Journal of O il Palm R esearch 22 (december 2010)

904 

# LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL ( p art 3a)

VIJAYA SUBRAMANIAM*; CHOO YUEN MAY*; HALIMAH MUHAMMAD*; ZULKIFLI HASHIM*; YEW AI TAN* and PUAH CHIEW WEI* J ournal of Oil Palm Research Vol. 22 December 2010 p. 904-912

ABSTRACT The present reality is that we have to deal with environmental deterioration. Mitigation using the life cycle assessment (LCA) concept must be viewed as an investment for our future generations, if not for ourselves, because efforts in mitigation of environmental degradation will translate into a concerted effort to combat the many environmental impacts resulting from mismanagement of natural resources and energy. The oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFB) are a unique crop product. Two types of oil can be obtained from this raw material. Crude palm oil (CPO) is obtained from the mesocarp while palm kernel oil is obtained from the kernel within the nut. CPO is processed at palm oil mills, and the kernels which are removed from the cracked nuts is a by-product at the palm oil mills as has been discussed in the Part 3 article. These kernels are then transported by trucks to kernel-crushing plants that process the kernels into crude palm kernel oil (CPKO). The objective of this study is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the production of CPKO, and to evaluate opportunities to overcome the potential impacts. This study has a cradle-to-gate system boundary. This resulting article is part of LCA of the whole palm oil supply chain which is linked to the upstream LCA for nursery (Part 1), plantation (Part 2) and palm oil mill (Part 3). The article examines the life cycle impactassessment (LCIA) of the production of 1 t of CPKO at the kernel-crushing plant. For this study, six kernelcrushing plants were chosen for their locations which were well-distributed all over Peninsular Malaysia. Five kernel-crushing plants were located near the ports, while the remaining plant was located right beside a palm oil mill. This selection strategy was carried out to examine the different scenarios that exist in Malaysia, and also to ensure that they were representative of the scenarios of all kernel-crushing plants in Malaysia. Inventory data collection consisted of inputs and outputs of materials and energy. LCIA was carried out using the Simapro software version 7.1, and the Eco-indicator 99 methodology was selected. Based on the results, the main impacts from upstream activities were from fertilizer production and application, and biogas emissions. The impacts directly associated with the production of CPKO were mainly from the transportation of palm kernels from the palm oil mills to the kernel-crushing plants and from the electricity consumption from the grid for the processing of the CPKO. The best scenario for the production of CPKO with the least environmental impact was when the kernel-crushing plant was integrated with a palm oil mill which captured the biogas.

* Malaysian Palm Oil Board,

P. O. Box 10620, 50720 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: vijaya@ mpob.gov.my Keywords: life cycle assessment, life cycle impact assessment, kernel-crushing plant, palm kernel oil, palm kernel.

Date received: 6 October 2010; Sent for revision: 10 October 2010; Received in final form: 22 October 2010; Accepted: 25 October 2010.905 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL ( p art 3a )

INTRODUCTION

The present reality is that we have to deal with environmental deterioration. Mitigation using the LCA concept must be viewed as an investment for our future generations, if not for ourselves, because efforts in mitigation of environmental degradation will translate into a concerted effort to combat the many environmental impacts resulting from mismanagement of natural resources and energy. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product or process throughout its entire life cycle (SETAC, 1993). LCA has become a common environmental management tool and a good analytical method for assessing and optimizing the environmental quality of a system over its whole life cycle (Stalmans et al. , 1995). Palm kernel oil exports increased by 6.7% from 2008 to 1.12 million tonnes in 2009. USA was the major export market for palm kernel oil at 0.23 million tonnes, followed by China, P R at 0.19 million tonnes, the European Union (EU) at 0.10 million tonnes and Japan at 0.08 million tonnes. Exports of palm kernel cake increased by 5.2% from 2008 to 2.38 million tonnes. The major palm kernel cake export markets were the EU at 1.37 million tonnes, South Korea at 0.35 million tonnes and New Zealand at 0.32 million tonnes (Basri, 2010). The oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFB) are a unique crop product. Two types of oil can be obtained from this raw material. The palm fruit is drupe, oval in shape, and contains a kernel which is the seed (nut). The kernel is surrounded by the fruit wall made up of a hard shell (endocarp), fibrous fruit pulp or oil-bearing tissue (mesocarp) and the skin as shown in Figure 1 (Hamdan et al. , 2000).Within the nut is the kernel. As shown in the crosssection of the oil palm fruitlet in Figure 1 , crude palm oil (CPO) is obtained from the mesocarp while crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) is obtained from the kernel within the nut. CPO is processed at the palm oil mills and the kernels that are removed from the cracked nuts is a by-product at the palm oil mills. As described in the Part 3 article on LCA of the production of CPO, palm kernels which are a by-product of the production of CPO are stored atthe palm oil mill to be transported to the kernelcrushing plants. The palm kernels are transported to the kernel-crushing plants using 16-t trucks. The trucks deliver the palm kernels to the loading ramp at the kernel-crushing plant. The flow chart of the kernel-crushing process is shown in Figure 2. The palm kernels are cleaned and then processed. CPKO is obtained by a simple mechanical pressing method using a continuous screw press, commonly known as an expeller. The expeller consists basically of a perforated cylindrical cage in which runs a worm or screw. The discharge end of the cage is fitted with an adjustable cone which restricts the discharge opening of the cage. The rotation of the worm transports the meal towards the outlet end of the perforated cage, and the outlet is restricted by the cone. This results in pressure building up in the cage, thus causing the oil to be squeezed out of the meal. The internal pressure in the cage is regulated by adjustments to the outlet cone. The extracted oil flows through the perforations in the cage, whilst the solid matter or cake is discharged from the opening around the cone. When efficiently operated, the residual oil in the palm kernel cake is between 5% and 6% (Ma, 1994). All kernel-crushing plants in Malaysia use this double-press mechanical pressing method except for one crushing plant located in Pasir Gudang that uses the chemical extraction method. This study focused on the plants that use mechanical pressing only.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS

The objectives or goals of this study were to: •	 identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the production of CPKO; and
•	 to use this assessment for evaluating opportunities to overcome the potential impacts.

SCOPE/SYSTEM BOUNDARY

The LCI data presented in this article have a gate-togate system boundary ( Tables 3 and 4 ). The starting point is at the palm oil mills where the palm kernels are collected and transported to the kernel-crushing plants, and the end point is the production of CPKO at the kernel-crushing plants. LCIA is carried out for a cradle-to-gate system boundary as shown in Figure 3 which includes LCI from Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 articles. This article is linked to LCA of Figure 1. Cross-section of an oil palm fruitlet.Journal of O il Palm R esearch 22 (december 2010)

906 Figure 2. Flow chart for processing of crude palm kernel oil (CPKO).

Figure 3. System boundary of life cycle inventory (LCI) for crude palm kernel oil (CPKO). Palm oil mill System boundary

**Legend:** CPKO: crude palm kernel oil PK: palm kernel

**CPKO**

**Palm kernel cake or palm**  **kernel meal T**  **ransportation of PK to kernel**  **crushing plant Diesel** 

**Loading ramp for palm kernels at**  **kernel-crushing plant**
**Electricity from grid** 

**Cleaning**

**Filter press Screw pressing** 

**1 st**  **pressing**

**Screw pressing**

**2 nd**  **pressing Coarse screen filter**  **PK Collection of**  **PK from the mill** 907 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL ( p art 3a )

oil palm seedling production (Part 1), LCA of FFB production (Part 2) and LCA of CPO production (Part 3). The functional unit for this study is 1 t of CPKO produced at the kernel-crushing plant.

METHODOLOGY

Inventory Data

Kernel-crushing plants are normally located near the ports to enable easy access to export facilities for both CPKO and the palm kernel cake. Inventorydata were collected directly from the kernelcrushing plants through questionnaires which were developed specifically for data collection, and also through actual on-site measurements and quantification. Compliance with geographical coverage for data collection was adhered to by collecting data from different regions in Malaysia. The data validation procedure was carried out by on-site visits, on-site measurements, communication and discussions via e-mail and telephone, and interviews to verify the reliability of collected data. For this study, six kernel-crushing plantswere chosen for their locations which were welldistributed all over Peninsular Malaysia. Five of the kernel-crushing plants were located near the ports, namely, the Klang Port in the mid region, the Pasir Gudang Port in the south and the Kuantan Port in Pahang on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The remaining kernel-crushing plant was located right beside a palm oil mill. This selection was done to examine the different scenarios that exist in Malaysia and also to ensure that they wererepresentative of the various scenarios of kernelcrushing plants in Malaysia. In this study, all processes were considered relevant unless excluded based on the exclusion criteria shown in Table 1 . In general, processes are excluded if they are judged to have an insignificant contribution (< 3%) to the overall environmental load; if representative data for the processes are extremely difficult or impractical to gather; and if the processes are clearly part of a separate product system. Data on all capital goods were collected from the kernel-crushing plants through actual visits and information from the kernel-crushing plants except where stated. The use of capital goods was obtained by estimating the total stock of capital goods divided by the amount of CPKO produced in the year 2008, followed by multiplying the estimate with a replacement factor expressing the fraction of the goods replaced each year. Based on the data collected from the six kernel-crushing plants with CPKO processing capacities ranging from small to large, the average total palm kernel processed was assumed to be 21 600 t yr -1 . The capital goods involved in the production of CPKO are shown in Table 4

. Allocation of Co-products

More often than not, a system will yield more than one product. In such cases, allocation must be

TABLE 1. SYSTEM BOUNDARY DEFINITION CRITERIA

Processing category Included Excluded

Insignificant environmental impact Difficult to obtain representative data Part of a different

system Not directly relevant to scope and goals of study
Production, maintenance and replacement of capital equipment 

- - - -

Transportation of capital goods

-   

- Extraction of crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) from palm kernels 

- - - -

Electricity generation 

- - - - Transportation of palm kernels to the kernel-crushing plants 

- - - -

Capital goods 

- - - - Exporting of palm kernel cake as animal feed - - - 

-

Refining of CPKO

- - - 

-Journal of O il Palm R esearch 22 (december 2010)

908 made for input and output flows of each product. Allocation was carried out upstream at the palm oil mill where the palm kernels were produced. In view of this, the LCI data for the production of palm kernels shared the inputs and outputs of the production of CPO at the palm oil mill. In the kernel-crushing plants for the production of CPKO, the by-product is palm kernel cake or palm kernel meal. Weight allocation was carried out at the kernel-crushing plant between CPKO and palm kernel cake. The allocation between CPKO and palm kernel cake was 47:53.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

LCIA was conducted using the SimaPro software version 7.1 and the Eco-indicator 99 methodology. LCIA was conducted for two scenarios as follows: Scenario 1: a kernel-crushing plant located near a port; uses electricity from the grid for processing; with biogas emissions at the palm oil mill. Scenario 2: a kernel-crushing plant located beside a palm oil mill; uses the renewable energy from the mill for processing; with biogas capture at the palm oil mill.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Life Cycle Inventory

As discussed in the Part 3 article, CPKO is not the only product produced at the kernel-crushing plant. The by-product of the crushing process is palm kernel cake. In view of this, weight allocation was conducted to allocate part of the inputs and outputs to palm kernel cake. Table 2 shows the LCI data for 1 t CPKO produced at the kernel-crushing plants located nearer to the ports, while Table 3 shows the LCI data for 1 t CPKO from a kernel-crushing plant that was located just beside a palm oil mill but far away from the ports. The selected crushing plants all had identical processing methods and conditions. These crushing plants were typical of the majority of the crushing plants in Malaysia. All the kernel-crushing plants used the double squeezing method to press out as much CPKO as possible. Based on Tables 2 and 3 , one of the environmental inputs was the energy consumption for the whole system for processing of palm kernels into CPKO. The energy source was the electricity supply from the national grid. On average, about 448.6 MJ electricity was consumed for every tonne of CPKO produced. The kernel-crushing plant ( Table 3 ) which was located beside the palm oil mill also practiced processing methods identical with the other crushing plants, but it had one big difference whichwas the source of energy. The other five kernelcrushing plants used only one energy source for processing, which was electricity from the national grid supply. However, the kernel-crushing plant located beside the palm oil mill used the electricity supply from the neighbouring mill. In other words, the palm oil mill generated electricity for its own milling process as well as for the kernel-crushing plant nearby.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The characterization and weighted results for both the scenarios were for the system boundary which started from the nursery right up to the production of CPKO at the kernel-crushing plant. Land occupation by the kernel-crushing plant was not included in LCIA for both scenarios. TABLE 2. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1 t CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL (CPKO) FOR FIVE KERNEL-CRUSHING PLANTS LOCATED NEAR PORTS (allocated)

Parameter Amount
Palm kernels (t) 1.07 Electricity from grid (MJ) 448.6 Transportation of kernels (tkm) 149.40 Palm kernel cake (t) 1.12

TABLE 3. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1 t CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL (CPKO) FOR ONE KERNEL-CRUSHING PLANT LOCATED BESIDE A PALM OIL MILL FAR FROM THE PORTS (allocated)

Parameter Amount Palm kernels (t) 1.07 Electricity from grid (MJ) 44.0 Electricity generated at palm oil mill (MJ) 421.30

Transportation of kernels (tkm) 2.24 Palm kernel cake (t) 1.12

TABLE 4. TOTAL CAPITAL GOODS AT KERNEL-CRUSHING PLANT (average of six plants, no allocation)

Weight (t) Use of capital goods (kg t -1 CPKO) Buildings, steel 490 2.57 Buildings, concrete 1 370 7.19 Kernel plant machinery 505 5.30
Tractors 6 0.08
Lorries 2 0.03909 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL ( p art 3a )

Pt

Carcinogens Resp. organics Resp. inorganics Climate change Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity Acidification/ eutrophication Land use Minerals Fossil fuels 025

020

015

010

05

00

Analyzing 1 t CPKO (No LUC with biogas near ports) allocated Sept 2010, Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.03 / Europe EI 99 H/A/ weighting.

CPKO (No LUC with Biogas near ports) allocated Sept 2010 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysia T ruck 16t B250 %

Carcinogens Resp. organics Resp. inorganics Climate change Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity Acidification/ eutrophication Land use Minerals Fossil fuel s 0120

0100

080

060

040

020

00

Analyzing 1 t CPKO (No LUC with biogas near ports) allocated Sept 2010, Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.03 / Europe EI 99 H/A/ characterization.

CPKO (No LUC with Biogas near ports) allocated Sept 2010 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysi a T ruck 16t B250 Scenario 1

LCIA was conducted for 1 t CPKO produced at the kernel-crushing plant. The system boundary included:

•	 nursery; •	 plantation (continued land use); •	 palm oil mill (with allocation to palm kernels and shells, with biogas); and •	 kernel-crushing plant (located near a port with allocation to palm kernel cake). The characterization weighted results are shown in Figures 4 and 5 , respectively. The weighted results show that the most significant impact was from fossil fuels which showed the highest impact followed by the respiratory inorganics and climate change impact categories. The impact from upstream was from the production of palm kernels. This included the impacts from the plantation and the palm oil mill. In the plantation, the impact was caused by the production and application of fertilizers. At the palm oil mill, it was caused by the biogas emissions from the POME ponds. The other impacts for the production of CPKO came from the transportation ofthe palm kernels from the palm oil mill to the kernelcrushing plant, and the electricity consumption

Figure 4. Characterization for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of 1 t crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) – continued land use, biogas, plant located near port.

Figure 5. Weighting for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of 1 t crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) – continued land use, biogas, plant located near port. CPKO (No LUC with Biogas near ports) allocated Sept 2010 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysi a T ruck 16t B250

CPKO (No LUC with Biogas near ports) allocated Sept 2010 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysi a T ruck 16t B250Journal of O il Palm R esearch 22 (december 2010)

910 %

Carcinogens Resp. organics Resp. inorganics Climate change Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity Acidification/ eutrophication Land use Minerals Fossil fuel s 0120

0100

080

060

040

020

00

Analyzing 1 t CPKO (No LUC with Biogas capture near mill) allocated Sept 2010, Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.03 / Europe EI 99 H/A/ characterization.
CPKO (No LUC with biogas capture near mill) allocated Sept 2010 Electricity generated at POM T ruck 16t B250 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas capture) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysia from the grid for processing under the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics and climate change impact categories. The impact from transportation was mainly from the diesel consumption by the trucks or lorries. Due to the distance between the palm oil mill and the kernel-crushing plant, transporting the kernels which used fossil fuel caused the potential impact under fossil fuels. The kernel-crushing plants in Malaysia are situated nearer to the ports for easier access to facilities for exporting their CPKO and palm kernel cake. This is the reason for the distance between the palm oil mills and the kernel-crushing plants. The palm oil mills, on the other hand, are normally located nearer the oil palm plantations. The other parameter causing the impact was the electricity consumption from the national grid. Again being a fossil fuel-based energy source, this also contributed as an impact under the fossil fuels impact category. Most kernel-crushing plants in Malaysia use predominantly electricity from the national grid fortheir processing. However, there are some kernelcrushing plants that use alternative energy sources. Although this is quite rare, there are crushing plants that are located right beside the palm oil mills. This type of kernel-crushing plant uses the electricity generated at the palm oil mill for its processing. When there is a shortage of generated electricity or shut-down of the palm oil mill, then the crushing plant uses the grid supply as back-up. In order to compare the differences between a kernel-crushing plant which uses electricity from the grid and is located near a port with a kernel-crushing plant which uses electricity from the neighbouring palm oil mill and is located near the mill, LCIA for the latter type of kernel-crushing plant was conducted, and the results are shown as Scenario 2. Scenario 2

LCIA was conducted for 1 t CPKO produced at the kernel-crushing plant. The system boundary included:

•	 nursery; •	 plantation (continued land use); •	 palm oil mill (with allocation to palm kernels and shells, with biogas captured); and •	 kernel-crushing plant (located near a palm oil mill with allocation to palm kernel cake). The characterization weighted results are shown in Figures 6 and 7 , respectively.The weighted results show that when the kernelcrushing plant was located either within the palm oil mill compound or nearby, the impact from diesel consumption was almost negligible. The potential impact from electricity consumption from the grid also became very small. As the kernel-crushing plant used electricity which was generated at the palm oil mill, the use of fossil-based energy was displaced. As discussed in the Part 3 article, in the palm oil mills, pressed mesocarp fibre and shells are used as fuel in the boiler and are burnt to produce heat to convert water into steam. This steam is then used to run a turbine which generates electricity for the milling process and the whole mill compound. The pressed mesocarp fibre and shells are actually wastes from FFB which are recycled as boiler fuel. The pressed mesocarp fibre is the waste after oil has been pressed out of the mesocarp of the fruit. The shell is the outer layer of the nut which when cracked produces the kernel and shell. However, the kernel-crushing plant still has to consume some electricity from the national grid supply when the palm oil mill is not processing. It should be noted

Figure 6. Characterization for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of 1 t crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) – continued land use, biogas, plant located near mill. CPKO (No LUC with biogas capture near mill) allocated Sept 2010 Electricity generated at POM T ruck 16t B250 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas capture) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysia911 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE PALM KERNEL OIL ( p art 3a )

that the amount in such a situation is very low. The impact under climate change was also reduced due to the capture of biogas at the palm oil mill. What was left were only the impacts from upstream activities in the plantation. This result shows the best scenario for the production of CPKO, i.e . a kernel-crushing plant should be integrated with a palm oil mill which captures its biogas, and at the same time gets FFB from a plantation that has been cultivating oil palm for 50 years or more so that there is no land use change or continued land use change. Again the impacts from capital goods were negligible in both scenarios.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study are based on the Eco-indicator 99 methodology, and the system boundary was from nursery to kernel-crushing plant with weight allocation. Based on the results, the main impacts from upstream were from fertilizer production and application and from biogas emissions. The impacts directly associated with the production of CPKO were mainly from the transportation of palm kernels from the palm oil mill to the kernel-crushing plant, and from the electricity consumption sourced from the grid for the processing of CPKO. The best scenario for the production of CPKO with the least environmental impact is when the kernel-crushing plant is integrated with a palm oil mill which captures the biogas and which gets FFB from a plantation that has been cultivating oil palm for 50 years or more, i.e. practicing continued land use from oil palm to oil palm with no change.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank the palm oil millers for allowing them to conduct the study at the mills.

REFERENCES

BASRI, W (2010). Overview of Malaysian oil palm industry 2009. MPOB, Bangi, Malaysia. p. 1-3. h ttp://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/ Overview_2009.pd f , accesses on 16 August 2008.

BASRI, W; CHOO, Y M; LIM, W S; LOH, S K; CHOW, M C; MA, A N; RAVI, M; MOHAMAD, S; NASRIN, A B; VIJAYA, S; AZRI, S; ASYRAF, K; MUZZAMMIL, N and NOOR FAIZAH, M (2008). Biogas Utilization in Palm Oil Mills . MPOB, Bangi. p. 8-9.

HAMDAN, M; MAZNAH, M; CHEW, T Y; FADZIL, A; SYED ANUAR, S S M and WAN SITI, N W A H (2000). Feasibility Study on Grid Connected Power Generation Using Biomass Cogeneration Technology. A study funded by the Malaysian Electricity Supply Industry Trust Fund. Pusat Tenaga Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Figure 7. Weighting for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of 1 t crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) – continued land use, biogas, plant located near mill. Pt

Carcinogens Resp. organics Resp. inorganics Climate change Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity Acidification/ eutrophication Land use Minerals Fossil fuel s 018

016

014

012

010

08

06

04

02

00

Analyzing 1 t CPKO (No LUC with biogas capture near mill) allocated Sept 2010, Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.03 / Europe EI 99 H/A/ weighting.

CPKO (No LUC with biogas capture near mill) allocated Sept 2010 Electricity generated at POM
Tr uck 16t B250 Palm kernel (No LUC biogas capture) Sept 2010 Electricity Malaysia CPKO (No LUC with biogas capture near mill) allocated Sept 2010 Electricity generated at POM T ruck 16t B250 Palm kernel (No LUC with biogas capture) Sept 2010 Electricity MalaysiaJournal of O il Palm R esearch 22 (december 2010)

912 MA, A N (1994). Extraction of crude palm oil and palm kernel oil. Selected Readings on Palm Oil and its Uses

. PORIM, Bangi. p. 30-31.

SETAC (1993). Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice . SETAC Publications, Brussels. 2
pp. STALMANS, M H; BERENBOLD, J; BERNA, L; CAVALI, A; DILLARSTONE, M; FRANKE, F; HIRSINGER, D; JANZEN, K; KOSSWIG, D; POSTLETHWAITE, T H; RAPPERT, C; RENTA, D; SCHARER, K P; SCHICK, W; SCHUL, H and VAN SLOTEN, T R (1995). European life-cycle inventory for detergent surfactants production. Tenside Surf. Det., (32) : 84-85.



# Announcement

In response to the numerous requests from the scientific community, academicians, students and readers, MPOB is pleased to announce that the Journal of Oil Palm Research (JOPR) will be published THREE times a year beginning 2010.

Beginning 2010, JOPR is published in April, August and December. The Journal will continue to publish full-length original research papers and scientific review papers on various aspects of oil palm, palm oil and other palms.

As part of our continuous effort to improve the quality and to offer value-added benefits to our valued readers, two new columns have been introduced in JOPR, i.e. Letters to Editor and Short Communications.

Beginning JOPR December 2009, photos that are unique or related to the articles published in JOPR will be used for the cover.

For more information on submission of manuscripts, subscription or advertisement in JOPR, please write to:

Editor-in-Chief Journal of Oil Palm Research P. O. Box 10620 50720 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Tel: 603-8769 4400 Fax: 603-8925 9446 E-mail: pub@mpob.gov.my Website: www.jopr.mpob.gov.my