See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266204540

Energy efficiency of a confectionery plant – Case study

Article  in  Journal of Food Engineering · February 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.08.019

CITATIONS READS

11 3,138

10 authors, including:

Janusz Wojdalski Józef Grochowicz

Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW Agricultural University in Lublin
29 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bogdan Dróżdż Paulina Zdanowska

Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW
16 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE BY IMPROVING PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY IN FOOD INDUSTRY View project

XVIII Conference of science and technology construction and utilization of food industry equipment-BEMS 2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulina Zdanowska on 25 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

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

Energy efficiency of a confectionery plant – Case study

Janusz Wojdalski, Józef Grochowicz ⇑, Bogdan Drózd
_ z,
_ Katarzyna Bartoszewska, Paulina Zdanowska,
_
Adam Kupczyk, Adam Ekielski, Iwona Florczak, Aleksandra Hasny, Grazyna Wójcik
Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Department of Production Management and Engineering, Nowoursynowska 164, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland

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

Article history: The characteristic features of confectionery plants are determined by the type and quantity of processed
Received 28 March 2014 raw materials, the applied production technology, structure of technical equipment and degree of auto-
Received in revised form 18 July 2014 mation. The above factors contribute to variations in the consumption of different energy carriers. This
Accepted 25 August 2014
paper analyzes the energy consumption profile of a randomly chosen confectionery plant. It describes
Available online 17 September 2014
technical and technological factors that can be applied in a detailed analysis of energy efficiency in the
confectionery industry to facilitate the selection of the best available techniques. The discussed indicators
Keywords:
can also be used to create a database that tracks the energy efficiency characteristics of confectionery
Confectionery plant
Energy consumption
plants.
Energy efficiency Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Energy efficiency indicators can include additional information

about a production facility or a production line (e.g. power of
The consumption of energy carriers in food processing plants is electrical motors, employment). Energy efficiency in the food pro-
determined by various factors, including the thermophysical prop- cessing industry has been researched extensively by numerous
erties of raw materials, production technology, technical equip- authors, including Elkin and Stevens (2008), Fernández et al.
ment, degree of automation, production volume and structure, (2012), Kowalczyk and Netter (2008), Meyer et al. (2000),
product requirements, capacity of utilization and organization of Pimentel et al. (2008), Therkelsen et al. (2014), Wang (2008),
the production process. Energy efficiency (EE) is defined as the Wojdalski and Drózd _ z_ (2012).
ratio of the output of a given device, system or production facility In the food processing business, confectionery plants receive
operating under standard conditions to the amount of energy con- significant attention for economic reasons (Balasubramanyan and
sumed by that device, system or production facility to deliver the Mohan, 2010; Eriksson et al., 1996; Pellegrino et al., 2004). In
output. Energy efficiency can be increased by lowering the amount Poland, the confectionery sector is represented by four large com-
of energy consumed during processing, distribution or use due to panies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (Confectionery
changes in production technology. Changes in production technol- companies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, 2011). In
ogy should also account for cleaner production (CP) requirements. 2011, they generated sales of nearly PLN 1.8 billion (around USD
Rational energy use is closely correlated with the concept of eco- 0.6 billion), with an average of PLN 450 million per company
effectiveness, which aims to improve environmental results by (around USD 142 billion) (OnTime Analyzes, 2012). The structure
conserving energy, reducing the use of natural resources, reducing of the Polish confectionery sector in 2012 is presented in Table 1.
pollution and minimizing waste production at every stage of raw In the last two decades, Polish confectionery plants ranked 11th
materials processing. Research studies also analyze carbon dioxide in terms of their total energy consumption among all food process-
emissions, whose magnitude is determined by the distance over ing plants, after sugar refineries, dairy plants, meat processing
which raw materials, energy carriers and final products are trans- plants, fish processing plants, bakeries, fruit and vegetable process-
ported (Grimaldi et al., 2000; Lunghi and Burzacca, 2004; Wilhite, ing plants, breweries, flour mills and pasta processing plants, egg
2008; Wojdalski and Drózd _ z,
_ 2012). and poultry processing plants, distilleries and plants manufacturing
alcoholic beverages (Wojdalski et al., 1998; Central Statistical Office,
2013). In Germany, the manufacture of cocoa, chocolate and confec-
tioneries (excluding bakery products) accounts for one of the 15
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: University of Vincent Pol, Choiny 2, 20-816 most energy-intensive sub-sectors of the food industry. In 1998,
Lublin. the German food processing industry consumed 11,904 MW h of
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Grochowicz). energy (Elkin and Stevens, 2008; Meyer et al., 2000).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.08.019
0260-8774/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 183

Nomenclature

Symbols Qst heat introduced by the steam equivalent, W

a coefficient in a regression equation Q rw calorific value of fuel (gas fuel), 34 MJ/m3
ATE monthly consumption of thermal energy (ATE = Brz Q rw ; Uen installed capacity of electrical equipment per employee,
for Q rw = 34 MJ/m3 of gas fuel), MJ/month kW/person
Ae total monthly consumption of electrical energy in the WA aggregate indicator of specific energy consumption
plant (Ae = Aep + Aeb), kW h/month (SECA)
Aep monthly consumption of electrical energy in the plant’s Wce specific consumption of the coal equivalent calculated
production departments, kW h/month based on Wt (specific energy consumption in the plant,
Aeb monthly consumption of electrical energy in the plant’s WZ), kg c.e./Mg of product
office building, kW h/month Wep specific energy in the plant’s production departments
At total monthly energy consumption [At = 3.6 (specific energy consumption in the production process,
(Aep + Aeb) + ATE, converted at 1kW h = 3.6 MJ], MJ/ WP), kW h/Mg
month W specific energy consumption in the plant’s production
Ath hourly energy consumption (Ath = P s + D i for s = 1 h, departments and office building (specific energy con-
converted at 1kW h = 3.6 MJ), MJ sumption in the plant, WZ), kW h/Mg of product
Aw monthly water consumption, m3/month WP specific energy consumption in the production process
b coefficient in a regression equation (SECP)
Bce monthly consumption of the coal equivalent based on WT specific energy consumption in technological processes
the converted value of At, kg c.e./month (SECT)
Brz monthly consumption of gas fuel, m3/month Wt overall specific energy consumption, converted at
D consumption of the steam equivalent, kg/h 1 kW h = 3.6 MJ
EE energy efficiency, kg of product/kW h, kg of product/GJ, Ww specific water consumption in the plant (SWCZ), m3/Mg
kg of product/kg c.e. WZ specific energy consumption in the plant (SECZ)
EW water consumption efficiency, kg of product/m3 water Z monthly production, Mg of product/month
eeCO2 CO2 emissions per 1 kW h of generated electrical energy r standard error of estimate
(0.90–1.02 kg CO2/kW h)
egCO2 CO2 emissions associated with gas fuel combustion
Lowercase symbols:
(55.82 kg/GJ)
ce coal equivalent
i enthalpy of the steam equivalent (2.6796 MJ/kg of s.e.)
e electricity
Km installed capacity of electrical equipment per 1 Mg of
ep electricity consumed in production
processed products per month, kW/Mg
g fuel gas
K monthly production per plant employee, Mg/person
st steam
n total employment in the plant, persons
t total energy
P total installed capacity of electrical devices in produc-
TE thermal energy
tion departments, kW
R2 coefficient of determination (R2 = r2 100%), %
Qce calorific value of coal equivalent (29.3076 MJ/kg c.e.)

The consumption of energy carriers in confectionary plants is technical standards based on the best available techniques and
determined by specific factors, including the applied production requirements for the management of post-production waste. The
technology, the number of periodically-operated machines, range Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC, 2006a) reference
of processing temperatures, and the thermophysical properties of document lists the confectionery industry, but does not quote any
raw materials and final products (Afoakwa et al., 2007; Beckett, data about the energy efficiency of confectionery production
2009; Energy Solutions Center, 2005; Keijbets et al., 2010; processes.
Kliopova and Lieščinskienė, 2011; Reinheimer et al., 2010, 2012; The efficiency of a production plant or an applied technology
United States Department of Energy, 2002). Specific technologies can be evaluated with the use of the specific energy consumption
relating to energy efficiency in the confectionery industry are pro- indicator (W) or the energy efficiency indicator (EE).
tected by patents (Sieghart, 2012). The energy efficiency of confectionery plants has been
The energy consumption structure of a confectionery plant is addressed by relatively few publications (Singh, 1986; Neryng
determined by the type of production processes, mainly caramel et al., 1990). Singh (1986) presented diagrams for production lines
cooking, rolling, granulation, drying and chilling. In Polish plants, of hard candy, cocoa powder, chocolate candy, chewing gum, sweet
the structure of energy consumption was as follows: heat from and milk chocolate, with an indication of their demand for energy.
steam and hot water – 56.3%, fossil fuels – 36.3%, electricity – The energy efficiency of production processes is expressed by var-
7.4% (Neryng et al., 1990). According to the authors’ unpublished ious units, and the reasons for variations in plants’ energy con-
results, this structure has been preserved to this day. In a study sumption profiles have not been fully explained. The energy
of a German confectionery plant (Working Group . . ., 2009) con- efficiency of the confectionery plants cited in literature is pre-
suming 9 757 731 GJ of energy per year, heat accounted for sented in Table 2. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive
63.5% and electricity – for the remainder of the consumed energy. overview of the available research results and process data.
Confectionery plants implement energy management policies Various ranges of specific energy consumption indicators (WA,
that require the generation of databases for analyzing energy effi- WT and WP) shown in Fig. 1 (Section 4 – Methods) have been ana-
ciency in food processing operations (Swords et al., 2008). lyzed. Other documents and reports detailing energy consumption
The demand for energy carriers is specified in, for example, inte- statistics of confectionery plants, including Ferrero (AB Energy for
grated permits that set environmental protection requirements, Ferrero, 2012), German guidelines (Working Group . . ., 2009) and
184 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Table 1
The structure of the Polish confectionery industry in 2012. Source: Central Statistical Office (2013).

Products Measurement Output

unit
Molasses Mg 442700.00
Chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa, weighing more than 2 kg, containing 18% and more cocoa butter and milk fat Mg 86996.00
Chocolates Mg 58424.00
Chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa, with added cereal; fruit or nuts (excl. filled chocolate blocks) Mg 47021.00
Toffees, caramels and similar sweets Mg 42607.00
Filled chocolate blocks and other preparations containing cocoa Mg 36856.00
Eastern sugar confectionery Mg 12294.00
White chocolate Mg 5464.00

Table 2
Energy consumption in reference confectionery plants.

Energy Symbols and units Products Indicators Source

carrier
Range Numeric
value
Electrical We kW h/Mg of product Halva WT 40 Neryng et al. (1990)
energy Chocolate WT 250–400
Pralines WT 400
Caramel produced by the continuous method WT 10
Caramel produced by the batch method WT 42
We kJ/kg of product (kW h/Mg Hard candy WT 744.32 (206.7) Hagler, Bailley and Co. (cited in
of product) WP 1558.42 (432.89) Singh 1986)
Chocolate candy WT 1256.04 (348.9)
WP 2070.14 (575.0)
Candy packaging WA 116.30 (32.3)
Cocoa butter WT 674.54 (187.37)
WP 790.84 (219.67)
Packaged sticks of chewing gum WT 1581.70 (439.36) Singh (1986)
WP 1699.0 (471.94)
Thermal WTE GJ/Mg of product Chocolate WT 6.7 Neryng et al. (1990)
energy WTE Mg of steam Caramel produced by the continuous method WT 0.15
(1.15 MPa)/Mg of product Caramel produced by the batch method WT up to 1.25
WTE kJ/kg of product Hard candy WT 3489 Hagler, Bailley and Co. (cited in
WP 4884.6 Singh, 1986)
Chocolate candy WT 3954.2
WP 5349.8
Cocoa butter WT 930.4
WP 2093.4
Packaged sticks of chewing gum WT 1860.8 Singh, (1986)
WP 3814.64
WST kg of steam/kg of product Batch Cooker (type TBT 200) WA 0.33 Hosokawa (2012)
Feeding, mixing and cooking plant (Hotmix type WT 0.43
twin)
Flexible continuous caramel cooker (Candyflex WT 0.50
type twin mega)
Wg m3/Mg of product Heat energy intensity within the pilot plant WZ 152 (before CPa) Kliopova and Lieščinskienė
128 (after CPa) (2011)
a
CP – implementation of cleaner production initiatives.

an Egyptian report (Confectionary Industry Self-Monitoring in different seasons of the year. They analyzed energy saving
Manual, 2002), are valuable sources of knowledge about rational options in two operating variants:
energy use in the confectionery industry, but they do not propose
detailed methods for determining indicators WA, WT or WP. Accord- – when the product was cold stored,
ing to the Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator (2010), stoving – when the refrigerating plant was situated inside the packaging
products, such as gums and jellies, account for around 25% of building.
energy consumption in the sugar confectionery sub-sector. It has
been estimated that total annual production of stoved sweets Lunghi and Mariani (2003) analyzed the reductions in energy
reaches 76,000 Mg and requires 294 GW h of primary energy. usage and costs that could follow from changes in ventilation
CO2 emissions from stoving products have been estimated at and air-conditioning system in production facilities in confection-
60,000 Mg a year, 32% of which (around 20,000 Mg) can be attrib- ery plants.
uted to the stoving process. The annual cost of energy associated In many studies and reports, the energy efficiency of confec-
with stove products is estimated at £6.5 million, including tionery plants or production technologies is expressed by indica-
£1.6 million for the stoving process itself. tors that are difficult to compare because they are not relevant
Grimaldi et al. (2000) studied the effect of air-conditioning in for the specific conditions of individual plants. There is a general
production facilities on a confectionary plant’s energy consumption scarcity of publications investigating the energy efficiency of
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 185

13
Raw materials

Caramel candy
14
production line,
Tablet candy 15
production line
Milk candy 16
production line
Water from own Water treatment, Process and cleaning water Wastewater 19
1 evacuated
supply source pumping station Sugar mill 17
Make-up water to a transitional
5 Mixing unit
Steam tank
Sugar melting tank
Natural Dryer
2 Steam production
gas
Granulation unit
9 Tableting press
Ekoterm
3 Fuel oil storage Evaporator
fuel oil Heating for End products for
6 Cooling table
production distribution (Z)
departments Pull broach
and hot water Packaging unit
production Multihead weigher
12
Batch roller
Electrical energy Transformer Aep Rope sizer
4
(medium voltage 15 kV) station Die forming machine
7 20

Cooling tunnel Waste

Cooling Cooling energy
Aeb 10 Twist wrapper
Closed cooling water circuit
Extruder

Office building, Compressed air station Compressed

workshop, warehouses
11 air energy WA
8

18
WT
Wp, EEep
WZ, EE, EW

Fig. 1. Energy consumption in a confectionery plant.

Table 3
Annual employment structure and production profile.

Experimental period (year) Year 1 Year 2

Total employment, n Total employment in plant, n1 196 183
Employment in production departments, n2 130 120
Share of total production, % Tablet candy 32 45
Soft milk candy 34 30
Caramel fudge candy 34 25

confectionery plants producing tablet candy, caramels and soft The correlations between CO2 emissions and the output of confec-
milk candy. The operating characteristics of bakery plants were tionery plants are investigated. The study also makes a reference to
_ z_ (2012).
presented by Wojdalski and Drózd the work of Bunse et al. (2011), which demonstrates that the con-
tent of scientific publications fails to meet the demands voiced by
2. Objective manufacturing plants.

The objective of this study was to propose a method for deter- 3. Materials
mining direct energy consumption and energy efficiency of a con-
fectionery plant manufacturing tablet candy, soft milk candy and The investigated confectionery plant is situated in the Region of
caramel fudge candy, and to compare the plant’s technical and Mazowsze, Poland. In the analyzed period, monthly production (Z)
operating parameters with literature data. The paper provides ranged from 88.07 to 216.87 Mg. According to the data presented
source materials for modeling confectionery plants as energy in Table 1, the average monthly output of toffees, caramels, similar
consumers and for analyzing the correlations between production sweets and eastern sugar confectioneries in the Polish confection-
volume and energy consumption in evaluations of energy effi- ery industry is estimated at 4575 Mg. The above items make up the
ciency in industrial plants. The results of this study can be used production profile of the analyzed plant. The plant’s employment
to create databases of energy efficiency in the confectionery sector, structure and production profile in two annual periods are pre-
an issue which remains insufficiently explored in the literature. sented in Table 3.
186 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Table 4
Maximum hourly energy demand of equipment in production lines.

No. Device No. of devices Installed capacity P Steam consumption D Demand for Steam energy Qst Total energy consumption
[unit] (kW) (kg/h) electricity, A = P (W) Ath (MJ)
s
(kW h) (MJ)
Caramels
1 Syrup tank 1 16 600 16 57.6 446.6 1665.36
2 APV (I) evaporation 1 22 600 22 79.2 446.6 1686.96
system (I)
3 APV (II) evaporation 1 30 800 30 108 595.47 2251.68
system
4 Wrist wrapper 2 4 – 8 28.8 – 28.80
5 Ishida weighing scale 1 1.5 – 1.5 5.4 – 5.40
6 Radpak packaging line 1 3 – 3 10.8 – 10.80
Total 7 76.5 2000 80.5 289.8 1488.67 5649.00

Tablet candy
1 Sugar mill 1 20 – 20 72 – 72.00
2 Batch confectioner 2 2.2 – 4.4 15.84 – 15.84
3 Wet granulator 2 1.5 3 10.8 – 10.80
4 Dryer 3 7.5 300 22.5 81 669.9 2492.64
5 Dry granulator 2 1.5 – 3 10.8 – 10.80
6 MANESTRY tableting 10 3 – 30 108 – 108.00
press
7 TR-5 tableting press 3 4 – 12 43.2 – 43.20
8 Packaging unit 1 7 – 7 25.2 – 25.20
9 Lozenge hemmer 2 3 – 6 21.6 – 21.60
10 Dedusting system 1 30 – 30 108 – 108.00
11 Dragées 1 7 – 7 25.2 – 25.20
Total 28 86.7 300 144.9 521.64 669.9 2933.28

Soft milk candy

1 Evaporator 2 10 300 20 72 446.6 1679.76
2 DUO evaporator 5 4.5 150 22.5 81 558.25 2090.70
3 Cooling system 1 14 – 14 – – 50.4
4 NAGEMA system 5 7.5 – 37.5 – – 135
5 Pull broach 2 3 – 6 – – 21.6
6 Air-conditioning 1 30 – 30 – – 108
Total 16 69 450 130 153 1004.85 4085.46

The plant comprises three main production departments. The production departments (P) was determined at 411.4 kW (Table 5).
energy requirements of the equipment operated in the discussed The installed capacity of electrical devices in the office building
production lines (Fig. 1, items 14–17) and the theoretical maxi- was not taken into account.
mum hourly demand for energy (Ath) are presented in Table 4. The indicator of specific energy consumption in the plant (WZ)
The plant’s total energy consumption was determined based on was calculated for equipment (Fig. 1, items 5–7), warehouses and
the numeric value of enthalpy of the steam equivalent (i). the office building (Fig. 1, item 8). Waste and wastewater (Fig. 1,
The above departments receive support from auxiliary depart- item 18–20) are evacuated outside plant premises.
ments (Fig. 1, items 9–12) where energy conversion takes place.
The indicator of specific energy consumption in the production
process (WP) is calculated for auxiliary departments, their 4. Methods
equipment (Fig. 1, item 17) and production lines (Fig. 1, items
14–16). A new diagram of a confectionery plant as an energy con-
The plant’s main equipment (energy receivers) and estimated sumer (Fig. 1) and indicators of specific energy consumption in
maximum hourly demand for energy are presented in Table 5. production processes and in the plant (WP and WZ) (Wojdalski
The total installed capacity of all electrical devices in the plant’s _ z,
and Drózd _ 2006, 2012) were used in this study. In this study,

Table 5
Process equipment operated by the plant’s production departments.

No. Department Installed capacity of electrical Consumption of the steam Share of total installed Share of steam
devices (kW) equivalent ( kg/h) capacity (%) consumption (%)
1 Soft milk candy department 130 1500 31.60 27.78
2 Tablet candy department 144.9 900 35.22 16.67
3 Caramel fudge candy department 80.5 2000 19.57 37.04
4 Boiler house for central heating/hot 20 1000 4.86 18.51
water supply
5 Compressed air station 21 0 5.10 0
6 Water treatment station 15 0 3.65 0
Total 411.4 5400 100 100
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 187

the above indicators were applied on the example of a confec- (CHP) or analyses of energy conversion efficiency (Bhatt 2000;
tionery plant. The indicators cover all electrical devices responsi- _ z,
Wojdalski and Drózd _ 2012).
ble for the conversion and utilization of energy in the entire
plant.
4.1. General characteristics of technological processes in the analyzed
Indicators WA and WT (Fig. 1) are less specific indicators of
plant
energy efficiency in the evaluated plant, and their determination
was not the objective of this study. They are mentioned in litera-
The analyzed plant manufactures three types of products: soft
ture and listed in Table 2, which is why they have been included
milk candy, caramel fudge candy and tablet candy. Schematic
in Fig. 1. The sites where energy consumption was measured are
diagrams of process lines applied in each department are shown
indicated in Fig. 1, where: 1 – measurements of water consump-
in Figs. 2–4. Production lines and devices are listed in items
tion (Aw), 2 – measurements of natural gas (gas fuel) consumption
14–17 in Fig. 1, and their general parameters are given in Table 4.
(Brz), 3 – measurements of heating oil (back-up energy source
It has been assumed that monthly production volume (Z) influ-
which was not used in the analyzed period) consumption, 4 – mea-
ences the demand for energy in the analyzed confectionery plant.
surements of total electricity consumption (Ae). Separate measure-
Previous research into the food processing industry demon-
ments were conducted for the municipal water supply network
strated that monthly production volume is also the most useful
which can be used for emergency purposes. The calculations were
indicator that supports assessments of industrial plants’ environ-
performed based on the values of monthly consumption of
mental impact and the determination of the best available produc-
electricity, GZ-50 gas fuel and water covering a period of
tion techniques (Wojdalski and Drózd _ z,
_ 2012). The effect of
24 months and the volume of different product groups manufac-
production volume (Z) on actual production volume (Y) observed
tured in that period. Water is an energy carrier, and the demand
in practice was determined with the use of the below formula:
for water is determined by the operating time of well pumps and
the energy consumption of water pumping and treatment stations Y ¼ b þ aZ
(Fig. 1, item 5).
The energy efficiency of the analyzed plant was investigated where Y is the energy consumption (dependent variables, e.g. Aep,
with the use of the indicator method, which supports an evaluation WTE, Wg, Ww); Z the production volume of the confectionery plant
of the plant’s current operations. The plant’s energy efficiency was (independent variable), on the assumption that the following condi-
determined based on the indicators shown in Table 6, including WP tions are met and aZ P b and Z > 0.
and WZ over the range of values given in Fig. 1. The indicators given The resulting regression equations with coefficients of correla-
in items 1–3 apply to the confectionery plant analyzed in this tion (r) and determination (R2) partially explained the discussed
study. The remaining indicators in items 4–17 provide detailed problem in the analyzed confectionery plant. The range of variation
information about energy consumption for production processes. of independent variables Y is presented in Table 8. The results were
Indicators 4–7 apply to electricity, fuel gas and heat consumption. processed to produce linear regression equations demonstrating
Indicator Wep (item 4) is used to calculate the electrical efficiency the variations in energy consumption (Table 9). Calculations were
of the plant’s production departments EEep. Indicators 8–9 refer performed in the Statistica v. 10 application. Regression equations
to the plant’s total energy consumption per product unit. The envi- have also been used to determine the energy efficiency of food pro-
ronmental aspects the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions are illus- cessing plants in various seasons of the year by Neryng et al.
trated by indicators 18 and 19. Those indicators have been used (1990). The methods for determining the energy efficiency of pro-
by Maxime et al. (2006) to determine the eco-efficiency of food duction plants proposed by Kannan and Boie (2003), Markis and
processing plants in Canada. The applied method could be modi- Paravantis (2007), Muller et al. (2007) and Simona et al. (2012)
fied to support evaluations of combined heat and power generation can also be applied in the confectionery industry.

Table 6
Performance indicators of the analyzed confectionery plant.

No. Physical meaning/significance (range) Formula Unit

1 Monthly production per employee K ¼ nZ1 Mg/person
2 Installed capacity of electrical devices in production departments per 1 Mg of products per month K m ¼ PZ kW/Mg
3 Installed capacity of electrical devices per employee in production departments U en ¼ nP2 kW/person
4 Electricity consumption in production departments per 1 Mg of products (WP) W ep ¼
Aep kW h/Mg of product
Z
5 Total electricity consumption in the plant (production plants and office building) per 1 Mg of products (WZ) We ¼ ZAe kW h/Mg of product
6 Gas fuel consumption per 1 Mg of products (WZ) W g ¼ BZrz m3 of gas fuel/Mg of product
7 Specific consumption of thermal energy (WZ) W TE ¼ AZTE MJ/Mg of product
8 Overall specific energy consumption, converted at 1 kW h = 3.6 MJ (WZ) 3:6Ae þBrz Q rw MJ/Mg of product
W t ¼ AZt ¼ Z
9 Specific consumption of the coal equivalent, converted at 1 kW h = 3.6 MJ (WZ) W ce ¼ QWcet kg c.e./Mg of product
10 Specific water consumption in the plant (WZ) W W ¼ AZw m3/Mg of product
11 Energy efficiency in production departments EEep ¼ AZep Mg of product/kW h
12 Energy efficiency in the plant EEe ¼ AZe Mg of product/kW h
13 Energy efficiency of gas fuel in the plant EEg ¼ BZrz Mg of product/m3 of gas fuel
14 Thermal energy efficiency in the plant Z kg of product/MJ
EETE ¼ ATE
15 Total energy efficiency in the plant Z kg of product/MJ
EEt ¼ 3:6A r
e þBrz Q w

16 Energy efficiency of the coal equivalent in the plant EEce ¼ BZce kg of product/kg c.e.
17 Water consumption efficiency in the plant EW ¼ AZw kg of product/m3
18 Specific CO2 emission associated with electricity generation in the plant Ee CO2 = We  ee CO2 kg CO2/Mg of product
19 Specific CO2 emission associated with gas fuel combustion in the plant ETE CO2 = WTE  eTE CO2 kg CO2/Mg of product
188 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

PREPARING THE INGREDIENTS

WEIGHING THE INGREDIENTS

PREPARING THE SUGAR SYRUP

BOILING THE CARAMEL MASS

PREPARING FLAVORINGS AND DYES

BOILING THE CARAMEL MASS

COOLING AND FLAVORING THE

CARAMEL MASS

KNEADING THE CARAMEL MASS PULLING THE CARAMEL MASS

HEATING THE CARAMEL MASS

PREPARING THE FILLINGS

ROLLING THE CARAMEL MASS

INSERTING THE FILLINGS

PULLING AND LEVELLING THE

CARAMEL BAR

FORMING CARAMELS

CRYSTALLIZING
OR SPRINKLING ROLLING
CARAMELS CARAMELS

WRAPPING

TRANSPORT TO WAREHOUSE

Fig. 2. Caramel production process.

5. Results and discussion energy consumption (Wt), amounting to 2.456–8.575 GJ/Mg of

product, can also be converted to energy that can be obtained from
The range of technical and organizational indicators describing alternative sources, such as biomass combustion. The results have
the analyzed plant is presented in Table 7. Indicators Km and Uen a largely theoretical significance because the substitution of an
illustrate the correlations between technical equipment, energy carrier requires the modification of the energy conversion
production volume and employment in the plant’s production system in the boiler house. This issue has been discussed at length
departments. The value of Km which expresses the degree of by Thompson (2006). The indicator of water consumption effi-
production automation on a monthly basis ranged from 1.89 to ciency (EW), correlated with the demand for cooling energy and
4.67 kW/Mg of final production. Indicator K can also be partially total energy consumption, is a supplementary metric. The indicator
used to evaluate the efficiency of the entire plant. The indicators of specific water consumption (Ww) has been used by Orhon et al.
listed in Table 7 can also be calculated in view of the plant’s (1995). The numeric value of indicator BOD5 (Five-Day Biochemical
total installed capacity and total employment in production Oxygen Demand) can be applied to estimate pollutant loads in
departments. evacuated wastewater. Wastewater can be used in biogas produc-
The range of variation in monthly energy consumption, includ- tion to improve the plant’s energy balance and support the intro-
ing the median and the 90th percentile, is presented in Table 8. duction of cleaner production methods.
An indicator of the plant’s total energy consumption (Wt – The median of indicators We and WTE in Table 8 (calculated
Table 8) is a highly useful metric for the assessment of costs and based on formulas 18 and 19 from Table 8) and IPCC data
the applied technology, including in Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) (2006b) were used to determine the plant’s carbon dioxide emis-
(Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003). The indicator of overall specific sions at 261.73 and 156.02 kg CO2/Mg of the product, respectively,
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 189

Table 7
Technical and organizational indicators of the analyzed plant calculated on a monthly
PREPARING THE INGREDIENTS basis.

No. Indicator Unit Range

PREPARING THE TABLET MASS Minimum Maximum

1 Km kW/Mg of product 1.89 4.67
2 Uen kW/person 3.16 3.42
FIRST GRANULATION 3 K Mg of product/person 0.449 1.185

DRYING
emissions per product unit. The equations where the correlation
SECOND GRANULATION coefficient (r) reached the highest value, i.e. the equations which
are useful for industrial practice, are presented in Table 9. It should
also be noted that the evaluated plant’s capacity was not fully uti-
FLAVORING lized, as indicated by lower values of correlation coefficients (r)
and coefficients of determination (R2) for other variables Y not
included in Table 9. The above observations suggest that thermal
TABLET FORMING processing parameters should be controlled. The number of peri-
odically operating machines should be reduced and production
areas characterized by different temperature should be separated
PACKAGING (by insulating hot water storage tanks, separating steam, hot water
and product tanks from cooling lines).
Fig. 3. Tablet candy production process.
The results presented in Table 9 can also be used to improve
energy management by determining the production volume at
which variables Aep and WTE have the lowest value. They can also
be used to compare the analyzed plant with other confectionery
PREPARING THE INGREDIENTS plants in view of the applied production technology, research
methods and technical solutions. In a study by Kliopova and
WEIGHING THE INGREDIENTS Lieščinskienė (2011), the introduction of cleaner production initia-
tives decreased specific natural gas consumption by approxi-
mately 15.7%. The above authors proposed an algorithm for a
feasibility analysis to assess the possibility of increasing heat
BOILING THE CANDY BOILING THE CANDY
MASS MASS energy efficiency in industrial plants on the example of a confec-
tionary plant. The algorithm includes a method for modeling
materials and energy balances, feasibility analysis of CP, imple-
COOLING AND COOLING mentation of CP initiatives through process control, assessment
FLAVORING of environmental costs and methods supporting environmental
impact assessment. The cited authors also presented a diagram
of a control system for monitoring significant environmental
PULLING THE CANDY impacts of the analyzed pilot confectionary plant. Various
MASS scenarios for lowering the energy consumption of a confectionary
plant with production volume of 1600 Mg/year were analyzed:
electric energy consumption in a boiler house (and compressor)
– by 0.01 MW h/Mg of product, water consumption in a boiler
MIXING CANDY MASSES house – by 1.1 m3/Mg of product, and emissions from heat pro-
(OPTIONAL) duction – by 0.1 Mg/Mg of product. According to Kliopova and
Lieščinskienė (2011), the introduction of cleaner production initia-
tives in a confectionary plant would deliver the following
benefits:
FORMING
– the efficiency of heat production would increase by 14.4%,
ROLLING – general energy consumption in the analyzed plant would
decrease by 17.6%,
– the pay-back period on CP investments worth EUR 210,900 was
PACKAGING estimated at 1.63 years.

The characteristic features of confectionery plants and selected

TRANSPORT TO
WAREHOUSE aspects of post-production waste management have been dis-
cussed by Abou-Elela et al. (2008), Fernández et al. (2012), Hall
and Howe (2012) and Kothari et al. (2010).
Fig. 4. Soft milk candy production process.
The results of this study (in particular indicator Wt) facilitate a
comprehensive analysis of a plant’s operations as part of the LCA
with total emissions of 417.75 CO2/Mg. According to Nieburg approach, and they complement the findings of Carlsson-
(2012), large confectionery plants monitor their greenhouse gas Kanyama et al. (2003).
190 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191

Table 8
Energy and water consumption in the analyzed confectionery plant.

Dependent variable, consumption indicators Symbols and units Range Median 90th Percentile
Electrical energy Aep (kW h/month) 27886.8–58498.6 39061.1 49863.5
Ae (kW h/month) 29914.8–60981.6 41406.6 52347.7
Wep (kW h/Mg of product) 184.1–335.8 241.9 309.3
We (kW h/Mg of product) 195.2–353.5 256.6 329.2
EEep (kg of product/kW h) 2.978–5.433 4.135 5.340
EEe (kg of product/kW h) 2.829–5.123 3.898 4.976
Gas fuel Brz (m3/month) 6583.0–26206.0 14202.5 23155.7
Wg (m3/Mg of product) 44.6–222.2 82.2 186.7
EEg (kg prod./m3 of gas) 4.500–22.421 12.169 20.136
Thermal energy ATE (GJ/month) 223.8–891.0 482.9 787.3
WTE (GJ/Mg of product) 1.517–7.553 2.795 6.347
EETE (kg of product/MJ) 132.40–659.20 357.78 157.55
Total energy At (GJ/month) 356.4–1014.8 645.3 952.1
Wt (GJ/Mg of product) 2.456–8.575 3.885 7.462
EEt (kg of product/MJ) 116.6–407.2 257.4 134.0
Coal equivalent Bce (Mg. c.e./month) 12.16–34.62 22.02 32.49
Wce (kg c.e./Mg of product) 83.80–292.58 132.56 254.61
EEce (kg of product /kg c.e.) 3.42–11.93 7.54 3.93
Water Aw (m3 water/month) 509.0–1272.0 909.0 1206.3
Ww (m3 water/Mg of product) 3.2–8.1 5.4 7.5
EW (kg of product/m3 water) 123.4–312.5 185.2 133.3

Table 9
The effect of monthly production volume Z (Mg/month) on the consumption of selected energy carriers.

No. Dependent variable Average value of dependent variable Regression equation Standard error of estimate r
1 Aep (kW h) 40187.50 Aep = 155.29Z + 14484 6417.3
3 Wg (m3/Mg) 98.70 Wg = 1.0922Z + 279.48 40.7
4 WTE (MJ/Mg of product) 3355.70 Wc = 37.134Z + 9502.1 1383.5
5 Ww (m3/Mg) 5.71 Ww = 0.0191Z + 8.8713 1.15

7. Conclusions Further work is needed to determine the optimal use of energy

in a confectionery plant in view of its installed capacity, area and
The analyzed confectionery plant was characterized by lower cubic capacity of production departments and employment. Future
specific energy consumption in comparison with reference plants research could also determine the energy conversion efficiency and
in the cited literature. In this study, measurements were conducted energy consumption of the largest consumers of heat and electric-
over a period of 24 months, therefore, they are a source of reliable ity (evaluated with the use of indicators WA, WT and WP) defined in
data for industrial practice. The median and the 90th percentile this study. The significance of water as a carrier of energy for steam
were used to describe energy consumption trends, and they supply boilers and cooling systems could also be analyzed.
information about the actual distribution of energy efficiency indi- The results of this study and the findings of Swords et al. (2008)
cators. The analyzed facility can serve as a model example for con- have significant implications for energy management in industrial
fectionery plants with a similar production profile (caramels, soft practice. The plant’s performance can be compared with the results
milk candy, tablet candy) and estimated monthly output of reported in other industrial sites to suggest measures for improv-
200 Mg. The energy consumption of the plants indicated in Table 2 ing the plant’s energy efficiency. Follow-up research could involve
is approximately 40% higher than in the analyzed facility. an assessment of the environmental impact of confectionery plants
Our findings demonstrate that production volume significantly which produce biogas for auxiliary or external purposes. Attempts
determines a plant’s energy efficiency. The consumption of various should also be made to determine the water and carbon footprint
energy carriers should be regularly monitored to improve the of confectionery plants.
effectiveness of energy management solutions. Regression equa-
tions support the determination of monthly production volume Acknowledgements
at which the indicators of specific energy consumption take on
the smallest values and the plant achieves the highest level of We are grateful to the Reviewers for their valuable inputs,
energy efficiency. The results of this study can be used to establish which helped us improve this paper and provided us with useful
environmental standards. Our findings relate to specific production guidelines for future publications.
conditions and specific utilization of installed capacity of electrical The authors would also like to thank Aleksandra Poprawska, MA
devices, and they can be useful in the process of estimating pro- for editing and proofreading this manuscript.
duction costs and pollutant emissions in production plants with
similar performance parameters. The presented results expand
References
our knowledge of factors that influence the energy efficiency of a
confectionary plant. The applied methods supported the achieve- AB Energy for Ferrero, 2012. Cogeneration for the Energy Efficiency and Social
ment of the research objective. Responsibility of Leading Company in the Confectionery Industry. <http://
The presented detailed methods can be used in detailed com- epsenergy.ca/doc/Case-History-FERRERO-Food-CHP.pdf> (08.07.14).
Abou-Elela, S.I., Nasr Fayza, A., El-Shafai, S.A., 2008. Wastewater management in
parisons of confectionery plants as large industrial consumers of small- and medium-size enterprises: case studies. Environmentalist 3 (28),
energy and technology. 289–296.
 J. Wojdalski et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 182–191 191

Afoakwa, E.O., Paterson, A., Fowler, M., 2007. Factors influencing rheological and Meyer, J.K., Kuhn, M., Sieberger, G., Bonczek, P., 2000. Rationelle Energienutzung in
textural qualities in chocolate – a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 6 (18), 290– der Ernahrungsindustrie. Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, Vieweg.
298. Markis, T., Paravantis, J.A., 2007. Energy conservation in small enterprises. Energy
Balasubramanyan, L., Mohan, R., 2010. How well is productivity being priced? J. Build. 39, 404–415.
Econ. Finance 4 (34), 415–429. Maxime, D., Marcotte, M., Arcand, Y., 2006. Development of eco-efficiency
Beckett, S.T., 2009. Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use. Wiley-Blackwell, indicators for the Canadian food and beverage industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 14,
ISBN: 1405139498. 636–648.
Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating Muller, D.C.A., Marechal, F.M.A., Wolewinski, T., Roux, P.J., 2007. An energy
energy efficiency performance in production management – gap analysis management method for the food industry. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 2677–2686.
between industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Cleaner Prod. 19, 667–679. Neryng, A., Wojdalski, J., Budny, J., Krasowski, E., 1990. Energy and Water in Agro-
Bhatt, M.S., 2000. Energy audit case studies I – steam systems. Appl. Therm. Eng. 20, Food Industry (in Polish: Energia i woda w przemyśle rolno-spozywczym). _
285–296. WNT, Warszawa, 99-103, 184-189; ISBN: 83-204-1075-4.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekström, M.P., Shanahan, H., 2003. Food and life cycle energy Nieburg, O., 2012. Big Confectioners and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. <http://
inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2–3 www.confectionerynews.com/Processing-Packaging/Big-confectioners-and-
(44), 293–307. greenhouse-gas-emissions> (08.07.14).
Confectionary Industry Self-Monitoring Manual, 2002. A general inspection OnTime Analyzes, 2012. Financial results for 2011 of confectionery companies
manual; Egyptian pollution abatement project, http://industry.eeaa.gov.eg/ listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Słodkie wyniki Spółek cukierniczych z
publications/Confectionary.pdf (08.07.14). GPW za 2011 rok (in Polish). Published on 22 March 2012. <http://
Confectionery Companies Traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, 2011. Cukiernicy www.analizyontime.pl/pdf/22.03.2012slodycze_gpw.pdf> (08.07.14).
na GPW (in Polish). Published on 3 May, 2011. <http://www.stockwatch.pl/ Orhon, D., Yildiz, G., Çokgör, E.U., Sözen, S., 1995. Respirometric evaluation of the
forum/wpisy-2589_Cukiernicy-na-GPW.aspx> (08.07.14). biodegradability of confectionery wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 12 (32), 11–
Elkin, D., Stevens, Ch., 2008. Environmental and consumer issues regarding water 19.
and energy management in food processing. In: Klemeš, J., Smith, R., Kim, J.-K. Pellegrino, J.L., Margolis, N., Justiniano, M., Miller, M., 2004. Energy Use, Loss and
(Eds.), Handbook of Water and Energy Management in Food Processing, vol. 33. Opportunities Analysis. U.S. Manufacturing and Mining. Prepared by Energetics,
CRC Press – Cambridge Woodhead Publishing LTD, ISBN: 9781420077957. Incorporated and E3M, Incorporated. For the U.S. Department of Energy
Working Group ‘‘Machines and Equipment in the Confectionery industry’’, 2009. Efficiency and Renewable Energy Industrial Technologies Program. <http://
Guideline: Energy Efficiency in Confectionery Industry. Stand 2. <https:// www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/intensiveprocesses/pdfs/
nuv.vdma.org/documents/256988/1137998/ energy_use_loss_opportunities_analysis.pdf> (08.07.14).
3_Guideline+Energy+Efficiency+in+the+Confectionery+Industry.pdf/bfc0ac7e- Pimentel, D., Williamson, S., Alexander, C.E., Gonzalez-Pagan, O., Kontak, C., Mulkey,
0569-4d59-803a-af26c9aec471> (08.07.14). S.E., 2008. Reducing energy inputs in the US food system. Human Ecol. 36, 459–
Energy Solutions Center (ESC), 2005. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company: Chocolate 471.
Manufacturer Gets Free Cooling Through Waste Heat Recovery. Washington, Reinheimer, M.A., Mussati, S.F., Scenna, N.J., 2012. Optimization of operating
D.C., March. conditions of a cooling tunnel for production of hard candies. J. Food Eng. 109
Eriksson, P., Fowler, C., Whipp, R., Räsänen, K., 1996. Business communities in the (1), 22–31.
European confectionery sector: a U.K. – Finland comparison. Scand. J. Manage. 4 Reinheimer, M.A., Mussati, S., Scenna, J., 2010. Influence of product composition and
(12), 359–387. operating conditions on the unsteady behavior of hard candy cooling process. J.
Fernández, I., Renedo, C.J., Pérez, S.F., Ortiz, A., Mañana, M., 2012. A review: energy Food Eng. 101 (4), 409–416.
recovery in batch processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 4 (16), 2260–2277. Sieghart, P., 2012. Method and Device for Energy-efficient Production of
Central Statistical Office, 2013. Official website. Industrial Production in 2012. Confectionary Masses. EP2428121(A1): 2012-03-14. <http://
Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny 2013. Portal informacyjny, Produkcja wyrobów worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/
przemysłowych w 2012 r (in Polish). Published on 2013-07-30. biblio?CC=EP&NR=2428121&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP> (08.07.14).
Grimaldi, C.N., Lunghi, P., Mariani, F., 2000. Energy saving strategies in an actual Simona, C., Andreassi, L.A., Vito, I., Fabrizio, M., Stefano, U., 2012. Energy
confectionery plant. Int. J. Energy Res. 24 (9), 769–777. Management Systems. Methodology Development for a Comprehensive and
Hall, G.M., Howe, J., 2012. Energy from waste and the food processing industry. Cost-Effective Energy Management in Industrial Plants.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 3 (90), 203–212. <www.intechopen.com>.
Hosokawa, 2012. Caramel Processing Equipment. Hosokawa Confectionery and Singh, R.P., 1986. Energy accounting of food processing operations. In: Energy in
Bakery Technology and Systems. <www.greatkhan.com> (08.07.14). Food Processing. Elsevier, Amsterdam – Oxford – New York – Tokyo, pp. 49–51.
Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator, 2010. Guide to the Confectionery Stoving Swords, B., Coyle, E., Norton, B., 2008. An enterprise energy-information system.
Sector. Carbon Trust (CTG035). <https://www.carbontrust.com/media/206480/ Appl. Energy 85, 61–69.
ctg035-confectionery-stoving-industrial-energy-efficiency.pdf> (08.07.14). Therkelsen, P., Masanet, E., Worrel, E., 2014. Energy efficiency opportunities in the
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 2006a. Reference Document on U.S. commercial baking industry. J. Food Eng. 130, 14–22.
Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. Brussels, Thompson, H., 2006. The applied theory of energy substitution in production.
European Commission, 99-101. <http://www.ineris.fr/ippc/sites/default/files/ Energy Econ. 28, 410–425.
files/fdm_bref_0806.pdf> (08.07.14). United States Department of Energy (US DOE), 2002. Compressed Air System Project
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 2006b. Guidelines for National Improves Production at Candy-Making Facility. Office of Energy Efficiency and
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl> Renewable Energy, Industrial Technologies Program, Washington, D.C. Report
(08.07.14). DOE/GO-102001-1482.
Kannan, R., Boie, W., 2003. Energy management practices in SME – case study of a Wang, L.J. (Ed.), 2008. Energy Efficiency and Management in Food Processing
bakery in Germany. Energy Convers. Manage. 44, 945–959. Facilities. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group LLC., Boca Raton, FL, USA, ISBN:
Keijbets, E.L., Chen, J., Vieira, J., 2010. Chocolate demoulding and effects of 1420063383. <http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/sciruslink?src=webandurl=
processing conditions. J. Food Eng. 1 (98), 133–140. http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crcpress.com%2Fproduct%2Fisbn%2F9781420063387>.
Kliopova, I., Lieščinskienė, R., 2011. Minimization of heat energy intensity in food Wilhite, H., 2008. New thinking on the agentive relationship between end-use
production companies applying sustainable industrial development methods technologies and energy-using practices. Energ. Effi. 2 (1), 121–130.
environmental research. Eng. Manage. 3 (57), 46–56, ISSN: 2029-2139. <http:// Wojdalski, J., Domagała, A., Kaleta, A., Janus, P., 1998. Energy and Energy
erem.ktu.lt>. Consumption in the Food Processing Industry (in Polish: Energia i jej
Kothari, R., Tyagi, V.V., Pathak, A., 2010. Waste-to-energy: a way from renewable _
uzytkowanie _
w przemyśle rolno-spozywczym). SGGW, Warsaw, pp. 184–186.
energy sources to sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 9 (14), _ z,
Wojdalski, J., Drózd _ B., 2006. A rudimental analysis of energy consumption during
3164–3170. production at agri-food industry work. Podstawy analizy energochłonności
Kowalczyk, R., Netter, J., 2008. A new look at the energetic factors consumption in produkcji zakładów przemysłu rolno-spozywczego _ (in Polish). MOTROL,
food industry (in Polish: Nowe spojrzenie na zuzycie _ czynników Motoryzacja i Energetyka Rolnictwa. Tom 8A, 294-304. <http://www.pan-
energetycznych w zakładzie przemysłu spozywczego). _ Poste˛py Techniki ol.lublin.pl/wydawnictwa/Motrol8a/Wojdalski2.pdf>.
_
Przetwórstwa Spozywczego 1, 45–47. Wojdalski, J., Drózd_ z,
_ B., 2012. Energy efficiency of food processing plants. Key
Lunghi, P., Mariani, F., 2003. Developing a new cost-efficient control strategy for an issues and definitions (in Polish: Efektywność energetyczna zakładów
actual confectionery plant through the combined exploitation of experimental _
przemysłu spozywczego Zarys problematyki i podstawowe definicje). Pol. J.
and numerical analysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 27, 575–588. http://dx.doi.org/ Food Eng. 3/3, 37–49, ISSN 2084-9494. <http://www.ips.wm.tu.koszalin.pl/doc/
10.1002/er.896. 3.2012/IPS_3_2012_WOJADALSKI.pdf>.
Lunghi, P., Burzacca, R., 2004. Energy recovery from industrial waste of a
confectionery plant by means of BIGFC plant. Energy 12–15 (29), 2601–2617.

View publication stats