2 � total land cost needed = $7.0 million

Range between 6.8 and 13.2$/m3

Equivalent to $1.9 � $3.7 million/year

٦٠

Conclusion• Some 180,340 tonnes of olives have been

processed by the olive mills (2004 season) which produced approximately:– 200,000 m3 of OMW – 7,868 tonnes of BOD5, – 25,267 tonnes of COD, – 29,000 tonnes of Oil & Grease, – 8 tonnes of phenols,– 17,547 tonnes Total Suspended Solids, – 73 tonnes of Phospohorous, and– 83,109 tonnes of Pomace

٦١