Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques

for household biowaste minimization and ethanol production
A. Sotiropoulos a,⇑, I. Vourka a, A. Erotokritou a, J. Novakovic a, V. Panaretou a, S. Vakalis b, T. Thanos a,
K. Moustakas a, D. Malamis a
a
National Technical University of Athens, School of Chemical Engineering, Unit of Environmental Science and Technology, 9, Heroon Polytechniou Str.,
15773 Zographou Campus, Athens, Greece
b
Free University of Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, Piazza Università 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The results of the demonstration of an innovative household biowaste management and treatment
Received 14 December 2015 scheme established in two Greek Municipalities for the production of lignocellulosic ethanol using dehy-
Revised 27 February 2016 drated household biowaste as a substrate, are presented within this research. This is the first time that
Accepted 24 March 2016
biowaste drying was tested at a decentralized level for the production of ethanol using the
Available online xxxx
Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF) process, at a pilot scale in Greece. The decentral-
ized biowaste drying method proved that the household biowaste mass and volume reduction may reach
Keywords:
80% through the dehydration process used. The chemical characteristics related to lignocellulosic ethanol
Ethanol
Biofuels
production have proved to differ substantially between seasons thus; special attention should be given to
Biowaste the process applied for ethanol production mainly regarding the enzyme quality and quantity used dur-
Waste management ing the pretreatment stage.
Drying The maximum ethanol production achieved was 29.12 g/L, approximately 60% of the maximum theo-
Decentralized retical yield based on the substrate’s sugar content. The use of the decentralized waste drying as an alter-
native approach for household biowaste minimization and the production of second generation ethanol is
considered to be a promising approach for efficient biowaste management and treatment in the future.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Waste management still remains a challenge for the growing
world. From the total amount of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
produced a 40–50% of it is considered to be biological waste. This
percentage is higher in low and middle income countries according
to the World Bank (2012).
The main environmental threat from biowaste is the production
of methane during their decomposition in landfills. It is estimated
that landfills are the third most important source of methane emis-
sions in the United States of America (USA) (World Bank, 2012).
In the USA the strategy is to capture the landfill methane
through the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (EPA, 2012). In
the European Union (EU), the Landfill Directive (Directive
1999/31/EC) obliges Member States to reduce the amount of
biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill by 35% of 1995
levels by 2016 (for some countries by 2020) which is expected to
significantly reduce the problem. Moreover, Directive 2009/28/EC
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: angeluoi81@gmail.com (A. Sotiropoulos).
«on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC
and 2003/30/EC» obliges member states to use renewable energy
resources. The fact that there is an ongoing economic crisis in
many EU countries while, the predominant method of waste man-
agement and treatment is still landfilling, constitutes a significant
problem for reaching legally-binding targets set by the EU legisla-
tion. The fact also, that the EU has set a 7% cap on biofuels pro-
duced from food crops in transport fuels, obliges member states
to use alternative resources in order to reach the targets set. The
already existing technologies, in many cases, need further opti-
mization while they are unable to treat biowaste due to the fact
that the raw material will biodegrade, loosing critical substances,
if not treated ontime. Moreover, many biowaste treatment pro-
cesses used today, are considered to be complicated and problem-
atic and need to be further optimized.
European policy focuses on actions taken towards resource effi-
ciency, circular economy and climate change adaptation and miti-
gation. A concrete strategy on circular economy and resource
efficiency has not been elaborated up until now, while targets set
by the European Commission (EC) policy in regard to the drastic

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
0956-053X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
2 A. Sotiropoulos et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs), that play an important role
in the negative impacts of climate change, have not been defined
per sector.
Decentralized household biowaste drying for the production of
fully dehydrated lingo-cellulosic biomass out of household bio-
waste and the subsequent production of second generation of
ethanol, by using its carbohydrate content with the use of the
SSF process (Sun and Cheng, 2002) constitutes a waste manage-
ment and treatment option that has never been tested at any scale
in the past.
The SSF process involves the simultaneous batch acid hydrolysis
and fermentation of the lignocellulosic substrate, while it can also
operate as a fed-batch process which is considered to provide sub-
stantial benefits to the whole environmental and economic viabil-
ity of the process. The process is used for the treatment of different
types of lignocellulosic materials (Olofsson et al., 2008) such as
agricultural products and waste. The already existing processes
use raw household biowaste material and their efficiency remains
low, due to lack of stability in the substrate used on the one hand,
and microbial activity that intercepts the enzyme activity during
the fermentation process on the other hand, thus they do not oper-
ate at full scale worldwide (Sotiropoulos et al., 2015).
The fact that the mass and volume of the raw material is signif-
icantly reduced with relatively low energy consumption (0.9 kW
h/kgwet substrate) along with the fact that the carbohydrate content of
the dehydrated material is preserved (Sotiropoulos et al., 2015),
while the ethanol yield produced seems to be satisfying when
compared to bibliography, constitutes a most promising and con-
crete, regarding its results, option for household biowaste manage-
ment and treatment.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the case study areas
The Municipalities in which the innovative household biowaste
(dried at decentralized level) to ethanol waste management
scheme was established and implemented were Papagos-
Cholargos and Aspropyrgos Municipalities. Both of the Municipal-
ities belong to the Attica region in Greece. The total amount of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated in Papagos-Cholargos
Municipality in 2014 was 17,986 t year 1 (392.3 kg cap 1 year)
this quantity is less by approximately 8% than the one recorded
by Sotiropoulos et al. (2015), which could be accredited to the
ongoing economic crisis in Greece which has contributed to the
significant reduction of MSW produced by the civilians (civilians
throw less). In Aspropyrgos Municipality the quantity of MSW pro-
duced for 2014 was 16,114 t year 1 (534.3 kg cap 1 year). In both
Municipalities, the MSW generated are sent to the landfill of
Ano-Liosia in Attica region, while a recycling system which
includes the source separation of packaging waste using 610 blue
bins for the case of Papagos-Cholargos and 450 for the case of
Aspropyrgos Municipality (in both case the capacity is 1.100 L)
has been established at a small scale. The collected recyclables in
both cases, are transferred to the Mechanical Biological Treatment
(MBT) plant of Ano-Liosia in Attica, in order to be recycled. Both of
the Municipalities did not produce biofuels at any scale at the time
this research started.
The selection of the participating households was performed on
a voluntary basis by providing the necessary publicity and aware-
ness raising campaigns in both Municipalities. In total 82 residen-
cies (251 civilians) participated the demonstration of this
innovative waste management scheme while more than 160 resi-
dencies showed willingness to participate to this research.
Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
2.2. Training of the participating households/implementation of the
innovative household biowaste to ethanol management scheme
Training seminars in the Municipalities and door to door for the
civilians were implemented. The seminars main target was for the
participating civilians, to provide pure substrate, for the bioconver-
sion process of the dehydrated material, to take place. The semi-
nars included: (a) introduction of the civilians in source
separation techniques, (b) information on the environmental and
socioeconomic benefits of the proposed household biowaste man-
agement scheme for both Municipalities, (c) presentation of the
source separation guide to the civilians, and (d) presentation of
the data that should be recorded during the implementation of
the pilot program.
For the implementation of the innovative household biowaste
management and treatment scheme, the following equipment
was distributed to the participating householders: (1) a 23 L com-
mercialized kitchen waste bin that was placed in the householders’
kitchens for the collection of their biowaste, (2) a 120 L brown bin
for the collection of the source separated household biowaste out-
side the participating households and (3) a source separation man-
ual with guidelines for the proper separation of the generated
household biowaste.
The waste material that should be disposed in the waste bins
were: Kitchen waste which included all waste produced in kitch-
ens in every form (cooked and uncooked) such as: pasta, rice, flour,
cereals, meat, fish and bones, dairy, fruits and vegetables, including
kitchen paper waste and garden waste in order to achieve higher
cellulose content to our substrate.
The source separated household biowaste were transferred at
the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) facilities by
the Municipalities waste authorities, 3 times per week for a period
of 12 months (1 year) in order to be further treated. The waste
were manually sorted by the research staff in order to define its
purity levels while, it was further treated with the use of a com-
mercialized biomass dryer in order to reduce its mass and volume
and simultaneously preserve the incoming substrate’s characteris-
tics (Sotiropoulos et al., 2015). The main parts of the drying
method used can be seen in Fig. 1:
The waste drying system used was a drum dryer with an agita-
tion system used for crushing and pulverizing the material to
1–2 mm diameter. The specific model used was GC-100 of GAIA
Corporation. The drying temperature was 175 °C while the dryer
operated for an 8 h period in order to completely dehydrate
50 kg of wet substrate. Two trials were performed on a daily basis
(16 h operation). The final dry product, having approximately
1–2 mm diameter was further enzymatically treated with the use
of a pilot scale bioconversion facility installed at the NTUA premises.
The main parts of the facility used for the bioconversion process
are illustrated in Fig. 2:
The waste management scheme and its full operation is
described in the Waste2bio project DVD film (Waste2bio Project
DVD film, 2015)
2.3. Evaluation of the waste management scheme
Extended physicochemical characterization of the source sepa-
rated household biowaste was performed by measuring a wide
variety of parameters, related to the assessment of the effective-
ness of the waste management scheme and the bioconversion pro-
cess used.
The assessment of the innovative waste management scheme
was implemented through the evaluation of the following
parameters:
 A. Sotiropoulos et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Raw material placed inside the
waste dryer
Fig. 1. Commercialized decentralized waste dryer schematic diagram.
Fig. 2. Pilot scale bioconversion facility.
 The purity level of the incoming household biowaste was deter-
mined through optical sorting of the incoming biowaste. The
sorting took place, each time the waste were delivered at the
NTUA facilities.
 Incoming biowaste mass was measured prior and after the dry-
ing process with the use of a digital scale.
 Incoming biowaste volume was measured before and after the
drying process by calculating the volume of the initial substrate
and the final dry product in a graduated cylinder container used
for the purposes of the research.
 The energy consumption for the drying of the feedstock mate-
rial at decentralized level, was recorded through direct mea-
surements with the use of an energy meter (Sotiropoulos
et al., 2015).
 pH was measured based on EPA Method 9045D using a pH
meter (Mettler Toledo MPC 227 pH/Conductivity Meter).
 The remaining water content of the collected biomass was
determined after drying the collected samples at 105 °C for
approximately 24 h.
 The determination of structural carbohydrates, and lipids was
performed using HPLC based on Sluiter et al. (2004).
 The determination of total reduced sugars, glucose content and
ethanol was performed using the method described by Dogaris
et al. (2009).
Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
3
Dried material at the end of the
process
 The fermentation of the thermally pretreated material was held
in the 200 L bioconversion facility, in which a quantity of dried
waste was placed in a concentration of 30% (w/v). Followed the
pH was adjusted to 5.0 (common optimum pH for the enzymes
used). The appropriate quantity of enzymes was added so that
the activity of a-amylase (Liquozyme DS SC) to be approxi-
mately 0.049 and 5.1 U/g of starch, (Spirizyme Fuel) 5.0 U/g
of starch, mix 5:1 (v/v), CelluclastÒ 1.5 L and Novozyme 188,
Ò
Cellic CTec2, and so that the total cellulase activity in any case
to be 10 g FPU/cellulose.
 The material was further treated hydrothermally in three
stages. More specifically, 30 min at 85 °C with Liquozyme DS
SC, then 30 min at 65 °C with Spirizyme Fuel and 6 h with Cel-
luclastÒ 1.5 L, Novozyme 188 and ÒCellic CTec2 at 50 °C. Finally,
after adding 15 mg/g of dry yeast from LEAF technologies, the
fermentation process took place until there was no more CO2
coming out of the lab reactor. It should be stressed that specific
samples with the chemical properties recorded in Table 4, was
used for the fermentation process in order to be able to obtain
concrete results.
 Crude protein in the substrate and the fermentation residue was
estimated using Kjeldahl’s method as described in AOAC
methods (1995).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Results in regard to the waste management scheme efficiency
The optical inspection of the incoming raw material (household
biowaste) revealed that the purity level reached 100% since the
presence of non-biodegradable materials was barely equal to
0.001%. This was achieved through proper training of the partici-
pating householders and the fact that the civilians did not have
to separate their waste in a complicated way, rejecting certain cat-
egories of biowaste from the total amount they placed inside their
waste bins (e.g. cooked from uncooked kitchen waste, paper tow-
els, bones, acidic biowaste, etc.). The civilians threw all the quan-
tity of the kitchen and garden waste produced. According to
Favoino (2003), the purity level of source separated biowaste in
Italy reached 98–99% while Gibbs and Hogg (2007) reported that
4 A. Sotiropoulos et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

in Great Britain the purity levels of household biowaste reached 90

78.37
95% using one bin for a certain number of households. Finally, 80
Sotiropoulos et al. (2015) reports that using the household waste 70
67.44

Mass Reduction (%w/w)

drying technique the purity level of the incoming biomass reached 60
99.9%.
50
The quantity of household biowaste that was sourced separated
40
and transferred at the NTUA facilities for further treatment with
the use of the decentralized waste drying system, along with the 30

mass of the dried waste and the system’s energy consumption, is 20

recorded in Table 1. 10
More than 260 trials of the waste drying process were per- 0
formed in total. The average energy consumption of the decentral- Decentralised Waste Drying Waste Drying
ized waste dryer was recorded equal to 0.91 kW h kg 1 while it
Fig. 3. Comparison of mass reduction between decentralized waste drying and
ranged between 0.91 and 0.92 kW h kg 1. The energy consumption
domestic waste drying methods.
is significantly lower than the energy consumption of the house-
hold waste drying method which has been recorded equal to
1.87 kW h kg 1 (Ranged between 0.56 and 3.41 kW h kg 1) by Table 2
Sotiropoulos et al. (2015). Seasonal variation of the values of pH and moisture content (% w/w) of the raw
The mean household biowaste mass reduction was also household biomass.
recorded equal to 78% w/w approximately, which is higher than Seasons pH SDTV Water Content (% w/w) SDTV
the one recorded during the implementation of the household
Spring 5.41 0.06 92 0.01
waste drying method, as described by Sotiropoulos et al. (2015). Summer 5.55 0.04 86 0.04
This differentiation can be seen in Fig. 3. Autumn 5.55 0.1 73 0.32
It should be stressed that decentralized waste drying involves Winter 5.44 0.12 70 0.56
the drying of waste at a decentralized facility while domestic waste
drying involves the drying of waste inside the households with the
use of a domestic waste dryer (drying at source). biowaste ranged between 5.09 and 5.31, while Fernández et al.
From the results, it was recorded that the raw material compo- (2015), reported pH of communal biowaste equal to 4.98.
sition did not have significant effect to the decentralized waste Variations of the raw material water content have also been
drying process in addition to domestic waste drying technique recorded since this varied from 70% to 92% w/w. The fact that
where the quality of the incoming material was recorded to have the material’s water content was significantly higher during the
significant effect in the material mass reduction as recorded by summer period than in the winter, is attributed to the civilians’
Sotiropoulos et al. (2015). The fact that the material was pulverized waste production habits.
during the dehydration process when using the decentralized The results of the determination of the starch, cellulose and glu-
waste drying method while for the case of domestic waste drying cose content of the dried biowaste material are presented in
the material is just being dehydrated and not pulverized, is consid- Table 3.
ered to have contributed to this observation. As can be seen in Table 3, the starch content varied significantly
The volume reduction of the biowaste was recorded equal to between seasons between 3.86% and 10.12% w/w and was found to
83.25% (values ranged between 74.53% and 87.17%). This differen- be less during summertime when compared to the rest of the sea-
tiation can be attributed to the differentiation of the incoming sons, since the participating civilians seemed to throw (not con-
waste material which differs substantially between seasons in sume) waste with less starch content. Results on the seasonal
regard to its initial moisture content, size and shape, etc. variation of household biowaste starch content have not been
The values of pH and moisture content of the dehydrated recorded up until now. Αdditional data on household biowaste
household biomass per season are presented in Table 2. It should starch content has been recorded equal to 34.8% w/w by Zhang
be stressed that the moisture content of the dehydrated material et al. (2011) while Moon et al. (2008) reported high starch content
reached 3.61% w/w ranging from 2.44 to 5.53% w/w. at 30.1% w/w. It should be stressed that such high values were not
The pH values were recorded to be rather stable throughout the recorded throughout the research duration in regard to household
year, which can be attributed to the absence of water inside the biowaste which could be attributed to the differentiation of the
waste material and the homogenization during the drying process. civilians’ waste habits.
According to Sundberg et al. (2011), the pH of household waste col- The cellulose content of the dehydrated waste was higher dur-
lected for composting, ranged between 4.7 and 6.1. Malamis et al. ing spring and autumn since, according to the optical observations
(2015), reported that the pH of source segregated household conducted, during these seasons, the presence of cuttings (leaves
and woody biomass) from gardens was higher, contributing to
the raise of incoming cellulose since these type of waste have sig-
Table 1 nificantly high cellulose content, enriching the waste samples. In
Parameters recorded throughout the waste management scheme demonstration
phase.

Parameter Value Unit of Table 3

measurement Seasonal variation of starch, cellulose, glucose (% w/w) content of the dried household
Wet biowaste mass (person month 1) 4.8 kg biowaste.
251 civilians biowaste mass (month 1) 1204.8 kg
Seasons Starch SDTV Cellulose SDTV Glucose SDTV
Wet biowaste mass of 251 civilians for 14457.6 kg
(% w/w) (% w/w) (% w/w)
12 months
Dried biowaste mass of 251 civilians for 5783.6 kg Spring 9.77 1.05 13.95 3.06 0.52 0.03
12 months Summer 3.86 0.16 6.44 0.69 1.39 0.09
Total energy consumption of the 13156.42 KW h Autumn 8.70 0.91 26.34 3.30 2.25 0.44
commercialized waste dryer Winter 10.12 0.72 12.44 2.51 3.01 0.13

Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
 A. Sotiropoulos et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Table 4 to cold months (Autumn, Winter). This may be attributed to the

Household biowaste initial characteristics related to the bioconversion process. fact that glucose in easily consumed by microbes during the warm
Parameter Value g/100 g dry-solid STDV months due to elevated temperatures and high microbial activity
Water-soluble 35.99 0.08 thus, based on Sotiropoulos et al. (2015), the glucose is partially
Total reducing sugars 14.11 0.35 consumed by microbes before it reaches the decentralized waste
Glucose 3.46 0.10 drying facility. On the other hand, during the cold months, the
Sucrose 3.47 0.68 microbial activity is expected to be significantly smaller due to
Fructose 4.38 0.09
Cellulose 11.21 0.22
lower temperatures. It should be stressed that the water content
Starch 6.67 0.46 of the material is also expected to have played an important role
to this variation. Other researchers have recorded the quantity of
glucose presented in their food waste samples. Matsakas et al.
(2014) have recorded glucose content of 4.39% w/w while
Table 5 Sotiropoulos et al. (2015) have recorded glucose content of 2.2%
SSF process under different conditions.
w/w before the biodegradation takes place.
Amylolytic enzymes Cellulolytic enzymes The raise of microbial activity and the number of bacterial cells
Liquozyme SC Spirizyme Celluclast 1.5 L/Novozyme Cellic CTec2 and fungi produced, contributing to the reduction of glucose and
DS (U/g Fuel (U/g 188 (5/1 V/V) (FPU/g (FPU/g the biodegradation of the biowaste material, has been recorded
starch) starch) cellulose) cellulose) by Mayrhofer et al. (2006).
0.049 5.00 10 – The fact that there is a significant seasonal variation to the
5.1 5.00 10 – dehydrated substrates’ chemical characteristics, in regard to its
0.049 5.00 – 10
starch, cellulose and glucose content, is considered to have direct
5.1 5.00 – 10
effect to the bioconversion process since, the molecules which
are able to produce soluble sugars differ, thus affecting the overall
this case also, the seasonal variation of cellulose content in house- bioconversion process efficiency at a negative or positive manner.
hold biowaste has never been recorded. Based of bibliography, the This could be surpassed by combining the dried household bio-
cellulose content of various food waste has been recorded by waste mass with an additional waste mass such as waste paper
Sotiropoulos et al. (2015) and was equal to 17.2% while Matsakas thus, producing a substrate with stable carbohydrate content
et al. (2014) recorded cellulose content of 18.2% w/w. Yan et al. which would be beneficial for the whole waste management
(2012) reported rather low cellulose content 1.98% w/w. scheme.
The glucose content of the dried material varied significantly Finally, the protein of the original substrate was determined
between seasons. More specifically, during the warm months equal to 12% w/w while the protein in the fermentation residue
(spring, summer), the glucose content was less when compared was determined equal to 25% which is attributed to the enzymes

Table 6
Results of bioethanol production for the dried household biowaste using the SSF process.

Enzyme load Ethanol Productivity % Maximum % Maximum

production (g/L) ethanol (g/L h) theoretical yielda theoretical yieldb
Liquozyme (0.053)/Spirizyme (5.06)/Celluclast/Novozyme (10 FPU/g Cellulose) 28.90 1.39 170.01 62.35
Liquozyme (5.1)/Spirizyme (5.00)/Celluclast/Novozyme (10 FPU/g Cellulose) 29.12 3.01 176.28 63.72
Liquozyme (0.049)/Spirizyme (5.00)/Cellic (10 FPU/g Cellulose) 27.21 2.54 159.66 58.55
Liquozyme (5.1)/Spirizyme (5.00)/Cellic (10 FPU/g Cellulose) 27.67 2.80 162.42 59.57
a
Based on the maximum theoretical yield of ethanol from the bioconversion of non-structural sugars.
b
Based on the maximum theoretical ethanol yield from the bioconversion of non-structural sugars and cellulose (Yethanol/sugar = 0.504).

Fig. 4. Ethanol production though time (j), glucose ( ) and total reducing sugars ( ) in SSF hydrothermally pretreated material batch process project. Combination of
amylolytic and cellulolytic enzymes: (a) Liquozyme 0.049 U/g starch, Spirizyme 5.0 U/g starch, Celluclast/Novozyme (5/1 V/V) 10 FPU/g of cellulose. (b) Liquozyme 5.31 U/g of
starch, Spirizyme 5.00 U/g starch, Celluclast/Novozyme (5/1 V/V) 10 FPU/g cellulose.

Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
6 A. Sotiropoulos et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Ethanol production through time (j), glucose ( ) and total reducing sugars ( ) in SSF hydrothermally pretreated material batch process project. Combination
amylolytic and cellulolytic enzymes: (a) Liquozyme 0.049 U/g starch, Spirizyme 5.00 U/g starch, Cellic CTec2 10 FPU/g of cellulose. (b) Liquozyme 5.1 U/g starch, Spirizyme
5.00 U/g starch, Cellic CTec 2 10 FPU/g cellulose.
used throughout the SSF process since the enzymes use are pro-
teins. The fat content to the initial substrate was determined to
be 6% while at the final residue it was 8%.
3.2. Bioconversion process results
In Table 4 the content of soluble components and total polysac-
charides of the dehydrated biomass material used during the bio-
conversion process are recorded.
The quantity of amylolytic and cellulotic enzymes used for the
SSF process is recorded in Table 5.
In Table 6, the results of the production of dried household bio-
waste derived from 12 bioconversion trials using the SSF process
are recorded.
From Figs. 4 and 5 it is derived that the fermentation process
has an increased rate during the first 13 h approximately. The rate
slightly drops until the end of the process which is in 24 h time
period. It should be noted that the glucose is minimized during
the first 12 h.
The maximum ethanol produced reached 29.12 g/L as reported
in Table 6. Man et al. (2011), reported ethanol production of
24.17 g/L using Kluyveromyces marxianus on food waste. Moon
et al. (2009), also performed a 3-h liquefaction process of food
waste using both carbohydrases and amyloglucosidases and the
ethanol production reached 29.1 g/L Wang et al. (2008) reported
ethanol production of about 33.05 g/L of household waste (kitchen
waste) which, the initial total sugar content was high though
(63.88% w/w). Uncu and Cekmecelioglu (2011) reported 32.2 g/L
ethanol production after 59 h of fermentation using food wastes
treated with amylases while Walker et al. (2013), also used food
waste with high starch content, but the produced ethanol was rel-
atively low (8 g/L).
4. Conclusions
Concluding, household biowaste mass and volume reduction
may reach 80% using the decentralized drying method. Moreover,
household biowaste, contain significant amounts of non-
structural sugars and structural polysaccharides (cellulose, starch,
glucose) which differ substantially between seasons. The existence
of such sugars give added value to the final dry biomass (dehy-
drated biowaste) thus, contributing to its use for the production
of ethanol using this alternative resource. This differentiation
Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
should be taken into consideration when designing a biowaste to
ethanol waste management scheme in order to determine the
enzymatic load that should be used. The fact that this differentia-
tion exists, is expected to contribute to the ethanol yields produced
using the SSF process producing high ethanol yields during certain
periods and low ethanol yields during other periods in addition to
first generation ethanol where this differentiation is not signifi-
cant. Moreover, it should be added that the biomass qualitative
characteristics may differ between different regions of the world
thus; initial sampling should be implemented before starting a
household biowaste to ethanol project in order to determine the
produced biowaste characteristics.
Finally, the results of the bioconversion of dehydrated house-
hold biowaste into ethanol revealed that the ethanol produced
reached 29.12 g/L. It reached approximately 63% of the maximum
theoretical yield, which means that the process could be further
optimized. Thus, more trials should be performed regarding differ-
ent quantities of the same enzymes and the elaboration of kinetic
models for the dehydrated biowaste fermentation process. The
production of ethanol is considered to be rather complicated since
not only the substrates’ characteristics differ substantially between
seasons but also, the quality and quantity of the enzymes used also
differs substantially as a result of this differentiation. More
research should be conducted in order to define the best way such
a bioconversion facility should operate and also in regard to the
economic viability of the waste management scheme.
Acknowledgments
This work has been elaborated in the framework of the LIFE +
project entitled: Development and demonstration of an innovative
method of converting waste into bioethanol, Waste2Bio, (LIFE 11
ENV/GR/000949, 2012–2016), which is co-financed by the Euro-
pean Commission. The authors would also like to thank Novo-
zymes Corporation for generously providing the enzyme samples
used for the operation of the bioconversion facility and Vekkos
Recycling Solutions for providing the decentralised biomass dryer
for the needs of this research and also LEAF technologies for gener-
ously providing the yeast.
References
AOAC, 1995. Official methods of analysis. In: Helirich, K. (Ed.), Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, 16th ed. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.
 A. Sotiropoulos et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Dogaris, I., Karapati, S., Mamma, D., Kalogeris, E., Kekos, D., 2009. Hydrothermal
processing and enzymatic hydrolysis of sorghum bagasse for fermentable
carbohydrates production. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 6543–6549. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.046.
EPA, 2012 Available from: <http://www.epa.gov/> (Accessed, 8 May 2015).
Favoino, E., 2003. Source segregation of biowaste in Italy. In: Pres. No. 07. ECN/
ORBIT e.V. Source Separation Workshop 2003.
Gibbs, A., Hogg, D., 2007. Managing Biowastes from Households in the UK: Applying
Life-Cycle Thinking in the Framework of Cost-Benefit Analysis. WRAP.
EUNOMIA.
Malamis, D., Moustakas, K., Bourka, A., Valta, K., Papadaskalopoulou, C., Panaretou,
V., Skiadi, O., Sotiropoulos, A., 2015. Compositional Analysis of Biowaste from
Study Sites in Greek Municipalities. Waste and Biomass Valorization. Waste and
Biomass Valorization. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12649-015-9406-z, ISSN
1877-2641.
Matsakas, L., Kekos, D., Loizidou, M., Christakopoulos, P., 2014. Utilization of
household food waste for the production of ethanol at high dry material
content. Biotechnol. Biofuels 7, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-7-4.
Mayrhofer, S., Mikoviny, T., Waldhuber, S., Wagner, A.O., Innerebner, G., Franke-
Whittle, I.H., Märk, T.D., Hansel, A., Insam, H., 2006. Microbial community
related to volatile organic compound (VOC) emission in household biowaste.
Environ. Microbiol. 8, 1960–1974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.
01076.x.
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
fermentation. Int. J. Energy Res. 33, 164–172.
Olofsson, K., Bertilsson, M., Lidén, G., 2008. A short review on SSF – an interesting
process option for ethanol production from lignocellulosic feedstocks.
Biotechnol. Biofuels 1, 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-1-7.
Please cite this article in press as: Sotiropoulos, A., et al. Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimiza-
tion and ethanol production. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.047
7
Sluiter, A., Hames, B., Ruiz, R.O., Scarlata, C., Sluiter, J., Templeton, D., 2004.
Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. In: Biomass
Analysis Technology Team Laboratory Analytical Procedure. Department of
Energy, pp. 1–14, doi:NREL/TP-510-42618.
Sotiropoulos, A., Malamis, D., Loizidou, M., 2015. Dehydration of domestic food
waste at source as an alternative approach for food waste management. Waste
Biomass Valoriz. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12649-014-9343-2.
Sundberg, C., Franke-Whittle, I.H., Kauppi, S., Yu, D., Romantschuk, M., Insam, H.,
Jönsson, H., 2011. Characterisation of source-separated household waste
intended for composting. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2859–2867. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.075.
Sun, Y., Cheng, J., 2002. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol
production: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 83, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0960-8524(01)00212-7.
Uncu, O.N., Cekmecelioglu, D., 2011. Cost-effective approach to ethanol production
and optimization by response surface methodology. Waste Manage. 31, 636–
643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.12.007.
Walker, K., Vadlani, P., Madl, R., Ugorowski, P., Hohn, Keith L., 2013. Ethanol
fermentation from food processing waste. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 32,
1280–1283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.
Wang, Q., Ma, H., Xu, W., Gong, L., Zhang, W., Zou, D., 2008. Ethanol production from
kitchen garbage using response surface methodology. Biochem. Eng. J. 39, 604–
610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2007.12.018.
World Bank, 2012. A Global Review of Solid Waste Management (No. 15.
Washington, DC, USA).
Waste2bio project DVD film, 2015 Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=hBFoMUhfu5Y> (Accessed, 25 July 2015).