Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Cleaner production implementation through process modifications

for selected SMEs in Turkish olive oil production
S. Gurbuz, N. Kiran-Ciliz , O. Yenigun
Institute 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 applicability 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 deducted
that; if the recommended CP options comprising water, energy saving issues, and pomace management options regarding energy
production 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 terms
of production and consumption [1,2]. There are about
805 million olive trees in the world, covering approximately 24 million acres. Almost 98% of these trees grow
in the Mediterranean area which provides for 97% of the
total olive production and 91% of world consumption
[2]. Turkey is in the top rank of fourth amongst the Mediterranean countries as olive fruit production shows fluctuations on a yearly basis. Turkish olive oil production
reaches up to around 200,000 t/year during on years
and around 80,000 t/year during off years [3]. Turkey
plays 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 Oil
Council (IOOC), Turkish exports account for 10% of the
total world exports.
In Turkey, olive is both processed in small and
medium size enterprises (SMEs) and modern facilities

Corresponding author: Tel.: +90 212 358 1540; Fax: +90 212
257 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 production

has an important economic contribution for the European
and Mediterranean part, it has considerably adverse
effects to the environmental welfare due to high amounts
of vegetation water; and pomace; which are wastewater
and olive cake produced from olive oil extraction
respectively. Due to their high economic and environmental value the vegetation water and pomace obtained
from olive oil production processes are considered as byproducts. However, The Olive Oil Producers Association
in Turkey is unable to manage these valuable by-products. As a result of this, most of these valuable byproducts are disposed without any control. Within this
frame, the maximum recovery of the by-products during
olive oil production process with the successful
implementation of Cleaner Production (CP) methodology for olive oil industry.
Cleaner Production (CP) is a protective and preventative approach. As opposed to conventional pollution
control approaches, which are known, as end of pipe
treatment facilities (EOP) CP strategies aim to deal with
the problems at their source, trying to avoid their occurrence [4]. Regarding this concept, the paper focuses on
the application of CP methodology, for the selected olive
oil producing enterprises operating in the town Edremit

614

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

located on the Aegean coast of Turkey. Seventeen SMEs

were selected to carry out this study. The first fifteen
SMEs are responsible from crude olive oil production.
Later on the produced crude olive oil was sent to another
SME for refining applications and finally the extraction
of olive oil from pomace the solid residue produced
by the first fifteen SMEs and its final management
were carried out in the last SME. Location of the
enterprises are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Within the scope of CP methodology; the commitment
of the enterprises were obtained during planning and
organisation phase, the CP focus points were generated
at the end of the pre-assessment phase and they were
evaluated and prioritized in assessment phase. Finally
the CP options were screened during the feasibility phase
taking into account the economic and environmental
issues.
The recommended CP options include; water and
energy saving issues through technology modification in
crude olive oil extraction SMEs, and optimum pomace
management options via incineration, gasification and
pyrolysis processes regarding energy and raw material
recovery issues. Within this frame, in Section two of this
paper, types of crude olive oil production processes are
explained and compared briefly. Information on by-products of olive oil production is given quantitatively. The
inputs and outputs including their costs for the whole
olive oil production chain are illustrated.
In Section three, CP assessment is realized in detail,
material and energy balances at each stage of olive oil
production are derived and evaluated. A comprehensive
set of cleaner production options are generated and listed
in the order of priority.
Section four comprises the results and discussion part,
which cover the feasibility phase of the CP methodology

Fig. 1.

considering economic and environmental evaluation of

generated CP options. Pomace management options taking into account the utilization of pomace as a fuel in
combined heat and power (CHP) plants for in situ power
generation in the refining plant is described.
Finally, Section five deals with the conclusions
obtained from the study.

2. Cleaner production in Turkish olive oil industry

The Mediterranean is the center of almost all international olive oil marketing activities. Turkish olive oil
trees cover 4% of the overall agricultural areas in Turkey. The olive oil production in the regions of Turkey
are 7580% in the Aegean area, 10% in the Mediterranean area and around 10% in the areas of Marmara
and South East Anatolia. As the Aegean coast is Turkeys leading olive oil producer, the enterprises selected
for the implementation of CP were in this region [5].
In the areas mentioned above with the exception of
Turkey the production of olive oil and the exploitation
of its by-products have been properly done. For this reason the main goal of this study was to promote the commitment of the management of those firms that willingly
participated in this study. It was believed that by showing the benefits of cleaner production, firms would be
more willing to engage in innovation in cleaner production.
Gaining the commitment of firms represents a great
challenge. This results from the fact that the production
of olive oil encompasses several firms and the adoption
of the new processes implies planning of activities in
organisational and administrative dimensions.
Olive oil in general is obtained by means of three prin-

Location of enterprises

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

cipal procedures: the pressing system, the three-phase

continuous system and the two-phase continuous system.
The oldest olive oil production method, the pressing system with its low quality olive oil generation capacity,
is not preferred anymore. In the three-phase continuous
system, a horizontal centrifuge is used where process
water addition is required for the separation of the three
products: oil, vegetation water and pomace. In this system, due to the addition of process water into the
decanter, the amount of vegetation water generation is
very high. For instance, from 1 t of olives, 1.21.6 t of
vegetation water and also 0.5 t of pomace are generated.
The pomace generated has approximately 46.5% dry
matter and is very valuable from the point of energy
content, with a calorific value of between 38004500
kcal/kg. In the two-phase continuous system, only the
oil and pomace containing vegetation water are the outputs of the process. Here, the vegetation water is
accumulated 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 pomace
is quite low. From 1 t of olives, only 0.0500.060 t of
vegetation water is determined in the pomace which is
around 0.8 t.
The moisture content of pomace generated through
two-phase continuous system is about 6065% [6,7,8].
In Spain, the leading country in olive oil production,
approximately 90% of the oil mills use the two-phase
continuous system whereas in Italy (the second olive oil
producer of the world) half of the production is still
obtained by the traditional pressing method [6,9].
In Turkey, extraction of the olives, refining and filtration of the olive oil and processing of its solid byproducts (pomace) are utilized by different enterprises
separately from each other. Amongst the seventeen
industries selected for the study, fifteen of them were
olive oil extraction SMEs in which the extraction of
olives were obtained by three-phase continuous system.
There also existed a refining plant and also there was a
pomace oil extraction plant in which the residual oil left
in the pomace coming from the first fifteen SMEs was
extracted. These enterprises are related to each other in
the overall production chain. The product of one is raw
material of the other. Within this frame, pollution prevention in the processes and recovery options for byproducts were evaluated. The selected industries are as
follows:
The first fifteen industries that can be defined as
(SMEs) are established for the olive fruit extraction to
produce crude olive oil in Edremit. These fifteen SMEs
are selling crude olive oil to the refining plant; Unikom
in Ayvalk. Finally another SME Yeni Kurtulus located
in Edremit is responsible for pomace oil extraction.
During the planning and organization phase of CP
methodology, it was noticed that, since the plants are
located away from each other, a lack of cooperation and

615

coordination existed, resulting in difficulties for reliable

data collection. Regular meetings among organizations
and information dissemination was not possible. As a
result, very few reliable data were collected. On the contrary, data evaluation is very important since the application of CP methodology starts from collecting the
baseline data in order to identify the current status and
sources and causes of the sectorial problems.
Also as a systematic barrier, it was concluded that
training the employees to upgrade their job skills was
not realized. From the point of governmental barriers,
although the exhausted olive pomace is appropriate to
be used as a fuel with its high calorific value, there are
no related regulations for its utilization.
During the pre-assessment phase of the study, brief
information on olive oil production was provided. Inputs
and outputs and their cost on the basis of whole olive
oil production are illustrated in Table 1.
The 15 SMEs are the first step of crude olive oil production where the olives collected in sacks were received
and processed to produce crude olive oil. The existing
extraction system is the three-phase continuous system.
Plants operate 90 days a year in on years and 30 days
a year in off years with an operating capacity of 24 h
per day. As the year 20002001 was an on year for
olive harvesting, all the calculations/assumptions in this
study were made according to the production period of
2000/2001.
On the other hand, Unikom is the plant where low
quality olive oil is refined, filtered, bottled and sent to
market. Unikom provides crude olive oil from the SMEs
mentioned above. Being in an on year or an off year
period for olive oil production does not affect the annual
production of Unikom.
The pomace, as a by-product generated in the selected
15 olive oil extraction SMEs, is processed through pomace oil extraction process by means of the solvent called
hexane in the Yeni Kurtulus plant in Edremit. The output
of the process are exhausted olive pomace and olive
pomace 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 and
energy balances were determined and derived during the
assessment phase. Hence CP options were generated and
listed in order of priority. Within this frame, the crude
olive oil production processes which were carried out in
15 SMEs and the processes applied to extract pomace
oil and exhausted pomace in Yeni Kurtulus plant were
selected for the CP implementation. In these plants, a
detailed understanding of the sources and causes of
waste and emission generation was obtained (Figs. 2
and 3).

616

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

Table 1
Inputs and outputs including their costs for olive oil production chain for production period of 2000/2001
Product-by-product
consumption

15 Olive oil extraction SMEs

Unikom (olive oil refining enterprise)

Yeni Kurtulus pomace oil extraction

plant

Raw material
Product
By-product and
wastes

Collected olives: 45,000 t/year

Crude olive oil: 9000 t/year
Leaves: 900 t/year

Crude olive oil: 8930 t/year

Total oil production: 80,782 t/yearb
Soapstock: 11,715 t/year

Pomace: 22,500 t/yeara

Pomace oil: 560 t/year
Exhausted olive pomace: 14,065 t/year

Water consumption

Energy consumption

Chemical
consumption

Clay and stones: 450 t/year

Fatty acids: 2028 t/year
Vegetation water: 45,00054,000 t/year Sludge: 103 t/year
Wastewater: 50,697 t/yearc
Pomace: 22,500 t/year
Total consumption: 49,50059,400
Total consumption: 115,532 t/year
t/year
Cost: 125,584/year
Water consumption during olive oil
Cost: noned
refining: 4500 t/year
Cost: 6996/year
Pomace energy: 95,625 104 to 1125 Total electric energy consumption:
106 kcal / year
6,247,702 kW h/year
Total exhausted pomace consumption: Cost: 543,550/year
255300 t/year
Electric energy consumption during
olive oil refining: 150,000 kW h/year
Cost: 51006000/year
Total electric consumption: 1,987,185 Cost: 13,050/year
kW h/year
Cost: 196,725/year
No chemical is used
Phosphoric acid: 22,500 kg/year
Caustic: 86,250 kg/year
Citric acid: 6000 kg/year
Bleaching earth: 15,000 kg/year

Total consumption: 26,100 t/year

(heating, cooling)
Cost: noned
Pomace energy: 1125 1010 kcal / yeare
Electric energy consumption: 385,112
kW h/year

Cost:

33,505/year

Hexane: 22.5 t/year

Hexane: 45 kg/year (lost during
distillation)
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 water

consumption for crude olive oil production during the
three-phase continuous system which will lead to high
amounts (45,00054,000 t/year) of vegetation water with
high pollutant load (COD: 45,00060,000 mg/l) [6].
As a CP option, technology modification was recommended in order to minimize water consumption,
which would also lead to reduction in vegetation water
generation. Hence, technology modification would also
minimize energy consumption. Substitution of threephase continuous system with the two-phase continuous
system as a technology modification is discussed in
detail in results and discussion section.
In addition to this, as described in more detail in Section 5, modification of three-phase continuous system
with the two-phase continuous system resulted in an
increase in the amount and moisture content of pomace
generated. Therefore, in order to handle pomace prop-

erly, efficient by-product management options in pomace

oil extraction plants (Yeni Kurtulus Plant) were discussed. Furthermore, since pomace has a relatively high
calorific value, which is approximately about 19000
kJ/kg, pomace management options were investigated in
order to find out the most efficient and applicable thermal conversion technology for in situ power generation,
by using pomace as a fuel. Evaluation of these generated
CP 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 also
carried out during the Assessment Phase. Although harvesting by hand is the best method for olive oil, the cost
of labor is almost one third of the whole of the olive oil
production costs, which does not make it preferable. For
this reason, harvesting of olives by olive collecting
machines were recommended. The method using collecting machines also enables the provision of higher

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

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).

617

618

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

quality olive supplies. On the other hand, appropriate

storage of olives both before and after processing would
increase the quality of crude olive oil and would definitely reduce the amount of crude olive oil subjected to
the refining process.

4. Results and discussion

The feasibility studies from the point of environmental
and economic issues were carried out for the selected
CP options.
4.1. Technology modification
The results concluded from the substitution of the
three-phase continuous system with the two-phase continuous system in the olive oil extraction plant for 15
SMEs are summarized in Fig. 4.
Substituting the current three-phase continuous system
with two-phase continuous system costs 600,000
671,000 (investment cost) [7] with an approximate
capacity of 18002200 kg/hr, which is suitable for each
of the selected olive oil extraction SMEs. This cost indicates the cost of the full system including; washing
equipment, deleafer, mill, malaxater, decanter and final
purifier. As the washing equipment, deleafer, mill and
malaxater are the common parts of both the two-phase
and three-phase continuous systems; there was not the
necessity of purchasing them. Only the decanter was different and only one vertical centrifuge was sufficient.
This property creates many options within this equip-

ment that reduces the cost, depending on needs. In this

regard, it was assumed that the cost of a two-phase
decanter could be almost 50% of the total cost of the
full system [7,10]. So, according to this assumption capital cost of the two-phase continuous decanter was found
about 300,050 . Hence, due to this investment, a
reduction in both operation and maintenance cost could
be achieved.
On the top of these, the process modifications had no
adverse impacts on olive oil quality, which in the long
run, seems to be the determinant factor for the economy
of the whole olive oil business.
4.1.1. Water conservation
Technology modification option provided high
amounts of reduction in water consumption, since there
is no addition of water to the decanter in the two-phase
continuous system. This created a reduction of 36,000
45,000 t/year of water for 45,000 t/year of olives that
were processed in the 15 olive oil extraction SMEs. The
reduction in water consumption, which resulted in less
amount of vegetation water generation, also led to economic savings in the wastewater treatment plant.
Taking into account the wastewater treatment costs,
there can be savings between 47% and 68% (with the
implementation of two-phase continuous system)
depending on the type of the treatment process (Table 2).
Although technology modification option has advantages as mentioned above, the fifteen-selected olive oil
extraction SMEs were not willing to substitute their three
phase decanters with two-phase decanters. The main reason behind this idea was that, since most of the olive oil

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

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

619

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

Treatment cost of the effluents of threephase continuous system ( /year)

Treatment cost of the effluents of two-phase Cost saving (%)

continuous systema ( /year)

Aerobic treatment
Anaerobic treatment followed by
aerobic treatment
Membrane process

75,90091,080
135,300162,360

46,35648,426
54,45658,146

47
64

165,000198,000

58,50663,006

68

Operating cost and investment cost of two-phase decanter, which is

extraction SMEs did not have any wastewater treatment

plants, they were not interested in the amount of vegetation water reduction obtained through a two-phase
decanter. On the other hand, olive oil production is a
seasonal job, which means that most of the employers
have additional jobs. As a result of this they dont want
to invest in technology modification. In order to persuade employers to replace their existing technology
with the suggested technology, strict regulations and
legislations are needed regarding installing treatment
facilities. As Turkey is in the transition period of European Union (EU) membership, adaptation of EU
environmental regulations into Turkish legal framework
are of great importance. In this regard, Turkish government is striving to fit the regulations to the EU regulations. However, some companies do pursue such innovations, without, or in advance of regulations, but the
number of them are very few.
4.1.2. By-products
The pomace which was obtained from the two-phase
continuous system containing vegetation water requires
more energy than that of the three-phase continuous system during its drying process in the Yeni Kurtulus plant.
The reason for this is the accumulation of all actual vegetation water in the pomace in the decanter, which
results in higher amounts of pomace generation than the
current three-phase system. The moisture content of
pomace for the three-phase continuous system and the
two-phase continuous system was analyzed to be 50%
and 6065%, respectively. From this aspect, cost evaluations 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 Yeni
Kurtulus plant (Table 3).
Although drying of two-phase pomace required more
energy than that of the three-phase pomace, the feasibility study proved that processing two-phase pomace
was more profitable than processing three-phase pomace
in the pomace oil extraction industries. This is due to
the higher amounts of two-phase pomace (36,000 t/year)
than the three-phase pomace (22,500 t/year), which
resulted in larger quantities of pomace oil (900 t/year)

36,006/year, is also integrated in the treatment cost.

and exhausted olive pomace (20,700 t/year) from the

same amount of olives (45,000 t/year). The net profit
calculated for the pomace oil extraction plant processing
two-phase pomace was about 207,525/year.
On the other hand, the total cost savings for energy
and water consumption in the olive oil production processes and pomace management have the values of 9%
and 86%, respectively, which are almost about
350,000/year (Table 3).
4.2. Pomace management option
Pomace with a calorific value of approximately 19,000
kJ/kg has characteristics that are illustrated together with
the properties of Turkish lignite in Table 4.
According to the aforementioned properties of pomace efficiency of gasification, incineration and pyrolysis
process, applications for pomace were investigated, in
order to generate electricity that can supply the energy
requirements of Unikom, the refining industry. The total
energy consumption of Unikom was reported to be about
6,247,702 kW h (789 kWe) which was accepted as 1
MWe for the year 2001. The plant operated for 7920
h/year. For power generation, a downdraft type of gasifier was chosen [5]. The cost of electricity was calculated to be about 0.067/kW h, which was less than
the price of electricity of Turkey Electric Anonymous
Company (TEAC): 0.087/kW h. Since the chosen system was a combined power and heat system (CHP), during power generation vapor could also be generated simultaneously. The total fuel saving will be 69% which
will result in a cost saving of around 1,953,250/year
due to the process vapor production through gasification.
For in situ power generation through incineration of
pomace, cyclonic combustion systems were chosen to be
appropriate for generating a capacity of 1 MW electric
energy. The cost of electricity through incineration was
calculated to be about 0.11/kW h which is more than
0.087/kW h (Table 5).
The capital cost of power generation equipment for
pyrolysis of pomace is more than 4053/kW h [12
15]. This resulted in electricity generation being more
expensive when compared with gasification and incineration processes. For that reason, a detailed feasibility

620

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

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

Water (t/year)
Energy (kW h/year)
Energy ( /year)
Vegetation water (t/year)
Vegetation water ( /year)
Pomace (t/year)
Pomace oil (t/year)
Exhausted pomace (t/year)
Crude olive oil
Saving

Before (three-phase continuous After (two-phase

system)
continuous system)

Saving (%)

49,50059,400
1,987,185
196,725
45,00054,000
135,300162,360
22,500
560
14,065
9000

86
9

67508100
1,987,185
196,725
22502700
54,45658,146
36,000

900

20,700
9000

Cost saving ( /year)

17,705
95
80,844104,214
207,525

350,000

Table 4
Comparison of properties for pomace and Turkish lignite
Property (%)

Lignite

Pomace

Moisture
Ash
Sulfur

55
17
1.46

9
8
0.12

should enact laws or regulations to encourage the use

of pomace as a fuel. Hence, from the study it was also
recommended to establish individual thermal processing
plants, instead of centralized thermal processing plants,
since the pomace is locally produced; its collection,
transportation, and storage would increase the cost of
electric production.

study for pyrolysis, considering economic issues, was

not carried out. However, amongst the different pyrolysis
conditions, slow pyrolysis conditions taking place at
300 C in a furnace fluidized system under the flow of
N2 (as the sweeping gas) seemed to provide optimum conditions according to the maximum yields of furfural and
syringaldehyde which are commercially valuable [16].
From these results it was concluded that, although in
Turkey we dont have the appropriate regulations for
pomace to be evaluated as a source of fuel, according
to its considerably high calorific value and low emissions, it was recommended that Turkish Government

5. Conclusions
The CP methodology was carried out in 15 olive oil
extraction SMEs, one olive oil refining plant and the
implementation was concluded in a pomace extraction plant.
The 15 SMEs supplied both crude olive oil to the
refining plant and pomace to the pomace extraction plant.
The two-phase continuous system which was replaced
with a three-phase continuous system has advantages
such as a 95% reduction in wastewater generation. It was
also determined that although a two-phase continuous
system, when compared to a three-phase continuous

Table 5
Evaluation of advanced thermolysis technologies for pomace utilization
Electricity production process

Gasification

Incineration

MWe/year
/kW ha
Efficiency (%)
Annual fuel cost ( /year)b
Annual operating and maintenance cost ( /year)
Total capital cost ( /kW)
Vapor production( /year)
Energy conversion value (MWe/year)
Saving through vapor production ( /year)
Total saving through vapor and electricity
production ( /year)

1
0.067
25
120,384
120,028
2432
31,636c
2.5
194,250
319,204

1
0.11
14
213,840
141,827
4053

a
b
c

Average cost of electricity of TEAC = 0.087 /kW h.

Cost of fuel; pomace = 0.020 / kg (calorific value = 19,000 kJ / kg).
Vapor demand for Unikom = 45,673 t / year ( 281,322/year coal consumption).

S. Gurbuz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 613621

system, leads to pomace generation with higher moisture

which causes more energy consumption, the cost comparisons revealed that the energy consumption losses
were converted into profits because of the larger amounts
of exhausted olive pomace and pomace oil generation.
In the pomace management options, amongst the
appropriate conversion technologies such as gasification,
combustion and pyrolysis of pomace, pomace gasification was found to be the most economically profitable
process for in situ power generation for Unikom, the
refining plant with a capaity of 1 MWe.
On the top of this, governmental measures both concerning regulation for pomace emission standards have
to be determined and enforcement of vegetation water
treatment have to be achieved. For a successful Environmental Management Systems, record keeping and documentation and training facilities including information
dissemination to be supplied among olive and its product, by-product processing plants.
As CP attacks the problem at several organizational
levels, the implementation of plant-level CP program
with the commitment of management and with systematic approach to waste reduction in all aspects of production process were succeeded.
Moreover, the recommended CP options have no
adverse impact on the olive oil quality, which is of
utmost importance.

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

621

[2] Alcaide EM, Nefzaoui A. Recycling of olive oil by-products:

possibilities of utilization in animal nutrition. Int Biodeterior
Biodegrad 1996;:22735.
[3] http://www.theolivepress.com/anything/faqHTML/faqGeneral.html
#refined
[4] Cleaner production assessment manual. Cleaner Production
Programme/NCPC Project UNEP IE, 1995.
[5] Olgun H, Kran N, C oban T, Trs M, Akgu n F. Feasibility report for
pomace thermolysis processes. TUBITAK-MRRC, Kocaeli, 2001.
[6] Pollution prevention in olive oil production. Regional Activity
Center for Cleaner Production (RAC/CP), 2000.
[7] Regional Australian olive oil processing plants. RIRDC Project
GGO 1/A, no.: 00/187, 2001.
[8] Arjona R, Garcia A, Ollero P. The drying of alpeorujo, a waste product of the olive oil mill industry. J Food Eng 1999;41:22934.
[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 methodology. In: Proceedings of International Water Association
(IWA) Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, Iraklion, Crete, Greece, September 2629, 2002.
[12] Advanced thermal conversion technologies for energy from solid
waste: a joint report of the IEA bioenergy programme and the
IEA CADDET renewable energy technologies programme. IEA
CADDET Center of Renewable Energy, UK, 1998.
[13] Roughton E. Energy from woody biomass in New Zealand. Wellington: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, 2001.
[14] Ahmed K, Anderson D. Renewable energy technologies: a review
of the status and costs of selected technologies. US: The World
Bank, 1994.
[15] The Foster Wheeler pyrolysis technology addresses used tire
problem. http://es.epa.gov/studies/cs 254 html
, Matuscheck G, Clz NK, O
zdog an S, Kettrup A, Trs
[16] Dog an O
M. Thermolysis of solid residues from olive oil production. JulichTUBITAK Scientific and Technological Cooperation, March 2001.