food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food and Bioproducts Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fbp

Application of exergy analysis to the dairy

industry: A case study of yogurt drink production
plant

Mohamad Mojarab Soufiyan, Mortaza Aghbashlo ∗

Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work was aimed at undertaking a detailed exergy analysis of an industrial-scale yogurt
Received 21 September 2015 drink production plant using actual operational data. Exergy efficiency and exergy destruc-
Received in revised form 16 October tion rate of each subcomponent of four main subsystems of the plant, including steam
2016 generation, above-zero refrigeration, milk reception, pasteurization, and standardization,
Accepted 17 October 2016 and yogurt drink production lines were derived independently. This analysis was performed
Available online 7 November 2016 to quantify thermodynamic inefficiencies of all subcomponents of the plant in order to iden-
tify the breakthrough points for further energy savings. An effort was also made to compute
Keywords: the quantity of exergy destruction in processing a given amount of pasteurized yogurt drink.
Exergy analysis The results indicated that the highest exergy destruction rate occurred in the boiler & com-
Exergy destruction rate pressor combination of steam generator, followed by ice-water tank & agitator combination
Steam generator in the above zero refrigeration system. The specific exergy destruction of pasteurized yogurt
Above-zero refrigeration drink was determined as 442 kJ/kg according to the mass allocation method. The steam gen-
Milk pasteurization erator had the highest contribution to the specific exergy destruction of pasteurized yogurt
Yogurt drink production plant drink, followed by yogurt drink production, above-zero refrigeration, and milk reception,
pasteurization, and standardization lines, respectively. In general, the current survey can
be an important step for future improvements of dairy processing plants from the sustain-
ability and productivity viewpoints. This study clearly showed the effectiveness of exergy
analysis for determining irreversibilities and losses occurring in dairy processing plants in
order to improve their thermodynamic performances.
© 2016 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the thermodynamics inefficiencies more accurately than the classical

Due to the energy crisis and environmental concerns, a great deal of
attention has been paid to find the most cost-effective and eco-friendly
ways of energy utilization. This goal can be achieved through the appli-
cation of powerful engineering tools like energy and exergy analyses
to scrutinize and optimize the performance of energy systems. Energy
analysis is a traditional approach applied to investigate various energy
conversion systems (Aghbashlo et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the energy
concept has been criticized due to its obvious weakness in measuring
and evaluating the quality of energy sources (Aghbashlo et al., 2013).
Exergy analysis has been demonstrated to be a more powerful tool
for energy systems due to the fact that it aids to locate and quantify
energy analysis (Aghbashlo et al., 2013). This could be attributed to
its unique theoretical features in considering energy in terms of both
quantity and quality using the first and second laws of thermodynam-
ics, respectively. The interdisciplinary character of exergy concept can
help to achieve important targets simultaneously like better efficiency,
cost effectiveness, resources use, design and analysis, environment,
and sustainability. Accordingly, this analysis can play an important role
in developing methodologies and in yielding guidelines for more effec-
tive utilization of energy in energy-consuming sectors. In recent years,
increasing attention has been given to apply this concept and its exten-
sions for analyzing and optimizing various energy conversion systems
(Aghbashlo et al., 2013).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maghbashlo@ut.ac.ir (M. Aghbashlo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2016.10.008
0960-3085/© 2016 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131 119

Nomenclature
QL Heat loss
Notations v Vapour
a Carbon number of hydrocarbon fuels (–) vs Saturated vapour
b Hydrogen number of hydrocarbon fuels (–) w Water
Cp Specific heat capacity (kJ/kg K)
cos ˚ Power factor
ex Specific exergy (kJ/kg) Nowadays, the consumption of dairy products has been rapidly
En˙ Energy rate (kW or kJ/s) increased worldwide due to an increased awareness about their ben-
˙ eficial effects on human health and growth. However, production
Ex Exergy rate (kW or kJ/s)
and processing of milk need a remarkable amount of energy in all
h Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
three stages, i.e., agriculture, dairy farming, and industrial processes.
I Current intensity (ampere)
Interestingly, the dairy industry is ranked fifth among the most energy-
M Molar mass (kg/mol) intensive industries after oil, chemical, pulp and paper mill, and iron
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s) and steel making industries (Munir et al., 2014). The majority of energy
n Specific mole number (mol/kg) demand of the dairy processing sector is still provided by fossil-based
P Pressure (kPa) fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas for heat and electricity gener-
qLHV Lower heating value (kJ/kg) ation. Hence, the dairy industry has a nontrivial contribution to the
Q̇ Heat transfer (kJ/s) pollutant emissions like COx , SOx , NOx , Cx Hy , soot, ash, and organic
R Universal gas constant (8.314 J/mol K) compounds as a result of fossil fuel combustion. On the other hand,
R̄ Air (0.287 kJ/kg K) or vapour (0.4615 kJ/kg K) con- the declining reserves and fluctuating prices of fossil fuels have intro-
duced serious challenges to the future energy supply (Oyedepo, 2012;
stant
Aladetuyi et al., 2014; Barchyn and Cenkowski, 2014; De and Luque,
s Specific entropy (kJ/kg K)
2014). These are why energy-intensive manufacturing sectors like dairy
S Entropy (kJ/K)
industry are seeking the most cost-effective and environmental-benign
T Temperature (K) strategies to reduce the production costs and environmental impacts
v Specific volume (m3 /kg) by diminishing the present over-dependence on fossil fuels.
V Voltage (volt) In the field of food industry, exergy analysis and its extensions
w Humidity ratio (kg water/kg dry air) have been extensively used during the past decades to analyze and
Ẇ Work rate (kW) optimize various energy-intensive operations from the sustainability
x Mole fraction (–) and productivity viewpoints. Readers are referred to the review paper
X Mass fraction (–) by Zisopoulos et al. (2017) for more details on the use of exergetic
indicators for sustainability assessment of food processing operations.
Greek letters This study reports a comprehensive and detailed exergy analysis of an
industrial doogh production plant located in the North-West of Iran.
ϕ Fuel quality factor (–)
Doogh is a refreshing yogurt drink native to Iran. The plant had four
ε Standard chemical exergy (kJ/mol)
main subsystems, including steam generation, above-zero refrigera-
Exergy efficiency
tion, milk reception, pasteurization, and standardization, and yogurt
 Relative humidity (%) drink production lines. The analysis was carried out to identify the
 Density (kg/m3 ) exergetic performance parameters (i.e., exergy destruction rate and
 Efficiency exergy efficiency) of all subcomponent of the plant individually. The
specific exergy destruction of yogurt drink production was also deter-
Subscripts mined using the mass allocation method. In general, outcomes of
0 Reference state applying exergy and its extensions could be of great interest to plant
a Air managers, designers, engineers, and researchers involved in the anal-
ash Ash ysis, design, optimization, and retrofitting of dairy processing plants.
carb Carbohydrate Such comprehensive studies can systematically address the issues of
how and by how much do exergetic analysis improve the sustainability
ch Chemical
and productivity of dairy processing plants.
cold Cold
dest Destruction
elec Electrical
2. Materials and methods
fat Fat
2.1. System description and data preparation
hot Hot
in Inlet
The data used in this research were obtained from a local
i, k Numerator
dairy company located in the north-west region of Iran, West
OM Organic matter
Azarbaijan province. Fig. 1 represents an overall schematic of
out outlet
the yogurt drink production plant of the studied dairy com-
mech Mechanical
pany with a maximum daily intake capacity of 150 t of the
ph Physical
freshly harvested milk. Overall, the plant consisted of four
pro Protein
main subsystems, including steam generation, above-zero
refrigeration, milk reception, pasteurization, and standardiza-
tion, and yogurt drink production lines.
A schematic view of the central steam generation,
above-zero refrigeration, milk reception, pasteurization, and
standardization, and yogurt drink production lines of the
studied dairy company are shown in Figs. 2–5, respectively.
120 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Fig. 1 – Overall description of the yoghurt drink production plant of the studied company.

Fig. 2 – A schematic view of the central steam generator of the studied dairy company.

The steam generator was composed of a condensate tank
(I), two different pumps (II and V), a tubular heat exchanger
(III), a fire-tube boiler & an air compressor combination (VI),
three different pressure reducing valves (VIII, XII, and XIV),
and three different steam trapping devices (X, XIII, and XV)
(Jafaryani Jokandan et al., 2015).
The above-zero refrigeration system contained an ice-
water tank & an agitator combination (II), an ammonia
separator (III), a refrigerant compressor (IV), a condenser (V),
an expansion valve (VII), and three different pumps (I, VI, and
VIII) (Jafaryani Jokandan et al., 2015).
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131 121

Fig. 3 – Schematic representation of the central above-zero refrigeration system of the studied dairy company.

Fig. 4 – A schematic view of the milk reception, pasteurization, and standardization line of the studied dairy company.

The milk reception, pasteurization, and standardization
line comprised of seven different pumps (I, IV, VI, IX, X, XVIII,
and XXIV), a pre-cooling heat exchanger (II), two different
buffer tanks with agitator (III and XX), a balance tank (V), a
central heat exchanger (VII), a deaerator & a vacuum pump
combination (VIII), a flow controller (XI), a fat separator (XII),
an automatic fat standardization device along with a mix-
ing device (XIV), a mixing device (XVI), a homogenizer (XV),
a bactofuge (XVII), a holding tube (XIX), and a plate heat
exchanger (XXI).
The yogurt drink production line contained eight differ-
ent pumps (I, III, V, VII, X, XII, XIX, XXI), two balance tanks
(II and XI), two different processing heat exchangers (IV and
XIII), two different homogenizers (VI and XIV), two different
holding tubes (VIII and XV), two different plate heat exchang-
ers (XVI and XX), and a buffer tank & agitator combination
(IX).
The company included a central steam generator and
an above-zero refrigeration system to supply the hot- and
cold-water streams, respectively, demanded by different pro-
cessing lines. The company produced different products such
as yogurt drink, yogurt, long-life milk, cream, ultra-filtered
cheese, and long-life milk after pasteurizing the received raw
milk using two central milk pasteurization units. The mea-
sured and recorded actual operational data by the company
technical/operational staffs were employed to perform the
exergetic performance assessment of the plant and its sub-
components. The applied data were the average values of the
recorded data during one year of continuous operation.
2.2. Assumptions made
The following assumptions were adopted in this study for ana-
lyzing the overall plant and its main subcomponents:
122 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Fig. 5 – A schematic representation of the yogurt drink production line of the investigated dairy company.

(a) The plant and its subcomponents operated in a steady- 2.3. Theoretical considerations
state condition.
(b) The kinetic and potential exergies of various streams were The mass balance equation for a general steady-state and
neglected owing to their trivial contributions to the total steady-flow system can be expressed in the rate form as below:
exergy.
(c) The fat formation exergy of milk and its derivatives  
ṁin = ṁout (1)
was ignored according to our pervious finding (Jafaryani
Jokandan et al., 2015).
(d) The combustion of the natural gas in the steam generator In addition, the general energy balance can be expressed
was assumed to be a complete chemical reaction. as follows:
(e) The ideal gas principles were applied to inlet air and outlet
combustion gas.  
˙ in =
En ˙ out
En (2)
(f) The ambient temperature and pressure were taken into
account to be 12 ◦ C and 1 bar, respectively.
(g) The changes in the ambient temperature were neglected. or
(h) The exergy of sludge was overlooked because of its lower
 
mass flow (<0.1% of the main flow) compared with the main Q̇ + ṁin hin = Ẇ + ṁout hout (3)
flow.
(i) The standard molar percentage of different species in the
reference state was considered according to Szargut et al. The general exergy balance can be written as:
(1988).
  
˙ in −
Ex ˙ out =
Ex ˙ dest
Ex (4)
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131 123

or
 T0
   The humidity ratio of air was computed as follows:
1− Q̇k − Ẇ + ṁin exin − ˙ dest
ṁout exout = Ex
Tk Pvs,a
(5) wa = 0.622 (15)
Pa − Pvs,a

where The electrical exergy rate consumed by various electrical

facilities was computed using the following equations:
˙ = ṁex
Ex (6)
√
VI 3
Ẇelec = cos ˚ × elec mech (16)
The specific physical exergy of cold- and hot-water as well 1000
as steam and ammonia at different points of the plant were
The following equation was applied to determine the
computed using the following basic equation:
exergy loss rate to the ambient because of the heat transfer
from the frame of each subcomponent:
exph = h − h0 − T0 (s − s0 ) (7)
 T0

The specific exergy of milk and its derivatives at differ- ˙ QL = Q̇L 1 −
Ex (17)
T
ent processing points as well as the natural gas entering the
boiler was considered as the summation of their physical and The heat loss rate of each subcomponent of the plant was
chemical exergies. determined using the energy balance based on the first law of
thermodynamics (Eq. (3)). The energy calculations indicated
ex = exph + exch (8) that the heat loss rates of all subcomponents of the plant
were insignificant except for the condensate tank as well as
The physical exergy rates of milk and its derivatives were the boiler & compressor combination in the steam generation
determined as follows: system.
  T 
exph = Cp T − T0 − T0 ln + v (P − P0 ) (9) 2.4. Determination of physical and chemical properties
T0
of various streams
The following equation was applied to determine the spe-
cific chemical exergy of milk and its derivatives as well as hot The following equations were applied to determine the spe-
flue gas from the boiler: cific heat capacities and specific volumes of milk and its
derivatives as a function of their compositions (Choi and Okos,
 
  1986).
ch
ex =n xi εi + RT0 xi ln (xi ) (10)
i i Cp = 4.18Xw + 1.63Xcarb + 2.05Xfat + 2.06Xpro + 1.17Xash (18)

The specific physical exergy of inlet fuel as well as inlet and 1 Xw Xcarb Xfat Xpro Xash
v= = + + + + (19)
outlet air entering and leaving the boiler, respectively, were  987.94 1583.57 904.71 1304.08 2409.76
determined as follows:
  T  P Table 1 contains the compositions of milk and its deriva-
exph = Cp T − T0 − T0 ln + R̄T0 ln (11) tives used in calculation of specific heat capacity and specific
T0 P0
volume.
The methodology of computing the specific chemical exer-
The specific chemical exergy of fuel was obtained as fol-
gies of milk and its derivatives in the yogurt drink production
lows:
line has been comprehensively explained in our pervious
publication (Jafaryani Jokandan et al., 2015). The standard
exch = ϕqLHV (12)
chemical exergy of inorganic materials available in the milk
were obtained from the published report (Dincer and Rosen,
The quality factor of gaseous hydrocarbon fuels (Ca Hb ) can
2012). An empirical mathematical model developed by Song
be measured using the following empirical formula (Balli et al.,
et al. (2012) was also applied to determine the standard chem-
2007):
ical exergies of the organic components of milk.
b 0.0698
ϕ∼
= 1.033 + 0.0169 − (13) exOM = 363.439C + 1075.633H − 86.308O + 4.14N
a a

Additionally, the specific physical exergy of air at different +190.798S − 21.1A (20)
points of the plant were determined as follows (Khanali et al.,
2013):
εOM = MOM exOM (21)
ph
 
exa = Cp,a + wa Cp,v (Ta − T0 ) − T0
where C, H, O, N, S and A show the mass fractions of carbon,
   Ta 
  Pa 
Cp,a + wa Cp,v ln − R̄a + wa R̄v ln hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and ash of an organic
T0 P0 material, respectively. The highest specific chemical exergy

  1 + 1.6078w0   w 
a was estimated as 16,400 kJ/kg for 40% fat cream. 1.5% fat yogurt
+T0 R̄a + wa R̄v ln + 1.6078wa R̄a ln
1 + 1.6078wa w0 drink had the lowest specific chemical exergy (1440 kJ/kg).
(14) Evidently, increasing the fat content increased the specific
124 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Table 1 – Compositions of milk and its derivatives used in the calculation of specific heat capacity and specific volume.
Component Mass fraction in Mass fraction in Mass fraction in Mass fraction in Mass fraction in 3% Mass fraction in
3.6% fat whole 0.05% fat skim 40% fat cream 12% fat cream fat standardized 1.5% fat yogurt
milk milk milk drink

Water 0.878 0.910 0.547 0.802 0.884 0.938

Fat 0.036 0.001 0.400 0.120 0.030 0.015
Carbohydrate 0.046 0.048 0.029 0.042 0.046 0.023
Protein 0.032 0.034 0.020 0.030 0.033 0.016
Ash 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.007

chemical exergies of milk derivatives. It could be related to ˙ ph

Ex out
the higher chemical exergies of the fat ingredients over the = (28)
˙ ph + Ẇ
Ex
pure water. in

The specific heat capacities of fuel as well as inlet and

The exergy destruction rate and exergetic efficiency of
exhaust air entering and leaving the boiler, respectively, were
plate cooler (II) in the steam generation system, plate heat
computed using the following formula:
exchanger (XXI) in the milk reception, pasteurization, and
 standardization line, and plate heat exchangers (XVI and XX)
Cp = Xi Cp,i (22) in the yogurt production line were measured as follows:
i
   
˙ ph − Ex˙ ph ˙ ph
− Ex ˙ ph ˙ dest
Ex hot,in hot,out cold,out − Excold,in = Ex (29)
Fuel compositions and mathematical equations describ-
ing the specific heat capacities of natural gas components
˙ ph ˙ ph
were obtained from Balli et al. (2007) and Sonntag et al. (1998), Ex cold,out − Excold,in
= (30)
respectively. In order to compute the specific chemical exergy ˙ ph − Ex
Ex ˙ ph
hot,in hot,out
of outlet combustion gas, the molar percentages of its species
were recomputed based on the complete chemical reaction of The equations used to calculate the exergy destruction rate
the fuel. The general combustion equation for a 25 air/fuel and efficiencies of other components are included in the sum-
mass ratio can be found in our previous report (Jafaryani mary in Appendix A (Table A1). The results for the above-zero
Jokandan et al., 2015). Thereafter, the chemical exergy rate refrigeration systems and central steam generation were pre-
of outlet combustion gas was computed using the standard sented in Jafaryani Jokandan et al. (2015).
chemical exergies of the exhaust gas components obtained The negative signs in the streams 49 and 70 (Table A1) can
from elsewhere (Dincer and Rosen, 2012). be interpreted based on the concepts of “cool exergy” and
“warm exergy” introduced by Shukuya (2012). Thermal exergy
2.5. Exergy destruction rate and exergetic efficiency of of a flow with a temperature higher than the reference state
each subcomponent of the plant temperature is assigned as “warm exergy”, while it is assigned
as “cool exergy” for a flow with a temperature lower than the
The exergy destruction rate and exergetic efficiency of various reference state temperature. A similar methodology was used
pumping, homogenizing, and ammonia compressing systems for other heat exchangers having cooling and heating oper-
of the plant were computed as follows: ations concurrently. The chemical exergy rates of inlet and
outlet streams entering and leaving the separator and mixing
˙ ph + Ẇ − Ex
Ex ˙ ph ˙
out = Exdest (23) units (Table A1) should be taken into account in the exergetic
in
calculations because of the physical separation and/or mixing
of the milk and its derivatives through these apparatuses.
˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph
out − Exin
= (24) Finally, the specific exergy destruction of pasteurized
Ẇ yogurt drink production was determined using the mass allo-
cation method. For this aim, the rates of the exergy destroyed
The following equations were used to determine exergy
in the central steam generator and above-zero refrigeration
destruction rate and exergetic efficiency of various steam trap-
systems were allocated based on the mass flow rates of the
ping devices, pressure reducing units, holding tubes, balance
hot- and cold-water flow demanded by milk reception, pas-
tanks, expansive valves, Bactofuges, and flow controllers:
teurization, and standardization and yogurt drink production
lines. Moreover, a similar methodology was applied to allo-
˙ ph − Ex
Ex ˙ ph ˙
out = Exdest (25) cate the exergy destruction of milk reception, pasteurization,
in
and standardization line in processing 1 kg of the pasteurized
˙ ph
Ex out
yogurt drink. This indicator was computed to measure the
= (26) quantity of resource destruction in processing a given amount
˙ ph
Ex in
of the pasteurized yogurt drink.

The following relations were applied to compute exergy

3. Results and discussion
destruction rate and exergetic efficiency of both buffer tank
& agitator combinations of the plant:
The fluid type, temperature, pressure, mass flow rate,
exergy rate for the streams of the steam generation,
˙ ph + Ẇ − Ex
Ex ˙ ph ˙
out = Exdest (27)
in above-refrigeration, milk reception, pasteurization, and stan-
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131 125

Table 2 – Fluid type, temperature, pressure, mass flow rate, and exergy rate for the streams of the steam generator.
State no. Fluid type Temperature (◦ C) Gauge pressure (kPa) Mass flow rate (kg/s) Total exergy rate (kW)

1 Water 50 100 11.6 114

2 Water 50.5 700 11.6 124
3 Hot water 95 500 11.6 500
4 Hot water 95 500 5.3 229
5 Hot water 95 500 6.3 271
6 Hot water 95.2 2000 6.3 281
7 Air 12 0 6.3 0
8 Fuel 12 12 1.1 18900
9 Exhaust gas 184 85 1.1 954
10 Steam 186 1030 0.1 5790
11 Steam 186 1030 1.0 1010
12 Steam 159 500 1.0 914
13 Steam 159 500 1.0 83
14 Steam 159 500 5.2 831
15 Steam + water 114 60 5.0 92
16 Water 105 20 5.0 80
17 Steam 186 1030 5.0 4770
18 Steam 186 1030 0.2 4550
19 Steam 144 300 0.2 3830
20 Steam + water 139 250 0.2 872
21 Water 117 80 0.2 810
22 Steam 186 1030 5.0 225
23 Steam 171 700 10.7 203
24 Steam + water 168 650 10.3 50
25 Water 134 200 0.4 47

Table 3 – Fluid type, temperature, pressure, mass flow rate, and exergy rate for the streams of the above-zero
refrigeration system.
State no. Fluid type Temperature (◦ C) Gauge pressure (kPa) Mass flow rate (kg/s) Total exergy rate (kW)

26 Ammonia (liquid) −9 230 29 7300

27 Ammonia (liquid) −8.8 270 29 7320
28 Ammonia (gas + liquid) −8 215 29 6930
29 Ammonia (gas) −8 215 5.9 958
30 Ammonia (gas) 50 1200 5.9 1990
31 Water 12 0 125 0
32 Water 12.5 70 125 9
33 Water 12 100 0 0
34 Air (RH = 27.3%) 12 0 0.2 0
35 Air (RH = 100%) 4.7 0 0.2 0
36 Ammonia (liquid) 30 1200 5.9 1510
37 Ammonia (liquid) −10 190 5.9 1400
38 Ice water 1 30 125 93
39 Ice water 1 400 125 134
40 Ice water return 6.5 100 125 2510
41 Ice water 1 30 99.7 74
42 Ice water return 3.5 100 99.7 64

dardization, and yogurt drink production lines are given in
Tables 2–5, respectively, according to their state numbers as
specified in Figs. 2–5. Table 6 summarizes the inlet exergy
rate, outlet exergy rate, exergy destruction rate, and exer-
getic efficiency of the most important subcomponents of the
plant wasting exergy by applying the actual operational data.
According to Table 6, the largest exergy destruction rate among
the components of the plant (12,200 kW) occurred in the boiler
& air compressor combination (VI), as expected. The exergy
destruction of this combination corresponded to 63.4% and
89.4% of the total input exergy and exergy destruction of
the steam generation system, respectively. The next largest
exergy destruction rates occurred in the pressure reducer
(XII), heat exchanger (III), and condensate tank (I), account-
ing for 5.3%, 2.7%, and 1.0% of the total exergy destruction
of the steam generation system. The highest exergy rate in
the boiler & compressor combination could be related to the
high rate of heat transfer with the large temperature dif-
ference, intense combustion process, fast water evaporation,
and intensive mixing process prevalent in industrial steam
generation systems. The exergy destruction rate of industrial
boilers can be reduced by oxygen enrichment and air preheat-
ing as well as reducing the air–fuel ratio (Gümüş and Atmaca,
2013). These remedies can reduce the irreversibility rate by
two mechanisms, i.e., maintaining the flame temperature at
higher values and keeping the temperature gradient in the
combustor at lower values. However, such strategies suffer
from their shortcomings like higher energy loss from the out-
flow combustion gas and larger heat transfer to the ambient.
The large temperature decrease and the high pressure drop
could be mentioned as reasons for the high exergy destruction
rate occurred in the pressure reducer. It should be mentioned
that a portion of this irreversibility can be recovered by using
a simple mixing valve. The fast heat transfer together with
126 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Table 4 – Fluid type, temperature, pressure, mass flow rate, and exergy rate for the streams of the milk reception,
pasteurization, and standardization line.
State no. Fluid type Temperature Gauge Mass flow Physical exergy rate Chemical exergy
(◦ C) pressure (kPa) rate (kg/s) (kW) rate (kW)

19.1 Steam 144 300 0.1 102 –

20.1 Steam 139 250 0.1 22 –
39.1 Ice water 2 300 7.8 8 –
40.1 Ice water 7.5 270 7.8 3 –
39.2 Ice water 2 300 1.4 2 –
40.2 Ice water 10 240 1.4 0 –
39.3 Ice water 2 300 8.3 9 –
40.3 Ice water 6 260 8.3 4 –
43 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 11.7 50 5.6 0 17200
44 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 12 300 5.6 2 17200
45 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 4 250 5.6 4 17200
46 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 4 50 5.6 3 17200
47 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 4.2 300 5.6 4 17200
48 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 4.2 300 5.6 4 17200
49 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 4.5 550 5.6 5 17200
50 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 62 270 5.6 88 17200
51 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 67 200 5.6 105 17200
52 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 56 0 5.6 68 17200
53 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 56.2 300 5.6 70 17200
54 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 56.5 450 5.6 72 17200
55 Whole milk (3.6% fat) 56.5 350 5.6 71 17200
56 Skim milk (0.05% fat) 59 450 5.1 74 8960
57 Cream (40% fat) 59 420 0.5 6 8240
58 Skim milk (0.05% fat) 59 450 1.0 14 1670
59 Skim milk (0.05% fat) 59 450 4.2 60 7280
60 Cream (40% fat) 59 400 0.1 1 1510
61 Semi fat milk (12% fat) 59 350 1.4 18 8400
62 Semi fat milk (12% fat) 64 400 1.4 22 8400
63 Standardized milk (3% fat) 60.2 350 5.5 81 15700
64 Standardized milk (3% fat) 61 350 5.5 84 15700
65 Standardized milk (3% fat) 73.1 300 5.5 126 15700
66 Standardized milk (3% fat) 73.5 650 5.5 130 15700
67 Standardized milk (3% fat) 80 590 5.5 155 15700
68 Standardized milk (3% fat) 79.8 570 5.5 155 15700
69 Standardized milk (3% fat) 67.7 520 5.5 108 15700
70 Standardized milk (3% fat) 8.9 420 5.5 3 15700
71 Standardized milk (3% fat) 2.5 340 5.5 5 15700
72 Standardized milk (3% fat) 4 0 5.5 3 15700
73 Hot water 71.3 300 6.9 159 –
74 Hot water 80 270 6.9 205 –
75 Hot water 75.1 220 6.9 178 –
76 Hot water 74.8 220 5.5 143 –
77 Hot water 74.8 220 1.4 36 –
78 Hot water 56.2 120 1.4 18 –
79 Hot water 71 100 6.9 158 –
80 Vacuumed air (RH = 0%) 67 0 0.0 0 –
81 Water 12 300 0.1 0 –
82 Water 55 220 0.1 1 –

the large temperature difference in the heat exchanger (III)
of steam generation system was responsible for the higher
exergy destruction rate occurred in this apparatus. The exergy
destruction rate of heat exchangers could be reduced if one
could maintain the quantity of heat transfer at the lowest pos-
sible temperature difference between the fluids on fuel and
product sides.
The lowest exergetic efficiency in the steam generation
system (12.2%) belonged to the condensate tank. The main
reason for the low exergy efficiency of condensate tank was
the higher rate of exergy rejection to the ambient (689 kW).
The exergetic performance of condensate tank can be pro-
foundly improved by its thermal insulation. Furthermore, this
can indirectly improve the exergetic efficiency of boiler by pro-
viding the feed water at higher temperatures. Interestingly,
the steam mass flow rate into the heat exchanger could be
reduced or even the heat exchanger can be removed from the
line by keeping the feeding water at higher temperatures. The
boiler & air compressor combination possessed the second
lowest exergy efficiency among the componentes of the steam
generation system (35.1%) due to having the highest exergy
destruction rate. The greater exergy rejection rate from the
frame of boiler & air compressor combination could also be
mentioned as the main reason for its lower exergy efficiency.
Accordingly, the exergetic performance of boiler & compressor
combination as the key subcomponent of the system could be
markedly improved by minimizing the irreversibility rate and
preventing the heat rejection.
As can be seen from Table 6, the three largest exergy
destruction rates of the above-refrigeration system occurred
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131 127

Table 5 – Fluid type, temperature, pressure, mass flow rate, and exergy rate for the streams of the yogurt drink
production line.
State no. Fluid type Temperature Gauge Mass flow Physical exergy rate Chemical exergy
(◦ C) pressure (kPa) rate (kg/s) (kW) rate (kW)

19.2 Steam 144 300 0.2 138 –

20.2 Steam 140 260 0.2 44 –
19.3 Steam 144 300 0.1 96 –
20.3 Steam 140 260 0.1 29 –
39.4 Ice water 2 300 4.7 5 –
40.4 Ice water 23.6 240 4.7 6 –
39.5 Ice water 2 300 0.3 0 –
40.5 Ice water 6 100 0.3 0 –
83 Standard milk (3% fat) 4 50 1.4 1 3990
84 Standard milk (3% fat) 4.5 300 1.4 1 3990
85 Standard milk (3% fat) 4.8 200 1.4 1 3990
86 Standard milk (3% fat) 5 340 1.4 1 3990
87 Standard milk (3% fat) 50 200 1.4 13 3990
88 Standard milk (3% fat) 65 150 1.4 24 3990
89 Standard milk (3% fat) 65.5 250 1.4 25 3990
90 Standard milk (3% fat) 70 300 1.4 29 3990
91 Standard milk (3% fat) 80 250 1.4 39 3990
92 Standard milk (3% fat) 80.5 600 1.4 40 3990
93 Standard milk (3% fat) 95 550 1.4 57 3990
94 Standard milk (3% fat) 95 540 1.4 57 3990
95 Standard milk (3% fat) 85 500 1.4 45 3990
96 Standard milk (3% fat) 40 350 1.4 8 3990
97 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 22.5 30 2.9 2 4100
98 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 23 300 2.9 3 4100
99 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 23 250 2.9 3 4100
100 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 23 400 2.9 4 4100
101 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 71 350 2.9 63 4100
102 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 74 520 2.9 70 4100
103 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 93.3 470 2.9 114 4100
104 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 93 460 2.9 113 4100
105 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 45 410 2.9 22 4100
106 Yogurt drink (1.5% fat) 8 350 2.9 1 4100
107 Culture 12 0 0 0 149
108 Salt 12 0 0 0 4.9
109 Water 12 100 1.4 0 69.2
110 Hot water 66.5 300 2.2 44 –
111 Hot water 98 270 2.2 101 –
112 Hot water 89.4 220 2.2 83 –
113 Hot water 89.4 220 0.6 21 –
114 Hot water 89.4 220 1.7 62 –
115 Hot water 58.2 120 1.7 24 –
116 Hot water 66.1 100 2.2 43 –
117 Hot water 77.8 300 4.2 116 –
118 Hot water 90 270 4.2 159 –
119 Hot water 77.2 240 4.2 114 –

in the ice-water tank & agitator combination (II) (2820 kW),
condenser & fan combination (V) (591 kW), and compressor
(IV) (222 kW), respectively. The high exergy destruction rate of
water tank & agitator combination could be attributed to the
large and quick heat transfer with the large temperature dif-
ference. The fast heat and mass transfer in the condenser &
fan combination was responsible for the high amount exergy
destroyed in this component. The high quantity of applied
mechanical work in the refrigerant compressor could also be
mentioned as the cause of its high irreversibility rate.
It was observed that the best exergetic performance
of above-zero refrigeration system (99.1%) belonged to the
ammonia separator, while the worst exergetic efficiency
(33.5%) was found for the pump (VIII). Unlike the pump (VIII),
the higher exergetic efficiency of ammonia separator could be
related to its trivial exergy destruction rate compared to the
total inlet exergy rate. In addition, the compressor was ranked
third among the subcomponents of above-zero refrigeration
system in terms of exergetic efficiency. The exergetic perfor-
mance of refrigerant compressors can be further boosted by
using variable-speed drive (VSD) controllers.
According to Table 6, the greatest exergy destruction rate
of the milk reception, pasteurization, and standardization
line (40 kW) occurred in the deaerator & vacuum pump com-
bination (VIII). The plate heat exchanger (XXI) (34 kW) and
homogenizer (XV) (26 kW) stood in the next ranks in terms
of exergy destruction rate, respectively. The severe heat and
mass transfer in the deaerator & vacuum pump combination
accelerated water vaporization from the milk stream and its
subsequent condensation, leading to more exergy destruc-
tion in this unit. The high exergy destruction rate in the heat
exchanger could be attributed to the large temperature differ-
ence between the fluids on the fuel and product sides. The
exergy destruction rate of homogenization apparatus (XV) of
128 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Table 6 – Inlet exergy rate, outlet exergy rate, exergy destruction rate, and exergetic efficiency of the most important
devices of the plant wasting exergy.
Line Subcomponent Inlet exergy Outlet exergy Exergy Exergetic
rate (kW) rate (kW) destruction (kW) efficiency (%)

Steam generation system Condensate tank (I) 937 114 134 12

Heat exchanger (III) 955 592 363 51
Boiler & air compressor combination (VI) 19200 6740 12200 35
Pressure reducer (VIII) 1010 914 97 90
Pressure reducer (XII) 4550 3830 718 84
Steam trapping device (XIII) 872 810 62 93

Above-zero refrigeration Ice-water tank & agitator combination (II) 9920 7100 2820 72
system
Ammonia separator (III) 8340 8260 75 99
Compressor (IV) 2220 2000 222 82
Condenser & fan combination (V) 2100 1510 591 72
Expansive valve (VII) 1510 1400 104 93
Pump (VIII) 215 134 81 34

Milk reception, Deaerator & vacuum pump combination (VIII) 110 70 40 64

pasteurization, and
standardization line
Homogenizer (XV) 48 22 26 13
Plate heat exchanger (XXI) 261 227 34 57

Yogurt drink production Heat exchanger (IV) 348 294 54 49

line
Homogenizer (VI) 60 29 31 12
Buffer tank & agitator combination (IX) 4220 4100 122 97
Homogenizer (XIV) 98 70 29 19
Plate heat exchanger (XVI) 181 146 35 62

milk reception, pasteurization, and standardization line was
very high, exceeding 87% of its electrical input exergy. This
could be ascribed to the fact that the large quantity of supplied
electrical exergy to the homogenizer was destroyed for break-
ing the coarse fat globules in order to stabilize milk against
gravity separation.
The exergetic efficiencies of deaerator & vacuum pump
combination (VIII), plate heat exchanger (XXI), and homog-
enizer (XV), as the main components of milk reception,
pasteurization, and standardization line wasting exergy, were
found to be 63.5%, 57.3%, and 12.9%, respectively. The low
exergetic efficiency of homogenizing unit could be mainly
attributed to its higher exergy destruction rate, as previously
explained. The relatively higher exergetic efficiency of heat
exchanger (XXI) showed its satisfactory performance in recu-
perating the exergy of steam stream. Exergetic performance of
industrial heat exchangers can be further improved by apply-
ing the combined pinch and exergy approach for efficient
stream matching in order to minimize the cooling and heating
loads.
As can be seen from Table 6, the buffer tank & agita-
tor combination (IX) had the highest exergy destruction rate
(122 kW) in the yogurt drink production line due to the large
mixing process occurred in this apparatus. The second and
third exergy destruction rates in this line belonged to the
central heat exchanger (IV) (54 kW) and plate heat exchanger
(XVI) (35 kW), due to their higher exergy destruction rates,
as previously explained. Conscious and planned efforts are
required to minimize the entropy generation in such heat
exchangers by regenerating “cool” and “warm” exergies as
much as possible. However, economic and qualitative con-
siderations must be taken into account in retrofitting heat
exchangers of dairy plants. The lowest exergy efficiencies
(11.8% and 18.7%) belonged to the homogenizers (VI) and
(XIV), respectively, among the main components of yogurt
drink production line destroying exergy. The exergetic effi-
ciency of industrial homogenizers can be efficiently improved
by reducing the mass flow rate of inflow milk, while keep-
ing the quality of homogenization at an acceptable level. The
exergetic efficiency of central heat exchanger (IV) of yogurt
drink production line was found to be 49.1%, showing its great
potential to improve exergetically. In general, the central heat
exchanger of milk reception, pasteurization, and standard-
ization line was slightly efficient than its counterpart in the
yogurt drink production line from exergetic viewpoint.
The specific exergy destruction of yogurt drink produc-
tion was determined as 442 kJ/kg using the above-mentioned
results. The contributions of steam generator, above-zero
refrigeration system, milk reception, pasteurization, and stan-
dardization unit, and yogurt drink production line to the
specific exergy consumption were specified at 251, 57, 16, and
118 kJ/kg, respectively. The contributions of four lines of the
plant to the specific exergy destruction are shown in Fig. 6. The
steam generator had the highest contribution (56.8%) to the
specific exergy destruction. The next contributions belonged
to the yogurt drink production line (26.7%), above-zero refriger-
ation system (12.9%), and milk reception, pasteurization, and
standardization unit (3.6%), respectively. This revealed that
the exergy destruction in the boiler & air compressor com-
bination of the steam generator should be reduced in order
to minimize the resource destruction in yogurt drink produc-
tion. The results of the present survey indicated that exergy
and its extensions such as exergoeconomic and exergoenvi-
ronmental analyses must be applied in the future studies to
obtain more useful insights regarding the monetary and envi-
ronmental aspects of dairy processing plants. The outcomes
of such holistic investigations can lead to mitigating the ther-
modynamic irreversibilities, the overall cost, and the overall
environmental impacts of dairy processing plants. The over-
all natural resource consumption in producing a given dairy
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131
Fig. 6 – Percentile contributions of the four lines of the plant to the specific exergy destruction of the pasteurized yogurt
drink.
product can be best-evaluated using the farm-to-fork strate-
gies. This can be carried out by integrating exergy and life cycle
assessment (LCA) principles into a single framework called
“exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA)”.
4. Conclusions
In this study, exergy analysis was applied to investigate an
industrial yogurt drink production plant using actual opera-
tional data. A detailed analysis was conducted to assess the
performances of all subcomponents of the steam generator,
above-zero refrigeration system, milk reception, pasteuriza-
tion, and standardization line, and yogurt drink production
unit, individually. The work presented herein can be an impor-
tant step for future improvements of dairy processing plants
with respect to the sustainability and productivity issues.
More specifically, the specific exergy destruction of pasteur-
ized yogurt drink was found to be 442 kJ/kg using the mass
129
allocation method. The major exergy destruction rate was
found in the boiler & air compressor combination of steam
generator, accounting for over 56% of the specific exergy
destruction. Therefore, how to reduce the irreversibility rate
in this unit is the key point to energy saving and to improv-
ing the overall system performance. For future progression, it
is strongly suggested to carry out exergoeconomic and exer-
goenvironmental analyses, which are combinations of exergy
with economics and environment, to obtain useful insights on
the real costs and environmental impacts of dairy products
processing.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to extend their appreciations for finan-
cial support provided by the University of Tehran.
Appendix A.
 130
Table A1 – Equations used to determine exergy efficiency and exergy destruction rate of some subcomponents of the plant.
Line Subcomponent Exergy balance Exergy efficiency (%)

˙ ph
Ex
Steam generation system Condensate tank (I) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ˙
16 + Ex21 + Ex25 − Ex1 − ExQL,I = Exdest,I I = 1
˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex˙ ph
16 21 25
˙ ph ph
ph ph ph ph Ex −Ex˙
Heat exchanger (III) ˙ 14 − Ex
(Ex ˙ 15 ) − (Ex
˙ 3 − Ex
˙ 2 ) = Ex
˙ dest,III III =
3 2
˙ ph −Ex
Ex ˙ ph
14 15
˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ch
Boiler & air compressor combination (VI) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ch ˙ ph
6 + Ex7 + Ex8 + Ex8 + ẆVI − Ex10 − VI =
10 9 9
˙ ph ph ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ch +Ẇ
ph ch Ex +Ex˙ +Ex 8 VI
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
Ex9 − Ex9 − ExQL,VI = Exdest,VI 6 7 8

˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex˙ ph
Above-zero refrigeration Ice-water tank & agitator combination (II) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
27 + Ex40 + Ex42 + ẆII − Ex28 − Ex38 − II = 28 38 41
˙ ph ph ph
ph Ex +Ex˙ +Ex˙ +ẆII
system ˙ ˙
Ex41 = Exdest,II 27 40 42

˙ ph +Ex˙ ph

food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131

Ex
Ammonia separator (III) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙
28 + Ex37 − Ex26 − Ex29 = Exdest,III III = 26 29
˙ ph ˙ ph
Ex +Ex
28 37
˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ph
Condenser & fan combination (V) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
30 + Ex32 + Ex33 + Ex34 + ẆV − Ex31 − V = 31 35 36
ph ph ˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ph +Ex
˙ ph +Ẇ
V
˙ ˙ ˙
Ex35 − Ex36 = Exdest,V 30 32 33 34

Milk reception, Heat exchanger (VII)

pasteurization, and ˙ ph
(((Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
39.3 − Ex40.3 ) + ( Ex68 − Ex69 ) + ( Ex69 − VII
Exergy increase of product
= Exergy decrease of fuel =
ph ph ph ph ph
standardization line (−Ex˙ 70 )) + (Ex
˙ 74 − Ex
˙ 75 ) + (Ex
˙ 77 − Ex
˙ 78 )) − ˙
(Ex
ph
−(−Ex˙ ph ))+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex˙ ph )+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex
˙ ph )+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex
˙ ph )+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex
˙ ph )
50 49 51 50 65 64 67 66 71 70
˙ ph
((Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
50 − (−Ex49 )) + ( Ex51 − Ex50 ) + ( Ex65 − ˙
(Ex
ph ˙
−Ex
ph ˙
)+(Ex
ph
−Ex˙ ph ˙
)+(Ex
ph
−(−Ex˙ ph ˙
))+(Ex
ph ˙
−Ex
ph ˙
)+(Ex
ph ˙ ph )
−Ex
39.3 40.3 68 69 69 70 74 75 77 78
ph ph ph ph ph
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
Ex64 ) + (Ex67 − Ex66 ) + (Ex71 − Ex70 ))) =
˙ dest,VIII
Ex
Ex˙ ph +Ex˙ ph +Ex
˙ ph +Ex
˙ ph
Deaerator & vacuum pump combination (VIII) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
39.2 + Ex51 + Ex81 + ẆVIII − Ex40.2 − Ex52 − VIII = 40.2 52 80 82
ph ph ˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ph +Ẇ
VIII
˙ ˙ ˙
Ex80 − Ex82 = Exdest,VIII 39.2 51 81

˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ch +Ex ˙ ph −Ex
˙ ch −Ex ˙ ch
Separator (XII) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ch ˙ ph ˙ ch ˙ ph
55 + Ex55 + ẆXII − Ex56 − Ex56 − Ex57 − XII = 56 56 57 57 55 55
ẆXII
ch
˙ ˙
Ex57 = Exdest,XII
˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ch
Mixing unit (XVI) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ch ˙ ph ˙ ch ˙ ph ˙ ch
59 + Ex59 + Ex62 + Ex62 − Ex63 − Ex63 = XVI = 63 63
˙ ph ch ˙ ph ˙ ch
Ex ˙
+Ex 59 +Ex62 +Ex62
˙ dest,XVI
Ex 59

Yogurt drink production Heat exchanger (IV)

˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph −(−Ex
˙ ph ))+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex
˙ ph )+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex˙ ph )+(Ex
˙ ph −Ex
˙ ph )
94 − Ex95 ) + ( Ex95 − Ex96 ) + ( Ex111 −
line (((Ex (Ex
ph ph ph ph IV = 87
ph ˙ ph
86 88
ph ˙ ph
87
ph
91
ph
90
ph
93 92
ph
˙ 112 ) + (Ex
Ex ˙ 114 − Ex
˙ 115 )) − ((Ex
˙ 87 − ˙ ˙
(Ex −Ex )+(Ex −Ex )+(Ex ˙ −Ex˙ ˙
)+(Ex ˙
−Ex )
94 95 95 96 111 112 114 115

(−Ex˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
86 )) + ( Ex88 − Ex87 ) + ( Ex91 − Ex90 ) +
ph ph
˙ ˙ ˙
(Ex93 − Ex92 ))) = Exdest,IV
˙ ph +Ex
Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ch
Buffer tank & agitator combination (IX) ˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ch ˙ ph ˙ ch
39.5 + Ex96 + Ex96 + Ex107 + Ex107 + IX = 40.5 97 97
˙ ph ph ch ph ch ˙ ph +Ex ˙ ph +Ex
˙ ch +Ex ˙ ch +Ẇ
ph ch ph ch Ex ˙
+Ex ˙
+Ex 96 + ˙
Ex + ˙
Ex 107 + Ex 108 109 IX
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
Ex108 + Ex108 + Ex109 + Ex109 + ẆIX − 39.5 96 107 108 109

˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ch ˙
40.5 − Ex97 − Ex97 = Exdest,IX
˙ ph ˙ ph )+(Ex ˙ ph −Ex ˙ ph )+(Ex˙ ph −(−Ex ˙ ph ))
(Ex −Ex
Heat exchanger (XIII) ˙ ph
(((Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙ ph
39.4 − (−Ex40.4 )) + ( Ex104 − Ex105 ) + XIII = 101 100 103 102 106 105
˙ ph ph ph ph ph ˙ ph )
ph ph ph ph (Ex −(−Ex˙ ˙
))+(Ex ˙
−Ex ˙
)+(Ex −Ex
˙ 118 − Ex
(Ex ˙ 119 )) − ((Ex
˙ 101 − Ex ˙ ph
˙ 100 ) + (Ex 103 −
39.4 40.4 104 105 118 119

˙ ph
Ex ˙ ph ˙ ph ˙
102 ) + ( Ex106 − (−Ex105 )))) = Exdest,XIII
 food and bioproducts processing 1 0 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 118–131 131

References Jafaryani Jokandan, M., Aghbashlo, M., Mohtasebi, S.S., 2015.

Comprehensive exergy analysis of an industrial-scale yogurt
production plant. Energy 93, 1832–1851.
Aghbashlo, M., Mobli, H., Rafiee, S., Madadlou, A., 2013. A review
Khanali, M., Aghbashlo, M., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., 2013. Exergetic
on exergy analysis of drying processes and systems. Renew.
performance assessment of plug flow fluidised bed drying
Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 1–22.
process of rough rice. Int. J. Exergy 13 (3), 387–408.
Aladetuyi, A., Olatunji, G.A., Ogunniyi, D.S., Odetoye, T.E.,
Munir, M., Yu, W., Young, B., 2014. Can exergy be a useful tool for
Oguntoye, S.O., 2014. Production and characterization of
the dairy industry? Comput. Aided Chem. Eng., 1129–1134.
biodiesel using palm kernel oil; fresh and recovered from
Oyedepo, S.O., 2012. On energy for sustainable development in
spent bleaching earth. Biofuel Res. J. 4, 134–138.
Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5), 2583–2598.
Balli, O., Aras, H., Hepbasli, A., 2007. Exergetic performance
Shukuya, M., 2012. Exergy: Theory and Applications in the Built
evaluation of a combined heat and power (CHP) system in
Environment. Springer Science & Business Media.
Turkey. Int. J. Energy Res. 31 (9), 849–866.
Song, G., Xiao, J., Zhao, H., Shen, L., 2012. A unified correlation for
Barchyn, D., Cenkowski, S., 2014. Process analysis of superheated
estimating specific chemical exergy of solid and liquid fuels.
steam pre-treatment of wheat straw and its relative effect on
Energy 40 (1), 164–173.
ethanol selling price. Biofuel Res. J. 4, 123–128.
Sonntag, R.E., Borgnakke, C., Van Wylen, G.J., Van Wyk, S., 1998.
Choi, Y., Okos, M.R., 1986. Effects of temperature and
Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, vol. 6. Wiley, New York.
composition on the thermal properties of foods. In: Maguer,
Szargut, J., Morris, D.R., Steward, F.R., 1988. Exergy Analysis of
L., Jelen, P. (Eds.), Food Engineering and Process Applications:
Thermal, Chemical, and Metallurgical Processes, 1st ed.
Transport Phenomenon. Elsevier, New York, pp. 3–101.
Hemisphere.
De, S., Luque, R., 2014. Upgrading of waste oils into
Zisopoulos, F.K., Rossier-Miranda, F.J., Van Der Goot, A.J., Boom,
transportation fuels using hydrotreating technologies. Biofuel
R.M., 2017. The use of exergetic indicators in the food
Res. J. 4, 107–109.
industry—a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 57 (1), 197–211.
Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2012. Exergy: Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development. Newnes.
Gümüş, M., Atmaca, M., 2013. Energy and exergy analyses applied
to a CI engine fueled with diesel and natural gas. Energy
Sources Part A 35 (11), 1017–1027.