Abstract
With the possible exception of catalytic hydrogenation, perhaps no unit operation within the realm of oleochemistry is as thoroughly complex as that of glycerolysis. Among the misconceptions and half-truths that prevail concerning the glycerolysis of fats are the notions that it involves a strictly random distribution of acyl groups among all of the available hydroxyl groups, that the solubility of glycerol in the fat at the reaction temperature determines the yield of monoglyceride that may be obtained, that the advantageous effects of the Law of Mass Action can be realized only when the reaction media is in ultimate homogeneity, in other words, complete mutual solubility, and, more importantly, that there is an equivalence of emulsification properties for the chief products of glycerolysis, i.e., the α-and β-monoglycerides, in both food and industrial emulsification. Numerous examples from international literature establish the limitations which prevail in temperature, agitation and use of excess of glycerol in batch glycerolysis reactions, but the practical limits for glycerolysis undersuperemulsification conditions remain to be established. The disadvantages of glycerolysis in homogeneous solvents still are insufficient to justify the use of those that are available, but the use of both pressure and gaseous catalysts such as carbon dioxide appear to offer the greatest hope for improvement in yields. Substantial energy savings may dictate the choice of methyl ester glycerolysis processing for future plants, especially those in the international sphere. Pros and cons of monoglyceride analytical methodology are evaluated.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brandner, J.B., and R.L. Birkmeier, JAOCS 37:390 (1960).
Hartman, L., Ibid. 39:126 (1962).
Feuge, R.O. and A.R. Bailey, Oil Soap Chicago 23:259 (1946).
Patrick, T.J., Jr., and E.G. Johnson, U.S. Pat. 3,060,224 (October 23, 1962).
Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals in Man, Vol. 11, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons, France, 1976, pp. 247–256.
Carcinogenesis Technical Report, no. 80, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 1978.
Bradshaw, C.B., and W.C. Meuly, U.S. Pats. 2,271,619 (1942) and 2,360,844 (1944); see also Bradshaw, G.B., Soap Sanit. Chem. 18:23,69 (1962).
Koslowsky, L., Oleagineux 30:221 (1975).
Matsuyama, S., M. Takasago and K. Hirokawa, Kagaku to Kogyo Osaka, 42:239 (1968).
Bradford, P., W.D. Pohle, J.K. Gunther and V.C. Mehlenbacher, Oil Soap Chicago 19:189 (1942).
Wood, R.D., R.K. Raju and R. Reiser, JAOCS 42:161 (1965).
Oles, P.J., and S. Siggia, Anal. Chem. 46:2197 (1974).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Sonntag, N.O.V. Glycerolysis of fats and methyl esters — Status, review and critique. J Am Oil Chem Soc 59, 795A–802A (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02634442
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02634442