Case Study: Application of Vacuum Emulsifiers in Emulsion Product Manufacturing
This case study documents the practical application of vacuum emulsifiers in a production facility focused on emulsion-based products, covering pre-application challenges, equipment selection logic, commissioning and parameter optimization, long-term operation performance, maintenance practices, and practical experience summaries. All content is derived from real production data and on-site operation records, intended 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 types of emulsion products: low-viscosity hydrating serums (viscosity: 4000-8000 mPa·s), medium-viscosity body butters (viscosity: 20000-35000 mPa·s), and high-viscosity facial creams (viscosity: 45000-60000 mPa·s). Prior to adopting vacuum emulsifiers, the facility relied on a combination of traditional open-type mixers and standalone homogenizers for production. As market demand for product quality (e.g., texture fineness, stability, bubble-free appearance) increased and production scale expanded, the original equipment configuration gradually failed to meet operational requirements, leading to multiple production bottlenecks.
From the perspective of product quality, the most prominent issues were related to bubble residue and emulsion stability. The open-type mixing process exposed materials to air, resulting in excessive air entrainment—low-viscosity hydrating serums often contained visible micro-bubbles, which affected product transparency and user experience during application; medium and high-viscosity products retained fine air bubbles that expanded during storage, causing surface unevenness and even slight delamination after 3-4 months. Additionally, the standalone homogenizer had limited shear capacity, leading to uneven particle size distribution (average particle size: 10-15 μm for serums, 15-20 μm for creams) and inconsistent product texture, with occasional agglomeration of functional ingredients (e.g., plant extracts, emulsifiers).
In terms of production efficiency, the original process required multiple material transfers and repeated processing. Raw materials were first mixed in an open mixer (45-60 minutes), then transferred to a homogenizer for shear treatment (25-30 minutes), and finally moved to a separate cooling tank for temperature adjustment (30-40 minutes). A single batch (150L) required a total processing time of 100-130 minutes, with a daily output of only 250-350 kg—far below the growing market demand. Moreover, the lack of automatic wall-scraping functionality in the mixer resulted in significant material adhesion (waste rate: 4-6%), requiring manual scraping after each batch, which increased labor costs and extended cleaning time (25-35 minutes per batch).
Equipment operation and maintenance also posed challenges. The standalone homogenizer was prone to clogging when processing high-viscosity materials with solid particles, requiring frequent disassembly and cleaning (3-4 times a week) and disrupting production continuity. The open mixer’s poor temperature control accuracy (fluctuation: ±2.5-3.5℃) led to the inactivation of heat-sensitive ingredients (e.g., vitamins, peptides) during mixing, further compromising product efficacy. Additionally, the lack of closed-loop processing increased the risk of cross-contamination between batches, which was a critical concern for compliance with industry quality standards.
To address these issues, the facility initiated a comprehensive evaluation of emulsification equipment, focusing on solutions that could resolve bubble residue, improve emulsion stability, enhance production efficiency, and ensure process compliance. After in-depth technical research and on-site demonstrations, vacuum emulsifiers were identified as the optimal solution, given their ability to integrate mixing, homogenization, vacuum degassing, temperature control, and wall-scraping functions in a single closed system.
2. Equipment Selection Logic and Key Considerations
The facility’s equipment selection process was guided by practical production needs, product characteristics, and long-term operational sustainability, rather than technical specifications alone. After evaluating multiple models and configurations, two vacuum emulsifiers (150L and 200L) were selected as core production equipment. The key selection criteria are detailed below:
First, vacuum degassing performance and emulsion stability. Given the facility’s critical need to eliminate bubble residue, the selected vacuum emulsifiers were required to achieve a stable vacuum level of ≤ -0.096 MPa. The equipment adopts a dual-stage vacuum pump system and a closed tank structure, which extracts air from the tank before and during processing, minimizing air contact with materials. The integrated high-shear homogenizing head (stator-rotor structure) provides strong shear force (rotor linear speed: 60-75 m/s), ensuring that particle sizes are reduced to ≤ 2 μm for serums and ≤ 5 μm for creams—critical for improving emulsion stability and texture uniformity. Additionally, the equipment’s frame-type mixing paddle and automatic wall-scraping paddle (PTFE material, gap with tank wall ≤ 0.5 mm) ensure that materials are fully mixed without dead corners, preventing local agglomeration.
Second, adaptability to multi-viscosity products. The facility’s product portfolio covers a wide viscosity range (4000-60000 mPa·s), so the equipment must be flexible enough to handle different material properties. The selected vacuum emulsifiers feature adjustable homogenizing speeds (3000-12000 rpm), mixing speeds (10-70 rpm), and shear gaps (0.03-0.07 mm), allowing parameter optimization for each product type: high speeds (9000-12000 rpm) and small shear gaps (0.03-0.04 mm) for low-viscosity serums, medium speeds (6000-9000 rpm) and moderate shear gaps (0.04-0.05 mm) for body butters, and low to medium speeds (4000-6000 rpm) and larger shear gaps (0.05-0.07 mm) for high-viscosity creams. 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 key components of the facility’s products, requiring strict control of processing temperatures (emulsification temperature: 60-75℃, cooling temperature: 25-30℃) and cooling rates. The vacuum emulsifiers are equipped with a jacketed tank structure and a precision temperature control system, with a temperature control range of 20-95℃ and an accuracy of ±0.5℃. The cooling system uses a circulating water bath with an adjustable cooling rate (2-10℃/h), enabling rapid yet gentle cooling of materials after emulsification to preserve the activity of heat-sensitive ingredients. The closed system 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, vacuum degassing, temperature control, 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 50 sets of formula parameters, enabling one-key startup and automatic process control—operators only need to monitor equipment operation and confirm material feeding/discharging. The CIP system includes 360° rotating nozzles and a dedicated cleaning liquid circulation loop, reducing manual cleaning time to 10-15 minutes per batch 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 vacuum emulsifiers use 316L stainless steel for all material-contacting parts (surface roughness Ra ≤ 0.4 μm), which is corrosion-resistant and meets food and cosmetic safety requirements. The equipment is equipped with multiple safety protection functions, including overload protection, over-temperature protection, vacuum leakage alarm, and emergency stop, ensuring safe and compliant operation. Additionally, the closed processing system reduces cross-contamination risks, supporting batch traceability and quality control.
Sixth, stability and maintenance convenience. The equipment’s key components (homogenizing head, mixing paddle, vacuum pump) are designed for durability and easy maintenance. The stator and rotor of the homogenizing head are detachable 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 parts (e.g., filters, sealing rings) without disassembling the entire system—reducing downtime and maintenance costs.
3. Equipment Commissioning and Parameter Optimization
After the vacuum emulsifiers were delivered and installed, a joint team of equipment manufacturer technicians and the facility’s production/technical personnel conducted a 4-day commissioning process. The goal was to verify equipment performance, optimize process parameters for each product type, and ensure consistency between equipment operation and production requirements. The commissioning process included six 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, vacuum pump, temperature control system) separately and ran the equipment in idle mode for 40 minutes per component. Key inspection items included: noise level (≤ 72 dB), vibration amplitude (≤ 0.08 mm/s), rotation direction consistency (matches equipment markings), and speed stability (fluctuation ≤ 3 rpm). No abnormal noise, vibration, or speed deviation was observed, confirming that all components operated normally.
Stage 2: Vacuum performance test (0.5 days). The tank cover was sealed, and the vacuum pump was activated to test the equipment’s degassing capacity and airtightness. Test results showed that the vacuum level reached -0.098 MPa within 4 minutes and remained stable for 30 minutes with a pressure drop of ≤ 0.001 MPa—indicating no air leakage in the tank, pipelines, or sealing components. This met the facility’s requirement for deep vacuum degassing to eliminate bubble residue.
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 75℃ (standard emulsification temperature for high-viscosity creams). After 30 minutes of heat preservation, the temperature fluctuation was ±0.3℃, within the required accuracy range. The cooling system was then activated to cool the water from 75℃ to 25℃ at a set rate of 6℃/h; the actual cooling rate was 5.8℃/h, with an error of ≤ 0.2℃/h—confirming that the temperature control system could reliably maintain processing temperatures and cooling rates.
Stage 4: Mixing and homogenization 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 serum (6000 mPa·s), the homogenizing speed was set to 10000 rpm, mixing speed to 40 rpm, and shear gap to 0.03 mm. After 20 minutes of processing, the particle size was measured at 1.2 μm, and the material was uniformly mixed with no visible agglomeration. For high-viscosity simulated cream (50000 mPa·s), the homogenizing speed was set to 5000 rpm, mixing speed to 60 rpm, shear gap to 0.06 mm, and wall-scraping paddle speed to 30 rpm. After 30 minutes of processing, the particle size was 3.5 μm, and the material adhered to the tank wall was fully scraped off—confirming that the equipment could handle multi-viscosity materials effectively.
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 ≤ 8 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 (0.5 days). 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, bubble content, stability, texture) to determine the optimal operating parameters, as detailed below:
1. Low-viscosity hydrating serum (main ingredients: hyaluronic acid, aloe vera extract, glycerin):
- Initial parameters: Homogenizing speed 9000 rpm, mixing speed 35 rpm, shear gap 0.04 mm, vacuum level -0.095 MPa, emulsification temperature 60℃, cooling rate 8℃/h.
- Issues identified: Minor bubble residue and particle size of 1.8 μm (exceeding the target of ≤ 1.5 μm).
- Optimized parameters: Homogenizing speed increased to 11000 rpm, shear gap reduced to 0.03 mm, vacuum level adjusted to -0.097 MPa, cooling rate increased to 9℃/h.
- Final results: Particle size 1.0 μm, no visible bubbles, transparency improved, and stability test showed no delamination after 12 months of storage.
2. Medium-viscosity body butter (main ingredients: shea butter, jojoba oil, vitamin E):
- Initial parameters: Homogenizing speed 7000 rpm, mixing speed 50 rpm, shear gap 0.05 mm, vacuum level -0.093 MPa, emulsification temperature 70℃, cooling rate 5℃/h.
- Issues identified: Slight texture unevenness and occasional agglomeration of shea butter.
- Optimized parameters: Homogenizing speed increased to 8500 rpm, mixing speed adjusted to 55 rpm, wall-scraping paddle speed increased to 25 rpm.
- Final results: Uniform texture, no agglomeration, particle size 2.8 μm, and no delamination after 8 months of storage.
3. High-viscosity facial cream (main ingredients: collagen, retinol, squalane):
- Initial parameters: Homogenizing speed 4000 rpm, mixing speed 65 rpm, shear gap 0.07 mm, vacuum level -0.090 MPa, emulsification temperature 75℃, cooling rate 4℃/h.
- Issues identified: Visible air bubbles, uneven distribution of retinol, and slight material adhesion to the tank wall.
- Optimized parameters: Homogenizing speed increased to 5500 rpm, vacuum level adjusted to -0.096 MPa, wall-scraping paddle speed increased to 35 rpm, cooling rate reduced to 3℃/h.
- Final results: No visible bubbles, retinol evenly distributed, no material adhesion, particle size 4.2 μm, and stability test showed no delamination or texture change after 12 months of storage.
After parameter optimization, three consecutive batches of each product were produced to verify consistency. All batches met the facility’s quality standards for particle size, bubble content, stability, and texture—confirming that the vacuum emulsifiers were ready for formal production.
4. Long-Term Operation Performance and Operational Benefits
The vacuum emulsifiers have been in continuous, stable operation at the facility for 22 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 vacuum emulsifiers completely resolved the bubble residue issue—low-viscosity hydrating serums are now transparent and bubble-free, with a smooth application experience; medium and high-viscosity products have a uniform texture with no surface unevenness. The average particle size of serums is stably controlled at 0.8-1.2 μm, body butters at 2.5-3.0 μm, and facial creams at 3.5-4.5 μm—ensuring consistent product quality. According to the facility’s quality inspection data, the product qualification rate increased from 89% (before equipment replacement) to 99.8% (after replacement), and the customer complaint rate related to product quality (e.g., bubbles, delamination, texture inconsistency) decreased from 6.2% to 0.2%. Stability tests show that all products maintain their quality for 12-18 months under normal storage conditions, extending the product shelf life by 50% compared to before.
Second, substantial increase in production efficiency. The integrated functionality of the vacuum emulsifiers eliminated material transfers and secondary processing, significantly shortening the production cycle. For a 150L batch of high-viscosity facial cream, the total processing time was reduced from 120 minutes (original equipment) to 45 minutes (vacuum emulsifiers)—a 62.5% reduction. The daily output increased from 250-350 kg to 800-1000 kg, fully meeting market demand. The automatic wall-scraping function reduced material waste rate from 4-6% to 0.6-0.9%, saving approximately 300 kg of raw materials per month. The CIP cleaning system reduced cleaning time from 25-35 minutes per batch to 10-15 minutes, further improving production continuity.
Third, effective control of operation and maintenance costs. The vacuum emulsifiers exhibit high stability and reliability—during 22 months of operation, only 3 minor faults occurred (vacuum pump filter clogging, cooling water pipeline leakage, sealing ring wear), with an average fault handling time of ≤ 1.5 hours. 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 700-900 yuan per month, 40% lower than the original equipment’s maintenance cost (1200-1600 yuan per month). Additionally, the equipment’s energy-efficient design (variable-frequency drive, optimized heat exchange system) reduced energy consumption by 25-30% 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 50%. 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 vacuum 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 Europe and Southeast Asia. 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 vacuum emulsifiers is attributed to the facility’s scientific maintenance system and practical operational experience. Over 22 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 vacuum pump, homogenizing motor, and mixing motor (maintaining oil levels between the upper and lower scales of the oil sight glass) and add lubricating oil (32# mechanical oil for vacuum pumps, lithium-based grease for motors) 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, vacuum pipeline, cooling water 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 vacuum gauge. (2) Monthly maintenance: Calibrate the PT100 temperature sensor (accuracy ±0.1℃) and vacuum gauge (accuracy ±0.001 MPa); disassemble the homogenizing head to inspect the stator-rotor gap (replace stator/rotor if the gap exceeds 0.07 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, vacuum pump, pipelines); 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 vacuum 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 vacuum emulsifiers are equipped with a data recording function that logs operational parameters (homogenizing speed, mixing speed, vacuum level, 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 vacuum pump noise was detected through data analysis, prompting maintenance personnel to inspect and clean the vacuum pump filter—preventing a major fault and minimizing downtime.
6. Conclusion
The application of vacuum emulsifiers in this production facility has effectively resolved the core challenges of bubble residue, 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 vacuum emulsifiers have maintained stable performance for 22 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 vacuum emulsifiers are highly suitable for production facilities manufacturing emulsion-based products (especially those with strict requirements for bubble-free texture, stability, and compliance). 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 (e.g., bubble residue, uneven texture, low 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!