Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Cleaner production implementation through process modificationsfor selected SMEs in Turkish olive oil production

S. Gurbuz, N. Kiran-Ciliz∗, O. YenigunInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Bogazici University, 34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 14 April 2003; accepted 17 July 2003

Abstract

Turkey as a Mediterranean country has suitable conditions for olive oil production. However, by-products of olive oil production(pomace and vegetation water) require specific management with the goal of pollution prevention. This paper explores the applica-bility of Cleaner Production (CP) methodology for fifteen crude olive oil extraction Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs),one olive oil refining plant and one pomace oil extraction plant operating on the Aegean Sea coast of Turkey. It has been deductedthat; if the recommended CP options comprising water, energy saving issues, and pomace management options regarding energyproduction and raw material recovery via thermal conversion processes will be implemented, the need for end-of-pipe treatment(EOP) facilities will decline and power generation from pomace will be environmentally, technically and economically feasible. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Olive oil process; Energy; Vegetation water; Olive pomace

1. Introduction

Olive oil is a typical Mediterranean product, in termsof production and consumption[1,2]. There are about805 million olive trees in the world, covering approxi-mately 24 million acres. Almost 98% of these trees growin the Mediterranean area which provides for 97% of thetotal olive production and 91% of world consumption[2]. Turkey is in the top rank of fourth amongst the Med-iterranean countries as olive fruit production shows fluc-tuations on a yearly basis. Turkish olive oil productionreaches up to around 200,000 t/year during “on years”and around 80,000 t/year during “off years”[3]. Turkeyplays an important role in the export market of olive oil,which forms a great majority of her production (90,000–100,000 t/year). According to the International Olive OilCouncil (IOOC), Turkish exports account for 10% of thetotal world exports.

In Turkey, olive is both processed in small andmedium size enterprises (SMEs) and modern facilities

∗ Corresponding author: Tel.:+90 212 358 1540; Fax:+90 212257 5033.

E-mail address: cilizn@boun.edu.tr (N. Kiran-Ciliz).

0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00121-5

to produce edible olive oil. Although olive oil productionhas an important economic contribution for the Europeanand Mediterranean part, it has considerably adverseeffects to the environmental welfare due to high amountsof vegetation water; and pomace; which are wastewaterand olive cake produced from olive oil extractionrespectively. Due to their high economic and environ-mental value the vegetation water and pomace obtainedfrom olive oil production processes are considered as by-products. However, The Olive Oil Producers Associationin Turkey is unable to manage these valuable by-pro-ducts. As a result of this, most of these valuable by-products are disposed without any control. Within thisframe, the maximum recovery of the by-products duringolive oil production process with the successfulimplementation of Cleaner Production (CP) method-ology for olive oil industry.

Cleaner Production (CP) is a protective and prevent-ative approach. As opposed to conventional pollutioncontrol approaches, which are known, as “end of pipetreatment facilities” (EOP) CP strategies aim to deal withthe problems at their source, trying to avoid their occur-rence[4]. Regarding this concept, the paper focuses onthe application of CP methodology, for the selected oliveoil producing enterprises operating in the town Edremit

614 S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

located on the Aegean coast of Turkey. Seventeen SMEswere selected to carry out this study. The first fifteenSMEs are responsible from crude olive oil production.Later on the produced crude olive oil was sent to anotherSME for refining applications and finally the extractionof olive oil from pomace – the solid residue producedby the first fifteen SMEs – and its final managementwere carried out in the last SME. Location of theenterprises are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Within the scope of CP methodology; the commitmentof the enterprises were obtained during planning andorganisation phase, the CP focus points were generatedat the end of the pre-assessment phase and they wereevaluated and prioritized in assessment phase. Finallythe CP options were screened during the feasibility phasetaking into account the economic and environmentalissues.

The recommended CP options include; water andenergy saving issues through technology modification incrude olive oil extraction SMEs, and optimum pomacemanagement options via incineration, gasification andpyrolysis processes regarding energy and raw materialrecovery issues. Within this frame, in Section two of thispaper, types of crude olive oil production processes areexplained and compared briefly. Information on by-pro-ducts of olive oil production is given quantitatively. Theinputs and outputs including their costs for the wholeolive oil production chain are illustrated.

In Section three, CP assessment is realized in detail,material and energy balances at each stage of olive oilproduction are derived and evaluated. A comprehensiveset of cleaner production options are generated and listedin the order of priority.

Section four comprises the results and discussion part,which cover the feasibility phase of the CP methodology

Fig. 1. Location of enterprises

considering economic and environmental evaluation ofgenerated CP options. Pomace management options tak-ing into account the utilization of pomace as a fuel incombined heat and power (CHP) plants for in situ powergeneration in the refining plant is described.

Finally, Section five deals with the conclusionsobtained from the study.

2. Cleaner production in Turkish olive oil industry

The Mediterranean is the center of almost all inter-national olive oil marketing activities. Turkish olive oiltrees cover 4% of the overall agricultural areas in Tur-key. The olive oil production in the regions of Turkeyare 75–80% in the Aegean area, 10% in the Mediter-ranean area and around 10% in the areas of Marmaraand South East Anatolia. As the Aegean coast is Tur-key’s leading olive oil producer, the enterprises selectedfor the implementation of CP were in this region [5].

In the areas mentioned above – with the exception ofTurkey – the production of olive oil and the exploitationof its by-products have been properly done. For this rea-son the main goal of this study was to promote the com-mitment of the management of those firms that willinglyparticipated in this study. It was believed that by show-ing the benefits of cleaner production, firms would bemore willing to engage in innovation in cleaner pro-duction.

Gaining the commitment of firms represents a greatchallenge. This results from the fact that the productionof olive oil encompasses several firms and the adoptionof the new processes implies planning of activities inorganisational and administrative dimensions.

Olive oil in general is obtained by means of three prin-

615S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

cipal procedures: the pressing system, the three-phasecontinuous system and the two-phase continuous system.The oldest olive oil production method, the pressing sys-tem with its low quality olive oil generation capacity,is not preferred anymore. In the three-phase continuoussystem, a horizontal centrifuge is used where processwater addition is required for the separation of the threeproducts: oil, vegetation water and pomace. In this sys-tem, due to the addition of process water into thedecanter, the amount of vegetation water generation isvery high. For instance, from 1 t of olives, 1.2–1.6 t ofvegetation water and also 0.5 t of pomace are generated.The pomace generated has approximately 46.5% drymatter and is very valuable from the point of energycontent, with a calorific value of between 3800–4500kcal/kg. In the two-phase continuous system, only theoil and pomace containing vegetation water are the out-puts of the process. Here, the vegetation water isaccumulated in pomace, it is not generated separately.Moreover, as there is no water addition in the process,the amount of vegetation water existing in the pomaceis quite low. From 1 t of olives, only 0.050–0.060 t ofvegetation water is determined in the pomace which isaround 0.8 t.

The moisture content of pomace generated throughtwo-phase continuous system is about 60–65% [6,7,8].In Spain, the leading country in olive oil production,approximately 90% of the oil mills use the two-phasecontinuous system whereas in Italy (the second olive oilproducer of the world) half of the production is stillobtained by the traditional pressing method [6,9].

In Turkey, extraction of the olives, refining and fil-tration of the olive oil and processing of its solid by-products (pomace) are utilized by different enterprisesseparately from each other. Amongst the seventeenindustries selected for the study, fifteen of them wereolive oil extraction SMEs in which the extraction ofolives were obtained by three-phase continuous system.There also existed a refining plant and also there was apomace oil extraction plant in which the residual oil leftin the pomace coming from the first fifteen SMEs wasextracted. These enterprises are related to each other inthe overall production chain. The product of one is rawmaterial of the other. Within this frame, pollution pre-vention in the processes and recovery options for by-products were evaluated. The selected industries are asfollows:

The first fifteen industries that can be defined as(SMEs) are established for the olive fruit extraction toproduce crude olive oil in Edremit. These fifteen SMEsare selling crude olive oil to the refining plant; Unikomin Ayvalık. Finally another SME Yeni Kurtulus locatedin Edremit is responsible for pomace oil extraction.

During the planning and organization phase of CPmethodology, it was noticed that, since the plants arelocated away from each other, a lack of cooperation and

coordination existed, resulting in difficulties for reliabledata collection. Regular meetings among organizationsand information dissemination was not possible. As aresult, very few reliable data were collected. On the con-trary, data evaluation is very important since the appli-cation of CP methodology starts from collecting thebaseline data in order to identify the current status andsources and causes of the sectorial problems.

Also as a systematic barrier, it was concluded thattraining the employees to upgrade their job skills wasnot realized. From the point of governmental barriers,although the exhausted olive pomace is appropriate tobe used as a fuel with its high calorific value, there areno related regulations for its utilization.

During the pre-assessment phase of the study, briefinformation on olive oil production was provided. Inputsand outputs and their cost on the basis of whole oliveoil production are illustrated in Table 1.

The 15 SMEs are the first step of crude olive oil pro-duction where the olives collected in sacks were receivedand processed to produce crude olive oil. The existingextraction system is the three-phase continuous system.Plants operate 90 days a year in “on years” and 30 daysa year in “off years” with an operating capacity of 24 hper day. As the year 2000–2001 was an “on year” forolive harvesting, all the calculations/assumptions in thisstudy were made according to the production period of2000/2001.

On the other hand, Unikom is the plant where lowquality olive oil is refined, filtered, bottled and sent tomarket. Unikom provides crude olive oil from the SMEsmentioned above. Being in an “on year” or an “off year”period for olive oil production does not affect the annualproduction of Unikom.

The pomace, as a by-product generated in the selected15 olive oil extraction SMEs, is processed through pom-ace oil extraction process by means of the solvent calledhexane in the Yeni Kurtulus plant in Edremit. The outputof the process are exhausted olive pomace and olivepomace oil, which have economic value.

3. Assessment phase and evaluation of CP options

According to the results of the pre-assessment phase,the audit focus points from the point of material andenergy balances were determined and derived during theassessment phase. Hence CP options were generated andlisted in order of priority. Within this frame, the crudeolive oil production processes which were carried out in15 SMEs and the processes applied to extract pomaceoil and exhausted pomace in Yeni Kurtulus plant wereselected for the CP implementation. In these plants, adetailed understanding of the sources and causes ofwaste and emission generation was obtained (Figs. 2and 3).

616 S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

Table 1Inputs and outputs including their costs for olive oil production chain for production period of 2000/2001

Product-by-product 15 Olive oil extraction SMEs Unikom (olive oil refining enterprise) Yeni Kurtulus pomace oil extractionconsumption plant

Raw material Collected olives: 45,000 t/year Crude olive oil: 8930 t/year Pomace: 22,500 t/yeara

Product Crude olive oil: 9000 t/year Total oil production: 80,782 t/yearb Pomace oil: 560 t/yearBy-product and Leaves: 900 t/year Soapstock: 11,715 t/year Exhausted olive pomace: 14,065 t/yearwastes

Clay and stones: 450 t/year Fatty acids: 2028 t/yearVegetation water: 45,000–54,000 t/year Sludge: 103 t/year

Wastewater: 50,697 t/yearc

Pomace: 22,500 t/yearWater consumption Total consumption: 49,500–59,400 Total consumption: 115,532 t/year Total consumption: 26,100 t/year

t/year (heating, cooling)Cost: 125,584/year

Cost: noned Water consumption during olive oil Cost: noned

refining: 4500 t/yearCost: 6996/year

Energy consumption Pomace energy: 95,625 × 104 to 1125 Total electric energy consumption: Pomace energy: 1125 × 1010 kcal /yeare

× 106 kcal /year 6,247,702 kW h/yearTotal exhausted pomace consumption: Cost: 543,550/year Electric energy consumption: 385,112255–300 t/year kW h/year

Electric energy consumption duringolive oil refining: 150,000 kW h/year

Cost: 5100–6000/year Cost: 33,505/yearTotal electric consumption: 1,987,185 Cost: 13,050/yearkW h/yearCost: 196,725/year

Chemical No chemical is used Phosphoric acid: 22,500 kg/year Hexane: 22.5 t/yearconsumption

Caustic: 86,250 kg/year Hexane: 45 kg/year (lost duringdistillation)

Citric acid: 6000 kg/yearBleaching earth: 15,000 kg/year Cost of lost hexane: 25.2/year

Note: The chemical consumption quantities given in table for Unikom were calculated according to olive oil production.a Total pomace coming from the 15 olive oil extraction SMEs: 22,500 t/year.b The sum of oil production, including olive oil, corn oil and vegetable oil.c The waste and by-product quantities are the sums of the wastes generated through the whole oil production stage.d The water is abstracted from a drill-hole.e The generated exhausted olive pomace during this extraction process is used in the plant.

As can be seen, there were excess amounts of waterconsumption for crude olive oil production during thethree-phase continuous system which will lead to highamounts (45,000–54,000 t/year) of vegetation water withhigh pollutant load (COD: 45,000–60,000 mg/l) [6].

As a CP option, technology modification was rec-ommended in order to minimize water consumption,which would also lead to reduction in vegetation watergeneration. Hence, technology modification would alsominimize energy consumption. Substitution of three-phase continuous system with the two-phase continuoussystem as a technology modification is discussed indetail in results and discussion section.

In addition to this, as described in more detail in Sec-tion 5, modification of three-phase continuous systemwith the two-phase continuous system resulted in anincrease in the amount and moisture content of pomacegenerated. Therefore, in order to handle pomace prop-

erly, efficient by-product management options in pomaceoil extraction plants (Yeni Kurtulus Plant) were dis-cussed. Furthermore, since pomace has a relatively highcalorific value, which is approximately about 19000kJ/kg, pomace management options were investigated inorder to find out the most efficient and applicable ther-mal conversion technology for in situ power generation,by using pomace as a fuel. Evaluation of these generatedCP options was done in the feasibility phase of the study,which will be discussed in results and discussion section.

Moreover, the good housekeeping practices were alsocarried out during the Assessment Phase. Although har-vesting by hand is the best method for olive oil, the costof labor is almost one third of the whole of the olive oilproduction costs, which does not make it preferable. Forthis reason, harvesting of olives by olive collectingmachines were recommended. The method using col-lecting machines also enables the provision of higher

617S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

Fig. 2. Material balances for 15 olive oil extraction SMEs where three-phase continuous olive oil production was carried out.

Fig. 3. Yeni Kurtulus olive oil extraction industry material for pomace (2001).

618 S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

quality olive supplies. On the other hand, appropriatestorage of olives both before and after processing wouldincrease the quality of crude olive oil and would defi-nitely reduce the amount of crude olive oil subjected tothe refining process.

4. Results and discussion

The feasibility studies from the point of environmentaland economic issues were carried out for the selectedCP options.

4.1. Technology modification

The results concluded from the substitution of thethree-phase continuous system with the two-phase con-tinuous system in the olive oil extraction plant for 15SMEs are summarized in Fig. 4.

Substituting the current three-phase continuous systemwith two-phase continuous system costs 600,000–671,000 (investment cost) [7] with an approximatecapacity of 1800–2200 kg/hr, which is suitable for eachof the selected olive oil extraction SMEs. This cost indi-cates the cost of the full system including; washingequipment, deleafer, mill, malaxater, decanter and finalpurifier. As the washing equipment, deleafer, mill andmalaxater are the common parts of both the two-phaseand three-phase continuous systems; there was not thenecessity of purchasing them. Only the decanter was dif-ferent and only one vertical centrifuge was sufficient.This property creates many options within this equip-

Fig. 4. Material balances of 15 olive oil extraction SMEs as a result of two-phase system modification.

ment that reduces the cost, depending on needs. In thisregard, it was assumed that the cost of a two-phasedecanter could be almost 50% of the total cost of thefull system [7,10]. So, according to this assumption capi-tal cost of the two-phase continuous decanter was foundabout 300,050 . Hence, due to this investment, areduction in both operation and maintenance cost couldbe achieved.

On the top of these, the process modifications had noadverse impacts on olive oil quality, which in the longrun, seems to be the determinant factor for the economyof the whole olive oil business.

4.1.1. Water conservationTechnology modification option provided high

amounts of reduction in water consumption, since thereis no addition of water to the decanter in the two-phasecontinuous system. This created a reduction of 36,000–45,000 t/year of water for 45,000 t/year of olives thatwere processed in the 15 olive oil extraction SMEs. Thereduction in water consumption, which resulted in lessamount of vegetation water generation, also led to econ-omic savings in the wastewater treatment plant.

Taking into account the wastewater treatment costs,there can be savings between 47% and 68% (with theimplementation of two-phase continuous system)depending on the type of the treatment process (Table 2).

Although technology modification option has advan-tages as mentioned above, the fifteen-selected olive oilextraction SMEs were not willing to substitute their threephase decanters with two-phase decanters. The main rea-son behind this idea was that, since most of the olive oil

619S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

Table 2Wastewater treatment plant cost evaluations of the continuous systems for the selected 15 SMEs [11]

Treatment process Treatment cost of the effluents of three- Treatment cost of the effluents of two-phase Cost saving (%)phase continuous system ( /year) continuous systema ( /year)

Aerobic treatment 75,900–91,080 46,356–48,426 47Anaerobic treatment followed by 135,300–162,360 54,456–58,146 64aerobic treatmentMembrane process 165,000–198,000 58,506–63,006 68

a Operating cost and investment cost of two-phase decanter, which is 36,006/year, is also integrated in the treatment cost.

extraction SMEs did not have any wastewater treatmentplants, they were not interested in the amount of veg-etation water reduction obtained through a two-phasedecanter. On the other hand, olive oil production is aseasonal job, which means that most of the employershave additional jobs. As a result of this they don’ t wantto invest in technology modification. In order to per-suade employers to replace their existing technologywith the suggested technology, strict regulations andlegislations are needed regarding installing treatmentfacilities. As Turkey is in the transition period of Euro-pean Union (EU) membership, adaptation of EUenvironmental regulations into Turkish legal frameworkare of great importance. In this regard, Turkish govern-ment is striving to fit the regulations to the EU regu-lations. However, some companies do pursue such inno-vations, without, or in advance of regulations, but thenumber of them are very few.

4.1.2. By-productsThe pomace which was obtained from the two-phase

continuous system containing vegetation water requiresmore energy than that of the three-phase continuous sys-tem during its drying process in the Yeni Kurtulus plant.The reason for this is the accumulation of all actual veg-etation water in the pomace in the decanter, whichresults in higher amounts of pomace generation than thecurrent three-phase system. The moisture content ofpomace for the three-phase continuous system and thetwo-phase continuous system was analyzed to be 50%and 60–65%, respectively. From this aspect, cost evalu-ations for the energy consumption, auxiliary materials,product and by-product costs were carried out(comparing the pomace coming from both systems)taking into account the pomace processes in the YeniKurtulus plant (Table 3).

Although drying of two-phase pomace required moreenergy than that of the three-phase pomace, the feasi-bility study proved that processing two-phase pomacewas more profitable than processing three-phase pomacein the pomace oil extraction industries. This is due tothe higher amounts of two-phase pomace (36,000 t/year)than the three-phase pomace (22,500 t/year), whichresulted in larger quantities of pomace oil (900 t/year)

and exhausted olive pomace (20,700 t/year) from thesame amount of olives (45,000 t/year). The net profitcalculated for the pomace oil extraction plant processingtwo-phase pomace was about 207,525/year.

On the other hand, the total cost savings for energyand water consumption in the olive oil production pro-cesses and pomace management have the values of 9%and 86%, respectively, which are almost about350,000/year (Table 3).

4.2. Pomace management option

Pomace with a calorific value of approximately 19,000kJ/kg has characteristics that are illustrated together withthe properties of Turkish lignite in Table 4.

According to the aforementioned properties of pom-ace efficiency of gasification, incineration and pyrolysisprocess, applications for pomace were investigated, inorder to generate electricity that can supply the energyrequirements of Unikom, the refining industry. The totalenergy consumption of Unikom was reported to be about6,247,702 kW h (789 kWe) which was accepted as 1MWe for the year 2001. The plant operated for 7920h/year. For power generation, a downdraft type of gas-ifier was chosen [5]. The cost of electricity was calcu-lated to be about 0.067/kW h, which was less thanthe price of electricity of Turkey Electric AnonymousCompany (TEAC): 0.087/kW h. Since the chosen sys-tem was a combined power and heat system (CHP), dur-ing power generation vapor could also be generated sim-ultaneously. The total fuel saving will be 69% whichwill result in a cost saving of around 1,953,250/yeardue to the process vapor production through gasification.

For in situ power generation through incineration ofpomace, cyclonic combustion systems were chosen to beappropriate for generating a capacity of 1 MW electricenergy. The cost of electricity through incineration wascalculated to be about 0.11/kW h which is more than0.087/kW h (Table 5).

The capital cost of power generation equipment forpyrolysis of pomace is more than 4053/kW h [12–15]. This resulted in electricity generation being moreexpensive when compared with gasification and inciner-ation processes. For that reason, a detailed feasibility

620 S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

Table 3Water, energy and vegetation water savings as a result of the application of two-phase continuous system in the selected 15 SMEs [13]

Before (three-phase continuous After (two-phase Saving (%) Cost saving ( /year)system) continuous system)

Water (t/year) 49,500–59,400 6750–8100 86Energy (kW h/year) 1,987,185 �1,987,185 9Energy ( /year) 196,725 �196,725 17,705Vegetation water (t/year) 45,000–54,000 2250–2700 95Vegetation water ( /year) 135,300–162,360 54,456–58,146 80,844–104,214Pomace (t/year) 22,500 36,000

207,525Pomace oil (t/year) 560 900Exhausted pomace (t/year) 14,065 20,700Crude olive oil 9000 9000� Saving 350,000

Table 4Comparison of properties for pomace and Turkish lignite

Property (%) Lignite Pomace

Moisture 55 9Ash 17 8Sulfur 1.46 0.12

study for pyrolysis, considering economic issues, wasnot carried out. However, amongst the different pyrolysisconditions, slow pyrolysis conditions taking place at300 °C in a furnace fluidized system under the flow ofN2 (as the sweeping gas) seemed to provide optimum con-ditions according to the maximum yields of furfural andsyringaldehyde which are commercially valuable [16].

From these results it was concluded that, although inTurkey we don’ t have the appropriate regulations forpomace to be evaluated as a source of fuel, accordingto its considerably high calorific value and low emis-sions, it was recommended that Turkish Government

Table 5Evaluation of advanced thermolysis technologies for pomace utilization

Electricity production process Gasification Incineration

MWe/year 1 1/kW ha 0.067 0.11

Efficiency (%) 25 14Annual fuel cost ( /year)b 120,384 213,840Annual operating and maintenance cost ( /year) 120,028 141,827Total capital cost ( /kW) 2432 4053Vapor production( /year) 31,636c –Energy conversion value (MWe/year) 2.5 –Saving through vapor production ( /year) 194,250 –Total saving through vapor and electricity 319,204 –production ( /year)

a Average cost of electricity of TEAC = 0.087 /kW h.b Cost of fuel; pomace = 0.020/kg (calorific value = 19,000 kJ/kg).c Vapor demand for Unikom = 45,673 t /year ( 281,322/year coal consumption).

should enact laws or regulations to encourage the useof pomace as a fuel. Hence, from the study it was alsorecommended to establish individual thermal processingplants, instead of centralized thermal processing plants,since the pomace is locally produced; its collection,transportation, and storage would increase the cost ofelectric production.

5. Conclusions

The CP methodology was carried out in 15 olive oilextraction SMEs, one olive oil refining plant and theimplementation was concluded in a pomace extraction plant.

The 15 SMEs supplied both crude olive oil to therefining plant and pomace to the pomace extraction plant.

The two-phase continuous system which was replacedwith a three-phase continuous system has advantagessuch as a 95% reduction in wastewater generation. It wasalso determined that although a two-phase continuoussystem, when compared to a three-phase continuous

621S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613–621

system, leads to pomace generation with higher moisturewhich causes more energy consumption, the cost com-parisons revealed that the energy consumption losseswere converted into profits because of the larger amountsof exhausted olive pomace and pomace oil generation.

In the pomace management options, amongst theappropriate conversion technologies such as gasification,combustion and pyrolysis of pomace, pomace gasifi-cation was found to be the most economically profitableprocess for in situ power generation for Unikom, therefining plant with a capaity of 1 MWe.

On the top of this, governmental measures both con-cerning regulation for pomace emission standards haveto be determined and enforcement of vegetation watertreatment have to be achieved. For a successful Environ-mental Management Systems, record keeping and docu-mentation and training facilities including informationdissemination to be supplied among olive and its pro-duct, by-product processing plants.

As CP attacks the problem at several organizationallevels, the implementation of plant-level CP programwith the commitment of management and with system-atic approach to waste reduction in all aspects of pro-duction process were succeeded.

Moreover, the recommended CP options have noadverse impact on the olive oil quality, which is ofutmost importance.

References

[1] Meetings of experts on olive oil production and electroplatingindustry. UNEP(OCA)MEDWG. 133/1, 1998.

[2] Alcaide EM, Nefzaoui A. Recycling of olive oil by-products:possibilities of utilization in animal nutrition. Int BiodeteriorBiodegrad 1996;:227–35.

[3] http://www.theolivepress.com/anything/faqHTML/faqGeneral.html#refined

[4] Cleaner production assessment manual. Cleaner ProductionProgramme/NCPC Project UNEP IE, 1995.

[5] Olgun H, Kıran N, Coban T, Tırıs M, Akgun F. Feasibility report forpomace thermolysis processes. TUBITAK-MRRC, Kocaeli, 2001.

[6] Pollution prevention in olive oil production. Regional ActivityCenter for Cleaner Production (RAC/CP), 2000.

[7] Regional Australian olive oil processing plants. RIRDC ProjectGGO 1/A, no.: 00/187, 2001.

[8] Arjona R, Garcia A, Ollero P. The drying of alpeorujo, a waste pro-duct of the olive oil mill industry. J Food Eng 1999;41:229–34.

[9] Kiritsakis AK. Olive Oil. American Chemists’ Society, USA, 1990.[10] Olive oil mills and presses. www.oliveoilsource.com/olerina.htm[11] Gurbuz S, Kiran Ciliz N, Yenigun O. Water conservation in olive

oil industry with the implementation of cleaner production meth-odology. In: Proceedings of International Water Association(IWA) Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediter-ranean Region, Iraklion, Crete, Greece, September 26–29, 2002.

[12] Advanced thermal conversion technologies for energy from solidwaste: a joint report of the IEA bioenergy programme and theIEA CADDET renewable energy technologies programme. IEACADDET Center of Renewable Energy, UK, 1998.

[13] Roughton E. Energy from woody biomass in New Zealand. Wel-lington: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, 2001.

[14] Ahmed K, Anderson D. Renewable energy technologies: a reviewof the status and costs of selected technologies. US: The WorldBank, 1994.

[15] The Foster Wheeler pyrolysis technology addresses used tireproblem. http://es.epa.gov/studies/cs 254 html

[16] Dogan O, Matuscheck G, Cılız NK, Ozdogan S, Kettrup A, TırısM. Thermolysis of solid residues from olive oil production. Julich-TUBITAK Scientific and Technological Cooperation, March 2001.