Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Exergoeconomic analysis of an industrial beverage mixer system

Chukwuemeka J. Okereke *, Olumuyiwa A. Lasode, Idehai O. Ohijeagbon
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Exergoeconomic analysis is a tool used to identify hidden costs associated with a machine or a system that cannot
Energy be identified using typical cost management techniques applied in the industry. While exergoeconomic analysis
Mechanical engineering finds applications in power system innovations and optimization, it has not yet been harnessed by the
Thermodynamics
manufacturing industry to reduce operating costs. The purpose of this study is to use exergoeconomic analysis to
Beverage mixer
Exergoeconomics
identify hidden costs in manufacturing processes, with a focus on the industrial beverage mixer system. The study
Cost analysis proposes a methodology of identifying the hidden financial losses in the system and recommends modifying the
Manufacturing systems operation and design as a measure to reduce costs and increase profitability. Thermodynamic and eco-
nomic data for the study were obtained from manufacturing plants. An exergy cost analysis was performed using
thermoeconomic analysis software. Exergoeconomic values and variables were obtained using equations based on
extant literature. The results reveal that the mixer possesses a low exergoeconomic factor of 5.50% owing to the
high irreversibility of the H2O reservoir, flow-mix reservoir, and carbonator. The total hidden cost of the system
equaled 733.04 $/h, of which 99.0% is contributed by the mixer. Improvements to the deaeration technique for
the H2O reservoir of the mixer component, as well as the H2O treatment procedure, can reduce the irreversibility
of the H2O reservoir and the hidden costs.

1. Introduction Exergoeconomic analysis is an emerging tool that is used to identify

Increasing competition as well as energy and production costs in the
manufacturing field have forced manufacturers to seek ways of deliv-
ering high quality and standardized products at low cost. Cost manage-
ment has become essential as the growth and survival of any
manufacturing organization depends on how well it can manage its
economy [1]. However, existing cost management techniques are unable
to identify the hidden costs associated with production [2,3]. Some of the
cost management techniques being adopted by manufacturers include
the total quality management system (TQM), Kaizen system, just-in-time
production, line rationalization, budgetary control, cost volume analysis,
standard cost analysis, and process automation [1,4]. None of these
techniques focus on the identification of the thermodynamic limit of
machines or equipment used in the manufacturing process, or the process
itself. A machine or process will consume large amounts of energy and
fuel if it has thermodynamic limitations [5], and subsequently operate at
a high cost and low efficiency. Exergoeconomic analysis is a useful tool in
identifying thermodynamic limitations of a machine, process, or system
and the underlying cost implications.
the actual cost of a product, along with the hidden costs of a device,
process, and system. It is based on the principle that the useful part of
energy should be assigned a monetary value rather than an energy value.
A manufacturing process cannot run without energy conversion, and in
physics, anything that changes over time involves energy conversion [6].
According to the laws of thermodynamics, exergy is the part of energy
that is available for conversion, i.e., it is the useful work potential of
energy [6,7,8]. Unlike energy, exergy cannot be recovered once it is
wasted [7,9]. Exergy analysis is a method of determining the exergy
value of a system, process, or device, and is used to account for the
thermodynamic imperfections of real processes and improve the effi-
ciency of operations, devices, and systems [9]. Exergy has an economic
value and is useful to society, and therefore worth addressing [9]. Exergy
losses remain a major challenge in many industrial processes [10] and
cannot be identified with conventional energy analysis. More recently,
exergy analysis has been used to analyze manufacturing processes and
equipment, including the evaluation of ultra-high-temperature milk
pasteurization plants, assessment of the efficiency of industrial food
chains, development of a more sustainable chemical industry advance-
ment procedure, ethanol production process analysis, assessment of a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cjokereke@ymail.com (C.J. Okereke).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04402
Received 29 January 2020; Received in revised form 7 March 2020; Accepted 3 July 2020
2405-8440/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
C.J. Okereke et al.
burner in cement production processes, analysis of a refrigeration system
in a typical beverage manufacturing plant, vegetable oil production
process analysis, cryogenic air separation plants, and steam boiler anal-
ysis [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,56,57]. Exergy analysis has been established
as a tool commonly used to determine the quality of energy and resource
of any system or process. The concept of exergy destruction is used to
improve the efficiency of manufacturing processes and machines [18,
19], as opposed to energy analysis, whose concept of energy dissipation
is not an indicator of irreversibility.
Exergoeconomic accounting is the determination and assignment of
economic values to the exergy flows of a device, process, or system, while
exergoeconomic analysis involves the estimation of the cost of product
flow and the quantification of cost rate due to irreversibility, which is
referred to as the hidden cost [20]. Various exergoeconomic analysis
approaches have been developed [21,22,23] and applied in power sys-
tem innovations and optimization [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,
32,33,34]. However, few published works in the literature focus on the
application of exergoeconomics to manufacturing. The aim of this study
is to evaluate the performance of an industrial beverage mixer system at a
manufacturing plant using the thermoeconomic analysis of energy sys-
tems software (TAESS) to identify hidden costs in the manufacturing
process. The specific objectives are to a) identify the most significant
source of exergy destruction in the mixer and its location of occurrence,
b) evaluate the exergoeconomic performance of the mixer by analyzing
the exergetic cost parameters of each component of the mixer, and c)
identify the hidden cost in the manufacturing process.
A beverage mixer is a machine used in the production of carbonated
beverages, first developed by the Mojonnier Brothers Corporation of
Chicago in 1937 [35]. Although mixers are being continuously innovated
and improved [36,37,38], there has not yet been any published works
related to their exergoeconomics. This report identifies the most signif-
icant sources and locations of hidden costs in an industrial beverage
mixer.
Singh et al. [12] applied the exergoeconomic analysis to the
manufacturing ecosystem of a dairy food-processing plant. They reported
that the heating coil underwent the highest exergy destruction (0.16
MW), followed by the homogenizer (0.055 MW). The highest cost con-
sumption occurred in the pasteurizer because of its subunits. In another
study, Atmaca [13] used energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic analysis to
evaluate the performance of a dry-type rotary kiln in the cement industry.
The exergoeconomic factor of the kiln was found to be 53%, which
implied the need to improve exergy utilization in the rotary kiln system
of cement plants. Fani et al. [39] adopted the pinch technology and
exergoeconomic analysis to evaluate the complex manufacturing process
of a pulp and paper mill. They demonstrated a 12% decrease in the en-
ergy consumption, while the amount of recoverable black liquor was
increased by 7%. The industrial beverage mixer system, like the paper
and pulp mill, is also complex. Therefore, we used TAESS and exer-
goeconomic analysis to evaluate the system. Developed by the Centre of
Research for Energy Resources and Consumption in conjunction with the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Zaragoza,
Spain [40,41], TAESS has been used by various researchers for exer-
goeconomic applications [11,42,43]. It is based on the principle of
exergetic cost theory (ECT) in the exergoeconomic analysis. The only
limitation of TAESS is that it may not be adaptable to suit other exer-
goeconomic approaches such as the specific exergy cost method, modi-
fied productive structure analysis, Wonergy method, or Moran method.
Compared with other frequently used exergoeconomic approaches by
Haydargil and Abusoglu [22], the ECT approach is more detailed because
it does not neglect any type of subsystem cost, such as the flow cost. It
determines the unit exergoeconomic costs of all flows in the system,
considering exergy destruction to be a product of the system. ECT com-
bines the actual product cost of a subsystem with the cost of exergy
destruction.
2
Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402
2. Materials and methods
The thermodynamic diagram of the material stream flow in the sys-
tem is illustrated in Figure 1. The total exergy of the material stream was
obtained based on published mathematical models, and the exergy cost
was analyzed using TAESS. The mathematical models related to the
exergy analysis, exergy values of the material streams inputted to TAESS,
and the fuel-product definition of the system applied in TAESS and
nomenclature are presented in “Exergoeconomic Analysis of an Industrial
Beverage Mixer System” in the Supplementary file. Irreversibility, I, unit
exergy consumption, k, unit exergy cost of fuel, cf , and unit exergy cost
of product, cp, were obtained from software simulations, as presented in
“Exergoeconomic Analysis of an Industrial Beverage Mixer System” in the
TAESS analysis and results file.
2.1. Description of industrial beverage mixer
The material streamflow shown in Figure 1 illustrates a typical in-
dustrial beverage mixer system. The mixer consists of the following
major components: a H2O reservoir inlet valve, a H2O reservoir, a H2O
orifice, a syrup reservoir inlet valve, a syrup reservoir, a syrup orifice, a
flow mix reservoir, a flow mix pump, a node, a Carbo Trol, a carbonator
inlet valve, a carbonator, a CO2 distribution valve, an air distribution
valve, and a carbonator safety valve. The following utility equipment and
systems work in line with the mixer: a treated H2O pump, a syrup pump, a
refrigeration system, and an air compressor system.
The treated H2O from treatment plant flows into the H2O reservoir
through a pneumatically controlled H2O reservoir inlet valve with the aid
of a H2O treatment pump. Similarly, the syrups from the syrup tank flow
into the syrup reservoir through the pneumatically controlled valve with
the aid of the pump. Deaeration, a process in which the air molecules and
other gases in the treated H2O are removed, occurs at the H2O reservoir.
This process is achieved by the chemical reaction of CO2 from the car-
bonator safety valve and treated H2O. The product of the reaction is
carbonated H2O. Based on the mixing ratio of the beverage and its Brix
value, the H2O and syrup orifices are adjusted to achieve the required
mass flow rate of syrup and carbonated H2O, respectively. In most cases,
the syrup orifice is preset or predefined, while the H2O orifice is varied
with the help of a micrometer screw gauge to achieve the required
mixing ratio.
The proportioned flow of carbonated H2O and syrup to the flow mix
reservoir, where the two are mixed, followed by the addition of more CO2
forms the carbonated beverage. Moreover, CO2 from the Carbo Trol is
mixed with the beverage from the flow mix reservoir as it is transferred to
the carbonator with the help of a flow mix pump through the carbonator
inlet valve. The mixing point of the beverage and CO2 along the line of
the beverage transport to the carbonator is referred to as the node, and it
has a non-returnable valve to prevent any backpressure/flow into the
flow mix pump.
At the carbonator, CO2 is dissolved into the beverage as it is chilled.
The chilling of the beverage is achieved by the refrigeration system,
which works using the heat exchange between the beverage and the NH3
refrigerant in a counter flow over the cooling plate inside the carbonator.
The flow of the NH3 refrigerant through the cooling plate is powered by
an NH3 compressor. The carbonated beverage is the product of the
system-flow 30 in Figure 1. The dissolved CO2 is fed to the carbonator via
a diaphragm valve, which is controlled by a pressure recorder–controller
instrument, to maintain a constant preselected CO2 pressure in the car-
bonator. Excess pressure in the carbonator is used to deaerate the treated
H2O, and some pressure is released into the environment by the carbo-
nator safety valve. The air compressor system supplies compressed air for
all pneumatic valves and level controls in the system. The CO2 used by
the mixer comes from a CO2 storage tank.
C.J. Okereke et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402

Figure 1. Thermodynamic diagram of material stream flow in the industrial beverage mixer system.

2.2. Data iv. Evaluate the exergoeconomic variables of the system.

The primary and secondary thermodynamic data used in this study

were obtained from the manufacturing plant presented in the Exer-
goeconomic analysis of an industrial beverage mixer system: process data
article [44], and the economic data are presented in Table 1. Additional
data required for the chemical exergy analysis are as follows—the
chemical exergies of H2O, CO2, NH3, and C6H12O6 were assumed to be
0.9, 19.87, 337.9 [6], and 2,975.85 kg/kmol [45], respectively. The
molar masses of H2O, CO2, NH3, and C6H12O6 were taken as 18, 44,
17.03 [6], and 180.16 g/mol [46], respectively. The syrup and beverage
were modeled based on a C6H12O6–H2O mixture, and the treated H2O
was modeled based on H2O.
2.3.1. Exergy analysis of the system
The exergy analysis monitors, identifies, and improves exergy effi-
ciencies and reduces irreversibility of the system, process, or device, by
applying exergy balance to a control volume. A simple and general pro-
cedure for performing exergy analysis has been highlighted in the liter-
ature [15,47,48]. For each control volume in the system, as shown in
Figure 1, the mass and exergy balance are obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2),
respectively [14].
X X
_i¼
m _e
m (1)

X X X
I ¼ Exq  W þ Exi  Exe (2)
2.3. Exergoeconomic analysis
Exergy efficiency is the major outcome of exergy analysis, which is
According to Rocco, Colombo, and Sciubba [47], compared with defined as Eq. (3) [49].
energy-based methods, exergy-based methods provide valid information
P
on any system in terms of its efficiency, resource utilization, and eco- Exproduct
ηex ¼ P ; (3)
nomic importance. Exergy-based methods can be classified into two Exsource=fuel
types: exergy accounting (exergoeconomic analysis) and life-cycle exergy P
analysis. Based on the limitations of thermoeconomic cost analysis due to where Exproduct denotes the exergy of the part of the outgoing energy
P
externalities, extended exergy accounting is developed. For this study, flow considered as the control-volume product, whereas Exsource=fuel
we adopted the exergoeconomic analysis approach because it is a single denotes the exergy of the incoming energy flow necessary for product
system among the numerous beverage manufacturing process systems development in the present process.
being investigated. Based on the product-fuel concept, the exergy balance of the control
The major steps that are involved in the exergoeconomic analysis, and volume in Eq. (2) can be expressed as Eq. (4).
which were adopted in this study, are listed below [48]: X X
I ¼ Exsource=fuel  Exproduct (4)
i. Exergy analysis of the system
The definition of the product and fuel stream of each component in
ii. Economic analysis of the system
iii. Exergoeconomic evaluation of the system

Table 1. Economic data of equipment in the industrial beverage mixer system.

Parameters Mixer NH3 compressor Air compressor Treated H2O pump Syrup pump
Total cost of investment ($) 208,333.33 17,267.43 12,020.01 905.65 972.22
Number of years operated 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Number of hours operated at full load in a year 6,553.00 6,553.00 6,553.00 6,553.00 6,553.00
Electricity tariff ($/kWh) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

3
C.J. Okereke et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402

Figure 1 is presented in “Exergoeconomic Analysis of an Industrial kilowatt of exergy entering and leaving a system carries a cost (or has
Beverage Mixer System” in the Supplementary file. value) that can be compared with the cost of electricity.
The cost rate of operating a system can be determined using Eq. (14)
2.3.2. Economic analysis of the system [13]:
The non-exergy-related cost comprises of expenditure associated with
the investment, operation, and maintenance of a system. The total cost of C_ k ¼ Cd þ Z_k (14)
investment (TCI) is the sum of costs related to equipment purchase,
installation, and commissioning. For this study, the TCI of the equipment 2.3.4. Evaluating the exergoeconomic variable of the system
was obtained from the manufacturing plant, as shown in Table 1. The exergoeconomic variables applied in this study are
The operation-and-maintenance cost is the cost related to the daily
running of the equipment. It includes parameters such as labor cost, spare i. Hidden cost: The cost rate associated with exergy destruction within a
parts cost, and equipment servicing cost. Based on the work of Querol, system. The hidden cost of any system can be computed from Eq. (15)
Gonzalez-Regueral, and Perez-Benedito [50], the concept of [13, 20, 48].
operation-and-maintenance cost factor, fOM , was developed and defined
_ k ¼ cfk  I
Cd (15)
as in Eq. (5) [50].

Total annual operation and mainteance cost ðOMTOT Þ

fOM ¼ (5) ii. Exergoeconomic factor: A measure of the effect of hidden cost
Total cost of investment ðTCIÞ
compared with the investment cost of a system. The exergoeconomic
For this study, fOM is 1.06 for each piece of equipment [25,50]. factor of any system can be computed from Eq. (16) [13, 48].
The cost rate due to investment, Zk , is a levelized cost of the TCI, ZkCI ,
of equipment, and the operation-and-maintenance cost of the equipment, Z_ k
f¼ (16)
Z_ k þ Cd _k
ZkOM , is defined by Eqs. (6) and (7) [13,20,50].
The assumptions applied in this study are as follows.
Zk ¼ ZkCI þ ZkOM ; (6)
1. All working fluids in the system were in the one-dimensional steady
ZkCI ¼ CFR ði; nÞ  TCI ; (7) state flow.
2. The potential and kinetic energies of gases were assumed to be
where [13,50] negligible.
3. The adiabatic state was assumed for expansion and compression
i ð1 þ iÞn
CFR ¼ ; (8) processes.
ð1 þ iÞn  1
3. Results and discussion
ZkOM ¼ fOM  TCI; (9)

  3.1. Exergy efficiency, irreversibility, and unit cost of the system

i ð1 þ iÞn
∴ Zk ¼ þ fOM  TCI; (10)
ð1 þ iÞn  1 The location, degree, and causes of exergy depletion in an industrial
beverage mixer were detected using the exergoeconomic analysis. The
and [50] fuel and exergy consumed by each component were also reviewed, and
  the results of the system operating-cost analysis are summarized in
i ð1þiÞn
ð1þiÞn 1
þ fOM  TCI Table 2.
Z_ k ð$ = hÞ ¼ : (11) The cumulative irreversibility in the system was 5,300 kW. The
N
highest irreversibility occurred in the H2O reservoir, which represents
The interest rate, I, for this study was taken to be 20% based on the 74.28% of the total irreversibility in the system, followed by the flow mix
manufacturing plant cost of capital. reservoir and carbonator, which represent 18.46% and 3.88%, respec-
The investment cost is a fixed cost independent of the magnitude of tively. The summation of irreversibility of the rest of the components in
exergy stream entering and leaving the system. the system represents 3.38% of the total system irreversibility. There is a
clear correlation between the exergy efficiency, unit exergy consump-
2.3.3. Exergoeconomic evaluation of the system tion, and unit exergy cost of the product. A unit's exergy consumption is
The ECT approach was adopted to estimate the exergetic cost asso- directly proportional to its exergy cost of product and inversely propor-
ciated with each flow in the system and the exergetic costs of components tional to the exergy efficiency, which implies that a component that
in the system with the aid of TAESS. The appropriate productive structure consumes more exergy will incur a high cost of product and low exergy
and fuel-product table presented in “Exergoeconomic Analysis of an In- efficiency.
dustrial Beverage Mixer System” in the Supplementary file was applied All pumps in the system had low exergy efficiencies, ranging from
for the TAESS application. The exergy cost of the productive structure 0.63% to 4.04%, as shown in Figure 2. The cause of low exergy efficiency
flows, Eij* , is calculated by TAESS as follows [51]: of the pumps could be over-sizing or the high-pressure head. According
to Vuckovic et al. [53], however, circulation pumps of a steam boiler
X
n
have the greatest potential for improvement because the exergy
CFi ¼ Ex*io þ Ex8j;i vi 2 V (12)
j¼1
destruction is avoidable in the steam boiler. The air compressor has a
high exergy efficiency of 73.55%, when compared with the other utility
X
n equipment that work in line with the mixer, such as the NH3 compressor
CPi ¼ Ex*oi þ Ex8i;j vi 2 V: (13) (52.08%), treated H2O pump (0.63%), and syrup pump (0.83%).
j¼1
All inlet valves of the industrial beverage mixer system have high
A detailed explanation of the algorithm can be found in the work of exergy efficiencies within 99.9%, when compared with the carbonator
Torres et al. [51]. For the monetary value, the fuel cost in kilowatts was safety valve, which has a low exergy efficiency of 35.63%. The low
related to the cost of electricity. According to Valdimarsson [52], each exergy efficiency of the valve could be due to the release of CO2 into

4
C.J. Okereke et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402

Table 2. Results of system operating-cost analysis.

S/N Components/Process Fuel Product Irreversibility Unit Exergy Unit Exergy Unit Exergy Residual
[kW] [kW] [kW] consumption cost of fuel- cf cost of product-cp cost
k (kW) (kW/kW) (kW/kW) (kW/kW)
1 Treated H2O pump 4.74 0.03 4.71 158.00 1.00 158.00 0.00
2 H2O reservoir inlet valve 5,324.42 5,323.37 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
3 H2O reservoir 5,329.04 1,392.24 3,936.80 3.83 1.01 3.85 0.00
4 H2O orifice 1,392.24 1,392.24 0.00 1.00 3.85 3.85 0.00
5 Syrup pump 4.92 0.04 4.88 123.00 1.00 123.00 0.00
6 Syrup reservoir inlet valve 4,791.75 4,782.21 9.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
7 Syrup reservoir 4,783.73 4,782.24 1.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
8 Syrup orifice 4,782.24 4,782.24 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
9 Flow mix reservoir 6,176.60 5,198.10 978.50 1.19 1.65 1.96 0.00
10 Flow mix pump 7.18 0.29 6.89 24.76 1.00 24.76 0.00
11 Node 5,210.87 5,197.61 13.26 1.00 1.96 1.96 0.00
12 Carbo Trol 13.93 12.48 1.45 1.12 1.50 1.68 0.00
13 Carbonator inlet valve 5,199.20 5,197.74 1.46 1.00 1.96 1.96 0.00
14 NH3 compressor 85.62 44.59 41.03 1.92 1.00 1.92 0.00
15 Carbonator 5,318.95 5,113.49 205.46 1.04 1.95 2.03 0.00
16 Carbonator safety valve 51.31 18.30 33.01 2.80 2.03 5.70 0.00
17 Air compressor 35.99 26.47 9.52 1.36 1.00 1.36 0.00
18 Air receiver tank 26.47 24.44 2.03 1.08 1.36 1.47 0.00
19 Air distribution valve 13.04 9.47 3.57 1.38 1.47 2.03 0.00
20 CO2 distribution valve 135.90 90.55 45.35 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.00

Figure 2. Exergy efficiencies of industrial beverage mixer system.

the environment. The exergy efficiency of the syrup reservoir (99.8%)
and flow mix reservoir (84.16%) is high compared to the H2O reservoir
exergy efficiency of 26.13%. The low H2O reservoir exergy efficiency
could be due to the deaeration process taking place in the H2O reser-
voir. Both syrup and H2O orifices have the same exergy efficiency of
100%, which indicates that there is no significant loss of energy from
the orifices. Additionally, the exergy efficiency of the air distribution
valve (72.62%) is high compared with the CO2 distribution valve
(66.63%). The carbonator has a unique function in the mixer where the
CO2 reaction/activity takes place, and it has an exergy efficiency of
96.14%, which is high compared with that of the H2O reservoir. Other
components, including the node, Carbo Trol, and air receiver tank,
have high exergy efficiencies of 99.75%, 89.59%, and 92.33%,
respectively.
3.2. Cost flow within the system
Exergoeconomic analysis was performed to identify the
manufacturing-cost flow at several system locations as shown in Figure 3.
This was realized by relating economic resources to the operation flow

5
C.J. Okereke et al. Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402

Figure 3. Cost flow rate at all locations of the industrial beverage mixer.

Table 3. Results of exergoeconomic analysis of system equipment.

Machine/Equipment Cost rate of exergy destroyed ($/h) Cost rate of investment and maintenance ($/h) Cost rate of operation ($/h) Exergoeconomic factor (%)
Treated H2O pump 0.56 0.19 0.74 24.90
Syrup pump 0.58 0.20 0.78 25.60
NH3 compressor 4.85 3.52 8.37 42.10
Air compressor 1.45 2.45 3.91 62.80
Mixer 725.61 42.52 768.13 5.50

Figure 4. Irreversibility and hidden cost from deaeration process of industrial beverage mixer subsystem.

cost presented in “Exergoeconomic Analysis of an Industrial Beverage
Mixer System” in the TAESS analysis and results file. The results obtained
are beneficial for the product cost estimation because an accurate
product-cost estimate will help businesses flourish, whereas an inaccu-
rate cost estimate may cause them to collapse [54]. The cost flow rate of
the “flow 30” product equaled 1,216.87 $/h.
3.3. Hidden costs in the mixer system
Hidden costs (cost rates of exergy destroyed) identified by exer-
goeconomics in the industrial beverage mixer system are listed in
Table 3. The total hidden cost of the system was 733.04 $/h, of which
99% is of the mixer. The exergoeconomic factor of air compressor was
found to be very high compared with other system equipment due to high
cost rate of investment and maintenance, while that of the mixer was
found to be low, due to high irreversibility [55]. The components of the
mixer that have high irreversibility, and subsequently high hidden costs,
are the H2O reservoir, flow mix reservoir, and carbonator (Figure 4).
As shown in Figure 4, the irreversibility and hidden cost of the H2O
reservoir were high, which is due to the deaeration process. The stoppage
of the deaeration process as a cost reduction step for the mixer system
reveals that the irreversibility and hidden cost reduced in the H2O

6
C.J. Okereke et al.
Figure 5. Irreversibility and hidden cost without deaeration process of industrial beverage mixer.
reservoir from 3,936.80 to 2.57 kW and 467.96 to 0.31 $/h, respectively.
The flow mix reservoir then increases the irreversibility from 978.50 to
4,908.12 kW. This leads to a corresponding increase in the hidden cost
from 190.34 to 954.77 $/h (Figure 5), thereby increasing the overall
hidden cost of the mixer system by 40.97%. This improvement technique
shows that the water treatment procedure would then need to be checked
for finding methods to reduce the oxygen and other dissolved gas con-
tents of the treated water.
A reduction in the mass flow rate of carbonated beverages from 2.82
to 2.00 kg/s causes a corresponding decrease in the hidden cost from
733.04 to 564.62 $/h. However, this will negatively impact the hourly
production volume and consequently the organization's projected profit.
This article shows that the only cost-effective method to reduce the
hidden costs in the mixer is to change the present deaeration technique
and re-evaluate the H2O treatment procedure.
4. Conclusions
The benefit of using exergoeconomic tools to understand the effi-
ciencies of an industrial beverage mixer system and improved methods to
minimize hidden costs were demonstrated in this study. The results will be
useful for engineering managers, investors, decision-makers, and policy-
makers in the beverage industry. Compared with the existing cost man-
agement techniques adopted by manufacturing organizations, no
technique will be able to identify that the mixer system will consume more
energy and incur invariably high cost of operation due to the high exergy
destruction that occurred at H2O reservoir (3,936.80 kW), flow mix
reservoir (978.50 kW) and carbonator (205.46 kW). The total hidden cost
of operating an industrial beverage mixer, as identified by this study, is
733.04 $/h. The mixer has a low exergoeconomic factor of 5.50%,
compared with the rest of the equipment in the system, which shows that
the hidden cost of the mixer is related to exergy destruction rather than
investment. The hidden cost can be minimized by reducing the irrevers-
ibility of the system. Based on this study, we conclude that improvements
to the existing deaeration technique used in H2O reservoirs, as well as the
7
Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402
H2O treatment procedure, can reduce irreversibility. There could be high
concentrations of oxygen or other gases dissolved in the treated H2O.
Future studies should include a complete exergetic analysis of the
beverage manufacturing process, including finding ways to reduce
exergy destruction in the deaeration process and quantifying the gains of
exergoeconomics in manufacturing applications, as a cost-control
mechanism. A limitation of this study is that it could not compare the
results with those of existing studies because there are no additional
published results on the exergoeconomic analysis of industrial beverage
mixers. Most researchers use exergoeconomics only to study power
plants. In addition, process data from manufacturing plants are difficult
to obtain, as a thorough understanding of the process flow and system
operation is required.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Chukwuemeka J. Okereke: Conceived and designed the experiments;
Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Olumuyiwa A. Lasode & Idehai O. Ohijeagbon: Conceived and
designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and
interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.
Funding statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
C.J. Okereke et al.
Additional information
Supplementary content related to this article has been published
online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04402.
References
[1] E. Ben-Caleb, A. Otekunrin, B. Rasak, S. Adewara, O. Oladipo, R. Eshua, Cost
reduction strategies and the growth of selected manufacturing companies in
Nigeria, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 10 (2019) 305–312.
[2] A. Sailaja, P. Basak, K. Viswanadhan, Costs of quality: exploratory analysis of
hidden elements and prioritization using analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Supply
Oper. Manag. 1 (2015) 489–506.
[3] S. Mahmood, N. Kureshi, A literature review of the quantification of hidden cost of
poor quality in the historical perspective, J. Qual. Technol. Manag. 11 (2015) 1–24.
[4] N. Tabitha, O.I. Ogungbade, Cost Accounting techniques adopted by manufacturing
and service industry within the last decade, Int. J. Adv. Manag. Econ. 5 (1) (2016)
48–61.
[5] A. Ghannadzadeh, Exergetic Balances and Analysis in a Process Simulator: a Way to
Enhance Process Energy Integration, 2013. http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/9613
/1/ghannadzadeh.pdf.
[6] G. Exergetics. Wall. http://www.exergy.se/ftp/exergetics.pdf.
[7] I. Dincer, Y.A. Cengel, Energy, entropy and exergy concepts and their roles in
thermal engineering, Entropy 3 (2001) 116–149.
[8] T. Gundersen, An introduction to the concept of exergy and energy quality., in:
Department of energy and process engineering, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Norway, 2009, pp. 1–26. http://www.ivt.ntnu.no/ept/fag/te
p4120/innhold/Exergy%20Light%20Version%203.pdf.
[9] I. Dincer, M.A Rosen. Exergy: energy, environment, and sustainable development,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. 1–35.
[10] H.A. Ogunseye, P. Sibanda, A mathematical model for entropy generation in a
Powell–Eyring nanofluid flow in a porous channel, Heliyon 5 (2019), e01662.
[11] R. Palacios-Bereche, K. Mosqueira-Salaza, M. Modesto, A. Ensinas, S. Nebra,
L. Serra, M.-A. Lozano, Exergetic analysis of the integrated first- and second-
generation ethanol production from sugarcane, Energy 62 (2013) 46–61.
[12] G. Singh, P.J. Singh, V. Tyagi, A.K. Pandey, Thermal and exergoeconomic analysis
of a dairy food processing plant, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 136 (2019) 1365–1382.
[13] A. Atmaca, Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic assessment of a dry type rotary kiln,
Anadolu. Univ. J. Sci. Technol. A 19 (2018) 192–205.
[14] C.J. Okereke, I.O. Ohijeagbon, O.A. Lasode, Energy and exergy analysis of vapor
compression refrigeration system with flooded evaporator, Int. J. Air Condition.
Refrig. 27 (2019), 19500141–19.
[15] K.Z. Filippos, J.R.-M. Francisco, Atze Jan van der Goot, M.B. Remko, The use of
exergetic indicators in the food industry – a review, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 57 (1)
(2017) 197–211.
[16] P. Luis, B. Van der Bruggen, Exergy analysis of energy-intensive production
processes: advancing towards a sustainable chemical industry, J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 89 (2014) 1288–1303.
[17] M.A. Sulaiman, A.O. Oni, D.A. Fadare, Energy and exergy analysis of a vegetable oil
refinery, Energy Power Eng. 4 (2012) 358–364.
[18] P. Brockway, J. Dewulf, S. Kjelstrap, S. Siebentitt, A. Valero, C. Whelan, In a
resources-constrained world: think exergy not energy, Sci. Eur. (2016). htt
ps://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SE_Exergy_Brochure
.pdf.
[19] T.G. Gutowski, D.P. Sekulic, Thermodynamic analysis of resources used in
manufacturing processes, in: B.R. Bakshi, T.G. Gutowski, D.P. Sekulic (Eds.),
Thermodynamics and the Destruction of Resources, 2011, Cambridge University
Press, USA, 2011, pp. 163–186.
[20] S. Shamsi, M.R. Omidkhah, Optimization of steam pressure levels in a total site
using a thermoeconomic method, Energies 5 (2010) 702–717.
[21] L. Meyer, R. Castillo, J. Buchgeister, G. Tsatsaronis, Application of exergoeconomic
and exergoenvironmental analysis to an SOFC system with an allothermal biomass
gasifier, Int. J. Therm. 12 (2009) 177–186.
[22] D. Haydargil, A. Abusoglu, A comparative thermoeconomic cost accounting analysis
and evaluation of biogas engine-powered cogeneration, Energy 159 (2018) 97–114.
[23] M. Gorji-Bandpy, V. Ebrabimian, Exergoeconomic analysis of gas turbine power
plants, Int. Energy J. 7 (2006) 35–41.
[24] F. Petrakopoulou, A. Boyano, M. Cabrera, G. Tsatsaronis, Exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analyses of a combined cycle power plant with chemical
looping technology, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 5 (2011) 475–482.
[25] S.O. Oyedepo, R.O. Fagbenle, S.S. Adefila, A.M. Mahbub, Exergy costing analysis
and performance evaluation of selected gas turbine power plants, Cogent Eng. 2
(2015) 1101048.
[26] A. lmutairi, P. Pilidis, N. Al-Mutawa, Exergoeconomic and sustainability analysis of
reheat gas turbine engine, Am. J. Energy Res. 4 (2006) 1–10.
[27] G. Bonforte, J. Buchgeister, G. Manfrida, K. Petela, Exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analysis of an integrated solar gas turbine/combined cycle
power plant, in: Proceedings of ECOS 2017 - the 30th International Conference on
Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy
Systems, 2017. San Diego, California, USA, 2017.
[28] M. Modesto, S.A. Nebra, Exergoeconomic analysis of the power generation system
using blast furnace and coke oven gas in a Brazilian steel mill, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29
(2009) 2127–2136.
Heliyon 6 (2020) e04402
[29] D.M. Mitorovic, B.V. Stojanovic, J.N. Janevski, M.G. Ignjatovic, G.D. Vuckovic,
Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a steam boiler, Therm. Sci. 22 (2018)
S1601–S1612.
[30] S. Adumene, A.K. Le-ol, B.T. Lebele-Alawa, Performance and economic analysis of
gas turbine subsystems for power generation in the Niger Delta, Int. J. Eng. Technol.
9 (2016) 29–41.
[31] D.J. Kim, A new thermoeconomic methodology for energy systems, Energy 35
(2010) 410–422.
[32] J. Xiong, H. Zhao, C. Zhang, C. Zheng, P. Luh, Thermoeconomic operation
optimization of a coal-fired power plant, Energy 42 (2012) 486–496.
[33] P.O. Ogbe, N.B. Anosike, U.C. Okonkwo, Exergoeconomic evaluation of Transcorp
power plant Ughelli, Int. Res. J. Eng. Tech. 3 (2016) 36–44.
[34] A. Keçebaş, The modified productive structure analysis of Afyon geothermal district
heating system for economic optimization, Int. J. Renew. Energy Resour. 3 (2013)
60–67.
[35] B. Hargitt, Introduction, in: D.P. Steen, P.R. Ashurst (Eds.), Carbonated Soft Drinks:
Formulation and Manufacture, Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd., UK, 2006,
pp. 1–15.
[36] Mojonnier. Carbo Cooler. (2018, 2,14). Retrieved from Mojonnier: https://mojo
nnier.com/components/carbo-coolers
[37] KHS group. Innopro Paramix C Blending System. (2019, 4, 2). Retrieved from KHS
group: https://www.khs.com/en/products/detail/innopro-paramix-c-blending-syst
em
[38] Krones, A.G. Contiflow. (2019, 4, 2). Retrieved from Krones: https://www.krones
.com/en/products/machines/blending-and-carbonating.php.
[39] M. Fani, A.A. Mozafari, B. Farhanieh, Coordination of process integration and
exergoeconomic methodology for analysis and optimization of a pulp and paper
mill, Sci. Iran Trans. B 16 (2009) 301–312.
[40] CIRCE, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Zaragoza.
TAESS.(2018.6.15). Retrieved from Exergoecology Portal. iCIRCE. http://www.
exergoecology.com/taess/taess.
[41] A. Valero, S. Uson, C. Torres, W. Stanek, Theory of exergy cost and
thermoecological cost, in: W. Stanek (Ed.), Thermodynamics for Sustainable
Management of Natural Resources, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,
2017, pp. 167–202.
[42] V. Rangel-Hernandez, C. Torres, A. Zaleta-Aguilar, M. Gomez-Martinez, The exergy
costs of electrical power, cooling, and waste heat from a hybrid system based on a
solid oxide fuel cell and an absorption refrigeration system, Energies 12 (2019)
1–15.
[43] S. Khatwani, G. Maheshwari, Exergy cost analysis of vapour absorption
refrigeration system (VARS) based on thermoeconomic model, Int. J. Adv. Technol.
Eng. Sci. 4 (2016) 515–525. http://ijates.com/images/short_pdf/1471950477_
168_IJATES.pdf.
[44] C.J. Okereke, O.A. Lasode, I.O. Ohijeagbon, Exergoeconomic Analysis of an
Industrial Beverage Mixer System: Process Data, Data in Brief, 2020 [Data set].
[45] S. Khattak, R. Greenough, V. Sardeshpande, N. Brown, Exergy analysis of a four pan
jaggery making process, Energy Rep. 4 (2018) 470–477.
[46] A. Shendurse, D.C. Khedkar, Glucose: properties and analysis, in: B. Caballero,
P.M. Finglas, F. Toldra (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Food and Health, Academic
Press, Oxford, UK, 2016, pp. 239–247.
[47] M.V. Rocco, E. Colombo, E. Sciubba, Advances in exergy analysis: a novel
assessment of the extended exergy accounting method, Appl. Energy 113 (2014)
1405–1420.
[48] G. Tsatsaronis, Exergoeconomics and exergoenvironmental analysis, in: B.R. Bakshi,
T.G. Gutowski, D.P. Sekulic (Eds.), Thermodynamics and the Destruction of
Resources, Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011, pp. 377–388.
[49] G. Tsatsaronis, Definitions and nomenclature in exergy analysis and
exergoeconomics, Energy 32 (2007) 249–253.
[50] E. Querol, B. Gonzalez-Regueral, J.L. Perez-Benedito, Exergy concept and
determination, in: Practical Approach to Exergy and Thermo Economic Analysis of
Industrial Process, Springer Briefs in Energy, London, UK, 2013, pp. 9–28.
[51] Torres, C.; Perez, E.; Valero, A. Guidelines to develop software for thermoeconomic
analysis of energy systems. In: Proceedings of ECOS 2018: the 31st International
Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental
Impact of Energy Systems, Guimar~aes, Portugal, 17–21 June 2018; pp. 435–453.
[52] P. Valdimarsson, Basic concepts of thermo-economics. short course on geothermal
drilling, resource development and Power Plants, organized by UNU-GTP and
LaGeo in Santa Tecla, El Salvador, LaGeo S.A. de C.V (2011) 1–7. https://orkustofn
un.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-12-41.pdf.
[53] G.D. Vuckovic, M.V. Vukic, M.M. Stojiljkovic, D.D. Vuckovic, Avoidable and
unavoidable exergy destruction and exergoeconomic evaluation of the thermal
process in a real industrial plant, Therm. Sci. 16 (2012) S433–S446.
[54] A. Niazi, J.S. Dai, S. Balabani, L. Seneviratne, Product cost estimation: technique
classification and methodology review, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 128 (2006) 563–575.
[55] F. Giandomenico, T.H. Minh, L. Andrea, L. Pierluigi, E.W. Dianne, Exergetic and
exergoeconomic analysis of three different technologies for post-combustion CO2
capture, Energy Procedia 114 (2007) 6455–6464.
[56] R.L. Coenelissen, G.G. Hirs, Exergy analysis in the process industry, in: A. Bejan,
E. Mamut (Eds.), Thermodynamic Optimization of Complex Energy Systems,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA, 1999, pp. 195–208.
[57] I.O. Ohijeagbon, M.A. Waheed, S.O. Jekayinfa, O.A. Lasode, Exergetic modelling of
oil-fired steam boilers, Niger. J. Technol. 33 (2014) 523–536.