| Literature DB >> 35885279 |
Yue Wu1, Shunyu Yao1, Bhakti Anand Narale2, Akalya Shanmugam2,3, Srinivas Mettu4, Muthupandian Ashokkumar1.
Abstract
Ultrasonic processing has a great potential to transform waste from the food and agriculture industry into value-added products. In this review article, we discuss the use of ultrasound for the valorisation of food and agricultural waste. Ultrasonic processing is considered a green technology as compared to the conventional chemical extraction/processing methods. The influence of ultrasound pre-treatment on the soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD), particle size, and cell wall content of food waste is first discussed. The use of ultrasonic processing to produce/extract bioactives such as oil, polyphenolic, polysaccharides, fatty acids, organic acids, protein, lipids, and enzymes is highlighted. Moreover, ultrasonic processing in bioenergy production from food waste such as green methane, hydrogen, biodiesel, and ethanol through anaerobic digestion is also reviewed. The conversion of waste oils into biofuels with the use of ultrasound is presented. The latest developments and future prospective on the use of ultrasound in developing energy-efficient methods to convert food and agricultural waste into value-added products are summarised.Entities:
Keywords: bio-energy products; extraction; food waste; sustainable goals; ultrasound processing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885279 PMCID: PMC9319240 DOI: 10.3390/foods11142035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1A schematic representation of the acoustic cavitation phenomenon.
Figure 2The morphology of the floc structure of sludge before and after ultrasonic pre-treatment under SEM [36]. Note: different lowercases represents food waste without ultrasound treatment (a), with sonication for 10 min (b) and with sonication for 30 min (c).
The influence of ultrasound on SCOD changes.
| Source/Composition of Food Waste | Ultrasonic | Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A mixture of rice, cabbage, pork, and tofu waste with different total solid (TS) content | 20 kHz, 480 W/L, 15 min | TS = 40 g/L, ΔSCOD: +157% | [ |
| Sewage sludge | 27 kHz, 200 W/L | 2.5 min, ΔSCOD: +239% | [ |
| Activated sludge | 20 kHz, 21 kJ/g TS, | ΔSCOD: +246% | [ |
| A mixture of wheat, gram flour, rice, fruit peel, and vegetable waste | 20 kHz, 0.4 W/mL, | ΔSCOD: +61.5% | [ |
| Food waste obtained from the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility | 20 kHz, 79 kJ/g TS | ΔSCOD: +25% | [ |
| Food waste from the Aurora treatment plant | 20 kHz, 10,384, 15,577, 20,769 kJ/kg TS for 30, 45, 60 min US sample | 30 min, ΔSCOD: +10.3% | [ |
| Dairy waste | 20 kHz, 0.6 W/mL, | ΔSCOD: +28.4% | [ |
| Complex food waste | 20 kHz, 16,875 kJ/kg TS, 15 min | ΔSCOD: +56.5% | [ |
| Algae | 20 kHz, 30 min, | Maximum ΔSCOD: +1950% was observed at 200 W US power | [ |
| Pulp mill | 20 kHz, 3.1 W/mL | 15 min, ΔSCOD: +14.9% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz, 5000 kJ/kg | ΔSCOD: +9.0% | [ |
| Rice, noodles, vegetables, and meat waste obtained from a cafeteria at Harbin Institute | 20 kHz, 1.25 W/mL, 30 min | ΔSCOD: +115% | [ |
| Activated sludge | 24 kHz, 1690 and 3380 kJ/kg TS for 5- and 10 min sonication sample | 5 min, ΔSCOD: +17% | [ |
| Activated sludge | 20 kHz, 1.04 W/mL, 2.5 min | ΔSCOD: +12.6% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz, 2 W/mL, | ΔSCOD: +71.5% | [ |
| Algae sludge | 40 kHz, 30 min, | ΔSCOD: +520% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz, 23 kJ/g TS, | ΔSCOD: +22.1% | [ |
| Digestate | 20 kHz, 3000 kJ/kg TS | ΔSCOD: +21% | [ |
| Organic waste from the food industry | 20 kHz, 50,000 kJ/kg TS | ΔSCOD: +20% | [ |
| Dairy digestate waste | 20 kHz, 15,000 kJ/kg TS | ΔSCOD: +15% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz, 6946 kJ/kg TS, | ΔSCOD: +159% | [ |
| Solid organic waste | 20 kHz, 15,000 kJ/kg TS | ΔSCOD: +9.0% | [ |
| Olive mill wastewater | 20 kHz, 0.4 W/mL, | ΔSCOD: +23% | [ |
| Solid waste | 20 kHz, 0.2 W/mL, | ΔSCOD: +18.5% | [ |
| Fermentation residues | 20 kHz pulsed US (4 s on, 6 s off), 2 W/mL, 30 min | ΔSCOD: +39.5% | [ |
| Seed sludge from | 20 kHz, 200 W/L, | ΔSCOD: +11% | [ |
Figure 3The morphology of food waste samples under SEM: (a) control (untreated) food waste sample, (b) sonicated food waste sample using a 35 mm horn (at 0.34 W/mL power). The SEM pictures were obtained at a magnification of 2000 [70]. Note: The scale bar is 50 μm.
The variation in the amounts of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin in an extract after ultrasonic treatment.
| Source/Composition of Food Waste | Ultrasonic | Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat waste | 20 kHz, 30 min, NaOH (2% | Δcellulose: +13.2%; Δlignin: −10.1% | [ |
| Vegetable waste | 20 kHz, 20 min | Δcellulose: +23.1%; Δhemicellulose: −9.0%; Δlignin: −10.2% | [ |
| Oil palm fronds | 20 kHz, 50 min | Δlignin: −5.8% | [ |
| Wheat straw | 20 kHz, 120 min at 50 °C | Δlignin: −6.2% | [ |
| Rice straw | 30 kHz, water bath 90 °C, 4 h | Δlignin: −4.6% | [ |
| Rice hull | 40 kHz, 500 W, 1.5 h | Δcellulose: −2.8%; Δhemicellulose: −3.7%; Δlignin: +1.6% | [ |
| Sugarcane bagasse | 22 kHz, 50 W, 25 min, ozone/alkaline assisted | Δcellulose: +10.5%; Δhemicellulose: −8.1%; Δlignin: −15.6% | [ |
| Sugarcane bagasse | 24 kHz, 500 W, water bath 40 °C | Δcellulose: +21.4%; Δhemicellulose: −18.6%; Δlignin: −8.4% | [ |
| Spent coffee waste | 47 kHz, 310 W, 20 min | Δlignin: −8.8% | [ |
Figure 4The X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra of control and pre-treated samples [89].
Figure 5Schematic illustration of various conventional methods of extraction of bioactives or useful materials from different food wastes.
Figure 6The direct transesterification of waste cooking oil (WCO) using acidic and alkaline catalysts [155]. WCO: waste cooking oil; FFA: free fatty acid; MeOH: methanol; TG: triglycerides; FAME: fatty acid methyl esters.
Ultrasound-assisted transesterification of food waste to produce biodiesel.
| Materials | Ultrasonic Frequency | Ultrasonic Power | Temperature | Biodiesel | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solid food waste oil | 20 kHz | 50% amplitude | 52.5 °C | 93.23% | [ |
| Waste cottonseed cooking oil | 20 kHz | 500 W | 50 °C | 98% | [ |
| Waste cottonseed cooking oil | 20 kHz | 500 W | 40–60 °C | 70.21~97.76% | [ |
| Waste bio-oil | 20 kHz | 20~100% amplitude | 45 °C | 98.7% | [ |
| Waste cooking oil | 20 kHz | 108 W | 70 °C | 95.57% | [ |
| Waste cooking oil | 22 kHz | 120 W | 60 °C | 93.5% | [ |
| Waste cooking oil | 20 kHz | 55% amplitude | 57 °C | 76.45% | [ |
Effect of ultrasound on bio-methane production from food waste during anaerobic digestion.
| Materials | Ultrasonic Frequency | Ultrasonic Power | Temperature | Bio-Methane Yield | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buckwheat hull | 40 kHz | 110 W | 25 °C | 141.9 NL Kg VS-1 | [ |
| Restaurant waste | 20 kHz | 0–500 W | Room temperature | 647.49 mL/g TVS~927.97 mL/g | [ |
| Fruit and vegetable residue | 25 kHz | 90 W | - | 0.61 g/g COD | [ |
| Mixture of food waste, cattle manure, and sludge | 24 kHz | 400 W | - | 0.85 L/L day | [ |
| Mixture of food waste, cattle manure, and crude glycerine | 24 kHz | 400 W | 55 °C | 520 L/kg VS | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz and 25 kHz | 120 W and 200 W | 35 °C | ~0.26 L/day | [ |
Effect of ultrasound on bio-hydrogen production from food waste during fermentation.
| Materials | Ultrasonic Frequency | Ultrasonic Power | Temperature | Bio-Hydrogen Yield | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixture of food and yard waste | 20 kHz | 0~500 W | - | 7.87 mL/g VS, decreased by 11% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz | 500 W | <30 °C | 1.55 mol/mol VS, increased by 120% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz | 500 W | <30 °C | 97 mL/g VS, increased by 131% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz | 500 W | <30 °C | 80 mL/g VS, increased by 88% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz | 1200 W | <30 °C | 0.62~5.23 mL/h, increased by 75% | [ |
| Food waste | 20 kHz | 130 W | - | 0.7 mmol/g COD, increased by 38% | [ |
| Dairy waste | 20 kHz | 0.3~1.1 W/mL | 25 °C | 15.51 mL/g VS, increased by 3 times | [ |