1
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING FOR ENERGY
TREATMENT OF ODOROUS VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS USING UV/H2O2
Master Thesis Project in Chemical Sciences and Engineering
By
Nguo Manases Fuh
Supervisor: Mats Westermark
Industrial Contack: Jack Delin
September 2011
2
ABSTRACT
Odorous volatile organic compounds emissions from fried-food industries posed severed pollution
problems both to the workers and the surrounding inhabitants. These industries need to look for cost
effective and efficient methods to reduce these emitted gases. Several solutions such as the use of
centrifugation, scrubbers, ion exchangers, biofiltration, condensation, adsorption, absorption, and
incineration have been exploited to reduce these smelling gases. Centriair in collaboration with KTH
aim at using UV light in combination with ozone and hydrogen peroxide to degrade these odorous
VOCs emitted from the frying of meat balls (SCAN) and chips.
Several volatile organic compounds which are odorants with low threshold values were identified in
the emitted gases from meat frying which includes: aldehydes, sulphur containing compounds,
ketones, pyrazines, and alcohols. The type and concentration of these odorants emitted depends
among other things primarily on the type of oil used during the frying process.
This work focuses on the use of advanced oxidation processes to abate theses odorous gases. The
effect of UV dosage and the use of hydrogen peroxide were tested in a flow reactor. Ozone
producing UV lamps were used for the treatment of 2,4-decadienal, Hexanal, furfural, and 2,5-
dimethylpyrazine. A simultaneous chemical and odour analysis was done using a GC/MS
Olfactometry system.
UV/Ozone/H2O2 was effective in reducing the volatile organic compounds tested thus reducing the
odor concentration. The percent removal was proportional to the energy dosage.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Aims and Objectives ....................................................................................................................4
1.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................4
2. Odorous Compounds Found during Frying ....................................................................................5
2.1 Threshold Values for Some Odorous Compounds ......................................................................6
3. Ultra Violet Lamps ..........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Low-Pressure Mercury Lamps .....................................................................................................6
3.2 Medium-Pressure Mercury Lamps ..............................................................................................6
3.3 High-Pressure Mercury Lamps ....................................................................................................7
3.4 Factors Affecting the Performance of UV Lamps ........................................................................7
4. Hydrogen Peroxide ........................................................................................................................7
5. Treatment Methods .......................................................................................................................7
5.1 Different Oxidative Treatment Methods.....................................................................................7
5.1.1. Air Ionization ...........................................................................................................................8
5.1.2. Using UV Light .........................................................................................................................8
5.1.3. Advanced Oxidation Processes ................................................................................................9
UV/Ozone .................................................................................................................................... 10
Fenton’s Reaction ....................................................................................................................... 10
UV/Hydrogen Peroxide ............................................................................................................... 11
6. Analytical Methods ..................................................................................................................... 12
6.1. Gas Chromatography Olfactometry ................................................................................................ 12
6.2. Dräger Tubes ................................................................................................................................... 13
7. Experimentation ......................................................................................................................... 13
8. Results and Discussions .............................................................................................................. 14
9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 17
References ................................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix 2................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................... ....25
Appendix 4 ....................................................................................................................................27
4
1. Introduction
Food processing industries such as SCAN (frying of meat) are continuously faced with the problem of
odorous compound emitted during the manufacture process. Increasing residential area around such
industries leads to a call for concern for the wellbeing of the public and the workers. With a
combination of technologies, centriair produce equipments to abate the various pollutants from the
exhaust air of these industries. The odorants are resistant to the classical methods such as
adsorption, ion exchange, biofiltration, condensation, scrubbers, absorption, and incineration.
Centriair centrifugal technique in association with Technair UV-treatment technology has therefore
been installed in Aviko’s plant aimed for the reduction of odorous compound emitted during deep-
fat frying. [1]
In this paper, the use of UV light in combination with hydrogen peroxide has been investigated. This
advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) is a recent development in air treatment for the removal of
odorous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from food process industries. This photochemical
oxidation process involves the use of ultra violet light to produce hydroxyl radicals which are strong
oxidizing agents by splitting hydrogen peroxide molecules. This process seems to be very effective as
a polishing step for the treatment of exhaust air from frying industries.
1.1. Aims and Objectives
During industrial frying of meat for example, various volatile organic compounds are been emitted
some of which are odorous. These odorous compounds need to be destroyed before release to the
atmosphere since it posed problems to the surrounding environment and the factory workers. Our
goal is to develop a cost-effective technology in order to reduce the amount of odorous volatile
organic compounds in industrial frying processes. We set to optimize the destruction of odorous
VOCs from frying industries using advanced oxidation technique (UV/H2O2).
1.2. Methodology
Different odorous VOCs compounds will be identified and a few will be treated with UV/H2O2 in a
laboratory scale. Several factors which are known to influence the oxidation process taken place
during the irradiation with the UV/H2O2 will be investigated. These factors include:
Intensity of the light (number of lamps)
UV dose (J/cm2)
Retention time (treatment time)
Initial Concentration of the substances to be oxidized
Gas flow rate
Type of UV device
Temperature
Pressure
Turbulence
Relative Humidity
The distance of the UV light from the odorous compounds [2]
5
The number and location of the UV devices and the UV energy required is therefore dependent on
the air volume, concentrations and type of gas phase contaminants and the desired destruction as
well as the construction of the device.
2. Odorous Compounds found during frying
Different compounds which are odorous have been identified to be present in the gaseous mixture
emitted during frying for example meat. Most of these compounds include the aldehydes, volatile
fatty acids (VFAs), pyrazines, sulphur containing compounds, ketones, alcohols, carboxylic acids and
esters which could have originated either from the oil, the meat or the ingredients.
The characteristic odor obtained during the frying of meat is derived from the thermally induced
degradation of lipids and the milliard reactions that occur between amino acids and reducing sugars.
Most of the characteristic odor produced is as a result of the production of volatile compounds.
Several hundred volatile compounds have been identified [3]. Appendix 3 gives some of the odorous
volatile organic compounds from literature. [4, 5]
Depending on the frying conditions and the different ingredient added during the process, the
volatile organic compounds emitted differs. This also have an effect on the odor. Kirsten and Werner
[6] show that frying at 2800C for 3 minutes per side produces significant different in the odor
compared to frying at 3000C for 1 minute per side.
The type of oil use for the frying is the main contribution to the odor produced. The oil quality should be of one with low saturated fat, low linolenic acid content, and high oxidative stability. The free fatty acid content should be less than 0.05 % weight [7]. A study by Stephen et al. [8] shows that some compounds such as 3-cis-hexanal and 2,4-trans, trans-decadienal are produce from the frying oil while others such as dimethyl disulfide and 2,5-dimethyl pyrazine, were produced by the food. A gas chromatogram also indicate the present of 2-methyl mercaptomethyl butanal, 2-methyl mercaptosulfoxide-2-pentenal, 2-methylmercapto-5-methyl-2-hexenal, and 2-methylmercapto-2,4,6-octatrienal which are probably the products of the chemical reactions taking place. The table below gives the composition of a quality frying oil.
Table 1: Composition of Good Frying Oil [7]
Analysis Desired Level Analysis Desired Level
Free Fatty Acid 0.03 (% wt) Iron (ppm) < 0.2
Peroxide Value (meq/Kg) < 0.5 Calcium (ppm) < 0.2
Conjugated Dienes (%) Trace Magnesium (ppm) < 0.2
Polar Compounds (%) < 2.0 Diacylglycerol (%) < 0.5
Polymers (%) < 0.5 Para anisidine Value (%) < 4.0
Phosphorus (ppm) < 0.5 Chlorophyll (ppb) < 30
6
2.1. Threshold values for Some Odorous Compounds
Threshold values of odorous compounds vary considerable depending on the measuring method
used. Therefore individual threshold measurement is of primary interest to researcher. Using the
triangular odor bag method, Yoshio Nagata [9] measure the odor threshold values of some 223
compounds. It was observed that the threshold decreases as the molecular weight of the compound
increases. Table 2 presents a selection of the odorants that are produced during industrial frying
process.
Table 2: Possible Malodor Compounds in Industrial Frying Processes [9]
Compound Odor character Odor threshold (ppm, v/v) Molecular weight (g/mol)
Acetaldehyde Pungent, fruity 0.0015 44.05
3-methylbutanal Fruity 0.0002 86.6
2-methylpropanal Pungent, fruity 0.0001 – 0.002 72.12
phenyl acetaldehyde Honey like, sweet 0.004 132.16
Formaldehyde Ester-like, 50 30.03
Acetic Acid Sour wine 0.0060 60.05
Dimethyl Sulfide Onion, garlic 0.0030 62.13
Dimethyl Disulfide Sulfury 0.0022 94.20
Hexanal Grassy, oily, fishy 0.0045 100.16
3. UV Lamps Treatment of odorous compounds depends on the type of UV lamp use with the right wavelength to provide enough energy for the production of hydroxyl radical. Different lamps technologies are available. The ultra violet light source consists of fused silica quartz tube typically of diameter 15 – 25 mm and 100 – 1200 mm long filled with mercury and an inert gas such as argon [10]. The main mechanism of the process is the ionization of mercury atoms to produce electrons that excite other atomic mercury [11]. The mercury is usually mixed with an inert material such as argon that helps to provide the require energy for ionization. The excited mercury atoms return to the ground state with the emission of photons. These photons can be reabsorbed (self-absorption) by another mercury atom. This phenomenon is particularly important when mercury concentration is high in the gas phase and when the diameter of the lamp is higher. The initial discharge is achieved through the application of electrical energy across the electrode of the quartz tube. 3.1. Low-Pressure Mercury Lamps
Generation of UV occurs at a total gas pressure of 102 to 103 Pa. These types of lamps are particularly important for the production of monochromatic wavelength (185 nm and 253.7 nm) of UV light [11]. These lamps are commercially readily available at comparatively low cost in cylindrical shapes with diameter ranges of 0.9 – 4 cm and 10 – 160 cm in length [10]. The problem of reversibility of emission or self-absorption is reduced by increasing the emission rate near the walls than at the inner part of the lamps.
7
3.2. Medium-Pressure Mercury Lamps
The total gas pressure for this type of lamps ranges between 1 to 3 bars for UV generation and the emitted radiation is polychromatic. 3.3. High-Pressure Mercury Lamps These lamps operate at a total pressure of up to 106 Pa. The wavelength range of the UV light source is 185 – 480 nm. 3.4. Factors Affecting the Performance of UV Lamps
Temperature: Temperature is a thermodynamic factor that will affect the vapor pressure equilibrium of mercury. For low-pressure lamps, the optimum temperature needed inside the lamp is 400C [11].
Voltage: As voltage increasing, the emitted intensity of low-pressure lamps increases Aging of the lamp: Emission rate decreases over a period of time due to the aging of the
quartz material.
4. Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide is a powerful, effective, selective, versatile, and widely use oxidant with a relative
simple storage conditions and dosing procedures. It has been use in numerous processes both in the
industries and domestic applications [12]. As compare to ozone, it is a widely commercial available
reagent that have high potential yield for the production of hydroxyl radicals.
At high concentrations, hydrogen peroxide can be unstable and poisonous [13]. But it is use as a
disinfectant and antiseptic in homes at lower concentrations.
5. Treatment Methods
Centriair have developed several pilot plants to assess and control industrial odor. The N.O.S.E.
techniques available for odor abatement include [14]:
Centrifugal separator Venturi Scrubber Packed Tower Scrubber Ultraviolet Light Ozone generator system
5.1. Different Oxidative Treatment Methods
The use of oxidative methods for breaking down organic compounds has been extensively applicable
especially in wastewater treatment plants. Most often, these methods are use as a polishing step to
further remove compounds that escape the classical methods of treatment. These methods include:
Air Ionization
The use of UV
Advanced Oxidation Processes
8
5.1.1. Air Ionization
This contributes significantly to the reduction of airborne microbial, neutralization of odor, and
specific volatile organic pollutants. Basically, it involves the formation of reactive air ions such as O2.-,
O.-, O3.- by either using photons, nuclear or electronic ionization systems in the presence of oxygen.
These species undergoes a series of chain reactions with the pollutants involves with a final product
been CO2 and H2O for VOCs [15].
CxHy + (x + y/4)O2 → xCO2 + (y/2)H2O
5.1.2. Using UV light
Ultraviolet irradiations of the right wavelength use to destroy volatile organic compounds should
have sufficient energy (photons) to excite molecules (M) to a higher electronic state which makes
them unstable. The transfer energy cause chemical reactions to take place. Different molecules
absorbed ultra violet photons to different extents depending on the functionality, structure and/or
orientation of the molecule. This leads either to the activation, excitation or decomposition of the
special involve.
M(g) + UV M+(g) + e-
In order for the right amount of UV energy to oxidize the functional majority of organic compounds,
the type of UV device and it position (cross sectional width and/or height) plays an important role.
The figure below shows the region of absorption of UV light by different functional groups. High
irradiation doses will be require if trace concentrations of organic pollutants are present which will
lower the efficiency of the photochemical reaction.
Dust and other particles (oil) will tend to absorbed the UV light and convert it to heat. Therefore, for
effective utilization of the UV light for air cleaning, it should be free of dust particles. Filtration or
absorption of the air to be treated is therefore recommended prior to the use of UV.
The aging of the UV lamp is also an important factor to be considered. This is because intensity
emitted by UV lamps decreases over a period of time. Therefore UV lamps should be selected based
on end-of-life output.
9
Figure 1: UV light wavelength absorption range of different functional groups [16]
Table 3: Functional Groups
A Alkanes H Aldehydes
B Alkenes I Carboxylic Acids
C Alkynes J Arenes
D Imines K Napthalenes
E Nitriles L Phenols
F Thiones M Thiols
G Alcohols N Esters
5.1.3. Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs)
These are processes based on the oxidative ability of certain chemical such as ozone, oxygen,
hydrogen peroxide, in combination with UV light. Destruction of the organic compound is achieved
by the direct oxidation of the contaminants with the oxidizers. The main mechanism of AOPs is the
production of the hydroxyl radical (.OH) which is a highly reactive electrophile that attacks organic
chemicals by either
Radical addition
o M + HO• → MOH
Hydrogen abstraction
o M + HO• → M• + H2O
Electron transfer
o Mn + HO• → Mn-1 + OH-
M represents an organic compound [17].
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
330
350
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
Functional group
Wavelength (nm)
10
These methods have been use extensively for wastewater treatment. The list below shows available
AOPs processes that have been developed and some applied for treatment of contaminants.
Hydrogen peroxide/UV light
Hydrogen peroxide/Ozone
Titanium dioxide/UV light
Ozone/UV light
Ozone/Titanium dioxide
Ozone/Hydrogen peroxide/UV light
Ozone/Hydrogen peroxide/Titanium dioxide
Fenton’s Reaction (Fe2+/H2O2, H2O2/Fe2+/UV)
Catalytic Oxidation
Sonolysis (using ultrasound)
Ozone/Sonolysis [18, 19]
The use of UV light in combination with ozone, hydrogen peroxide and /or titanium dioxide reduces
the residence time and requires UV dosage which is far less than when using UV alone.
UV/Ozone
UV/O3 system, Process Technology Inc (PTI), is the only commercial available system for the
treatment of contaminated air [19]. Ozone with a high extinction coefficient (ε254 nm = 3300 M-1cm-1)
compare to hydrogen peroxide (ε254 nm = 20 M-1cm-1) readily absorbed UV radiation at 254 nm to
produce the hydroxyl radical as illustrated below with hydrogen peroxide as intermediate product.
[18]
O3 + hv O2 + O
O + H2O H2O2 2.OH
The combination of UV light with ozone produces hydroxyl (.OH) radicals which act as a strong
oxidizing agent. The addition of hydrogen peroxide accelerates the production of hydroxyl radicals.
Fenton’s Reaction
A powerful oxidizing medium is created when ferrous iron (catalyst) is combined with hydrogen
peroxide. The mechanism of the reaction is given below:
Fe2+ + H2O2 Fe3+ + -OH + HO.
Fe2+ + HO. Fe3+ + -OH
.OH + RH H2O + R.
R. + Fe3+ Fe2+ + R+ (regeneration step)
The hydroxyl radical is generated via catalytically decomposition of hydrogen peroxide by Fe (III).
Fenton process is highly effective for the production of the hydroxyl radical. However, high
concentration of Fe (III) is needed since for each .OH produced, one molecule of Fe (III) is use. The
use of UV increases the efficiency of the process.
11
Catalytic Processes
A number of combinations involving metals oxide or metal ions as catalyst accelerate the production
of hydroxyl radicals. Several authors [9, 10, 11, 12] have demonstrated that catalytic assisted
processes are more efficient in the decomposition of organic pollutants. The disadvantage being the
blockage of the reaction surface (catalytic surface) which will require continues cleaning.
Previous studies on odor reduction shows that the fishy/grassy-smelling aldehydes are reduce by UV
photo catalysis to chalky or sweet smell. This is as a result of the formation of shorter chains of
aldehydes which can further be reduced by increasing the exposure time to UV/H2O2.
UV/Hydrogen Peroxide
UV/H2O2 has been widely used for wastewater treatment [20, 21] and dye removal [22]. Organic molecules are broken down to harmless, non-smelling compounds that eventually escape to the atmosphere. The rate determining step of the milliard reactions that leads to the decomposition of organic molecules is the cleavage of the O-O bond in hydrogen peroxide to generate the hydroxyl radical. H2O2 + light energy (UV) .OH + .OH The number of malodor compounds decomposed depends of the amount of hydroxyl radical
produce. The higher the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide, the higher the amount of hydroxyl
radicals produced. Therefore more targeted compounds will be destroyed. The concentration of
hydrogen peroxide is limited by the side reactions that take place. The ∙O2H radical produced is not
active and will slow down the oxidation process [17].
.OH + H2O2 H2O + HO2.
HO2. + H2O2 H2O + .OH + O2
2HO. → H2O2 2ΗΟ2
. → H2O2 + Ο2 HO. + ΗΟ2
. → H2O + Ο2 The allowed concentration of hydrogen peroxide in water as set by European Commission of
Normalization is 17mg/L.
Hydrogen peroxide has poor UV absorption characteristics. Thus specific reactor design is require in
order not to waste the energy from the UV light source. At least 70 % of the energy from the UV
radiation should be absorbed by the hydrogen peroxide molecule. The figure below shows how the
absorptive character of hydrogen peroxide depends on wavelength and temperature.
12
Figure 2: Temperature dependence of the absorption of hydrogen peroxide [23, 24] The require UV dose differs depending on the targeted contaminant to be treated and the degree of odour removal to be achieve [25]. UV lamps with lower wavelength increase the absorptivity of H2O2.
6. Analytical Methods Used
The fundamental principle to the measurement of odor concentration is the odor detection threshold. For the human sensory organ to perceive an odorant, its concentration should be above it threshold value. Four sensory parameters are usually recognized by environmentalist
Detectability (Threshold concentration) Intensity Character Hedonic
A sample of exhaust air from frying contains a mixture of odorous compounds generally at low concentrations [26]. To analyze the sample, the composition and concentration of the mixture must be known. Different analytical methods have been use for the identification of odorants.
6.1. Gas Chromatography Olfactometry (GC-Olfactometry)
GC – Olfactometry is a technique that uses humans as detectors to access odor activity in an air
stream. The GC separates each compound in a mixture based on their shape, polarity, partial charge
and/or molecular mass. The results which can either be expressed as a Charm chromatogram, an
odor spectrum chromatogram or odor activity value (OAV) gives both the qualitative and quantitative
analysis of the various odorants found in the mixture [27].
The actual value of odour concentration determined by panelists depends on several factors such as
13
The experimental method use
The sex and age of the members of the panel
Experience of the panelists
Medical conditions of the panelists
Four different methods of collection and processing of GC-O data in order to estimate the sensory
contribution of an odorant have been exploited:
Dilution Analysis: This is based on stepwise dilution to the threshold value and sniffing of
particular odour. Both the CharmAnalysis and aroma extraction dilution analysis (AEDA) are
example of odour detections based on this principle. A ratio of the concentration of the
odour active compound to the threshold values (aroma value or OAV) is obtained from such
analysis.
Detection frequency method: A panel of 6-12 persons perceived odour active compounds as
they are eluted from the column.
Posterior intensity method: Odour intensity is measured after a peak has been eluted from a
column.
Time-intensity method.
Ref: Saskia M. van Ruth, Method of Gas Chromatography-Olfactometry: A Review, J.
Biomolecular Engineering, 2001, Vol. 17, 4-5, pp. 121-128
6.2 Dräger Tubes
These tubes are design to change colour when a gaseous substance is absorbed on the material in
the tubes. Different tubes are available depending on the substance to be detected:
Ozone greenish blue to yellow
Acrolein: use for the detection of double bonds red to yellow
Formaldehydes white to yellow
The number of strokes determines the concentration in ppm of the substance in question with an
error margin of 15 %.
7. Experimentation
The procedures used to prepare the samples for the experiment were simple dilution from the stock
solution to the require concentrations. The concentration used depends on the threshold value of
the substance in question and the level at which the substance pose problems to the atmosphere.
Stock solution of 2,4-decadienal (>90 % purity), Hexanal (> 98 % purity), furfural (>98 % purity), 2,5-
dimethylpyrazine were provided by the organic lab at KTH.
The photochemical reactor consists of six parallel low pressure mercury lamps of length 77.5 cm with
a total output of 216 W (36 W per lamp). The quartz tubes lamps were enclosed in a rectangular steel
metal material of total volume 9 liters (76 m * 20 m * 6 m). The lamps emit UV light of wavelength
253.7 nm and 365 nm. Ozone was generated as a result of the emission of the light rays by the UV
lamps. The ozone dräger tubes were use to determine the concentration of ozone in the following
cases:
14
All UV lamps on in the reactor
All UV lamps off in the reactor and
The first three UV lamps on
1 mL – 1.5 mL of the sample was dissolved in a 4000 mL boiler containing distilled water. A 2000 W
heater was used to vaporize water/sample mixture into the system with a flow of 3.2 l/h. The water
was in order to maintain the humidity at 600C. The system was operated in a fume cupboard at a
typical temperature range of 25oC – 80oC and at atmospheric pressure. Air flow rate of 400 l/min was
provided by a warm air pistol. The result of flow rate and the number of lamps use (energy dose)
were tested.
1,5 g/4 L solution of hydrogen peroxide was added to the 2000 W boiler together with the samples.
Analytical Method Used: Samples of the odorants after the UV lamps were absorbed onto Tenax
fibers at a gas flow rate of 22 l/h for 15 minutes. The absorbed gas samples were later eluted and
extracted from the Tenax using hexane as an internal standard. The GC/MS instrument was provided
by the Organic Chemistry Lab at KTH. The GC instrument consists of a polar DB Wax column with the
following specification: length 30 m; I.D. 0.25 mm; film (stationary phase) 0.25μm. The MS
equipment was Finnigan SSQ 7000.
Using pure hexane as the experiment control for the GC analysis, separate peaks of compounds in
relation to the chemical nature and their size were identified. The amount of a particular compound
can be calculated from the area under the corresponding peak.
8. Results and Discussion
The tables below shows the extent of destruction of the various selected compounds used for in
this work.
Figure 4: 2,4-decadienal Figure 5: Hexanal
O
OH
Figure 6: Furfural figure 7: 2,5- dimethylpyrazine
Table 4: Percent Odour Reduction with different UV Dosage
0 lamp 3 lamps 6 lamps
Ozone Dosage - 2 mg/m3 50 mg/m3
2,4-decadienal 375 mg/L 100% reduction 100% reduction
Hexanal 375 mg/L 66% reduction 86% reduction
Furfural 250 mg/L - -
2,5- dimethylpyrazine 250 mg/L 31% reduction 60% reduction
CH3 O CH3 O
15
A) 2,4 - decadienal B) 2,4 - decadienal
C) Hexanal D) Hexanal
E) 2,5- dimethylpyrazine F) 2,5 - dimethylpyrazine
Inlet (0 lamps) Outlet (UV)
Figure 8: GC/MS Curves with UV
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,39
5,51
3,36
12,38
23,57
53,9852,185,95 14,90 48,1915,83
7,89 40,1639,10 42,2717,21 44,4030,9722,54 23,76
NL:3,97E5
TIC MS Test 11
RT: 0,00 - 54,01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
3,31
3,51
3,96
4,25
4,35
4,72
5,34
6,61
50,556,71
7,458,79 49,70 51,0619,07 45,81
19,6511,50 26,05 44,7513,22 42,8139,8026,6323,97 34,1531,35
NL:2,83E5
TIC MS Test 2
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,49
14,95
5,5524,283,41
48,2423,60 32,2429,46 34,865,82 9,60 53,0037,3415,81 42,42
NL:9,96E6
TIC MS Test 8
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
3,49
3,29
11,393,61
3,81
12,38
5,50
13,44 32,99
53,8730,9752,335,65
15,786,83 48,27
41,2716,65 38,51 42,4328,8319,75 36,4620,05 24,27
NL:2,14E5
TIC MS Test 12
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,49
24,24
5,53
9,573,69 21,78 48,1018,2312,40 35,806,37 41,21 53,9830,9924,91 43,33
NL:1,46E7
TIC MS Test 7
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,39
5,51
3,36
12,38
23,57
53,9852,185,95 14,90 48,1915,83
7,89 40,1639,10 42,2717,21 44,4030,9722,54 23,76
NL:3,97E5
TIC MS Test 11
16
Table 5: Percent Odour Reduction with H2O2 and different UV Dosage
UV Dosage 0 lamp 3 lamps 6 lamps
Ozone Dosage - 2 mg/m3 50 mg/m3
H2O2 Concentration 1,5 g/4 l solution 1,5 g/4l solution 1,5 g/4l solution
2,4-decadienal 375 mg/l 100% reduction 100% reduction
Hexanal 375 mg/l 86% reduction 96% reduction
Furfural 250 mg/l - -
2,5- dimethylpyrazine 250 mg/l 57% reduction 60% reduction
a) 2,4 - decadienal b) 2,4 - decadienal
c) Hexanal d) Hexanal
e) 2,5 - dimethylpyrazine f) 2,5 – dimethylpyrazine
RT: 0,00 - 54,01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lativ
e A
bu
nd
an
ce
44,85
44,51
48,72
42,6114,583,36
3,66 50,5726,73 38,4215,74 37,904,33 33,42 50,9718,216,56 13,81 29,9924,27 35,48
NL:1,05E6
TIC MS Test 1
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lativ
e A
bu
nd
an
ce
11,45
3,41 24,293,7014,94 48,33 54,0015,85 31,029,59 19,82 36,88 41,3328,90 42,99
NL:3,98E6
TIC MS Test 9
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lativ
e A
bu
nd
an
ce
5,51
3,27
32,96
30,92
24,24
12,36
11,3748,11
36,805,979,55 13,42
28,8241,17 53,3716,64 43,3417,21
26,6036,00 38,2821,82
NL:4,81E5
TIC MS Test 10
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,39
5,51
3,36
12,38
23,57
53,9852,185,95 14,90 48,1915,83
7,89 40,1639,10 42,2717,21 44,4030,9722,54 23,76
NL:3,97E5
TIC MS Test 11
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,39
5,51
3,36
12,38
23,57
53,9852,185,95 14,90 48,1915,83
7,89 40,1639,10 42,2717,21 44,4030,9722,54 23,76
NL:3,97E5
TIC MS Test 11
RT: 0,00 - 54,02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Re
lative
Ab
un
da
nce
11,49
24,24
5,53
9,573,69 21,78 48,1018,2312,40 35,806,37 41,21 53,9830,9924,91 43,33
NL:1,46E7
TIC MS Test 7
17
Figure 9: GC/MS Curves with UV and H2O2
Destruction of 2,4-decadienal was complete (100%) as observed in the GC/MS diagram. This is
probably due to the fact that this compound contains alkenic double (C=C) bonds which is highly
reactive with the hydroxyl radical produced inside the reactor. Both the ozone/UV and
ozone/UV/H2O2 were efficient in degrading 2,4-decandienal.
The combination of ozone and UV light gave 66% degradation of Hexanal. The degradation increases
to 86% when the UV dosage was double. Further degradation (96%) was achieved by the
introduction of hydrogen peroxide to the mixture. The combination of ozone, UV and hydrogen
peroxide, produces the hydroxyl radical which increases the rate of the reaction.
The extents of degradation of furfural and 2,5-dimethylpyrazine were not as efficient as compared to
2,4-decadienal and Hexanal. This is probably due to the ring structures of these compounds.
9. Conclusion
Using a combination of UV/Ozone and UV/Ozone/H2O2, the destruction of 2,4-decadienal was very
efficient (100%). This results to the removal of the fatty smell. UV/Ozone gave Hexanal removal of
66%. Significant increase in the destruction of Hexanal was achieved when the dosage of UV light was
increased. Increase in the destruction rate of Hexanal was also noticed when H2O2 was introduced
into the solution. The degradation of furfural (35%) and 2,5- dimethylpyrazine (27%) also show
marked increase when the number of lamps were increased and when hydrogen peroxide was used.
During the experiment, some problems were encountered. In order to achieved higher degradation
efficiency for Hexanal, furfural, 2,5- dimethylpyrazine, UV lamps of higher dosage capacity are
recommended. In addition to this, an external ozone generation in combination with the UV lamps
should be put to consideration.
18
References
1. Centriair, Odour Emissions from an Industrial deep-fat Plant - a Pilot Study, Final Report,
September 2009
2. Jacek A. Koziel, Xiuyan Yang, Hans van Leeuwen, William Jenks, Yael Laor, Treatment of
Odorous VOCs with Ultraviolet Light, Chemical Enginnering Tracsactions, 2010, Vol. 23
3. Donald S. Mottram, Flavour Formation in meat and meat products: a review, Food Chemistry,
1998, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 415-424
4. Rappert S., Müller R., Odor Compounds in Waste Gas Emissions from Agricultural Operations
and Food Industries, Waste Management, Vol. 25, 2005, pp.887-907
5. Wagner Robert K, Grosch Werner, Key Odorants of French Fries, JAOCS, Vol. 75, no. 10, 1998
6. Kirsten Specht and Werner Baltes, Identification of volatile flavor compounds with high
aroma value from shallow-fried beef, Journal of Agricultural food chemistry, 1994, Vol. 42,
pp. 2246-2253
7. Monoj K. Gupta, Frying Oils, Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, 6th Ed., Vol. 6, 2005, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8. Stephen S. Chang, Robert J. Peterson, and Chi-Tang Ho, Chemistry of Deep Fat Fried Flavor,
American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 1978
9. Yoshio Nagata, Measurement of Odor Threshold by Triangle Odor Bag Method, Japan
Environmental Sanitation Center, 1988
10. Ultraviolet Technology, Municipal AQUIONICS,
Available at http://inoxpumps.com/pdf/municipal_uv.pdf, last visited January 21, 2011.
11. Available Lamps (or Burner) Technologies, CRC Press LLC, 2002.
12. LENNTECH, Water treatment Solutions, Hydrogen Peroxide,
Available at: http://www.lenntech.com/library/oxidation/h2o2/hydrogen-peroxide.htm
13. Sherry Holetzky, What is Hydrogen Peroxide? wiseGeek, last visited January 2011,
Available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hydrogen-peroxide.htm
14. Jack Delin, An Overview of the N.O.S.E. Pilot Plant Technologies, Centriair, 2010
15. Stacy L. Daniels, Application of air ionization for Control of VOCs and PMx, no. 918
19
16. Use of Ultraviolet in Photochemical Synergistic Oxidation Processes in Water Sanitation, CRC
Press LLC, 2002.
17. A. S. Stasinakis, Use of Selected Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) for Wastewater
Treatment-A Mini Review, Global NEST Journal, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 376-385
18. Rein Munter, Advanced Oxidation Processes - Current Status and Prospects, Proc. Estonian
Acad. Sci. Chem., 2001, 50, 2, 59–80
19. Handbook on Advanced Photochemical Oxidation Processes center of environment Research,
US Environment Protected Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1998
20. Benitez F.J., Beltran-Heredia A.J. and Acero J.L., Oxidation of vanillic acid as a model of
polyphenolic compounds in olive mill wastewaters. III. Combined UV radiation-hydrogen
peroxide oxidation, Toxicol. Environ. Chem., 1996, 56, 199-210.
21. Chang Hyun Jo and Andrea M. Dietrich, Removal and Transformation of Odorous Aldehydes
by UV/H2O2, Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua, 2009
22. Daneshvar N., Aber S. and Hosseinzadeh F., Study of C.I. acid orange 7 removal in
contaminated water by photo oxidation processes, Global NEST Journal, 2008, 10, 16-23
23. Nicovich, J. M., and P. H. Wine, Temperature-dependent absorption cross sections for
hydrogen peroxide vapor, J. Geophys. Res., 1998, 93(D3), 2417–2421
24. Hannelore Keller-Rudek and Geert K. Moortgat, A Database of Atmospherically Relevant
Species, Including Numerical Data and Graphical Representation, MPI-Mainz-UV-VIS Spectra
Atlas of Gaseous Molecules, last visited January 2011, Available at:
www.atmosphere.mpg.de/spectral-atlas-mainz
25. Alexander A. Mofidi, Joon H. Min, Leslie S. Palencia, Bradley M. Coffey, Sun Liang, James F.
Green, Advanced Oxidation Processes and UV Photolysis for Treatment of Drinking Water,
California Energy Commission Sacramento, California, 2002
26. Gostelow, P., P.J. Longhurst, SA Parsons, RM Stuetz, Sampling for Measurement of Odours,
London UK, IWA, 80 pages, 2003.
27. Jane E. Friedrich and Terry E. Acree, Gas Chromatography Olfactometry (GC/O) of Dairy
Products, Department of Food Science & Technology, Cornell University, New York State
Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York
28. Spanier Arthur M., Food Flavour and Chemistry: Advances of the New Millennium; Article of
Chemistry of Fried Food Flavour by Kathleen Warner and William E. Neff, 2001
20
29. ScienceLab.com, Chemical and Laboratory Equipment, Material Safety Data Sheet, Hydrogen
Peroxide 30 % MSDS, Last visited February 2011,
Available at: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924299
30. Aus-e-TUTE n.d., Chemistry Tutorial: Bond Energy (Bond Enthalpy); viewed 24 January 2011.
Available at: http://www.ausetute.com.au/heatbond.html.
21
Appendix
Appendix 1
Peak List A (2,4 – decadienal inlet)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 5,51 5,34 5,70 1037562,827 25,77 230981,301 26,17 Hexanal 11,39 11,34 11,57 1329505,495 33,02 360827,186 40,88 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 12,38 12,30 12,58 433010,918 10,76 117946,945 13,36 A ketone 13,42 13,36 13,59 168350,959 4,18 30912,596 3,50 Nitro compound 15,83 15,73 16,03 340657,718 8,46 33704,744 3,82 23,57 23,50 23,74 333662,840 8,29 75079,053 8,51 2,4-decadienal 48,19 48,09 48,49 383189,387 9,52 33260,413 3,77 n-hexadecanoic acid
Peak List B (2,4 – decadienal outlet with 3 lamps)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 6,61 6,52 6,77 164957,650 17,36 26164,612 21,94 ketone 19,07 18,94 19,22 149953,483 15,78 32010,961 26,84 acetic acid 26,05 26,00 26,24 161318,917 16,98 24120,369 20,22 50,55 50,45 50,92 473923,373 49,88 36970,922 31,00 n-hexadecanoic acid
Peak List b (2,4 – decadienal outlet with 6 lamps)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 6,56 6,40 6,64 197373,259 0,42 25992,553 1,42 pentyl hydroperoxide 14,58 14,43 14,78 568628,799 1,20 130549,777 7,14 ketone 15,74 15,67 15,91 318080,119 0,67 64014,665 3,50 heptyl hydroperoxide 18,21 18,10 18,47 213917,088 0,45 33631,634 1,84 24,27 24,10 24,45 351834,492 0,74 31007,888 1,70 26,73 26,64 26,89 350029,709 0,74 79078,777 4,33 pentyl hydroperoxide 33,42 33,24 33,66 395014,676 0,84 52961,777 2,90 acetic acid 38,42 37,68 38,87 2233764,806 4,73 57527,679 3,15 42,61 42,49 43,27 3138588,974 6,64 119423,442 6,54 octadecanoic acid 44,85 44,21 46,30 34511938,722 73,05 1001571,892 54,81 octadecanoic acid 48,72 48,43 49,26 4035914,543 8,54 170668,847 9,34 50,57 50,38 50,99 930005,527 1,97 60917,431 3,33 n-hexadecanoic acid
22
Peak List C (Hexanal inlet)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 3,69 3,51 3,74 3171064,365 3,23 413904,913 1,75 pentyl hydroperoxide 5,53 5,39 5,58 11256954,410 11,47 3284098,000 13,86 Hexanal 9,57 9,50 9,74 2541393,110 2,59 583551,000 2,46 1-pentanol 11,49 11,34 11,57 63415363,410 64,61 14551240,00 61,43 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 24,24 24,16 24,51 14773040,760 15,05 4546618,000 19,19 Hexanoic acid 48,10 48,09 48,37 2999612,080 3,06 307101,000 1,30 n-hexadecanoic acid
Peak List D (Hexanal outlet with 3 lamps)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 5,55 5,39 5,76 2504339,818 4,13 442699,267 3,06 hexanal 11,49 11,29 11,64 41756691,260 68,92 9961075,000 68,96 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 14,95 14,84 15,19 12164782,945 20,08 3571820,000 24,73 furfural 24,28 24,23 24,51 1528866,335 2,52 309919,000 2,15 pentanoic, hexanoic acid 48,24 48,02 48,61 2631912,690 4,34 158211,000 1,10 n-hexadecanoic acid
Peak List d (Hexanal outlet with 6 lamps)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 5,53 5,34 5,77 1451782,919 7,87 138728,828 3,08 Hexanal 11,45 11,34 11,81 14372112,795 77,94 3981339,000 88,50 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 14,94 14,84 15,07 744606,845 4,04 121593,000 2,70 hexanioc acid 24,29 24,23 24,46 711793,299 3,86 179306,112 3,99 Furfural 48,33 48,21 48,61 1160280,910 6,29 77623,042 1,73 n-hexadecanoic acid
Peak List E (2,5 – dimethylpyrazine inlet)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 5,51 5,34 5,70 1037562,827 25,77 230981,301 26,17 Hexanal 11,39 11,34 11,57 1329505,495 33,02 360827,186 40,88 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 12,38 12,30 12,58 433010,918 10,76 117946,945 13,36 A ketone 13,42 13,36 13,59 168350,959 4,18 30912,596 3,50 Nitro compound 15,83 15,73 16,03 340657,718 8,46 33704,744 3,82 23,57 23,50 23,74 333662,840 8,29 75079,053 8,51 2,4-decadienal 48,19 48,09 48,49 383189,387 9,52 33260,413 3,77 n-hexadecanoic acid
23
Peak List F (2,5 – dimethylpyrazine outlet with 3 lamps)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 5,50 5,34 5,58 351626,438 10,89 79481,594 11,74 Hexanal 11,39 11,34 11,57 660012,082 20,44 155659,165 23,00 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 12,38 12,23 12,58 438431,676 13,58 125792,024 18,59 A ketone 13,44 13,42 13,66 338446,828 10,48 82615,451 12,21 Nitro compound 15,78 15,68 16,03 258934,115 8,02 34724,288 5,13 28,83 28,78 29,02 146104,019 4,52 27684,687 4,09 alcohol 30,97 30,92 31,22 268476,295 8,31 54883,786 8,11 butanoic acid 32,99 32,89 33,54 481443,545 14,91 88099,447 13,02 alcohol 48,27 48,14 48,44 285413,065 8,84 27879,388 4,12 n-hexadecanoic acid
Peak List B (2,5 – dimethylpyrazine outlet with 6 lamps)
RT Start RT End RT Area %Area Height %Height 5,51 5,40 5,70 1284149,856 13,39 352217,137 17,92 Hexanal 9,55 9,38 9,74 295703,504 3,08 57512,747 2,93 heptyl hydroperoxide 11,37 11,29 11,52 596054,956 6,21 144792,899 7,37 2,5-dimethylpyrazine 12,36 12,23 12,58 513901,481 5,36 169351,476 8,61 acetic acid 13,42 13,31 13,78 489797,029 5,11 70183,243 3,57 nitro compound 24,24 24,11 24,46 838862,281 8,75 222174,932 11,30 Hexanoic acid 26,60 26,36 26,77 249721,779 2,60 37747,106 1,92 2,3-epoxyhexanol 28,82 28,74 29,21 292961,983 3,05 65357,330 3,32 30,92 30,81 31,34 1094052,650 11,41 261907,199 13,32 n-hexanoic acid 32,96 32,89 33,30 1299369,263 13,55 315874,726 16,07 n-decanoic acid 36,80 36,69 37,10 582862,856 6,08 99210,288 5,05 41,17 41,09 41,56 487112,045 5,08 47769,510 2,43 48,11 48,02 48,68 1566789,285 16,34 121796,131 6,20 n-hexadecanoic acid
24
Appendix 2
Table 6: Some Selected Tested Compounds Using UV Light with TiO2 Catalyst
Compound Tested Trimethylene sulfide propylene sulfide thiophene methyl disulfide
Gas flow rate 262 mL/min 409 mL/min 324 mL/min 474 mL/min
Organic Loading 61 ppm 86 ppm 54 ppm 34 ppm
UV Wavelength 365 nm 365 nm 365 nm 365 nm
UV Intensity 4,5 mW/cm2 4,5 mW/cm2 4,5 mW/cm2 4,5 mW/cm2
Residence Time 1,81 min 0,99 min 1,30 min 0,85 min
% Removal 99 % 99 % 99 % 99 %
Test Conditions 23 % RH 21 % O2 23 % RH 21 % O2 23 % RH 21 % O2 23 % RH 21 % O2
UV irradiation time: 30 minutes Treatment time: 15 minutes TiO2 loading: 9,5*10-4 g/cm2 (14) Table 7: Some Selected Tested Compounds Using UV Light with H2O2
UV dosage: 0 – 2500 mJ/cm2 1 - 30 minutes UV irradiation time [21]
The experimentation was carried out using Rayonet RPR-100 with quartz reactors of light intensity
7.2 mW/cm. The specifications of this model include:
Compact 0.4064 m high and 0.3048 m square
Barrel reactor 0.254 m in diameter and 0.381 m deep
Units weigh 11.34 Kg
Fans
110/277 V and 50/60 cycles
Total consumption 400 watts with watts of 253.7 nm UV = 35, and 1.65 * 106
photons/sec/cm3
Ref: Model RPR-100,
http://www.rayonet.org/word%20pages/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20RPR-100.pdf
Compound Tested Nonadienal Heptadienal Decadienal Hexanal
Odor Threshold 80 ng/L (0,00008 ppm)
25,000 ng/L (0,0025 ppm)
300 ng/L (0,003 ppm)
4,500 ng/L (0,0045 ppm)
Organic Loading 6.5 μg/L 55 μg/L 14 μg/L 90 μg/L
UV Wavelength 253,7 nm 253,7 nm 253,7 nm 253,7 nm
UV Intensity 7.2 mW/cm2 7.2 mW/cm2 7.2 mW/cm2 7.2 mW/cm2
Hydrogen Peroxide Dosage
6 mg/L 6 mg/L 6 mg/L 6 mg/L
UV Dosage 864 mJ/cm2 4320 mJ/cm2 2160 mJ/cm2 2160 mJ/cm2
Residence Time 1 – 10 mins 1 - 10 mins 1 - 10 mins 1 - 10 mins
% Removal 97 % 100 % 86 % 89 %
25
Appendix 3
Odorants
French fries odorants listed by Wagner & Grosch
(1998), without relative order. [5]
Sulfur compounds
Methanethiol (Fig 10).
Aldehydes (E, Z)-2, 4-decadienal
(E, E)-2, 4-decadienal (Fig 11)
trans-4, 5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal
methylpropanal (Fig 12)
2- and 3-methylbutanal
benzaldehyde
Pyrazines
2-ethyl-3, 5-dimethylpyrazine (Fig 13)
3-ethyl-2, 5-dimethylpyrazine
2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine
3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine
Ketones
4-hydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone.
Alcohols
Pentan-1-ol
Fig 10. methanethiol
Fiure 11: (E,E)-2,4-decadienal
Fig 12. methylpropanal
Potato chip odorants compiled (secondary
source) by Rappert & Müller (2005). [4]
Sulfur compounds
Methanethiol.
Aldehydes
(E, Z)-2, 4-decadienal
(E, E)-2, 4-decadienal
methylpropanal
2-methylbutanal
3-methylbutanal
(Z)-2-nonanal
(E)-2-nonanal
Methional (Fig 10)
Hexanal
Phenyl acetaldehyde (Fig 11).
Hept-2-enal
Pyrazines
2-ethyl-3, 5-dimethylpyrazine
2-ethyl-3, 6-dimethylpyrazine
3-ethyl-2, 5-dimethylpyrazine
2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine
2-ethyl-3-ethyl-5-methylpyrazine.
Ketones
1-octen-3-one
1-penten-3-one.
Fig 10. methional
Fig 11. Phenyl acetaldehyde
26
Fig 13. 2-ethyl-3, 5-dimethylpyrazine
“Negative” flavor odors from degradation of oleic acid (into triolein) and linoleic acid (into trilinolein),
listed in work by Warner and Neff (2001). [28]
Triolein 190°C
Strong “fruity, plastic”
Octanal (Fig 14)
Heptanal
(E)-2-decenal
(E)-2-undecenal.
Weak to moderate “deep fried”
(E, E)-2, 4-decadienal
(E, E)-2, 4-nonadienal
(E, E)-2, 4-undecadienal
(E)-2-octenal.
Fig 14. Octanal
Trilinolein 190°C
Strong “grassy, fruity”
hexanal
2-pentyl furan (Fig 16)
Pentanal.
Moderate “deep fried”
(E, E)-2, 4-decadienal
(E, Z/Z, E)-2,4-decadienal (Fig 15)
(E, E)-2, 4-nonadienal
(E)-2-octenal
(E)-2-heptenal
(E, E)-2, 4-octadienal.
Fig 15. 2,4 Decadienal
Fig 16. 2-pentyl furan
27
Appendix 4
Table 8: Physical and Chemical Properties of 30 % Hydrogen peroxide [29, 30]
Property
Physical State and Appearance Liquid
Molecular Weight 34.0147 g/mol
Density 1.463 g/cm3
Odor Odorless
Taste Slightly acid, bitter
Color Colorless
pH 11.9
Vapour Pressure 3.1 KPa at 200C
Solubility Soluble in cold water and diethyl ether
Boiling Point 1080C
Oxidation Potential 1.8 V
O-O Bond Energy 139 KJ/mol
Corrosivity Non-corrosive
Hazard Severed skin irritation and carcinogenic
Figure 12: Structure of Hydrogen Peroxide