Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Review
An overview of the recent trends on the waste valorization techniques for
food wastes
A. Nayak
a,b,∗
, Brij Bhushan
b,c
a
Innovació i Recerca Industrial I Sostenible, S.L., 08860, Spain
b
Graphic Era University, Dehradun, 248002, India
c
Chemical Engineering Department, Universitat Politechnica Catalunya, UPC-
BarcelonaTECH, Barcelona, 08860, Spain
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Valorization
Food wastes
Bio-fuels
Bio-materials
Value added components
Bio-sorbents
ABSTRACT
A critical and up-to-date review has been conducted on the latest individual
valorization technologies aimed at
the generation of value-added by-products from food wastes in the form of bio-
fuels, bio-materials, value added
components and bio-based adsorbents. The aim is to examine the associated
advantages and drawbacks of each
technique separately along with the assessment of process parameters affecting the
efficiency of the generation
of the bio-based products. Challenges faced during the processing of the wastes to
each of the bio-products have
been explained and future scopes stated. Among the many hurdles encountered in the
successful and high yield
generationofthebio-
productsisthecomplexityandvariabilityinthecompositionofthefoodwastesalongwith
the high inherent moisture content. Also, individual technologies have their own
process configurations and
operating parameters which may affect the yield and composition of the desired end
product. All these require
extensive study of the composition of the food wastes followed by their effective
pre-treatments, judicial se-
lectionofthetechnologicalparametersandfinallyoptimizationofnotonlytheprocessconfigura
tionsbutalsoin
relation to the input food waste material. Attempt has also been made to address
the hurdles faced during the
implementation of such technologies on an industrial scale.
1. Introduction
The agro-food industries generate huge quantities of biodegradable
solid or liquid wastes and consist of organic residues of the processed
raw materials. As per a study conducted by Baiano (2014), it is esti-
mated that approximately 26% of food wastes are generated from the
drinks industry, followed by the dairy industry (21%), fruit/vegetable
production and processing (14.8%), cereal processing and manu-
facturing (12.9%), meat product processing and preservation (8%),
manufacturing and processing of vegetable and animal oils (3.9%)fish
product processing and preservation (0.4%) and others (12.7%). Irre-
spective of their origin, such wastes are characterized by their high
moisture content, high biological instability and high organic loading
which in turn promotes microbial activity and are hence difficult to
handle. Improper disposal practices of such wastes result in environ-
mental problems like toxicity to aquatic life, pollution of surface and
ground waters, altered soil quality, phyto-toxicity, colored natural
waters and odor. For this reason, worldwide legislation requirements
for handling of the waste and their disposal have become increasingly
restrictive over the last decade (Chandrasekaran, 2013). While the best
optionispreventionofwaste,itsreuseorrecyclingtorecoverenergyor
materials has been outlined by the waste management hierarchy under
the European Union. Similar concepts of reduce, reuse and recycle of
wastes have been highlighted by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (www.epa.gov)and theUnited States Department of
Agriculture (www.usda.gov)(Arvanitoyannins, 2008; Murugan et al.,
2013). The recycling of food wastes to produce commercial products
andenergyisknownasthebio-refineryconceptandisfastpickingupin
the scientific community as a sustainable option (Fig. 1). The bio-re-
finery products like bio-fuels, biomass, bio-fertilizers and secondary
chemicals are obtained from the bio-technological transformation of
such wastes via anaerobic digestion, fermentation and composting
technologies (Schieber et al., 2001; Sonja et al., 2009). Agro-food
wastes have also been successfully developed into effective bio-based
adsorbents which have been used for the bio-remediation of diverse
types of pollutants from wastewaters. Recovery of high value-added
components and their re-utilization as food additives, therapeutics etc.
is another aspect of the bio-refinery concept (Han and Shin, 2004;
Wang et al., 2005; Sonja et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2013). The value-
added components are selectively extracted from the food matrix
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.041
Received 13 July 2018; Received in revised form 9 December 2018; Accepted 14
December 2018
∗
Corresponding author. Graphic Era University, Dehradun, 248002, India.
E-mail addresses: arunima_nayak@yahoo.com, arunima_nayak@geu.ac.in (A. Nayak).
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
Available online 31 December 2018
0301-4797/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
through combined approaches of bio-chemical, chemical or thermal/
physical followed bytheir modificationintohigher valuefoodproducts
or additives. Thepast decade hasseenaspurt ofresearch activities that
are centered on maximizing the yield of the bio-products via the opti-
mization of the underlying technologies, on the final use of the bio-
refinery products andfinally on the economic viability of the process.
So, all the valued components are separated from the agro-food waste
biomass producing little or no waste (Sonja et al., 2009). The overall
bio-refinery concept for the management of food wastes has a positive
impact to the environment due to less greenhouse gas emissions, re-
duction in the environmental burden of their disposal and lower de-
pendence on fossil-based sources for fuel generation (Chandrasekaran,
2013).
Various review articles have been published in the last two decades
addressing the technical details and also, on the importance of the bio-
refinery concept when applied to food wastes. The potential and ef-
fectiveness of individual technology involved in the bio-conversion of
different classes of food waste has been extensively documented in
various review articles (Lang and Wai, 2001; Saratale et al., 2008;
Routray and Orsat, 2011; Murugan et al., 2013; Kiran et al., 2014;
Pham et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2015; Karmee, 2016; Ravindran and
Jaiswal, 2016; Zhang et al., 2016a; Stephen and Periasamy, 2018;
Tradleretal.,2018;Yunetal.,2018).Forexample,currentopinionson
theanaerobicdigestionprocessforproductionofbiogashavebeenwell
documented (Zhang et al., 2016a; Stephen and Periasamy, 2018). Dark
fermentation method for production of bio-H
2
was reviewed (Saratale
et al., 2008; Yun et al., 2018). Gollakota et al. described in detail the
technicalities, advantages and disadvantages involved in hydrothermal
liquefaction process (Gollakota et al., 2018). Tradler et al. published a
review on the conversion of food waste by hydrothermal carbonization
technology (Tradler et al., 2018). The review published by Makarichi
et al. has demonstrated that waste-to-energy conversion technologies
have played a significant role in reducing the global waste problem
(Makarichi et al., 2018). Different food wastes were characterized on
the basis of food-energy-water nexus by Kibler et al. and the authors
concluded that options like composting, anaerobic digestion and in-
cineration have presented immense opportunities for the management
of food waste (Kibler et al., 2018). An overview of various technologies
involved in the bio-conversion of food wastes to energy has been
documented individually in reviews by Mckendry, Murugan et al.,
Kiran et al., Pham et al. and Karmee (McKendry, 2002, Murugan et al.,
2013; Kiran et al., 2014; Karmee, 2016). Among the individual ex-
traction techniques used for recovery of value-added products from
food waste, reviews were published on some of the advanced non-
conventional techniques like pulsed electric field, ultrasound and mi-
crowaves (Mason et al., 1996; Routray and Orsat, 2011; Yan et al.,
2015). Galanakis reviewed different extraction technologies for the
recovery of value-added products from food wastes (Galanakis, 2012).
In a review published by Lin et al., the authors have provided a general
overview of the valorization strategies of citrus peel waste, waste
cookingoilandcashew shellnutliquid thatareproduced inabundance
in countries like China, the UK, Tanzania, Spain, Greece or Morocco
(Lin et al., 2013a,b). In another review published by Mirabella et al.,
various food waste from the agro-industry having potential benefits
under the bio-refinery concept have been identified (Mirabella et al.,
2014). The authors have further discussed on the possibilities and
constraintsthatmayariseduringtheapplicationofindustrialsymbiosis
while recovering value added products from the food waste.
Thus, on a closer examination, it is seen that such reviews have
demonstrated the usefulness of individual technologies like anaerobic
digestion, dark fermentation, microbial fermentation, hydrothermal li-
quefaction/carbonization and extractions for the recovery of value-
added products from various food wastes. Keeping in focus the im-
portance/relevance of bio-refinery concept with the environment and
on the immense work being carried out to minimize the adverse effects
of food wastes,the aim ofthis review article isto provide anup-to-date
literature on the various technologies used till date for the valorization
of food wastes to produce bio-fuels, bio-materials, value added com-
ponents and bio-sorbents. The aim is also to make a comparative and
critical review of the technological background involved in the in-
dividual techniques thus stated. Finally, an attempt has also been made
to examine the advantages, drawbacks as well challenges of each
technique separately along with the assessment of process parameters
affecting the efficiency of the generation of the bio-products.
Technological hurdles have been discussed and assessed during the
implementation of such technologies on a larger scale.
2. Valorization of food wastes
2.1. Production of bio-fuels
Utilization of food wastes to generate bio-fuels has emerged as an
important valorization strategy because of the rapidly rising energy
costs from the depleting fossil resources (Skaggs et al., 2018). Also,
there hasbeen an increased public awareness on thedegradation of the
quality of our environment due to the mismanagement and improper
disposalofthefoodwastes(Koikeetal.,2009).Generationoffuelsfrom
foodwastesalsodonotgiverisetothefoodversusfuelcompetition(He
et al., 2012). Based on such favorable outcomes, literature study has
revealed the research activities on various food wastes and agro-food
processing wastes that are rich in carbohydrates and sugars for e.g.rice
straw, wheat straw, maize stalks, sugarcane bagasse, grape and apple
pomace etc. Such studies have demonstrated the bio-fuel generation
capacity of such substrates. While bio-methane and bio-hydrogen have
been classified under gaseous bio-fuels, bio-ethanol and bio-diesel have
been incorporated under the liquid bio-fuels. As per a review published
in 2018, (Stephen and Periasamy, 2018), it was stated that the use of
liquid bio-fuels is gaining in prominence over their gaseous counter-
partsmainlybecauseofthehigherproduction efficiencyandassociated
economics. The bio-based technologies that have been increasingly
used for generation of bio-fuels from food waste matrices are anaerobic
digestion, aerobic digestion and the microbial fermentation process.
Such techniques have gained prominence in comparison to the thermal
processes of combustion and gasification in the production of the bio-
fuels because of their potential to handle the high moisture content in
food wastes giving rise to minimum emissions and maximum yields.
Some of the thermal techniques used for generation of bio-fuels from
high moisture inherent food wastes are the hydrothermal liquefaction
and carbonization. The individual techniques have been critically re-
viewed followed by a review of their advantages and shortcomings
along with an assessment of the various parameters affecting their ef-
ficiency.
Fig. 1. The bio-refinery concept and individual techniques applied to food
wastes.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
353
2.1.1. Bio-methane production
Aspervariousreviews,anaerobicdigestionhasbeenrecognizedasa
well-accepted technique in which the biodegradable organic food
wastes and wastewater sludge are decomposed anaerobically under
controlled conditions of temperature, pH and in the presence of a
bacterial consortia for the generation of bio-gas (Gunaseelan, 1997;
Pham et al., 2015). The bio-gas consisting of mainly methane, carbon
dioxide and trace amounts of other impurities like hydrogen sulphide,
nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and methyl mercaptans is a source of re-
newable energy (Kiran et al., 2016). Removal of the impurities via
processes like chemical absorption, membrane separation, pressure
swingabsorptionetc.helptoincreasetheenergeticvalueofthebio-fuel
(Harasimowicz etal.,2007;Ajharetal.,2012).Inaddition tobio-gas,a
nutrient rich digestate is also produced which has the potential to be
used as a soil fertilizer. The wider acceptability of the anaerobic di-
gestion technique is obvious mainly on account of its low cost of op-
eration, low production of residual waste and its utilization as a source
of renewable energy. It also helps in the solid waste management via
volume/mass reduction of wastes.
The technique involves the initial hydrolysis with subsequent fer-
mentation of large complex polymers like carbohydrates and proteins
inherentinthewastematricestoCO
2
,hydrogenacetatefollowedbythe
conversionofthesesubstratestomethane.Eachofthesereactionstakes
place by the action of individual class of bacteria and are named as
hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis (Pham
et al., 2015; Kiran et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016a). The metabolism of
the bacteria involved in the various anaerobic digestion processes are
different and depend on external environmental parameters like the
temperature, pH, C: N ratio, redox potential etc. (Batstone et al., 2002;
Angelidaki et al., 2005; Karakashev et al., 2005; Bowen et al., 2014).
For e.g. a temperature requirement of 25–35°C, pH of 5.2–6.3 and a
C:N ratio of 10–45 is required for optimum performance of bacteria
under the hydrolysis/acidogenesis stage. Similarly, the methanogenesis
bacteria are known to operate at temperatures of 30–60°C, pH of
6.7–7.5 and a C: N ratio of 20–30. Although the ideal C:N ratio for
smooth and optimum functioning of the digestion process is 20–30, but
in majority ofcases theC:N ratio offood waste substrates is beyondthe
prescribed range. Some food wastes usually havelownitrogen/nutrient
contentwhileslaughterhousewasteshavehighconcentrationsoflipids
as well as very high nitrogen, both of which are inhibitory to the
anaerobic digestion process. High lipid content is known to yield long
chain fatty acids (LCFA) which in turn are inhibitory to the digestion
process and may cause system failure. The physical and chemical
characteristics of the food waste substrate like the moisture, volatile
solid and nutrient contents are also known to affect the performance of
the anaerobic digestion (Fisgativa et al., 2016). Under such circum-
stance, use of co-substrates during anaerobic digestion has helped in
overcoming the shortfalls of a single substrate digestion and has also
helped in enhancing the biogas yield. There have been increased study
on co-digestion particularly using sludge/manure with agro-industrial
waste/residues(KaparajuandRintala,2005;Castilloetal.,2006;Neves
et al., 2006; Gelegenis et al., 2007; Ebner et al., 2016; Yang et al.,
2016a,b; Ziels et al., 2016). The co-digestion of food waste carried out
with cow manure under anaerobic mesophilic reactor conditions was
shown to have enhanced the bio-methane yield by 26% as compared to
the additive individual yields of digestion of food waste and manure
(Zamanzadeh et al., 2017). The improved performance as evident from
such studies could be due to a positive synergistic effect established in
the digestion medium as well as the incorporation of missing nutrients
by the co-substrates (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2000). The anaerobic co-di-
gestion is thus a promising option which not only helps in stabilizing
the process but results in improved biogas yield. Kim et al. have stated
that the composition of substrate and the co-substrate as well as their
appropriate mixing ratio are crucial parameters for the success of the
co-digestion process (Kim et al., 2016).
Besides the substrate composition, the reactor configuration is
known to affect the digestion efficiency. It has been reported that the
two-stage digestion process of hydrolysis/acidogenesis and acetogen-
esis/methanogenesis occurring in separate reactors is more favored
than a single stage digestion procedure (Mao et al., 2015). Kondusamy
and Kalamdhad similarly reported the greater efficiency of the two-
stage reactor because the dynamics of the anaerobic digestion process
allows the individual bacterial species to operate separately from hy-
drolysis and methanogenesis (Kondusamy and Kalamdhad, 2014).
Grimberg highlighted that two-stage digester for food waste treatment
is more efficient for resolving pH inhibition issues that are more pre-
valent in one-stage digester systems (Grimberg, 2014).Onan economic
front, it has been observed that the two-stage reactors increase con-
struction and materials costs while single-stage systems are more pre-
valent due to lower capital costs. Organic loading rate (OLR) is another
important factor that affects the performance of the methanogenic
bacteria and hence on the production of biogas. While a higher OLR is
expectedtoincreasethebiogasyieldbuteventuallyithasbeenreported
to cause an inhibition of the bacterial community; thereby causing ir-
reversible instability in the reactor. Reactor design is an important
factor that has been researched upon intensively in order to attain high
loading, to immobilize the bacterial consortia and to stabilize the me-
thanogenesis stage. Among the conventional reactors used till date are
the anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) (Singh and Srivastava,
2011), continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) (Boe and Angelidaki,
2009) and the anaerobic plug flow reactor (APFR) (Sharma et al.,
2000). Some of the drawbacks that have been identified are the in-
ability of such reactors to retain biomass leading to improper digestion
andpooreffluentquality.Researchstudieshaveshownashifttotheuse
of anaerobic contact reactor (ACR) (Şentürk et al., 2012), up flow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (USAB) (Chong et al., 2012) and
anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) (Barber and Stuckey, 1999)soasto
maximize the biomass retention time within the reactor. Besides
achieving a high effluent quality (COD reduction of 75–95%) and
limited biomass washout, other advantages reported include better
contact process between the substrate and the sludge, sufficiently short
hydraulic retention times, favorable pH and enhanced biogas con-
centration and composition (Singh and Prerna, 2009; Chong et al.,
2012). Additionally, the system has shown a higher OLR tolerance of
upto 8kg COD/m
3
/d without initiating process inhibition. More re-
cently anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) are increasingly
being used as the technology represents a cost-effective method in
producinghigheffluentqualitythatisfreeofsolids,pathogensandrich
in nutrients like nitrogen/phosphorus (Chang, 2014; Dvorak et al.,
2016). In a more recent review, it is stated that AnMBR can demon-
strate enhanced performance when dealing with inhibitory or toxic
substrates.Thisisbecauseofthecapacityofthemembranetoretainthe
biomass; thereby causing increased contact with the biomass. Some
drawbacks are inherent which include membrane fouling as well as its
poor efficiency when operated under lower temperature conditions
(AnMBRs are usually operated at mesophilic or thermophilic condi-
tions). Studies have shown high operational stability, high treatment
efficiency, high biomass retention, and stable biogas production in
AnMBRs operating under extreme conditions (Dereli et al., 2012; Lin
et al., 2013a,b; Xiao et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2016).
An exhaustive literature study was conducted on the diverse food
and vegetable wastes that have been digested anaerobically in different
kinds of bio-reactors under diverse experimental conditions so as to
enhance the yield of bio-methane and bio-gas yields. The summary of
the study is given in Table 1. As is evident from the table and as has
been pointed out by Molino et al. (2013), the nature of the food waste
as well as the reactor configuration have affected the overall perfor-
mance of anaerobic digestion. Both single stage reactor as well as multi
stage reactor has been used for the digestion of food waste. But as
compared to multi stage reactors, single stage digestion has en-
countered less frequent failures as reported by Forster-Carneiro et al.
(2008). Digestion of kitchen waste was conducted in both single and
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
354
two-stage reactor (Park et al., 2008). Although the efficiency with re-
spect to methane yield was comparable in both reactors, yet fluctua-
tions were observed with respect to reactor stability in the single stage
reactor due to high accumulation of propionate. Studies conducted by
Gunaseelan (2004) on food waste ranging from 54 different fruit and
vegetable waste revealed varying methane yields (180–732mL/g VS)
depending on the nature and composition of the food waste. A similar
observation of the dependence of methane yield on the nature of food
waste substrate was made by Cho et al. (1995). Food wastes ranging
from cooked meat, boiled rice, fresh cabbage as well as mixed food
wastes when digested under similar conditions (2 stage UASB at 37°C
for120days) gaveamethaneyield of482,372,294,277, and472mL/
g VS respectively.
The high degradability of food wastes and the higher yield of bio-
gas when operated under controlled conditions have shown that
anaerobicdigestioncanleadtoreductionofwastevolumesandalsocan
contribute to recovery of energy in a cost-effective manner. However,
the greatest disadvantage of this technology is the longer treatment
times of 20–40 days by microbial decomposition (Chen et al., 2008).
Another disadvantage is the sensitivity of the bacterial consortium to
changes in process conditions like pH, temperature, salts and toxic
materials generated during digestion; thereby requiring strict process
controlandprocessoptimization.Thechemicalcompositionofthefood
wastehindersitsrateofdegradation;thus,thedigestionprocessisoften
known to suffer from long solid residence time and low conversion
efficiency(Quirogaetal.,2014).Sincehydrolysishasbeendocumented
astheratelimitingstepfortheanaerobicdegradation,variousphysical,
chemical, thermal and enzymatic pre-treatment have been documented
so as to increase the solubility of the food substrate and to accelerate
the degradation rate of solid organic waste (Chen et al., 2008;
Ariunbaataretal.,2014;Kiranetal.,2016).Somefoodwasteshavinga
high solid content require an initial physical treatment like milling,
grinding. Such treatment has helped in particle size reduction of the
substrate for enhanced availability of its surface for microbial activity.
Some studies have demonstrated the successful use of ultrasonication
and microwave under optimized conditions for improved biogas yields
(Marin et al., 2010; Quiroga et al., 2014). Addition of chemicals like
acid, alkali or oxidants as well as addition of microorganisms have also
helped in enhancing the biogas production from various food wastes
(Angelidaki and Ahring, 2000; Zhong et al., 2011; Zheng et al., 2014).
The main drawback of physical and chemical pre-treatment may be the
high energy and chemical consumption. Longer incubation time during
biological pre-treatment could hinder its applicability on a larger scale
(Kim e al., 2016). On a closer examination, it is observed that most of
the studies on pre-treatment methods have been conducted in labora-
tory. The success rates on enhanced biogas yields due to the effect of
such pre-treatments can beobtained only when large scale applications
are considered along with the associated capital costs.
2.1.2. Bio-alcohol production
The most common bio-alcohol that has been derived from the mi-
crobial fermentation of agricultural and biomass-based sugars is
ethanol. With rapidly depleting petroleum reserves, ethanol has
emerged as an alternative liquid fuel mainly because it exhibits the
same characteristics of fuel as that of petroleum. It is a well-known fact
that ethanol has a high-octane number; because of which its blend can
achieve the same anti-knock effect as that of petroleum.
Ethanol is also a key substrate used in the further production of
polyethylene and other plastics. Carbohydrate based feedstock derived
from agricultural cereal (rice, wheat) and sugar-based crops (sugar
beet, sugarcane, sweet sorghum etc.) which are demarcated as first-
generation feedstock have limited applications for production of
ethanol and are unsustainable mainly because of issues related to food
security and land use. Food/agricultural residues are typical lig-
nocellulosic substrates which have served as potential source for pro-
duction of ethanol; thereby also providing a viable solution in reducing
the greenhouse gas emissions (Balat, 2011; Huang et al., 2015). It can
be said that alcohol production from food/agro-food wastes has two
major advantages. Firstly, use of such wastes as substrates in bio-
ethanol generation helps in reducing the cost of waste disposal and
secondly it also reduces the cost of ethanol production which was
earlier produced fromfirst generation feedstocks. Other benefits are its
renewable nature, long term sustainability, low net carbon emissions
and high energy efficiency. Various food wastes like banana peel
(Hammond et al., 1996; Oberoi et al., 2011a); grape and sugar beet
pomace (Korkie et al., 2002; Rodríguezet al., 2010), pineapple waste
(Ban-Koffi and Han, 1990; Gil and Maupoey, 2018), potato peel waste
(Arapoglou et al., 2010), citrus waste (Boluda-Aguilar et al., 2010),
spent coffee grounds (Kourmentza et al., 2018) etc. have been ex-
tensively studied as suitable substrates for ethanol production. Table 2
shows the glucose and ethanol yields generated as a result of simulta-
neous saccharification and fermentation of different types of food
wastes.Morerecently,kitchenwastehasservedasausefulsubstratefor
bio-ethanol production. Such wastes also known to contain organic
Table 1
Performance data of anaerobic digestion of food waste.
Food waste Bioreactor Duration (days) HRT (days) Biogas yield (L/kg
VS)
CH
4
yield (mL/kg
VS)
References
Dairy manure and food waste Hybrid anaerobic solid–liquid
bioreactor
NA NA 302 NA El-MashadandZhang(2010)
Food waste Single stage 3 stage semi-
continuous
30 12 NA NA Kim et al. (2006)
Food waste 2 stage bioreactor 90 NA 440 70 Lee et al. (1999)
Food waste Single stage CSTR 225 16 NA 455 Nagao et al. (2012)
Food waste & Activated sludge Single stage, semi-continuous
reactor
250 13 NA 390 Heo et al. (2004)
Fruit & Veg Waste Single stage Serum Bottle 100 NA NA 180–732 Gunaseelan (2004)
Food waste 2 stage bioreactor 60 20 NA NR Youn and Shin (2005)
Potato waste Two stage packed bed 38 NA NA 390 Parawira et al. (2005)
Food waste Single stage batch 28 10–28 600 440 Zhang et al., 2007a,b
Food waste 1 stage batch 60 20–60 0.49 220 Forster-Carneiro et al.
(2008)
Food waste 2 stage CSTR 150 5 NA 464 Kim et al. (2010)
Food waste Three stage UASB NA 12 NA 254 Kim et al. (2008a,b)
Food waste (kitchen waste) Two stage bioreactor 200 1–27 578 520 Park et al. (2008)
Food waste Single stage digester 426 80 643 399 Banks et al. (2011)
Food waste Single stage UASB 72 4–10 NA NA Latif et al. (2012)
Food waste & seed sludge Single stage bioreactor NA 8–30 1039 465 Dai et al. (2013)
Food waste 2 stage UASB 120 NA NA 277–482 Cho et al. (1995)
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
355
matters especially carbohydrates that can be converted into fermen-
table sugars for subsequent use in bio-ethanol fermentation (Hafid
et al., 2017).
Saccharification i.e. converting starch or carbohydrates to reducing
sugars like glucose by the action of commercial enzymes like α-amy-
lase,β-amylase, glucoamylase etc. is thefirst step for the production of
ethanol from lignocellulosic substrates like rice, potato, and sugarcane.
This is followed by fermentation of the sugars via yeasts like S. cerevi-
siae. The invertase and zymase enzymes produced by the yeast cells
help to convert the reducing sugars to crude ethanol and CO
2
(Thomsen
et al., 2003; Kim and Dale, 2004). Besides yeast, other microorganisms
that have been used for bringing about fermentation are the fungi and
bacteria. It is reported that S. cerevisiae utilises only hexose sugars for
bio-ethanol production (Balat, 2011). Researchers have used other or-
ganisms like Zymomonasmobilis (Ban-Koffi and Han, 1990) and Pichia
rhodanensis (Korkie et al., 2002) and such have been reported to have
the potential of utilizing pentose sugars too for conversion to bio-
ethanol. Besides bio-ethanol, bio-butanol has been reported to have
been produced from food wastes using Clostridium acetobutylicum bac-
teria. Bio-butanol has many advantages as a bio-fuel in comparison to
bio-ethanol like its lower vapor pressure, improved combustion effi-
ciency and higher energy density (Kim and Dale, 2004).
The driving factoraffecting theyieldofethanol fromlignocellulosic
based food and agricultural wastes is the hydrolysis or the sacchar-
ificationprocess.Studieshaverevealedthatthecomplexlignocellulosic
structure of the food wastes is hard to digest which in turn is known to
affect the yield of bio-ethanol. Thus, various pre-treatment methods
have been adopted so as to increase the digestibility of the cellulosic
component and to improve carbohydrate saccharification. Such
methods involve the use of acid, alkali, heat and enzymes.
Temperature, pH, oxygen, initial sugar concentrations, organic acids,
dissolved solids, and immobilization of the yeast are essential para-
meters that influence the specific rate of yeast growth and ethanol
production. Thereby efficient pre-treatment methods and subsequently
optimization of all process parameters is essential in improving the
efficiency of the process. Among the different pre-treatment methods
employed till date, enzymatic hydrolysis has yielded optimum ethanol
production from food waste.
Carbohydrases and amyloglucosidases were used by Moon et al. to
achieve 29.1g/L ethanol from food waste (Moon et al., 2009). While,
32.2g/L of ethanol was obtained using the activity of amylases on food
waste (Uncu and Cekmecelioglu, 2011). Another major hurdle in the
process of ethanol production from the food wastes is the simultaneous
generation of microbial inhibitors during the pre-treatment process
(Palmqvist et al., 1999a; Palmqvist and Hahn-Hagerdal, 2000a, b). The
inhibitors which are classified as organic acids, furan derivatives and
phenolic compounds are known to inhibit the growth of fermenting
microorganisms and hence cause reduced yield of ethanol. Various
detoxification strategies have been researched upon and applied to
remove these inhibitors for improved fermentation of hemicellulosic
hydrolysate. These are classified as physical (evaporation, membrane
separations) (Palmqvist et al., 1997; Grzenia et al., 2010), chemical
(neutralization, calcium hydroxide over liming, activated charcoal
treatment, ion exchange resins, and extraction with ethyl acetate)
(Martinez et al., 2000; Mussatto and Roberto, 2004; Villarreal et al.,
2006; Chandel et al., 2007) and biological detoxification (enzymatic
mediated using laccase, lignin peroxidase) etc. (Parajo et al., 1996;
Nilvebrant et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2002; Okuda et al., 2008; Jurado
et al., 2009; Parawira and Tekere, 2011). Besides the conventional
methods, recent genetic engineering approaches have been successful
in making competitive strains of micro-organisms which have the
ability to resist the inhibitors (Larsson et al., 2001). Although the
process ofdetoxificationhasresulted inimprovedethanolproductivity,
yet such are known to increase the overall cost. Besides an optimal
design of the fermentation process and rate of bioconversion, in-
novative biological techniques are required which could use cheaper
and efficient chemicals that have more affinity towards inhibitors
without affecting the original sugar content in lignocellulosic hydro-
lysates.
Thus, effective conversion of food waste to bio-ethanol is an at-
tractive option as this technology is environmentally friendly and re-
duces accumulation of such waste. However, since scarce studies have
been conducted on a larger scale, the overall economic viability of the
processneedtobeassessed.Extensiveresearchworkisyettobecarried
out so as to lower the cost of ethanol production from food waste.
2.1.3. Bio-hydrogen production
Food wastes, because of their wide availability and high carbohy-
drate content are not only relatively inexpensive but also, they re-
present an ideal source of substrate for bio-H
2
production (Saratale
et al., 2008). Various solid agricultural food wastes, food processing
wastes like rice straw, molasses etc. have shown promising bio-hy-
drogen yields. Table 3 shows a summary of recent studies on bio-H
2
production from food wastes. The anaerobic dark fermentation tech-
nology used for H
2
production involves the degradation of the carbo-
hydrate fraction of waste via initial enzymatic hydrolysis to produce
reducingsugars(Alexandropoulouetal.,2018).Cellulaseisabio-based
catalyst that has helped in the conversion of cellulosic biomass to fer-
mentable sugars. This is followed by thermophilic heterotrophic fer-
mentation of sugars to produce organic acids (Nath et al., 2006). The
organic acids are subsequently converted to hydrogen by photo het-
erotrophic fermentation process. The hydrogen thus generated is a
promising alternative energy source to fossil fuels since it is clean, does
notcontributetogreenhousegas(GHG),isrenewableandcontainshigh
Table 2
Performance data of bio-ethanol production from food waste.
Food Waste Microorganism Yield of glucose (g/100g FW) Yield of ethanol (g/g FW)
Reference
Coffee waste S.Cerevisiae NA 0.74 Kefale et al., 2012
Mandarin waste
Banana peel
S.CerevisiaeAnr.
Pachysolentannophilus
25.2 0.11 Sharma et al. (2007)
Food waste S.Cerevisiae 23.4 0.12 Kim et al. (2008a,b)
Food waste S.Cerevisiae 60 0.36 Hong and Yoon (2011)
Rice husk S.Cerevisiae 49 0.98 Saha and Cotta, 2008
Food waste S.Cerevisiae 27 0.16 Kim et al., 2011
Food waste S.italicus 12.5 NA Li et al. (2011)
Banana peels S.Cerevisiae 37.1 0.32 Oberoi et al. (2011a)
Mandarin wastes S.Cerevisiae 52 0.34 Oberoi et al. (2011b)
Food waste S.Cerevisiae 29 0.14 Yan et al. (2011)
Wheat straw S. Cerevisiae 54.96g/L 25.14 Han et al. (2009)
Sugarcane bagasse C. shehatae 30.29g/L 8.67 Chandel et al. (2007)
Rice straw S. Cerevisiae 60.0g/L 12.34 Sukumaran et al. (2009)
Cashew apple bagasse S. Cerevisiae 15 5.6 Rodrigues et al. (2011)
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
356
energy content (142.35kJ/g). Bio-H
2
gas is also widely used feedstock
for the production of chemicals (ammonia and methanol). Studies have
shown thatanaerobic bacteria involved inbio-hydrogen production are
Enterobacter (Nath et al., 2006), Bacillus (Kotay and Das, 2007), Clos-
tridium (Ferchichi et al., 2005) and Thermotoga (Van Ooteghem et al.,
2002). Studies have revealed that a lower assimilation of the micro-
organism with the cellulosic biomass is responsible for lower bio-H
2
recoveries. Various other factors are known to affect enzymatic hy-
drolysis of cellulose and this includes type of substrate, reaction con-
ditions of temperature, pH, etc. and end product inhibition (cellobiose
and glucose). Thus, there has been increased focus among the research
community for the development of novel and effective cellulase en-
zymes, on the optimization and improvement of cellulase system, as
wellasapproaches oncellulose pre-treatment andsaccharification. The
basic aimis tomake thetechnology more economic (Nath etal., 2006).
Food wastes containing fats, proteins as well as complex carbohydrates
require an initial pre-treatment to assist in the process of bio-de-
gradation to simple chemical compounds which could be good sub-
stratesfordarkfermentation.Someofthemethodsemployedinvarious
studies are grinding/milling, pre-heating, acid/alkaline/oxidant hy-
drolysis and ultrasound assisted hydrolysis. The use of ultrasound is
known to increase solubility of organic compounds resulting in en-
hanced microbial activity (Jarunglumlert et al., 2018). Mechanical pre-
treatment has helped in increasing the surface area, porosity and mi-
crobial reactivity (Guo et al., 2011). Addition of microorganisms like
the fungi during pre-treatment has helped in the synthesis of enzymes
capable of digesting the polysaccharides (Zhao et al., 2012). Thus, al-
though mechanical, chemical pre-treatments have resulted in better
efficiency and yield of bio-H
2
, yet such processes may entail excessive
consumption of energy and costs. Another drawback as identified in a
review published in 2018 is that in most cases, pre-treatment can in-
itiatetheformationofinhibitorslikefurfural,5-hydroxymethylfurfural,
phenolic components, vanillin or fatty acids in varying amounts, de-
pending on the reaction conditions. The formation of such inhibitors
has shown to negatively impact the bio-H
2
yield during the dark fer-
mentation process (Łukajtis et al., 2018).
Among the various parameters affecting the yield of bio-H
2
and
which have been identified by Łukajtis et al. are the operating condi-
tions like temperature, pH, partial pressure of H
2
and the hydraulic
retention time (Łukajtis et al., 2018). Selection of optimum conditions
is an important pre-requisite for enhanced yield and efficiency. The
reactor configuration as well as its mode of operation (continuous,
batch, semi-batch) also has a profound influence on the process effi-
ciency. The most commonly used bioreactor configurations that have
used till date are continuous stirred-tank reactors (CSTR), upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB), anaerobic fluidized bed re-
actor (AFBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) (Oh et al., 2004; Zhang
et al., 2007a,b). Various fermentation systems like batch, semi-con-
tinuous, continuous occurring in single or multiple stages have been
employed for production of bio-H
2
from food wastes. Continuous op-
erations are known to assist in the scale-up process as well as to help in
overcoming various limitations. Some of the limitations as reported in
the batch process by Jarunglumlert et al. are low H
2
production, its
contamination and high maintenance costs (Jarunglumlert et al., 2018;
Yun et al., 2018). Studies have been proposed on a combined dark and
photo fermentation system so as to increase the overall yield of bio-H
2
.
Inthismethod,besidesthedarkfermentationmethodofH
2
production,
the lactic acid produced from food waste is also converted to H
2
by
photo fermentative purple non-sulphur bacteria (Kiran et al., 2014). A
two-stage fermentation combining the advantages of dark fermentation
and anaerobic digestion process has also been proposed and widely
studied (Wang and Zhao, 2009; Cavinato et al., 2012). In this method,
both H
2
and CH
4
are produced simultaneously. Various advantages
have been reported over the single step H
2
production like higher
production yields, higher efficiency as well as better reduction in COD
of liquid waste matrices. Studies have reported that the thermal power
of the mixed gas is higher as compared to the fossil derived fuels
(Rakopoulos and Michos, 2009).
The production of bio-hydrogen from organic food wastes via dark
or photo-fermentative technology as well as the combined two stage
technology of fermentation and anaerobic digestion is a promising
option and has received great interest because of its dual function of
waste reduction and enhanced clean energy production. The process is
environmentally friendly but there is concern as to whether the mi-
crobial fermentation of food waste is economically feasible or not. A
study conductedbyBartelsetal.indicatedthattheeconomicfeasibility
of H
2
production from food waste by dark fermentation is questionable
due to the limited carbohydrate content, thermodynamic limitations
etc.(Bartelsetal.,2010).Anotherlimitationofbio-H
2
productionanda
majorhurdleforitspracticalapplication isthelowerrateofconversion
of substrate to product. Research is ongoing to increase the H
2
yield as
well as energy recovery via CH
4
by coupling of dark fermentation with
anaerobic digestion.
2.1.4. Bio-oil/Bio-char generation
Incineration or thermal process of combustion of food wastes to
produce heat and energy is an age-old technology. It helps in reducing
the volume of such wastes to 80–85% and simultaneously helps to re-
cover the energy from such wastes. The main stages in the incineration
process include an initial pre-treatment in the form of drying and de-
gassing, pyrolysis and gasification and finally oxidation in which the
generated heat can be used to produce energy via steam turbines or it
can be used to heat up process streams in industry (Autret et al., 2007;
Pham et al., 2015). During the drying and degassing stage, the volatile
matter and high moisture content in the food waste is evolved at tem-
peratures generally between 100 and 300°C in the absence of any
oxidizing agent. Pyrolysis stage requires the further decomposition of
organic substances at approximately 250–700°C in the absence of
oxygen whereby the major product is the bio-oil along with a syn-gas
consisting of CO and H
2
(McKendry, 2002). A solid bio-char is also
developed as a by-product. The gasification stage involves the reaction
of the carbonaceous product with water vapor and carbon dioxide at
Table 3
Performance data of bio-hydrogen production from food waste.
Food waste Reactor Duration (days) HRT (days) Yield (mL/g VS) References
Food waste Leaching bed reactor 7 5 160 Han and Shin (2004)
Food waste 415mL Bottle 3 Batch 67 Kim et al. (2004)
Food waste 715mL bottle 6 Batch 92 Shin et al. (2004)
Food waste bioreactor 5 NA 125 Shin and Youn (2005)
Food waste CSTR 150 1.3 283 Chu et al. (2008)
Food waste ASBR NA 1.25 80.9 Kim et al. (2010)
Food waste Rotating drum 30 4 65 Wang and Zhao (2009)
Food waste SCR 96 1.9 114 Lee et al. (2010)
Food waste Bottle 14.6 Batch 118 Elbeshbishyet al. (2011).
Apple pomace bioreactor 2 Batch 134 Wang et al. (2010)
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
357
temperatures between 500 and 1000°C. Thus, the solid organic matter
is converted to gaseous phase consisting of CO, CH
4
,N
2
,H
2
and CO
2
which are further oxidized during the oxidizing stage at temperatures
between800and1450°C.Thegaseousproductcanbeuseddirectlyasa
fuel for gas engines and gas turbines or it can be used as a feedstock in
the production of chemicals (Garcia et al., 1998; Zevenhoven-
Onderwater et al., 2001).
Despite such positive attributes, incineration process involves the
generation of gases like CO
2
,CH
4
,NH
3
, HCN, CO and H
2
and hence is
associated with serious environmental risks. This is a major factor
linked to its failure to scale up as a viable waste management strategy
(Pham et al., 2015). Rapid technological development pertaining to
process design of the incinerator and improvement in the air emission
control system have helped in overcoming the major limitation of the
incineration technology for a possible industrial scale up. Other factors
that affect the performance of the thermal process in waste to energy
conversion isthe characteristics of thefood wastes withrespect totheir
elementalcomposition,lowerheatingvalue,ashcontent,highmoisture
content, volatile matter content, bulk size, density etc. These char-
acteristicsarecrucialfortheoverallprocessperformance.Themoisture
content inboth foodwastes seemstobeamajordeterringfactor forthe
overall efficiency of the process. Thereby, the energy recovery through
incinerationofsuchwastesisnotafeasibleoption.Inastudyduringthe
direct combustion of food wastes, the thermal losses as a result of
evaporation of the high moisture content were used to dehydrate the
food garbage (Caton et al., 2010). Thus, effective energy recovery from
food waste can be helpful in reducing costs required for either tradi-
tional fuel use or for reducing the waste disposal costs (Pham et al.,
2015).InareviewpublishedbyArena,itwasstatedthatbecauseofthe
adverse characteristics of the food waste composition, the gasification
andpyrolysistechnologiesrequiredrieduppre-treatedfoodwastesand
thus the energy required for drying increases the overall cost (Arena,
2012).
Thermal processes not involving a dryingpre-treatment steparethe
hydrothermal gasification, hydrothermal carbonization and hydro-
thermal liquefaction.
When performed under sub critical water conditions of high pres-
sure (7–30MPa) and moderate temperatures (250–380°C), food wastes
are effectively converted to high energetic liquid (bio-oil) as well as
solid bio-fuels (hydro-char) within a short residence time of 5–60min
(Akhtar and Amin, 2011; Demirbas, 2011). A gaseous phase as well an
aqueous phase containing dissolved organics are obtained as by-pro-
ducts too. This process known as hydrothermal liquefaction has shown
remarkable advantages over gasification or pyrolysis (Gollakota et al.,
2018). Firstly, the process can handle diverse types of food waste with
high moisture content; thereby demonstrating its versatility (Déniel
et al.,2016; Yan etal., 2016; Posmanik etal., 2017).Some ofthewaste
substrates studied till date are deoiled Jatropha cake (Alhassan et al.,
2016), raw fruit bunch, palm mesocarp, palm kernel shell (Chan et al.,
2015), oil mill waste (Hadhoum et al., 2016), kenaf and wheat straw
(Meryemoǧlu et al., 2014), birch wood sawdust (Nazari et al., 2015),
Aspen wood and glycerol mixture (Pedersen et al., 2016), water hya-
cinth (Singh et al., 2015), spent coffee ground (Yang et al., 2016a,b)
etc. Secondly, the bio-oil derived from hydrothermal liquefaction has
shown higher heating values (35MJ/kg) as compared to that for the
bio-oil derived from pyrolysis (16–19MJ/kg). Also, its heating value
was found comparable to the heating value for conventional petroleum
fuels (40–45MJ/kg) (Xu and Lad, 2008; Demirbas, 2011). The O
2
contentofthebio-oilfromhydrothermalliquefaction isverylow(10%)
as compared to that of the pyrolysis bio-oil (40%). Thereby, the bio-oil
hasahighercalorificvalue.Thirdly,becauseofamoderatetemperature
requirement as compared to gasification and pyrolysis and in the ab-
sence of a drying step, the process is beneficial with respect to energy
consumption.Themajorchallengeisthatduringitsoperation,majority
of the organic by-products get dissolved in the aqueous phase. This
necessitates the downstream treatment of the aqueous phase before its
discharge to the environment so as to recover the organics. A techno-
economic analysis (TEA) conducted by Zhu et al. showed that the
economic performance of the process is affected by the loss of organics
into the aqueous phase (Zhu et al., 2014). Research is ongoing on as-
sessing the percent conversion from aqueous to oil phase by the addi-
tion of catalyst (Zhang, 2010; Zhu et al., 2014).
Hydrothermal Gasification, on the other hand involves the conver-
sionoffoodwasteabovethecriticalwaterconditions.Thefinalproduct
isahighgasyieldwithlimitedformationofbio-char.Suchwasteswhen
heated and pressurized for longer treatment times in the presence of
water at low temperature of 200°C and below, are decomposed via
hydrolysis,condensation,dehydrationanddecarboxylationreactionsto
produce valuable energy rich and highly carbonized hydro-char (Sonja
et al., 2009; Titirici and Antonietti, 2010). The process, known as hy-
drothermal carbonization is the cheapest of the three hydrothermal
conversion processes as it involves lowest temperatures and is less en-
ergy intensive. Literature reveals that various food waste have suc-
cessfully produced substantial hydro-char yields under different oper-
ating conditions of temperature and time durations (as outlined in
Table 4). The carbon content of the char was greater than 45% and the
energy content was 15–30kJ/g of dry solids. The food waste studied
were rabbit food (Goto et al., 2004; Berge et al., 2011), dog food
(Hwang et al., 2012), sweet corn (Lu and Berge, 2014), peanut shell
(Huff et al., 2014), distiller's grain (Heilmann et al., 2011), brewer's
spent grain (Poerschmann et al., 2014), olive pomace (Pellera et al.,
2012) and grape pomace (Pala et al., 2014). Studies have shown that
the hydro-char has the potential to be used as adsorbent for removal of
variouspollutantsfromwastewaterstreams(Pellera etal.,2012).Ithas
also been used as a feedstock for carbon fuel cells and as a fertilizer.
As compared to the anaerobic technologies, the hydrothermal li-
quefaction and carbonization technologies offers various advantages
like greater waste volume reduction, smaller treatment steps hence
faster treatment times and no toxic emissions (Tradler et al., 2018).
Against thebackdropofthelimitations ofthepyrolysis andgasification
techniques in which huge moisture contents present in food wastes
need to be eliminated, both processes are gaining in importance on the
conversion to energy mainly from food wastes rich in moisture content
(Gallifuoco et al., 2017). Also, during anaerobic digestion or fermen-
tation techniques, some of the carbon content in the such waste is lost
to the atmosphere via carbon dioxide generation; whereas most of the
organic carbon in the waste is retained in thefinal hydro-char product
(Qambrani et al., 2017). Despite its many advantages, a detailed
Table 4
Performance data of hydro-char production from food waste.
Food waste Process conditions Yield of hydro-char (%) Reference
Sweet corn 250°C, 96hrs 50–96 Titirici et al. (2007)
Peanut shell 300°C, 30mins 50.1 Girotto et al. (2015)
Distiller's grain 190-210°C, 0.5–2hrs 30.2–45.6 Berge et al. (2011)
Brewers spent grain 200-240°C, 14hrs 47.5–51.1 Goto et al. (2004)
Orange waste 300°C, 30min 37.5 Hwang et al. (2012)
Olive pomace 300°C, 30min 37.5 Hwang et al. (2012)
Grape pomace 175-275°C, 10–60mins 46.5–61.1 Lu and Berge (2014)
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
358
techno-economic analysis needs to be performed for assessing the fea-
sibility of hydrothermal carbonization as a technological option for
food waste management in the recovery of useful energy.
2.2. Recovery of value-added components for food additives
The wastes generated from the processing of various plant-based
foods are rich in sugars, pectin, proteins, lipids, polysaccharides,fibres,
flavor compounds and phyto-chemicals. Such value-added products if
extracted have immense value as food additives, nutraceuticals, ther-
apeutics, cosmetics etc. (Galanakis et al., 2018a,b). For example, husk
and bran of rice and wheat have served as suitable substrates for de-
riving value added products like high nutritional proteins (Prakash,
1996), dietaryfibers and particularly glucuronoarabinoxylan (Sun and
Tomkinson, 2002; Hollmann and Lindhauer, 2005). The polyphenols
and carotenoids extracted from fruit and vegetable wastes have been
used as natural food preservatives as they extend the shelf life of the
final product and increase antioxidant capacity (Oreopoulou and Tzia,
2007). Essential oils,flavonoids, sugar and pectin have been recovered
from citrus peel wastes via sequential solvent extraction (Bonnell,
1983) and thefinal product has been marketed as a natural sweetener
in foods. Such process has been patented (AU1983/0011308D). The
pectin extracted from the peels of various citrus fruits has also been
used as thickeners and stabilizers in jams, jellies and other pharma-
ceuticals. In yet another example, cheese processing whey was used for
the recovery of de-flavored whey protein concentrates (MX2006/
PA09536), glycoproteins like α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin (PCT/
US2002/010485) and lactose for use in bodybuilding and nutritional
supplements (JensenandLarsen,1983;Davisetal.,2002).Highvalued
components have also been recovered from various wastewaters like
the olive mill wastewater for the recovery of hydroxytyrosol (PCT/
ES2002/000058) which have been used for conserving foods and are
also used as a functional ingredient in bread (Fernandez-Bolanos et al.,
2002).Solubledietaryfibergranuleswereproducedfromde-pectinated
apple pomace and marketed as dietary supplements (CN2008/
1139768) (Anmingetal.,2010).Agreatrangeofproductslikeethanol,
tartrates, citric acid, grape seed oil and dietaryfibers were successfully
recovered from the pomace of apple and grapes. Various polyphenols
like catechin, epicatechin, anthocyanins, flavonols etc. found in the
grape skin and seeds are known to inhibit the oxidation of human low-
densitylipoproteins (LDL).Hencevariousstudies havebeeninitiatedin
therecoveryandextractionofphenoliccomponentsfromgrapepomace
(Nayak et al., 2018a).
As evident from the vast literature studies, the new products from
food wastes have helped in increasing the food availability and have
helpedinextendingtheirshelflifefortheirconsumptioninanextended
time frame. Thus, the dependence and usage of the primary raw ma-
terial is reduced. Summarily it can be concluded that this approach
leads to efficient usage of natural resources and minimization of food
wastes going to landfill.
Various techniques involving pre-treatment, separation of macro
and micro-molecules, extraction and purification are involved for the
recovery of the bioactive compounds from waste matrices as can be
evident from Table 5. Depending on the nature of the food matrix and
on the nature of the bioactive food ingredient to be extracted, the
techniques involved are known to vary.
2.2.1. Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment of the food waste matrix is a major initial step that is
adopted so as to make adjustments with respect to its water content,
enzymatic activity and permeability of its tissues to the extracting
solvent. Solid wastes require a wet milling step which ensures better
diffusionoftheextractingsolventintothecellsofthewastematrixsoas
to ensure higher yield of the bioactive components (Pellera et al.,
2012). However, olive mill wastewaters, winery wastewaters require
thermal or vacuum concentration for ensuring enhanced concentration Table 5
Performance of various extraction techniques for recovery of value-added components
from food wastes.
Value added component Food waste Applied technologies Yield (g/100g of dry food
waste)
Reference
Pectin Lemon peel Freeze drying, acid assisted solvent extraction, centrifugation,
ethanol extraction 11.2 Masmoudi et al. (2008)
Orange peel Drying, acid assisted solvent extraction, Laser ablation 13.0 Panchev
et al. (2011)
Orange albedo Microwave assisted extraction 0.8 Liu et al. (2006)
Orange albedo Microwave assisted extraction,filtration, centrifugation 19.6 Fishman
et al. (2000)
Phenols Olive mill wastewater Concentration, acid assisted solvent extraction,
ethanol precipitation, concentration, dilution, micro-filtration,
ultra-filtration
1.00 Galanakis et al. (2010a)
Olive mill wastewater Drying, pressurized and super-heated ethanol assisted
extraction 4.7 Japon-Lujan and Luque de Castro, 2007
Mango peel Acid assisted extraction, resin adsorption, methanol elution,
evaporation and freeze drying 0.14 Berardini et al. (2005)
Mango peel Acid assisted extraction, ethanol precipitation, evaporation, resin
adsorption, methanol elution, evaporation
and freeze drying
0.10 Berardini et al. (2005)
White grape pomace Water extraction 0.26 Boussetta et al. (2009)
White grape pomace Water extraction, high voltage electrical discharge 0.44
Boussetta et al. (2009)
Proteins Cheese whey Ultra-filtration,filtration, drying 5.9 Barba et al. (2001)
Skimming, micro-filtration, ultra-filtration,filtration, freeze drying 3.5 Barba et
al. (2001)
Skimming, ultra-filtration, freeze drying 7.0 Pereira et al. (2002)
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
359
of the bio-active components. On the other hand, the disadvantage of
application of heat may cause a subsequent loss of both functionality
and yield of the extractable component (Galanakis et al., 2010b,
2010c).Freezedryingisabetteroptionofdecreasing theconcentration
ofwaterinthefoodwastesubstrates;butitshighcostandlowshelf life
are major deterrents to its usage. Some of the emerging pre-treatment
techniques (Galanakis, 2012) are foam mat, electro-osmotic de-wa-
teringandmicro-filtration.Foambasedtechniqueisknowntoeliminate
most of the adverse effects of thermal heating as well as can provide
highstabilityagainstdeteriorativemicrobial,chemicalandbiochemical
reactions(Rajkumaretal.,2007).Theloweroperatingtemperatureand
shorter drying duration involved in the foam-based technique can help
to preserve heat sensitive and viscous food waste substrates that are
known to contain high amount of antioxidants. Electro-osmotic de-
wateringhasbeenusedsuccessfullyforsolid-liquidmixturescontaining
gelatinous particles or for drying highly viscous wastes having various
kindsofcolloidalcomponentsliketomatopomace(Jumahetal.,2005).
Centrifugation and micro-filtration are other pre-treatment steps which
ensure elimination of any solids, oils and fat present in certain food
wastes. Their elimination is essential prior to extraction as such com-
ponents are susceptible tooxidation and maycause deterioration ofthe
food waste substrate (Dıaz et al., 2004).
2.2.2. Extraction
Among the different extraction techniques employed for the re-
covery of bio-active components from food waste matrices, solvent
extraction is the traditional method involving the use of solvents like
methanol, ethanol, acetone or their aqueous phase (Galanakis et al.,
2013). Appropriate choice of the solvent and selection of operating
parameters like temperature, time of contact, pH, solid to liquid ratio,
particle size, stirring rateetc. isrequired inorder tomaximize the yield
of the bio-active component. The disadvantage of this technique is the
extended extraction time and the use of expensive, toxic organic sol-
vents which require their further elimination from the extract. Solvent
extraction is sometimes combined with application of pressure (pres-
surized solvent extraction) so as to speed up the extraction. Assistance
of solvent extraction with distillation (hydro-distillation) processes, on
the other hand have helped in extracting volatile components.
Using enzymes like cellulase, α-amylase and pectinase prior to
solvent extraction areknowntohelp breakthecell walls andhydrolyze
the structural polysaccharides so as to make more accessibility to the
solvents; thereby enhancing the release of the bio-active components
like oils, natural pigments, antioxidants etc.andsimultaneously help to
decrease the extraction time (Sowbhagya and Chitra, 2010). Extraction
yields can be further increased by optimization of process parameters
like time, temperature, pH and enzyme to substrate ratio. The oil ex-
tracted by this method was found to contain higher amounts of free
fatty acids than the traditional hexane extracted oil (Dominguez et al.,
1995). The main advantage of this technique is lesser extraction time,
minimization of organic solvent usage, increased quality and quantity
of the bio-active components and hence is hence recognized as a green
technology(Purietal.,2012).However,itsmajortechnicallimitationis
the difficulty in its scale up because enzymes behave differently under
the changed environmental conditions like presence of dissolved
oxygen, temperature, availability of nutrient etc.
The use of supercritical fluids like CO
2
as an extracting solvent is
another modern technology used in the extraction of bioactive com-
ponents from waste matrix. The choice of supercritical CO
2
as the ex-
tracting solvent is advantageous due to its moderate critical conditions
of temperature (31°C) and pressure (73.8MPa), non-toxic nature and
high chemical stability. Further, CO
2
has greater diffusion coefficient
and lesser viscosity and surface tension thereby its penetration into the
foodmatrixisfastercausingreducedextractiontimeascomparedtothe
use of typical organic solvent in conventional solvent extraction (Lang
and Wai, 2001; Azmir et al., 2013). The solvation power can be tuned
either by changing the temperature or pressure thereby the selectivity
of the CO
2
is higher than an organic solvent. Since there is minimum
utilization of organic solvent, super critical fluid extraction (SFE) is
considered a green and clean technique for extraction of bioactive
components from waste matrices. Moreover, CO
2
is cheap, safe and
easy to recycle and use of supercritical CO
2
gives cleaner extracts than
the conventional solvent extraction. The high recoveries infact depend
on process parameter optimization. The biggest hurdle is its high ca-
pital cost which limits its application on an industrial scale.
The more advanced and emerging technologies include the use of
ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE), microwave assisted extraction
(MAE) and pulsed electric field (PEF) in the extraction of bioactive
components. In a review published in 2012 (Galanakis, 2012), such
emerging technologies have been cited to have overcome most of the
challenges faced by the conventional extraction techniques; some of
them being longer extraction time, requirement of expensive, pure
solvents and their subsequent removal from the extracts, lower se-
lectivity and in some cases thermal decomposition of thermo labile
components. In yet another review (Azmir et al., 2013), the authors
have also considered such technologies as green technologies as they
comply with the standards set by Environmental Protection Agency,
USA (http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/pubs/about_gc.html). Such
technologies involve less hazardous chemicals and are energy efficient.
During ultrasonication, the use of sound waves having frequencies
higher than 20kHz during the extraction process initiate not only a
greater penetration of solvent into the waste matrix thereby improving
mass transfer but also induce disruption of the biological cells which in
turn help in the release of the bioactive components from the cell
(Mason et al., 1996). The factors affecting the extraction efficiency are
the moisture content in the food waste, particle size, solvent composi-
tion and extraction time and temperature. Literature study reveals that
ultrasonication was found to improve the extraction yield of four iso-
flavone derivatives from soybean (Rostagno et al., 2003). Herrera and
Luque extracted phenolic compounds from strawberries via ultrasound
assistance in 30s (Herrera and Luque de Castro, 2005). Better yields of
chlorogenic acids were obtained under optimized conditions with ul-
trasonication from leaves, bark of EucommiaulmodiesOliv than conven-
tional extraction techniques (Li et al., 2005). Anthocyanins and phe-
nolic compounds were extracted from grapes peel and apple pomace
using ultrasound assisted extraction and higher yield were obtained
under optimum conditions of solvent, extraction temperature and time
(Ghafoor et al., 2012; Pingret et al., 2012).
Microwave assisted extraction (MAE) involves the use of electro-
magnetic radiation in the frequency range of 300MHz to 300GHz to
extract soluble products from a wide range of waste matrices (Paré
et al., 1994; Jain, 2009; Rodriguez-Jasso et al., 2011; Upadhyay et al.,
2012; Thirugnanasambandham and Sivakumar, 2017). The mechanism
of extraction of bioactive components via microwave assistance in-
volves initial separation of the components from the solid food waste
matrixunderincreasedtemperatureandpressure,followedbydiffusion
of solvent across the solid waste matrix andfinally release of compo-
nents from the solid matrix to the solvent (Routray and Orsat, 2011;
Alupului, 2012). Various researchers have successfully used the MAE
techniqueforrecoveryofhigheryieldsofvariousbioactivecomponents
likepolyphenols andcaffeinefromgreentealeavesin4min (Panet al.,
2003;Shuetal.,2003),ginsenosidesfromginsengrootin15min(Dhobi
etal.,2009),flavoligninfromSilybummarianum(Chirembaetal.,2012),
phenolic acids from bran andflour of sorghum and maize,flavonoids
and phenolics from Chaenomelessinensis (Paré et al., 1991). Paré has
patented the MAE of essential oils (Paré et al., 1991; Paré, 1994).
Theapplicationofpulsedelectricfields(PEF)involvesthedischarge
of electric pulse having high voltage for a few microseconds into the
solid food matrix placed in between the two electrodes (Ho and Mittal,
1996;Fincanetal.,2004;Yanetal.,2015).Thisresultsintheformation
of pores in the membrane via polarization of ions across the membrane
therebyfacilitatingcellmembranepermeabilityandsubsequent release
of bioactive components into the solvent (Angersbach et al., 2000;
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
360
Vallverdu-Queralt et al., 2013). The efficiency of the process depends
on optimization of process parameters like pulse duration, number of
pulses, pauses between the pulses and the properties of the food waste
matrix. PEF treatment at a moderate electricfield of 500 and 1000V/
cm for 10
−4
to 10
−2
s is found to give optimum yields causing very
little temperature increase; thereby it is known to minimize the de-
gradation of thermo labile bioactive components (Fincan and Dejmek,
2002; Lebovka et al., 2002). PEF treatment has resulted in very high
yields of betanin from beetroots under optimum conditions as com-
pared to the conventional freezing and mechanical pressing (Fincan
et al., 2004). Yield of phytosterols from maize and iso-flavonoids from
soybeansincreased by32%and20–21%respectivelyviaPEFtreatment
(Guderjan et al., 2005).
2.2.3. Isolation/clarification techniques
The final stage is the isolation or clarification of the bio-active
component from the extract which may contain one or more target
componentsorimpurities.Someofthetraditionaltechniquesemployed
are membrane separation (reverse osmosis-RO, ultrafiltration-UF, na-
nofiltration-NF, microfiltration-MF) and adsorption by resins.
The membrane separation process offers high separation efficiency,
low energy requirements, mild operating conditions, no addition of
chemicals, simple equipment design and easy scale up for industrial
purposes (Li and Chase, 2010). Prodanov et al., (2008) employed UF
membranes for the separation of phenolics in almond skin extracts and
the separation was based on their molecular weight. Low molecular
weight phenolic compounds were recovered in the UF permeate, while
proanthocyanidinoligomerswereobtainedfromtheretentate.Phenolic
compoundsweresuccessfullyconcentratedbyUFmembranes(poresize
of 0.22μm) from grape seeds (Nawaz et al., 2006).
MF and UF membranes have also been used for the separation of
oligosaccharides and low molecular weight impurities from high mo-
lecular weight compounds (Li and Chase, 2010). NF membranes have
been effective in the purification and concentration of fructo-oligo-
saccharides,whicharewidelyrecognizedasfunctionalfoodingredients
(Li et al., 2004).
However, the greatest disadvantage is the problem associated with
flux (rate of filtration) reduction and fouling of membranes. These
factors can significantly increase the cost of operating and maintaining
a membrane filtration system unless appropriate pre-treatment mea-
sures are taken.
Adsorption technique used for separation of low molecular weight
phenols has high efficiency, is insensitive to toxic substances and has
lower operational/maintenance cost as compared to membrane se-
paration process (Soto et al., 2011). The efficiency of this method de-
pendsonthetypeoftheselectedadsorbent.Activatedcarbonandresins
which are commonly used adsorbents have high surface area and are
hydrophobic.Suchadsorbentshavethetendencytocapturephenolsvia
mechanisms including adsorption, sizeexclusion andion exchange. But
when the technology is used for the separation of phenols from wine
wastewaters or olive mill wastewaters, the hurdles that are known to
have been encountered include difficulties in the selective recovery of
polyphenols. This is because of the high organic load in such waste-
waters. The technology has been used in theisolation offlavonoids and
phenols from orange peel as well as recovery of phenolic acids from
olive mill wastes (Di Mauro et al., 1999; Ferri et al., 2011). The tech-
niquehasalsobeenappliedinionexchangeoraffinitychromatography
for the isolation of polyvalent and charged whey proteins or phenols
from olive mill wastewater (Fernandez-Bolanos et al., 2002; El-Sayed
and Chase, 2011).
Extensivestudieshavebeenundertakensoastoenhancetheyieldof
the recovered products from food wastes, as is evident from literature.
The yield oftherecovered products isessential from anindustrial point
of view. But the selection of an appropriate methodology starting from
thepre-treatmenttoisolationandthepurificationdependsonthesafety
oftheendproductandontheoverallcostefficiency.Closerobservation
reveals that majority of such studies have been conducted on a la-
boratory scale. The focus of such studies is either on a particular re-
covery stage or on a specific food waste. Under such circumstance, a
cost analysis of a proposed methodology of a specific value-added
product from a specific food waste is not feasible. Also, various studies
have focused on assessing the safety aspect of the technology involved
in a particular pre-treatment or extraction or thefinal purification step.
But scarce studies exist on the safety aspect of the end product. As
rightly pointed out by Galanakis, the recovery of value-added compo-
nents from food waste has its inherent challenges while taking into
consideration factors like yield improvement and end product quality.
But the commercialization of the recovered end product is far more
challenging in the sense that it depends on the factors ranging from
safety consideration and organoleptic characteristics of the end pro-
duct, as well as a successful scale-up without affecting the functionality
of the end product (Galanakis, 2012).
2.3. Production of bio-materials
2.3.1. Bio-polymers
Bio-based polymers or polymers derived from renewable organic
substratesofferimportantcontributionsbyreducingthedependenceon
fossilfuelsandthroughtherelatedpositiveenvironmentalimpactssuch
asreducedgreenhousegasemissions.Manyagro-industrialwasteshave
been used in the production of bio-polymers. Such wastes which are
available in plenty are citrus skin and pulp (orange, grapefruit, man-
darin/tangerine, lemon, and lime), seed waste (mango, grape, and
pumpkin),skin(potatoandbanana),peanuthusk,coffee,sugarbagasse
and cereal straw. The carbohydrates, proteins, organic acids, oils and
fibers present in the food wastes are extracted and further processed by
combined fermentation and enzymatic processes to yield the bio-poly-
mers (Ventorino et al., 2016). Natural bio-polymers like starch require
partial modification to produce the bio-polymers. But certain bio-
polymers like poly-lactic acid (PLA), poly-butylene succinate (PBS) and
polyethylene (PE) are required to be produced via their monomers by
fermentation and chemical processing and subsequent polymerization
(Hassanetal.,2013;Sulaimanetal.,2014).Highsugarcontainingfood
wastes like wheat and rice bran, corn cob, barley etc. have undergone
microbial fermentation by various bacterial species like Lactobacillu,
Streptococcues, Leuconostoc, and Enterococcuesor by fungal strains like
Mucor, Monilina, and Rhizopus to produce lactic acid (Li et al., 2015;
Gholami et al., 2016). PLA is a thermoplastic polymer and widely used
inmanyday-to-dayapplicationsespeciallypackagingoffoodmaterials.
PHAs (polyhydroxyalkanoate) are a family of polyesters produced by
bacterial fermentation with the potential to replace conventional hy-
drocarbon-basedpolymers.ThePHAsaresynthesizedbydifferenttypes
of bacterial fermentation: microbes such as Bacillus megaterium, Alcali-
genseutrophus, Alcaligenseutrophus and natural isolates of Actinobacillus,
Azotobacter, Agrobacterium, Rhodobacter, and Sphaerotilius (Reis et al.,
2011). The PHAs can be converted into injection-molded components:
filmandsheet,fibers,laminates, andcoated articles;nonwoven fabrics,
synthetic paper products, disposable items, adhesives, waxes, paints,
binders, and foams. The PHAs are recommended for use in production
of bottles and water-resistantfilms because of their high strength and
toughness and resistance to moisture.
2.3.2. Recovery of enzymes
The role of enzymes as biological catalysts in various metabolic
processes is well known (Chapman-Smith and Cronan, 1999). These
enzymes have tremendous industrial applications because of their high
specificity and for their environmentally friendliness. Some of the in-
dustrial applications include fruit juice extraction, vegetable oil ex-
traction, tea and coffee fermentation, bleaching of paper, in alcoholic
beverages and in food industry. Enzymes like amylases and pectinases
areusedinfoodindustries,cellulasesareusedinbio-fuelindustriesand
tannase is used to reduce tannic acid concentration in tannery effluent.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
361
Large scale and multi-faceted application of enzymes has led re-
searchers to develop technologies for their production from cheaper
substrates like food and agro-industrial wastes. Research studies reveal
that such wastes have exhibited favorable composition (high carbohy-
drate and nutrients) and have served as suitable substrates for the
growth of microorganisms leading to their subsequent degradation and
simultaneous production of enzymes (Mekala et al., 2008; Sukumaran
et al., 2009; Ravindran and Jaiswal, 2016). Among the starch based
cerealsubstrates,wheatbranhasservedasthestandardmediumforthe
colonization and growth of the strains of Bacillus sp. and Aspergillus sp.
for the optimal production of alpha amylase enzyme (Baysal et al.,
2003; Soni et al., 2003; Balkan and Ertan, 2007; Sivaramakrishnan
et al., 2007). Bacillus sp. was also applied to the solid wastes of banana
fortheproduction ofα-amylase (Unakaletal.,2012).Cornglutenmeal
– a by-product of corn wet milling and reported to have a high protein
contentwasfoundtobeanidealsubstratefortheproductionofamylase
by B. amyloliquefaciens (Tanyildizi et al., 2007). Spent grain which is a
by-product of breweries has a relatively high protein content. It has
been found to produce amylase enzyme under solid state fermentation
by A. oryzae (Francis et al., 2003). Grape pomace which is the solid
wastes generated after pressing and maceration of grapes during wine
productionhasbeenfoundtohavetremendouspotentialforproduction
ofvariousvaluedby-productslikeenzymesduetoitshighcarbohydrate
andfibercontent(Botellaetal.,2007).Varioushydrolyticenzymeslike
xylanase, pectinase and cellulase have been reported from solid state
fermentation of the grape pomace by different Aspergillus sp. Citrus
peels represent another abundantly generated solid wastes from juice
producing industries. They are rich in pectin, cellulose and hemi-
cellulose and have been exploited for the production of various pecti-
nolytic enzymes. Cellulase, xylanase, amylase, lipase etc. are some of
the industrially relevant enzymes reported from sugar cane bagasse by
the action of various microorganisms likefilamentous fungi, yeasts and
bacteria (Sharma et al., 1991; Cordova et al., 1998; Gutierrez-Correa
and Tengerdy, 1998; Rajagopalan and Krishnan, 2008).
Because of the complexity in food waste composition, the isolation
of enzymes and their subsequent purification may impose hurdles
during their processing on alarge scale. The bio refinery offood wastes
for enzyme recovery on an industrial scale is not operational; thereby
cost estimations are not feasible. In an attempt to minimize the cost of
operationandefficiencyoftheprocess,studiesonalaboratoryscaleare
being conducted on immobilization and purification of enzymes via a
single step (Garcia-Galan et al. 2011).
2.3.3. Recovery of organic acids
Citric acid is an important organic acid widely used in food, bev-
erageindustries,cosmeticsandinpharmaceuticalindustries.Theglobal
citric acid market size was worth USD 2.50 billion in 2016. About 70%
of the overall citric acid production is used in the food industry espe-
ciallybecauseofitspleasantacidictasteanditshighsolubilityinwater.
Besides the food and beverage industry, other sectors showing great
demandforcitricacidarethepharmaceuticals,chemical,andcosmetics
in different applications like acidulation, chelation, emulsification,
preservation, enhancement of flavor and as a plasticizer (Soccol and
Vandenberghe, 2003).
The technology used for the production of citric acid is microbial
fermentation(Vandenbergheetal.,1999a)andsomeofthewidelyused
processes are submerged fermentation (Rohr et al., 1983), surface fer-
mentation (Grewal and Kalra, 1995) and solid-state fermentation
(Pandey, 1991, 1992, 1994; Pandey and Soccol, 1998; Vandenberghe
et al., 2000). Although the primary substrate used for citric acid pro-
duction is molasses and/or starch, sucrose based media, yet various
otheragro-industrialresiduessuchascarrotprocessingwaste(Gargand
Hang, 1995), beet molasses (Jianlong, 1998), carob pod (Roukas,
1999), coffee husk (Shankaranand and Lonsane, 1994; Vandenberghe
et al., 1999b), apple pomace (Hang and Woodams, 1984), grape po-
mace(HangandWoodams,1985),kiwifruitpeel(HangandWoodams,
1987), pineapple waste (Tran et al., 1998), cassava bagasse
(Vandenberghe et al., 2000) and other cellulosic substrates (Kolicheski
et al., 1997) have been investigated for their potential to be used as
substrates for citric acid production. Prabha and Rangaiah used pine-
apple peel for the production of citric acid using A. niger (Prabha and
Rangaiah, 2014).
Although the filamentous fungi Aspergillus nigeris widely used
during the fermentation process yet several other microorganisms are
used which include Aspergillus sp., yeasts like Candida tropicalis, C.
oleophila, C. guillermondii etc. While adequate supply of carbon, ni-
trogen and phosphorus is essential for the growth of microbial com-
munity, maintaining pH of 2.0 is required for optimum production of
citric acid. Various studies have demonstrated that aeration or oxygen
supply led to enhanced yields of citric acid as well as reduced fer-
mentationtimes(GrewalandKalra,1995;Vandenbergheetal.,1999a).
Usingfoodwastesassubstrateshavenotonlyhelpedinloweringthe
cost of production of citric acid but also have contributed to their ef-
ficientutilization andvalueaddition (Kimetal., 2016;Ventorino et al.,
2017).
2.3.4. Production of single cell protein (microbial biomass)
Single Cell protein (SCP) is the dried biomass of various microbial
species like bacteria, yeast, fungi, and algae that are cultivated on a
large scale and are used as protein supplements for human as well as
animal consumption (Khan et al., 2009). The microorganisms have
inherent ability to convert low protein organic substrates into high
protein products via various processes. The protein content has been
reported tobe60–82% of drycell weight. Besideshigh protein content,
SCP also contains fats, carbohydrate, nucleic acids, amino acids, vita-
mins and minerals. Adequate aeration and maintaining carbon, ni-
trogen, phosphorus levels is essential to support the optimal growth of
micro-organisms. Literature study reveals that various conventional
substrates (starch, molasses, fruit and vegetable wastes) and un-
conventional ones derived from petroleum by-products have been used
for SCP production.
Fruit and vegetable wastes are cheaper and widely available sub-
strates for SCP production. Various fruit wastes and residues of dates
(Kamel, 1979), sweet orange (Nwabueze and Ogumtimein, 1987),
sweet potato (Yang, 1993), papaya (Oura, 1983), apple pomace
(Rahmat et al., 1995), pineapple cannery effluent (Nigam, 1998), ba-
nana peel (Essien et al., 2005), orange and pineapple peels (Haider and
EL-Hassy, 2000), various fruit wastes (Mondal et al., 2012), etc. have
been used for SCP production by various researchers as reported in
literature. Such efficient utilization of food wastes can not only help in
reducing the environmental pollution, but also value-added products
such as protein supply can be obtained for animal feed (Gervasi et al.,
2018).
2.3.5. Production of bio-fertilizers
Aerobic degradation of food wastes or agro industrial wastes via
microorganisms have shown to be a feasible method for the production
of pathogen free bio-fertilizers and soil conditioners (Wang et al.,
2004). This valorization strategy otherwise known as composting has
not only contributed to the reduction of the burden of handling and
disposalofsolidwastes butalsohashelpedintheremovalofsecondary
pollution and also has good social and environmental benefits. Also,
there is lower dependence on chemical fertilizers which cause further
soilandwaterpollution.Theeffectivenessofthisvalorizationprocessis
influenced by factors such as temperature, aeration, moisture content,
pH, C/N ratio, particle size, and degree of compaction (Li et al., 2013).
Whileaerationhasbeencitedasthemostimportantfactoraffectingthe
quality of the compost, the C/N ratio on the other hand, affects the
compostmaturity(Zhangetal.,2016b;ZhangandSun,2016).TheC/N
ratio is also crucial for the development of microorganisms because it
provides the carbon and nitrogen source required for their growth
during the composting process. Research has demonstrated the
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
362
requirement of an optimum level of C/N ratio. Studies conducted by
Onwosietal.(2017)haverelatedanexcessiveC/Nratiotoadeficiency
of nutrients to the microbial community whereas a low C/N ratio has
led to the generation of undesirable odors or salts, which are unfavor-
able for plant growth. As per studies conducted by Zhang and Sun,
particle size of the food waste has a great influence on the porosity
which in turn affects the aeration and determines the water-holding
capacity and gas/water exchange in thefinal compost (Zhang and Sun,
2016). Both olive oil and winery wastes have served as suitable sub-
strates for production of composts via the action of different microbes.
However, the presence of polyphenols in the grape waste requires ad-
ditional pre-treatment prior totheir use as fertilizers. Depending onthe
temperature involved in the composting process, different groups of
microorganisms areknowntobeinvolved.Whilebacteriaareknownto
initiate the composting process, fungal action has a dominating role in
the entire process. Various studies have demonstrated the presence of a
large variety of mesophilic, thermo-tolerant, and thermophilic aerobic
microorganisms including bacteria, actinomycetes, yeasts, and various
other fungi in composts (Ishii and Takii, 2003; Franke-Whittle et al.,
2005; Kinet et al., 2015; López-González et al., 2015; Antunes et al.,
2016).
Composting is a well-accepted technology and various studies have
focused on the optimization of process parameters so as to improve the
yield and quality of the final compost. Yet the sustainability of the
process dependsongreenhouse gaseous (GHG)emissionsintheformof
NH3, hydrogen sulphide, VOC etc. which are generated as a result of
the degradation of the organic matter and are responsible for un-
pleasant odors (Cerda et al., 2018).
2.4. Development of bio-adsorbents
Growing population accompanied with rapid industrialization and
agricultural activities have resulted in the generation of wastewater.
There is an increased public awareness about the adverse effect of
wastewater totheecosystem.Duetothelimitedresourceavailabilityof
clean water, there is a growing demand for cost effective and en-
vironmentally friendly technologies for the remediation of wastewater.
Among the various technologies used till date, adsorption has been
citedasacheap,cleantechnology(Dabrowski,2001).However,despite
the better performance of commercial activated carbon for the removal
of diverse types of pollutants from wastewater, yetthe high cost of coal
and petrol based commercial activated carbon has restricted the
widespread use of the technology for the treatment of wastewater
(Bansal and Goyal, 2005; Dabrowski, 2001). Also, the exhausted ad-
sorbentisitselfasolidwasteandimposesfurtherproblemsregardingits
disposal.
In this respect, lignocellulosic waste byproducts/residues from
agricultural/wood/forest as well as from various agro-industrial wastes
havebeenusedascheaperandsustainablealternativesforthesynthesis
of quality activated carbons and their subsequent use as adsorbent for
wastewater treatment (Gupta et al., 2015a,b; Nayak et al., 2017,
2018b). Various agro wastes like rice bran and husk, wheat bran and
husk,sawdust,groundnutshells,coconutshells,hazelnutshells,walnut
shells, cotton seed hulls, maize corn cob, apple, banana, orange peels,
soybean hulls, grape pomace/stalks, olive pomace, water hyacinth,
sugar beet pulp, sunflower stalks, coffee beans, cotton stalks etc. have
demonstrated their suitability as substrates for use as adsorbents for
water treatment. This is not only because of their low cost and large-
scale availability, but mainly because of their lignin and cellulose
content which are rich in different kinds of functional groups such as
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic, phenols and ethers. These
groups have the ability to bind to different water-based pollutants by
forming complexes with ionic species in solution via donation of an
electron pair by the functional group on the adsorbent. Table 6 reports
the use of some of the agro-based and bio-based wastes as potential
adsorbents for the removal of metal-based pollutants from wastewater.
It has been noted in the literature that appropriate synthesis routes
adopted by the researchers have resulted in the development of ex-
tensive porosity, well distributed pore size distribution and a rich sur-
face chemistry in the as synthesized activated carbons from the bio-
based wastes (Alslaibi et al., 2013). The physical method of synthesis
involvesinitialheatingthelow-costprecursorsatlowertemperaturesto
produce chars (carbonization) followed by heating at higher tempera-
turesinthepresenceofanoxidizingagentofsteamorCO
2
(activation).
The chemical method involves impregnation of the precursor with an
activating agent followed by carbonization i.e. heating in an electrical
furnace under inert atmospheres at lower temperatures. The activating
agentsusedbyvariousworkerscanbecategorizedunderbasicsolutions
(sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, sodium carbonate) mineral
based and organic based acid solutions (hydrochloric acid, nitric acid,
sulfuric acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, thioglycolic acid), organic com-
pounds (ethylenediamine, formaldehyde, epichlorohydrin, methanol),
and oxidizing agent (hydrogen peroxide) (Gupta et al., 2015a,b). The
physical method which is a two-step process involving higher tem-
peratures and time is energy intensive while the chemical method is a
one step process, involves less time and energy but involves the use of
chemicals. Literature has demonstrated that optimum conditions of
activation during the physical activation viz. time, temperature and
activation agenthave yielded welldistributed porousactivated carbons
of high surface area. In a study, it was shown that when almond tree
prunings were subjected to carbonization at 800°C for 1h followed by
activation with CO
2
, activated carbons developed had surface area
ranging up to 840m
2
/g (Ganan et al., 2006). In the same study, it was
demonstratedthatthesametwostepphysicalactivationofalmondtree
prunings when subjected to temperatures of 650–800°C but in the
presence of steam, the surface areas of the activated carbons produced
increased from 193m
2
/g to 840m
2
/g. Besides the surface area, ex-
tensivewell-developedporosityisalsocrucialtothebetterperformance
of the activated carbons. In another study, it was demonstrated that
wasterubbertirewhensubjectedtoheatingat900°Cfor2hresultedin
an activated carbon having predominantly mesopores but its surface
area was found to be comparatively lower than a purely microporous
commercial carbon (Gupta et al., 2012). Comparative adsorption stu-
dies conducted revealed the better performance of the rubber tire de-
rived activated carbon for the removal of metal ions (Pb
2+
and Ni
2+
)
from wastewater. Likewise, activated carbons produced from chemical
activation have exhibited good surface features and which ultimately
have brought about significant improvements in their adsorption ca-
pacities during their application in wastewater treatment (as demon-
stratedbytheworksofAkhtaretal.,2010;KumarandBandyopadhyay,
2006; Nouri and Hamdaoui, 2007; Sha et al., 2009; Ye et al., 2010). Ye
et al. demonstrated the higher efficiency of alkali modified rice husk
activated carbon for the removal of Cd
2+
(125.94mg/g) from waste-
water as compared to the unmodified rice husk carbon (73.96mg/g)
(Ye et al., 2010). The significant improvement in the adsorption capa-
city and faster kinetics was attributed to the surface structural changes
incorporated in the activated carbon as a result of the chemical acti-
vation conditions.
Besides the synthesis routes employed and the operating conditions
ofthedifferentparametersemployedduringthesynthesis,thepHofthe
aqueous medium also has a definite role in affecting the nature of the
binding and hence on the adsorption efficiency for the removal of the
pollutants (Gupta et al., 2015a,b). Studies have revealed that under
optimized conditions of the different parameters, the adsorption effi-
ciency of the non-conventional activated carbons can be improved
significantly. Development of such bio-based wastes to effective ad-
sorbents would not only solve the problem of solid waste management
but will also contribute to wastewater treatment in a cost-effective and
sustainable way. Advancements have been reported in the area of im-
provement of the surface features of the developed activated carbons
from the low-cost bio-based wastes as well as in the area of the im-
provementintheadsorptioncapacityfortheremovalofdiversetypesof
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
363
pollutants. Yet major challenges still remain in order to enhance the
stability of the developed activated carbons as well for cost effective
and environmentally friendly regeneration methods.
3. Conclusions
The food wastes as well as wastes generated from various agro
processing industrial sectors are associated with high variability and
high volume. The variability aspect is linkedto the nature of the waste,
theproductionprocessemployed,thesiteofproductionandalsoonthe
time of the production of the waste. The volume and the concentration
of the waste are also known to vary. Irrespective of the variability in
their composition, food wastes can be characterized with high bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and high chemical oxygen demand
(COD) due to the presence of large amounts of organic material like
proteins, carbohydrates and lipids along with varying amount of sus-
pendedsolids.Againstthebackdropoftheproblemsassociatedwiththe
large-scale generation offood wastesandtheir subsequentdisposal, the
present review highlights the different efficient methods of their re-
cycling in an economic and environmentally friendly way. Technical
solutions to handle the overwhelming problem of the management of
the food wastes and their safe disposal have paved the way to various
valorization strategies and techniques so as to generate useful end
products.
Literature review of the various valorization techniques adopted by
researchers reveals that four basic approaches have been adopted. First
is the conversion of food waste to generate bio-fuels like bio-gas, bio-
alcohols, bio-hydrogen, bio-char and bio-diesel. Among the various
energy conversion valorization technologies, biological process of fer-
mentationhasbeendeterminedtobesimpleandeconomicalbuthasan
inherent disadvantage of longer processing time. The sensitivity of the
microorganisms to temperature, pH and inhibitors inherent in the food
waste requires the operation of the digestion process under strict pro-
cess control and optimization conditions. Other factors like the com-
position of co-substrates, type of reactor and the dynamics of the mi-
croorganisms have a positive influence on the efficiency of the process
technology. Fermentation offood waste tobio-ethanol isa viable waste
management option but its application on an industrial scale can only
be possible after detailed techno-economic analysis of the process
technology. Hydrothermal carbonization is another attractive option
for converting such waste into useful products such as hydro-char,
hydro-oil and other energy-rich compounds. It has several advantages
with respect to environmental, energy, economical and health aspect.
However,thethermalprocessofincineration,pyrolysisandgasification
has failed from an energetic point of view on account of the high
moisture content, the lower heating values and greater heterogeneity
inherent in the food wastes as well in increasing the GHG emissions.
Adoption of a specific technological option is dependent on quan-
titative aspects of the food waste, the characterization of such wastes
with respect to their moisture content and the final bio-fuel char-
acteristics. The selection criteria also depend on the efficiency, cost
effectiveness and energy intensiveness of the desired technology.
Second approach towards waste valorization is to extract and effi-
ciently recover various value-added components that are present in the
food waste in residual quantities. Such components are polyphenols,
pectin, proteins etc. which after recovery can be used in cosmetic, nu-
traceuticals, food preservation, packaging, pharmaceutical and medic-
inal industrialfields. The aim is not only to maximize the yield of the
target compounds, but to achieve a purified high added value in-
gredient from impurities, to avoid deterioration/loss of the function-
ality andfinally to ensure the food grade nature of the final product.
Hence each step of pre-treatment, extraction, fractionation and isola-
tion is important in the efficient recovery of the value-added compo-
nents from food wastes.
Thethirdvalorization approachis theconversion offood wastes via
microbial activity to develop various bio-materials in the form of bio-
chemicals, bio-polymers, enzymes, single cell protein and bio-fertili-
zers. Extensive research on microbial biotechnology and their applica-
tion on food wastes as evident in the literature studies of the last dec-
ades have resulted in the production of various high valued enzymes,
organic acids, bio-polymers andbio-fertilizers. But mostof theresearch
findings are confined to laboratory and efforts are required to scale up
Table 6
Adsorption capacities of various waste based activated carbon for metal laden
wastewater treatment.
Adsorbent Adsorbate ads capacity (mg/g) Optimum conditions Reference
Rice husk (H3PO4 treated) Cd(II) 102 pH-6 Zafar et al. (2007)
Rice husk Cd(II) 73.96 pH-6.5 Ye et al. (2010)
Rice husk (alkali treated) Cd(II) 125.94 pH-6.5 Ye et al. (2010)
Rice husk ash Pb(II) 39.74 pH-6 Akhtar et al. (2010)
Cd(II) 39.87 pH-6 Akhtar et al. (2010)
Zn(II 39.17 pH-6 Akhtar et al. (2010)
Cu(II) 40.82 pH-6 Akhtar et al. (2010)
Rice husk (sulfuric acid) Se(IV) 41.15 Na El-Shafey (2007)
Rice husk (sulfuric acid) Cd(II) 40.92 na El-Shafey (2007)
Rice husk (sulfuric acid) Zn(II) 19.38 na El-Shafey (2010)
Rice husk (sulfuric acid) Hg(II) 384.62 El-Shafey (2010)
Wheat straw (chem mod) Cr(VI) 322.58 temp-55°C (Chen et al., 2010)
Wheat bran Pb(II) 87 pH-4-7, time-60mins, temp-60°C Bulut and Baysal (2006)
Wheat bran (chem mod) Pb(II) 62 pH-5, time-20mins (Farajzadeh and Monji, 2004)
Wheat bran (chem mod) Cr(III) 93 pH-5, time-20mins (Farajzadeh and Monji, 2004)
Wheat bran (chem mod) Ni(II) 12 pH-5, time-20mins (Farajzadeh and Monji, 2004)
shell carbon (H3PO4 treated) Zn(II) 45.14 pH-6, time-3hrs, temp-25°C Amuda et al.
(2007)
shell carbon (chitos mod) Zn(II) 50.93 pH-6, time-3hrs, temp-25°C Amuda et al.
(2007)
shell carbon (H3PO4+chitosan) Zn(II) 60.41 pH-6, time-3hrs, temp-25°C Amuda et al.
(2007)
spent green tea Pb(II) 90.1 pH-5.5, temp-25°C Zuorro and Lavecchia (2010)
spent black tea Pb(II) 129.9 pH-5.5, temp-25°C Zuorro and Lavecchia (2010)
tea waste Cu(II) 48 pH-5, time-15mins, temp-22°C Amarsinghe and Williams (2007)
tea waste Pb(II) 65 pH-6, time-20min, temp-22°C Amarsinghe and Williams (2007)
Groundnut husk Cr(VI) 7 pH-3, time-5 hrs Dubey and Gopal (2007)
Groundnut husk (Ag coated) Cr(VI) 11.4 pH-3, time-5 hrs Dubey and Gopal (2007)
Peanut husk Pb(II) 4.59 na Li et al. (2008)
Peanut husk Cr(VI) 3.34 na Li et al. (2008)
Peanut husk Cu(II) 3.34 na Li et al. (2008)
Rice husk (phosphate) Cd(II) 2000 pH-12, time-60mins, temp-40°C (Ajmal et al.,
2003)
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
364
on an industrial scale.
Developing effective adsorbents from various bio-based food wastes
for wastewater treatment is a new and fourth strategy towards waste
valorization. Because of the favorable surface characteristics of the
developed low-cost adsorbents, the adsorption has come to the fore-
front as a superior low-cost waste water treatment technology as
compared to its conventional counterparts.
Thus depending on the immense research work conducted as evi-
dent from the review, it can be concluded that the four different ap-
proaches for valorization of food/agro-food wastes are mature pro-
cesses and when operated under optimum conditions can result in the
effective yield of bio-fuels, bio-products and adsorbents. The success of
such techniques also depends on a detailed characterization of the food
waste substrates and their appropriate pre-treatment procedures.
Although the various hurdles have been identified and researched
upon,yetalotofeffortisyettobedemonstratedonthesuccessfulscale
up of the individual techniques.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the European Commission forfinancial
support under the Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship
(Project Grant agreement No.: PIIF-GA-2013-624609).
References
Ajhar,M.,Bannwarth,S.,Stollenwerk,K.,Spalding,G.,Y€uce,S.,Wessling,M.,Melin,T.,
2012. Siloxane removal using silicone-rubber membranes. Separ. Purif. Technol. 89,
234–244.
Ajmal, M., Rao, R.A.K., Anwar, S., Ahamad, J., Ahmad, R., 2003. Adsorption studies
on
rice husk: removal and recovery of Cd(II) from wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 86,
147–149.
Akhtar, J., Amin, N.A.S., 2011. A review on process conditions for optimum bio-oil
yield
in hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (3),
1615–1624.
Akhtar, M., Iqbal, S., Kausar, A., Bhanger, M.I., Shaheen, M.A., 2010. An
economically
viable methodfortheremovalofselecteddivalent metalionsfrom aqueoussolutions
using activated rice husk. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 75, 149–155.
Alexandropoulou, M., Antonopoulou, G., Trably, E., Carrere, H., Lyberatos, G.,
2018.
Continuous biohydrogen production from a food industry waste: influence of op-
erational parameters and microbial community analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 174,
1054–1063.
Alhassan, Y., Kumar, N., Bugaje, I.M., 2016. Hydrothermal liquefaction of de-oiled
Jatropha curcas cake using Deep Eutectic Solvents (DESs) as catalysts and co-sol-
vents. Bioresour. Technol. 199, 375–381.
Alslaibi, T.M., Abustan, I., Ahmad, M.A., Foul, A.A., 2013. A review: production of
ac-
tivated carbon from agricultural byproducts via conventional and microwave
heating. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 88 (7), 1183–1190.
Alupului, A., 2012. Microwave extraction of active principles from medicinal
plants.
U.P.B. Sci. Bull. Ser. B 74 (2).
Amarasinghe,B.M.W.P.K.,Williams,R.A.,2007.Teawasteasalowcostadsorbentforthe
removal of Cu and Pb from wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 132, 299–309.
Amuda, O.S., Giwa, A.A., Bello, I.A., 2007. Removal of heavy metal from industrial
wastewater using modified activated coconut shell carbon. Biochem. Eng. J. 36,
174–181.
Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., 2000. Methods for increasing the biogas potential
from the
recalcitrant organic matter contained in manure. Water Sci. Technol. 41 (3),
189–194.
Angelidaki, I., Boe, K., Ellegaard, L., 2005. Effect of operating conditions and
reactor
configuration on efficiency of full-scale biogas plants. Water Sci. Technol. 52,
189–194.
Angersbach, A., Heinz, V., Knorr, D., 2000. Effect of pulsed electricfields on cell
mem-
branes in real food systems. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 1, 135–149.
Anming, Z., De, F., Xiaoyan, H., Jianmin, Z., Bing, L., Lei, X., et al., 2010.
Process for
Extracting Non-pectin Soluble Pomace Dietary Fibers. State Intellectual Property
Office of the People's Republic of China. CN 101817809.
Antunes, L., Martins, L., Pereira, R., Thomas, A., Barbosa, D., Lemos, L., Silva,
G., Moura,
L., Epamino, G., Digiampietri, L., Lombardi, K., Ramos, P., Quaggio, R., de
Oliveira,
J.,Pascon, R.,Cruz,J.,da Silva,A.,Setubal,J., 2016.Microbialcommunitystructure
and dynamics in thermophilic composting viewed through metagenomics and me-
tatranscriptomics. Sci. Rep. 6, 38915.
Arapoglou, D., Varzakas, T., Vlyssides, A., Israilides, C., 2010. Ethanol
production from
potato peel waste (PPW). Waste Manag. 30, 1898–1902.
Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste
gasification.
A review. Waste Manag. 32 (4), 625–639.
Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Esposito, G., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P.N.L., 2014.
Pretreatment
methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Appl. Energy 123,
143–156.
Arvanitoyannins, I.S., 2008. Waste management in food packaging industries. In:
Arvanitoyannins, I.S. (Ed.), Waste Management for the Food Industries. Elsevier
Inc.,
Oxford, pp. 941–1045.
Autret, E., Berthier, F., Luszezanec, A., Nicolas, F., 2007. Incineration of
municipal and
assimilated wastes in France: assessment of latest energy and material recovery
performances. J. Hazard Mater. 139, 569–574.
Azmir, J., Zaidul, I.S.M., Rahman, M.M., Sharif, K.M., Mohamed, A., Sahena, F.,
Jahurul,
M.H.A., Ghafoor, K., Norulaini, N.A.N., Omar, A.K.M., 2013. Techniques for extrac-
tion of bioactive compounds from plant materials: a review. J. Food Eng. 117,
426–436.
Baiano, A., 2014. Recovery of bio-molecules from food wastes — a review. Molecules
19,
14821–14842.
Balat, M., 2011. Production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic materials via the
bio-
chemical pathway: a review. Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (2), 858–875.
Balkan, B., Ertan, F., 2007. Production of α-Amylase from Penicillium chrysogenum
under
solid state fermentation by using some agricultural by-products. Food Technol.
Biotechnol. 45, 439–442.
Ban-Koffi, L., Han, Y.W., 1990. Alcohol production from pineapple waste. World J.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 6, 281–284.
Bansal, R.C., Goyal, M., 2005. Activated carbon adsorption. Taylor and Francis,
Boca
Raton, FL.
Banks, C.J., Chesshire, M., Heaven, S., Arnold, R., 2011. Anaerobic digestion of
source-
segregated domestic food waste: performance assessment by mass and energy bal-
ance. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2), 612–620.
Barba, D., Beolchini, F., Cifoni, D., Veglio, F., 2001. Whey proteins concentrate
produc-
tion in a pilot scale two-stage diafiltration process. Separ. Sci. Technol. 36, 587–
603.
Barber, W.P., Stuckey, D.C., 1999. The use of the anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for
waste water treatment: a review. Water Res. 33, 1559–1578.
Bartels, J.R., Pate, M.B., Olson, N.K., 2010. An economic survey of hydrogen
production
from conventional and alternative energy sources. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35,
8371–8384.
Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S.V., Pavlostathis, S.G.,
Rozzi, A.,
Sanders,W.T.M.,Siegrist,H.a.,Vavilin,V.A.,2002.Anaerobic DigestionModel No.1
(ADM1), Task Group for Mathematical Modelling of Anaerobic Digestion Processes.
IWA publishing, London.
Baysal, Z., Uyar, F., Aytekin, C., 2003. Solid state fermentation for production of
α-
amylase by a thermo tolerant Bacillus subtilis from hot-spring water. Process
Biochem. 38, 1665–1668.
Berardini, N., Knodler, M., Scieber, A., Carle, R., 2005. Utilisation of mango
peels as a
source of pectin and polyphenolics. Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 6, 442–452.
Berge, N.D., Ro, K.S., Mao, J., Flora, J.R., Chappell, M.A., Bae, S., 2011.
Hydrothermal
carbonization of municipal waste streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (13),
5696–5703.
Boe, K., Angelidaki, I., 2009. Serial CSTR digester configuration for improving
biogas
production from manure. Water Res. 43, 166–172.
Boluda-Aguilar,M.,Garcia-Vidal,L.,Gonzalez-CastanedaFdel,P.,Lopez-Gomez,A.,2010.
Mandarin peel wastes pre-treatment with steamexplosion for bioethanol production.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 3506–3513.
Bonnell,J.M.,1983.TreatmentofCitrusFruitPeel.AustralianGovernment-IP,Australia,
1130883 (A).
Botella, C., Diaz, A., de Ory, I., Webb, C., Blandino, A., 2007. Xylanase and
pectinase
production by Aspergillus awamori on grape pomace in solid state fermentation.
Process Biochem. 42, 98–101.
Boussetta, N., Lanoiselle, J.-L., Bedel-Clotour, C., Vorobiev, E., 2009. Extraction
of
polyphenols from grape pomace by high voltage electrical discharges: effect of sul-
phur dioxide, freezing process and temperature. J. Food Eng. 95, 192–198.
Bowen, E.J., Dolfing, J., Davenport, R.J., Read, F.L., Curtis, T.P., 2014. Low-
temperature
limitation of bioreactor sludge in anaerobic treatment of domestic waste- water.
Water Sci. Technol. 69, 1004–1013.
Bulut, Y., Baysal, Z., 2006. Removal of Pb(II) from wastewater using wheat bran. J.
Environ. Manag. 78, 107–113.
Castillo, M.E.F., Cristancho, D.E., Arellano, A.V., 2006. Study of the operational
condi-
tions for anaerobic digestion of urban solid wastes. Waste Manag. 26 (5), 546–556.
Caton, P.A., Carr, M.A., Kim, S.S., Beautyman, M.J., 2010. Energy recovery from
waste
food bycombustion or gasification with thepotential forregenerative dehydration: a
case study. Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (6), 1157–1169.
Cavinato, C., Giuliano, A., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., Cecchi, F., 2012. Biohythane
pro-
duction from food waste by dark fermentation coupled with anaerobic digestion
process: a long-term pilot scale experience. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (15),
11549–11555.
Cerda, A., Artola, A., Font, X., Barrena, R., Gea, T., 2018. Composting of food
wastes:
status and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 248, 57–67.
Chan, Y.H., Yusup, S., Quitain, A.T., Tan, R.R., Sasaki, M., Lam, H.L., 2015. Effect
of
process parameters on hydrothermal liquefaction of oil palm biomass for bio-oil
production and its life cycle assessment. Energy Convers. Manag. 104, 180–188.
Chandel, A.K., Kapoor, R.K., Singh, A., Kuhad, R.C., 2007. Detoxification of
sugarcane
bagasse hydrolysate improves ethanol production by Candida shehatae NCIM 3501.
Bioresour. Technol. 98, 1947–1950.
Chandrasekaran, M., 2013. Need for Valorisation of food processing by-products and
wastes. In: Chandrasekaran, M. (Ed.), Valorisation of Food Processing By-products.
Taylor and Francis Group, Florida, pp. 91–108.
Chang, S., 2014. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) for wastewater treatment.
Adv. Chem. Eng. Sci. 4, 56–61.
Chapman-Smith, A., Cronan, J., 1999. Molecular Biology of Biotin Attachment to
Proteins. The Journal of nutrition 129, 477S–484S.
Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion
process: a
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
365
review. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (10), 4044–4064.
Chen, S., Yue, Q., Gao, B., Xu, X., 2010. Equilibrium and kinetic adsorption study
of the
adsorptive removal of Cr(VI) using modified wheat residue. J. Colloid Interface Sci.
349, 256–264.
Chiremba, C., Rooney, L.W., Trust, B.J., 2012. Microwave-assisted extraction of
bound
phenolic acids in bran andflour fractions from sorghum and maize cultivars varying
in hardness. J. Chromatogr. A 1012 (2), 119–128.
Cho, J.K., Park, S.C., Chang, H.N., 1995. Bio-chemical methane potential and solid-
state
anaerobic digestion of Korean food wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 52 (3), 245–253.
Chong, S., Sen, T.K., Kayaalp, A., Ang, H.M., 2012. The performance enhancements of
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge treatment—a
state-of-the-art review. Water Res. 46, 3434–3470.
Chu,C.,Li,Y.-Y.,Xu,K.,etal.,2008.ApH-andtemperature-phasedtwo-stageprocessfor
hydrogenandmethaneproductionfromfoodwaste.Int.J.HydrogenEnergy33(18),
4739–4746.
Cordova, J., Nemmaoui, M., Ismaili-Alaoui, M., 1998. Lipase production by solid
state
fermentation of olive cake and sugar cane bagasse. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 5, 75–
78.
Dabrowski, A., 2001. Adsorption, from theory to practice. Adv. Colloid Interface
Sci. 93,
135–224.
Dai, X., Duan, N., Dong, B., Dai, L., 2013. High-solids anaerobic co-digestion of
sewage
sludge and food waste in comparison with mono digestions: stability and perfor-
mance. Waste Manag. (Oxford) 33 (2), 308–316.
Davis, M., Su, S., Ming, F., Yang, M., Ichinomiya, A., Melachouris, N., 2002.
Isolation of
Glycoproteins from Bovine Milk. World Intellectual Property Organization WO/
2002/080961.
Demirbas, A., 2011. Competitive liquid biofuels from biomass. Appl. Energy 88 (1),
17–28.
Déniel, M., Haarlemmer, G., Roubaud, A., Weiss-Hortala, E., Fages, J., 2016. Energy
valorisation of food processing residues and model compounds by hydrothermal li-
quefaction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 1632–1652.
Dereli,R.K.,Ersahin,M.E.,Ozgun,H.,Ozturk,I.,Jeison,D.,vanderZee,F.,vanLier,J.B.,
2012. Potentials of anaerobic membrane bioreactors to overcome treatment limita-
tions induced by industrial wastewaters. Bioresour. Technol. 122, 160–170.
Dhobi, M., Mandal, V., Hemalatha, S., 2009. Optimization of microwave assisted ex-
traction of bioactiveflavolignan–slybinin. J. Chem. Metrol. 3, 13–23.
Di Mauro, A., Fallico, B., Passerini, A., Rapisarda, P., Maccarone, E., 1999.
Recovery of
hesperidin from orange peel by concentration of extracts on styrene-divinylbenzene
resin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 4391–4397.
Dominguez, H., Ntiiiez, M.J., Lema, J.M., 1995. Enzyme-assisted hexane extraction
of
soybean oil. Food Chem. 54, 223–231.
Dubey,S.P.,Gopal,K.,2007.Adsorptionofchromium(VI)onlowcostadsorbentsderived
from agricultural waste material: a comparative study. J. Hazard Mater. 145,
465–470.
Dvorak, L., Gomez, M., Dolina, J., Cernin, A., 2016. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors
—a
mini review with emphasis on industrial wastewater treatment: applications, lim-
itations and perspectives. Desalination water Treat. 57, 19062–19076.
Dıaz, O., Pereira, C.D., Cobos, A., 2004. Functional properties of ovine whey
protein
concentrates produced by membrane technology after clarification of cheese manu-
facture by-products. Food Hydrocolloids 18, 601–610.
Ebner, J.H., Labatut, R.A., Lodge, J.S., Williamson, A.A., Trabold, T.A., 2016.
Anaerobic
co-digestion ofcommercial foodwasteanddairymanure:characterizingbiochemical
parameters and synergistic effects. Waste Manag. 52, 286–294.
El-Mashad, H.M., Zhang, R., 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy
manure
and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4021–4028.
El-Sayed, M.H.H., Chase, H.A., 2011. Trends in whey protein fractionation.
Biotechnol.
Lett. 33, 1501–1511.
El-Shafey, E.I., 2007. Sorption of Cd(II) and Se(IV) from aqueous solution using
modified
rice husk. J. Hazard Mater. 147, 546–555.
El-Shafey, E.I., 2010. Removal of Zn(II) and Hg(II) from aqueous solution on a
carbo-
naceoussorbentchemicallypreparedfromricehusk. J.HazardMater.175,319–327.
Elbeshbishy,E.,etal.,2011.Singleandcombinedeffectofvariouspre-treatmentmethods
for bio-hydrogen production from food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (17),
11379–11387.
Essien, J.P., Akpan, E.J., Essien, E.P., 2005. Studies on mould growth and biomass
pro-
duction using waste banana peel. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 1451–1456.
Farajzadeh, M.A., Monji, A.B., 2004. Adsorption characteristic of wheat bran
towards
heavy metal cations. Separ. Purif. Technol. 38, 197–207.
Ferchichi, M., Crabbe, E., Hintz, W., Gil, G.H., Almadidy, A., 2005. Influence of
culture
parameters on biological hydrogen production by Clostridium sacchar-
operbutylacetonicum ATCC 27021. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 21, 855–862.
Fernandez-Bolanos,J.,Heredia,A.,Rodrıguez,G.,Rodrıguez,R.,Guillen,R.,Jimenez,A.,
2002. Method for Obtaining Purified Hydroxytyrosol from Products and By-products
Derived from the Olive Tree. World Intellectual Property Organization WO/2002/
064537.
Ferri, F., Bertina, L., Scoma, A., Marchetti, L., Fava, F., 2011. Recovery of low
molecular
weight phenols through solid-phase extraction. Chem. Eng. J. 166, 994–1001.
Fincan,M.,Dejmek,P.,2002.Insituvisualizationoftheeffectofapulsedelectricfieldon
plant tissue. J. Food Eng. 55 (3), 223–230.
Fincan, M., DeVito, F., Dejmek, P., 2004. Pulsed electricfield treatment for solid-
liquid
extraction of red beetroot pigment. J. Food Eng. 64, 381–388.
Fisgativa, H., Tremier, A., Dabert, P., 2016. Characterizing the variability of
food waste
quality: a need for efficient valorisation through anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag.
50, 264–274.
Fishman, M.L., Chau, H.K., Hoagland, P., Ayyad, K., 2000. Characterization of
pectin,
flash-extracted from orange albedo by microwave heating, under pressure.
Carbohydr. Res. 323, 126–138.
Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., 2008. Influence of total solid and
inoculum
contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 99 (15), 6994–7002.
Francis, F., Sabu, A., Nampoothiri, K.M., 2003. Use of response surface methodology
for
optimizingprocessparametersfortheproductionofα-amylasebyAspergillusoryzae.
Biochem. Eng. J. 15, 107–115.
Franke-Whittle, I.H., Klammer, S.H., Insam, H., 2005. Design and application of
anoli-
gonucleotide microarray for the investigation of compost microbial communities. J.
Microbiol. Methods 62 (1), 37–56.
Galanakis, C.M., 2012. Recovery of high added-value components from food wastes:
conventional, emerging technologies and commercialized applications. Trends Food
Sci. Technol. 26, 68–87.
Galanakis, C.M., Tornberg, E., Gekas, V., 2010a. Clarification of high-added value
pro-
ducts from olive mill wastewater. J. Food Eng. 99, 190–197.
Galanakis, C.M., Tornberg, E., Gekas, V., 2010b. Recovery and preservation of
phenols
fromolivewaste inethanolic extracts. J.Chem.Technol.Biotechnol.85,1148–1155.
Galanakis, C.M., Tornberg, E., Gekas, V., 2010c. The effect of heat processing on
the
functional properties of pectin contained in olive mill wastewater. LWT Food Sci.
Technol. 43, 1001–1008.
Galanakis,C.M.,Goulas, V.,Tsakona,S.,Manganaris,G.A.,Gekas,V.,2013.Aknowledge
basefortherecovery ofnaturalphenolswithdifferentsolvents. Int.J.FoodProp.16,
382–396.
Galanakis, C.M., Tsatalas, P., Galanakis, I.M., 2018a. Phenols from olive mill
wastewater
and other natural antioxidants as UVfilters in sunscreens. Environ. Tech. Innov. 9,
160–168.
Galanakis, C.M., Tsatalas, P., Galanakis, I.M., 2018b. Implementation of phenols
re-
covered from olive mill wastewater asUV booster incosmetics. Ind. Crop. Prod. 111,
30–37.
Gallifuoco, A., Taglieri, L., Scimia, F., Papa, A.A., Di Giacomo, G., 2017.
Hydrothermal
carbonization of biomass: new experimental procedures for improving the industrial
processes. Bioresour. Technol. 244, 160–165.
Ganan, J., Gonzalez, J.F., Gonzalez-Garcia, C.M., Ramiro, A., Sabio, E., Roman, S.,
2006.
Carbon dioxide-activated carbons from almond tree prunings: preparation and
characterization. Appl. Surf. Sci. 252, 5993–5998.
Garcia, L., Salvador, M.L., Bilbao, R., Arauzo, J., 1998. Influence of calcination
and re-
duction conditions on the catalyst performance in the pyrolysis process of biomass.
Energy Fuel. 12, 139–143.
Garcia-Galan, C., et al., 2011. Potential of different enzyme immobilization
strategies to
improve enzyme performance. Adv. Synth. Catal. 353, 2885–2904.
Garg, N., Hang, Y.D., 1995. Microbial production of organic acids from carrot
processing
waste. J. Food Sci. Technol. 32, 119–121.
Gelegenis, J., Georgakakis, D., Angelidaki, I., Mavris, V., 2007. Optimization of
biogas
production by co-digesting whey with diluted poultry manure. Renew. Energy 32,
2147–2160.
Gervasi, T., Pellizzeri, V., Calabrese, G., Di Bella, G., Cicero, N., Dugo, G.,
2018.
Production of single cell protein (SCP) from food and agricultural waste by using
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. 32, 648–653.
Ghafoor, K., AL-Juhaimi, F.Y., Choi, Y.H., 2012. Supercriticalfluid extraction of
phenolic
compounds and antioxidants from grape (Vitis labrusca B.) seeds. Plant Foods Hum.
Nutr. 67, 407–414.
Gholami, A., Mohkam, M., Rasoul-Amini, S., Ghasemi, Y., 2016. Industrial production
of
polyhydroxyalkanoates by bacteria: opportunities and challenges. Minerva
Biotechnol. 28, 59–74.
Gil, L.S., Maupoey, P.F., 2018. An integrated approach for pineapple waste
valorisation.
Bioethanol production and bromelain extraction from pineapple residues. J. Clean.
Prod. 172, 1224–1231.
Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., Cossu, R., 2015. Food waste generation and industrial
uses: a
review. Waste Manag. 45, 32–41.
Gollakota, A.R.K., Kishore, N., Gu, S., 2018. A review on hydrothermal liquefaction
of
biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 1378–1392.
Goto, M., Obuchi, R., Hirose, T., Sakaki, T., Shibata, M., 2004. Hydrothermal
conversion
of municipal organic waste into resources. Bioresour. Technol. 93 (3), 279–284.
Grewal, H.S., Kalra, K.L., 1995. Fungal production of citric acid. Biotechnol. Adv.
13,
209–234.
Grimberg, S., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of food waste through the operation of a
me-
sophilic two-phase pilot scale digester–Assessment of variable loadings on system
performance. Bioresour. Technol. 178, 226–229.
Grzenia, D.L., Schell, D.J., Wickramsinghe, S.R., 2010. Detoxification of biomass
hydro-
lysates by reactive membrane extraction. J. Membr. Sci. 348, 6–12.
Guderjan, M., Töpfl, S., Angersbach, A., Knorr, D., 2005. Impact of pulsed
electricfield
treatment on the recovery and quality of plant oils. J. Food Eng. 67, 281–287.
Gunaseelan, V.N., 1997. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a
re-
view. Biomass Bioenergy 13, 83–114.
Gunaseelan, V.N., 2004. Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid
waste feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy 26 (4), 389–399.
Guo, P., Mochidzuki, K., Cheng, W., Zhou, M., Gao, H., Zheng, D., et al., 2011.
Effects of
different pretreatment strategies on corn stalk acidogenic fermentation using a mi-
crobial consortium. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 7526–7531.
Gupta, V.K., Ganjali, M.R., Nayak, A., Bhushan, B., Agarwal, S., 2012. Enhanced
heavy
metals removal and recovery by mesoporous adsorbent prepared from waste rubber
tire. Chem. Eng. J. 197, 330.
Gupta, V.K., Nayak, A., Agarwal, S., 2015a. Bioadsorbents for remediation of heavy
metals: current status and their future prospects. Environ. Eng. Res. 20, 1–18.
Gupta, V.K., Nayak, A., Bhushan, B., Agarwal, S., 2015b. A critical analysis on the
effi-
ciency of activated carbons from low cost precursors for heavy metals remediation.
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 613–668.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
366
Gutierrez-Correa, M., Tengerdy, R.P., 1998. Xylanase production by fungalmixed
culture
solid state fermentation on sugar cane bagasse. Biotechnol. Lett. 20, 45–47.
Hadhoum, L., Balistrou, M., Burnens, G., Loubar, K., Tazerout, M., 2016.
Hydrothermal
liquefaction of oil mill wastewater for bio-oil production in subcritical
conditions.
Bioresour. Technol. 218, 9–17.
Hafid,H.S.,Rahman,N.A.A.,Shah,U.K.M.,Baharuddin,A.S.,Ariff,A.B.,2017.Feasibility
of using kitchen waste as future substrate for bioethanol production: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74, 671–686.
Haider, M., EL-Hassy, M., 2000. Biodegradation of orange and pineapple peels for
pro-
duction of single cell protein. Garyounis J. Sci. 1, 7–23.
Hammond, J.B., Egg,R.,Diggins,D.,Coble,C.G.,1996. Alcoholfrom bananas.Bioresour.
Technol. 56, 125–130.
Han, S.K., Shin, H.S., 2004. Bio-hydrogen production by anaerobic fermentation of
food
waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 29, 569–577.
Han, M., Moon, Se-Kwon, Kim, Y., Kim, Y., Chung, B., Choi, Gi-W., 2009. Bioethanol
productionfromammoniapercolatedwheatstraw.Biotechnol.Bioproc.Eng.14,606.
Hang, Y.D., Woodams, E.E., 1984. Apple pomace: a potential substrate for citric
acid
production by Aspergillus niger. Biotechnol. Lett. 6, 763–764.
Hang, Y.D., Woodams, E.E., 1985. Grape pomace: a novel substrate for microbial pro-
duction of citric acid. Biotechnol. Lett. 7, 253–254.
Hang, Y.D., Woodams, E.E., 1987. Microbial production of citric acid by solid state
fer-
mentation of kiwifruit peel. J. Food Sci. 52, 226–227.
Harasimowicz, M., Orluk, P., Zakrzewska-Trznadel, G., Chmielewski, A.G., 2007.
Application of polyimide membranes for biogas purification and enrichment. J.
Hazard Mater. 144 (3), 698–702.
Hassan, M.A., Yee, L.N., Yee, P.L., Ariffin, H., Raha, A.R., Shirai, Y., Sudesh, K.,
2013.
Sustainable production of polyhydroxyalkanoates from renewable oil-palm biomass.
Biomass Bioenergy 50, 1–9.
He, Y., Bagley, D.M., Leung, K.T., Liss, S.N., Liao, B.Q., 2012. Recent advances in
mem-
brane technologies for bio-refining and bio-energy production. Biotechnol. Adv. 30,
817–858.
Heilmann, S.M., Jader, L.R.,Sadowsky,M.J.,Schendel, F.J., Keitz, M.G.V.,Valentas,
K.J.,
2011. Hydrothermal carbonization of distiller's grains. Biomass Bioenergy 35,
2526–2533.
Heo, N.H., Park, S.C., Kang, H., 2004. Effects of mixture ratio and hydraulic
retention
timeonsingle-stage anaerobicco-digestionoffoodwasteandwasteactivatedsludge.
J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A Toxic Hazard. Substan. Environ. Eng. 39 (7),
1739–1756.
Herrera, M.C., Luque de Castro, M.D., 2005. Ultrasound-assisted extraction of
phenolic
compounds from strawberries prior to liquid chromatographic separation and pho-
todiode array ultraviolet detection. J. Chromatogr. 1100, 1–7.
Ho, S.Y., Mittal, G.S., 1996. Electroporation of cell membranes: Review. Crit. Rev.
Biotechnol. 16, 349–362.
Hollmann, J., Lindhauer, M.G., 2005. Pilot-scale isolation of
glucuronoarabinoxylans
from wheat bran. Carbohydr. Polym. 59, 225–230.
Hong, Y.S., Yoon, H.H., 2011. Ethanol production from food residues. Biomass
Bioenergy
35 (7), 3271–3275.
Huang, H., Qureshi, N., Chen, M.-H., Liu, W., Singh, V., 2015. Ethanol production
from
food waste at high solids content with vacuum recovery technology. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 63 (10), 2760–2766.
Huff, M.D., Kumar, S., Lee, J.W., 2014. Comparative analysis of pinewood, peanut
shell,
and bamboo biomass derived biochars produced via hydrothermal conversion and
pyrolysis. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 303–308.
Hwang, I.H., Aoyama, H., Matsuto, T., Nakagishi, T., Matsuo, T., 2012. Recovery of
solid
fuel from municipal solid waste by hydrothermal treatment using subcritical water.
Waste Manag. 32, 410–416.
Ishii, K., Takii, S., 2003. Comparison of microbial communities in four different
com-
posting processes as evaluated by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis.
J.
Appl. Microbiol. 95 (1), 109–119.
Jain, T., 2009. Microwave assisted extraction for phytoconstituents – an overview.
Asian
J. Res. Chem. 2 (1), 19–25.
Japon-Lujan, R., Luque de Castro, M.D., 2007. Static-dynamic superheated liquid ex-
traction of hydroxytyrosol and other bio-phenols from alperujo (a semisolid residue
of the olive oil industry). J. Agric. Food Chem. 55, 3629–3634.
Jarunglumlert, T., Prommuak, C., Putmai, N., Pavasant, P., 2018. Scaling-up bio-hy-
drogen production from food waste: Feasibilities and challenges. 43, 634–648.
Jensen, J., Larsen, P.H., 1983. Method for Obtaining High-quality Protein Products
from
Whey. World Intellectual Property Organization WO/1993/021781.
Jianlong, W., 1998. Improvement of citric acid production by Aspergillus niger with
ad-
dition of phytate to beet molasses. Bioresour. Technol. 65, 243–245.
Jumah, R., Al-Asheh, S., Banat, F., Al-Zoubi, K., 2005. Electro-osmotic dewatering
of
tomato paste suspension under AC electricfield. Dry. Technol. 23, 1465–1475.
Jurado, M., Prieto, A., Martínez-Alcalá, Á., Martínez, Á.T., Martínez, M.J., 2009.
Laccase
detoxification of steam-exploded wheat straw for second generation bioethanol.
Bioresour. Technol. 100, 6378–6384.
Kamel,B.S.,1979.Datesasapotentialsubstrateforsinglecellproteinproduction.Enzym.
Microb. Technol. 1, 180–182.
Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2005. Anaerobic co-digestion of potato tuber and its
industrial
byproducts with pig manure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43, 175–188.
Karakashev, D., Batstone, D.J., Angelidaki, I., 2005. Influence of environmental
condi-
tions on methanogenic compositions in anaerobic biogas reactors. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 71 (1), 331–338.
Karmee, S.K., 2016. Liquid biofuels from food waste: current trends, prospect and
lim-
itation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 945–953.
Kefale,A.,Redi,M.,Asfaw,A.,2012.Potentialofbioethanolproductionandoptimization
test from agricultural waste: the case of wet coffee processing waste (pulp). Int.
J.
Renew. Energy Resour. 2, 446–450.
Khan, M., Khan, S.S., Ahmed, Z., Tanveer, A., 2009. Production of fungal single
cell
protein using Rhizopus oligosporus grown on fruit wastes. Biolog. Forum. 1, 2628.
Kibler, K.M., Reinhart, D., Hawkins, C., Motlagh, A.M., Wright, J., 2018. Food
waste and
thefood-energy-waternexus:areviewoffoodwastemanagementalternatives.Waste
Manag. 74, 52–62.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2004. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops
and
crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26, 361–375.
Kim, S.H., Han, S.K., Shin, H.S., 2004. Feasibility of bio-hydrogen production by
anae-
robic co-digestion offood waste and sewage sludge.Int. J.Hydrogen Energy 29 (15),
1607–1616.
Kim, J.K., Oh, B.R., Chun, Y.N., Kim, S.W., 2006. Effects of temperature and
hydraulic
retention time on anaerobic digestion of food waste. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 102 (4),
328–332.
Kim,J.K.,Han,G.H.,Oh,B.R.,Chun,Y.N.,Eom,C.Y.,Kim,S.W.,2008a.Volumetricscale-
upofathree-stagefermentationsystemforfoodwastetreatment.Bioresour.Technol.
99, 4394–4399.
Kim, J.K., Oh, B.R., Shin, H.J., et al., 2008b. Statistical optimization of
enzymatic sac-
charification and ethanol fermentation using food waste. Process Biochem. 43 (11),
1308–1312.
Kim, D.H., Kim, S.H., Kim, K.Y., Shin, H.S., 2010. Experience of a pilot-scale
hydrogen-
producing anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) treating food waste. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 35 (4), 1590–1594.
Kim, J.H., Lee, J.C., Pak, 2011. Feasibility of producing ethanol from food waste.
Waste
Manag. (Oxford) 31 (9–10), 2121–2125.
Kim, M.-S., Na, J.-G., Lee, M.K., Ryu, H., Chang, Y.K., Triolo, J.M., Yun, Y.M.,
Kim, D.H.,
2016. More value from food waste: lactic acid and biogas recovery. Water Res. 96,
208–216.
Kinet, R., Destain, J., Hiligsmann, S., Thonart, P., Delhalle, L., Taminiau, B.,
Daube, G.,
Delvigne, F., 2015. Thermophilic and cellulolytic consortium isolated from com-
postingplantsimprovesanaerobicdigestionofcellulosicbiomass:towardamicrobial
resource management approach. Bioresour. Technol. 189, 138–144.
Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Ng, W.J., Liu, Y., 2014. Bioconversion of food waste
to en-
ergy: a review. Fuel 134, 389–399.
Kiran, E.U., Stamatelatou, K., Antonopoulou, G., Lyberatos, G., 2016. In: Clark,
James,
Wilson, Karen, Lin, Carol Ki, Luque, Rafael (Eds.), “Production of Biogas via
Anaerobic Digestion” in Handbook of Biofuels Production, second ed. .
Koike, Y., An, M.Z., Tang, Y.Q., Syo, T., Osaka, N., Morimura, S., Kida, K., 2009.
Production of fuel ethanol and methane from garbage by high efficiency two-stage
fermentation process. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 108, 508–512.
Kolicheski, M.B., Soccol, C.R., Martin, B., Medeiros, T., Rainbault, M., 1997.
Citric acid
production on three cellulosic supports in solid state fermentation. In: Roussos,
S.,
Lonsane, B.K., Raimbault, M., Viniegra-Gonzalez, G. (Eds.), Advances in Solid State
Fermentation. Kuwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 449–462.
Kondusamy, D., Kalamdhad, A.S., 2014. Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food
waste for high rate methane production–a review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1,
1821–1830.
Korkie, L.J., Janse, B.J.H., Viljoen-Bloom, M., 2002. Utilizing grape pomace for
ethanol
production. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 23, 31–36.
Kotay, S.M., Das, D., 2007. Microbial hydrogen production with Bacillus coagulans
IIT-BT
S1 isolated from anaerobic sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 1183–1190.
Kourmentza, C., Economou, ChN., Tsafrakidou, P., Kornaros, M., 2018. Spent coffee
grounds make much more than waste: exploring recent advances and future ex-
ploitation strategies for the valorization of an emerging food waste stream. J.
Clean.
Prod. 172, 980–992.
Kumar,U.,Bandyopadhyay,2006.Sorptionofcadmiumfromaqueoussolutionusingpre-
treated rice husk. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 104–109.
Lang, Q., Wai, C.M., 2001. Supercriticalfluid extraction in herbal and natural
product
studies—a practical review. Talanta 53 (4), 771–782.
Larsson, S., Cassland, P., Jönsson, L.J., 2001. Development of a Saccharomyces
cerevi-
siaestrain with enhanced resistance to phenolic fermentation inhibitors in lig-
nocellulose hydrolysates by heterologous expression of laccase. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 67, 1163–1170.
Latif,M.A.,Ahmad,A.,Ghufran,R.,Wahid,Z.A.,2012.Effectoftemperatureandorganic
loading rate on upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor and CH
4
production by
treating liquidised food waste. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 31 (1), 114–121.
Lebovka, N.I., Bazhal, M.I., Vorobiev, E., 2002. Estimation of characteristic
damage time
of food materials in pulsed-electricfields. J. Food Eng. 54, 337–346.
Lee, J.P., Lee, J.S., Park, S.C., 1999. Two-phase methanisation of food wastes in
pilot
scale. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. Enzym. Eng. Biotechnol. 77–79, 585–593.
Lee, D.Y., Ebie, Y., Xu, K.Q., Li, Y.Y., Inamori, Y., 2010. Continuous H
2
and CH
4
pro-
duction from high-solid food waste in the two-stage thermophilic fermentation pro-
cess with the recirculation of digester sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 42–47.
Li, J., Chase, H.A., 2010. Applications of membrane technique for purification of
natural
products. Biotechnol. Lett. 32, 601–608.
Li, W., Li, J., Chen, T., et al., 2004. Study on nanofiltration for purifying
fructo-oligo-
saccharides Operation modes. J. Membr. Sci. 245, 123–129.
Li, H., Chen, B., Yao, S., 2005. Application of ultrasonic technique for extracting
chlorogenic acidfrom EucommiaulmodiesOliv. (E.ulmodies). Ultrason. Sonochem. 12,
295–300.
Li, Q., Zhai, J., Zhang, W., Wang, M., Zhou, 2008. A study on adsorption of Pb(II),
Cr(III)
and Cu(II) from aqueous solution by peanut husk. J. Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiopia 22,
19–26.
Li, H., Yang, L., Kim, Y.-J., Kim, S.-J., 2011. Continuous ethanol production by
the syn-
chronous saccharification and fermentation using food wastes. Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 28
(4), 1085–1089.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
367
Li,Z.,Lu,H.,Ren,L.,He,L.,2013.Experimentalandmodelingapproachesforfoodwaste
composting: a review. Chemosphere 93 (7), 1247–1257.
Li, X., Chen, Y., Zhao, S., Chen, H., Zheng, X., Luo, J., Liu, Y., 2015. Efficient
production
of optically pure l-lactic acid from food waste at ambient temperature by
regulating
key enzyme activity. Water Res. 70, 148–157.
Lin,H.,Peng,W.,Zhang,M.,Chen,J.,Hong,H.,Zhang,Y.,2013a.Areviewonanaerobic
membrane bioreactors: applications, membrane fouling and future perspectives.
Desalination 314, 169–188.
Lin,C.S.K.,Pfaltzgraff,L.A.,Herrero-Davila,L.,Mubofu,E.B.,Abderrahim,S.,Clark,J.H.,
Koutinas, A.A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., Thankappan, S.,
2013b.
Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and
fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 426–464.
Liu, Y., Shi, J., Langrish, T.A.G., 2006. Water-based extraction ofpectin
fromflavedo and
albedo of orange peels. Chem. Eng. J. 120, 203–209.
López-González,J.,Vargas-García,M.,López,M.,Suárez-Estrella,F.,Jurado,M.,Moreno,
J., 2015. Biodiversity and succession of mycobiota associated to agricultural lig-
nocellulosic waste-based composting. Bioresour. Technol. 187, 305–313.
Lu, X., Berge, N.D., 2014. Influence of feedstock chemical composition on product
for-
mation and characteristics derived from the hydrothermal carbonization of mixed
feedstocks. Bioresour. Technol. 166, 120–131.
Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., Techato, K.A., 2018. The evolution of waste-to-
energy incineration: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91, 812–821.
Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X., Ren, G., 2015. Review on research achievements of
biogas
from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 540–555.
Marin, J., Kennedy, K.J., Eskicioglu, C., 2010. Effect of microwave irradiation on
anae-
robic degradability of model kitchen waste. Waste Manag. 30, 1772–1779.
Martin, C., Galbe, M., Wahlbom, C.F., Hahn-Hagerdal, B., Johnsson, L.J., 2002.
Ethanolproduction from enzymatic hydrolysates of sugarcane bagasse using re-
combinantxylose- utilising Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 31,
274–282.
Martinez, A., Rodriguez, M.E., York, S.W., Preston, J.F., Ingram, L.O., 2000.
Effects of Ca
(OH)
2
treatments (“overliming”) on the composition and toxicity of bagasse hemi-
cellulose hydrolysates. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 69, 526–536.
Masmoudi,M.,Besbes,S.,Chaabouni,M.,Robert,C.,Paquot,M.,Blecker,C.,etal.,2008.
Optimization of pectin extraction from lemon by-product with acidified date juice
using response surface methodology. Carbohydr. Polym. 74, 185–192.
Mason,T.J.,Paniwnyk,L.,Lorimer,J.P.,1996.Theusesofultrasoundinfoodtechnology.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 3, 253–260.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S., Llabres, P., 2000. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid
wastes.
An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 74,
3–16.
McKendry, P., 2002. Energy production from biomass (Part 2): conversion
technologies.
Bioresour. Technol. 83, 47–54.
Mekala, N.K., Singhania, R.R., Sukumaran, R.K., Pandey, A., 2008. Cellulase
production
under Solid-State Fermentation by Trichoderma reesei RUT C30: statistical optimiza-
tion of process parameters. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 151, 122–131.
Meryemoǧlu, B., Hasanoǧlu, A., Irmak, S., Erbatur, O., 2014. Biofuel production by
li-
quefaction of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 151,
278–283.
Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2014. Current options for the valorization
of food
manufacturing waste: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 28–41.
Molino, A., Nanna, F., Ding, Y., Braccio, G., 2013. Bio-methane production by
anaerobic
digestion of organic waste. Fuel 103, 1003–1009.
Mondal, A.K., Sengupta, S., Bhowal, J., Bhattacharya, D.K., 2012. Utilization of
fruit
wastes in producing single cell protein. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 1 (5), 430–
438.
Moon, H.C., Song, I.S., Kim, J.C., Shirai, Y., Lee, D.H., Kim, J.K., Chung, S.O.,
Kim, D.H.,
Oh, K.K., Cho, Y.S., 2009. Enzymatic hydrolysis of food waste and ethanol fermen-
tation. Int. J. Energy Res. 33, 164–172.
Murugan, K.,Chandrasekaran, V.S.,Karthikeyan, P.,Al-Sohaibani,S.,2013.Currentstate
of the art of food processing by-products. In: Chandrasekaran, M. (Ed.),
Valorisation
of Food Processing By-products. Taylor and Francis Group, Florida, pp. 35–62.
Mussatto, S.I., Roberto, I.C., 2004. Alternatives for detoxification of diluted-acid
lig-
nocellulosic hydrolyzates for use in fermentative processes: a review. Bioresour.
Technol. 93, 1–10.
Nagao, N., Tajima, N., Kawai, M., Niwa, C., Kurosawa, N., Matsuyama, T., Yusoff,
F.M.,
Toda, T., 2012. Maximum organic loading rate for the single-stage wet anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 118, 210–218.
Nath, K., Kumar, A., Das, D., 2006. Effect of some environmental parameters on fer-
mentative hydrogen production by Enterobacter cloacae DM11. Can. J. Microbiol. 52,
525–532.
Nawaz, H., Shi, J., Mittal, G.S., et al., 2006. Extraction of polyphenols from
grape seeds
and concentration by ultrafiltration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 48, 176–181.
Nayak, A., Bhushan, B., Gupta, V., Sharma, P., 2017. Chemically activated carbon
from
lignocellulosic wastes for heavy metal wastewater remediation: effect of activation
conditions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 493, 228–240.
Nayak, A., Bhushan, B., Rosales, A., Rodriguez Turienzo, L., Cortina, J.L., 2018a.
Valorisation potential of Cabernet grape pomace for the recovery of polyphenols:
process intensification, optimization and study of kinetics. Food Bioprod. Process.
109, 74–85.
Nayak, A., Bhushan, B., Rodriguez-Turienzo, L., 2018b. Recovery of polyphenols onto
porous carbons developed from exhausted grape pomace: a sustainable approach for
the treatment of wine wastewaters. Water Res. 145, 741–756.
Nazari, L., Yuan, Z., Souzanchi, S., Ray, M.B., Xu, C., 2015. Hydrothermal
liquefaction of
woody biomass in hot-compressed water: catalyst screening and comprehensive
characterization of bio-crude oils. Fuel 162, 74–83.
Neves, L., Oliveira, R., Alves, M.M., 2006. Anaerobic co-digestion of coffee waste
and
sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 26, 176–181.
Nigam, J.N., 1998. Single cell protein from pineapple cannery effluent. World J.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 14, 693–696.
Nilvebrant, N.-O., Reimann, A., Larsson, S., Jönsson, L.J., 2001. Detoxification of
lig-
nocellulose hydrolysates with ion-exchange resins. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 91/
93, 35–49.
Nouri, L., Hamdaoui, O., 2007. Ultrasonication-assisted sorption of cadmium from
aqu-
eous phase by wheat bran. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 8456–8846.
Nwabueze, T.U., Ogumtimein, G.B., 1987. Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) residue as a
substrate for single cell protein production. Biol. Wastes 20, 71–75.
Oberoi, H.S., Vadlani, P.V., Saida, L., Bansal, S., Hughes, J.D., 2011a. Ethanol
production
from banana peels using statistically optimized simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation process. Waste Manag. 31, 1576–1584.
Oberoi,H.S.,Vadlani,P.V.,Nanjundaswamy,A.,Bansal,S.,Singh,S.,Kaur,S.,Babbar,N.,
2011b. Enhanced ethanol production from Kinnow Mandarin (Citrus reticulata)
waste via a statistically optimized simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
process. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2), 1593–1601.
Oh,S.-E.,Iyer,P.,Bruns,M.A.,Logan,B.E.,2004.Biologicalhydrogenproduction usinga
membrane bioreactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 87, 119–127.
Okuda, N., Sonuera, M., Ninomiya, K., Katakura, Y., Shioya, S., 2008. Biological
detox-
ification of waste house wood hydrolysate using Ureibacillus thermosphaericus for
bioethanol production. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 106, 128–133.
Onwosi, C., Igbokwe, V., Odimba, J., Eke, I., Nwankwoala, M., Iroh, I., Ezeogu, L.,
2017.
Composting technology in waste stabilization: on the methods, challenges and future
prospects. J. Environ. Manag. 190, 140–157.
Oreopoulou, V., Tzia, C., 2007. Utilisation of plant by-products for the recovery
of pro-
teins, dietaryfibers, antioxidants, and colorants. In: Oreopoulou, V., Russ, W.
(Eds.),
UtilizationofBy-productsandTreatmentofWasteintheFoodIndustry,pp.209–232.
Oura, E., 1983. Biomass from carbohydrates. Biotechnology 3, 1–37.
Pala, M., Kantarli, I.C., Buyukisik, H.B., Yanik, J., 2014. Hydrothermal
carbonization and
torrefaction of grape pomace: a comparative evaluation. Bioresour. Technol. 161,
255–262.
Palmqvist, E., Hahn-Hagerdal, B., 2000a. Fermentation of lignocellulosic
hydrolysates. I:
inhibition and detoxification: review. Bioresour. Technol. 74, 17–24.
Palmqvist, E.,Hahn-Hagerdal,B.,2000b.Fermentation oflignocellulosic hydrolysates.
II:
inhibitors and mechanism of inhibition: review. Bioresour. Technol. 74, 25–33.
Palmqvist,E.,Hahn-Hagerdal,B.,Szengyel,Z.,Zacchi,G.,Reczey,K.,1997.Simultaneous
detoxification and enzyme production of hemicelluloses hydrolysates obtained after
steam pre-treatment. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 20, 286–293.
Palmqvist, E., Almeida, J., Hahn-Hagerdal, B., 1999a. Influence of furfural on
anaerobic
glycolytic kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in batch culture. Biotechnol.
Bioeng.
62, 447–454.
Pan, X., Niu, G., Liu, H., 2003. Microwave-assisted extraction of tea polyphenols
and tea
caffeine from green tea leaves. Chem. Eng. Process 42, 129–133.
Panchev, I.N., Kirtchev, N.A., Dimitrov, D.D., 2011. Possibilities for application
of laser
ablation in food technologies. Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 12, 369–374.
Pandey, A., 1991. Aspects of fermenter design for solid-state fermentation. Process
Biochem. 26, 355–361.
Pandey, A., 1992. Recent process developments in solid state fermentation. Process
Biochem. 27, 109–117.
Pandey, A., 1994. Solid state fermentation: an overview. In: Pandey, A. (Ed.),
Solid State
Fermentation. Wiley Eastern Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 3–10.
Pandey, A., Soccol, C.R., 1998. Bioconversion of biomass: a case study of
lignocellulosics
bioconversions in solid state fermentation. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 41, 379–390.
Parajo, J.C., Dominguez, H., Dominguez, J.M., 1996. Charcoal adsorption of wood hy-
drolysatesforimprovingtheirfermentability:influenceoftheoperationalconditions.
Bioresour. Technol. 157, 179–185.
Parawira, W., Tekere, M., 2011. Biotechnological strategies to overcome inhibitors
in
lignocellulose hydrolysates for ethanol production: review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.
31,
20–31.
Parawira,W.,Murto,M.,Read,J.S.,Mattiasson,B.,2005.Profileofhydrolasesandbiogas
production during two stage mesophilic anaerobic digestion of solid potato waste.
Process Biochem. 40 (9), 2945–2952.
Paré, J.R.J. (1994). Microwave Extraction of Volatile Oils. U.S. Patent 5,338,557,
16
August.
Paré, J.R.J., Sigouin, M.; Lapointe, J. (1991). Microwave-assisted natural products
ex-
traction. U.S. Patent 5,002,784, 26 March.
Paré,J.J.R., Bélanger, J.M.R., Stafford,S.S., 1994. Microwave-assisted process
(MAP™):a
new tool for the analytical laboratory. Trac. Trends Anal. Chem. 13 (4), 176–184.
Park, Y.J., Hong, F., Cheon, J., Hidaka, T., Tsuno, H., 2008. Comparison of
thermophilic
anaerobic digestion characteristics between single-phase and two-phase systems for
kitchen garbage treatment. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 105 (1), 48–54.
Pedersen, T.H.,Grigoras,I.F.,Hoffmann,J.,Toor,S.S.,Daraban, I.M.,Jensen,C.U., 2016.
Continuous hydrothermal co-liquefaction of aspen wood and glycerol with water
phase recirculation. Appl. Energy 162, 1034–1041.
Pellera, F.-M., Giannis, A., Kalderis, D., Anastasiadou, K., Stegmann, R., Wang,
J.-Y.,
Gidarakos, E., 2012. Adsorption of Cu(II) ions from aqueous solutions on biochars
prepared from agricultural by-products. J. Environ. Manag. 96, 35–42.
Pereira, C.D., Diaz, O., Cobos, A., 2002. Valorisation of by-products from ovine
cheese
manufacture: clarification by thermocalcic precipitation/microfiltration before ul-
trafiltration. Int. Dairy J. 12, 773–783.
Pham, T.P.T., Kaushik, R.,Parshetti, G.K., Mahmood, R.,Balasubrmanian, R.,2015.
Food
waste-to-energy conversion technologies: current status and future directions.
Waste
Manag. 38, 399–408.
Pingret, D., Fabiano‐Tixier, A.S., Bourvellec, C.L., Renard, C.M.G.C., Chemat, F.,
2012.
Lab and pilot‐scale ultrasound‐assisted water extraction of polyphenols from apple
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
368
pomace. J. Food Eng. 11 (1), 73–81.
Poerschmann, J., Weiner, B., Wedwitschka, H., Baskyr, I., Koehler, R., Kopinke, F.-
D.,
2014. Characterisation of bio-coals and dissolved organic matter phases obtained
upon hydrothermal carbonization of brewer's spent grain. Bioresour. Technol. 164,
162–169.
Posmanik, R., Cantero, D.A., Malkani, A., Sills, D.L., Tester, J.W., 2017. Biomass
con-
version to bio-oil using sub-critical water: study of model compounds for food pro-
cessing waste. J. Supercrit. Fluids 119, 26–35.
Prabha, M.S., Rangaiah, G.S., 2014. Citric acid production using Ananas comosus and
its
waste with the effect of alcohols. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 3 (5), 747–
754.
Prakash, J., 1996. Rice bran proteins: properties and food uses. Crit. Rev. Food
Sci. Nutr.
36, 537–552.
Prodanov,M.,Garrido,I.,Vacas,V.,etal.,2008.Ultrafiltrationasalternativepurification
procedure for the characterization of low and high molecular-mass phenolics from
almond skins. Anal. Chim. Acta 609, 241–251.
Puri, M., Sharma, D., Barrow, C.J., 2012. Enzyme-assisted extraction of bio-actives
from
plants. Trends Biotechnol. 30, 37–44.
Qambrani, N.A., Rahman, M.M., Won, S., Shim, S., Ra, C., 2017. Biochar properties
and
eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and
wastewater treatment: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 255–273.
Quiroga, G., Castrillon, L., Fernandez-Nava, Y., Maranon, E., Negral, L.,
Rodríguez-
Iglesias, J., Ormaechea, P., 2014. Effect of ultrasound pre-treatment in the
anaerobic
co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 154,
74–79.
Rahmat, H., Hodge, R., Manderson, G., Yu, P., 1995. Solid substrate fermentation of
Kloecheraapiculata and Candida utilis on apple pomace to produce an improved
stock-feed. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 11, 168–170.
Rajagopalan, G., Krishnan, C., 2008. Amylase production from catabolite depressed
BacillussubtilisKCC103utilizingsugarcanebagassehydrolysate.Bioresour.Technol.
99, 3044–3050.
Rajkumar, P., Kailappan, R., Viswanathan, R., Raghavan, G.S.V., Ratti, C., 2007.
Foam
mat drying of alphonso mango pulp. Dry. Technol. 25, 357–365.
Rakopoulos, C.D., Michos, C.N., 2009. Generation of combustion irreversibilities in
a
spark ignition engine under biogas-hydrogen mixtures fueling. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 34 (10), 4422–4437.
Ravindran, R., Jaiswal, A.K., 2016. Exploitation of food industry waste for high-
value
products. Trends Biotechnol. 34 (1), 58–69.
Reis, M., Albuquerque, M., Villano, M., Majone, M., 2011. Mixed culture processes
for
polyhydroxyalkanoate production from agro-industrial surplus/wastes as feedstocks.
Compr. Biotech. 6, 669–683.
Rodrigues, T.H., Rocha, M.V., de Macedo, G.R., Gonçalves, L.R., 2011. Ethanol
produc-
tion from cashew apple bagasse: improvement of enzymatic hydrolysis by micro-
wave-assisted alkali pretreatment. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 164, 929–943.
Rodríguez,L.A.,Toro,M.E.,Vazquez,F.,Correa-Daneri,M.L.,Gouiric,S.C.,Vallejo,M.D.,
2010. Bioethanol production from grape and sugar beet pomaces by solid state fer-
mentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (11), 5914–5917.
Rodriguez-Jasso, R.M., Mussatto, S.I., Pastrana, L., Aguilar, C.N., Teixeira, J.A.,
2011.
Microwave‐assisted extraction of sulfated polysaccharides (fucoidan) from brown
seaweed. Carbohydr. Polym. 86 (3), 1137–1144.
Rohr,M.,Kubicek,C.P.,Kominek,J.,1983.Citricacid.In:In:Reed,G.,Rehm,H.J.(Eds.),
Biotechnology, vol. 3. Verlag-Chemie, Weinheim, pp. 419–454 T. (1999). Citric acid
production from carob pod by solid state fermentation. Enzyme Microbial
Technology. 24,54–59.
Rostagno, M.A., Palma, M., Barroso, C.G., 2003. Ultrasound-assisted extraction of
soy
isoflavones. J. Chromatogr. A 1012, 119–128.
Routray, W.,Orsat,V.,2011.Microwave‐assistedextraction offlavonoids:areview.Food
Bioprocess Technol. 5, 409–424.
Saha, B., Cotta, M., 2008. Lime pretreatment, enzymatic saccharification and
fermenta-
tion of rice hulls to ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 971–977.
Saratale, G.D., Chen, S.D., Lo, Y.C., Saratale, R.G., Chang, J.S., 2008. Outlook of
bio
hydrogen production from lignocellulosic feedstock using dark fermentation-a re-
view. Sci. Ind. Res. 67, 962–979.
Schieber, A., Stintzing, F.C., Carle, R., 2001. By-products of plant food
processing as a
source of functional compounds-recent developments. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 12,
401–413.
Şentürk, E., İnce, M., Engin, G.O., 2012. The effect of transient loading on the
perfor-
mance of a mesophilic anaerobic contact reactor at constant feed strength. J.
Biotechnol. 164, 232–237.
Sha, L., Xueyi, G., Ningchuan, F., Qinghua, T., 2009. Adsorption of Cu
2+
and Cd
2+
from
aqueous solution by mercapto-acetic acid modified orange peel. Colloids Surfaces B
Biointerfaces 73, 10–14.
Shankaranand, V.S., Lonsane, B.K., 1994. Coffee husk: an inexpensive substrate for
pro-
duction of citric acid by Aspergillus niger in a solid state fermentation. World J.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 10, 165–168.
Sharma, D.K., Niwas, S., Behera, B.K., 1991. Solid state fermentation of bagasse
for the
production of cellulase enzyme from cellulolytic fungi and extent of simultaneous
production of reducing sugars in the fermenter. J. Microb. Biotechnol. 6, 7–14.
Sharma, V., Testa, C., Lastella, G., Cornacchia, G., Comparato, M., 2000. Inclined-
plug-
flow type reactor for anaerobic digestion of semi-solid waste. Appl. Energy 65,
173–185.
Sharma, N., Kalra, K.L., Oberoi, H.S., Bansal, S., 2007. Optimization of
fermentation
parameters for production of ethanol from kinnow waste and banana peels by si-
multaneous saccharification and fermentation. Indian J. Microbiol. 47 (4), 310–316.
Shin, H., Youn, J., 2005. Conversion of food waste into hydrogen by thermophilic
acid-
ogenesis. Biodegradation 16 (1), 33–44.
Shin, H.S., Youn, J.-S., Kim, S.H., 2004. Hydrogen production from food waste in
anaerobic mesophilic and thermophilic acidogenesis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 29
(13), 1355–1363.
Shu, Y.Y., Ko, M.Y., Chang, Y.S., 2003. Microwave-assisted extraction of
ginsenosides
from ginseng root. Microchem. J. 74, 131–139.
Singh, S., Prerna, P., 2009. Review of recent advances in anaerobic packed-bed
biogas
reactors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1569–1575.
Singh, M., Srivastava, R., 2011. Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological
Wastewater treatment: a review. Asia Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 6, 3–13.
Singh, R., Balagurumurthy, B., Prakash, A., Bhaskar, T., 2015. Catalytic
hydrothermal
liquefaction of water hyacinth. Bioresour. Technol. 178, 157–165.
Sivaramakrishnan, S., Gangadharan, D., Nampoothiri, K.M., 2007. Alpha amylase pro-
duction by Aspergillus oryzae employing solid state fermentation. J. Sci. Ind. Res.
India 66, 621–626.
Skaggs, R.L., Coleman, A.M., Seiple, T.E., Milbrandt, A.R., 2018. Waste-to-Energy
biofuel
production potential for selected feedstocks in the conterminous United States.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2640–2651.
Soccol, C.R., Vandenberghe, L.P.S., 2003. Overview ofappliedsolid-state
fermentation in
Brazil. Biochem. Eng. J. 13, 205–218.
Soni,S.K.,Kaur, A.,Kishore,J.,2003. Asolid-state fermentation basedbacterial-
amylase
and fungalglucoamylase system andits suitability forthe hydrolysisofwheat starch.
Process Biochem. 39, 185–192.
Sonja, D., Canadanovic-Brunet, J., Cetkovic, G., 2009. By-products of fruits
processing as
a source of phytochemicals. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 15, 191–202.
Soto, M.L., Moure, A., Domınguez, H., Parajo, J.C., 2011. Recovery, concentration
and
purification of phenolic compounds by adsorption: a review. J. Food Eng. 105, 1–27.
Sowbhagya, H.B., Chitra, V.N., 2010. Enzyme-assisted extraction offlavourings and
colorants from plant materials. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 50, 146–161.
Stephen, J.L., Periasamy, B., 2018. Innovative developments in biofuels production
from
organic waste materials: a review. Fuel 214, 623–633.
Sukumaran, R.K., Singhania, R.R., Mathew, G.M., Pandey, A., 2009. Cellulase
production
usingbiomassfeedstock anditsapplicationinlignocellulose saccharificationforbio-
ethanol production. Renew. Energy 34, 421–424.
Sulaiman, A., Othman, N., Baharuddin, A.S., Mokhtar, M.N., Tabatabaei, M., 2014.
Enhancing the halal food industry by utilizing food wastes to produce value added
bioproducts. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 121, 35–43.
Sun, R.C., Tomkinson, J., 2002. Characterization of hemicelluloses obtained by
classical
and ultrasonically assisted extractions from wheat straw. Carbohydr. Polym. 50,
263–271.
Tanyildizi, M.S., Ozer, D., Elibol, M., 2007. Production of bacterial α-amylase by
B.
amyloliquefaciens under solid substrate fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 37, 294–297.
Thirugnanasambandham, K., Sivakumar, V.,2017. Microwave assisted extractionprocess
ofbetalainfromdragonfruitanditsantioxidantactivities.J.SaudiSoc.Agric.Sci.16,
41–48.
Thomsen, A.B., Medina, C., Ahring, B.K., 2003. Biotechnology in ethanol production.
In:
In: Larsen, H., Kossman, J., Petersen, L.S. (Eds.), New and Emerging Bioenergy
Technologies, vol. 2. Riso National Laboratory, Denmark, pp. 40–44.
Titirici, M.-M., Antonietti, M., 2010. Chemistry and materials options of
sustainable
carbon materials made by hydrothermal carbonization. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39 (1),
103–116.
Titirici, M.-M., Thomas, A., Antonietti, M., 2007. Back in the black: hydrothermal
car-
bonization of plant material as an efficient chemical process to treat the CO
2
pro-
blem? New J. Chem. 31 (6), 787–789.
Tradler, S.B., Mayr, S., Himmelsbach, M., Reinhold Priewasser, R., Baumgartner, W.,
Stadler, A.T., 2018. Hydrothermal carbonization as an all-inclusive process for
food-
waste conversion. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2, 77–83.
Tran, C.T., Sly, L.I., Mitchell, D.A., 1998. Selection of a strain of Aspergillus
for the pro-
duction of citric acid from pineapple waste in solid state fermentation. World J.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 14, 399–404.
Unakal, C., Kallur, R.I., Kaliwal, B.B., 2012. Production ofα-amylase using banana
waste
byBacillussubtilisundersolidstatefermentation.Eur.J.Exp.Biol.2(4),1044–1052.
Uncu, O.N., Cekmecelioglu, D., 2011. Cost-effective approach to ethanol production
and
optimization by response surface methodology. Waste Manag. 31, 636–643.
Upadhyay, R., Ramalakshmi, K., Jagan Mohan Rao, L., 2012. Microwave‐assisted ex-
traction of chlorogenic acids from green coffee beans. Food Chem. 130 (1), 184–188.
Vallverdu-Queralt,A.,Odriozola-Serrano,I.,Oms-Oliu,G.,Lameula-Raventos,R.M.,Elez-
Mortinez, P., Martin-Belloso, O., 2013. Impact of high intensity pulsed
electricfields
on carotenoids profile of tomato juices made of moderate intensity pulsed electric
field treated tomatoes. Food Chem. 141, 3131–3138.
Van Ooteghem, S.A., Beer, S.K., Yue, P.C., 2002. Hydrogen production by the thermo-
philic bacterium Thermotoganeapolitana. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 98–100,
177–189.
Vandenberghe, I.P.S., Soccol, C.R., Pandey, A., Lebeault, J.M., 1999a. Review:
microbial
production of citric acid. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 42, 263–276.
Vandenberghe, L.P.S., Pandey, A., Soccol, C.R., Lebeault, J.-M., 1999b. Citric acid
pro-
duction by Aspergillus Niger in solid-state fermentation on coffee husk. In: III
InternatlSemBiotechnol Coffee Agroindustry, May 26-29, Londrina, Brazil.
Vandenberghe, L.P.S., Soccol, C.R., Pandey, A., Lebeault, J.-M., 2000. Solid-state
fer-
mentation for synthesis of citric acid by Aspergillus Niger. Bioresour. Technol.
74,
175–178.
Ventorino, V., Robertiello, A., Viscardi, S., Ambrosanio, A., Faraco, V., Pepe, O.,
2016.
Bio-based chemical production from Arundo donax feedstock fermentation using
Cosenzaea myxofaciens BPM1. BioResources 11, 6566–6581.
Ventorino,V.,Robertiello,A.,Cimini,D.,Argenzio,O.,Schiraldi,C.,Montella,S.,Faraco,
V.,Ambrosanio,A.,Viscardi,S.,Pepe,O.,2017.Bio-Basedsuccinateproductionfrom
Arundodonax hydrolysatewiththenewnaturalsuccinicacid-producingstrain Basfia
succiniciproducens BPP7. Bioenergy Res. 10, 488–498.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
369
Villarreal, M.L.M., Prata, A.M.R., Felipe, M.G.A., Almeida, E., Silva, J.B., 2006.
Detoxification procedures of eucalyptus hemicellulose hydrolysate for xylitol pro-
duction by Candida guilliermondii. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 40, 17–24.
Wang, X., Zhao, Y.C., 2009. A bench scale study of fermentative hydrogen and
methane
production from food waste in integrated two-stage process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
34 (1), 245–254.
Wang, J.Y., Stabnikova, O., Tay, S.T., Ivanov, V., Tay, J.H., 2004. Biotechnology
of in-
tensive aerobic conversion ofsewagesludge and foodwaste intofertilizer. WaterSci.
Technol. 49, 147–154.
Wang, Q., Wang, X., Wang, X.,Wang, X., Ma, H., Ren, N., 2005. Bioconversion of
kitchen
garbage to lactic acid by two wild strains of Lactobacillus species. J. Environ.
Sci.
Health Part A Toxic Hazard. Substan. Environ. Eng. 40, 1951–1962.
Wang, H., Wag, J., Fang, Z., Wang, X., Bu, H., 2010. Enhanced bio-hydrogen
production
byanaerobicfermentationofapplepomacewithenzymehydrolysis.Int.J.Hydrogen
Energy 35 (15), 8303–8309.
Xia, T., Gao, X., Wang, C., Xu, X., Zhu, L., 2016. An enhanced anaerobic membrane
bioreactor treating bamboo industry wastewater by bamboo charcoal addition: per-
formance and microbial community analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 220, 26–33.
Xiao, X., Huang, Z., Ruan, W., Yan, L., Miao, H., Ren, H., Zhao, M., 2015.
Evaluation and
characterization during the anaerobic digestion of high-strength kitchen waste
slurry
via a pilot-scale Anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 193, 234–242.
Xu, C., Lad, N., 2008. Production of heavy oils with high caloric values by direct
lique-
faction of woody biomass in sub/near-critical water. Energy Fuels 22, 635–642.
Yan,S.,Wang,P.,Zhai,Z.,Yao,J.,2011.Fuelethanolproductionfromconcentratedfood
wastehydrolysatesinimmobilisedcellreactorsbySaccharomycescerevisiaeH058.J.
Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 86 (5), 731–738.
Yan, L.-G., He, L., Xi, J., 2015. High intensity pulsed electricfield as an
innovative
techniqueforextractionofbioactivecompounds—areview.Crit.Rev.FoodSci.Nutr.
57 (13), 2877–2888.
Yan, W.H., Duan, P.G., Wang, F., Xu, Y.P., 2016. Composition of the bio-oil from
the
hydrothermal liquefaction of duckweed and the influence of the extraction solvents.
Fuel 185, 229–235.
Yang, S.S., 1993. Protein enrichment of sweet-potato residue with co-culture of
amylo-
lytic fungi by solid-state fermentation. Biotechnol. Adv. 11, 495–505.
Yang, L., Nazari, L., Yuan, Z., Corscadden, K., Xu, C.C., He, Q.S., 2016a.
Hydrothermal
liquefaction ofspent coffeegrounds inwater mediumforbio-oil production.Biomass
Bioenergy 86, 191–198.
Yang, Z.H., Xu, R., Zheng, Y., Chen, T., Zhao, L.J., Li, M., 2016b.
Characterization of
extracellular polymeric substances and microbial diversity in anaerobic co-
digestion
reactortreatedsewagesludgewithfat,oil,grease.Bioresour.Technol.212,164–173.
Ye, H., Zhu, Q., Du, D., 2010. Adsorptive removal of Cd(II) from aqueous solution
using
natural and modified rice husk. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 5175–5179.
Youn, J., Shin, H., 2005. Comparative performance between temperature-phased and
conventional mesophilic two-phased processes in terms of anaerobically produced
bioenergy from food waste. Waste Manag. Res. 23 (1), 32–38.
Yun, Y.-M., Lee, M.-K., Im, S.-W., Marone, A., Trably, E., Shin, S.-R., Kim, M.-G.,
Cho, S.-
K., Kim, D.-H., 2018. Biohydrogen production from food waste: current status,
limitations and future perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 248, 79–87.
Zafar, M.N., Nadeem, R., Hanif, M.A., 2007. Biosorption of nickel from protonated
rice
bran. J. Hazard Mater. 143, 478–485.
Zamanzadeh, M., Hagen, L.H., Svensson, K., Linjordet, R., Horn, S.J., 2017. Biogas
pro-
duction from food waste via co-digestion and digestion- effects on performance and
microbial ecology. Sci. Rep. 7, 17664.
Zevenhoven-Onderwater, M., Backman, R., Skrifvars, B.-J., Hupa, M., 2001. The ash
chemistry influidised bed gasification of biomass fuels. Part I: predicting the
chemistry of melting ashes and ash-bed material interaction. Fuel 80, 1489–1502.
Zhang,Y.,2010.HydrothermalLiquefactiontoConvertBiomassintoCrudeOil.Blackwell
Publishing, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2016. Improving green waste composting by addition of sugarcane
bagasse and exhausted grape marc. Bioresour. Technol. 218, 335–343.
Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., Gamble, P.,
2007a. Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Bioresour. Technol. 98 (4), 929–935.
Zhang,Z.P.,Tay,J.H.,Show,K.Y.,Yan,R.,Tee,L.D.,Lee,D.J.,etal.,2007b.Biohydrogen
production in a granular activated carbon anaerobicfluidized bed reactor. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 32, 185–191.
Zhang, C., Xiao, G., Peng, L., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013. The anaerobic co-digestion of
food
waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 29, 170–176.
Zhang, Q., Hu, J., Lee, D.-J., 2016a. Biogas from anaerobic digestion processes:
research
updates. Renew. Energy 98, 108–119.
Zhang, H., Li, G., Gu, J., Wang, G., Li, Y., Zhang, D., 2016b. Influence of aeration
on
volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) and NH
3
emissions during aerobic composting of
kitchen waste. Waste Manag. 58, 369–375.
Zhao, L., Cao, G.L.,Wang, A.J., Ren, H.Y., Dong, D., Liu,Z.N., 2012. Fungal
pretreatment
of cornstalk with Phanerochaete chrysosporium for enhancing enzymatic sacchar-
ification and hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 365–369.
Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, F., Li, Y., 2014. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass
for en-
hanced biogas production. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 42, 35–53.
Zhong, W., Zhang, Z., Qiao, W., Pengcheng, F., Man, L., 2011. Comparison of
chemical
and biological pretreatment of corn straw for biogas production by anaerobic di-
gestion. Renew. Energy 36 (6), 1875–1879.
Zhu, Y., Biddy, M.J., Jones, S.B., Elliott, D.C., Schmidt, A.J., 2014. Techno-
economic
analysis of liquid fuel production from woody biomass viahydrothermal liquefaction
(HTL) and upgrading. Appl. Energy 129, 384–394.
Ziels, R.M., Karlsson, A., Beck, D.A.C., Ejlertsson, J., Yekta, S.S., Bjorn, A.,
Stensel, H.D.,
Svensson, B.H., 2016. Microbial community adaptation influences long-chain fatty
acidconversionduringanaerobicco-digestion offats,oils,andgreasewithmunicipal
sludge. Water Res. 103, 372–382.
Zuorro, A., Lavecchia, R., 2010. Adsorption of Pb(II) on spent leaves of green and
black
tea. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 7, 153–159.
Łukajtis, R., Hołowacz, I., Kucharsk, K., Glinka, M., Rybarczyk, P., Przyjazny, A.,
Kamiński, M., 2018. Hydrogen production from biomass using dark fermentation.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91, 665–694.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
370