Lynne Wong's PhD thesis

Lynne Wong's PhD thesis Lynne Wong's PhD thesis

pfeiffer.nele60
from pfeiffer.nele60 More from this publisher
29.12.2013 Views

The extent of the drop in CCS agrees well with that estimated by Brotherton (1980) who showed that the rate of change of CCS per unit of extraneous matter was -0.16, as compared to -0.16, -0.14 and -0.14 for 1 unit of dry trash, green leaves and cane top respectively shown in Fig 2.20. The influence of extraneous matter on boiling house recovery and overall recovery are shown in Figs 2.21 and 2.22. The effects of dry trash appear to be most detrimental on these two aspects of milling quality. % EM in cane 0 5 10 15 20 -1 T -3 G y = - 0.215 (% D) R 2 = 1.00 = - 0.141 (% G) R 2 = 1.00 = - 0.126 (% T) R 2 = 0.99 D -5 Figure 2.18. Changes in sucrose extracted in juice % cane due to dry trash (D), green leaves (G) and cane tops (T). 0 5 10 15 20 % EM in cane -1 -3 T G -5 y = - 0.226 (% D) R 2 = 1.00 = - 0.156 (% G) R 2 = 0.99 = - 0.140 (% T) R 2 = 0.99 D Figure 2.19. Changes in sugar recovery % cane due to dry trash (D), green leaves (G) and cane tops (T). 49

% EM in cane 0 5 10 15 20 0 -2 y = - 0.160 (% D) R 2 = 0.99 = - 0.135 (% G) R 2 = 1.00 = - 0.141 (% T) R 2 = 1.00 G T D -4 Figure 2.20. Changes in commercial cane sugar due to dry trash (D), green leaves (G) and cane tops (T). % EM in cane 0 5 10 15 20 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 y = - 0.255 (% D) R 2 = 0.99 = - 0.216 (% G) R 2 = 0.98 = - 0.195 (% T) R 2 = 0.99 T G D -6.0 Figure 2.21. Changes in boiling house recovery due to dry trash (D), green leaves (G) and cane tops (T). 50

The extent of the drop in CCS agrees well with that estimated by Brotherton (1980) who<br />

showed that the rate of change of CCS per unit of extraneous matter was -0.16, as<br />

compared to -0.16, -0.14 and -0.14 for 1 unit of dry trash, green leaves and cane top<br />

respectively shown in Fig 2.20.<br />

The influence of extraneous matter on boiling house recovery and overall recovery are<br />

shown in Figs 2.21 and 2.22. The effects of dry trash appear to be most detrimental on<br />

these two aspects of milling quality.<br />

% EM in cane<br />

0 5 10 15 20<br />

-1<br />

T<br />

-3<br />

G<br />

y = - 0.215 (% D) R 2 = 1.00<br />

= - 0.141 (% G) R 2 = 1.00<br />

= - 0.126 (% T) R 2 = 0.99<br />

D<br />

-5<br />

Figure 2.18. Changes in sucrose extracted in juice % cane due to dry trash (D), green leaves (G) and cane tops (T).<br />

0 5 10 15 20<br />

% EM in cane<br />

-1<br />

-3<br />

T<br />

G<br />

-5<br />

y = - 0.226 (% D) R 2 = 1.00<br />

= - 0.156 (% G) R 2 = 0.99<br />

= - 0.140 (% T) R 2 = 0.99<br />

D<br />

Figure 2.19. Changes in sugar recovery % cane due to dry trash (D), green leaves (G) and cane tops (T).<br />

49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!