Case Study: Application of Homogenizing Emulsifiers in Emulsion Product Production
This case study documents the practical application of homogenizing emulsifiers in a production facility focusing on emulsion-based products, covering pre-application challenges, equipment selection logic, commissioning and parameter optimization, long-term operation performance, maintenance practices, and experience summaries. All content is derived from real production data and on-site operation records, aiming to provide actionable references for industry peers facing similar production pain points and equipment upgrade needs.
1. Background of the Production Scenario
The production facility in this case mainly manufactures three categories of emulsion products: low-viscosity moisturizing lotions (viscosity: 3000-7000 mPa·s), medium-viscosity nourishing creams (viscosity: 25000-40000 mPa·s), and high-viscosity barrier ointments (viscosity: 50000-70000 mPa·s). Prior to adopting homogenizing emulsifiers, the facility relied on a combination of traditional paddle mixers and standalone high-pressure homogenizers for production. With the continuous improvement of market quality requirements (such as texture fineness, emulsion stability, and ingredient uniformity) and the expansion of production scale, the original equipment configuration gradually exposed various bottlenecks that restricted production efficiency and product quality.
From the perspective of product quality, the most prominent issues were uneven particle size distribution and poor emulsion stability. The traditional paddle mixer had weak shear capacity, resulting in insufficient mixing of oil and water phases—low-viscosity moisturizing lotions often had visible oil droplets (average particle size: 12-18 μm), leading to a rough application experience; medium and high-viscosity products were prone to delamination after 2-4 months of storage, with the oil phase floating on the surface and the water phase settling at the bottom. Additionally, functional ingredients (such as plant extracts, vitamins, and thickeners) were difficult to disperse uniformly, leading to local agglomeration. For example, the thickener in high-viscosity barrier ointments often formed lumps, resulting in inconsistent product hardness and reduced barrier effect.
In terms of production efficiency, the original process required multiple material transfers and repeated processing, which was time-consuming and labor-intensive. Raw materials were first mixed in a paddle mixer for preliminary blending (40-50 minutes), then transferred to a standalone high-pressure homogenizer for shear treatment (20-30 minutes), and finally moved to a cooling tank for temperature adjustment and secondary stirring (30-40 minutes). A single batch (200L) required a total processing time of 90-120 minutes, with a daily output of only 300-450 kg, which was far from meeting the growing market demand. Moreover, the lack of automatic wall-scraping functionality in the paddle mixer caused significant material adhesion (waste rate: 5-7%), requiring manual scraping after each batch. This not only increased raw material costs but also extended cleaning time (20-30 minutes per batch), further reducing production continuity.
Equipment operation and maintenance also brought many challenges. The standalone high-pressure homogenizer was prone to blockage when processing high-viscosity materials containing solid particles, requiring frequent disassembly and cleaning (2-3 times a week). This not only increased the labor intensity of operators but also disrupted production continuity. The paddle mixer’s temperature control accuracy was poor (fluctuation: ±3-4℃), leading to the inactivation of heat-sensitive ingredients (such as vitamin C and peptides) during mixing, which further compromised product efficacy. Additionally, the open-type mixing process increased the risk of cross-contamination between batches, which was a critical hidden danger for complying with industry quality management standards.
To address these issues, the facility initiated a comprehensive investigation and evaluation of emulsification equipment, focusing on solutions that could simultaneously improve particle size uniformity, enhance emulsion stability, shorten production cycles, and ensure process compliance. After in-depth technical communication with multiple equipment manufacturers and on-site performance tests, homogenizing emulsifiers were identified as the optimal solution. This type of equipment integrates mixing, homogenization, temperature control, wall scraping, and other functions, which can effectively solve the pain points of the original production process.
2. Equipment Selection Logic and Key Considerations
The facility’s equipment selection process was closely based on actual production needs, product characteristics, and long-term operational sustainability, rather than merely pursuing advanced technical indicators. After evaluating multiple models and configurations, three homogenizing emulsifiers (100L, 200L, and 300L) were selected as core production equipment. The key selection criteria are detailed below:
First, homogenization performance and emulsion stability. Given the facility’s strict requirements for particle size uniformity and emulsion stability, the selected homogenizing emulsifiers were required to have strong shear capacity and stable homogenization effect. The equipment adopts a dual-stage homogenizing head (stator-rotor structure) with an adjustable shear gap (0.02-0.08 mm) and a maximum rotor linear speed of 80 m/s, which can effectively reduce the particle size of emulsion products to ≤ 2 μm for low-viscosity lotions and ≤ 5 μm for high-viscosity ointments. This ensures that the oil and water phases are fully mixed, and functional ingredients are uniformly dispersed, thereby improving emulsion stability. Additionally, the equipment is equipped with a frame-type mixing paddle and an automatic wall-scraping paddle (PTFE material, gap with tank wall ≤ 0.5 mm), which can eliminate mixing dead corners and prevent material agglomeration and adhesion.
Second, adaptability to multi-viscosity products. The facility’s product portfolio covers a wide viscosity range (3000-70000 mPa·s), so the equipment must have good adaptability to different material properties. The selected homogenizing emulsifiers feature adjustable homogenizing speeds (2000-15000 rpm) and mixing speeds (10-80 rpm), which can be optimized according to product viscosity: high speeds (12000-15000 rpm) and small shear gaps (0.02-0.04 mm) for low-viscosity lotions, medium speeds (8000-12000 rpm) and moderate shear gaps (0.04-0.06 mm) for medium-viscosity creams, and low to medium speeds (5000-8000 rpm) and larger shear gaps (0.06-0.08 mm) for high-viscosity ointments. The variable-frequency drive system ensures smooth speed adjustment, avoiding material splashing or localized over-shearing.
Third, temperature control accuracy and ingredient protection. Heat-sensitive ingredients are important components of the facility’s products, requiring strict control of processing temperatures (emulsification temperature: 65-80℃, cooling temperature: 20-30℃) and cooling rates to avoid inactivation. The homogenizing emulsifiers are equipped with a jacketed tank structure and a precision temperature control system, with a temperature control range of 20-100℃ and an accuracy of ±0.5℃. The cooling system adopts a circulating water bath with an adjustable cooling rate (2-10℃/h), which can realize rapid yet gentle cooling of materials after emulsification, effectively preserving the activity of heat-sensitive ingredients. The closed tank structure also prevents ingredient oxidation by isolating materials from air during processing.
Fourth, production efficiency and automation level. To reduce processing time and labor intensity, the selected equipment integrates mixing, homogenization, temperature control, wall scraping, and CIP (Clean-in-Place) cleaning functions, eliminating the need for material transfers and secondary processing. The PLC control system supports storage of up to 60 sets of formula parameters, enabling one-key startup and automatic process control—operators only need to monitor equipment operation and confirm material feeding and discharging. The CIP system includes 360° rotating cleaning nozzles and a dedicated cleaning liquid circulation loop, which can complete the cleaning process in 10-15 minutes per batch, significantly reducing manual cleaning workload and ensuring no cleaning dead corners.
Fifth, compliance and operational safety. The facility’s products are sold in both domestic and international markets, requiring compliance with GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice), FDA (Food and Drug Administration) food contact material standards, and CE (Conformité Européenne) certification. The selected homogenizing emulsifiers use 316L stainless steel for all material-contacting parts (surface roughness Ra ≤ 0.4 μm), which has good corrosion resistance and meets the safety and hygiene requirements of the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries. The equipment is equipped with multiple safety protection functions, including overload protection, over-temperature protection, pressure relief protection, and emergency stop, ensuring safe and compliant operation. Additionally, the closed processing system reduces the risk of cross-contamination between batches, facilitating batch traceability and quality control.
Sixth, stability and maintenance convenience. The key components of the equipment (homogenizing head, mixing paddle, sealing system) are designed for durability and easy maintenance. The stator and rotor of the homogenizing head are detachable, making it convenient for cleaning and replacement; the sealing system uses imported perfluoroelastomer O-rings, which have a long service life and good sealing performance. The equipment’s structure is optimized for accessibility, allowing maintenance personnel to quickly inspect and replace vulnerable parts (such as filters and sealing rings) without disassembling the entire system, thereby reducing downtime and maintenance costs.
3. Equipment Commissioning and Parameter Optimization
After the homogenizing emulsifiers were delivered and installed, a joint team consisting of equipment manufacturer technicians and the facility’s production and technical personnel conducted a 5-day commissioning process. The goal was to verify equipment performance, optimize process parameters for each product type, and ensure that the equipment operation was consistent with production requirements. The commissioning process included seven key stages, with strict acceptance criteria for each step:
Stage 1: Idle operation test (1 day). The team started each component (homogenizing motor, mixing motor, wall-scraping motor, temperature control system, and CIP system) separately and ran them in idle mode for 30 minutes per component. Key inspection items included noise level (≤ 75 dB), vibration amplitude (≤ 0.1 mm/s), rotation direction consistency, and speed stability (fluctuation ≤ 3 rpm). No abnormal noise, vibration, or speed deviation was observed, confirming that all components operated normally.
Stage 2: Leakage and pressure test (0.5 days). The tank cover was sealed, and compressed air was injected into the tank to test the airtightness of the equipment. The test results showed that the tank pressure could be maintained at 0.1 MPa for 30 minutes with no pressure drop, indicating no leakage in the tank body, pipelines, or sealing components. This ensured the safety and stability of the equipment during closed processing.
Stage 3: Temperature control test (0.5 days). Clean water (50% of the equipment’s effective volume) was injected into the tank, and the temperature was set to 80℃ (standard emulsification temperature for high-viscosity ointments). After 30 minutes of heat preservation, the temperature fluctuation was ±0.3℃, which met the required accuracy range. The cooling system was then activated to cool the water from 80℃ to 25℃ at a set rate of 7℃/h; the actual cooling rate was 6.9℃/h, with an error of ≤ 0.1℃/h, confirming that the temperature control system could reliably maintain processing temperatures and cooling rates.
Stage 4: Mixing and homogenization performance test (1 day). Simulated materials (consistent with the facility’s product viscosity and composition) were used to test the equipment’s mixing uniformity and shear performance. For low-viscosity simulated lotion (5000 mPa·s), the homogenizing speed was set to 12000 rpm, mixing speed to 40 rpm, and shear gap to 0.03 mm. After 20 minutes of processing, the particle size was measured at 1.5 μm, and the material was uniformly mixed with no visible agglomeration. For high-viscosity simulated ointment (60000 mPa·s), the homogenizing speed was set to 6000 rpm, mixing speed to 60 rpm, shear gap to 0.07 mm, and wall-scraping paddle speed to 30 rpm. After 30 minutes of processing, the particle size was 4.2 μm, and the material adhered to the tank wall was fully scraped off, confirming that the equipment could effectively handle multi-viscosity materials.
Stage 5: CIP cleaning test (0.5 days). The full CIP cleaning process (pre-rinsing with clean water for 5 minutes, detergent cleaning for 15 minutes, rinsing with clean water for 10 minutes, hot air drying for 10 minutes) was performed. After cleaning, the tank inner wall, homogenizing head, mixing paddle, and feeding/discharging ports were inspected for residue. The conductivity of the tank inner wall was ≤ 10 μS/cm, and no material residue or cleaning agent residue was detected, confirming that the CIP system could ensure thorough cleaning and meet hygiene requirements.
Stage 6: Product simulation test and parameter optimization (1 day). Small-batch production simulations were conducted using the facility’s actual raw materials and formulas for each product type. Parameters were adjusted based on product quality test results (particle size, emulsion stability, texture, and ingredient uniformity) to determine the optimal operating parameters, as detailed below:
1. Low-viscosity moisturizing lotion (main ingredients: hyaluronic acid, glycerin, aloe vera extract, jojoba oil):
- Initial parameters: Homogenizing speed 10000 rpm, mixing speed 35 rpm, shear gap 0.04 mm, emulsification temperature 70℃, cooling rate 8℃/h.
- Issues identified: Minor oil droplets (particle size: 2.2 μm) and uneven distribution of hyaluronic acid.
- Optimized parameters: Homogenizing speed increased to 13000 rpm, shear gap reduced to 0.03 mm, mixing speed adjusted to 45 rpm, cooling rate increased to 9℃/h.
- Final results: Particle size 1.0 μm, no visible oil droplets, hyaluronic acid uniformly dispersed, and stability test showed no delamination after 12 months of storage.
2. Medium-viscosity nourishing cream (main ingredients: shea butter, vitamin E, squalane, collagen):
- Initial parameters: Homogenizing speed 8000 rpm, mixing speed 50 rpm, shear gap 0.05 mm, emulsification temperature 75℃, cooling rate 6℃/h.
- Issues identified: Slight texture unevenness and delamination after 3 months of storage.
- Optimized parameters: Homogenizing speed increased to 10000 rpm, mixing speed adjusted to 55 rpm, wall-scraping paddle speed increased to 25 rpm, cooling rate reduced to 5℃/h.
- Final results: Uniform texture, particle size 2.5 μm, no delamination after 8 months of storage, and vitamin E activity maintained at ≥ 95%.
3. High-viscosity barrier ointment (main ingredients: petrolatum, beeswax, ceramide, panthenol):
- Initial parameters: Homogenizing speed 5000 rpm, mixing speed 60 rpm, shear gap 0.08 mm, emulsification temperature 80℃, cooling rate 4℃/h.
- Issues identified: Local agglomeration of ceramide, inconsistent product hardness, and slight material adhesion to the tank wall.
- Optimized parameters: Homogenizing speed increased to 7000 rpm, shear gap adjusted to 0.06 mm, mixing speed increased to 65 rpm, wall-scraping paddle speed increased to 35 rpm, cooling rate reduced to 3℃/h.
- Final results: No agglomeration of ceramide, uniform product hardness, no material adhesion, particle size 4.0 μm, and stability test showed no texture change after 12 months of storage.
Stage 7: Continuous production verification (0.5 days). Three consecutive batches of each product were produced using the optimized parameters to verify consistency. All batches met the facility’s quality standards for particle size, emulsion stability, texture, and ingredient uniformity—confirming that the homogenizing emulsifiers were ready for formal production.
4. Long-Term Operation Performance and Operational Benefits
The homogenizing emulsifiers have been in continuous, stable operation at the facility for 20 months. During this period, the facility implemented a standardized operation and maintenance system, strictly following daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual maintenance schedules. The long-term operation performance and operational benefits are reflected in five key aspects:
First, significant improvement in product quality and stability. The application of homogenizing emulsifiers completely resolved the issues of uneven particle size and poor emulsion stability. Low-viscosity moisturizing lotions are now smooth and delicate, with no visible oil droplets; medium and high-viscosity products have a uniform texture and no delamination during storage. The average particle size of lotions is stably controlled at 0.8-1.2 μm, nourishing creams at 2.0-3.0 μm, and barrier ointments at 3.5-4.5 μm. According to the facility’s quality inspection data, the product qualification rate increased from 90% (before equipment replacement) to 99.7% (after replacement), and the customer complaint rate related to product quality (such as delamination, rough texture, and uneven efficacy) decreased from 5.5% to 0.2%. Stability tests show that all products can maintain their quality for 12-18 months under normal storage conditions, extending the product shelf life by 40% compared to before.
Second, substantial increase in production efficiency. The integrated functionality of the homogenizing emulsifiers eliminated material transfers and secondary processing, significantly shortening the production cycle. For a 200L batch of medium-viscosity nourishing cream, the total processing time was reduced from 100 minutes (original equipment) to 40 minutes (homogenizing emulsifiers)—a 60% reduction. The daily output increased from 300-450 kg to 850-1000 kg, fully meeting market demand. The automatic wall-scraping function reduced the material waste rate from 5-7% to 0.7-1.0%, saving approximately 250 kg of raw materials per month. The CIP cleaning system reduced cleaning time from 20-30 minutes per batch to 10-15 minutes, further improving production continuity.
Third, effective control of operation and maintenance costs. The homogenizing emulsifiers exhibit high stability and reliability—during 20 months of operation, only 2 minor faults occurred (filter clogging and sealing ring wear), with an average fault handling time of ≤ 1 hour. This minimized production downtime compared to the original equipment (which experienced 1-2 faults per month). The maintenance cost (including consumables such as lubricating oil, sealing rings, and filters) is approximately 600-800 yuan per month, 35% lower than the original equipment’s maintenance cost (1000-1300 yuan per month). Additionally, the equipment’s energy-efficient design (variable-frequency drive and optimized heat exchange system) reduced energy consumption by 20-25% per batch compared to the original configuration, further lowering production costs.
Fourth, reduced labor intensity and improved operational safety. The PLC control system automates most production processes—operators only need to set parameters, feed materials, and monitor equipment operation, reducing manual labor intensity by approximately 45%. The automatic wall-scraping and CIP cleaning functions eliminate manual scraping and cleaning, reducing the risk of operator injury from sharp equipment components. The closed processing system and safety protection functions (overload alarm, emergency stop) improve operational safety, with no workplace accidents reported since the equipment was put into use. Operator satisfaction surveys show a significant improvement in work comfort and efficiency compared to the original equipment configuration.
Fifth, enhanced compliance with industry standards. The homogenizing emulsifiers meet GMP, FDA, and CE certification requirements, with closed-loop processing that supports batch traceability and cross-contamination prevention. The facility has successfully passed multiple on-site inspections by domestic and international regulatory authorities, and its products have gained access to new markets in North America and Europe. The stable product quality and compliant production processes have strengthened the facility’s market competitiveness and brand reputation.
5. Maintenance Practices and Experience Summary
The long-term stable operation of the homogenizing emulsifiers is attributed to the facility’s scientific maintenance system and practical operational experience. Over 20 months, the facility has summarized a set of targeted maintenance practices that balance equipment performance, service life, and operational costs. Key practices and experiences are as follows:
First, strict daily maintenance (post-batch). After each production batch, operators perform the following maintenance tasks in accordance with the equipment manual: (1) Run the full CIP cleaning process to ensure no material residue on the tank inner wall, homogenizing head, mixing paddle, and feeding/discharging ports; (2) Check the oil level of the homogenizing motor, mixing motor, and vacuum pump (if equipped) and add lubricating oil (32# mechanical oil for motors, lithium-based grease for bearings) as needed; (3) Inspect sealing rings (tank cover, feeding port, discharging port) for wear, deformation, or leakage—replace immediately if abnormalities are found; (4) Check cooling water and compressed air pipelines for leakage, and tighten connectors or replace damaged pipelines promptly. Daily maintenance prevents minor issues from escalating into major faults and ensures consistent equipment performance.
Second, regular periodic maintenance. The facility has established weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual maintenance plans, implemented by professional maintenance personnel: (1) Weekly maintenance: Clean filters (feeding port, cooling water pipeline, air pipeline) to remove impurities and prevent clogging; check the wear status of the wall-scraping paddle (PTFE material) and tighten fixing bolts; calibrate the PLC touch screen and temperature gauge. (2) Monthly maintenance: Calibrate the PT100 temperature sensor (accuracy ±0.1℃) and pressure gauge (if equipped); disassemble the homogenizing head to inspect the stator-rotor gap (replace stator/rotor if the gap exceeds 0.08 mm); clean the cooling water jacket to remove scale (using a neutral descaling agent to avoid corrosion); add lithium-based grease to motor bearings. (3) Quarterly maintenance: Fully disassemble and clean the homogenizing head, replacing worn stator/rotor components if necessary; replace all sealing rings (even if no visible wear is present) to ensure airtightness; inspect the wiring of the PLC control system and frequency converter for looseness or aging; test the CIP system’s nozzles and pump for normal operation. (4) Annual maintenance: Fully disassemble the equipment to inspect all components (tank body, motors, pipelines, control system); replace aging components (e.g., motors, frequency converters, pipelines); conduct a full-performance test (consistent with commissioning tests) to ensure all parameters meet factory standards; sort and analyze maintenance records to optimize the maintenance plan for the following year.
Third, targeted maintenance of vulnerable components. The homogenizing emulsifiers’ vulnerable components include sealing rings, PTFE wall-scraping paddles, stator/rotor assemblies, and filters. The facility maintains a stock of these components and follows a fixed replacement cycle: sealing rings (quarterly), PTFE paddles (6 months), stator/rotor assemblies (2 years), and filters (monthly). A detailed replacement record is kept for each component, including replacement time, model, and quantity—enabling traceability and proactive maintenance.
Fourth, operator and maintenance personnel training. Before the equipment was put into use, the facility invited equipment manufacturer technicians to conduct comprehensive training for operators and maintenance personnel, covering equipment structure, working principles, operational procedures, parameter adjustment, fault diagnosis, and maintenance methods. Operators and maintenance personnel were required to pass a practical assessment before taking up their posts. During operation, the facility organizes monthly technical exchange meetings to share operational and maintenance experiences, addressing common issues and improving professional skills. This training ensures that operators can use the equipment correctly and maintenance personnel can handle faults promptly—reducing human error and equipment damage.
Fifth, data recording and analysis. The homogenizing emulsifiers are equipped with a data recording function that logs operational parameters (homogenizing speed, mixing speed, temperature, production time) for each batch. The facility’s technical personnel analyze these data monthly to identify operational trends, optimize production parameters, and predict potential equipment issues. For example, a gradual increase in homogenizing motor current was detected through data analysis, prompting maintenance personnel to inspect and clean the homogenizing head—preventing a major fault and minimizing downtime.
6. Conclusion
The application of homogenizing emulsifiers in this production facility has effectively resolved the core challenges of uneven particle size, poor emulsion stability, low production efficiency, high maintenance costs, and compliance risks associated with the original equipment configuration. Through scientific equipment selection, strict commissioning and parameter optimization, and standardized operation and maintenance, the homogenizing emulsifiers have maintained stable performance for 20 months, delivering significant economic and operational benefits: product quality and stability have been substantially improved, production efficiency has more than doubled, operation and maintenance costs have been reduced, labor intensity has decreased, and compliance with industry standards has been enhanced.
This case demonstrates that homogenizing emulsifiers are highly suitable for production facilities manufacturing emulsion-based products (especially those with strict requirements for texture fineness, stability, and ingredient uniformity). Their integrated functionality, multi-viscosity adaptability, precision control, and closed-loop processing make them a reliable solution for improving product quality and production efficiency. Additionally, scientific maintenance and standardized operation are critical to maximizing equipment performance, extending service life, and reducing operational costs.
For industry peers facing similar production challenges (such as uneven particle size, poor emulsion stability, and low production efficiency), this case provides practical insights: equipment selection should be closely aligned with product characteristics and production needs, rather than focusing solely on technical specifications; parameter optimization should be based on actual product testing to ensure consistency and quality; and a comprehensive maintenance system should be established to support long-term stable operation. By adopting these practices, production facilities can improve product competitiveness, reduce operational costs, and achieve sustainable development in the highly regulated emulsion product market.
Your message must be between 20-3,000 characters!