New Technologies for Processing Crambe Abyssinica Mark Allan Reuber Iowa State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Digital Repository @ Iowa State University Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-1992 New technologies for processing Crambe abyssinica Mark Allan Reuber Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Recommended Citation Reuber, Mark Allan, "New technologies for processing Crambe abyssinica" (1992). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 17625. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/17625 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. n New technologies for processing Crambe abyssinica by Mark Allan Reuber e. s A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department: Food Science and Human Nutrition Major: Food Science and Technology Signatures have been redacted for privacy iversity Ames, Iowa 1992 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 PAPER 1. DEHULLING STRATEGIES FOR CRAMBE 8 ABSTRACT 10 INTRODUCTION 11 MATERIALS AND METHODS 17 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 22 REFERENCES 31 PAPER 2. IMPROVED SCREW PRESSING OF CRAMBE 33 ABSTRACT 35 INTRODUCTION 36 MATERIALS AND METHODS 40 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 45 REFERENCES 51 PAPER 3. A TWO-STEP SEQUENTIAL SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCEDURE TO EXTRACT OIL AND GLUCOSINOLATES FROM CRAMBE 52 ABSTRACT 54 INTRODUCTION 55 MATERIALS AND METHOD 65 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 75 REFERENCES 82 GENERAL SUMMARY 85 LITERATURE CITED 86 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 88 APPENDIX A. CRAMBE DEHULLING 90 iv LIST OP TABLES Page GENERAL INTRODUCTION Table 1. Composition of crambe and other common oilseeds PART I Table 1. Analysis of hand-dissected crambe seed 22 Table 2. Yields and compositions of crambe meats and hulls for various dehulling strategies at their optimum settings 29 PART II Table 1. Lab-scale pressing of whole seed crambe flakes using the Anderson Midget Press 45 Table 2. Lab-scale pressing of dehulled crambe flakes using the Anderson Midget Press 46 Table 3 . Lab-scale pressing of whole seed crambe flakes using the Rosedowns press 46 Table 4 . Lab-scale pressing of dehulled crambe flakes using the Rosedowns Press 47 Table 5. Pilot plant trials on crambe flakes using the 1/2 linear-scale Anderson Super Duo Expeller 49 PART III Table 1. Average compositions (mfb) of crambe seed and defatted meal 55 Table 2. Comparison of glucosinolate concentrations in crambe, canola and rapeseed 56 Table 3. Residual oil contents after SEP of whole seed crambe collets 76 Table 4. Residual oil contents after SEP of dehulled crambe collets 76 Table 5. Residual meal glucosinolate levels after SEP of whole seed crambe collets 79 V v Table 6. Residual meal glucosinolate levels after SEP of dehulled seed crambe collets 80 APPENDIX Table Al. Moisture, protein and oil contents of meat and hull fractions in dehulling trials. 92 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page PART I Figure 1. Experimental design for dehulling evaluation trials 18 Figure 2. Effects of roller milling/aspiration variables for dehulling crambe seed on screw press meal 23 Figure 3. Effects of roller milling/aspiration variables for dehulling crambe seed on solvent extracted meal 23 Figure 4. Effects of impact milling/aspiration variables for dehulling crambe seed on screw press meal 25 Figure 5 Effects of impact milling/aspiration variables for dehulling crambe seed on solvent extracted meal 25 Figure 6. Oil and meal yields when screw pressing optimally dehulled crambe seed 27 Figure 7. Oil and meal yields when solvent extracting optimally dehulled crambe seed 27 Figure 8. Oil and protein losses and net hulls when screw pressing optimally dehulled crambe seed 28 Figure 9. Oil and protein losses and net hulls when solvent extracting optimally dehulled crambe seed 28 PART II Figure 1. Experimental design for screw pressing evaluation trials 41 PART III Figure 1. Breakdown pathway of glucosinolates 57 Figure 2. Shell Oil process 62 Figure 3. Karnovsky process 63 • • Vll Figure 4. Sequential extraction process 64 Figure 5. Flow scheme in first extraction sequence 68 Figure 6. Flow scheme in second extraction sequence 69 Figure 7. Flow scheme of a lab-scale extraction apparatus 70 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION Crambe abvssinica. is an alternative oilseed crop being grown in midwestern United States. Crambe is a member of the mustard (crucifer) family and is of Mediterranean origin. It is a cool season, summer annual which grows to a height of 61 to 91 cm. The growing season for crambe is very short, 90-100 days. A large number of seeds are produced, up to 2270 kg of seed/hectare (2000 lbs/A), which are borne singly in small spherical pods. Composition Whole crambe seed has a wide range of protein and oil, 17.4-25.0% and 17.7-36.4%, respectively, on a moisture-free basis (mfb) (1). Crambe oil has 55-60% erucic acid (C22:l), which is an important industrial fatty acid (1). Erucic acid is used in the production of erucamide, an anti-block, slip- promoting additive for use in plastic films, such as polyethylene. Other derivatives of erucic acid, behenic acid, benemyl alcohol, and ethylene brassylate also have high-value industrial markets. Ethylene brassylate serves as a fixative in perfumes and fragrances. Other end uses of crambe oil include waxes, lubricants, rubber additives and nylon applications (2). Generally, crambe oil does not compete with other domestic vegetable oils. Domestic production of crambe oil 2 would eliminate the current U.S. dependence upon Canadian and European sources of high-erucic rapeseed oil. A small amount of industrial rapeseed is often grown in Idaho, but supplies are limited and insufficient to meet domestic demand. Crambe seed has a higher percentage of erucic acid than high-erucic rapeseed (Table 1). Crambe seeds (7mm) are easier to dehull than rapeseed (3mm) an advantage in utilizing the meal for livestock feed. Rapeseed hulls are more tenaciously attached to the meats (cotyledons) than they are in crambe. Both rapeseed and canola (an oilseed developed from rapeseed through selective breeding) average around 40% oil content on a whole seed basis. The average erucic acid content of high-erucic rapeseed varies from 45 to 50%. The glucosinolate level in rapeseed ranges 3-7% (3). Glucosinolates (thioglucosides) are potentially anti- nutritional compounds especially when their hydroyzed. By definition, canola must have less than 2% erucic acid and less than 0.2% glucosinolates. Canola typically yields a meal containing 38-43% protein (4). Soybeans average around 20% oil on a whole seed basis. There are no measurable amounts of erucic acid and glucosinolates. Soybean meal typically contains 44-48% protein (44% for extracted whole seed and 48% for dehulled extracted meal) (5). 3 Crambe seed, like all crucifers, contains glucosinolates (thioglucosides) (Table 1). Whole crambe seed has 4.5-7% glucosinolates on a fat-free, moisture-free basis (6). Glucosinolates may be broken down in the seed by the enzyme, thioglucoside glucohydrolase (EC 3.2.3.1), often referred to as myrosinase, when the seed integrity is disrupted. When sufficient moisture is present, thioglucoside glucohydrolase hydrolyzes glucosinolates into toxic aglucon compounds. These aglucon products decrease feed efficiency and promote goiter in monogastric animals. Because of these problems, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) limits the amount of crambe meal that can be used as a protein supplement in beef cattle rations to 4.5% of the diet (7). In order for crambe seed to be economically feasible for producers to grow, there must be an economic return from crambe meal. However, at present FDA-approved crambe meal levels, the meal is greatly underpriced relative to its protein content. The low allowable incorporation level of crambe meal adds overhead costs to feedlot management due to added blending and separate storage. Thus, the meal is heavily discounted and encounters weak market demand. Higher valued meal markets, such as protein supplements in poultry and swine rations, might be tapped if the protein content was increased and glucosinolates were removed. 4 V*. a) <D CO G r- CO 0 0) CM rH in in in in *p G I CO 1 i • o o o •p o O 0 CM 1 vo o I • • • u0 co co G CM CM rH in CO V V V o CO C <d a) o r* rH ,Q CM CO Q) H in <n CM <D 0) >i | 1 G 1 i I • G G 0 CO CM 0 O H* o o 0 0 CO rH CO G rH CM in G G o rHrd 0 O CO CM CM c CM in CO VO CM H CM CM O <d 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 • a o in o CO rH CO <J\ CO rH V CM V in rH co <D 0) •o to 'b 0) a) CO CM a) CO in c a 1 r* in CO CM rH <T\ H o <d o in i i 1 i 1 1 1 i 0 CM CO CO rH CO CO CO CM rH in 0 rH rH rH CM o o u 1 x:Q) a) -P JQ VO in i o o g CO CM in in O CO CM vo <d 1 I • CO rH rH H i v p CO o c o rH rH in <d a) A •Q e 4-1 ^—v (0 0 o u *—* CO • • o >—r o CM • • o • • o • • CO CM o 4-i ^ CO VO • • CO rH >—■ • • rH o A Q) <N> rH 00 rH rH '— CM • • • • O H CM co 4^ 4J w >—■ rH • • 0 CM CM CO 0^ H H H H c g id CO u •H >—* CM o <*» rH T3 0 rH 0 •H 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) S' — 0 *H •H 0 •H G G 0 u o o u o o 4-1 G O 4-> •H a) Q) 0) •H o c c c c c c 0 C -H rij -H P 0 H rH CO c •H a) a) a) a) a) a) CO <#> •H 01 0 rd •H 0 0 0 a) 0 u P u u p u W o <0 0 >i<-l d) 0) c C 0 JC 3 <D <D a) a) <D a) PI a «P 0 «P <d -P rH •H •H -H 0) P (w H rH a) a) a) a) a) a) CQ 0 o 3-PPHCOOPIPIWPQW &&&&&& < o •H P H (d EH O O ft.