Authors:E. Fogarassy, E. Bekassy-Molnar, Cs. Balla, and Gy. Vatai
In this study, pressed apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) juice was concentrated using complex membrane technology with different module combinations: UF-RO-OD, UF-RO-MD, UF-NF-OD and UF-NF-MD. In case of the best combination a cross-flow polyethylene ultrafiltration membrane (UF) was applied for clarification, after which preconcentration was done using reverse osmosis (RO) with a polyamide membrane, and the final concentration was completed by osmotic distillation (OD) using a polypropylene module. The UF-RO-OD procedure resulted in a final concentrate with a 65-70 °Brix dry solid content and an excellent quality juice with high polyphenol content and high antioxidant capacity.Nanofiltration (NF) and membrane distillation (MD) were not proper economic solutions.The influence of certain operation parameters was examined experimentally. Temperatures of UF and RO were: 25, 30, and 35 °C, and of OD 25 °C. Recycle flow rates were: UF: 1, 1.5, and 2 m3 h−1; RO: 200, 400, and 600 l h−1; OD: 20, 30 and 40 l h−1. The flow rates in the module were expressed by the Reynolds number, as well. Based on preliminary experiments, the transmembrane pressures of UF and RO filtration were 4 bar and 50 bar, respectively. Each experimental run was performed three times. The following optimal operation parameters provided the lowest total cost: UF: 35 °C, 2 m3 h−1, 4 bar; RO: 35 °C, 600 l h−1, 50 bar; OD: 20, 30 and 40 l h−1; temperature 25 °C.In addition, experiments were performed for apricot juice concentration by evaporation, which technique is widely applied in the industry using vacuum and low temperature.For description the UF filtration, a dynamic model and regression by SPSS 14.0 statistics software were applied.
This paper rests upon a review of 15 evaluation reports of R & D programmes worked out during the 80's by the European Commission. The analysis aims at answering the main questions: Why did emerge the needs for output indicators in the middle of the 80's? What kind of output indicators were built up (or tentative)? With which methodology? What were their actual use in the evaluation reports? The linkage between EC R & D policies and evaluation is examined in order to discuss the relationships between the goals of R & D programmes and the criteria for evaluation. It is shown that the followed evaluation methodology and the evaluation goals at hand are paramount for the choice of output indicators; such goals encompass a.o. the description of the programmes, the assessment of the contractors opinion, the appraisal of the techno-economic effects of the programmes. As a result expected output indicators were developed (BRITE programme). On the other hand, one has called meta-evaluation, the indirect measurement of Scientific results by bibliometry (BEP_BAP programmes). Similarly, intermediate indicators were built up for evaluating the programmes management performance (ESPRIT programme). At last derived output indicators were used for techno-economic evaluation, (EURAM programmes) leading to the quantified global judgement of a before-after methodology, (SCIENCE-STIMULATION programmes).
Authors:Sanja Miloš, Marina Valek, Vedran Poljak, Boris Antunović, and Sabina Milaković
Fekete-Farkas M. — Béres-Husti K. — Szűcs I.: 2006. Economicevaluation of chemical pollution, food safety, biodiversity and sustainability. Cereal Research Communications. 34.1. 797–801 pp.