SUGAR-FREE HIBISCUS WATER PRODUCTION-AMIDIQ 2010

Huatulco, Oaxaca, México. Del 04 al 07 de Mayo del 2010

“LA INGENIERÍA QUÍMICA EN EL BICENTENARIO”

Memorias del XXXI Encuentro Nacional de la AMIDIQHuatulco, Oaxaca, México.

Del 04 al 07 de Mayo del 2010

La presentación y disposición en conjunto de:

Son propiedad de los autores.

Ninguna parte de esta obra puede ser reproducida o transmitida, mediante ningún sistema o método, electrónico o mecánico (INCLUYENDO EL FOTOCOPIADO, la grabación o cualquier sistema de recuperación y almacenamiento de información), sin consentimiento por escrito de los autores.

Derechos reservados conforme a la ley:

© Academia Mexicana de Investigación y Docencia en Ingeniería Química (AMIDIQ)

ISBN: 978-970-764-976-7

Impreso en México / Printed in México

“LA INGENIERÍA QUÍMICA EN EL BICENTENARIO”

B I E N V E N I D A

La mesa directiva de la Academia Mexicana de Investigación y Docencia en Ingeniería

Química (AMIDIQ) tiene el honor de darles la más cordial bienvenida al XXXI Encuentro Nacional

de la AMIDIQ que se celebra en esta ocasión en las hermosas Bahías de Huatulco, Oaxaca.

Esperamos que su estancia sea placentera y que disfruten este magno evento que la mesa directiva

preparó para Ustedes. Cada año los miembros de la AMIDIQ y estudiantes en el área de Ingeniería

Química, nos reunimos para compartir el avance de nuestros proyectos de investigación y

saludarnos personalmente. El XXXI Encuentro Nacional de la AMIDIQ, se lleva a cabo en un año

especial para nuestro País; El Bicentenario de la Independencia de México y el Centenario de la

Revolución Mexicana, estos dos acontecimientos de gran trascendencia nos permitirán reflexionar

sobre el presente y futuro de la Ingeniería Química. Con este motivo, habrá un foro de docencia

donde se abordaran temas relacionados con nuestra área de desarrollo. Adicionalmente se

impartirán cuatro cursos sobre tópicos de interés para nuestros estudiantes.

En este año se recibieron más de 800 contribuciones, donde se presentarán cerca de 200

trabajos orales y 600 en forma de cartel que se presentarán en tres bloques. Cada año se logran

nuevos records de asistencia, lo que demuestra que la AMIDIQ es un referente nacional de lo que

sucede en docencia e investigación en Ingeniería Química en el país.

DR. AGUSTIN JAIME CASTRO PRESIDENTE AMIDIQ

DR. RUBEN GONZALEZ NUÑEZ VICEPRESIDENTE AMIDIQ

MESA DIRECTIVA 2009 2011

Dr. Agustín Jaime Castro Montoya Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Presidente [email protected]

Dr. Ruben González Núñez Universidad de Guadalajara

Vicepresidente [email protected]

Dr. Miguel Ángel Morales Cabrera

Universidad Veracruzana Secretario

[email protected]

Dr. Juan Gabriel Segovia Hernández Universidad de Guanajuato, Campus Guanajuato

Tesorero [email protected]

Dra. María del Rosario Enríquez Rosado

Universidad del Mar Vocal de Docencia

[email protected]

Dr. Mauricio Sales Cruz Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Cuajimalpa

Vocal de Investigación [email protected]

C O M I T É T É C N I C O AMIDIQ 2010

Dra. Alma Hortensia Serafín Muñoz

Dra. Guadalupe María Guatemala Morales

Dra. Irene Cano Rodríguez

Dr. Agustín Uribe Ramírez

Dr. Alberto Florentino Aguilera Alvarado

Dr. Alberto Ochoa Tapia

Dr. Arturo Jiménez Gutiérrez

Dr. Enrique Arriola Guevara

Dr. Héctor Hernández Escoto

Dr. Ignacio René Galindo Esquivel

Dr. Jorge Ramón Robledo Ortíz

Dr. José Antonio de los Reyes

Dr. José María Ponce Ortega

Dr. Luis Ignacio Salcedo Estrada

Dr. Medardo Serna González

Dr. Pedro Quintana Hernández

Dr. Rafael Maya Yescas

Proceedings of XXXI Encuentro Nacional of AMIDIQ 4 al 7 de Mayo de 2010, Huatulco Oaxaca

© 2010 Academia Mexicana de Investigación y Docencia en Ingeniería Química AMIDIQ

SUGAR-FREE HIBISCUS WATER PRODUCTION: PROCESS DESIGN AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION

S. Cid Ortegaa, A. E. Navarro Frómetaa, M. A. Rostagnob, E. M. López Méndeza, A. Monterrosas Fuentesa

a Universidad Tecnológica de Izúcar de Matamoros. Ingeniería en Procesos Alimentarios. Prolongación Reforma No. 168, Barrio de Santiago Mihuacán. Izúcar de Matamoros, Puebla, México. E-mail: [email protected]

b Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA). Centro para la Calidad de los Alimentos. Soria, España.

Abstract

In order to produce a beverage with improved nutraceutical characteristics compared with those existing in the market and diversify the products offered by the company Integradora Agroindustrial de Chiautla de Tapia S. A. de C. V., a technology to manufacture sugar-free water flavored with hibiscus was developed and its economic evaluation was performed. The best artificial sweetener was canderel (aspartame + acesulfame potassium). The designed process allows yields of 62 bottles of water per kilogram of dried flower with a production cost of $5.12 each. With a commercial price of $8.00 according to a market study, company earnings will be about 55 %. These figures permit to conclude that the designed process allows the obtention of a product with good quality and economically viable for the company. This work was financially supported by FUPPUE.

Keywords: Aqueous extract, Hibiscus Sabdariffa, economic study.

1. Introduction

The beneficial properties of hibiscus and its aqueous extract as well as the presence of important essential trace elements, which have been already studied (Galicia-Flores et al, 2008; Herrera-Arellano et al, 2007; Lee et al, 2009; Márquez et al, 2007; Carvajal-Zarrabal et al, 2005), make the manufacture of derived products, mainly those low in calories, a good alternative for the food industry. They show a sharp increment in the international market, specifically flavored drinks. Moreover, the presence of minerals in processed foods is of great importance, because these trace elements are involved in the respiratory, gastrointestinal, autonomic and muscular, as regulators and balancing agents. Figure 1 Experiments for process design.

4947 © AMIDIQ



2. Methodology

Process design for the obtainment of the sugar-free hibiscus water was made through the experiments depicted in figure 1, evaluating sugar cane and three artificial sweeteners: Canderel (aspartame + acesulfame potassium), Splenda (sucralose) and Sweet Low (saccharin). Concentrations of the artificial sweeteners were selected according to the maximum acceptable daily intake (ADI), established by FAO and WHO (IFIC, 2009). Physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics of the beverages were determined accordingly Mexican standards. The extraction process was evaluated by quantifying the concentration of trace elements in an AAE Avanta 932 (GBC Analytical) by routine procedures and determination of anthocyanins content according to the pH differential method of AOAC (AOAC, 2005). The sensorial evaluations were performed using a structured hedonic scale of acceptance (Ramírez and Olguín, 1998; Pedrero and Pangborn, 1997). The economic evaluation was conducted through the determination of production costs as well as the estimation of economic and financial indicators (Gallardo, 1998): Break Point (BP), cost/benefit ratio (RC/B), Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR).

3. Results and Discussion

The results (Table 1) showed a high efficiency in the extraction process (95 ± 3%) for K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Co, Mn and Zn concentrations, but not (64 ± 2%) for Na and Cu. The concentration of monomeric anthocyanins for the aqueous extract was 10 mg/L.The sensorial evaluation survey was applied to fifty people for each one of the samples; the results (Figure 2) showed a greater acceptance (86%) for the water with CANDEREL. Microbiological analysis of the samples gave negative results. Physical and chemical characteristics of the water flavored with hibiscus were: pH 2.54±0.04; °Bx 2.0±0.02; acidity (as citric acid) 0.38±0.01% and approximately 5 mg of anthocyanins by bottle (500 ml).

Figure 2 Sensory evaluation results.

Table 2 Results of the microbiological tests carried out on the aqueous extract and hibiscus water. Sample Analysis Results

Hibiscus extract (Monitoring for 3 weeks)Aerobic mesophilic bacteriab.Molds and yeastsa.Total coliforms and faecalc.

<10 UFC/ml

Sugar free hibiscus waterSamples with Sugar caneSamples with Canderel (Monitoring for 3 months)Samples with SplendaSamples with Sweet Low

Aerobic mesophilic bacteriab.Molds and yeastsa.Total coliforms and faecalc.

<10 UFC/ml

aNOM-111-SSA1-1994, bNOM-092-SSA1-1994, cNOM-181-SSA1-1998 informative appendix B. d NOM-113-SSA1-1994.UFC = Colony Forming Units.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PEO

PLE

(%)

ACCEPTANCE SCALE

Sugar cane

Canderel

Splenda

Sweet Low

4948 © AMIDIQ



Table 1 Mineral content in Hibiscus flower, Aqueous extract, and flower after the extraction (residue).

With these results the process flow chart for sugar-free hibiscus water production in the company was established as shown in figure 3. Yields obtained with this technology were around 62 bottles (500 ml) of water per kilogram of dried flower. Production costs for water were $5.12 considering that the company processes 200 kilogram per month of dried flower (Table 3). According to the market research conducted (figure 4), the commercial price of the product was established as $8.00. With this price the calculated earnings will be 55%. A comparison was made between the hibiscus water that we development (Roja Mixteca) with other of recognized trademark. It uses a scale of acceptance, which was applied to 52 people. The results are shown in the graph of figure 5, as can be seen these are conclusive, 85% of people (44) preferred Roja Mixteca and only 8 people do not like it.

Figure 3 Process flow chart.

According to the income and outcome projection the winnings would be taken in the first year of operation (Table 4 and figure 6). The profitability indicators were: BP = $ 445,004.52 (55,626 bottles), RC/B = 1.56 (Table 5), NPV = $ 30, 836.21 and an IRR = 81% (Table 6). According to the results, we conclude that the product is economically viable for the company.

4949 © AMIDIQ



Figure 4 Market research results. Figure 5 Results compared with commercial hibiscus water.

Table 3 Budget the cost of production for sugar free hibiscus water.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

$10.00 $8.00 $7.50 $7.00 $6.50 $6.00

PEO

PLE

(%)

PRICE (Mexican pesos)

30

2 2

9

2

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Roja Mixteca Commercial Water

PEO

PLE

(%)

Sugar-Free Hibiscus water

44

8

85

15

CONCEPT1 2 3 4 5

Raw Material $279,386.88 $349,233.60 $419,080.32 $488,927.04 $558,773.76Hibiscus Flower (kg) 2,400.00 3,000.0 3,600.0 4,200.0 4,800.0

Purified water (L) 60,264.00 75,330.00 90,396.00 105,462.00 120,528.00

Sweetener (kg) 752.93 941.16 1,129.39 1,317.62 1,505.86

Sodium benzoate (kg) 32.74 40.92 49.10 57.29 65.47

Direct labor1 $20,832.00 $27,081.60 $35,206.08 $45,767.90 $59,498.28

Indirect labor1 $14,880.00 $19,344.00 $25,147.20 $32,691.36 $42,498.77Indirect Materials $218,140.80 $272,676.00 $327,311.20 $381,746.40 $436,281.60

Primary packaging (bottle + cover) 148,800.00 186,000.00 223,300.00 260,400.00 297,600.00

Tags 62,496.00 78,120.00 93,744.00 109,368.00 124,992.00

Secondary packaging 6,844.80 8,556.00 10,267.20 11,978.40 13,689.60

Cost of Inputs 7,440.00 9,300.00 11,160.00 13,020.00 14,880.00Electric Power

Others3 $166,656.00 $233,318.40 $308,105.28 $390,079.20 $479,136.00

Maintenance costs1 $4,761.60 $6,190.08 $8,047.10 $10,461.24 $13,599.61

Depreciation and amortization1,2 $49,104.00 $63,835.20 $82,985.76 $107,881.49 $140,245.93Production Costs $761,201.28 $980,978.88 $1,217,042.94 $1,470,574.63 $1,744,913.94Production volume (bottles 500 ml) 148,800.00 186,000.00 223,200.00 260,400.00 297,600.00

Unit Cost $5.12 $5.27 $5.45 $5.65 $5.861 It is considered an annual inflation of 30%.2 Depreciation of equipment 10%.3 Income Tax (ISR), 28%.

YEAR PERIOD

4950 © AMIDIQ



Table 4 Projection of revenues and expenditures to 5 years.

Table 5 Cost/benefit ratio for hibiscus water.

Table 6 Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return.

YEARCONCEPT

Production Capacity1 148800 186000 223200 260400 297600

Annual Income2 $1,190,400.00 $1,581,000.00 $2,008,800.00 $2,473,800.00 $2,976,000.00Fixed Costs $256,233.60 $349,769.28 $459,491.42 $586,881.19 $734,978.58Variable Costs $504,967.68 $631,209.60 $757,451.52 $883,693.44 $1,009,935.36Total costs $761,201.28 $980,978.88 $1,216,942.94 $1,470,574.63 $1,744,913.94Operating Income $429,198.72 $600,021.12 $791,857.06 $1,003,225.37 $1,231,086.06

Credit payment3

Net income $429,198.72 $600,021.12 $791,857.06 $1,003,225.37 $1,231,086.06Break Point (%) 37.4 36.8 36.7 36.9 37.4Economic Break Point $445,004.52 $582,218.17 $737,625.36 $913,037.35 $1,112,525.10Productive Break Point 55626 68496 81958 96109 1112531 Number of bottles (PET 500 ml).2 Considering an annual increase in the selling price other than second year of 6.25%.3 Considering an annual rate of 28%.

51 2 3 4

CONCEPT1 2 3 4 5

Raw Material $279,386.88 $349,233.60 $419,080.32 $488,927.04 $558,773.76

Direct labor1 $20,832.00 $27,081.60 $35,206.08 $45,767.90 $59,498.28

Indirect labor1 $14,880.00 $19,344.00 $25,147.20 $32,691.36 $42,498.77Indirect Materials $218,140.80 $272,676.00 $327,311.20 $381,746.40 $436,281.60Cost of Inputs $7,440.00 $9,300.00 $11,160.00 $13,020.00 $14,880.00

Others3 $166,656.00 $233,318.40 $308,105.28 $390,079.20 $479,136.00

Maintenance costs1 $4,761.60 $6,190.08 $8,047.10 $10,461.24 $13,599.61

Depreciation and amortization1,2 $49,104.00 $63,835.20 $82,985.76 $107,881.49 $140,245.93Production Costs $761,201.28 $980,978.88 $1,217,042.94 $1,470,574.63 $1,744,913.94Production volume (bottles 500 ml) 148,800.00 186,000.00 223,200.00 260,400.00 297,600.00Unit production cost $5.12 $5.27 $5.45 $5.65 $5.86Unit Cost of sales $8.00 $8.50 $9.00 $9.50 $10.00Ingresos Anuales $1,190,400.00 $1,581,000.00 $2,008,800.00 $2,473,800.00 $2,976,000.00COST/BENEFIT RATIO 1.56 1.61 1.65 1.68 1.711 It is considered an annual inflation of 30%.2 Depreciation of equipment 10%.3 Income Tax (ISR), 28%.

YEAR PERIOD

Year period 0 1 2 3 4 5Initial fixed investment $487,230.00Salvage valueAnnual income $1,190,400.00 $1,581,000.00 $2,008,800.00 $2,473,800.00 $2,976,000.00Expenditures $761,201.28 $980,978.88 $1,217,042.94 $1,470,574.63 $1,744,913.94Net Flows -$487,230.00 $296,766.72 $411,193.92 $541,490.34 $688,336.30 $849,697.22NPV1 (Net Present Value)IRR (Internal Rate of Return)1Discount rate = 10%

$30,836.2181%

4951 © AMIDIQ



4. Conclusions

It may be concluded that a beverage with important nutritional and good sensory characteristics was obtained. The process developed at the company had the following yields: 62 bottles of water per kilogram of dried flower. The production cost for water was $ 5.12 as the company processed 200 kg / month of hibiscus. According to market research, the commercial price of the product was established as $8.00. With this price the calculated earnings will be 55% and according to the projection of revenues and expenses, earnings will be obtained in the first year of operation. According to the results of the profitability indicators, we conclude that the product is viable.

Figure 6 Break Point for hibiscus water.

References

AOAC, 2005. Total Monomeric Anthocyanin Pigment Content of Fruit Juices, Beverages, Natural Colorants, and Wines. pH Differential Method.

Carvajal-Zarrabal O., S. M. Waliszewski, D. M. Barradas-Dermitz, Z. Orta-Flores, P. M. Hayward-Jones, C. Nolasco-Hipólito, O. Angulo-Guerrero, R. Sánchez-Ricaño, R. M. Infanzón, y P. R. L. Trujillo. 2005. The Consumption of Hibiscus Sabdariffa Dried Calyx Ethanoloic Extract Reduced Lipid Profile in Rats. Plant Foods For Human Nutrition 60: 153-159.

Galicia-Flores, L. A., Y. Salinas-Moreno, B. M. Espinoza-García y C. Sánchez-Feria. 2008. Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura 14 (2): 121-129.

Gallardo, C. J. 1998. Formulación y Evaluación de Proyectos de Inversión. Un enfoque de Sistemas. McGraw-Hill Interamericana S. A. de C. V. México. pp. 54-55, 58-60.

Herrera-Arellano A., J. Miranda-Sánchez, y P. Ávila-Castro. 2007. Planta Med. 73: 6-12.IFIC, 2009. IFIC Review: Low-Calorie Sweeteners and Health. International Food Information Council

Foundation. Washington, DC 20036. 12 p. http://www.foodinsight.orgLee W., Wang C., Chen Y., Hsu J., Cheng S., Chen H., Lee H., 2009. Journal of Agricultural and Food

Chemistry 57 (6): 2206-2210. Márquez, V. R. L., C. de la Rosa T., C. A. Rivero, M. Medina M. 2007. Actividad diurética del

extracto total acuoso de los cálices de Hibiscus sabdariffa L. administrado en ratas albinas variedad Wistar. Scientia et Technica Año XIII, No. 33, 377-381. UTP. ISSN 0122-1701

Pedrero, F. D. y Pangborn, R. M. 1997. Evaluación sensorial de los alimentos. Métodos analíticos. Alambra Mexicana S. A. México. pp. 63-105.

Ramírez, S. A. y Olguín, M. L. 1998. Introducción a la Tecnología de Alimentos. Limusa S. A. México. pp. 127-137.

$0.00

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$3,500,000.00

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

Cos

ts

Units (Bottles 500 ml)

Total costSales income

Variable costs

Fixed costs

Earnings

Loses

4952 © AMIDIQ

SUGAR-FREE HIBISCUS WATER PRODUCTION-AMIDIQ 2010

Documents

Transcript of SUGAR-FREE HIBISCUS WATER PRODUCTION-AMIDIQ 2010