Enzymatic degumming

Abstract

AbstractThe oldest enzymatic degumming process (the Lurgi EnzyMax® process) was launched in 1992. It used porcine phospholipase A2, which has the disadvantages of limited availability and not being kosher/halal. To overcome these disadvantages, various microbial enzymes have been developed; they have different specificities and therefore offer different advantages. Phospholipase C for instance has the advantage that it leads to the formation of diacylglycerols that remain in the oil being degummed. This constitutes a significant yield improvement which also results from the formation of lysophospholipids that retain less oil than their precursors. In the laboratory, a fine dispersion of the aqueous enzyme solution in the oil can be maintained so that the phospholipase enzymes can be made to interact with non‐hydratable phosphatides (NHP) in the oil phase and catalyse their hydrolysis. On an industrial scale, dispersions coalesce before the enzymatic NHP hydrolysis is complete. Accordingly, enzymatic degumming processes that claim NHP‐removal and a low residual phosphorus content in the enzymatically degummed oil are invariably preceded by an acid treatment in which a degumming acid (citric acid) is finely dispersed into the oil to be degummed and made to react with the NHP present in the oil before the enzyme is added. This enzyme then only interacts with the phospholipids present in the water phase. This raises the question whether the yield increase resulting from the use of enzymes should be realised by treating the oil to be degummed or the gums that have already been isolated from the oil during a degumming treatment. Lack of experimental evidence prevents a firm answer to this question but the arguments in favour of treating the gums look more impressive than what can be said in favour of treating the oil. In short: Enzymes do not degum the oil but can be used to de‐oil the gums.