Skip to main content
Log in

Glycerolysis of fats and methyl esters — Status, review and critique

  • Technical News Features
  • Published:
Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brandner, J.B., and R.L. Birkmeier, JAOCS 37:390 (1960).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hartman, L., Ibid. 39:126 (1962).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Feuge, R.O. and A.R. Bailey, Oil Soap Chicago 23:259 (1946).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Patrick, T.J., Jr., and E.G. Johnson, U.S. Pat. 3,060,224 (October 23, 1962).

  5. 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.

  6. Carcinogenesis Technical Report, no. 80, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 1978.

  7. 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).

  8. Koslowsky, L., Oleagineux 30:221 (1975).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsuyama, S., M. Takasago and K. Hirokawa, Kagaku to Kogyo Osaka, 42:239 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bradford, P., W.D. Pohle, J.K. Gunther and V.C. Mehlenbacher, Oil Soap Chicago 19:189 (1942).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood, R.D., R.K. Raju and R. Reiser, JAOCS 42:161 (1965).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Oles, P.J., and S. Siggia, Anal. Chem. 46:2197 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02634442

Keywords

Navigation