Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 47 (2015) 99104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtice

Characterization and process optimization of castor oil

(Ricinus communis L.) extracted by the soxhlet method using polar
and non-polar solvents
Jibrin Mohammed Danlami a, Agus Arsad b,*, Muhammad Abbas Ahmad Zaini a
a
Centre of Lipid Engineering & Applied Research (CLEAR), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Malaysia
b
Enhanced Polymer Research Group (ENPRO), Department of Polymer Engineering, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Two operating solvent extraction conditions, i.e. average particle size and extraction time, were
Received 10 June 2014 optimized by a response surface method using BoxBehnken design to obtain high oil yields. The
Received in revised form 9 September 2014 extraction was conducted by the soxhlet method using ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum ether as
Accepted 12 October 2014
solvents. Statistical analyses and analysis of variance indicated that the operating conditions are
Available online 7 November 2014
signicant factors affecting the yield. For the modeled extraction, yields of 59.8%, 52.3% and 49.9% were
determined for optimized average particle sizes and extraction times of 1.30 mm and 2.88 h, 1.26 mm
Keywords:
and 2.65 h and 1.25 mm and 2.55 h, respectively. The physicochemical properties of castor bean oils
Solvent extraction
were evaluated. The extracted oils contain refractive indices of 1.4771, 1.4770 and 1.4772,
Response surface methodology
Optimization unsaponiable contents of 0.6, 0.45 and 0.5%, volatile contents of 0.48, 0.55 and 0.28%, free fatty
Castor contents of 0.8, 0.3 and 0.27%, phospholipid values of 0.03, 0.05 and 0.03%, peroxide values of 12.4, 3.3
Ricinoleic acid and 3.5 meq O2/kg, iodine values of 85.6, 84.5 and 85.0 g/I2/100 g of oil, saponication values of 174.6,
Physicochemical properties 176.3 and 173.8 mg of KOH/g of oil, acid values of 1.60, 0.60 and 0.53 mg KOH/g, respectively. The
analyses indicate that the oil is suitable for use in the oleo-chemicals industry.
2014 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction chemical industry. The largest world producer and exporter of

The castor oil plant (Ricinus communis L.) grows in the wild in
large quantities, and it is an important drought-resistant shrub
belonging to the family Euphorbiaceae. The plant originated from
East Africa, was naturalized in temperate and tropic regions all
over the world and is available at low cost. The extracted oil from
the bean seed has more than 700 uses in the eld of; cosmetics,
plastics, manufacturing of biodiesel, lubricants and medicine
[1,2]. The oil content ranges from 35% to 60%, depending on the
variety of seed and growth environment.
About one million tonnes of castor oil plant seeds are grown
annually throughout the world, resulting in about 500,000 t of
extracting oil. The agricultural production of the seeds has been
described [3]. Asia is regarded as a major producer in the oleo
* Corresponding authors at: Enhanced Polymer Research Group (ENPRO), Faculty
of Chemical Engineering, Department of Polymer Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 UTM, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Tel.: +60 195590545.
E-mail addresses: jibrin349@yahoo.com (J.M. Danlami), agus@cheme.utm.my
(A. Arsad), abbas@cheme.utm.my (M.A.A. Zaini).
castor oil is India, with about 70% of the total exports, followed by
China 15%, Brazil 8% and Thailand 1%, whereas countries such as
USA, Russia and Japan are the major importers [4].
Steam distillation, hydro distillation and solvent extraction are
the methods being employed for extracting castor oil. However,
the use of steam and hydro distillation encounters several
drawbacks: such as the breakdown of thermally labile compo-
nents because of high operating temperatures, incomplete oil
extraction from plant materials, the requirement of post-
extraction process for water removal and the promotion of
hydration reactions with the chemical components [5,6]. The
drawbacks of distillation are overcome by solvent extraction, but
the method leaves a solvent residue in the resulting extracts,
which is a major setback [6].
Numerous studies have been conducted on the soxhlet
extraction of castor oil [79]. However, xed operating conditions
have generally been employed in these studies. Some effects of the
operating conditions on the soxhlet extraction of castor oil have
not yet been completely investigated. The efciency of soxhlet
extraction can be determined by several factors such as the average
particle size, extraction time and the use of polar and non-polar

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2014.10.012
1876-1070/ 2014 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
100 J.M. Danlami et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 47 (2015) 99104
solvents. The response surface method (RSM) is an effective
technique that is used for studying multiple effects on a variable
output [10]. RSM is a statistical technique applicable to analysis
and modeling of processes composed of one or more responses to
numerous process variables with the objective of optimizing the
process responses [11]. As such, this method has been used to
model and optimize numerous oil extraction processes [12
14]. The present study employs RSM to optimize two operating
conditions of the soxhlet extraction process for castor oil, i.e.
average crushed bean particle size and extraction time, in an effort
to maximize process yield. The effects of a polar solvent, ethanol
and non-polar solvents (i.e. n-hexane and petroleum ether) on the
physicochemical properties of the oil are investigated. In addition,
the fatty acid contents of the extracts from these solvents are
compared.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Chemicals
Ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum ether (all analytically pure)
were purchased from Sigma Aldrich, Malaysia for use as extraction
solvents.
2.2. Plant material preparation
The castor bean seed was supplied by Ancient Greeneld Pvt.
Ltd, India. The encased seed was air dried for 24 h until the casing
split and the seed were shed. The shell was then separated from the
nib by lateral airow. The cleaned seeds were further dried for 5 h
until a constant weight was achieved. The dried materials were
crushed, and a vibrator sieve was used for separating the crushed
seeds into three nominal: i.e. particle sizes 1, 2.26 and 3.35 mm.
The particles were stored in a refrigerator at 4 8C before
extraction.
2.3. Soxhlet extraction
Ten grams of crushed castor seed were inserted into a soxhlet
extractor connected to a 1000 mL ask containing 250 mL of
ethanol. The extraction was conducted at the boiling temperature
of ethanol for 1, 2 and 3 h for particle sizes of 1, 2.26 and 3.35 mm.
After extraction, the solvent was evaporated at its boiling point
until a complete removal of ethanol was ascertained for
determining the extract weight. The same procedure was repeated
in duplicate for n-hexane and petroleum ether as extraction
solvents as well.
2.4. Yield calculation
After the extraction process, the castor bean seed cake was oven
dried for 24 h at 50 8C for the purpose of determining the weight of
the dry seed. The dry seed was used in determining the oil yield
from the different extraction solvents as follows:
Weight of extracted oil  100%
Yield
Weight of total sample
2.5. Experimental design
BoxBehnken design was chosen as the experimental design
and optimized by RSM. The method used in this study includes a
two-factorial design with second-order quadratic polynomial
estimation for optimizing the responses over a range of variables.
The RSM was conducted to attain the optimum degree of
extraction, as measured by the optimum oil yield. Thus, the
Table 1
Experimental design established for the independent variables for optimizing
solvent extraction of oil from castor seeds.
Independent variables Symbol Coded levels
Coded Uncoded 1 0 1
Extraction Time, (h) X1 T 1 2 3
Average Particle Size, (mm) X2 P 1 2.36 3.35
correlation between the coded and the actual variables is given in
the following equation:
X i T i  P 0 DT i ; (2)
where Xi is the independent variable, Ti is the actual independent
value: P0 is the independent real value at the centre point and DTi is
the step change value. The variables and their respective levels are
shown in Table 1. By this design, a total of 18 experimental runs
were carried out. The oil yield is a dependent variable. Therefore,
the proposed model for the response is given by the following
equation [15,16]:
Y i b0 b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b11 X12 b22 X 22 b12 X 1 X 2 ; (3)
where Yi is the dependent variables, b0 is the constant term, while
b1; and b2 are the linear coefcients, b11; and b22 are the squared
terms and b12 is the interaction effect. Statistical analyses and
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted using STATISTICA
6.0. The coefcient of determination (R2), probability (P) and its
associated F-test was used in determining the signicance of the
regression model t. Contour plots were used for evaluating the
signicance of the independent variables on the dependent
variable;, while the model coefcients were determined by solving
the model equation to estimate the optimal conditions.
2.6. Fatty acid composition of castor oil extracted from different
solvents
Methylated injection samples were prepared prior to gas
chromatographic (GC) analysis. GC of the fatty acid content was
conducted using a Clarus 580 equipped with a ame ionization
detector. The carrier gas used was nitrogen at a ow rate of 1 mL/min.
A 1.5 mL of methylated samples of ethanol, n-hexane or petroleum
ether was injected using the split mode (50:1). The injector and
detector temperatures were maintained at 235 8C and 250 8C,
respectively. The column temperature was initially 160 8C, and the
heating was programmed to increase by 2 8C/min to 195 8C for 1 min
and a subsequent increase of 1 8C/min to 210 8C. The retention
indices were then determined relative to the retention times,
whereas the composition percentages were obtained using electronic
integration measurements based on the area of normalization.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Experimental data and regression model
The results on yield based upon the experimental design were
the subject of multiple regression analysis using the polynomial
(1)
model given in Eq. (3) for the prediction of the optimum responses
of the oil yield. To predict the optimum oil yield, the coefcients of
the model given by Eq. (3) were solved by regression analysis, and
are shown as the following equations:
Y 1 51:297 0:302X 1  0:805X 2 5:775X12  1:142X22 0; (4)
Y 2 37:398 4:948X 1  2:341X 2 3:35X12 1:667X22 0; (5)
Y 3 37:873 6:568X 1  2:618X 2  3:525X12 1:992X22 0; (6)
 J.M. Danlami et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 47 (2015) 99104 101

Table 2
Results of the experimental design based upon the coding given in Table 1 and the predicted responses of oil yield.

No. of run Extraction Average particle %Oil yield for Predicted % %Oil yield Predicted % oil yield %Oil yield for Predicted %
time (X1) size (X2) ethanol for hexane petroleum ether oil yield
oil yield

1 1 1 54.5 55.4 44.0 43.5 41.0 40.3

2 1 1 55.0 55.4 44.3 43.5 40.0 40.3
3 1 0 52.0 52.2 41.0 39.6 38.0 37.3
4 1 0 52.5 52.2 42.0 39.6 38.5 37.3
5 1 1 49.0 47.9 28.4 31.2 27.6 28.9
6 1 1 48.0 47.9 28.9 31.2 27.9 28.9
7 0 1 57.0 57.8 47.7 47.4 42.9 42.8
8 0 1 58.1 57.8 47.9 47.4 42.7 42.8
9 0 0 54.0 54.5 44.1 43.4 41.0 39.7
10 0 0 53.0 54.5 43.0 43.4 40.4 39.7
11 0 1 51.0 50.3 33.9 35.1 30.7 31.4
12 0 1 52.0 50.3 35.1 35.1 30.0 31.4
13 1 1 58.0 57.8 50.9 51.6 49.0 49.2
14 1 1 59.5 57.8 50.1 51.6 48.8 49.2
15 1 0 56.0 54.5 45.0 47.6 44.3 46.1
16 1 0 55.0 54.5 46.0 47.6 44.0 46.1
17 1 1 48.0 50.3 42.9 39.3 40.0 37.8
18 1 1 49.0 50.3 41.9 39.3 40.2 37.8

where Y1, Y2 and Y3 represent the yields of ethanol, n-hexane and
petroleum ether solvent extraction, respectively, and the tested
variables, extraction time (X1) and average particle size (X2) remain
in their coded forms. Both the experiment results and their
predicted values are listed in Table 2.
3.2. Signicance of variables and coefcients
The signicance of each of the variables was tested by ANOVA,
listed in Table 3, for a F-value of the model at a 95% condence
level. The lack of t having F-values of 29.0, 14.16 and 11.0, P-
values of 0.1978, 0.0811 and 0.0756, respectively, for ethanol, n-
hexane and petroleum ether shows that it is not signicant, this
implies that the model has a good t for prediction. It has been
reported that regression models with P values less than 0.05 indi-
cate statistical signicance [14].
The ANOVA results of the model indicate a good model
performance with an R2 value of 0.9005, 0.9216 and 0.9587,
adjusted determination coefcients R2 of 0.8699, 0.8975 and
0.9460 for ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum ether, respectively. A
high R2 value, of at least 0.80, is required and a reasonable
agreement with adjusted R2 is necessary for a model to t
[17]. Therefore, the oil yield percent indicates that the modeling is
signicant, because the calculated F-values representing the three
extraction solvents from Table 3 are much greater than the table
experimental value of F(2,15,0.05) = 3.68. Eqs. (4)(6), showed that all
the linear and quadratic terms were highly signicant in affecting
the oil yield. Among the linear terms, for Eq. (4), average particle
size of the sample was found to have the highest impact on the
yield of extracted oil as given by the highest linear coefcient
(0.805) followed by extraction time (0.302). While the linear
terms for Eqs. (5 and 6), extraction time was found to have the
highest impact on the oil yield. The positive coefcient of
extraction time in Eqs. (4, 5 and 6) indicate a linear effect to
increase the yield of oil extraction, while the negative coefcient of
the average particle size in Eqs. (4, 5 and 6) of the sample shows a
linear effect to decrease the yield. In addition, the quadratic
coefcient of X22 and X12 for Eqs. (4 and 6) has a strong negative
effect that decreases the oil yield, whereas the quadratic
coefcients of X12 for Eqs. (4 and 6), X22 for Eqs. (5 and 6) had
positive effects that increase the yield.
Plots of the experimental and predicted oil yields versus
experimental runs are shown in Figs. 13. The plots qualitative
illustrate uniformly distributed experimental values around the
predicted values representative of a close t. Therefore, a multiple
regression correlation between the independent variables (X1 and
X2) and the responses (Y1, Y2 and Y3) is possible, and second-order
polynomial model can be applied for interpreting the correlation
between the chosen parameters.
6.0
Experimental and predicted oil yield (%)

Table 3
ANOVA results for the effects of extraction time and average particle size on oil yield 5.8
(%).
5.6
Sources SS df MS F-value P>F Remark

Ethanol
5.4
Regression 170.47 2 85.23 29.00 <0.00002 Signicant
Residual 44.08 15 2.94
5.2
Total 214.55 17

n-Hexane
5.0
Regression 472.94 2 236.47 14.16 <0.000001 Signicant
Residual 250.43 15 16.69
Experimental values
4.8
Total 723.36 17 Predicted values

Petroleum ether 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Regression 413.08 2 206.54 11.01 <0.000001 Signicant Experimental runs
Residual 281.28 15 18.75
Fig. 1. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of oil yield (%) for
Total 694.35 17
ethanol.
102 J.M. Danlami et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 47 (2015) 99104

55
Experimental and predicted oil yield (%)

50

45

40

35

30
Experimental values
Predicted values
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Experimental runs

Fig. 2. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of oil yield (%) for n- Fig. 4. Contour plot of oil yield for ethanol, as affected by extraction time and
hexane. average particle size.

3.3. Contour analysis

Graphical representations of the regression equation are shown

in Figs. 46 by two-dimensional (2D) contour plots. The 2D plots
allow the visualization of the correlation between the experimen-
tal levels, the responses for each variable, optimum ranges and the
interaction between the two test variables. Thus, the observance of
a circular plot shows the interactions between the variables to be
negligible, while elliptical plots indicate that the interaction
between the variables is signicant [18].
All mutual interactions between the test variables were not
signicant. The predicted oil yield for ethanol, n-hexane and
petroleum ether as the extraction solvents were 59.5%, 51.6% and
49.2% (Table 2), which lies within the ranges of the examined
variables: extraction time 13 h and average particle size 1
3.35 mm. The optimum values of these variables from the contour
plots are an extraction time: of 2.88 h, 2.65 h and 2.55 h and an
average particle size; of 1.30 mm, 1.26 mm and 1.25 mm. The Fig. 5. Contour plot of oil yield for n-hexane, as affected by extraction time and
maximum predicted oil yield under these conditions were 59.7%, average particle size.

51.9% and 49.6%, which were more than that obtained from the
analysis of plots in Figs. 46. A conrmatory experiments were
conducted using optimum experimental parameters determined, level, demonstrated the validity of RSM. The experimental and the
to evaluate these predicted results. A mean oil extraction values of predicted results demonstrate the accuracy and the adequacy of
59.8%, 52.3% and 49.9% were obtained experimentally, which was the response model reecting the expected optimization of the oil
not signicant due to variation between 59.7% and 59.8%, 51.9% extraction process.
and 52.3%, 49.6% and 49.9%, respectively, below the 5% signicant

50
Experimental and predicted oil yield (%)

45

40

35

30
Experimental values
Predicted values
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Experimental runs

Fig. 3. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of oil yield (%) for Fig. 6. Contour plot of oil yield for petroleum ether, as affected by extraction time
petroleum ether. and average particle size.
 J.M. Danlami et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 47 (2015) 99104
3.4. Physicochemical properties of castor seed oil
The physicochemical properties of the oil, i.e. refractive index
(physical property), unsaponable matter, volatile matter, free
fatty acid, phospholipid, peroxide value, iodine value, saponica-
tion value and acid value (chemical properties) of the castor seed
oil were characterized. The ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum ether
extracted oils show refractive indices of 1.4771, 1.4770 and 1.4772,
respectively, which indicate a saturation level of the oil [19]. All
oils were within the range of 1.476 to 1.479 according to the
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) [20]. The ethanol,
n-hexane and petroleum ether extracted oils were determined to
contain unsaponiable contents of 0.6, 0.45 and 0.5%, volatile
contents of 0.48, 0.55 and 0.28%, free fatty contents of 0.8, 0.3 and
0.27%, phospholipid values of 0.03, 0.05 and 0.03%, respectively.
The peroxide value, a measure of the extent of primary oxidation,
for ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum ether extracted oils of 12,
3.3 and 3.5 meq/kg of oil, respectively exhibited low values for n-
hexane and petroleum ether. Iodine values of 85.6, 84.5 and 85 of
gI2/100 g of oil, respectively, indicating the degree of unsaturation,
were high; therefore, all the oils could be classied as non-drying
because their iodine values are lower than 100 gI2/100 g of oil. An
iodine value of 180 signies a good drying oil [21]. Saponication
values for ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum ether extracted oils of
174.6, 176.3 and 173.8 mg of KOH/g of oil, respectively, observed
were within 175250 established in some seed oils as safower,
corn, sunower and raspberry [22]. These values obtained indicate
the requirement to neutralize the available free fatty acid liberated
by the oil with more alkali. The average molecular weight of the
fatty acids in the oil fraction is reported to be inversely related to
the saponication value [21]. Oil with saponication values of
200 mg KOH/g and above; is reported to have low molecular fatty
weight acids [21]. Acid values for ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum
ether were 1.60, 0.60 and 0.53 mg of KOH/g of oil, respectively. The
acid value is indicative of spoilage, and it also represents free fatty
acid content due to enzymatic activity. An acceptable maximum
level is 4 mg KOH/g oil as per recommended international
standards [23]. The high acid value shown by the ethanol extract
is the result of the presence of free fatty acids. Thus, in n-hexane
and petroleum ether extracts, the hydrolytic and lipolytic activities
are at low levels due to the presence of low levels of free fatty acids
in the oils. Thus, the acid value can be reduced by subjecting the oil
to rening [21]. Therefore, these physicochemical characteristics
demonstrate that the castor seed oil extracted in the present study
is an excellent candidate for use in the oleo-chemical industry.
3.5. Fatty acids in castor seed oil
The fatty acid compositions of ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum
ether extracted oil exhibited the presence of eight leading fatty
acids, as estimated by GC. The relative concentrations of these
acids for the ethanol extracted oil were determined using (FAME-
mix standards supplied from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company) to
be palmitic C16:O (1.2%), stearic C18:0 (1.0%), oleic C18:1 (3.9%),
linoleic C18:2 (6.3%), linolenic C18:3 (0.6%), arachidic C20:0 (0.9%),
eicosenoic C20:1 (4.3%) and ricinoleic C18:1vOH (81.8%). The
relative concentrations of these acids for the n-heaxne extracted oil
were palmitic C16:0 (1.2%), stearic C18:0 (1.0%), oleic C18:1 (3.7%),
linoleic C18:2 (6.7%), linolenic C18:3 (0.5%), arachidic C20:0 (1.2%),
eicosenoic C20:1 (6.1%) and ricinoleic C18:1vOH (79.6%). The
relative concentrations for the petroleum ether extracted oil were
palmitic C16:0 (1.2%), stearic C18:0 (1.1%), oleic C18:1 (4.2%),
linoleic C18:2 (7.1.%), linolenic C18:3 (0.5%), arachidic C20:0
(1.0%), eicosenoic C20:1 (3.7%) and ricinoleic C18:1vOH (81.2%).
The dominant fatty acids within castor seed oil have previously
been determined [24], which are similar to the concentrations
103
found in the present study. The ndings reveals no signicant
deviations in the fatty acid proles due to lack of selectivity of the
soxhlet method, except for the case of eicosenoic acid, which was
highest for the n-hexane extracted oil with a value of 6.1%,
followed by the ethanol extracted oil with 4.3% and nally, the
petroleum ether extracted oil with 3.7%. The rich source of
ricinoleic (C18:1vOH), suggested that the oil is suitable for use as a
new material for paints, coatings, inks, lubricants, plasticizers as
well as a broad scope of various merchandise. This vegetable oil is
unique due to the presence of an elevated concentration of
hydroxyl fatty acid [25].
3.6. Polarity effect
Various seed materials typically contain solute molecules with
more than one functional group. Therefore, the solubility of these
solutes in a particular solvent is generally difcult to predict. The use
of the concept of polarity is considered another means of evaluating
solubility. Polarity is the ability of molecules to interact with other
polar molecules [26]. Therefore, the ability of a molecule to enter
into interactions of all types is referred to as polarity, and the relative
polarity is regarded as the sum of all the interactions [27].
The oil yield extracted using a polar organic solvent containing
hydroxyl groups, namely ethanol, was higher than that using non-
polar organic solvents, such as n-hexane and petroleum ether. The
solubility properties of ethanol are higher because of the hydroxyl
group, which is hydrophilic. Fatty acids contain a polar hydrocar-
bon molecule, and therefore, they dissolve better in ethanol
[28]. Ethanol has a higher boiling point than either n-hexane or
petroleum ether. The problems associated with high temperature
are that the reaction is accelerated, including the side reactions.
Thus, the use of this polar solvent increases the solubility, and
subsequently the yield of the extracts. Solvents of low polarity,
such as n-hexane and petroleum ether, do not extract much oil as
ethanol. Therefore, the use of a polar solvent might be favoured
when the removal of undesirable components may be necessary in
the pre-extraction step.
4. Conclusions
Three solvents were employed for extracting oil from the seeds
of the castor oil plant (R. communis L.) using the soxhlet method,
and the characteristics of the extracted oils were evaluated.
Statistical analyses showed that the average particle size and
the extraction time were signicant parameters for determining
the oil yield. The oil yield obtained was modeled as a function
of the independent variables, i.e. average particle size and
extraction times, and optimum values of 1.30 mm and 2.88 h,
1.26 mm and 2.65 h and 1.25 mm and 2.55 h with predicted yields
of 59.8%, 52.3% and 49.9% were obtained for ethanol, n-hexane and
petroleum ether extracted castor oil, respectively. The optimum
conditions were within the experimental design, which
accounted for 99% of the oil yield after an extended extraction
time. The refractive indices of ethanol, n-hexane and petroleum
ether extracted oil were 1.4771, 1.4770 and 1.4772, respectively.
The extracted oils were determined to contain unsaponiable
contents of 0.6, 0.45 and 0.5%, volatile contents of 0.48, 0.55 and
0.28%, free fatty contents of 0.8, 0.3 and 0.27%, phosphorlipid
values of 0.03, 0.05 and 0.03%, respectively. The peroxide values
were 12, 3.3 and 3.5 meq of O2/kg, the iodine values were 85.6,
84.5 and 85.0 g of I2/100 g of oil, the saponication values were
174.6, 176,3 and 173.8 mg of KOH/g of oil and the acid values were
1.6, 0.6 and 0.53 mg of KOH/g of oil, respectively. For the ethanol,
n-hexane and petroleum ether extracted oils palmitic C16:0 (1.2,
1.2 and 1.2%), stearic C18:0 (1.0, 1.0 and 1.1%), oleic C18:1 (3.9,
3.7 and 4.2%), linoleic C18:2 (6.3, 6.7 and 7.1%) and ricinoleic
104 J.M. Danlami et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 47 (2015) 99104
C18:1vOH (81.8, 79.6 and 81.2%) were determined to be the major
fatty acids, and the physicochemical compositions indicated a rich
source of ricinoleic acid, which has signicant potential as an
industrial oil.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia,
for nancial support of this work under the grant (No. 07J58) and
International Doctoral Fund and to the director of the Centre of
Lipid Engineering and Applied Research (Clear), Dr. Mohd Azizi Che
Yunus, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
References
[1] Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Final report on the safety assess-
ment of Ricinus communis (Castor) seed oil. Int J Toxicol 2007;26:3177.
[2] Weiss E. A. Castor. In Oilseed Crops, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Scientic Ltd,
Oxford, 2005: 13-52
[3] Mutlu H, Meier ARM. Castor oil as a renewable resource for the chemical
industry. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 2010;112:1030.
[4] Food and agriculture organization of the united nations (FAOSTAT). FAO; 2008,
Online http://faostat.fao.org.
[5] Danh LU, Mammucari R, Truong P, Foster N. Response surface method applied
to supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of vetiveria zizanoides essential oil.
Chem Eng J 2009;155:61726.
[6] Rezzoug SA, Boutekedjiret C, Allaf K. Optimization of operating conditions of
rosemary essential oil extraction by a fast controlled pressure drop process
using response surface methodology. J Food Eng 2005;71:917.
[7] Akpan UG, Jimoh A, Mohammed AD. Extraction, characterization and modi-
cation of castor seed oil. Leonardo J Sci 2006;8:4352.
[8] Shridhar BS, Beena KV, Anita MV, Paramjeet KB. Optimization and characteri-
zation of castor seed oil. Leonardo J Sci 2010;17:5970.
[9] Salimon J, Dina AMN, Nazrizawati AT, Firdausi MYM, Noraishah A. Fatty acid
composition and physicochemical properties of Malaysian castor beans Ricinus
communis L. seed oil. Sains Malays 2010;39:7614.
[10] Bas D, Boyaci IH. Modeling and optimization I: usability of response surface
methodology. J Food Eng 2007;78:83645.
[11] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 6th ed. New York, U.S.A.:
John Wiley & Son Inc.; 2005.
[12] Liu z, Mei L, Wang Q, Shao Y, Tao Y. Optimization of subcritical uid extraction
of seed oil from Nitraria tangutorum using response surface methodology.
LWTFood Sci Technol 2014;56:16874.
[13] Mitra P, Hosahalli SR, Chang KS. Pumpkin (Cucurbia maxima) seed oil extrac-
tion using supercritical carbon dioxide and physiocochemical properties of the
oil. J Food Eng 2009;95:20813.
[14] Ixtaina V, Veag a, Nolasco SM, Tomas MC, Gimeno M, Barzana E, et al.
Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of oil from Mexican chia seed (Salvia
hispanica L.): characterization and process optimization. J Supercrit Fluids
2010;55:1929.
[15] Shehu MSZ, Abdul Manan SR, Wan Alwi. Optimization of thermo-alkaline
disintegration of sewage sludge for enhanced biogas yield. Bioresour Technol
2012;114:6974.
[16] Cornell JA. How to apply response surface methodology. Revised edition.
Tammy Grifn, United State of America: Book Crafters; 1990.
[17] Guan X, Yao H. Optimization of viscozyme L assisted extraction of oat bran
protein using respond surface methodology. Food Chem 2008;106:345435.
[18] Muralidhar RV, Chirumamila RR, Marchant R, Nigam P. A response surface
approach for the comparison of lipase production by Candida cylindracea using
two different carbon sources. Biochem Eng J 2001;9:1723.
[19] Oderinde RA, Ajayi IA, Adewuyi A. Characterization of seed and seeds oil of
Hura Crepitans and the kinetics of degradation of the oil during heating.
Electron J Environ Agric Food Chem 2009;8:2018.
[20] ASTM International. Standard test method for oxidation onset temperature of
hydrocarbons by differential scanning calorimetry. Annual book of standards
section 12.10, West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2002.
[21] Abayeh OJ, Aina EA, Okuonghae CO. Oil content and oil quality characteristics
of some Nigerian oil seeds. J Pure Appl Sci 1998;1:1723.
[22] Yong OY, Salimon J. Characteristics of Elateriospermum tapos seed oil as a new
source of oilseed. Ind Crops Prod 2006;24:14651.
[23] CODEX Alimentarius Commission. Recommended international standards for
edible Arachis oil. 1st ed, Rome: FAO/WHO; 1982.
[24] Scholz V, Silva JND. Prospect and risks of the use of castor oil as a fuel. Biomass
Bioenergy 2008;32:95100.
[25] Ogunniyi DS. Castor oil: a vital industrial raw material. Bioresour Technol
2006;97:108691.
[26] Barwick VJ. Strategies for solvent selectiona literature review. Trends Anal
Chem 1997;16:293309.
[27] Kumoro AC, Hassan M, Singh H. Effects of solvent properties on soxhlet
extraction of diterpenoid lactones from andrograhis paniculata leaves. Sci Asia
2009;35:3069.
[28] Wade Jr LG. Organic chemistry. Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs; 1987.