Turning agricultural waste into ecological and economic assets: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Turning agricultural waste into ecological and economic assets: ECOBIOCAP experience and NoAW ambition

• M. Majone1 and N. Gontard2

1Department of Chemistry, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome,

00185, Italy

2 INRA, Montpellier, F34060, France, EcoBioCAP and NoAW

coordinator Presenting author e‐mail: mauro.majone@uniroma1.it

Where is the triggering point in the loop? Which is(are) main driver(s)? Which is(are) main constraint(s)? Either ‐ environmental ‐ regulatory ‐ social ‐ economical ‐ technical Are there any red‐flags?

A bio‐based technology and business network

Food‐ processing industry waste treatment Market Farmer Crops Food Crop by‐products

• r waste

Industrial by‐products waste and wastewater Bio‐based products Consumers OFMSW and urban wastewater Industry A Industry C Industry B renewable feedstock Bio‐based industry network

• Reducing food waste and losses
• Controlling unwanted migrations from the

packaging towards food

• Reducing problems of packaging waste

management

• Limiting the use of non‐renewable resources

& food resources to produce packaging

• Recovering by‐products/waste from agro‐

industries

• Improving control of the

structure/properties (mass transfer) relationships in agro/bio‐ materials

• Fulfilling packaging functions,

through customized bio‐composites

• Solving packaging negative issues

(biodegradable packaging from renewable feedstock)

DRIVERS REQUIREMENTS

• Top‐down requirement‐driven approaches ●Process and product innovation
• Multi‐criteria Decision‐making tools ●Extensive product testing

taking into account the whole food/packaging system and implicating a consortium of researchers & the different stakeholders

3

Sustainable abd advanced packaging to reduce fresh food losses and wastes

Half of the fresh fruit and vegetable production is lost before consumption Most of the losses during distribution/consumption, when packaging is involved

%O2 %CO2

Passive MAP

Selective pack

Fresh produce database Packaging database Packaging database Virtual MAP simulation Multi‐criteria flexible querying Ranked list of most relevant packagings

Stakeholder preferences and needs

• Consumer preferences
• Industrial constraints
• Waste management

policy

• Cost, etc.

Development of a Decision Support System

Packaging selection needs multi‐criteria choices

“I would like a packaging material made from renewable resources, but I want optimal gas permeabilites in order to guarantee the product quality, transparent if possible and with a cost for raw material less than 2 € / kg …”.

solution

Which was EcoBioCAP approach?

Aim: To provide the EU food industry with customizable, ecoefficient, biodegradable packaging solutions. How this next‐generation packaging was developed?

• Using advanced biocomposite structures based

 on bio‐based constituents (biopolyesters, fibres, proteins, polyphenolic compounds, bio‐adhesives and bio additives etc.)  which were derived from food industry by‐products (oil, dairy, cereals and beer)

• by applying innovative processing strategies to enable

customisation of the packaging’s properties  to fit the functional, cost, safety and environmental impact requirements of targeted fresh perishable products (fruits and vegetables, cheeses and ready to eat meals). Demonstration activities with industrial partners (incl. SMEs) to check EcoBioCAP products towards their full exploitation.

16 partners 8 countries 4 years (2011‐2015)

Food loss reduction Cheese Whey (CW) Sugar Cane Molasses (SCM) Oil Mill wastewater (OMW)

multi‐criteria choices

Wheat straw, ( or olive pomace, beer spent grains, bacterial cellulose)

multi‐criteria evaluation

Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biopolymers

 Natural Microbial polyesters  Widespread: ~75 genera, 300 species  Mostly short‐chain length (scl)

HB HV

• C. necator containing PHA granules

Chanprateep J Biosci Bioeng, 2010

• Not a single polymer, but a family of

copolymers

• Properties dependent on monomer

composition and several other factors; thus also largely tunable

• 3 times “Bio”

1. Produced from renewable feestock 2. Produced through biological process (most steps) 3. Easily biodegradable

Pro’s

• High cost: pure culture processes,

which require substrate ad hoc formulaton, sterility, energy

• PHA market is mostly limited to
• mopolymer PHB or PHBV with

very low HV content – Limits in processability – Rigid and brittle – More restricted range of uses

Con’s

PHBV

solution: PHA by using microbial mixed cultures (MMC)

No need of sterile conditions in the process (less energy, simpler equipments) Ubiquitous, abundant and inexpensive inoculum (activated sludge, and no OGM) No need of well‐defined substrates (a wide range of waste feedstock) More tunable process (e.g. better adaptation to seasonal changes of feedstock)

Easier to obtain the copolymer P(HB/HV) instead the omopolymer PHB, with better and wider properties

 Still, lower productivity (less cell density  More difficult extraction (less PHA content in the cells)  Concerns on possibly poorer characteristics and/or larger variability  Not well established yet (lack of pilot scale data)

Potential disadvantages Potential advantages

Process productivity improvements Increase of PHA content, Investigation of impurities effects Long‐term experiments with true substrates, Improved process control, Extensive investigation of polymer properties, Modifications trough biocomposites, Preliminary scale up of PHA production process (≈ 2 kg PHA at different HV/HB ratios)

solutions

Pilot Scale Experimental Setup

Transforming constituents into bioplastic and biocomposites

‐ Wide possibility to adjust composite properties through adjustment of processing parameters ‐ Characterisation of packaging relevant properties ‐ mechanical tests ‐ permeation measurements Processing pure PHBV and composites ‐ injection moulding (trays) ‐ flat film extrusion ‐ blown film extrusion ‐ Electrospinning (including adesives)

Compounding PHBV materials (either CW‐ based Ecobiocap or commercial one): with fibres, plasticizer, or other biopolymers <10% impurities in PHBV could be not detrimental

FILLER = Wheat straw fibers

By‐product

• f wheat

industry First reduction Cutting milling « coarse » powder Intermediate reduction Impact milling « Fine » powder Wheat straw fibers

• Poly(3‐hydroxybutyrate‐co‐3‐

valerate)

• Bacterial biodegradable polyester
• Tianan Enmat Y1000 (3 %HV)
• Tg = 0‐5°C, Tm =160‐170°C

 Around 5€/kg

BIO- COMPOSITE

MATRIX = PHBV

 Around 25 to 200€/ton

μm

Up to 30wt%

Effect on transfer properties

• Increasing fiber content  Increased permeabilities
• Due to the hydrophilic nature of the wheat straw fibers + percolating pathway for

the diffusion of gases

• PHBV/wheat straw fibers composites suitable to pack respiring food products (as lid

films)

1,0E‐16 1,0E‐15 1,0E‐14 1,0E‐13 1,0E‐12 10 20 30 Gaz permeability (mol/m.s.Pa) Fiber content (wt%)

• Perm. CO2
• Perm. O2

0,E+00 2,E‐12 4,E‐12 6,E‐12 8,E‐12 1,E‐11 10 20 30 WVP (mol/m.s.Pa) Fiber content (wt%)

Water Vapour Permeability CO2 & O2 permeabilities

PHBV

10

Mechanical properties

Present tensile properties vs. tray material requirements

• Stress at break : > 20 MPa
• Strain at break : > 5%

PHBV + 20% Wheat Straw Fibers (150µm) Strain at break should be improved  Too low  OK for PHBV, limit for biocomposites

• Young’s Modulus : 0.3‐2 Gpa

 Ok

10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4 5 Stress (Mpa) Strain (%)

Plasticization PHBV at higher HV ratios: need to produce higher amounts

• Inertness of PHBVs: PHBV materials suitable for food contact.

Ethanol 95% (v/v) was the most severe food simulant, with a strong impact on their physical‐chemical stability (plasticizing effect).

• Stability negatively affected by the addition of wheat straw fibres:

Composites can be used as food contact materials only for low or intermediate water activity products and/or fat products. Challenge migration tests & specific migration

• f contaminants

Consumer survey

• Qualitative questionnaire: to

explore the consumers’ acceptance, preference and buying intent (141 consumer)

• Tasting sessions: the impact of

packaging variations in terms of sensorial attributes of fresh strawberries (79 consumers)

Products extensively tested

Shelf Life study

• Gas composition & respiration:

EcoBioCAP films slightly modified the internal atmosphere.

• Weight loss: lower than control
• pH, soluble solids, colour, firmness,

decay & microbiology: no statistical differences Ecotoxycology tests Biodegradability tests

General Summary

• The production of packaging constituents from agro‐industry by‐products/waste

was possible.

• Also their biocomposites, e.g. through injection moulding for trays and co‐

extrusion or electrospinning for multilayer films.

• Complete packaging systems were created and tested under several aspects

(safety, shelf life, consumers’ panel, LCA). Overall, acceptable performanceand scalable processes

• Permeability was suitable for some applications, but needs to be increased for
• ther fresh produce (e.g perforation).
• After consumers panels, no significant negative impact on sensorial attributes of

strawberries in comparison to benchmark packaging. However, consumers’ most important expectation is to improve transparency.

• The brittleness of the base PHBV is an issue for processing, therefore some

additional optimisation steps will be necessary

• However, possible improvements of using PHBV with higher HV ratio could not be

tested because of too much material was required.

• A certain level of impurities of PHBV is acceptable. To be further investigated

Direction for improvements are clear and include need for further scaling up of PHBV production

The Basic idea of NoAW project is to consider agro‐waste biomass as a true resource, to be fully converted into sustainable bio‐energy, bio‐fertilizers and bio‐chemicals by the use of cascading mature, emerging and brand new processes.

Horizon 2020 ‐ Type of action: RIA ‐ Topic: WASTE 7 – Acronym: NoAW

No Agro‐Waste ‐ Innovative approaches to turn agricultural waste into ecological and economic assets

32 partners from 12 European countries plus China, Taiwan and USA 17 research & education , 12 private (all SMEs except one), 2 Professional associations, 1 management consulting & technology transfer company

4‐year project. Ready to start on October 1°, 2016

By involving all agriculture chain stakeholders, the project will 1‐2 develop innovative eco‐ design and assessment tools

• f circular agro‐waste

management strategies to address case studies representative of diverse territories. 3‐4‐6 improve technologies by starting from conventional technologies (i.e. Anaerobic Digestion) and their upgrading through innovative processes and products. Strong focus on full scale, demo and pilot‐scale platforms. 5 develop new business concepts and stakeholders platform for cross‐chain valorisation of agro‐waste on a territorial and seasonal basis.

NOAW is organized in 6 scientific WPs, one dissemination and one management WP.

Several scenarios to be analyzed ‐ Small‐size local AD plants vs large size AD‐based biorefinery ‐ Upgrading conventional AD products and/or emerging processes for new bio‐based products ‐ Retroffitting of existing plants vs new plants

NoAW technical solutions to transform agro‐waste biomass (winery residues, manure, straw, etc.) into a portfolio of useful bio‐based products

Several geographical case‐studies, : Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Greece Each one having a full/demo/pilot plant, and dealing with different (mixed) feedstock, representative of the geographical area

Pilot scale platform of Universities of Venice and Verona at the wastewater treatment plant of Treviso (Alto Trevigiano Servizi, ATS) Joint PHA production pilot plant, With Rome University «Sapienza»

PHA production NaOH

• r

NaClO

AD

200 L

PHA to mild drying and storage

The authors thank very much all EcoBioCAP participants, whose work and results have been briefly reported here. For more detailed information on specific activities and involved participants please refer to http://www.ecobiocap.eu/index.php

Aknowledgements

The authors also wish to thank all NoAW participants, whose work contributed to define the project aims, structure and planned activities.

OMW

OMW acidogenic fermentation

OMW phenols removal

Phenol recovery Extraction solvent

PHA accumulation reactor Undiluted stream Biomass with high PHA content Enriched biomass MMCs selection (SBR ) Extraction

Purification

PHA

Liquid fraction to treatment and disposal)

85% removal of influent COD; i.e. easier refining for wastewater final disposal

OMW: continuous-flow multi step process long-term investigation at bench-scale

PBBR at high organic load (5.9 g L

• 1 day-1)

70% of the effluent soluble COD made by VFAs (19 gCOD/L) Batch tests 63% recovery 31% PHA recovery with respect to removed COD (10% with respect to

• verall influent COD)

100 g PHA produced for characterisation and processing

fermented OMWs Dephenolized OMWs

The upstream fermentation process easily adapts to changes of feedstock composition

Horgs (Cmmol L‐1)

CW SCM

PHA composition can be controlled by feed composition

y = 1.00x + 6.80 R² = 0.97 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100  HV (% Cmol basis) HV precursors (% Cmol basis) fM fCW Synt

(b)

y = 1.00x ‐ 6.83 R² = 0.97 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100  HB (% Cmol basis) HB precursors (% Cmol basis) fM fCW Synt

(a)

Synt (synthetic organic acids mixture), fM (fermented sugar cane molasses), fCW (fermented cheese whey) Produced HB monomer vs. HB precursors (a), and produced HV monomer vs. HV precursors (b);

Different steps of the PHA production from cheese whey were investigated in the presence of a pesticide (HCH)

Neither effect on acidogenic fermentation nor on PHA accumulation

cheese whey (‐HCH = 100) Acidogenic reactor

Centrifuged sludge ‐HCH = 83 VFA‐rich stream (‐HCH = 17)

Selection reactor (SBR)

Effluent

PHA storing biomass Accumulation reactor

Liquid surnatant ‐HCH = 2.7 PHA‐rich biomass (‐HCH 14.3)

NaClO treatment Lyophilization CHCl3 purification

Treated Pellets (‐HCH 11.4) Liquid waste streams ‐HCH = 2.9 Lyophilized powder (‐HCH 7.0) Gas streams ‐HCH = 4.4 Purified powder (‐HCH 0.2) CH3OH stream ‐HCH = 3.3

Not investigated

99.8 % removal Release tests from PHA are in progress Valentino et al., 2015