Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biochemical Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bej

Food waste valorization applying the biorefinery concept in the Colombian

context: Pre-feasibility analysis of the organic kitchen food
waste processing
Mariana Ortiz-Sanchez, Juan Camilo Solarte-Toro, Carlos Ariel Cardona Alzate *
Instituto de Biotecnología y Agroindustria, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Nacional de Colombia sede Manizales, Caldas, Manizales Zip Code:
170003, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Food waste has been profiled as a potential source of added-value products and energy vectors. Nevertheless, the
Food waste non-standard composition of food waste has been a bottleneck in proposing different biorefinery configurations.
Poly-lactic acid This paper aims to analyze organic kitchen food waste (OKFW) as a source of valuable products by applying the
Fermentable sugars
biorefinery concept. A compositional model was proposed considering seven food groups and the consumption
Process Design
Bioethanol
trends in Colombia. Biogas and fermentable sugars were produced experimentally. Sugars were considered as
Simulation feedstock for simulating two scenarios for producing bioethanol and polylactic acid. Finally, a techno-economic
assessment was done. As a result, the liquid hot water treatment increases the crystallinity index by 30%,
obtaining a fermentable sugar yield of 0.37 kg/kg of dry OKFW. The exhausted solid after saccharification
produced 0.42 m3 of biogas/kg of exhausted OKFW. Ethanol and polylactic acid yields were 0.14 kg/kg of dry
OKFW and 0.12 kg/kg of dry OKFW. Biogas use in cogeneration units can provide 13.49% and 4.29% of the total
plant energy demand. Sugars concentration and downstream processing were the highest energy-demanding
sections in the proposed scenarios. In conclusion, OKFW is a promising feedstock to produce added-value
products in Colombia. However, biorefineries should be optimized to be robust regardless of the OKFW
composition but considering the most representative fractions.

1. Introduction small-scale processes and household activities. According to the FAO,

Commercial, residential solid or semi-solid (household), and green
waste produced at municipal level is denominated municipal solid waste
(MSW) [1]. The MSW composition differs according to the
socio-economic and cultural context. However, the Food and Agricul­
ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has estimated a per capita
production rate of 0.3–0.74 kg of MSW/person/day worldwide [2]. In
2018, 292.4 million tons of MSW were reported worldwide [3]. Food
and green waste has the highest compositional share in the MSW
composition and represent the 44% [4]. This fraction comes from
Food Waste is a residue generated by retailers, food service providers,
and consumers links of the Food Value Chain [5]. The high variability in
the FW composition has raised several issues. In economic terms, FW
production represents economic losses at any stage of the food value
chain [6]. In environmental terms, the degradation of these residues
contributes to the pollution of natural resources such as water, air, and
soil because of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., CO2, CH4) and waste
streams with a high organic load (e.g., high chemical and biological
oxygen demand) [7]. Finally, FW is related to social problems since the
FW production rate can be analyzed as an indirect indicator of the

Abbreviations: ABTS+, Cation-radical discoloration; C, Cereals; CapEx, Capital Expenditure; CEPCI, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index; CH4, Methane; CO2,
Carbon dioxide; DNP, National Planning Department; DNS, 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid; DP, Dairy products; DPPH, α, α-Difenil-β-picrilhidracilo; FAO, Food and Agri­
culture Organization of the United Nations; FBGU, Fungal Beta Glucanase Units; FS, Fish and eggs; FV, Fruits and vegetables; FW, Food Waste; GAE, Gallic acid
equivalent; GF, Food Groups; H2S, Hydrogen sulfide; LHW, Liquid Hot Water pretreatment; MP, Meat products; MSW, Municipal solid waste; NPV, Net present value;
NRTL, Non-Random Two Liquid; O2, Oxygen; OCP, Oily crops and pulses; OpEx, Operational Expenditures; PLA, Polylactic acid; PMI, Process Mass Intensity index;
PolyNRTL, Poly-Non-Random Two Liquid; OKFW, Organic Kitchen Food Waste; RT, Roots and tubers; SnO, Tin(II) oxide; TPC, Total Phenolic Compounds; UASB,
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; VT, Volatile solids; XRD, X-ray diffraction.
* Correspondence to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Manizales, Zip Code: 170003, Caldas, Manizales, Colombia.
E-mail addresses: mortizs@unal.edu.co (M. Ortiz-Sanchez), jcsolartet@unal.edu.co (J.C. Solarte-Toro), ccardonaal@unal.edu.co (C.A.C. Alzate).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2023.108864
Received 4 October 2022; Received in revised form 7 February 2023; Accepted 19 February 2023
Available online 24 February 2023
1369-703X/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V.
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
existing food inequality, food access, and production systems in­
efficiencies worldwide [8]. Several authors studied how to reduce the
amount of FW produced by implementing governmental policies and
other valorization alternatives [9]. Nevertheless, these attempts to
reduce FW have not achieved the expected results since an integral effort
must be done to overcome technical, economic, environmental, and
social bottlenecks [10]. Indeed, context-based policies and solutions
should be proposed since FW generation causes are different in all
countries and regions due to cultural aspects.
FW examples are Organic Kitchen Food Waste (OKFW) and any
organic waste discarded in a supermarket (e.g., peel, seeds, ripened
fruits, vegetables, bones, blood, meat, and expired processed foods)
[11]. An annual OKFW production of 32 kg/person in Colombia has
been estimated. Traditional disposal methods are incineration and
landfill. Some alternatives that have been implemented to add value
OKFW are the production of animal feed and composting. [12]. How­
ever, Colombian regulations do not allow the implementation of these
alternatives in large-scale facilities. The versatility of the OKFW chem­
ical composition allows proposing pathways to obtain a portfolio of
products from biotechnological, catalytic, and physical processes [13].
Trends for the recovery of OKFW are guided to the production of biogas,
ethanol, butanol, volatile fatty acids, and hydrogen [14]. Other valori­
zation pathways, such as bacterial cellulose [15], 2, 3-butanediol [16],
and polylactic acid [17] have been addressed. However, the
non-standardized OKFW chemical composition generates a disadvan­
tage in the production process since a quality control must be done for
the products (i.e., the process always needs to guarantee the quality and
quantity of the products). Therefore, designing robust processes with a
high technological readiness level is an option for the valorization of
OKFW. On the other hand, the integral valorization of the raw material
must be considered to mitigate the issues related to the bad disposal of
OKFW. Then, the biorefinery concept achieves to take advantage of the
raw material fractions to obtain different types of products seeking
economic, environmental, and social pre-feasibility in any context [18].
OKFW valorization proposals involving processes addressed to
generate products with high commercialization potential, such as bio­
fuels and bioplastics, under the biorefinery concept are needed. How­
ever, few studies have focused on analyzing the economic pre-feasibility
of OKFW to these products by considering experimental information and
simulation tools simultaneously. In this way, this study aims to evaluate
the techno-economic prefeasibility of two biorefineries scenarios
addressed to produce ethanol, polylactic acid, and biogas as main
products. The prefeasibility analysis was based on experimental data
such as chemical composition, total and volatile solids content, raw
material pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and biogas production.
These data were used as input in the simulation and analysis of the
proposed biorefineries.
2. Methodology
The techno-economic assessment of the OKFW-based biorefineries
was done following three steps. The first step involved experimental
procedures. Then, the raw material (i.e., OKFW) was characterized to
determine the cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, extractives, ash, starch,
and moisture content based on standard methods reported in the open
literature. Then, the fermentable sugars and biogas production was
carried out at laboratory scale. Liquid Hot Water (LHW) pretreatment
was performed to assess the effect on fermentable sugars and biogas
production yields. The second step was related to the design of two
biorefineries. The first process is addressed to produce ethanol and
biogas, while the second process is addressed to produce polylactic acid
and biogas. Experimental yields, kinetic models, and open literature
information were used as input data to simulate the biorefineries in
Aspen Plus v9.0 and calculate the mass and energy balances. The third
step was guided to assess the techno-economic performance of the
proposed biorefineries by estimating mass and energy indicators (e.g.,
2
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
yields, specific energy consumption, self-generation index) and eco­
nomic metrics (e.g., net present value – NPV, payback period).
2.1. Experimental procedures
2.1.1. Raw material: composition model of organic kitchen food waste
A composition model was proposed to establish the OKFW constit­
uents. The FW composition model was proposed following a mathe­
matical expression involving seven Groups of Food (GF) proposed by
FAO [19] (Dairy products – DP, Fish and eggs – FS, Meat products – MP,
Fruits and vegetables – FV, Oily crops and pulses – OCP, Roots and tu­
bers – RT and Cereals – C). Eq. 1 presents the mathematic expression of
FW model:
∑
7
FW CompModel = ai GF i (1)
i=1
The food groups share of the composition model was defined from
reports of government entities. The report of the National Planning
Department (DNP) on "Food loss and waste generated in Colombia" was
considered to define the share of the seven food groups [20]. Eq. 2 shows
the mathematical expression of the composition model with the share of
each food group:
OKFW Model = 0%(DP) + 1%(FS) + 3%(MP) + 62%(FV) + 1%(OCP)
+ 25%(RT) + 8%(C) (2)
The most representative foods were defined according to the basic
family basket of Colombia for each group. From this, Databases reported
by government entities on consumption statistics (including imported
foods) were used [21]. Eqs. 3 to 8 present the foods of the basic family
basket and the share considered for each group:
FS1% = 20%(fish bone) + 80%(egg shells) (3)
MP3% = 50%(beef bone) + 45%(chicken bone) + 5%(meat waste) (4)
FV 62% = 20%(tomato peel) + 16%(onion peel) + 10%(bean residues)
+ 1%(pumpkin peel) + 4%(lettuce residues)
+ 3%(cabbage residues) + 1%(beetroot peel)
+ 1%(celery residues) + 10%(citric peel and seed)
+ 5%(banana peel) + 5%(mango peel and seed)
+ 5%(guava seeds) + 5%(tree tomato peel and pulp)
+ 4%(spent blackberry pulp)
+ 3%(passion fruit peel and pulp) + 1%(strawberry residues)
+ 3%(avocado peel and seed) + 1%(papaya peel and seed)
+ 1%(apple residues) + 1%(lulo peel and pulp)
(5)
OCP1% = 100%(used vegetable oil) (6)
RT 25% = 60%(patato peel) + 30%(cassava peel) + 10%(carrot peel) (7)
C8% = 100%(rice) (8)
2.1.2. Raw material conditioning
The OKFW composition was handmade in the laboratory based on
the composition model. Thus, the raw material (OKFW) was not sub­
jected to a decomposition process in a kitchen for days, avoiding mi­
croorganisms contamination and degradation. Instead, the OKFW was
dried in an electric oven at 40 ◦ C overnight until reaching a constant
moisture content (< 10%). An electric oven was employed to avoid
contact between the OKFW samples and circulating air to minimize
sample contamination. The moisture content was controlled by using a
Shimadzu Moisture Balance MOC-120 H. Then, the samples were milled
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
to a particle size of 0.42 mm (i.e., 40 ASTM Mesh) in a blade mill (Gy­
ratory mill SR200 Gusseisen, Redsch GmbH, Germany). Finally, the
samples were stored until use in a vacuum bag. The above-described
process was done to avoid possible raw material decomposition by
microorganism action, components ripening, and oxidation. Then, the
OKFW chemical composition change over time was not considered in
this study.
2.1.3. Chemical characterization
The OKFW samples were analyzed in terms of chemical composition
(extractives, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectin, fats, starch, and
ash), and total and volatile solids. For the OKFW chemical composition,
the extractives content was determined in water and ethanol [22]. The
cellulose and hemicellulose contents were determined by implementing
the chlorination method reported by Rowell et al., [23]. Kraft lignin was
found following the TAPPI-T-222 om-02 [24]. The total pectin content
was found by applying the method reported by Yu et al. [25], [24]. The
fat content was quantified by Soxhlet extraction with n-hexane for 24 h
[26]. The starch content was calculated by precipitation with barium
hydroxide according to Von Asboth [27]. Finally, the ash content was
estimated by applying the NREL/TP-510–42622 standard [28]. Total
and volatile solids were measured following the ASTM E1756–08 and
2540 G standard method.
2.1.4. Liquid hot water (LHW) pretreatment
Dried and grounded raw material was pretreated with hot water in a
shaker incubator (Binder BD 115, SK-O330). The operating conditions
were solid-liquid ratio 1:10, 80 ◦ C, 200 rpm for 2 h. The effective vol­
ume of the pretreatment process was 300 mL. The pretreatment mixture
was vacuum filtered to separate liquid and solid fractions. The liquid
fraction was characterized in terms of fermentable sugars, total phenolic
compounds (TPC), and total antioxidant activity (TAA). The 3,5-dinitro­
salicylic acid (DNS) method was used to determine the fermentable
sugar content, TPC was measured with the Singleton Folin-Ciocalteu
colorimetric method [23] with modifications [29]. TAA was deter­
mined using the DPPH ((2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) discoloration
method. DPPH was performed by the method described by Marinova
et al. [30], Molyneux et al. [31], and Brand-Williams et al. [32]. On the
other hand, the solid fraction was dried and weighted to estimate the
solid gravimetric recovery (i.e., the ratio between the weight of the
pretreated solid and the initial weight of the sample). In addition, the
crystallinity index was measured from x-ray diffraction (XRD) before
and after the pretreatment stage. The equipment used was a RIGAKU
MINIFLEX II diffractometer with monochromatic Cu-Kα radiation. Segal
et al. [33] defined the operating conditions to determine the crystallinity
index.
2.1.5. Enzymatic hydrolysis
After LHW pretreatment, the OKFW enzymatic hydrolysis was car­
ried out with the remaining solid. A commercial enzyme cocktail (Vis­
cozyme L, Novozymes) was used to hydrolyze cellulose, hemicellulose,
and pectin. The enzyme activity of the cocktail was 100 FBG/g (Fungal
Beta-Glucanase). The saccharification process was performed in a
500 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The effective reaction volume of the enzy­
matic hydrolysis process was 250 mL. The operating conditions were pH
3.5 with 0.05 M sodium citrate buffer, 55 ◦ C, solid-liquid ratio 1:20 w/v,
enzyme concentration of 0.08 mL/g of dry raw material, and 150 rpm.
These operating conditions were established as reported by Molina-
Peñate et al. [34]. The enzymatic hydrolysis was executed for 72 h to
guarantee carbohydrate depolymerization. Enzymatic hydrolysis pro­
cess was done in triplicate. Solid and liquid fractions were separated
through vacuum filtration. Exhausted solid samples were used to mea­
sure the crystallinity index, total solids, and volatile solids after the
enzymatic hydrolysis process.
3
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
2.1.6. Biogas production
Biogas production was performed after the pretreatment and enzy­
matic hydrolysis procedure. The standard VDI 4630 was used to eval­
uate the biogas production potential [35]. This assay considered an
inoculum-to-substrate ratio of 0.4 on a volatile solids basis in a batch
process. The sludge from an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor was used as inoculum in the biogas production assays. The
sludge was acquired in a wastewater treatment plant of a coffee pro­
cessing company located in Chinchiná, Caldas (4◦ 59′ 21.555′′ N and 75◦
36′ 31.716′′ W). The anaerobic digestion assay involved micronutrients
and macronutrients to ensure biogas production (see dosage in Table 1).
The composition of these solutions are presented in Table 1 [36]. Biogas
production was done by triplicate. Gas production was measured by the
volumetric displacement method [37]. Water was used to measure the
biogas volume. Water was changed daily to avoid carbon dioxide solu­
bilization and inaccurate data registration. Biogas composition (carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), oxygen (O2), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S))
was recorded using a portable gas analyzer (Gasboard-3200 L). The
biogas production yields were reported considering as normal condi­
tions (i.e., T = 273.15 K and P = 1 atm).
2.2. OKFW-based biorefineries: design, simulation and evaluation
In accordance with the aim of this study, two biorefineries were
proposed to evaluate alternative pathways to upgrade OKFW from a
techno-economic point of view. The conceptual design of the bio­
refineries was done based on the hierarchy, sequencing, and integration
concepts. Then, the simulation of the proposed biorefineries was
executed using experimental results and kinetics from previous assays
and the open literature. Finally, the technical and economic assessment
was done by estimating mass, energy, and economic indicators.
2.2.1. Conceptual design and processes description
Biorefineries simulation using OKFW as raw material was performed
using experimental results from the LHW pretreatment, enzymatic hy­
drolysis, and biogas production. After these stages, the liquid fraction
resulting of the saccharification process was used to produce ethanol
and polylactic acid. These products were proposed as alternatives to
non-renewable plastics and fossil fuels, respectively. The first bio­
refinery produces ethanol and biogas (scenario 1). The first biorefinery
is composed of five areas (i) raw materials storage, (ii) raw materials
conditioning, (iii) enzymatic hydrolysis, (iv) ethanol production, and (v)
biogas production (see Fig. 1). Meanwhile, the second biorefinery pro­
duces polylactic acid and biogas (scenario 2). This biorefinery is
composed of six areas (i) raw materials storage, (ii) raw material con­
ditioning, (iii) enzymatic hydrolysis, (iv) lactic acid production, (v)
polylactic acid production, and (vi) biogas production (see Fig. 2).
OKFW conditioning is carried out by cutting the raw material using a
double-shaft shredder machine. Then, OKFW is dried to ensure a mois­
ture content of less than 10% in an industrial dryer at 65 ◦ C. Afterward,
the raw material is grounded to standardize the particle size throughout
Table 1
Macro and micronutrients considered in the digestion.
Macronutrients (3 mL Amount Micronutrients (0.1 mL per Amount
per 100 mL of (g/L) 100 mL of digestion) (g/L)
digestion)
Ammonium chloride 34 Iron(II) chloride tetrahydrate 2.00
Zinc chloride 0.05
Ammonium molybdate 0.05
Sodium chloride 10 Ethylenediaminetetraacetic 0.50
acid
Aluminum chloride 0.05
Magnesium chloride 10 Cobalt(II) chloride hexahydrate 0.05
hexahydrate Boric acid 0.05
Calcium chloride 5 Hydrochloric acid 1 mL
dihydrate Yeast extract 1.00
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al. Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864

Fig. 1. The flow block diagram of ethanol production (scenario 1).

Fig. 2. The flow block diagram of polylactic acid production (scenario 2).

the process. The pretreatment stage consists of feeding the raw material
to a jacketed and agitated tank. The operating conditions are the same as
defined in the experimental section. Then, the liquor is filtered. The
liquid fraction is concentrated in a flash at 60 ◦ C and 0.8 bar to obtain
liquor rich in polyphenols (60% phenolic compounds). On the other
hand, the pretreated solid is sent to the saccharification stage. The
OKFW enzymatic hydrolysis is carried out in an agitated jacketed tank.
Sodium citrate buffer is previously prepared and stored in a tank. The
operating conditions are those mentioned in the experimental section (i.
e., temperature, enzyme loading, and solid to liquid ratio). The

4
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
saccharification residence time will be set according to the experimental
results to avoid oversizing the required equipment in this section. Then,
a temperature increase is done in the same tank to denature the enzyme.
The enzymatic hydrolysis mixture is filtered. The liquid phase is fed to
the ethanol or lactic acid production areas. The solid is fed to the
anaerobic digestion area. At the beginning of the anaerobic digestion
process, the inoculum is added to start the biogas production process.
Then, no more inoculum is added since the anaerobic digester can
degrade new organic feedstocks (i.e., the consortium of microorganisms
is adapted to the operating conditions and substrate). Biogas production
uses a jacketed and stirred bioreactor to maintain mesophilic conditions.
The residence time was defined according to the experimental tests.
Next, moisture is removed from biogas using a chiller. Instead, the
digestate is dried to ensure a moisture content of less than 50% for
obtaining a secondary product (i.e., fertilizer).
Ethanol production used Zymomonas mobilis to upgrade C6 sugars.
The fermentable sugars concentration was increased up to 130 g/L. The
operating conditions are 33 ◦ C and 30 h. The liquor is autoclaved and
filtered. The liquid fraction is fed to a distillation unit. The first distil­
lation column obtains a concentration between 50% and 55% w/w of
ethanol. In the second column, the azeotropic point is reached (95.6%
w/w). Then, the mixture is dehydrated in a molecular sieves unit until
reaching a concentration of 99.7%. On the other hand, polylactic acid
production begins by obtaining lactic acid by sugars fermentation with
Lactobacillus casei and subsequent catalytic upgrading with SnO. First,
the fermentable sugars concentration was increased up to 110 g/L.
Fermentation conditions are 42 ◦ C and 48 h. The fermentable sugars
conversion is 80%. Next, the separation and purification of lactic acid
are carried out by precipitation with calcium hydroxide (90 ◦ C). The
solution is filtered, mixed with sulfuric acid, and filtered again to
remove calcium sulfate and impurities. The lactic acid liquor is sent to a
liquid-liquid extraction column fed with dodecanol to remove other
impurities. Lactic acid is fed to a distillation column until reaching a
concentration of 80% w/w. The purified lactic acid is fed to an oligo­
merization reactor to generate low molecular weight polylactic acid.
The vapors generated in the reactor are fed to a distillation column to
separate the non-reacting lactic acid. Afterward, this stream is sent to
the oligomerization reactor. The catalyst used in this reactor is tin oxide
(SnO). The operating conditions are 0.53 bar and 60 ◦ C. Then, the liquor
is fed to a reactor to produce lactide at 200 ◦ C and 1 bar. Lactide is
purified in two vacuum distillation columns and sent to the polymeri­
zation reactor. Waster and non-reacting lactic acid are removed in the
first and second distillation columns, respectively. The polymerization
reactor operates at 200 ◦ C and 1 bar. Finally, the polylactic acid pro­
duced is separated on a filter.
2.2.2. Simulation procedure
The simulation of the proposed biorefineries was done using the
Aspen Plus V.9.0 software (Aspen Technology, Inc., Houston, USA). The
processing scale for the two biorefinery scenarios was 44.5 ton/h of
OKFW (corresponding to 1% of the FW generated in Colombia). The
simulations were done using the Non-Random Two Liquids (NRTL) and
Hayden-O′ Connell equation of state (EoS) to model the liquid and vapor
phases in the simulation. In the case of the polylactic acid simulation,
the PolyNRTL was used to model the polymerization reactions. The
thermodynamic properties reported by the National Research Energy
Laboratory (NREL) were used to introduce components such as cellu­
lose, hemicellulose, starch, lignin, enzymes, and microorganisms.
Properties such as free energy of formation (DGSFRM) and enthalpy of
combustion (HCOM) were estimated based on the correlation reported
by Peduzzi et al., [38] OKFW conditioning, LHW pretreatment, enzy­
matic hydrolysis, and biogas production were simulated based on
experimental results. Then, RYield and RStoic aspen models were used
to find mass and energy balances. Ethanol production was simulated
considering the aspen models and kinetics reported by Quintero et al.
[39]. On the other hand, the kinetic model reported by Lin et al. [40]
5
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
and Seavey et al. [41] were considered for the lactic acid and polylactic
acid production, respectively.
2.2.3. Techno-economic assessment of biorefineries
The technical evaluation of biorefineries scenarios was based on
mass and energy indicators. The mass indicators evaluated were the
product yield and process mass intensity index (PMI) described by Ruiz-
Mercado [42]. The product yield is the ratio between the output product
flow and the input raw material flow (i.e., ethanol, polylactic acid,
biogas, and OKFW). The process mass intensity index is the ratio be­
tween the total raw materials input flow (i.e., OKFW, water, enzymes,
dodecanol, etc.) and the total product output flow (i.e., ethanol, poly­
lactic acid, biogas). These indicators are estimated to calculate how
much the raw material is upgraded to the desired products. The energy
indicators considered were the overall energy efficiency and
self-generation index. The overall energy efficiency is the ratio between
the heating, cooling, and energy content of the output streams and the
total mass input flow. Finally, the self-generation index is the ratio be­
tween the energy produced by the combustion of an energy vector (i.e.,
biogas) in a cogeneration unit and the heating and cooling process
requirements.
The economic evaluation of the proposed biorefineries was achieved
by considering a detailed economic assessment [43]. This assessment
considers the basic conceptual design and aspects of detailed engineer­
ing to improve the Capital Expenditures (CapEx) estimation for
decreasing uncertainty. This analysis was done in US dollars, the project
life was fixed at 20 years, and the economic context of Colombia was
considered. The tax rate and interest rate were 35% and 9.4%, respec­
tively. The straight-line depreciation method was applied. The salvage
value was 0%. The equipment costs were determined using the software
Aspen Process Economic Analyzer v.9.0. The baseline year to perform
the equipment costs was 2015 (CEPCI2015 = 557). Then, the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) was used to bring equipment cost
to current cost (CEPCI2021: 708). The estimation of the raw materials,
operating, utility, general, and administrative costs was done using
methods explained by Sinnott and Towler (i.e., maintenance 6%, fixed
charges 3%, plant overhead 1.5% and general administrative costs 0.6%
of the fixed capital cost) [44]. The raw material price, utility costs, labor
costs, and product price costs were calculated based on the market price.
8000 h of work was considered in the year. Three shifts per day was
considered in the plant to guarantee a continuous operation. In the case
of the biogas production unit, the price of the inoculum was assumed as
the cost of transportation. Indeed, the assumed cost was 0.2 USD/ton of
anaerobic sludge supplied by a wastewater treatment plant located at a
20 km of distance. In the anaerobic digestion process, the inoculum must
be supplied for the first six months of running the plant [44]. In this
period, the anaerobic digestion process stabilizes and the inoculum
autogenerates. For this reason, the cost of inoculum is considered only
for this time period. Operational Expenditures (OpEx) was defined with
annual operation, utility, raw materials, and maintenance costs, while
the Capital Expenditures (CaPex) was defined considering the total
capital investment for each area of the proposed biorefineries.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Experimental results
OKFW is composed of organic fractions such as carbohydrates, pro­
teins, fibers (i.e., cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin), lipids, and traces
of inorganic components such as ash [45]. The OKFW composition de­
pends on the origin and consumption trends. Nevertheless, similarities
can be found in the open literature. the OKFW chemical characterization
results obtained in this work are compared with other reports in the
open literature (see Table 2). The values provided in Table 2 are on dry
basis. Cellulose and starch are the main compounds in OKFW samples
(about 45% of raw material on a dry basis). These results demonstrate
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al. Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864

Table 2 Table 3
OKFW chemical composition based on the proposed composition model and Experimental results of the LHW pretreatment, saccharification, and anaerobic
comparison with other literature reports. digestion of OKFW.
Item This Dinner shop Kitchen Organic Liquid Hot Water Pretreatment
work food waste waste [49] municipal solid
Item Units Value
(%) [48] waste [50]
Solid gravimetric recovery % w/w 57.02
Moisture 83.15 75.90 80.30 N.R.
± 4.7
Extractives* 20.92 42.30 59.80 56.20
Fermentable sugar g/L 0.59
± 0.65
concentration ± 0.05
Starch* 25.77 7.06 N.R. N.R.
TPC mg GAE/g of raw OKFW 133
± 0.34
± 14.57
Cellulose* 19.71 10.26 N.R. 46.30
DPPH mMTrox/g of raw OKFW 8
± 2.67
EC50/mL 5
Hemicellulose 5.12 36.50
Crystallinity index before % 58.3
* ± 0.29
pretreatment
Lignin* 13.69 0.80 N.R.
Crystallinity index after % 17.5
± 0.34
pretreatment
Fats* 6.34 3.10 15.70 15.60
Enzymatic hydrolysis
± 0.40
Item Units Value
Protein* N.A. 3.90 21.80 N.R.
Solid gravimetric recovery % w/w 40.96
Pectin* 5.23 N.R. N.R. 4.30
± 2.01
± 0.57
Yield g fermentable sugar/g of 0.65
Ash* 3.23 1.25 1.90 1.90
pretreated OKFW ± 0.04
± 0.03
Concentration g fermentable sugars/L 64.23 g/L
* Crystallinity index after % 12.13
Values given on a dry basis. N.A.: No Applied; N.R.: No reported
saccharfication
Biogas production
the OKFW potential to obtain high-value products and energy vectors Item Units Value
since these components can produce the C6 sugars platform. Caldeira Total solids of OKFW g/100 g of exhausted* OKFW 21.67
et al. [46] defines possible valorization pathways for obtaining enzymes, ± 0.29
Volatile solids of OKFW g/100 g of exhausted* OKFW 20.54
polyunsaturated fatty acids, collagen, bioactive compounds, polymers,
± 0.32
and proteins. Pour et al. [47] analyzed different transformation routes Total solids of sludge g/100 g of sludge 4.70
(e.g., thermochemical, chemical, and biotechnological) of FW for pro­ ± 0.57
ducing different energy vectors such as syngas, bio-oil, biochar, bio­ Volatile solids of sludge g/100 g of sludge 4.23
diesel, and biogas. The OKFW extractives content was 20.92% on a dry ± 0.53
Time Days 17
basis. This raw material fraction contains compounds such as soluble
Biogas volume produced mL/80 mL of digestion 147 ± 1.65
sugars, resins, tannins, pigments, and phenolic compounds. Biogas yield Nm3/kg of VS of exhausted 0.41
The chemical composition obtained in this work is similar to those OKFW ± 0.12
presented in Table 2. However, FW is characterized and studied based Methane content % 56.31
± 2.36
on a specific waste generated in a particular sector (e.g., kitchen, dinner
Carbon dioxide content % 43.69
shop, or canteen) and location (e.g., restaurants). The high variation of ± 1.59
the FW residues is the most important limiting factor for a global Hydrogen sulfide content ppm 58 ± 1.98
valuation of FW since process design is based on raw material compo­ *
Exhausted OKFW: remaining solid after the pretreatment and enzymatic
sition. For this reason, proposing a composition model that fits the food
hydrolysis process.
consumption trends of a region would allow defining contextualized
transformation routes since the uncertainty grade of the FW chemical
pretreatment liquor in terms of antioxidant capacity resulted in 5 EC50/
composition will be decreased. In terms of moisture, the OKFW ranges
mL and 8 mMTrox/g of dry OKFW. Like the TPC, the antioxidant ca­
between of 60–80%. The extracts content is between 35% and 60%. The
pacity proves the potential of the OKFW extracts to be valued [56]. The
starch content is between 7% and 40%. On the other hand, the fiber
crystallinity index of the sample before and after the pretreatment stage
content (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) is between 20% and 60%.
was 17.5% and 58.3%, respectively. Several studies have reported a high
The complete characterization of OKFW allows for elucidating the
content of bioactive compounds present in FW from fruits and vegeta­
transformation routes, potential raw material fractions, and possible
bles [57]. Nevertheless, the applications of OKFW extracts are limited
products portfolio. The physical conversion for OKFW involves using
due to the raw material origin (e.g., antioxidants from OKFW can have
pectin, flavonoid, starch, and fats [51]. The products obtained can be
resistance as food additives from consumers). An alternative is to use
represented in food and organic molecules [52]. Biotechnological con­
these bioactive compounds in thermosetting plastics and biomaterials
version is related to all fermentations, and saccharification routes [53].
[58]. Regarding the crystallinity index, the cellulose crystalline struc­
Cellulose, hemicellulose, starch, and pectin fractions are used in OKFW
ture makes raw material conversion difficult for added-value products
[54]. For these, the products type to be obtained are food, organic
obtaining [59]. Cellulose limits the conversion of OKFW since this raw
molecules, biofuels, and biomaterials [55].
material has higher amounts of this structural polymer than hemicel­
Table 3 reports the experimental results of the pretreatment, enzy­
lulose, and lignin. This statement is because glucan in hemicellulose is
matic hydrolysis, and anaerobic digestion.
an amorphous polymer. In this sense, an increase in the crystallinity
The solid gravimetric recovery of the LHW process was 57.02
index after a pretreatment evidences the high removal of amorphous
± 4.7% w/w. Then, almost 50% of the initial raw material was degraded
glucan fraction. Then, the pretreatment process has a high effect on the
to soluble components (e.g., sugars, and phenolic compounds). The
OKFW matrix.
fermentable sugars concentration in the LHW hydrolysate was 0.59
The solid gravimetric recovery of the saccharification process was
± 0.05 g/L. Then, a fermentable sugars productivity of 0.29 g of
40.96 ± 2.01% w/w. The fermentable sugars concentration reached was
fermentable sugars/L/h was obtained. On the other hand, TPC was 133
64.08 g/L after 72 h. The global enzymatic hydrolysis yield was 0.65
± 14.57 mg GAE/g of dry raw OKFW. This result demonstrates the
± 0.04 g of fermentable sugar/g of dry OKFW. The saccharification
presence of phenolic compounds in the liquor. Characterization of the
process concluded at 30 h since the fermentable sugars concentration

6
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
did not vary more than 10% after this time. Then, a productivity of
2.14 g of fermentable sugars/L/h was obtained. Molina-Peñate et al.
[34] reported a fermentable sugar yield of 0.37 g/g of OKFW without
raw material pretreatment using the same operating conditions.
Therefore, the LHW pretreatment increases the fermentable sugars yield
after enzymatic hydrolysis.
On the other hand, Taheri et al. [60] analyzed the influence of pre­
treatments different (e.g., hydrothermolysis, sonolysis, electrochemical
oxidation, sono-electrochemical oxidation, and solid-liquid fat extrac­
tion) on the production of fermentable sugars, obtaining the extraction
of fats with hexane as the best pretreatment before enzymatic hydroly­
sis. In addition, the hydrothermolysis pretreatment showed lower yields
than the control assay (raw material without pretreatment). This
behavior is because the hydrothermolysis pretreatment (high pressure
and high temperature <120 ◦ C) does not effectively disrupt the cellu­
lose, hemicellulose, and lignin structure of the raw material [61].
However, the high yields obtained in this work are attributed to the use
of the enzyme cocktail with the potential to degrade cellulose, hemi­
cellulose, and other structural carbohydrates (pectin). Additionally, the
LHW pretreatment allowed obtaining a high removal of the amorphous
fraction of the raw material, leaving the biomass more accessible to
enzymatic attack. These results have the same trend as reported by
Mahmoodi et [62] and Hafid et al. [63]. The crystallinity index of the
exhausted solid after the saccharification stage was 12.13%. Then, most
of the amorphous fraction of OKFW has been removed.
The total and volatile solids content of exhausted OKFW (i.e., after
pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis) were 21.67 ± 0.29 g/100 g of
raw material and 20.54 ± 0.32 g/100 g of raw material, respectively
(see Table 3). The total and volatile solids content of the sludge was
4.70 ± 0.57 g/100 g of sludge and 4.23 g/100 g of sludge, respectively.
The volume of the anaerobic fermentation was 80 mL. Fig. 3 shows the
biogas production in 17 days of fermentation. The cumulative biogas
curve was stopped since low volumes of biogas were registered daily at
the end of the process. Therefore, most of the raw material was digested.
The volume of biogas produced was 147 mL. The biogas yield was 0.42
Nm3/kg of VS exhausted OKFW with methane, carbon dioxide, and
hydrogen sulfide content of 56.31%, 43.69%, and 58 ppm, respectively.
The content of fruits and vegetables present in the FW provides a
high content of nutrients (i.e., vitamins, minerals, etc.), improving
methane production performance [64]. The results obtained in this work
after the previous stages are similar to those reported in the literature
[65]. Zhang et al. [66] report results of 0.435 Nm3/kg of VS of FW from
San Francisco with a methane content of 73%. In this study, the con­
ditioning of the raw material was grinding, and the digestion time was
less than 10 days. This indicates that the previous stages analyzed in this
work (including enzymatic hydrolysis) manage to increase the expected
biogas yield. In this sense, these stages manage to solubilize the residual
fractions of the raw material (mainly protein). Scherzinger et al. [67]
report that FW pretreatment plays a dominant role in anaerobic diges­
tion processes as it breaks down the cellular structure of foods by sol­
ubilizing the organic fraction.
Fig. 3. Biogas production of OKFW.
7
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
3.2. Technical indicators
Mass indicators were estimated based on the mass balances of the
proposed biorefinery configurations. The first assessed indicator was the
product yield. Ethanol production yield was 0.14 kg ethanol/kg of dry
OKFW. On the other hand, PLA production yield was 0.12 kg PLA/kg of
dry OKFW. Then, the PLA production yield was lower than in the case of
ethanol. This difference between the product yields can be explained
considering the conversion pathways of each bioproduct. Indeed, sugars
conversion to ethanol have a maximum conversion yield of 0.51 kg/kg
glucose (i.e., theoretical value). Nevertheless, total glucose conversion is
not reached in the fermentation process since different restrictions
related sugars conversion are present. The maximum sugars conversion
to ethanol was 0.42 kg/kg glucose (i.e., a conversion efficiency of 82%).
Another contributing factor the ethanol production yield is related to the
ethanol recovery from the fermentation broth. This recovery was 90%,
losing 10% of the product in waste streams of the stripping and rectifi­
cation columns. On the other hand, the PLA production process involves
the lactic acid production, purification, and polymerization stages.
Glucose conversion for producing lactic acid is higher than the conver­
sion reported for producing ethanol. The lactic acid yield is 0.80 kg/kg
of glucose [40]. Then, more lactic acid is produced using the same initial
concentration of fermentable sugars. Nevertheless, the lactic acid re­
covery is poor compared with the ethanol recovery from the fermenta­
tion broth. Indeed, 55% of the lactic acid is recovered in the simulation
since there are several product losses during the precipitation, solubi­
lization, and distillation steps [68]. All these processing stages are
required since the PLA production process cannot be performed if a high
impurities concentration is present in the lactic acid stream. The PLA
production process has a high conversion and purification performance.
The PLA yield after the simulation procedure was 0.75 kg/kg of lactic
acid.
Ethanol production seems to be the best alternative from the mass
performance point of view since more amount of product is obtained
after OKFW processing. Nevertheless, several aspects must be consid­
ered before proposing ethanol production as an alternative to upgrade
OKFW in Colombia. For instance, ethanol production is restricted to
sugar mills. Instead, PLA production is a most feasible option since large
amounts of raw material are available and production is not restricted
by the government. Regarding to the biogas yield, this value was the
same obtained in the experimental section since the experimental data
was used to perform the simulations. Then, a biogas production yield of
0.42 m3/kg of OKFW was obtained (i.e., a yield of 0.38 kg biogas/kg of
dry OKFW). The global yield of the first biorefinery (i.e., ethanol +
biogas) was 0.52 kg of products/kg of dry OKFW. Meanwhile, the total
yield of the second biorefinery (PLA + biogas) was 0.50 kg of product/
kg of dry OKFW. Finally, the production capacity of the proposed bio­
refineries were 1329 m3/day of ethanol and 900 kg/day of PLA.
The process mass intensity (PMI) index was estimated for the both
biorefineries. This index is defined as the required raw material mass to
produce 1 kg of products [44]. The first biorefinery gives a PMI index of
11.48 kg of raw materials/kg of product (i.e., ethanol), while the second
biorefinery gives a PMI value of 14.12 kg of raw materials/kg of product
(i.e., polylactic acid). These values were estimated avoiding the process
water consumption in both processes as stated by Tobiszewski et al.,
[69]. Then, the raw materials involved to make this estimation were the
mass flow of OKFW and supplies (e.g., sludge, enzymes, solvents). The
PMI must tend to 1 to consider a process with a high mass efficiency (i.e.,
raw materials are upgraded into the desired products avoiding waste
stream generation). The calculated PMI values agree with the reported
values for chemical processes (i.e., PMI < 30) since bulk chemicals
production have a relative low mass efficiency. These results suggest
that the second process (i.e., polylactic acid production) involves more
inputs (e.g., sulfuric acid, dodecanol, calcium hydroxide). Then, the first
biorefinery has a better mass performance.
The energy performance evaluation was done by considering the
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
specific energy consumption and self-generation index as indicators. The
second biorefinery (i.e., PLA production) has a higher energy con­
sumption than the first biorefinery (i.e., ethanol production). Indeed, the
specific energy consumption of the second biorefinery was 411.76 GJ/
ton of OKFW. Meanwhile, the specific energy consumption of the first
process was 131.16 GJ/ton of OKFW. The high energy consumption of
the second biorefinery is attributed to the high number of operations
required to produce the desired product (i.e., lactic acid production,
lactic acid recovery, lactide production, PLA production and recovery).
Moreover, the PLA production process has a high energy demand since
several vacuum operations are performed. On the other hand, the first
process obtained a lower specific energy consumption since few unit
operations are involved compared with the second biorefinery. The
specific energy consumption was estimated considering the sugars
concentration in the two proposed scenarios. Sugars concentration has a
high influence on the final results since a lot of energy is required for
water evaporation. Indeed, the sugars concentration step contributes
35.67% and 21.05% of the total energy consumption, respectively.
These results are similar to those reported by Quintero et al., [70]. These
authors evaluated the influence of the sugars concentration on the
ethanol production process. As results, more than 40% of the total en­
ergy demand was contributed by this process. Regarding the
self-generation index, biogas production can be used as an energy vec­
tor. Indeed, biogas could provide 13.51% and 4.29% of the total energy
demand of the proposed biorefineries after cogeneration. Then, external
energy sources (i.e., fossil fuels) are required.
3.3. Economic results
The economic analysis of the two scenarios was performed by
changing the processing scale. Fig. 4 shows the results of the economic
analysis of the two OKFW-based biorefineries.
In the ethanol and polylactic acid production scenarios, the proposed
processing scale (i.e., 44.5 ton/day) presents economic feasibility at 16
and 9 years, respectively. For scenario 1, the payback period is later
despite presenting a higher NPV. One of the reasons is the lower ethanol
market price compared to the polylactic acid price. Scenario 2 presents
higher investments in terms of CapEx and OpEx. The high cost of CapEx
is because the lactic acid production and separation stage must be
included in the polylactic acid processing unit. The polylactic acid OpEx
is related to the operating costs associated to the OKFW upgrading
process. The polylactic acid production process has a higher OpEx than
the ethanol production since the first process requires more supplies (e.
Fig. 4. Economic assessment (a) Scenario 1; (b) Scenario 2.
8
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
g., solvents, acids, bases, catalysts) to produce the desired product.
Moreover, process conditions affect the OpEx due to power and thermal
requirements depends on the operating conditions and equipment
number. Indeed, the CapEx in the polylactic acid production stage is less
than in the lactic acid stage (approximately 38% less).
For scenario 1, the minimum processing scale for economic viability
is 30.5 ton/h (NPV of 20 years). On the other hand, the minimum scale
for scenario 2 was 10.5 ton/h. At the lower scales, the two biorefinery
scenarios do not present economic viability (see, Fig. 4(a)). The payback
period presents a decreasing trend as the processing scale increases in
both scenarios. In scenario 2, the payback period for the analyzed scales
is earlier than scenario 1. This behavior is attributed to the differences in
the market price of the products. These results are favorable in the
Colombian context using 10% of the OKFW generated in the country
(base case). In fact, the other processing scales analyzed (higher than the
base case) cover up to 35% of the generation of OKFW in the country.
4. Conclusion
Organic Kitchen Food Waste (OKFW) is a promising raw material for
obtaining fermentable sugars and biogas since experimental yields of
0.37 kg/kg of dry OKFW on dry basis and 0.42 m3/kg of OKFW on dry
basis were obtained. This feedstock contains structural polymers such as
starch, pectin, cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin that increases
fermentable sugars yields and promoted a fast biogas production in
anaerobic digestion. Liquid hot water treatment improves enzymatic
digestibility since the crystallinity index of the raw material after pre­
treatment was higher. Nevertheless, efforts to disrupt glucan-based
oligomers are needed to increase fermentable sugars production in
this stage. OKFW has several advantages respect to other biomass
sources such as defined logistics, availability, and productivity. Never­
theless, the chemical composition standardization limits the use of
OKFW. Then, new strategies to solve this issue should be proposed, but
based on models covering the gastronomic culture of each country or
region. These strategies could involve statistical analysis of the
composition overtime and consumption trends analysis based on eco­
nomic aspects to be used as the basis for any analysis. Regarding to the
OKFW biorefining, polylactic acid is a promising product from a theo­
retical point of view since high product yields were obtained (i.e.,
0.12 kg PLA/kg of dry OKFW). Moreover, this production process is a
feasible option as a brownfield process because of existing plants in
Colombia can assume several of the capital investment costs. On the
other hand, energy vectors production is only feasible if all the
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
upgrading fractions of the OKFW are valorized. Finally, biogas pro­
duction is the most common way to upgrade OKFW. Nevertheless, the
biorefinery concept has demonstrated how these residues can be valo­
rized taking advantage of the chemical composition and mature tech­
nologies implementation (e.g., liquid hot water treatment, enzymatic
hydrolysis, polymerization).
Formatting of funding sources
This paper was also supported by the research project “APRO­
VECHAMIENTO Y VALORIZACIÓN SOSTENIBLE DE RESIDUOS
SÓLIDOS ORGÁNICOS Y SU POSIBLE APLICACIÓN EN
BORREFINERÍAS Y TECNOLOGÍAS DE RESIDUOS A ENERGÍA EN EL
DEPARTAMENTO DE SUCRE” code BPIN 2020000100189.Moreover,
the authors express their gratitude to the call PROGRAMA NACIONAL
PARA LAS MUJERES EN LA CIENCIA UNESCO-L′ ORÉAL-MINCIENCIAS-
ICETEX 2021 with the project “Valorización de los desperdicios de ali­
mentos impulsando el desarrollo de la bioeconomía en regiones post­
conflicto para el cumplimiento de los Objetivos del Desarrollo
Sostenible”. Finally, this work was supported by the project "Valor­
ización de los desperdicios de alimentos impulsando el desarrollo de la
bioeconomía en el deapartamento de Caldas para el cumplimineto de los
ODS" code 54805
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material
preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Carlos
Ariel Cardona Alzate, Mariana Ortiz-Sanchez, and Juan Camilo Solarte-
Toro. Mariana Ortiz Sanchez wrote the first draft of the manuscript and
all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All au­
thors read and approved the submitted manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] M.N. Rao, R. Sultana, S.H. Kota, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, in:
Municipal Solid Waste, Elsevier Inc, 2017, pp. 1–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-809734-2.00002-X.
[2] Trends in Solid Waste Management, (n.d.). 〈https://datatopics.worldbank.org/
what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html〉 (accessed February 18,
2021).
[3] National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling | Facts
and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling | US EPA, (n.d.). 〈https://www.
epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-
facts-and-figures-materials〉 (accessed February 18, 2021).
[4] M. Tantrige, O.V. Peiris, G. Lalithri, N. Dayarathne, Application of life cycle
framework for municipal solid waste management: a circular economy perspective
from developing countries, Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2022 (2022) 1–20, https://doi.org/
10.1007/S43615-022-00200-X.
[5] FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and
waste reduction, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO, Rome. (2019). 〈www.fao.
org/publications〉 (accessed January 26, 2023).
[6] R. Santagata, M. Ripa, A. Genovese, S. Ulgiati, Food waste recovery pathways:
challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circular economy. A
systematic review and an assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 286 (2021), 125490, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.125490.
[7] I. Manisalidis, E. Stavropoulou, A. Stavropoulos, E. Bezirtzoglou, Environmental
and health impacts of air pollution: a review, Front Public Health 8 (2020) 14,
https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2020.00014.
[8] Y. Munesue, T. Masui, T. Fushima, The effects of reducing food losses and food
waste on global food insecurity, natural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions,
9
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 17 (2015) 43–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10018-
014-0083-0.
[9] R. Ishangulyyev, S. Kim, S.H. Lee, Understanding food loss and waste—why are we
losing and wasting food? Foods 8 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/
FOODS8080297.
[10] C. Reynolds, L. Goucher, T. Quested, S. Bromley, S. Gillick, V.K. Wells, D. Evans,
L. Koh, A. Carlsson Kanyama, C. Katzeff, Å. Svenfelt, P. Jackson, Review:
Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – what works and how to
design better interventions, Food Policy 83 (2019) 7–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.FOODPOL.2019.01.009.
[11] I. Esparza, N. Jiménez-Moreno, F. Bimbela, C. Ancín-Azpilicueta, L.M. Gandía,
Fruit and vegetable waste management: conventional and emerging approaches,
J. Environ. Manag. 265 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JENVMAN.2020.110510.
[12] B. Tsegaye, S. Jaiswal, A.K. Jaiswal, Food waste biorefinery: pathway towards
circular bioeconomy, 1174, Foods 2021 Vol. 10 (10) (2021) 1174, https://doi.org/
10.3390/FOODS10061174.
[13] M. Wu, J. Hu, F. Shen, M. Huang, L. Zhao, D. Tian, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Zeng,
S. Deng, Conceptually integrating a multi-product strategy for the valorization of
kitchen waste towards a more sustainable management, J. Clean. Prod. 306 (2021),
127292, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127292.
[14] S. Dahiya, A.N. Kumar, J. Shanthi Sravan, S. Chatterjee, O. Sarkar, S.V. Mohan,
Food waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy, Bioresour.
Technol. 248 (2018) 2–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2017.07.176.
[15] M. Wu, W. Chen, J. Hu, D. Tian, F. Shen, Y. Zeng, G. Yang, Y. Zhang, S. Deng,
Valorizing kitchen waste through bacterial cellulose production towards a more
sustainable biorefinery, Sci. Total Environ. 695 (2019), 133898, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.133898.
[16] R. Sindhu, A. Manju, P. Mohan, R.O. Rajesh, A. Madhavan, K.B. Arun, S.
H. Hazeena, A. Mohandas, S.P. Rajamani, A. Puthiyamadam, P. Binod, R. Reshmy,
Valorization of food and kitchen waste: An integrated strategy adopted for the
production of poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, bioethanol, pectinase and 2, 3-butanediol,
Bioresour. Technol. 310 (2020), 123515, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BIORTECH.2020.123515.
[17] T.H. Kwan, Y. Hu, C.S.K. Lin, Techno-economic analysis of a food waste
valorisation process for lactic acid, lactide and poly(lactic acid) production,
J. Clean. Prod. 181 (2018) 72–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2018.01.179.
[18] C. Cardona, J. Moncada, V. Aristizabal, Design strategies for sustainable
biorefineries, Biochem Eng. J. 116 (2016) 122–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bej.2016.06.009.
[19] FAO, Food Loss and Food Waste, flw-data (Accessed 17 February, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,, n.d., 2021, 〈http://www.fao.org/
food-loss-and-food-waste/〉. flw-data (accessed February 17.
[20] F.C.S. Gaviria, L. Mejia, M. Castro, E. Gómez, Pérdida y Desperdicio de alimentos
en Colombia, Dep. Nac. De. Planeac. 39 (2016) 116.
[21] DANE, Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas, 2020). 〈https://
www.dane.gov.co/〉 (Accessed 18 April 2021).
[22] A. Sluiter, R. Ruiz, C. Scarlata, J. Sluiter, D. Templeton, Determination of
Extractives in Biomass, 2008.
[23] M.R. Rover, R.C. Brown, Quantification of total phenols in bio-oil using the
Folin–Ciocalteu method, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 104 (2013) 366–371, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.06.011.
[24] TAPPI, Acid-insoluble lignin in wood and pulp (Reaffirmation of T 222 om-02),
2006.
[25] J.S. Han, J.S. Rowell, Chemical Composition of Fibers, in: Paper and Composite
from Agro-Based Resources, CRC Press, 2008, pp. 83–134.
[26] B. Rivas, A. Torrado, P. Torre, A. Converti, J.M. Domínguez, Submerged citric acid
fermentation on orange peel autohydrolysate, J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (2008)
2380–2387, https://doi.org/10.1021/jf073388r.
[27] B. Greene, T. President, Von Asboth Process, New York Academy of Sciences, 1890,
pp. 23–27.
[28] A. Sluiter, B. Hames, R. Ruiz, C. Scarlata, J. Sluiter, D. Templeton, Determination of
Ash in Biomass, Natl. Renew. Energy Lab. 36 (2005) 302–305.
[29] A. Idarraga, PRODUCCIÓN D.E. BIOMOLÉCULAS C.O.N. APLICACIONES
COSMÉTICAS A. PARTIR D.E. RESIDUOS D.E. FRUTAS, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia-Sede Manizales, 2015.
[30] G. Marinova, V. Batchvarov, Evaluation of the methods for determination of the
free radical scavenging activity by DPPH, Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 17 (2011) 11–24.
[31] Philip Molyneux, The use of the stable radical Diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) for
estimating antioxidant activity, Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 26 (2003)
211–219.
[32] W. Brand-Williams, M.E. Cuvelier, C. Berset, Use of a free radical method to
evaluate antioxidant activity, LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 28 (1995) 25–30, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0023-6438(95)80008-5.
[33] L. Segal, J.J. Creely, A.E. Martin, C.M. Conrad, An empirical method for estimating
the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-Ray diffractometer, Text.
Res. J. 29 (1959) 786–794, https://doi.org/10.1177/004051755902901003.
[34] E. Molina-Peñate, A. Sánchez, A. Artola, Enzymatic hydrolysis of the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste: optimization and valorization of the solid
fraction for Bacillus thuringiensis biopesticide production through solid-state
fermentation, Waste Manag. 137 (2022) 304–311, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
WASMAN.2021.11.014.
[35] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Fermentation of organic materials charaterisation of
the substrate, sampling, colletion of material data, fermentation test, German,
2018.
M. Ortiz-Sanchez et al.
[36] I. Angelidaki, M. Alves, D. Bolzonella, L. Borzacconi, J.L. Campos, A.J. Guwy,
S. Kalyuzhnyi, P. Jenicek, J.B.Van Lier, Defining the biomethane potential (BMP)
of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays,
Water Sci. Technol. 59 (2009) 927–934, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.040.
[37] M. Walker, Y. Zhang, S. Heaven, C. Banks, Potential errors in the quantitative
evaluation of biogas production in anaerobic digestion processes, Bioresour.
Technol. 100 (2009) 6339–6346, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.018.
[38] E. Peduzzi, G. Boissonnet, F. Maréchal, Biomass modelling: estimating
thermodynamic properties from the elemental composition, Fuel 181 (2016)
207–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2016.04.111.
[39] J.A. Quintero, J. Moncada, C.A. Cardona, Techno-economic analysis of bioethanol
production from lignocellulosic residues in Colombia: a process simulation
approach, Bioresour. Technol. 139 (2013) 300–307, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BIORTECH.2013.04.048.
[40] S. Lee, Y. Koo, Model development for lactic acid fermentation and parameter
optimization using genetic algorithm, Simulation 14 (2004) 1163–1169.
[41] K.C. Seavey, Y.A. Liu, Polylactide and nylon-6,6 poymerization process odeling in
plymers plus, Step-Growth Polym. Process. Model. Prod. Des. (2008) 589–624.
[42] G. Ruiz-Mercado, Sustainability indicators for chemical processes: II. data needs,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res (2012) 1–20, in: 〈https://www.academia.edu/3364679
2/Sustainability_Indicators_for_Chemical_Processes_II_Data_Needs〉. accessed
January 29, 2023.
[43] C.A. Rueda-Duran, M. Ortiz-Sanchez, C.A. Cardona-Alzate, Detailed economic
assessment of polylactic acid production by using glucose platform: sugarcane
bagasse, coffee cut stems, and plantain peels as possible raw materials, Biomass-.-.
Convers. Biorefin 1 (2022) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/S13399-022-02501-5/
FIGURES/7.
[44] R.K. Sinnott, G. Towler, Chemical Engineering Design, Elsevier Ltd, 2013, https://
doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-61216-2.
[45] K. Paritosh, S.K. Kushwaha, M. Yadav, N. Pareek, A. Chawade, V. Vivekanand,
Food waste to energy: an overview of sustainable approaches for food waste
management and nutrient recycling, Biomed. Res Int 2017 (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1155/2017/2370927.
[46] C. Caldeira, A. Vlysidis, G. Fiore, V. de Laurentiis, G. Vignali, S. Sala, Sustainability
of food waste biorefinery: a review on valorisation pathways, techno-economic
constraints, and environmental assessment, Bioresour. Technol. 312 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2020.123575.
[47] F.H. Pour, Y.T. Makkawi, A review of post-consumption food waste management
and its potentials for biofuel production, Energy Rep. 7 (2021) 7759–7784, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.10.119.
[48] Q. Wang, H. Ma, W. Xu, L. Gong, W. Zhang, D. Zou, Ethanol production from
kitchen garbage using response surface methodology, Biochem Eng. J. 39 (2008)
604–610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2007.12.018.
[49] Y.Q. Tang, Y. Koike, K. Liu, M.Z. An, S. Morimura, X.L. Wu, K. Kida, Ethanol
production from kitchen waste using the flocculating yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae strain KF-7, Biomass-.-. Bioenergy 32 (2008) 1037–1045, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.01.027.
[50] G. Lissens, H. Klinke, W. Verstraete, B. Ahring, A.B. Thomsen, Wet oxidation
treatment of organic household waste enriched with wheat straw for simultaneous
saccharification and fermentation into ethanol, Environ. Technol. 25 (2004)
647–655, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2004.9619354.
[51] K. Kumar, A.N. Yadav, V. Kumar, P. Vyas, H.S. Dhaliwal, Food waste: a potential
bioresource for extraction of nutraceuticals and bioactive compounds, Bioresour.
Bioprocess 4 (2017) 18, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0148-6.
[52] P.K. Ajikumar, K. Tyo, S. Carlsen, O. Mucha, T.H. Phon, G. Stephanopoulos,
Terpenoids: opportunities for biosynthesis of natural product drugs using
engineered microorganisms, Mol. Pharm. 5 (2008) 167–190, https://doi.org/
10.1021/mp700151b.
[53] S. Yan, J. Li, X. Chen, J. Wu, P. Wang, J. Ye, J. Yao, Enzymatical hydrolysis of food
waste and ethanol production from the hydrolysate, Renew. Energy 36 (2011)
1259–1265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.08.020.
10
Biochemical Engineering Journal 194 (2023) 108864
[54] H.S. Hafid, N.A. Rahman, U.K. Md Shah, A.S. Baharudin, Enhanced fermentable
sugar production from kitchen waste using various pretreatments, J. Environ.
Manag. 156 (2015) 290–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.045.
[55] P.B. Subhedar, P.R. Gogate, Intensification of enzymatic hydrolysis of
lignocellulose using ultrasound for efficient bioethanol production: a review, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res 52 (2013) 11816–11828, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie401286z.
[56] K. Kumar, A.N. Yadav, V. Kumar, P. Vyas, H.S. Dhaliwal, Food waste: a potential
bioresource for extraction of nutraceuticals and bioactive compounds, Bioresour.
Bioprocess 4 (2017) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1186/S40643-017-0148-6/TABLES/
1.
[57] L.J. Jönsson, C. Martín, Pretreatment of lignocellulose: formation of inhibitory by-
products and strategies for minimizing their effects, Bioresour. Technol. 199
(2016) 103–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.009.
[58] S. Martillanes, J. Rocha-Pimienta, M. Cabrera-Bañegil, D. Martín-Vertedor,
J. Delgado-Adámez, Application of phenolic compounds for food preservation:
food additive and active packaging, Phenolic Compd. - Biol. Act., InTech (2017)
39–52, https://doi.org/10.5772/66885.
[59] S.T. Yang, Bioprocessing-from biotechnology to biorefinery, in: Bioprocessing for
Value-Added Products from Renewable Resources, Elsevier, 2007, pp. 1–24,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044452114-9/50002-5.
[60] M.E. Taheri, E. Salimi, K. Saragas, J. Novakovic, E.M. Barampouti, S. Mai,
D. Malamis, K. Moustakas, M. Loizidou, Effect of pretreatment techniques on
enzymatic hydrolysis of food waste, Biomass-.-. Convers. Biorefin 11 (2021)
219–226, https://doi.org/10.1007/S13399-020-00729-7/FIGURES/1.
[61] H.S. Oberoi, P. v Vadlani, A. Nanjundaswamy, S. Bansal, S. Singh, S. Kaur,
N. Babbar, Enhanced ethanol production from Kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata)
waste via a statistically optimized simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
process, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 1593–1601, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BIORTECH.2010.08.111.
[62] P. Mahmoodi, K. Karimi, M.J. Taherzadeh, Hydrothermal processing as
pretreatment for efficient production of ethanol and biogas from municipal solid
waste, Bioresour. Technol. 261 (2018) 166–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BIORTECH.2018.03.115.
[63] H.S. Hafid, N.A. Rahman, U.K. Md Shah, A.S. Baharudin, Enhanced fermentable
sugar production from kitchen waste using various pretreatments, J. Environ.
Manag. 156 (2015) 290–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2015.03.045.
[64] T. Forster-Carneiro, M. Pérez, L.I. Romero, Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Bioresour. Technol. 99
(2008) 6763–6770, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2008.01.052.
[65] C.M. Ajay, S. Mohan, P. Dinesha, Decentralized energy from portable biogas
digesters using domestic kitchen waste: a review, Waste Manag. 125 (2021) 10–26,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2021.02.031.
[66] R. Zhang, H.M. El-Mashad, K. Hartman, F. Wang, G. Liu, C. Choate, P. Gamble,
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion, Bioresour.
Technol. 98 (2007) 929–935, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2006.02.039.
[67] M. Scherzinger, M. Kaltschmitt, Thermal pre-treatment options to enhance
anaerobic digestibility – a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 137 (2021),
110627, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2020.110627.
[68] J.A. Posada, C.A. Cardona, R. Gonzalez, Analysis of the production process of
optically pure D-lactic acid from raw glycerol using engineered Escherichia coli
strains, Appl. Biochem Biotechnol. 166 (2012) 680–699, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12010-011-9458-x.
[69] M. Tobiszewski, M. Marć, A. Gałuszka, J. Namies¨nik, Green chemistry metrics with
special reference to green analytical chemistry, Molecules 20 (2015)
10928–10946, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules200610928.
[70] J.A. Quintero, C.A. Cardona, Process simulation of fuel ethanol production from
lignocellulosics using aspen plus, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res 50 (2011) 6205–6212,
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101767x.