Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370

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 T food
wastes
A. Nayaka,b,∗, Brij Bhushanb,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 ABSTRACT

Keywords: A critical and up-to-date review has been conducted on the latest individual valorization technologies aimed at the generation
Valorization of value-added by-products from food wastes in the form of bio-fuels, bio-materials, value added components and bio-based
Food wastes adsorbents. The aim is to examine the associated advantages and drawbacks of each technique separately along with the
Bio-fuels assessment of process parameters affecting the efficiency of the generation of the bio-based products. Challenges faced during
Bio-materials
the processing of the wastes to each of the bio-products have been explained and future scopes stated. Among the many
Value added components
hurdles encountered in the successful and high yield generation of the bio-products is the complexity and variability in the
Bio-sorbents
composition of the food wastes along with 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-
lection of the technological parameters and finally optimization of not only the process configurations but also in 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 option is prevention of waste, its reuse or recycling to recover energy or

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
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 the United States Department of Agriculture
(www.usda.gov) (Arvanitoyannins, 2008; Murugan et al., 2013). The
recycling of food wastes to produce commercial products and energy is
known as the bio-refinery concept and is fast picking up in 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

∗ Corresponding author. Graphic Era University, Dehradun, 248002, India.

E-mail addresses: arunima_nayak@yahoo.com, arunima_nayak@geu.ac.in (A. Nayak).

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
Available online 31 December 2018
0301-4797/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
Fig. 1. The bio-refinery concept and individual techniques applied to food wastes.
through combined approaches of bio-chemical, chemical or thermal/ physical
followed by their modification into higher value food products or additives.
The past decade has seen a spurt of research 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 and
finally 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; Tradler et al., 2018; Yun et al., 2018). For example, current opinions on
the anaerobic digestion process for production of biogas have been well
documented (Zhang et al., 2016a; Stephen and Periasamy, 2018). Dark
fermentation method for production of bio-H2 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
353
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 cooking oil and
cashew shell nut liquid that are produced in abundance 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 constraints that may arise during the application of
industrial symbiosis 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 of this review article is to provide an up-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 has been an
increased public awareness on the degradation of the quality of our
environment due to the mismanagement and improper disposal of the food
wastes (Koike et al., 2009). Generation of fuels from food wastes also do not
give rise to the food versus fuel competition (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-parts mainly because of the higher production efficiency and
associated 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.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
2.1.1. Bio-methane production
As per various reviews, anaerobic digestion has been recognized as a
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 swing absorption etc. help to increase the energetic value of the bio-
fuel (Harasimowicz et al., 2007; Ajhar et al., 2012). In addition to bio-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 inherent
in the waste matrices to CO2, hydrogen acetate followed by the conversion of
these substrates to methane. Each of these reactions takes 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 of cases the C:N ratio of food waste substrates is beyond the
prescribed range. Some food wastes usually have low nitrogen/nutrient
content while slaughter house wastes have high concentrations of lipids 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 (Kaparaju and Rintala, 2005; Castillo et al., 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
354
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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). On an 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 expected to
increase the biogas yield but eventually it has been reported 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 and poor effluent
quality. Research studies have shown a shift to the use 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) so as to 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 8 kg COD/m3/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 producing high effluent quality that is free of solids,
pathogens and rich 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. This is because of the capacity of the membrane to retain the
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

Table 1
Performance data of anaerobic digestion of food waste.

Food waste Bioreactor Duration (days) HRT (days) Biogas yield (L/kg CH4 yield (mL/kg References
VS) VS)

Dairy manure and food waste Hybrid anaerobic solid–liquid NA NA 302 NA El-Mashad and Zhang (2010)
bioreactor
Food waste Single stage 3 stage semi- 30 12 NA NA Kim et al. (2006)
continuous
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 250 13 NA 390 Heo et al. (2004)
reactor
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)

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 (180–732 mL/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 for 120 days) gave a methane yield of 482, 372, 294, 277, and
472 mL/ g VS respectively.
The high degradability of food wastes and the higher yield of bio-gas
when operated under controlled conditions have shown that anaerobic
digestion can lead to reduction of waste volumes and also can 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 control and process optimization. The chemical
composition of the food waste hinders its rate of degradation; thus, the
digestion process is often known to suffer from long solid residence time and
low conversion efficiency (Quiroga et al., 2014). Since hydrolysis has been
documented as the rate limiting step for the anaerobic degradation, various
physical, 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;
Ariunbaatar et al., 2014; Kiran et al., 2016). Some food wastes having a 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 be
obtained 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 from first 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. More recently, kitchen waste
has served as a useful substrate for bio-ethanol production. Such wastes also
known to contain organic

355
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370

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 S.CerevisiaeAnr. 25.2 0.11 Sharma et al. (2007)
Banana peel Pachysolentannophilus
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 54.96 g/L 25.14 Han et al. (2009)
Sugarcane bagasse C. shehatae 30.29 g/L 8.67 Chandel et al. (2007)
Rice straw S. Cerevisiae 60.0 g/L 12.34 Sukumaran et al. (2009)
Cashew apple bagasse S. Cerevisiae 15 5.6 Rodrigues et al. (2011)

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 the first 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 CO2(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).
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 of
detoxification has resulted in improved ethanol productivity, 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.

The driving factor affecting the yield of ethanol from lignocellulosic based
food and agricultural wastes is the hydrolysis or the sacchar-ification process.
Studies have revealed that the complex lignocellulosic 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 29.1 g/L ethanol from food waste (Moon et al., 2009). While, 32.2
g/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
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 process need
to be assessed. Extensive research work is yet to be carried 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-H2 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-H2 production from food wastes. The anaerobic dark
fermentation tech-nology used for H2 production involves the degradation of
the carbo-hydrate fraction of waste via initial enzymatic hydrolysis to produce
reducing sugars (Alexandropoulou et al., 2018). Cellulase is a bio-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 not contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG),
is renewable and contains high

356
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
Table 3
Performance data of bio-hydrogen production from food waste.
Food waste Reactor Duration (days)
Food waste Leaching bed reactor 7 5
Food waste 415 mL Bottle 3 Batch
Food waste 715 mL bottle 6 Batch
Food waste bioreactor 5 NA
Food waste CSTR 150
Food waste ASBR NA
Food waste Rotating drum 30
Food waste SCR 96
Food waste Bottle 14.6
Apple pomace bioreactor 2 Batch
energy content (142.35 kJ/g). Bio-H2 gas is also widely used feedstock for the
production of chemicals (ammonia and methanol). Studies have shown that
anaerobic bacteria involved in bio-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-H2 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 well as approaches on cellulose pre-treatment and saccharification. The
basic aim is to make the technology more economic (Nath et al., 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-strates for dark fermentation.
Some of the methods employed in various 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-H2, 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-itiate the formation of
inhibitors like furfural, 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-H2 yield during the dark fer-mentation process (Łukajtis et al., 2018).
Among the various parameters affecting the yield of bio-H2 and which
have been identified by Łukajtis et al. are the operating condi-tions like
temperature, pH, partial pressure of H2 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-H2 from food wastes. Continuous op-erations
are known to assist in the scale-up process as well as to help in
357
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
HRT (days) Yield (mL/g VS) References
160 Han and Shin (2004)
67 Kim et al. (2004)
92 Shin et al. (2004)
125 Shin and Youn (2005)
1.3 283 Chu et al. (2008)
1.25 80.9 Kim et al. (2010)
4 65 Wang and Zhao (2009)
1.9 114 Lee et al. (2010)
Batch 118 Elbeshbishyet al. (2011).
134 Wang et al. (2010)
overcoming various limitations. Some of the limitations as reported in the
batch process by Jarunglumlert et al. are low H2 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-H2. In this method, besides
the dark fermentation method of H2 production, the lactic acid produced from
food waste is also converted to H2 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 H2 and CH4 are produced simultaneously.
Various advantages have been reported over the single step H2 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 conducted by Bartels et al. indicated
that the economic feasibility of H2 production from food waste by dark
fermentation is questionable due to the limited carbohydrate content,
thermodynamic limitations etc. (Bartels et al., 2010). Another limitation of
bio-H2 production and a major hurdle for its practical application is the lower
rate of conversion of substrate to product. Research is ongoing to increase the
H2 yield as well as energy recovery via CH4 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 H2 (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
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
Table 4
Performance data of hydro-char production from food waste.
Food waste Process conditions
Sweet corn 250 °C, 96hrs
Peanut shell 300 °C, 30mins
Distiller's grain 190-210 °C, 0.5–2hrs
Brewers spent grain 200-240 °C, 14hrs
Orange waste 300 °C, 30 min
Olive pomace 300 °C, 30 min
Grape pomace 175-275 °C, 10–60mins
temperatures between 500 and 1000 °C. Thus, the solid organic matter is
converted to gaseous phase consisting of CO, CH4, N2, H2 and CO2 which
are further oxidized during the oxidizing stage at temperatures between 800
and 1450 °C. The gaseous product can be used directly as a 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 CO2, CH4, NH3, HCN, CO and H2and 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 is the characteristics of the
food wastes with respect to their elemental composition, lower heating value,
ash content, high moisture content, volatile matter content, bulk size, density
etc. These char-acteristics are crucial for the overall process performance. The
moisture content in both food wastes seems to be a major deterring factor for
the overall efficiency of the process. Thereby, the energy recovery through
incineration of such wastes is not a feasible option. In a study during the
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). In a review published by Arena, it
was stated that because of the adverse characteristics of the food waste
composition, the gasification and pyrolysis technologies require dried up pre-
treated food wastes and thus the energy required for drying increases the
overall cost (Arena, 2012).
Thermal processes not involving a drying pre-treatment step are the
hydrothermal gasification, hydrothermal carbonization and hydro-thermal
liquefaction.
When performed under sub critical water conditions of high pres-sure (7–
30 MPa) 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 5–60 min (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 et al., 2016; Posmanik
et al., 2017). Some of the waste 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
358
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
Yield of hydro-char (%) Reference
50–96 Titirici et al. (2007)
50.1 Girotto et al. (2015)
30.2–45.6 Berge et al. (2011)
47.5–51.1 Goto et al. (2004)
37.5 Hwang et al. (2012)
37.5 Hwang et al. (2012)
46.5–61.1 Lu and Berge (2014)
shown higher heating values (35 MJ/kg) as compared to that for the bio-oil
derived from pyrolysis (16–19 MJ/kg). Also, its heating value was found
comparable to the heating value for conventional petroleum fuels (40–45
MJ/kg) (Xu and Lad, 2008; Demirbas, 2011). The O2 content of the bio-oil
from hydrothermal liquefaction is very low (10%) as compared to that of the
pyrolysis bio-oil (40%). Thereby, the bio-oil has a higher calorific value.
Thirdly, because of a moderate temperature 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. The major challenge is that
during its operation, 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-sion of
food waste above the critical water conditions. The final product is a high gas
yield with limited formation of bio-char. Such wastes when 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, dehydration and decarboxylation reactions to 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 15–30 kJ/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 various pollutants from wastewater streams (Pellera
et al., 2012). It has 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 the
backdrop of the limitations of the pyrolysis and gasification 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 the
final hydro-char product (Qambrani et al., 2017). Despite its many
advantages, a detailed
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370

techno-economic analysis needs to be performed for assessing the fea-sibility

of hydrothermal carbonization as a technological option for food waste

Japon-Lujan and Luque de Castro, 2007

management in the recovery of useful energy.

2.2. Recovery of value-added components for food additives

Masmoudi et al. (2008)

Galanakis et al. (2010a)

Boussetta et al. (2009)

Boussetta et al. (2009)
Berardini et al. (2005)

Berardini et al. (2005)

Panchev et al. (2011)

Fishman et al. (2000)

The wastes generated from the processing of various plant-based foods

Pereira et al. (2002)

Barba et al. (2001)
Barba et al. (2001)
Liu et al. (2006)
are rich in sugars, pectin, proteins, lipids, polysaccharides, fibres, flavor
compounds and phyto-chemicals. Such value-added products if extracted

Reference
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), dietary fibers and particularly

Yield (g/100g of dry foodwaste)

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

211.
the final product has been marketed as a natural sweetener in foods. Such

1.00

0.14

0.26
13.0

0.10

0.44
19.6
0.8

74.

5.9
3.5
7.0
process has been patented (AU1983/0011308D). The pectin extracted from
the peels of various citrus fruits has also been used as thickeners and

fiConcentration,acidassistedsolventextraction,ethanolprecipitation,concentration,dilution,micro-ltration,fiultra-ltration

Acid assisted extraction, ethanol precipitation, evaporation, resin adsorption, methanol elution, evaporationandfreezedrying
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 (Jensen and Larsen, 1983; Davis et al., 2002).
High valued 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

Acid assisted extraction, resin adsorption, methanol elution, evaporation and freeze drying
used as a functional ingredient in bread (Fernandez-Bolanos et al., 2002).
Soluble dietary fiber granules were produced from de-pectinated apple
Freeze drying, acid assisted solvent extraction, centrifugation, ethanol extraction

pomace and marketed as dietary supplements (CN2008/ 1139768) (Anming et

al., 2010). A great range of products like ethanol, tartrates, citric acid, grape

fi fiSkimming,micro-ltration,ultra-ltration,ltration, freeze drying

seed oil and dietary fibers were successfully recovered from the pomace of
apple and grapes. Various polyphenols like catechin, epicatechin,
Drying, pressurized and super-heated ethanol assisted extraction
for recovery of value-added components from food wastes.

anthocyanins, flavonols etc. found in the grape skin and seeds are known to
inhibit the oxidation of human low-density lipoproteins (LDL). Hence various
Drying, acid assisted solvent extraction, Laser ablation

studies have been initiated in the recovery and extraction of phenolic

fiMicrowaveassistedextraction,ltration, centrifugation

components from grape pomace (Nayak et al., 2018a).

Water extraction, high voltage electrical discharge

fiSkimming,ultra-ltration, freeze drying

fi fiUltra-ltration,ltration, drying

As evident from the vast literature studies, the new products from food
Microwave assisted extraction

wastes have helped in increasing the food availability and have helped in
extending their shelf life for their consumption in an extended time frame.
Applied technologies

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
Water extraction

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
fi

the bioactive compounds from waste matrices as can be evident from Table 5.
Table 5Performance of various extraction techniques

Olive mill wastewater

Olive mill wastewater

Depending on the nature of the food matrix and on the nature of the bioactive
White grape pomace
White grape pomace

food ingredient to be extracted, the techniques involved are known to vary.

Orange albedo
Orange albedo
Lemon peel

Cheese whey
component Food waste

Orange peel

Mango peel

Mango peel

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 diffusion of the
extracting solvent into the cells of the waste matrix so as to ensure higher
Value added

yield of the bioactive components (Pellera et al., 2012). However, olive mill
Phenols

Proteins
Pectin

wastewaters, winery wastewaters require thermal or vacuum concentration for

ensuring enhanced concentration

359
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
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). Freeze
drying is a better option of decreasing the concentration of water in the food
waste substrates; but its high cost and low shelf life are major deterrents to its
usage. Some of the emerging pre-treatment techniques (Galanakis, 2012) are
foam mat, electro-osmotic de-wa-tering and micro-filtration. Foam based
technique is known to eliminate most of the adverse effects of thermal heating
as well as can provide high stability against deteriorative microbial, chemical
and biochemical reactions (Rajkumar et al., 2007). The lower operating
temperature and 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-watering
has been used successfully for solid-liquid mixtures containing gelatinous
particles or for drying highly viscous wastes having various kinds of colloidal
components like tomato pomace (Jumah et al., 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 to oxidation
and may cause deterioration of the 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 rate etc. is required in
order to maximize 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 are known to help break the cell walls and hydrolyze 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. and simultaneously 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 (Puri et al., 2012). However, its major
technical limitation is 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 CO2 as an extracting solvent is another
modern technology used in the extraction of bioactive com-ponents from
waste matrix. The choice of supercritical CO2 as the ex-tracting solvent is
advantageous due to its moderate critical conditions of temperature (31 °C)
and pressure (73.8 MPa), non-toxic nature and high chemical stability.
Further, CO2 has greater diffusion coefficient and lesser viscosity and surface
tension thereby its penetration into the food matrix is faster causing reduced
extraction time as compared to the 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
360
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
of the CO2 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, CO2 is cheap, safe and easy to
recycle and use of supercritical CO2 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 20 kHz 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 300 MHz to 300 GHz 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 matrix under increased
temperature and pressure, followed by diffusion of solvent across the solid
waste matrix and finally release of compo-nents from the solid matrix to the
solvent (Routray and Orsat, 2011; Alupului, 2012). Various researchers have
successfully used the MAE technique for recovery of higher yields of various
bioactive components like polyphenols and caffeine from green tea leaves in 4
min (Pan et al., 2003; Shu et al., 2003), ginsenosides from ginseng root in 15
min (Dhobi et al., 2009), flavolignin from Silybummarianum (Chiremba et al.,
2012), phenolic acids from bran and flour 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).
The application of pulsed electric fields (PEF) involves the discharge 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; Fincan et
al., 2004; Yan et al., 2015). This results in the formation of pores in the
membrane via polarization of ions across the membrane thereby facilitating
cell membrane permeability and subsequent release of bioactive components
into the solvent (Angersbach et al., 2000;
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
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 electric field of 500 and 1000 V/ 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 soybeans increased by 32% and 20–21% respectively via PEF treatment
(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 components or
impurities. Some of the traditional techniques employed 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 proanthocyanidin oligomers were
obtained from the retentate. Phenolic compounds were successfully
concentrated by UF membranes (pore size of 0.22 μm) 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, which are
widely recognized as functional food ingredients (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-pends on the type of the
selected adsorbent. Activated carbon and resins which are commonly used
adsorbents have high surface area and are hydrophobic. Such adsorbents have
the tendency to capture phenols via mechanisms including adsorption, size
exclusion and ion 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 the isolation of
flavonoids 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-
nique has also been applied in ion exchange or affinity chromatography 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).
Extensive studies have been undertaken so as to enhance the yield of the
recovered products from food wastes, as is evident from literature. The yield
of the recovered products is essential from an industrial point of view. But the
selection of an appropriate methodology starting from the pre-treatment to
isolation and the purification depends on the safety of the end product and on
the overall cost efficiency. Closer observation
361
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 the
final 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
substrates offer important contributions by reducing the dependence on fossil
fuels and through the related positive environmental impacts such as reduced
greenhouse gas emissions. Many agro-industrial wastes have 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 (potato and banana),
peanut husk, coffee, sugar bagasse 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 (Hassan
et al., 2013; Sulaiman et al., 2014). High sugar containing food 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 in many day-to-day
applications especially packaging of food materials. PHAs
(polyhydroxyalkanoate) are a family of polyesters produced by bacterial
fermentation with the potential to replace conventional hy-drocarbon-based
polymers. The PHAs are synthesized by different types 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: film
and sheet, fibers, laminates, and coated 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-resistant films 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 are used in food industries, cellulases
are used in bio-fuel industries and tannase is used to reduce tannic acid
concentration in tannery effluent.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
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 cereal substrates, wheat bran has served as the standard medium
for the 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 for the production
of α-amylase (Unakal et al., 2012). Corn gluten meal
– a by-product of corn wet milling and reported to have a high protein content
was found to be an ideal substrate for the production of amylase 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 production has been found to have
tremendous potential for production of various valued by-products like
enzymes due to its high carbohydrate and fiber content (Botella et al., 2007).
Various hydrolytic enzymes like 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 like filamentous 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 a large scale. The bio refinery of food 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 operation and efficiency of
the process, studies on a laboratory scale are 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-erage
industries, cosmetics and in pharmaceutical industries. The global 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-cially because of its
pleasant acidic taste and its high solubility in water. Besides the food and
beverage industry, other sectors showing great demand for citric acid are the
pharmaceuticals, chemical, and cosmetics 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 (Vandenberghe et al., 1999a) and some of the widely used
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 other agro-industrial residues
such as carrot processing waste (Garg and 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 (Hang and Woodams, 1985), kiwi fruit peel
(Hang and Woodams,
362
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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-mentation times (Grewal and Kalra, 1995; Vandenberghe et al.,
1999a).
Using food wastes as substrates have not only helped in lowering the cost
of production of citric acid but also have contributed to their ef-ficient
utilization and value addition (Kim et al., 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 to be 60–82% of dry cell weight.
Besides high 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 disposal of solid wastes but
also has helped in the removal of secondary pollution and also has good social
and environmental benefits. Also, there is lower dependence on chemical
fertilizers which cause further soil and water pollution. The effectiveness of
this valorization process is influenced by factors such as temperature,
aeration, moisture content, pH, C/N ratio, particle size, and degree of
compaction (Li et al., 2013). While aeration has been cited as the most
important factor affecting the quality of the compost, the C/N ratio on the
other hand, affects the compost maturity (Zhang et al., 2016b; Zhang and Sun,
2016). The C/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
requirement of an optimum level of C/N ratio. Studies conducted by Onwosi
et al. (2017) have related an excessive C/N ratio to a deficiency 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 the final
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 to their use as fertilizers. Depending
on the temperature involved in the composting process, different groups of
microorganisms are known to be involved. While bacteria are known to
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 depends
on greenhouse gaseous (GHG) emissions in the form of 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 to the
ecosystem. Due to the limited resource availability of 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 cited as a cheap, clean technology (Dabrowski,
2001). However, despite the better performance of commercial activated
carbon for the removal of diverse types of pollutants from wastewater, yet the
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-sorbent is itself a
solid waste and imposes further problems regarding its disposal.
In this respect, lignocellulosic waste byproducts/residues from
agricultural/wood/forest as well as from various agro-industrial wastes have
been used as cheaper and sustainable alternatives for the synthesis 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, saw dust, groundnut
shells, coconut shells, hazelnut shells, 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.
363
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 involves initial heating the low-cost
precursors at lower temperatures to produce chars (carbonization) followed by
heating at higher tempera-tures in the presence of an oxidizing agent of steam
or CO2 (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 agents used by various workers can be categorized under basic
solutions (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 agent have yielded well distributed porous
activated carbons of high surface area. In a study, it was shown that when
almond tree prunings were subjected to carbonization at 800 °C for 1 h
followed by activation with CO2, activated carbons developed had surface
area ranging up to 840 m2/g (Ganan et al., 2006). In the same study, it was
demonstrated that the same two step physical activation of almond tree
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
193 m2/g to 840 m2/g. Besides the surface area, ex-tensive well-developed
porosity is also crucial to the better performance of the activated carbons. In
another study, it was demonstrated that waste rubber tire when subjected to
heating at 900 °C for 2 h resulted in 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
(Pb2+ and Ni2+) 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-strated
by the works of Akhtar et al., 2010; Kumar and Bandyopadhyay, 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 Cd2+ (125.94 mg/g) from waste-water as compared to the
unmodified rice husk carbon (73.96 mg/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 of the
different parameters employed during the synthesis, the pH of the 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-
provement in the adsorption capacity for the removal of diverse types of
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370

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)

pollutants. Yet major challenges still remain in order to enhance the stability technology. Fermentation of food waste to bio-ethanol is a viable waste
of the developed activated carbons as well for cost effective and management option but its application on an industrial scale can only be
environmentally friendly regeneration methods. 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
3. Conclusions
compounds. It has several advantages with respect to environmental, energy,
economical and health aspect. However, the thermal process of incineration,
The food wastes as well as wastes generated from various agro processing
pyrolysis and gasification has failed from an energetic point of view on
industrial sectors are associated with high variability and high volume. The
account of the high moisture content, the lower heating values and greater
variability aspect is linked to the nature of the waste, the production process
heterogeneity inherent in the food wastes as well in increasing the GHG
employed, the site of production and also on the time of the production of the
emissions.
waste. The volume and the concentration of the waste are also known to vary.
Adoption of a specific technological option is dependent on quan-titative
Irrespective of the variability in their composition, food wastes can be
aspects of the food waste, the characterization of such wastes with respect to
characterized with high bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and high
their moisture content and the final bio-fuel char-acteristics. The selection
chemical oxygen demand (COD) due to the presence of large amounts of
criteria also depend on the efficiency, cost effectiveness and energy
organic material like proteins, carbohydrates and lipids along with varying
intensiveness of the desired technology.
amount of sus-pended solids. Against the backdrop of the problems associated
Second approach towards waste valorization is to extract and effi-ciently
with the large-scale generation of food wastes and their subsequent disposal,
recover various value-added components that are present in the food waste in
the present review highlights the different efficient methods of their re-cycling
residual quantities. Such components are polyphenols, pectin, proteins etc.
in an economic and environmentally friendly way. Technical solutions to
which after recovery can be used in cosmetic, nu-traceuticals, food
handle the overwhelming problem of the management of the food wastes and
preservation, packaging, pharmaceutical and medic-inal industrial fields. The
their safe disposal have paved the way to various valorization strategies and
aim is not only to maximize the yield of the target compounds, but to achieve
techniques so as to generate useful end products.
a purified high added value in-gredient from impurities, to avoid
deterioration/loss of the function-ality and finally to ensure the food grade
nature of the final product. Hence each step of pre-treatment, extraction,
Literature review of the various valorization techniques adopted by
fractionation and isola-tion is important in the efficient recovery of the value-
researchers reveals that four basic approaches have been adopted. First is the
added compo-nents from food wastes.
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
The third valorization approach is the conversion of food wastes via
valorization technologies, biological process of fer-mentation has been
microbial activity to develop various bio-materials in the form of bio-
determined to be simple and economical but has an inherent disadvantage of
chemicals, bio-polymers, enzymes, single cell protein and bio-fertili-zers.
longer processing time. The sensitivity of the microorganisms to temperature,
Extensive research on microbial biotechnology and their applica-tion on food
pH and inhibitors inherent in the food waste requires the operation of the
wastes as evident in the literature studies of the last dec-ades have resulted in
digestion process under strict pro-cess control and optimization conditions.
the production of various high valued enzymes, organic acids, bio-polymers
Other factors like the com-position of co-substrates, type of reactor and the
and bio-fertilizers. But most of the research findings are confined to laboratory
dynamics of the mi-croorganisms have a positive influence on the efficiency
and efforts are required to scale up
of the process

364
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
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, yet a lot of effort is yet to be demonstrated on
the successful scale up of the individual techniques.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the European Commission for financial
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
method for the removal of selected divalent metal ions from aqueous solutions 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. Tea waste as a low cost adsorbent for the
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 electric fields 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. Microbial community structure 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.
365
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 Digestion Model 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 steam explosion for bioethanol production.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 3506–3513.
Bonnell, J.M., 1983. Treatment of Citrus Fruit Peel. Australian Government - 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
by combustion or gasification with the potential for regenerative 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
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 and flour 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., et al., 2008. A pH- and temperature-phased two-stage process for
hydrogen and methane production from food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33 (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., van der Zee, F., van Lier, 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 bioactive flavolignan–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. Adsorption of chromium (VI) on low cost adsorbents derived
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 of commercial food waste and dairy manure: characterizing biochemical
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-naceous
sorbent chemically prepared from rice husk. J. Hazard Mater. 175, 319–327.
Elbeshbishy, E., et al., 2011. Single and combined effect of various pre-treatment methods
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. In situ visualization of the effect of a pulsed electric field on plant
tissue. J. Food Eng. 55 (3), 223–230.
Fincan, M., DeVito, F., Dejmek, P., 2004. Pulsed electric field 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.
366
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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
optimizing process parameters for the production of α-amylase by Aspergillus oryzae.
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 from
olive waste in ethanolic 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. A knowledge
base for the recovery of natural phenols with different solvents. Int. J. Food Prop. 16, 382–
396.
Galanakis, C.M., Tsatalas, P., Galanakis, I.M., 2018a. Phenols from olive mill wastewater and
other natural antioxidants as UV filters 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 as UV booster in cosmetics. 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. Supercritical fluid 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 electric field
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
Gutierrez-Correa, M., Tengerdy, R.P., 1998. Xylanase production by fungal mixed 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. Alcohol from 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
production from ammonia percolated wheat straw. 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 time on
single-stage anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge. 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 electric field. 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. Dates as a potential substrate for single cell protein production. 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. Potential of bioethanol production and optimization test
from agricultural waste: the case of wet coffee processing waste (pulp). Int. J.
367
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 the
food-energy-water nexus: a review of food waste management alternatives. 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 of food 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. Volumetric scale-
up of a three-stage fermentation system for food waste treatment. 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-posting
plants improves anaerobic digestion of cellulosic biomass: toward a microbial 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. Sorption of cadmium from aqueous solution using pre-
treated rice husk. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 104–109.
Lang, Q., Wai, C.M., 2001. Supercritical fluid 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. Effect of temperature and organic
loading rate on up flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor and CH4 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-electric fields. 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 H2 and CH4 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
acid from 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
Li, Z., Lu, H., Ren, L., He, L., 2013. Experimental and modeling approaches for food waste
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. A review on anaerobic
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 of pectin from flavedo 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., et al., 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. The uses of ultrasound in food technology.
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. Current state 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
368
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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. Biological hydrogen production using a
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,
dietary fibers, antioxidants, and colorants. In: Oreopoulou, V., Russ, W. (Eds.), Utilization
of By-products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry, 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 of lignocellulosic 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-
drolysates for improving their fermentability: influence of the operational conditions.
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. Profile of hydrolases and biogas
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
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., et al., 2008. Ultrafiltration as alternative purification
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 Bacillus
subtilis KCC103 utilizing sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate. 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. Citric acid. 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‐ assisted extraction of flavonoids: a review. 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 Cu2+ and Cd2+ 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
369
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 of applied solid-state fermentation in
Brazil. Biochem. Eng. J. 13, 205–218.
Soni, S.K., Kaur, A., Kishore, J., 2003. A solid-state fermentation based bacterial -amylase and
fungal glucoamylase system and its suitability for the hydrolysis of wheat 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 of flavourings 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
using biomass feed stock and its application in lignocellulose saccharification for bio-
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 extraction process of
betalain from dragon fruit and its antioxidant activities. J. Saudi Soc. 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 CO2 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 of α-amylase using banana waste by
Bacillus subtilis under solid state fermentation. 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 electric fields 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-Based succinate production from
Arundo donax hydrolysate with the new natural succinic acid-producing strain Basfia
succiniciproducens BPP7. Bioenergy Res. 10, 488–498.
A. Nayak, B. Bhushan
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 of sewage sludge and food waste into fertilizer. Water Sci. 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 by
anaerobic fermentation of apple pomace with enzyme hydrolysis. 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. Fuel ethanol production from concentrated food
waste hydrolysates in immobilised cell reactors by Saccharomyces cerevisiae H058. J.
Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 86 (5), 731–738.
Yan, L.-G., He, L., Xi, J., 2015. High intensity pulsed electric field as an innovative technique
for extraction of bioactive compounds—a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 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 of spent coffee grounds in water medium for bio-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 reactor
treated sewage sludge with fat, 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,
370
Journal of Environmental Management 233 (2019) 352–370
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 in fluidised 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. Hydrothermal Liquefaction to Convert Biomass into Crude Oil. 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., et al., 2007b. Biohydrogen
production in a granular activated carbon anaerobic fluidized 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 NH3 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 via hydrothermal 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 acid
conversion during anaerobic co-digestion of fats, oils, and grease with municipal 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.