FIRST- AND SECOND-GENERATION
VALORISATION OF WASTES AND
RESIDUES OCCURRING IN THE FOOD
SUPPLY CHAIN
S. KUSCH*, C.C. UDENIGWE**, M. GOTTARDO°, F. MICOLUCCI°° AND C.
CAVINATO°
* Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus,
SO17 1BJ Southampton, UK
** Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Sciences, Dalhousie
University, Truro, Canada
° Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca'
Foscari of Venice, Italy
°° Department of Biotechnology, University of Verona, Italy
SUMMARY: Despite the high potential to increase sustainability of food systems, wastes and byproducts occurring in the food supply chain are currently only partially valorised at different valueadded levels. First-generation valorisation strategies that aim at utilisation of complete material
streams for production of animal feed, energy, compost and/or specific consumer applications are
already widely implemented and experience further dissemination and/or development (e.g.
biohydrogen/biohythane production) – either in the form of single processes or as part of cascade
utilisations. Second-generation valorisation strategies comprise various forms of fractionised
utilisation of material streams. They rely on integration of adapted recovery and conversion
procedures for specific components in order to obtain sequentially different classes of products, e.g.
fine chemicals, commodity products and biofuels. Such advanced strategies are particularly suitable
for wastes and by-products occurring during industrial food processing. Valorisation of food byproducts for functional food is an emerging trend.
1. INTRODUCTION
Food wastes and by-products occur along the whole food supply chain: during agricultural
production and initial storage, during industrial processing, during distribution and retail, and
during consumption (domestic consumption, restaurants, catering services). So-called postconsumer waste comprises materials that occur at the point at which food is consumed (meal
preparation, food leftover, discarded food), while wastes generated during earlier stages of the
supply chain can be summarised under the term pre-consumer waste. Wastage of food does not only
mean reduced amounts of available food, but at the same time also means loss of embedded energy
and other resources such as water and fertiliser. It is therefore evident that avoidance and
Proceedings Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
San Servolo, Venice, Italy; 17 - 20 November 2014
 2014 by CISA Publisher, Italy
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
valorisation of food waste and by-products have significant potential to increase overall
sustainability of food systems by addressing all three sustainability dimensions: environment,
society, economy. Exemplary factors include:
 Improved food security (Diaz-Ambrona and Maletta, 2014)
 Reduction of environmental burden related to the food sector (carbon footprint, water footprint,
wastes); increased resources efficiency
 Unlocking of food-bioenergy synergies in particular through efficient valorisation of wastes
(Kusch and Evoh, 2013); reduced dependence on fossil fuels
 Higher customer satisfaction in retail sector, restaurants, catering services; consideration of
public concerns related to food security and sustainability of food supply chains
 Reduced waste disposal costs for the food processing industry and the food sector in general
 Fostering of innovation and creation of employment opportunities
Characteristics of wastes and by-products occuring at each step of the food supply chain can
vary within wide ranges both with view to quantities and composition of the material streams.
There are necessary differences in management strategies and suitable valorisation pathways.
Valorisation of municipal food waste streams (post-consumer waste) is strongly linked to
implementation of strategies focusing on collection schemes, logistics, quality control and possible
limitations due to quality issues, high spatial and temporal heterogeneity of materials including
seasonal variations, and in most cases construction of new treatment plants. First-generation
valorisation strategies based on utilisation of complete material streams are most suitable in this
context, and as indicated in the following various options are already widely applied, while other
options are under further research.
In contrast, industrial food waste streams hold particularly good potential to integrate secondgeneration valorisation strategies based on fractionised consideration of components. Among
others, in an industrial context quality of waste streams can be better predicted and managed, and
integration of new processing lines in existing industrial facilities is feasible. Such material streams
occur both in the food sector processing animal-derived material and in the food sector processing
plant-derived material. Due to hygiene issues and health risks associated with meat and fish
processing, vaorisation of resulting wastes and by-products is economically and technically less
feasible, despite the increasing quantities of material (Mirabella et al., 2014). In particular, secondgeneration valorisation aiming at the supply of high-value chemicals will therefore generally be
advantageous for plant-derived food waste with low contamination risk (Pfaltzgraff et al., 2013).
Plant-derived agro-wastes contain various categories (Ajila et al., 2012): crop wastes and residues,
by-products from fruit- and vegetable-processing industry, sugar and starch and confectionary
industry by-products, by-products from grain- and legume-milling industry and oil industry, and byproducts from distilleries and breweries. In addition to the solid effluents, food processing generates
significant quantities of wastewater with generally high organic loading.
This publication discusses selected central issues related to both first- and second-generation
valorisation pathways for food wastes and by-products. The contents are mainly based on a related
publication as book chapter (Kusch et al., 2014), which contains more detailed information. In
addition, the topic biohydrogen/ biohythane is presented here in more detail (Section 2.3).
2. FIRST-GENERATION VALORISATION
2.1 Overview of main options
First-generation valorisation strategies make use of whole material streams as they occur, with
limited pre-treatment applied as necessary. The following main options can be considered as stateof-the-art applications:
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Utilisation of food waste as animal feed, which is common practice in traditional agriculture for
centuries; main challenges are: general suitability of specific substrates, seasonal availability and
variability in nutritional levels, rapid spoilage, economic viability especially when pre-treatment
is applied (Ajila et al., 2012; Murthy and Madhava Naidu, 2012; Van Dyk et al., 2013)
 Utilisation as soil conditioner or fertiliser, either through spreading of untreated food waste (e.g.
tomato waste, olive husks or citrus waste (Van Dyk et al., 2013) or after composting or
anaerobic digestion
 Use of food supply chain wastes for energy generation, in particular via anaerobic digestion
(AD) with biogas production (especially wet material streams) or if suitable (especially for dry
feedstocks) via thermochemical conversion (mainly combustion)
 Use as litter in animal barns (e.g. oat husks)
 Use of materials rich in lignin for mushroom cultivation (e.g. coffee industry by-products,
brewery residues, tomato skins, corn stalk husks) (Liguori et al., 2013; Murthy and Madhava
Naidu, 2012)
 Use as bioadsorbents for wastewater treatment (Kosseva, 2011)
Cascaded approaches that sequentially combine various options and therefore maximise resulting
overall benefits are often feasible with limited additional logistical efforts. One exemplary
application is the use of husks (by-products from mills) first as litter in animal barns, then followed
by energetic valorisation of resulting manure via anaerobic digestion with biogas production (Kusch
et al., 2011).

2.2 A spotlight on biogas production
AD of food waste has been established as state-of-the art technology during the last decades.
Nevertheless, successful implementation requires specific knowledge about the process and applied
technologies, and increased attention during operation of the plant. The process is susceptible to
occurrence of both high concentrations of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and of ammonia (Banks et al.,
2008; 2011); in particular, thermophilic operation increases the risk of digester failure. While
ammonia remains a critical issue in AD (Rajagopal et al., 2013; Yenigun and Demirel, 2013), it is
now well documented that the addition of trace elements stabilises a food waste digestion process
showing VFA accumulation (Banks et al., 2012; Zhang and Jahng, 2012; Qiang et al., 2013). Codigestion of food waste and of organic fractions with a high carbon-to-nitrogen ratio is an efficient
strategy to limit ammonia concentration during the process (Zhang et al., 2012) and to generally
ensure favourable shares of nutrients, and should therefore be considered with priority.
2.3 A spotlight on biohydrogen/biohythane production
A proposed approach to address the challenge energy supply under consideration of climate change
concerns the production of hydrogen and its use as a clean fuel, looking at the forthcoming
"Hydrogen Economy" which has been widely discussed recently. Nowadays, this approach still has
many unsolved issues such as hydrogen storage technologies and its subsequent use as a fuel.
Indeed, the characteristics of hydrogen require specific conditions: high pressure, the use of
special materials to minimise diffusion and leakage, and extensive safety precautions. Moreover,
the low volumetric power density of liquid hydrogen (1/3 of Compressed Natural Gas, CNG) and
the necessity of developing new infrastructure slow down the realisation of this approach.
At present, a feasible scenario is the Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI). With HFI is meant to mix a
gaseous fuel with hydrogen to obtain a mixture with improved combustion characteristics.
Hydrogen is characterised by a higher flame speed and a lower ignition energy requirement than the
other traditional fuels, therefore a small amount of hydrogen added to the fuel promotes its better
exploitation. Finally the hydrogen acts as a catalyst for combustion and only secondarily as energy
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
carrier. In the early 90s the Hydrogen Component Inc. (HCI) conducted several studies concerning
the feasibility of the use of a blend of CNG and hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines,
and they showed that the lean burn of mixture of hydrogen (7% by energy or 20% by volume) and
compressed natural gas (CNG) can reduce the emission of pollutants (mainly NOx) into the
atmosphere, at the same time maintaining the energy efficiency of CNG. The use of this mixture
does not require storage system neither particular changes both in the CNG engines and
infrastructure. As a result HCI patented this mixture and the commercial name of this fuel was
Hythane®. Several studies (i.e. in Italy performed by ENEA) were carried out on this fuel
confirming the results shown above. Beyond the benefits, the addition of hydrogen to methane still
has problems that must be overcome: in fact, both methane and hydrogen are produced using nonrenewable energy sources, by reforming processes of fossil fuels with the production of syngas, a
gaseous mixture of CO and hydrogen, an intermediate in creating the Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG).
To cope with this problem, recently, the attention has grown about the biological production of
hydrogen and its use as a fuel mixed with biogas. The mixture hydrogen / biogas is known as
BioHythane. As for the Hythane, many studies have shown that the addition of a small amount of
hydrogen (about 10% by volume) improves the performance of biogas combustion in internal
engine in cogeneration mode (combined heat and power, CHP), or the automotive industry (Graham
et al., 2008), as a result of the upgrade for CO2 removal.
This paragraph will point out the feasibility of biological hydrogen and biogas production
process using biowaste as substrate.
2.3.1 Biohydrogen production by dark fermentation & biohythane: basic concepts
Hydrogen is biologically produced by the activity of enzymatic complexes (Hydrogenase and
Nitrogenase) produced by some prokaryotes and eukaryotes microorganisms (Kotay and Das, 2008)
involved in three main biological processes: Biophotolysis of water, Photo-fermentation and Dark
Fermentation. Currently, the Dark Fermentation is the process that arouses greater interest because
it can be coupled with the anaerobic digestion process in order to produce biohydrogen and biogas
(Biohythane). The biohydrogen production via Dark Fermentation of carbohydrates-rich substrates
is carried out by some anaerobic bacteria, particularly Clostridium spp., Thermoanaerobacterium
spp., Enterobacter and Bacillus (Reith et al., 2003).
During acidogenic fermentation, pyruvate produced from fermentation of hexose and pentose
sugars is oxidised in the presence of coenzyme A (CoA) to acetyl – CoA, while CO2 and reduced
ferredoxin are generated. Then, acetyl – CoA can be phosphorylated to generate acetate or butyrate
and ATP, and the reduced ferredoxin can transfer electrons to hydrogenase enzyme and molecular
H2 is released from the cell. The maximum theoretical yield of hydrogen when the acetic acid is the
final product of fermentation is 4 moles per mole of glucose consumed. Instead when butyric acid is
the final product of fermentation the maximum theoretical yield of hydrogen is 2 moles per mole of
glucose consumed (Angenet et al., 2004; Levin et al., 2004). Under hydrogenase inhibitory
conditions the reduced ferredoxin is oxidised by nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), and
the NADH generated reduces the acetyl-CoA and butyryl-CoA to ethanol and butanol, respectively.
For these reasons, this metabolic pathway, named solvatogenic fermentation, does not produce
hydrogen. Several studies have shown that pH condition and, in a minor way, temperature condition
can affect the activity of the hydrogenase enzyme in the H2 production process (Valdez-Vazques
and Poggi-Varaldo, 2009, Hallenbeck et al., 2009, Reith. et al., 2003). These papers reported that
higher enzyme activity was observed between pH 5 and 6 (optimum value at 5.5) and at 55°C of
working temperature. On the other hand, potential inhibitors of the hydrogenase enzyme are the
hydrogen partial pressure that causes a metabolic pathway shift to solvatogenic fermentation, and
free ammonia inhibition.
One of the main issues regarding the continuous biohydrogen production via Dark Fermentation
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
is to maintain the pH value in the optimal condition, in fact the accumulation of organic acids
(produced during fermentative metabolism), can decrease the pH value. Several strategies have
been proposed to control the pH, for example the addition of chemicals or the use of proteincontaining substrates (Valdez-Vazques and Poggi-Varaldo, 2009). Recently some authors proposed
an interesting strategy for pH control, coupling in series the Dark Fermentation process with
Anaerobic Digestion process and using the recirculation of the anaerobic digestion effluent, rich in
buffer agents, to control the Dark fermentation pH. Moreover from whole system, as mentioned
above, is possible to produce biohythane.
Different substrates could be used for biohythane production but, from a thermodynamic point of
view, the conversion of carbohydrates to hydrogen and organic acids allows a highest amount of
hydrogen per mole of substrate (Reith et al., 2003). For this reason, the biowaste is very interesting
substrates for biohydrogen production via DF because the major fraction of biowaste is composed
by carbohydrate (simple sugars, starch and cellulose).
2.3.2 State-of-the-art of biohydrogen and biohythane production from biowaste: processes
applications
Biohydrogen production through dark fermentation is generally implemented both at mesophilic
(35°C - 37°C) and thermophilic (55°C) conditions, even if the thermophilic biohydrogen production
is widely used at laboratory and pilot scale, and one demonstrative-scale plant has been realised in
Italy (Lodi). Biowastes are abundant organic materials recovered by separate collection of
municipal wastes or by food industry, and it is a material with a large energy content that must be
exploited. These two aspects (temperature and substrates), together with other process parameters,
are reported in Table 1 with the aim of reviewing the two-stage process for biowaste exploitation.
Observing data shown in Table 1 some important guidelines could be resumed:
 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT): hydrogen production increase with HRT decreasing, in fact
the application of low HRT (from 2 to 5 days) in CSTR systems allows the washout of
methanogens (Hawkes et al., 2007), favoring the development of fermentative producing
hydrogen bacteria. The HRT, however, must be greater than the specific growth rate of the
microorganisms producing hydrogen to prevent their wash-out (Kongjan and Angelidaki, 2010).
3
 Organic Loading Rate (OLR): OLR applied vary significantly among 14 and 38.5 kgVS/(m rd).
Basically, the higher the organic load applied the lower specific hydrogen production was
observed. This may be due to the accumulation of hydrolysed substances that became toxic to
the microorganisms cells. Along with pH, high organic acid concentrations could result in
detrimental effects to H2 fermentation. Undissociated acids act as uncouplers that allow protons
to enter the cell; sufficiently high concentrations of undissociated acids could generate a collapse
in the pH gradient across the membrane. Thus, the shift to solventogenesis has been related to a
detoxification mechanism of the cell to avoid the inhibitory effects (Valdez-Vazquez and PoggiVaraldo, 2009).
 Inhibition of hydrogenotrophic activity: most of experimentations aimed to optimise the
fermentation phase, often applied pH monitoring/control (Shin and Youn, 2005; Gomez et al.,
2006; Lee et al., 2010) and/or substrate pretreatment (Han et al., 2005; Chou et al., 2008; Lee et
al., 2010) such as heat treatment (100 ° C - 10 min). In this regard an insightful practice has been
developed in recent years as an alternative to the use of chemicals for external pH control in the
DF phase: a recirculation flow from methanogenic reactor to hydrogen producing reactor that
allows to exploit the residual buffer capacity (ammonium, bicarbonate) of digestate (Cecchi et
al., 2005), to supply nutrients and dilute the feedstock used (Kataoka et al., 2005; Chu et al.,
2008; Lee et al., 2010).
 Biohydrogen and biomethane yields: taking into account the gas yields obtained by pilot scale
CSTR plant, a full-scale simulation of the process could be done. Looking at Cavinato et al.
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
(2011; 2012) and Giuliano et al. (2014), the experimentation were carried out with reactors size
of more than 200 litres, and the average yields in terms of hydrogen and methane were ranging
from 51.0 to 66.7 LH2/kgVSfeed and from 350 to 483 LCH4/kgVSfeed. Considering the best yields,
it is possible to obtain 16 m3 of hydrogen per tonne of biowaste and 110 m3 of methane per tonne
of biowaste, that means about 166 m3 biohythane per tonne of biowaste (0.8 m3/kgVSadded). The
specific energy production that could be obtained is 404 kWh per tonne of waste with a specific
energy requirement resulted in 20-40 kWh per tonne of waste treated (Cecchi et al., 2005).
Table 1. Review of two-stage hydrogen and methane fermentation from biowaste (Food/municipal
substrates)
*Removal methanigen biomass flushing air, **HST (substrate heat treatment) ***Sonication /
NA=not available, R=recirculation, A-B=acid-base control. ^ on COD basis
2.3.3 Research trends and challenges: automatic control and full-scale implementation of the twophases process
Full-scale biohydrogen and biohythane process implementation is currently under evaluation, both
in economic and long-term feasibility points of views. In fact the continuous recirculation can lead
to an increase of alkalinity in the system favoring the proliferation of hydrogenotrophic
microorganisms with a consequent low hydrogen yields, and also causing ammonia accumulation in
the system. The use of a variable recirculation flow allows for controlling the whole process
preventing the ammonia inhibition in the system, but process control based on monitoring of
ammonia is not feasible, in fact ammonia probes applied in such a heterogeneous media could be
difficult to use and may not be reliable in the long term. Using data from a long-term experimental
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
test (365 d) carried out at Treviso wastewater treatment plant (North Italy), a statistical model was
developed to predict ammonia concentration in a two-phase anaerobic digestion system using the
measure of Electrical Conductivity, Volatile Fatty Acids and Alkalinity. According to this strategy
the decisive step was to define the set-points of these stability parameters in order to maintain the
right amount of recycled effluent according to the change of the stability parameters of the reactors
in real-time mode. For this reason, among the monitored parameter was also inserted the
conductivity, which allows to use simple, resilient and cheaper online probes. The development of a
real semi-automatic control of the whole process, using basic models able to predict the
concentration of ammonia was developed and validated.
The implementation of real-time monitoring and the development of automatic control of the
process allows to verify process sustainability through a control logic based on set point,
automatically maintaining the best conditions for the microorganisms and consequently maximising
the biohydrogen and biomethane yields. This implementation is one of the most innovative,
bringing pilot plants research to market.
3. SECOND-GENERATION VALORISATION
3.1 Overview
Second-generation valorisation strategies are based on utilisation of specific ingredients with high
added value in order to cover manifold purposes and to supply to the market a variety of products.
Applications make use of one or several constituents of the biomass (e.g. sugars, starch, lipids,
phenols, phytochemicals, amino acids, pectin) in order to convert or upgrade these constituents to
defined target products. A huge variety of possible second-generation valorisation pathways exists,
and applicability will depend on given situations and markets. A detailed overview is provided by
Kusch et al. (2014).
Despite the fractionation of the material streams a clear focus remains on complete overall
valorisation of feedstock. The key aim is the maximisation of the efficiency of resource utilisation,
mainly based on integrated production of both speciality and commodity products to enhance
market flexibility and economic viability (Koutinas et al., 2014). Biorefinery concepts with
extraction and/or conversion of constituents along with their diversion into adapted high-value
production systems have already at least partially been realised for effluents and by-products from
specialised sectors such as dairy and olive oil industry (Kosseva, 2011; Mirabella et al., 2014).
Research results have identified a range of additional areas such as citrus peels or other fruit and
vegetable processing by-products (Kosseva, 2011; Pfaltzgraff et al., 2013) as most promising with a
view to achieving high-end applications (biosolvents, resins, flavours, fragrance components,
various organic acids, enzymes, pharmaceutical products, etc.).
3.2 Key challenges
Recovery of specific components generally requires significant processing of material streams. This
includes purification, enrichment and/or conversion procedures. Each step will add to both the costs
and resources consumption, while unexploited proportions would cause an environmental burden.
This highlights that the resulting advanced valorisation strategies necessarily need to include
additional valorisation steps in order to make use of the whole value of materials (e.g. in parallel or
subsequent production of animal feed, conversion into energy and provision of compost from no
longer alternatively exploitable process residues). Implementation of industrial symbiosis is a key
success element in such biorefinery strategies.
Material streams often show fluctuating composition including varying pH values due to general
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
processing and seasonal effects. In addition, due to the fact that their main constituents are organic
and moreover they in general have high water content, they are characterised by rapid bacterial
contamination and degradation, which makes logistics a decisive factor in framing possible
valorisation options.
Material supply, logistics and flexible units of operation will be major challenges in large-scale
production of commodity chemicals and production of high-value chemicals (Koutinas et al., 2014).
High, concentrated volumes are generally of an advantage. Transportation of biomass and any pretreatment such as reduction of water content involve significant costs and require additional initial
resources input such as fuel or electricity. Decentralised local or regional solutions, either based on
dedicated biorefinery approaches or via integration of by-product utilisation in existing industrial
plants, can therefore be assumed as particularly suitable in second-generation valorisation
strategies. Major challenges are achievement of economic viability for specific pathways and
efficient approach to markets. In order to achieve economies of scale, it will be essential to
carefully analyse market opportunities, and furthermore to carefully select the type of feedstock
(including consideration of its availability as raw material as well as continuity of quality).
3.3 A spotlight on functional food
The present-day consumer is interested in functional food with health benefits above normal
nutritive values (Siró et al., 2008), driving the food industry towards the development of functional
products that would meet growing consumer demands (Bigliardi and Galati, 2013). Functional food
ingredients that can improve public health due to their bioactive properties are currently mostly
derived from primary human food. At the same time, by-products generated during industrial food
processing contain valuable primary and secondary metabolites that can be recovered and
reintegrated into the food system, potentially leading to the development of niche markets for the
new ingredients within the agri-food economy. This strategy contributes to public health promotion
in addition to ensuring efficient resources use along with reduced environmental impact and
(especially relevant for small businesses) cost associated with waste disposal. As one exemplary
high-potential area, it appears that the utilisation of low-value protein-rich food by-products for
peptide-based functional food development can be a major driver of bioactive peptide research
(Udenigwe, 2014), highlighting the strong prospects of agro-industrial waste valorisation in
generating high-value products.
The consumption of food, especially fruits and vegetables, has been correlated with positive
health outcomes including reduction of risk to major human chronic health conditions, especially
cardiovascular disease (Dauchet et al., 2006). Therefore, by-products generated from these foods
can harbour some functional compounds. Valorisation of food by-products containing functional
compounds can be achieved by direct consumption for nutritional purposes or their use as sources
of bioactive compounds, often concentrated in the by-products, which can be extracted for
nutraceutical and pharmaceutical applications. Currently, food by-products that can be valorised for
functional ingredients include oilseed meal, fruit and vegetable pomace, cereal straw, seed hull or
husk, fruit peels and fish processing by-products. Food by-products contain several functional
molecules including proteins and peptides, polyphenols, carotenoids, polyunsaturated fatty acids
(PUFAs) and polysaccharides. For a detailed overview please see Kusch et al. (2014). The
macromolecules can be reused in food as nutrients and the secondary metabolites as functional
agents that can regulate abnormal physiological processes during disease states.
Abovementioned by-products from food processing are currently mostly underutilised. Better
utilisation will require efficient isolation and recovery. Various technologies are available and under
further research. By-product proteins can be isolated by solubilisation, isoelectric precipitation and
membrane technologies (Smithers, 2008; Udenigwe and Aluko, 2012; Rodrigues et al., 2012) for
product development and nutritional purposes. Bioactive peptides can be generated from recovered
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
proteins using processing technologies such as microbial fermentation, enzymatic hydrolysis and
membrane technology (Gómez-Guillén et al., 2011; Udenigwe and Aluko, 2012). Extraction
technologies for recovering secondary metabolites include enzymatic treatment, solvent and
supercritical fluid extraction, and membrane processing. Oils are traditionally recovered by
hydraulic pressing but enzymatic and solvent extraction are becoming popular.
Considering the nutritive and therapeutic values of ingredients, valorisation of food by-products
for functional food application is certainly a major process to consider for a sustainable food
system. However, there are potential challenges to be considered prior to commercialising byproducts-generated functional foods. Major challenges are related to achieving economies of scale,
to overcoming regulatory constraints and to achieving acceptance for the products. Among others,
the following issues need to be addressed and will require further research:
 Economic viability of food by-product valorisation for the functional food industry. This
includes availability of affordable processing technology that can efficiently extract the valuable
ingredients (including applications in small- and medium-scale enterprises, low-income food
processors and farmers in developing countries, for widespread implementation of the strategy).
 Quantities and qualities of functional ingredients, and assessment of possible trade-offs. This
includes determination of what fractions of the food waste constitutes are of interest, how much
can be extracted, evaluation of any further by-products resulting from valorisation and costbenefit analyses.
 Health and safety issues, regulatory hurdles. Resulting functional food products need to have the
opportunity to be marketed with health claims and safe for human consumption. Different
regulations in different countries need to be considered.
 Consumer perception. Market success will depend on acceptance by final consumers. Possible
constraints could result from concerns that the products might be inferior and perhaps unsafe for
consumer health.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Wastes and by-products occurring in the food supply chain are currently only partially valorised at
different value-added levels. The main volumes are managed as waste of an environmental concern,
which is not acceptale under consideration of sustainability criteria. Major valorisation pathways
today include spreading to land, animal feed, composting and anaerobic digestion. While such firstgeneration valorisation pathways aiming to make use of the material streams as they occur can be
considered as state-of-the-art, the main challenge lies in more widespread implementation and in
increasing overall efficiency e.g. via cascaded use.
Second-generation valorisation pathways are based on recognising that these material streams
are rich in components useful for production of commodity or fine chemicals and biomaterials. It is
a key challenge to efficiently integrate tailored recovery and conversion procedures in order to
obtain sequentially all of the main classes of products, from fine and pharmaceutical chemicals
(which in general have higher market values) to commodity products and biofuels (which have
lower market value but in general better approachable markets). A huge number of possible
valorisation pathways exist, of which some are currently under research and evaluation. Although a
range of specific challenges need to be addressed, consideration of functional food is of particual
attractiveness, not only due to a wide variety of possible applications, but also due to the fact that
using constituents from food wastes and by-products in functional food production means closing
cycles within the food supply chain at high added value.
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
REFERENCES
Angenent L.T., Karim K., Al-Dahhan M.H., Wrenn B.A., Domìguez-Espinosa R. (2004).
Production of bioenergy and biochemicals from industrial and agricultural wastewater. Trends
Biotechnol, vol. 22, n. 9, 477-485.
Ajila C.M., Brar S.K., Verma M., Tyagi R.D., Godbout S. and Valéro J.R. (2012). Bio-processing
of agro-byproducts to animal feed. Critical Rev Biotechnol, vol. 32, 382-400.
Banks C.J., Chesshire M. and Stringfellow A. (2008). A pilot-scale comparision of mesophilic and
thermophilic digestion of source segregated domestic food waste. Water Sci Technol, vol. 58,
1475-1481.
Banks C.J., Chesshire M., Heaven S. and Arnold R. (2011). Anaerobic digestion of sourcesegregated domestic food waste: performance assessment by mass and energy balance.
Bioresource Technol, vol. 102, 612-620.
Banks C.J., Zhang Y., Jiang, Y. and Heaven S. (2012). Trace element requirements for stable food
waste digestion at elevated ammonia concentrations. Bioresource Technol, vol. 104, 127-135.
Bigliardi B. and Galati F. (2013). Innovation trends in the food industry: the case of functional
foods. Trends Food Sci Tech, vol. 31, 118-129.
Cavinato C., Bolzanella D., Fatone F., Cecchi F. and Pavan P. (2011). Optimization of two-phase
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of biowaste for hydrogen and methane production through
reject water recirculation. Bioresource Technol, vol. 102, 8605-8611.
Cavinato C., Giuliano A., Bolzonella D., Pavan P. and Cecchi F. (2012). Bio-hythane production
from food waste by dark fermentation coupled with anaerobic digestion process: a long-term
pilot scale experience. Int J Hydrogen Energ, vol. 37, 11549-11555.
Cecchi F., Battistoni P., Pavan P., Bolzonella D. and Innocenti L. (2005). Digestione anaerobica
della frazione organica dei rifiuti solidi. Aspetti fondamentali, progettuali, gestionali, di impatto
ambientale ed integrazione con la depurazione delle acque reflue. APAT – Manuali e linee guida
13.
Chinellato G., Cavinato C., Bolzonella D., Heaven S. and Banks C.J. (2013). Biohydrogen
production from food waste in batch and semi-continuous conditions: Evaluation of a two-phase
approach with digestate recirculation for pH control. Int J Hydrogen Energ, vol. 38, 4351-4360.
Chou C.H., Wang C.W., Huang C.C. and Lay J.J. (2008). Pilot study on the influence of stirring
and pH on anaerobes converting high-solid organic wastes to hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energ,
vol. 33, 1550-1558.
Chu C.F., Li Y.Y., Xu K.Q., Ebie Y., Inamori Y. and Kong H.N. (2008). A pH-temperature-phased
two-stage process for hydrogen and methane production from food waste. Int J Hydrogen Energ,
vol. 33, 4739-4746.
Chu C.F., Ebie Y., Xu K.Q., Li Y.Y. and Inamori Y. (2010). Characterization of microbial
community in the two-stage process for hydrogen and methane production from food waste. Int J
Hydrogen Energ, vol. 35, 8253-8261.
Dauchet L., Amouyel P., Hercberg S. and Dallongeville J. (2006). Fruit and vegetable consumption
and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Nutr, vol. 136, 2588-2593.
Diaz-Ambrona C.G.H. and Maletta E. (2014). Achieving global food security through sustainable
development of agriculture and food systems with regard to nutrients, soil, land, and waste
management. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, vol. 1, 57-65.
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Elbeshbishy E. and Nakhla G. (2011). Comparative study of the effect of ultrasonication on the
anaerobic biodegradability of food waste in single and two-stage systems. Bioresource Technol,
vol. 102, 6449-6457.
Gomez X., Moran A., Cuetos M.J. and Sánchez M.E. (2006). The production of hydrogen by dark
fermentation of municipal solid waste and slaughterhouse waste: a two phase process. J Power
Sources, vol. 157, 727-732.
Gómez-Guillén M.C., Giménez B., López-Caballero M.E. and Montero M.P. (2011). Functional
and bioactive properties of collagen and gelatin from alternative sources: A review. Food
Hydrocolloid, vol. 25, 1813-1827.
Gottardo M., Cavinato C., Bolzonella D. and Pavan P. (2013). Dark Fermentation Optimization by
Anaerobic Digested Sludge Recirculation: Effects on Hydrogen Production. Chem Eng
Transactions, vol. 32, 997-1002.
Giuliano A., Zanetti L., Micolucci F. and Cavinato C. (2014). Thermophilic two-phase anaerobic
digestion of source sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste for bio-hythane production:
effect of recirculation sludge on process stability and microbiology over a long-term pilot scale
experience. Water Sci Technol, vol. 69, 2200-2209.
Graham L.A., Rideout G., Rosenblatt D. and Hendren J. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles. Atmos Environ, vol. 42, no. 19, 4665- 4681.
Hallenbeck P., Ghosh D., Skonieczny M. and Yargeau V. (2009). Microbiological and engineering
aspects of biohydrogen production. Indian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 49, 48-59.
Han S.K., Kim S.H., Kim H.W. and Shin H.S. (2005). Pilot-scale two-stage process: a combination
of acidogenic hydrogenesis and methanogenesis. Water Sci Technol, vol. 52, 131-138.
Hawkes F., Hussy I., Kyazze G., Dinsdale R. and Hawkes D. (2007). Continuous dark fermentative
hydrogen production by mesophilic microflora: principles and progress. Int J Hydrogen Energ,
vol. 32, 172-184.
Kataoka N., Ayame S., Miya A., Ueno Y., Oshita N., Tsukahara K., Sawayama S. and Yokota N.
(2005). Studies on hydrogen-methane fermentation process for treating garbage and waste paper.
ADSW 2005 Conference Proceedings, 2, Process Engineering.
Kongjan P. and Angelidaki I. (2010). Extreme thermophilic biohydrogen production from wheat
straw hydrolysate using mixed culture fermentation: effect of reactor configuration. Bioresource
Technol, vol. 101, 7789-7796.
Kosseva M.R. (2011). Management and processing of food wastes. Adv Food Nutr Res, vol. 58, 57136.
Kotay S.M. and Das D. (2008). Biohydrogen as a renewable energy resource. Prospects and
potentials. Int J Hydrogen Energ, vol. 33, 258-263.
Koutinas A.A., Vlysidis A., Pleissner D., Kopsahelis N., Garcia I.L., Kookos I.K., Papanikolaou S.,
Kwan T.H. and Lin C.S.K. (2014). Valorization of industrial waste and by-product streams via
fermentation for the production of chemicals and biopolymers. Chem Soc Rev, vol. 43, 25872627.
Kusch S. and Evoh C.J. (2013). Meeting the growing demand for food and bioenergy in the 21st
century: synergies through efficient waste management. Biofuels, vol. 4, 479-483.
Kusch S., Schumacher B., Oechsner H. and Schäfer W. (2011). Methane yield of oat husks.
Biomass Bioenerg, vol. 35, 2627-2633.
Kusch S., Udenigwe C.C., Cavinato C., Gottardo M., Micolucci F. (2014). Value-added utilisation
of agro-industrial residues. In Advances in food biotechnology: Rai R. (Ed), John Wiley & Sons
(to be published/ currently under revision).
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Lee D.Y., Ebie Y., Xu K.Q., Li Y.Y. and Inamori Y. (2010). Continuous H2 and CH4 production
from high-solid food waste in the two-stage thermophilic fermentation process with the
recirculation of digester sludge. Bioresource Technol, vol. 101, S42-S47.
Levin D.B., Pitt L. and Love M. (2004). Biohydrogen production: prospects and limitations to
practical application. Int J Hydrogen Energ, vol. 29, 173-185.
Liguori R., Amore A. and Faraco V. (2013). Waste valorization by biotechnological conversion into
added value products. Appl Microbiol Biot, vol. 97, 6129-6147.
Liu D., Liu D., Zeng R.J. and Angelidaki I. (2006). Hydrogen and methane production from
household solid waste in the two-stage fermentation process. Water Res, vol. 40, 2230-2236.
Mirabella N., Castellani V. and Sala S. (2014). Current options for the valorization of food
manufacturing waste: a review. J Cleaner Production, vol. 65, 28-41.
Murthy P.S. and Madhava Naidu M. (2012). Sustainable management of coffe industry by-products
and value addition – a review. Res Conserv Recy, vol. 66, 45-58.
Nazlina H.M.Y.N.H., Nor’Aini A.R., Man H.C., Yusoff M.Z.M. and Hassan M.A. (2011).
Microbial characterization of hydrogen-producing bacteria in fermented food waste at different
pH values. Int J Hydrogen Energ, vol. 36, 9571-9580.
Pfaltzgraff L.A, De bruyn M., Cooper E.C., Budarin V. and Clark J.H. (2013). Food waste biomass:
a resource for high-value chemicals. Green Chem, vol. 15, 307-314.
Qiang H., Niu Q., Chi Y. and Li Y. (2013). Trace metal requirements for continuous thermophilic
methane fermentation of high-solid food waste. Chem Eng J, vol. 222, 330-336.
Rajagopal R., Masse D.I. and Singh G. (2013). A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic
digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresource Technol, vol. 143, 632-641.
Reith J.H., Wijffels R.H. and Barten H. (2003) Bio-methane & bio-hydrogen, status and
perspectives of biological methane and hydrogen production. Dutch Biological Hydrogen
Foundation.
Rodrigues I.M., Coelho J.F.J. and Carvalho M.G.V.S. (2012). Isolation and valorisation of
vegetable proteins from oilseed plants: methods, limitations and potential. J Food Eng, vol. 109,
337-346.
Shin H.S. and Youn J.H. (2005). Conversion of food waste into hydrogen by thermophilic
acidogenesis. Biodegradation, vol. 16, 33-44.
Siró I., Kápolna E., Kápolna B. and Lugasi A. (2008). Functional food. Product development,
marketing and consumer acceptance - a review. Appetite, vol. 51, 456-467.
Smithers G.W. (2008). Whey and whey proteins – from ‘gutter-to-gold’. Int Dairy J, vol. 18, 695704.
Sreela-or C., Imai T., Plangklang P. and Reungsang A. (2011). Optimization of key factors
affecting hydrogen production from food waste by anaerobic mixed cultures. Int J Hydrogen
Energ, vol. 36, 14120-14133.
Udenigwe C.C. and Aluko R.E. (2012). Food protein-derived bioactive peptides: production,
processing, and potential health benefits. J Food Sci, vol. 77, R11-R24.
Udenigwe C.C. (2014). Bioinformatics approaches, prospects and challenges of food bioactive
peptide research. Trends Food Sci Tech, vol. 36, 137-143.
Valdez-Vazquez I. and Poggi-Varaldo H.M. (2009). Hydrogen production by fermentative
consortia. Renew Sust Energ Rev, vol. 13, 1000-1113.
Venice 2014, Fifth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Van Dyk J.S., Gama R., Morrison D., Swart S. and Pletschke B.I. (2013). Food processing waste:
problems, current management and prospects for utilization of the lignocellulose component
through enzyme synergistic degradation. Renew Sust Energ Rev, vol. 26, 521-531.
Wang X. and 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 Energ, vol. 34, 245254.
Yenigun O. and Demirel B. (2013). Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process
Biochem, vol. 48, 901-911.
Zhang L. and Jahng D. (2012). Long-term anaerobic digestion of food waste stabilized by trace
elements. Waste Manage, vol. 32, 1509-1515.
Zhang Y., Banks C.J. and Heaven S. (2012). Co-digestion of source segregated domestic food
waste to improve process stability. Bioresource Technol, vol. 114, 168-178.
Zhu H., Parker W., Conidi D., Basnar R. and Seto P. (2011). Eliminating methanogenic activity in
hydrogen reactor to improve biogas production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion process codigesting municipal food waste and sewage sludge. Bioresource Technol, vol. 102, 7086-7092.