4.5 Review

Food waste valorization via anaerobic processes: a review

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11157-016-9405-y

关键词

Food waste; Anaerobic digestion; Methane; Hydrogen; Co-digestion

资金

  1. Suez
  2. National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) under the CIFRE [2014/1146]
  3. Communaute d'Agglomeration du Grand Narbonne (CAGN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing production of food waste worldwide and new international regulations call for the development of new technologies to treat this biowaste. Anaerobic processes are able to treat efficiently organic wastes, producing at the same time different value-added compounds. In addition, due to the lower costs and environmental impacts associated with these processes when compared to other options, they are among the most promising technologies for food waste treatment. This article reviews the state-of-the-art dealing with treatment of food waste by anaerobic processes, with emphasis on the most recent research carried out. The different processes that are assessed are anaerobic digestion for methane production, anaerobic fermentation for hydrogen and/or volatile fatty acids production and 2-stage systems. The primary issues associated with each alternative are presented, paying special attention to accumulation of ammonia and volatile fatty acids in the reactor. In addition, the latest developments to overcome the complications of each system are also described, focusing on how they improve its stability and performance. Moreover, the relevant economic and environmental research has also been reviewed, including several life cycle analyses that compare anaerobic processes with other technologies used for food waste treatment. Different case studies are also presented. Finally, recommendations for future research for the anaerobic processes studied and options for process integration are discussed. Moving towards the idea of a circular economy, a potential biorefinery for food waste valorization is also proposed.

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

4.5
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