Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01096-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assessment of carrot rejects and wastes for food product

development and as a biofuel
Gagan Jyot Kaur 1 & Deepak Kumar 2 & Valerie Orsat 3 & Ashutosh Singh 1

Received: 8 August 2020 / Revised: 14 October 2020 / Accepted: 16 October 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Carrot (Daucus carota L.) is among the richest source of carotenoids with the highest concentration of β-carotene and a source of
vitamin K, fiber, and minerals. β-carotene, also known as a Vitamin A precursor, is a proven anticarcinogen reported for its
activity against life-threatening diseases. Of the total production, about 20–30% is separated during primary processing as carrot
rejects and waste (CRW). CRW comprised out-graded carrots (separated due to their uniqueness in shape, size, color, or
mechanical injury) and processed discards (crowns and tips generated during grading). These are partially utilized towards
animal feed and the remaining ends up in landfills. It is estimated that 90,000 lbs of CRW in the landfills released 6988.38 kg
of methane, equivalent to 174,709.5 kg of carbon dioxide, causing a detrimental effect on the environment. To reduce the carbon
footprint, the study was planned to evaluate the properties (physical, mechanical, carotenoid content, proximate composition,
ultimate analysis, high heating value (HHV)) of CRW for its potential utilization in bioenergy and food product development. It
was observed that the presence of low carbon (38.55–40.10%), high moisture (86.93–89.35%), and high oxygen (44.66–46.95%)
content resulted in low HHV (15.19–15.64 MJ/kg). Hydrothermal liquefaction could be a promising approach to valorize CRW
into biofuel. The availability of β-carotene (80–87 μg/g) in CRW samples indicated prospective application in the field of food
and nutraceuticals. This study provides a direction for future utilization of CRW, boosting economic gain to processors and
producers while reducing the carbon footprint.

Keywords Carrot rejects and waste. Carotenoid content. Color analysis. Proximate composition. High heating value

1 Introduction UK was outgraded in the farms due to their uniqueness in size,

Carrot (Daucas carota L.) is among the top six vegetables
grown in the world and also one of the top revenue grosser
in Canada (among vegetables) with a total production of
391,044 MT worth 129.882 million dollars [1]. Stuart
(2009) reported that 25–30% of the total production in the
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-
01096-z.
* Gagan Jyot Kaur
gmadanpo@uoguelph.ca
1
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G
2W1, Canada
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 402 Walters Hall, 1
Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
3
Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University,
Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, Quebec H9X 3V9, Canada
length, shape, color, or mechanical damage [2]. According to
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Standards,
fresh carrots are classified into three grades, namely,
Canada No.1, Canada No.1 (cut-crowns), and Canada
No.2. For better economic returns, oversize carrots are sized
to Canada No.1 (cut crowns) grade by removing their tips and
crowns. These crowns and tips, also known as processed dis-
cards, are partially utilized towards animal feed [3], but their
use is limited due to quality concerns (microbial contamina-
tion) and high transportation cost [4]. The carrots unable to
meet the CFIA guidelines due to their imperfections along
with the processed discards are termed as “carrot rejects and
waste” (CRW), accounting for 50% of the total outgraded
produce. Similar to the processed discards, the CRW are par-
tially used towards animal feed and the remaining end up in
landfills. As a part of the ongoing study in Ontario, it was
recorded that approximately 90,000 lbs of CRW destined for
landfills released 6988.38 kg of methane, equivalent to
174,709.5 kg of carbon dioxide (Kaur et al. 2020, unpublished
data). Hence, to reduce the carbon footprint, it is important to

check the influx of the CRW in landfills and explore its po-
tential utilization options.
Some studies in the literature have reported utilization of
carrot pomace and powder (by-products of carrot juice
industry) in food applications. Their partial utilization is stud-
ied in extruded products [5, 6], cakes [7, 8], pasta [9], bread
[10], cookies [11], and chicken cutlets [12]. However, the lack
of precise data related to their characterization limits the utili-
zation of CRW.
Carrots are among the richest source of carotenoids with the
highest concentration of β-carotene also known as a Vitamin A
precursor. β-carotene, a proven anticarcinogen [13], is reported
for its activity against life-threatening diseases. Since CRW are
a part of desired carrots rich in β-carotene, the scope of
repurposing carrot rejects in food production looks promising.
Besides β-carotene, carrots are also reported for their high per-
centage of total dietary fiber 23.15% [14] comprising hemicel-
lulose, cellulose, and lignin. Biomass feedstocks with high frac-
tion of cellulose to hemicellulose are considered high potential
low-cost feedstocks for bioethanol (a renewable liquid transpor-
tation fuel) production [15] indicating the need to explore the
potential of CRW as a biofuel. On the contrary low methane
yield was recorded from carrot waste [16], carrot pomace [17],
and whole carrots [18] in addition to the dissuasive results of
CRW partial utilization in bioethanol production [19] and
supercapacitor for energy storage [20]; hence, it becomes essen-
tial to conduct its comprehensive characterization (ultimate
analysis, proximate analysis, and determination of high heating
value (HHV)) to advise its potential usage options.
Characterization of different types of food waste and by prod-
ucts including HHV is compiled in Appendix Table 1, but ac-
cording to our knowledge, no work has been reported on CRW.
Utilization of CRW in food products, nutraceuticals, or as
biofuel requires proper handling, storage, and processing facil-
ities. Knowledge of physical and mechanical properties of
CRW is essential, for the design and development of post har-
vest handling and processing system [21]. The mechanical
properties involved the determination of the breaking force re-
quired for the size reduction during processing. Substantial data
is available for graded carrots [22], but a limited information is
available on CRW, limiting its post harvest management.
Hence, this study aims to evaluate physical and mechanical
properties, proximate composition, carotenoid content, ulti-
mate analysis, and HHV of CRW to offer potential usage
options as a nutraceutical source and for energy generation.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Physical parameters
CRW were procured from a processing unit (Smith Gardens)
located in Ontario, Canada, in November 2018. The unit is
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
known for the primary processing of several carrot varieties
namely Cellobunch, Envy, Enterprise, and Florida. The CRW
were categorized into outgraded carrots (oversize, large, un-
dersize) (Fig. 1) and processed discards (crowns and tips)
(Figs. 1 and 2). These were packed in polythene bags (with
perforations) and refrigerated at 2 ± 1°C until further analysis.
The moisture content (Mc) was determined by taking 10 g of
chopped CRW sample and oven drying at 105 ± 1 °C for 4 h
[23]. The samples were weighed before and after drying; the
moisture content was expressed on a wet basis.
CRW samples were randomly selected from each category.
The physical dimensions, length (L), width (W), and thickness
(T), were measured with Vernier caliper (least count: 0.01
mm). The width (W1, W2, W3) and thickness (T1, T2, T3) were
recorded at ¼, ½, and ¾th of the length from the crown (Fig. 3)
at mutually perpendicular positions for the assessment of
CRW shape.
Geometric mean diameter (Dg) and sphericity (φ) were
determined by using the methods reported by Rehal et al.
[24], where Dg was evaluated by using the average width
and thickness of CRW. In addition, bulk density and true
density were determined by the Platform method [21].
2.1.1 Surface area
True surface area (Sct) was calculated by using Eq. (1). The
outgraded carrots were covered from the crown to tip with a
non-stretchable paper tape of uniform width (Wt) and known
tape length (Lt).
S ct ¼ Lt *W t ð1Þ
Apparent surface area was calculated by using four equa-
tions as suggested by different researchers. These were later
compared with the true surface area to calculate the percentage
variation.
(a) Baugerod method: The apparent surface area (Sbr) was
calculated using Eq. (2) which correlated the carrot sur-
face area with its weight [25].
 
W1
Sbr ¼ 4πC Lð1 þ C Þwhere ðC ¼ 0:33Þ ð2Þ
2
(b) Apparent surface area (Sa) was evaluated by using Eq.
(3), as reported by Jahanbakhshi et al. [22].
Sa ¼ πðDg Þ2 ð3Þ
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Fig. 1 Carrot rejects and waste collected from carrot processing unit: (a) oversize, (b) large, (c) undersize, and (d) crowns and tips

The variation between the apparent and true surface are

(evaluated by different methods) was calculated using Eq. (7).
(c) Experimental method: Outgraded carrots (were similar to
conical taproots with the widest circumference at the Variation ð%Þ
crown, tapering towards the end). Their apparent surface ðTrue Surface Area−Apparent Surface AreaÞ
area was evaluated by using Eq. (4) ¼ *100 ð7Þ
True Surface Area

Surface area of cone ¼ πr2 þ πrL ð4Þ

2.1.2 Color
Based on the preliminary experiments two combinations of
radius and length were used for the determination of surface The color values (Lc, a, b) of the CRW samples were mea-
area (Eqs. (5) and (6)) sured using a Hunter-Lab color reader CR-20 (Konica Minolta
Inc., Japan). The colorimeter was standardized with a white
(i) radius = W1/2 calibration cap (CR-A86) (L* = 95.1, a = 0.1, b = 3.5) under
length = l2 (slant height of outgraded carrots) ideal luminosity conditions. The Lc, a, and b values were
recorded, where Lc is the difference in lightness and darkness
(+ = lighter, − = darker), a represent the color red (+) and
  
πW 1 W1 green (−), and b represent difference in yellow (+) and blue
Saw ðconeÞ ¼ þ l2 ð5Þ (−) [24].
2 2

2.1.3 Mechanical properties

ii radius = Dg/2
length = L Bending force and deflection of the outgraded carrots were
measured following the method used by Vassilev et al with
some modifications [22]. A three-point bending test was per-
   formed on an Instron machine equipped with a 5-kN load cell.
πDg Dg
Sac ðconeÞ ¼ þL ð6Þ The outgraded carrot was placed 12 cm apart on the bending
2 2 fixture (3-point bend ASTM D790), subjected to the test speed

Fig. 2 Variation in the physical dimensions of crowns and tips


Fig. 3 Width and thickness recorded at different lengths in outgraded carrot
of 80 mm/min at room temperature. The total deflection and
peak bending force were recorded for outgraded carrots.
2.2 Carotenoid content
The CRW were separated from greens and sliced into 1-cm
cubes later blended in a mixer with water (1:1 w/w).
Carotenoid extraction was based on the procedure given by
Sadler et.al. [26]. About 0.5 g of carrot puree sample was
mixed with, 0.5 g of calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O), and
50 ml extraction solution (50% hexane, 25% acetone, 25%
ethanol, 0.1% butylated hydroxytoluene). The mixture was
stirred at room temperature for 20 min. After adding 15 ml
reagent grade water, the mixture was stirred for another 10
min. The organic phase containing the carotenoids was sepa-
rated from the water phase using the separatory funnel and
filtered using the 0.25-μm filter. The absorbance of the filtrate
was measured using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer at 450 nm.
The concentration was calculated using Eq. (8).
A*V*10; 000
C¼
1%E1 cm*W
where C is the concentration of carotenoid expressed in mi-
crogram per gram of wet sample wt, A is the absorbance at λ
max (450 nm), V is the total volume of extract (ml), W is the
weight of the sample (g), 1%E1 cm is the extinction coefficient
(2620 for β-carotene and 2820 for α-carotene) in hexane [27].
2.3 Proximate analysis
2.3.1 Ash content
Ash content indicates the presence of the mineral content and
other inorganic matter in the sample. It was determined using
the Standard method E1755-01 ASTM method. The dried
CRW samples (with greens) were subjected to dry oxidation
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
by exposing the samples to a temperature of 575 ± 25°C for
5 h in a muffle furnace (Thermo Scientific- F48055-60,
Waltham, MA). The ash content (%) was evaluated by Eq. (9).
Ash content ð%Þ
Weight of dried sample
¼ *100 ð9Þ
Initial weight of the dehydrated sample
2.3.2 Volatile matter
The volatile matter comprises the components which are lib-
erated on exposure to high temperature in the absence of air
(other than moisture vapors). It was determined using the
E872-82 ASTM methods. The dehydrated samples were
placed in the muffle furnace at a temperature of 950 °C for
7 min [28]. The weight change in sample was recorded, and
the volatile percentage was calculated using Eq. (10).
Volatile ð%Þ
ð8Þ
Loss in weight of the sample at 950°C
¼ *100 ð10Þ
Initial weight of the dehydrated sample
2.3.3 Fixed carbon
Fixed carbon (FC) refers to the solid combustible residue left
after heating and expulsion of volatile matter. It estimates the
amount of coke yielded from a sample [28]. The presence of
FC was determined using Eq. (11).
Fixed carbon ð%Þ
¼ 100−ðAsh contentð%Þ þ Volatile matterð%ÞÞ ð11Þ
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
2.4 Ultimate analysis
CHNS-O analyzer (Flash 2000 CHNS-O, Organic Elemental
Analyzer, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Netherlands) was used
for the determination of the elemental composition of carbon
(C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and oxygen (O) of
the CRW samples. The standards were run using 2,5-(bis (5-
tert-butyl-2-benzo-oxazol-2-yl) thiophene) (BBOT) followed
by the CRW samples. The sample was subjected to a temper-
ature of 950 °C for 12 min in a helium atmosphere along with
10 mg of vanadium pentoxide [29]. The output was recorded
as elemental C, H, N, and S. Oxygen content was determined
by using Eq. (12).
Oxygen content ð%Þ
¼ ð100%−ðC% þ H% þ N % þ S%Þ−Ash%Þ ð12Þ
2.5 High heating value
HHV of CRW was determined using IKA-C200 bomb calo-
rimeter (Wilmington, NC). Dehydrated sample (0.5 g) was
placed in the steel container fitted with a ceramic crucible.
The steel container vessel was pressurized with the pure oxy-
gen to 30 bars, and the sample was ignited with a cotton thread
connected to ignition wire. Calorimeter recorded the change in
water temperature (before and after the ignition) and translated
it to the HHV value for the sample.
2.6 Statistical analysis
The results reported are the means of at least three measure-
ments ± standard deviation. Linear regression analysis was
performed on R software (R x 3.5.1) 64-bit version.
Goodness of fit was evaluated by the coefficient of determi-
nation (R2) and corresponding p value (where R2 is expressed
as the square of correlation (r)). Statistical analysis was run on
the same software, and the data was analyzed with one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the 95 % confidence level
and post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD)
tests using R functions. Tukey’s tests were completed only if
the one-way ANOVA was significant at p ≤ 0.05.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Physical and mechanical properties of carrot
rejects and waste
3.1.1 Length and width of carrot rejects and waste
Length of oversize, large, and undersize CRW ranged from
13.5 to 28.0, 16.0 to 23.0, and 19.0 to 22.0 cm with a mean
length of 19.3 ± 5.4, 20.4 ± 3.07, and 20.5 ± 1.45 cm, respec-
tively. No significant difference (p > 0.847) was recorded in
the length of CRW indicating that outgraded carrots might
belong to varieties with similar physical features. These re-
sults corroborate the findings of Jahanbakhshi et al. [22]. In
contrast, the mean length of processed discards (4 ± 2.57 cm)
was significantly different with p ≤ 0.05 from the mean length
of outgraded carrots as the former were sections separated
from graded carrots. A significant difference in W1, W2, and
W3 with p < 0.0001 was recorded at definite lengths (1/4th, ½,
3/4th) from the crown (Fig. 3) for oversize, large, and under-
size CRW, respectively. Similar trend was recorded for thick-
ness (T1, T2, T3) of CRW with p ≤ 0.0001. No significant
difference (p ≥ 0.05) between the thickness and width of
outgraded carrots. Besides high correlation (r = 0.9987) was
observed between the width and thickness as these observa-
tions were recorded at mutually perpendicular positions, at the
fixed distance from the crown. In contrast, a significant dif-
ference was observed in the width of CRW and fully ripened
carrots [22]. The physical properties (length and width/
breadth) of cultivated carrots depended upon their variety
and abiotic cultivation conditions (soil type, temperature, irri-
gation, and cultivation period) [30]. Aforementioned factors
affected the physical properties of the cultivated carrots suc-
cessively affecting the physical properties of CRW. Since
CRW samples were collected from the processing unit, then
involved in the processing of Cellobunch, Envy, Enterprise,
and Florida varieties, which characteristically have similar
lengths and different widths. The findings correlated with
the reported literature.
3.1.2 Sphericity and density of carrot rejects and waste
A significant difference between the length and their respec-
tive width (W1) reported low sphericity values ranging be-
tween 0.27–0.51%, 0.27–0.40%, and 0.17–0.23% for over-
size, large, and undersize CRW respectively. The width of
CRW decreased progressively from the crown to the tip with
W1 > W2 > W3, confirming its tapering nature correlating to
conical shape similar to the graded carrots. These parameters
are essential for the design and development of separation and
conveying systems and evaluation of the surface area. CRW
also recorded significant difference between different sections
with p ≤ 0.05 in true density and bulk density (Table 1). The
true density of graded carrots ranged between 1000 and 1040
kg/m3 [22] which was in agreement with the observed values
for undersize CRW but higher than the observed true density
values for crowns and tips. These results indicated that the
existing packaging used for the graded carrots could also be
used for undersize CRW and crowns and tips. Conversely, the
true density of oversize and large CRW was higher than grad-
ed carrots which might require a certain modification in the
existing packaging material.
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Table 1 Physical and mechanical properties of carrot rejects and waste

Carrot rejects and waste Outgraded carrots Processed discards

Parameter Oversize Large Undersize Crowns and tips

Length (cm) 19.30 ± 5.44a 20.40 ± 3.07a 20.54 ± 1.45a 4.00 ± 2.57 b
Width (mm) 49.40 ± 3.49a 38.44 ± 4.54b 20.44 ± 3.50c 22.52 ± 11.30c
Mc (wb) 89.35 ± 0.04a 87.57 ± 0.11c 88.32 ± 0.00b 86.93 ± 0.06d
Lc* 47.78 ± 1.23b 50.94 ± 0.55a 48.06 ± 2.55b 48.9 ± 2.03ab
a* 31.56 ± 2.85a 27.38 ± 4.67a 28.10 ± 5.35a 32.26 ± 2.03a
b* 33.94 ± 4.55a 27.30 ± 5.13a 29.66 ± 8.02a 37.14 ± 5.10a
Bulk density (kg/m3) 554 ± 18.75b 594.15 ± 12.34a 610.32 ± 15.27a 597.41 ± 14.65a
True density (kg/m3) 1311.52 ± 14.34a 1225 ± 10.98b 1030 ± 13.23c 743.6 ± 13.65d
Bending force (N) 325.12 ± 13.55a 209.91 ± 60.52b 42.61 ± 14.90c -
Deflection (mm) 16.06 ± 4.62b 15.54 ± 0.28b 26.14 ± 5.84a -

The values with the different letters in the rows are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD
*Lc is the difference in lightness (+) and darkness (−); a represents the color red (+) and green (−); b represents the color yellow (+) and blue (−)

3.1.3 Surface area of carrot rejects and waste
Knowledge of surface area is vital for the determination of
heat transfer, respiration, and transpiration rates during storage
and processing. A positive linear trend was recorded between
the surface area and physical parameters (W1, W2, W3, and
Dg). Dg reported highest correlation (r = 0.99) succeeded by
W1 (r = 0.94). These parameters were considered for the eval-
uation of apparent surface area using Eqs. (5) and (6). There
was a significant difference (p < 0.0001) between the surface
areas evaluated using different methods (Table 2). Sa (method
used by Jahanbakhshi et.al.) and Saw (experimental method
(i)) reported 40–60% lower surface area values in comparison
to Sct (true surface area) (Table 2). In contrast, the average
percentage difference between Sct and Sac (experimental meth-
od (ii)), and Sbr (Baugerod’s method), was − 6.86% and +
7.1% respectively. The surface area reported by Sac and Sbr
were within a 5–10% variation of the Sct of CRW. Overall
these findings would be helpful in accurate determination of
the energy requirements during cooling and thermal treatment
of CRW, thus increasing the thermal efficiency of processing/
storage system.
In addition, carrots with lower surface area to weight ratio
are reported for minimal transpiration loss, responsible for less
decay during storage [25]. Similar trend was observed for
oversize CRW, which is useful information predicting mod-
erate decay during their future storage.
3.1.4 Mechanical properties of carrot rejects and waste
A positive linear relationship was recorded between the bend-
ing force and the width of the outgraded carrots (Fig. 4).
Bending force is a vital parameter for the evaluation of mod-
ulus of elasticity (E), an essential parameter required for the
design of the material cutting mechanism [21] when deflection
is correlated with the rigidity and strength of the bioproducts
[22, 31]. Highest value of E (0.07 MPa) was observed for
oversize CRW, succeeded by large and undersize CRW with
values of E as 0.04 MPa and 0.03 MPa, respectively. These
findings summarize that undersize CRW were highly

Table 2 Surface area of carrot rejects and waste measured by different methods

Surface area (cm2) Categories of carrot rejects/waste

Oversize Large Undersize

Sct (Eq. 1)* 248.33 ± 63.75a 195.83 ± 75.22a 107.50 ± 28.54a

Sbr (Eq. 2)* 259.85 ± 61.02a 213.49 ± 19.89a 115.79 ± 22.04a
Sa (Eq. 3)* 141.70 ± 15.62b 101.93 ± 34.92a 42.14 ± 8.10b
Saw (Eq. 5)* 147.95 ± 33.15b 112.94 ± 35.80a 56.83 ± 11.82b
Sac (Eq. 6)* 208.46 ± 55.45ab 188.19 ± 77.18a 106.80 ± 20.47a

The values with the different letters in the rows are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD
*Refer to section 2.1 for equations
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
susceptible to breaking damage and would need extra care
during their packaging and transportation. However, oversize
outgraded carrots had significantly higher E (0.07 MPa) in
comparison to graded carrots (0.027 N) [22]. The latter value
was comparable to the experimental observations for under-
size and large CRW indicating the possible utilization of
existing handling and processing equipment for the process-
ing of undersize and large CRW. In contrast, certain modifi-
cations to the existing equipment might be needed for the
handling and processing of oversize CRW.
3.1.5 Color values of carrot rejects and waste
Color plays a vital role in the sensory perception of the carrots.
These are available in different colors; orange, yellow, red,
purple, and white. CRW generated from orange-colored car-
rots were considered for the present study. No significant dif-
ference with p = 0.2 was recorded for a and b color values of
CRW (Table 1). The experimental findings of Lc were in
agreement with the values reported by Talcott and Howard
[32]. However, wide variations in Lc values illustrated by
31.17 [33] and 55.00 [34] was due to the difference in the
carrot varieties and processing conditions. Thermally proc-
essed carrot puree samples reported a higher Lc and a value
with a decrease in color intensity and hue angle [33] likely due
to the particle size reduction resulting in higher light scattering
properties [35]. Compliance of CRW color values with the
fresh produce encourages to pursue further investigation for
CRW utilization in food production.
3.2 Carrot rejects and waste in nutraceutical industry
β-carotene content and α-carotene content in the CRW varied
between 80.73 ± 3.58 to 87.53 ± 3.93 μg/g and 73.96 ± 3.28 to
80.18 ± 3.60 μg/g (Fig. 5). A significant difference with p ≤
0.05 was recorded with higher β-carotene content of oversize
Fig. 4 Variation of bending force
with the width of outgraded
carrots
Bending force(N)
outgraded carrots in comparison to the crowns and tips.
However, no significant difference in their content was re-
corded between outgraded carrots (undersize and large) and
crowns and tips. Similar trend was recorded for the α-carotene
content. The experimental findings agreed with the values
reported by Herrero-Martinez et al. [36], indicating its poten-
tial application in food and nutraceutical industry. Wide var-
iation in the β-carotene content of carrot with 1283 ± 24.2 μg/
DM g [37] and 74.05 ± 6.09 mg/100 g [33] could be due to the
difference in varieties, method of determination, pre- and
post-harvest handling methods, and processing conditions.
Processing conditions include thermal treatments, reported
for improving the bio-accessibility/bioavailability of β-
carotene [38–40] by disrupting the membrane holding the
chromoplast containing it. Since no pre-treatment was in-
volved in the present study, the restricted release of β carotene
could be the reason for its lower content.
However, utilization of processed discards in the food pro-
duction is limited due to the presence of petioles/leaves at-
tached to the crowns, presence of bitter components, and un-
desirable terpenes flavor [41, 42]. Bitterness in the carrots is
correlated to the presence of 6-methoxymellein [32, 43] and
polyacetylenes (Falcarindiol, Falcarinol (FaOH), Falcarindiol-
3-acetate) [44]. The reported concentration of FaOH is ten
times higher in the phloem and crowns in comparison to the
xylem and the lower end [44], responsible for higher bitterness
in processed discards. The presence of bitterness in food prod-
ucts is an undesirable sensory characteristic, but in some
cases, it is correlated to healthy food properties. Studies have
related the dietary intake of FaOH to its high toxicity against
acute lymphoblastic leukemia [45] and inhibition of cancerous
lesions in mice [46]. Carrot consumption and negative corre-
lation of low cancer risk could be due to the coexistence of
FaOH and β-carotene in carrot [45] rather than just β-carotene
[47]. The ongoing preliminary study confirmed the coexis-
tence of polyacetylenes and β-carotene in the CRW. These
600
y = 12.832x - 228.57
R² = 0.9414
500
400
300
200
100
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Width(mm)
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Fig. 5 Variation of β-carotene

and α-carotene in the carrot β-carotene α-carotene
rejects and waste
100
87.53
90 81.89 83.85 80.73
76.82 80.18
80 75.02 73.96

Carotenoids (μg/g)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Undersize Large Oversize Crowns and ps
Carrot rejects and waste

findings further encourage to explore CRW utilization in the
nutraceutical sector.
3.3 Carrot rejects and waste for biofuel production
3.3.1 Proximate analysis
The moisture content of the CRW samples varied from 86.93
to 89.35% (Table 1), comparable with the moisture content of
fresh carrots [48]. However, the moisture content of crowns
and tips was comparatively less due to the presence of peti-
oles/leaves, having lower moisture content (9.15%) in com-
parison to the moisture content of the taproot [49]. The high
initial moisture content in CRW (> 80%) classifies them into
wet biomass [50], in contrast to the moisture content less than
30% which is desirable for most of the biofuel production
technologies. Wide variations in the moisture content (<
10%) and (> 60%) are recorded for different biomasses
(Appendix Table 1). Several thermochemical (such as gasifi-
cation, pyrolysis, and hydrothermal liquefaction) and biolog-
ical (such as anaerobic digestion, alcoholic fermentation) pro-
cesses have been developed for valorization of these wide
variety of biomass to produce biofuel [15, 51–53]. Although
biological processes are relatively less energy intensive com-
pared with the thermochemical processes, however, the latter
provide the advantages of higher rates of reaction. Biological
conversion technologies also suffer from the limitations of
high enzyme costs and lower conversion efficiencies that limit
the economic feasibility on the commercial scale [54].
Moreover, high fiber feedstocks like CRW require energy-
intensive size reduction and pretreatment process to reduce
biomass recalcitrance and improve microbial access to the
carbohydrates. The presence of high moisture content in
CRW limits its use in the conventional thermochemical pro-
cesses, such as gasification and pyrolysis. The presence of
high moisture causes high energy penalties for water vapori-
zation and reduces overall energy yields. These types of feed-
stocks are also not suitable for combustion as the high mois-
ture would lead to low combustion efficiency and release of
pollutants like carbon monoxide [55]. To reduce the moisture
content, CRW should be dried to a moisture content less than
30% which is another energy-intensive operation. Low HHV
with additional energy input for moisture reduction in CRW
reduces the net energy output. Hydrothermal liquefaction
(HTL) is a promising technology to process wet organic feed-
stocks like CRW since it uses water as the reaction medium.
The HTL process involves processing of wet biomass under
pressure (5–25 MPa) at high temperatures (200–400 °C) for
about 10–60 min, and produces high heating value (up to 40
MJ/kg) biocrude oil as the main product [52, 56]. Various

Table 3 Proximate analysis of carrot rejects and waste

Sample Moisture content (%) Ash content (%) Volatile matter (%) Fixed carbon (%)

Oversize 89.35 ± 0.04a 8.39 ± 0.31a 78.67 ± 1.02a 12.94 ± 0.71b

Large 87.57 ± 0.11c 7.37 ± 0.59b 79.25 ± 0.14a 13.38 ± 0.71b
Undersize 88.32 ± 0.00b 7.39 ± 0.77b 78.43 ± 0.07a 14.12 ± 0.84ab
Crowns and tips 86.93 ± 0.06d 5.24 ± 0.42c 78.76 ± 0.76a 16.00 ± 1.19a

The values with the different letters in the rows are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Table 4 Ultimate analysis of carrot rejects and waste

Sample Nitrogen (%) Carbon (%) Hydrogen (%) Sulphur (%) Oxygen (%)

Oversize 1.79 ± 0.01a 38.55 ± 0.89a 5.79 ± 0.20a 0.10 ± 0.01c 45.37 ± 0.79a
Large 1.02 ± 0.06b 39.66 ± 0.06a 5.946 ± 0.03a 0.08 ± 0.00d 44.80 ± 0.06a
Undersize 1.78 ± 0.02a 39.99 ± 0.43a 6.049 ± 0.09a 0.13 ± 0.01b 44.66 ± 1.42a
Crowns and tips 1.45 ± 0.11a 40.10 ± 0.57a 6.07 ± 0.03a 0.17 ± 0.00a 46.95 ± 1.13a

The values with the different letters in the rows are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD

catalysts can be added to increase the process yields. Several
studies have demonstrated high bio-oil yields from processing
of various food wastes [56, 57], and it could be a promising
option for CRW processing.
Ash is the inorganic residue left after the removal of both
water and organic matter, signifying the presence of inorganic
compounds such as sulfur, chlorine, magnesium, and potassi-
um. It is affected by the chemical composition of the biomass/
biowaste. The ash content of CRW varied between 5.24 and
8.39%, similar to the ash content of 8.3% in coal [58].
Outgraded carrots reported higher ash content (Table 3) due
to high cellulose content of 35–48% present in carrots [59],
whereas crowns have attached petioles accountable for low
cellulose content (15%) [49]. The presence of high percentage
of ash in the biowaste/biomass is undesirable since it is re-
sponsible for causing ignition and combustion problems. The
ash content of more than 5% cause several challenges, such as
clinker, during biomass gasification.
There was no significant difference in the volatile matter of
different CRW samples. However, the high percentage of vol-
atiles in CRW (78–79.67%) in comparison to coal (20–35%)
[60] would result in its high reactivity leading to generation of
char. This would consequently lower the HHV and reduce its
combustion efficiency [53], making it undesirable for direct
combustion.
The FC content of the crowns and tips was significantly
higher with p ≥ 0.05 in comparison to oversize and large
CRW. The former reported lower percentage of both the mois-
ture and ash content, resulting in a higher value of FC (%),
suggesting it as a better candidate for biofuel when compared
with outgraded carrots.
3.3.2 Ultimate analysis
CRW samples recorded no significant difference in their re-
spective carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen percentage (Table 4).
The maximum carbon and oxygen contents were about 40%
and 47%, respectively. These observations are in agreement
with the ultimate analysis of biowaste/biomass compiled in
Appendix Table 1. The carbon and oxygen content of coal
(considered as the gold standard) ranged from 13.30 to
59.40% and 15.04 to 70.05% in comparison to the biomass/
biowaste 65–85% and 2–15%, respectively (Appendix
Table 1). The nitrogen and sulfur percentage varied from
1.02 to 1.79% and 0.08 to 0.17% respectively. The nitrogen
content of large CRW was significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05) when

Fig. 6 Van-Krevelen plot for

carrot rejects and waste

compared with other CRW. Sulfur content varied significantly
(p ≤ 0.05) among all the samples with the highest percentage
in crowns and tips followed by oversize, undersize, and large
CRW respectively. Variation in the composition of biomass
limits its generalization, other than the presence of high oxy-
gen and low carbon content.
3.4 Higher heating value (HHV)
The observations confirmed low HHV ranging from 15.19 to
15.64 MJ/kg (Fig. 6); these values were within the range of
HHV values of other biomasses reported in the Appendix
Table 1. The Van Krevelen plot of CRW (Fig. 6) represented
high atomic ratio (H/C and O/C) in comparison to the standard
coal, lignite and peat, accountable for low HHV. HHV
depended on the physical state, lignin content [29], and ele-
mental composition of biomass. Fresh carrots have 23.15% of
dietary fiber, majorly comprising of indigestible residue
(13%) and crude fiber (9.09%). The latter comprises of hemi-
cellulose (1.36 ± 0.18), cellulose (7.36 ± 0.33), and lignin
(0.63 ± 0.06) [60]. Lignin being more stable and complex with
cross-linked structure required higher energy for the bond
breakage resulting in the higher HHV [50]. Alternatively,
low percentage of lignin in the crude fiber of the carrot [49]
was responsible for low HHV.
The presence of high percentage of oxygen, nitrogen, and
volatile matter, with lower values of both carbon and HHV,
made CRW less promising candidate for biofuel production.
Furthermore, these are accountable for the high NO2 emis-
sions, ash deposition, and corrosion during power production
making them a weak candidate for the same. Use of a
biorefinery approach that involves production of multiple
products by integrating different processes can be a feasible
approach to valorize CRW into biofuel and high-value prod-
ucts. Several researchers have investigated the biorefinery ap-
proach, especially using agro-food processing wastes and re-
ported high process yields and economic feasibility [61, 62].
In the case of CRW, high value β-carotene can be extracted
first and the remaining residues can be processed into biofuel.
4 Conclusions
This study opens up the gateway to exploring the options of
repurposing CRW into a value-added product. Owing to fac-
tors such as high moisture, oxygen, and nitrogen content with
low carbon percentage and HHV, CRW become a relatively
weak candidate for its potential application in the biofuel in-
dustry. However, some promising technologies like hydro-
thermal liquefaction can be investigated that can efficiently
convert wet feedstocks like CRW into biocrude oil. The phys-
ical properties of outgraded carrots and processed discards
were significantly different. The physical dimensions and
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
mechanical properties of outgraded carrots suggested that
existing carrot processing machinery can be used with certain
modifications. The processed discards are a potential source of
β-carotene along with the presence of polyacetylenes. The
preliminary findings are encouraging to pursue future research
in food and nutraceutical industry. The utilization of CRW
will reduce their influx in landfills reducing the carbon foot-
print caused due to greenhouse gases, enabling nutritional
recovery and economic gain both for the producer and
processor.
Acknowledgments The authors sincerely thank Arvind Iyer and Ranbeer
Sandhu for their assistance in performing the experiments.
Funding The authors received financial support from the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) through
Quebec-Ontario Cooperation for Agri-Food Research Competition.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Anon (2018) Statistical Overview of Canadian Vegetable Industry.
Available: https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/horticulture/horticulture-
sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-vegetable-
industry-2018/?id=1569438862333#a1.12. Accessed 04 Aug 2020
2. Stuart T (2009) Part II.Squandered harvest farming:Potatoes have
eyes;Waste:Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Penguin Group,
New York
3. El-Medany N, Hashem N, Abdel-Azeem F (2008) Effect of incor-
porating dried carrot processing waste in growing rabbit diets.
Egypt J Rabbit Sci 11:25–37
4. Russ W, Schnappinger M (2006) Waste related to food industry: a
challenge in material loops. In: Oreopoulou V, Russ W (eds)
Utilization of by-products and treatment of waste in the food indus-
try, vol 3. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, pp 1–14
5. Baljeet S, Ritika B, Reena K (2014) Effect of incorporation of
carrot pomace powder and germinated chickpea flour on the quality
characteristics of biscuits. Int Food Res J 21(1):217–222
6. Upadhyay A, Sharma H, Sarkar B (2010) Optimization of carrot
pomace powder incorporation on extruded product quality by re-
sponse surface methodology. J Food Qual 33(3):350–369. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2010.00323.x
7. Majzoobi M, Poor Z, Jamalian J, Farahnaky A (2016) Improvement
of the quality of gluten-free sponge cake using different levels and
particle sizes of carrot pomace powder. Intl J Fd Sci Technol 51(6):
1369–1377. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13104
8. Sharoba A, Farrag M, El-Salam A (2013) Utilization of some fruits
and vegetables waste as a source of dietary fiber and its effect on the
cake making and its quality attributes. J Agroaliment Process
Technol 19(4):429–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/
btw176
9. Mishra P, Bhatt D (2018) Evaluation of nutritional and physico-
chemical characteristics of dietary fibre enriched with carrot pom-
ace pasta. Int J Pharm Sci Res 9(10):4487–4491. https://doi.org/10.
13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.9(10).4487-91
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
10. Pandey A, Kumar A, Mishra A (2016) Development and qualitative
analysis of high fibre enriched bread fortified with carrot pomace.
Food Sci Res J 7(1):51–56
11. Hernández-Ortega M, Kissangou G, Necoechea-Mondragón H,
Sánchez-Pardo M, Ortiz-Moreno A (2013) Microwave dried carrot
pomace as a source of fiber and carotenoids. Food Nutr Sci 04(10):
1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2013.410135
12. Kumar Y, Tanwar V, Pandey A, Shukla P, Sharma V (2017)
Development and quality assessment of chicken cutlets enrobed
with bread crumbs vis-à-vis dried carrot pomace. Nutr Food Sci
47(5):700–709. https://doi.org/10.1108/NFS-06-2016-0082
13. Baker K, Meydany M (1994) Beta carotene as an antioxidant in
immunity and cancer. J Optimal Nutr 3:39–50
14. Anderson N, Clydesdale F (1980) Effects of processing on dietary
fiber content of wheat bran, pureed green beans and carrots (No.
2354), paper no 2354 Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment
Station. Amherst
15. McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1):
overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83:37–43
16. Zhang R, El-Mashad H, Hartman K, Wang F, Liu G, Choate C,
Gamble P (2007) Characterization of food waste as feedstock for
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 98:929–935
17. Dubrovskis V, Plume I (2015) Anaerobic digestion of vegetables
processing wastes with catalyst metaferm. Agron Res 13:294–302
18. Thanikal J, Torrijos M, Rizwan S, Yazidi H, Kumar S, Sousbie P
(2015) Anaerobic co-digestion of vegetable waste and cooked oil in
anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR). Int J Adv Agric
Environ Eng 2:4–7
19. Yu C, Jiang B, Duan K (2013) Production of bioethanol from carrot
pomace using the thermotolerant yeast kluyveromyces marxianus.
Energies 6:1794–1801. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031794
20. Ahmed S, Ahmed A, Rafat M (2018) Super capacitor performance
of activated carbon derived from rotten carrot in aqueous organic
and ionic based electrolyte. J Saudi Chem Soc 22:993–1002
21. Mohsenin N (1986) Physical properties of plant and animal mate-
rials. structure, physical characteristics and mechanical properties,
2nd edn. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York
22. Jahanbakhshi A, Abbaspour-Gilandeh Y, Gundoshmian T (2018)
Determination of physical and mechanical properties of carrot in
order to reduce waste during harvesting and post-harvesting. Food
Sci Nutr 1898–1903 6:1898–1903. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.
760
23. Doymaz I (2007) Influence of pretreatment solution on the drying
of sour cherry. J Food Eng 78:591–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jfoodeng.2005.10.037
24. Rehal J, Kaur GJ, Bons HK (2017) Studies on physico-mechanical
properties of W. Murcott mandarin. J Appl Nat Sci 9411:80–84.
https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v9i1.1154
25. Baugerod H, Apeland J (1971) Factors affecting weight loss in
carrots. Acta Hort:92–97
26. Sadler G, Davis J, Dezman D (1990) Rapid extraction of lycopene
and β-carotene from reconstituted tomato paste and pink grapefruit
homogenates. J Food Sci 55:1460–1461
27. Hart D, Scott KJ (1995) Development and evaluation of an HPLC
method forthe analysis of carotenoids in foods, and the measure-
ment of the carotenoidcontent of vegetables and fruits commonly
consumed in the UK. Food Chem 54:101–111
28. Hansted AL, Cacuro T, Nakashima G, Costa V, Yamamoto H,
Yamaji F (2018) Use of a lignocellulosic residue as solid fuel: the
effect of ash content in the energy potential. Ind Crops Prod 116:
209–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDCROP.2018.02.042
29. Kambo HS, Dutta A (2014) Strength, storage, and combustion
characteristics of densified lignocellulosic biomass produced via
torrefaction and hydrothermal carbonization. Appl Energy 135:
182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.094
30. Brandenberger L, Mcglynn W, Wells L, Bostian B, Payton M
(2007) Production and quality evaluations of processing carrots.
Hort Technol 17:133–135
31. Somers GF (1965) Citric-acid induced loss of rigidity in potato
tuber slices. Plant Physiol. 40:388–395
32. Talcott S, Howard L (1999) Chemical and sensory quality of proc-
essed carrot puree as influenced by stress-induced phenolic com-
pounds. J Agric Food Chem 47:1362–1366. https://doi.org/10.
1021/jf981135f
33. Patras A, Brunton N, Da Pieve S, Butler F, Downey G (2009) Effect
of thermal and high pressure processing on antioxidant activity and
instrumental colour of tomato and carrot purées. Innov Food Sci
Emerg Technol 10:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2008.09.
008
34. Nguyen LT, Rastogi N, Balasubramaniam V (2007) Evaluation of
the instrumental quality of pressure-assisted thermally processed
carrots. J Food Sci 72:264–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-
3841.2007.00365.x
35. Bernat N, Chafer M, Rodrıguez-Garcıa J, Chiralt A, Gonzalez-
Martınez C (2015) Effect of high pressure homogenisation and heat
treatment on physical properties and stability of almond and hazel-
nut milks. LWT – Food Sci Technol 62:488–496
36. Herrero-Martinez J, Eeltin K, Schoenmakers P, Kok W, Ramis-
Ramos G (2006) Determination of major carotenoids in vegetables
by capillary electrochromatograph. J Sep Sci 29:660–665
37. Knockaert G, Lemmens L, Buggenhout S, Hendrickx M, Loey A
(2012) Changes in β-carotene bioaccessibility and concentration
during processing of carrot puree. Food Chem 133:60–67
38. Knockaert G, De Roeck A, Lemmens L, Van Buggenhout S,
Hendrickx M, Van Loey A (2011) Effect of thermal and high pres-
sure processes on structural and health-related properties of carrots
(Daucus carota). Food Chem 125(3):903–912
39. Lemmens L, Van Buggenhout S, Oey I, Van Loey A, Hendrickx M
(2009) Towards a better understanding of the relationship between
the β-carotene in vitro bio-accessibility and pectin structural chang-
es: a case study on carrots. Food Res Int 42:1323–1330
40. Lemmens L, Van Buggenhout S, Van Loey AM, Hendrickx ME
(2010) Particle size reduction leading to cell wall rupture is more
important for the β-carotene bioaccessibility of raw compared to
thermally processed carrots. J Agric Food Chem 58:12769–12776
41. Howard L, Braswell D, Aselage J (1996) Chemical composition
and color of strained carrots as affected by processing. J Food Sci
61:327–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1996.tb14187.x
42. Seljåsen R, Bengtsson GB, Hoftun H, Vogt G (2001) Sensory and
chemical changes in five varieties of carrot (Daucus carota L) in
response to mechanical stress at harvest and post-harvest. J Sci
Food Agric 81:436–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0010(200103)81:4<436::AID-JSFA837>3.3.CO;2-I
43. Seljåsen R, Hoftun H, Bengtsson GB (2003) Critical factors for
reduced sensory quality of fresh carrots in the distribution chain.
In: Tijskens, Vollebregt (eds) Proc Int Conf Quality in Chains. pp.
761–767
44. Czepa A, Hofmann T (2004) Quantitative studies and sensory anal-
yses on the influence of cultivar, spatial tissue distribution, and
industrial processing on the bitter off-taste of carrots (Daucus carota
L.) and carrot products. J Agric Food Chem 52:4508–4514. https://
doi.org/10.1021/jf0496393
45. Zidorn C, Jöhrer K, Ganzera M, Schubert B, Sigmund EM, Mader
J, Greil R, Ellmerer EP, Stuppner H (2005) Polyacetylenes from the
apiaceae vegetables carrot, celery, fennel, parsley, and parsnip and
their cytotoxic activities. J Agric Food Chem 53:2518–2523.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf048041s
46. Brandt K, Christensen L, Hansen-Møller J, Hansen SL, Haralsdottir
J, Jespersen L, Purup S, Kharazmi A, Barkholt V, Frokiaer H,
Kobaek-Larsen M (2004) Health promoting compound in vegeta-
bles and fruits. A systematic approach for identifying plant

components with impact on human health. Trends Food Sci
Technol 15:384–393
47. Greenberg E, Baron J, Karagas M, Stukel T, Nierenberg D, Stevens
M, Mandel J, Haile R (1996) Mortality associated with low plasma
concentration of beta-carotene and the effect of oral supplementa-
tion. J Am Med Assoc 275:699–703
48. Sharma K, Karki S, Thakur N, Attri S (2012) Chemical composi-
tion, functional properties and processing of carrot-A review. J
Food Sci Technol 49:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-
0310-7
49. Goneim G, Ibrahim F, El-Shehawy S (2011) Carrot leaves : antiox-
idative and nutritive values. J. Food Dairy Sci 2(4):201–211. https://
doi.org/10.21608/jfds.2011.81946
50. Kambo HS, Dutta A (2015) A comparative review of biochar and
hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties and
applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:359–378. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.050
51. Zhang Z, O’Hara I, Mundree S, Gao B, Ball A, Zhu N, Bai Z, Jin B
(2016) Biofuels from food processing wastes. Curr Opin
Biotechnol 38:97–105
52. Juneja A, Kumar D, Tumuluru J (2017) Hydrothermal
liquefaction—a promising technology for high moisture biomass
conversion. In: Tumuluru J, Richard Hess J (eds) Biomass
Preprocessing for Biofuels Production. CRC Press
53. Kumar D, Singh V (2020) Bioconversion of processing waste from
agro-food industries to bioethanol: creating a sustainable and circu-
lar economy. In: Lin C, Kaur G, Li C, Yang X (eds) Waste
Valorisation: Waste Streams in a Circular Economy. Wiley, New
York, pp 161–182
54. Kumar D, Murthy G (2011) Impact of pretreatment and down-
stream processing technologies on economics and energy use in
cellulosic ethanol production. Biotechnol Biofuels 4:27
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
55. Khan AA, de Jong W, Jansens P, Spliethoff H (2009) Biomass
combustion in fluidized bed boilers: Potential problems and reme-
dies. Fuel Process Technol 90:21–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuproc.2008.07.012
56. Déniel M, Haarlemmer G, Roubaud A, Weiss-Hortala E, Fages J
(2016) Energy valorisation of food processing residues and model
compounds by hydrothermal liquefaction. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 54:1632–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.017
57. Chen W, Lin Y, Liu H, Chen T, Hung C, Chen C (2019) A com-
prehensive analysis of food waste derived liquefaction bio-oil prop-
erties for industrial application. Appl Energy 237:283–291
58. Demirbaş A (2005) Fuel and combustion properties of bio-wastes.
Energy Sources 27:451–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00908310490441863
59. James AR, Martin AE, Michael MY (1979) An investigation into
the dietary fibre content of named varieties of carrot at different
developmental ages. J Sci Food Agric 30:388–394
60. Saqib N, Baroutian S, Sarmah A (2018) Physicochemical, structural
and combustion characterization of food waste hydrochar obtained
by hydrothermal carbonization. Bioresour Technol 266:357–363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.112
61. Jin Q, Yang L, Poe N, Huang H (2018) Integrated processing of
plant-derived waste to produce value-added products based on the
biorefinery concept. Trends Food Sci Technol 74:119–131. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.02.014
62. Dahiya S, Kumar AN, Shanthi Sravan J, Chatterjee S, Sarkar O,
Mohan SV (2018) Food waste biorefinery: Sustainable strategy for
circular bioeconomy. Bioresour Technol 248:2–12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.176
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.