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

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A critical and up-to-date review has been conducted on the latest individual valorization technologies aimed at
Valorization the generation of value-added by-products from food wastes in the form of bio-fuels, bio-materials, value added
Food wastes components and bio-based adsorbents. The aim is to examine the associated advantages and drawbacks of each
Bio-fuels technique separately along with the assessment of process parameters affecting the efficiency of the generation
Bio-materials
of the bio-based products. Challenges faced during the processing of the wastes to each of the bio-products have
Value added components
been explained and future scopes stated. Among the many hurdles encountered in the successful and high yield
Bio-sorbents
generation of the bio-products is the complexity and variability in the 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
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).
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
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.
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-

Japon-Lujan and Luque de Castro, 2007

sibility of hydrothermal carbonization as a technological option for
food waste management in the recovery of useful energy.

2.2. Recovery of value-added components for food additives

Galanakis et al. (2010a)

Masmoudi et al. (2008)

Boussetta et al. (2009)

Boussetta et al. (2009)
Berardini et al. (2005)
Berardini et al. (2005)
Fishman et al. (2000)
Panchev et al. (2011)

Pereira et al. (2002)

Barba et al. (2001)
Barba et al. (2001)
The wastes generated from the processing of various plant-based

Liu et al. (2006)

foods are rich in sugars, pectin, proteins, lipids, polysaccharides, fibres,
flavor compounds and phyto-chemicals. Such value-added products if

Reference
extracted have immense value as food additives, nutraceuticals, ther-
apeutics, cosmetics etc. (Galanakis et al., 2018a,b). For example, husk
and bran of rice and wheat have served as suitable substrates for de-
riving value added products like high nutritional proteins (Prakash,
1996), dietary fibers and particularly glucuronoarabinoxylan (Sun and

Yield (g/100g of dry food

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

waste)

11.2
13.0

19.6
1.00

0.14
0.10

0.26
0.44
from citrus peel wastes via sequential solvent extraction (Bonnell,

0.8

4.7

5.9
3.5
7.0
1983) and the final product has been marketed as a natural sweetener

Concentration, acid assisted solvent extraction, ethanol precipitation, concentration, dilution, micro-filtration,
in foods. Such process has been patented (AU1983/0011308D). The

Acid assisted extraction, ethanol precipitation, evaporation, resin adsorption, methanol elution, evaporation
pectin extracted from the peels of various citrus fruits has also been
used as thickeners and stabilizers in jams, jellies and other pharma-
ceuticals. In yet another example, cheese processing whey was used for
the recovery of de-flavored whey protein concentrates (MX2006/
PA09536), glycoproteins like α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin (PCT/

Acid assisted extraction, resin adsorption, methanol elution, evaporation and freeze drying
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 Freeze drying, acid assisted solvent extraction, centrifugation, ethanol extraction

the olive mill wastewater for the recovery of hydroxytyrosol (PCT/

ES2002/000058) which have been used for conserving foods and are
also used as a functional ingredient in bread (Fernandez-Bolanos et al.,

Skimming, micro-filtration, ultra-filtration, filtration, freeze drying

2002). Soluble dietary fiber granules were produced from de-pectinated
Drying, pressurized and super-heated ethanol assisted extraction
Performance of various extraction techniques for recovery of value-added components from food wastes.

apple pomace and marketed as dietary supplements (CN2008/

1139768) (Anming et al., 2010). A great range of products like ethanol,
Microwave assisted extraction, filtration, centrifugation

tartrates, citric acid, grape seed oil and dietary fibers were successfully
Drying, acid assisted solvent extraction, Laser ablation

Water extraction, high voltage electrical discharge

recovered from the pomace of apple and grapes. Various polyphenols
like catechin, epicatechin, anthocyanins, flavonols etc. found in the
grape skin and seeds are known to inhibit the oxidation of human low-
density lipoproteins (LDL). Hence various studies have been initiated in Skimming, ultra-filtration, freeze drying
the recovery and extraction of phenolic components from grape pomace
Ultra-filtration, filtration, drying

(Nayak et al., 2018a).

Microwave assisted extraction

As evident from the vast literature studies, the new products from
food wastes have helped in increasing the food availability and have
helped in extending their shelf life for their consumption in an extended
Applied technologies

and freeze drying

time frame. Thus, the dependence and usage of the primary raw ma-
Water extraction
ultra-filtration

terial is reduced. Summarily it can be concluded that this approach

leads to efficient usage of natural resources and minimization of food
wastes going to landfill.
Various techniques involving pre-treatment, separation of macro
and micro-molecules, extraction and purification are involved for the
Olive mill wastewater

Olive mill wastewater

White grape pomace

White grape pomace

recovery of the bioactive compounds from waste matrices as can be

evident from Table 5. Depending on the nature of the food matrix and
Orange albedo
Orange albedo

on the nature of the bioactive food ingredient to be extracted, the

Cheese whey
Orange peel

Mango peel
Mango peel
Lemon peel
Food waste

techniques involved are known to vary.

2.2.1. Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment of the food waste matrix is a major initial step that is
Value added component

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
Proteins
Phenols

to ensure higher yield of the bioactive components (Pellera et al.,

Table 5

Pectin

2012). However, olive mill 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 technology. Fermentation of food waste to bio-ethanol is a viable waste
stability of the developed activated carbons as well for cost effective management option but its application on an industrial scale can only
and environmentally friendly regeneration methods. be possible after detailed techno-economic analysis of the process
technology. Hydrothermal carbonization is another attractive option
for converting such waste into useful products such as hydro-char,
3. Conclusions
hydro-oil and other energy-rich compounds. It has several advantages
with respect to environmental, energy, economical and health aspect.
The food wastes as well as wastes generated from various agro
However, the thermal process of incineration, pyrolysis and gasification
processing industrial sectors are associated with high variability and
has failed from an energetic point of view on account of the high
high volume. The variability aspect is linked to the nature of the waste,
moisture content, the lower heating values and greater heterogeneity
the production process employed, the site of production and also on the
inherent in the food wastes as well in increasing the GHG emissions.
time of the production of the waste. The volume and the concentration
Adoption of a specific technological option is dependent on quan-
of the waste are also known to vary. Irrespective of the variability in
titative aspects of the food waste, the characterization of such wastes
their composition, food wastes can be characterized with high bio-
with respect to their moisture content and the final bio-fuel char-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and high chemical oxygen demand
acteristics. The selection criteria also depend on the efficiency, cost
(COD) due to the presence of large amounts of organic material like
effectiveness and energy intensiveness of the desired technology.
proteins, carbohydrates and lipids along with varying amount of sus-
Second approach towards waste valorization is to extract and effi-
pended solids. Against the backdrop of the problems associated with the
ciently recover various value-added components that are present in the
large-scale generation of food wastes and their subsequent disposal, the
food waste in residual quantities. Such components are polyphenols,
present review highlights the different efficient methods of their re-
pectin, proteins etc. which after recovery can be used in cosmetic, nu-
cycling in an economic and environmentally friendly way. Technical
traceuticals, food preservation, packaging, pharmaceutical and medic-
solutions to handle the overwhelming problem of the management of
inal industrial fields. The aim is not only to maximize the yield of the
the food wastes and their safe disposal have paved the way to various
target compounds, but to achieve a purified high added value in-
valorization strategies and techniques so as to generate useful end
gredient from impurities, to avoid deterioration/loss of the function-
products.
ality and finally to ensure the food grade nature of the final product.
Literature review of the various valorization techniques adopted by
Hence each step of pre-treatment, extraction, fractionation and isola-
researchers reveals that four basic approaches have been adopted. First
tion is important in the efficient recovery of the value-added compo-
is the conversion of food waste to generate bio-fuels like bio-gas, bio-
nents from food wastes.
alcohols, bio-hydrogen, bio-char and bio-diesel. Among the various
The third valorization approach is the conversion of food wastes via
energy conversion valorization technologies, biological process of fer-
microbial activity to develop various bio-materials in the form of bio-
mentation has been determined to be simple and economical but has an
chemicals, bio-polymers, enzymes, single cell protein and bio-fertili-
inherent disadvantage of longer processing time. The sensitivity of the
zers. Extensive research on microbial biotechnology and their applica-
microorganisms to temperature, pH and inhibitors inherent in the food
tion on food wastes as evident in the literature studies of the last dec-
waste requires the operation of the digestion process under strict pro-
ades have resulted in the production of various high valued enzymes,
cess control and optimization conditions. Other factors like the com-
organic acids, bio-polymers and bio-fertilizers. But most of the research
position of co-substrates, type of reactor and the dynamics of the mi-
findings are confined to laboratory and efforts are required to scale up
croorganisms have a positive influence on the efficiency 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.