4.6 Review

Recovery of Biomolecules from Food Wastes - A Review

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 14821-14842

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules190914821

关键词

biomass; by-products; dietary fiber; food waste; nutraceutical products; phenolic compounds; recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food wastes are produced by a variety of sources, ranging from agricultural operations to household consumption. About 38% occurs during food processing. At present, the European Union legislation encourages the exploitation of co-products. This valorisation can be achieved through the extraction of high-value components such as proteins, polysaccharides, fibres, flavour compounds, and phytochemicals, which can be re-used as nutritionally and pharmacologically functional ingredients. Extraction can proceed according to solid-liquid extraction, Soxhlet extraction, pressurized fluid extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, pulsed electric field extraction, and enzyme-assisted extraction. Nevertheless, these techniques cannot be used indiscriminately and their choice depends on the type of biomolecules and matrix, the scale processing (laboratory or industrial), the ratio between production costs and economic values of the compounds to be extracted. The vegetable wastes include trimmings, peelings, stems, seeds, shells, bran, residues remaining after extraction of oil, starch, sugar, and juice. The animal-derived wastes include wastes from bred animals, wastes from seafood, wastes from dairy processing. The recovered biomolecules and by-products can be used to produce functional foods or as adjuvants in food processing or in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. This work is an overview of the type and amounts of food wastes; food waste legislation; conventional and novel techniques suitable for extracting biomolecules; food, medicinal and pharmaceutical uses of the recovered biomolecules and by-products, and future trends in these areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据