IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v154y2022ics1364032121010509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biorefining within food loss and waste frameworks: A review

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, R.E.
  • Speight, R.E.
  • Blinco, J.L.
  • O'Hara, I.M.

Abstract

Biorefining food loss and waste (FLW) to produce bioenergy or bioproducts is an attractive waste management option with potential economic and environmental benefits. This paper aims to identify how biorefining processes have been incorporated into waste management frameworks, and how well their placement or ranking within these frameworks is supported by evidence from the literature. Seven FLW management frameworks (hierarchies) sourced from government and research literature were critically assessed. The ranking of management options within the FLW hierarchy is generally based on environmental outcomes and consequently, it was expected that the FLW hierarchies provide consistent advice. It was found that while biorefining processes were frequently incorporated within the recycling and recovery levels of the FLW hierarchies, their comparative positions were subject to significant variability. A systematic literature review of biorefining processes for FLW management revealed that the environmental impacts of energy-driven processes were frequently assessed and compared. However, comparative environmental assessments of biorefining non-energy products (product-driven biorefining) is underrepresented in this literature. Nevertheless, for horticultural FLW feedstocks, product-driven biorefining potentially offers attractive economic and environmental outcomes. Product-driven biorefining is likely to be particularly relevant for horticultural FLW, due to the abundance of useful and valuable compounds in these materials.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, R.E. & Speight, R.E. & Blinco, J.L. & O'Hara, I.M., 2022. "Biorefining within food loss and waste frameworks: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:154:y:2022:i:c:s1364032121010509
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121010509
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111781?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brancoli, Pedro & Rousta, Kamran & Bolton, Kim, 2017. "Life cycle assessment of supermarket food waste," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 39-46.
    2. Chen, Chung-Chiang & Chen, Yi-Tui, 2013. "Energy recovery or material recovery for MSW treatments?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 37-44.
    3. Laura Brenes-Peralta & María F. Jiménez-Morales & Rooel Campos-Rodríguez & Fabio De Menna & Matteo Vittuari, 2020. "Decision-Making Process in the Circular Economy: A Case Study on University Food Waste-to-Energy Actions in Latin America," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-25, May.
    4. Beate El-Chichakli & Joachim von Braun & Christine Lang & Daniel Barben & Jim Philp, 2016. "Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 221-223, July.
    5. Tong, Huanhuan & Shen, Ye & Zhang, Jingxin & Wang, Chi-Hwa & Ge, Tian Shu & Tong, Yen Wah, 2018. "A comparative life cycle assessment on four waste-to-energy scenarios for food waste generated in eateries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 1143-1157.
    6. Giovanni Mondello & Roberta Salomone & Giuseppe Ioppolo & Giuseppe Saija & Sergio Sparacia & Maria Claudia Lucchetti, 2017. "Comparative LCA of Alternative Scenarios for Waste Treatment: The Case of Food Waste Production by the Mass-Retail Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    7. zu Ermgassen, Erasmus K.H.J. & Phalan, Ben & Green, Rhys E. & Balmford, Andrew, 2016. "Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where there’s swill, there’s a way," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 35-48.
    8. Laibach, Natalie & Börner, Jan & Bröring, Stefanie, 2019. "Exploring the future of the bioeconomy: An expert-based scoping study examining key enabling technology fields with potential to foster the transition toward a bio-based economy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. Moult, J.A. & Allan, S.R. & Hewitt, C.N. & Berners-Lee, M., 2018. "Greenhouse gas emissions of food waste disposal options for UK retailers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 50-58.
    10. Vandermeersch, T. & Alvarenga, R.A.F. & Ragaert, P. & Dewulf, J., 2014. "Environmental sustainability assessment of food waste valorization options," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 57-64.
    11. Marco Springmann & Michael Clark & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Keith Wiebe & Benjamin Leon Bodirsky & Luis Lassaletta & Wim Vries & Sonja J. Vermeulen & Mario Herrero & Kimberly M. Carlson & Malin Jonell & , 2018. "Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 519-525, October.
    12. De Corato, Ugo & De Bari, Isabella & Viola, Egidio & Pugliese, Massimo, 2018. "Assessing the main opportunities of integrated biorefining from agro-bioenergy co/by-products and agroindustrial residues into high-value added products associated to some emerging markets: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 326-346.
    13. Johan Hultman & Hervé Corvellec, 2012. "The European Waste Hierarchy: From the Sociomateriality of Waste to a Politics of Consumption," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(10), pages 2413-2427, October.
    14. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juan Camilo Solarte-Toro & Carlos Ariel Cardona Alzate, 2023. "Sustainability of Biorefineries: Challenges and Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-24, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eriksson, Mattias & Ghosh, Ranjan & Mattsson, Lisa & Ismatov, Alisher, 2017. "Take-back agreements in the perspective of food waste generation at the supplier-retailer interface," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 83-93.
    2. Sanghyo Kim & Sang Hyeon Lee, 2020. "Examining Household Food Waste Behaviors and the Determinants in Korea Using New Questions in a National Household Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Ziyao Fan & Huijuan Dong & Yong Geng & Minoru Fujii, 2023. "Life cycle cost–benefit efficiency of food waste treatment technologies in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 4935-4956, June.
    4. Mac Clay, Pablo & Sellare, Jorge, 2022. "Value chain transformations in the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy," Discussion Papers 323957, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    5. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Li, Yilin & Chen, Bin & Li, Chaohui & Li, Zhi & Chen, Guoqian, 2020. "Energy perspective of Sino-US trade imbalance in global supply chains," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    9. Nicolas Bijon & Tom Wassenaar & Guillaume Junqua & Magali Dechesne, 2022. "Towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy through Industrial Symbiosis: Current Situation and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, January.
    10. Ejovi Akpojevwe Abafe & Yonas T. Bahta & Henry Jordaan, 2022. "Exploring Biblioshiny for Historical Assessment of Global Research on Sustainable Use of Water in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-34, August.
    11. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    12. Elke Stehfest & Willem-Jan Zeist & Hugo Valin & Petr Havlik & Alexander Popp & Page Kyle & Andrzej Tabeau & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Tomoko Hasegawa & Benjamin L. Bodirsky & Katherine Calvin & Jonathan C, 2019. "Key determinants of global land-use projections," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Bauer, Jan M. & Aarestrup, Simon C. & Hansen, Pelle G. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    14. EiÄ aitÄ—, Ovidija & Baležentis, Tomas & RibaÅ¡auskienÄ—, Erika & MorkÅ«nas, Mangirdas & MelnikienÄ—, Rasa & Å treimikienÄ—, Dalia, 2022. "Food waste in the retail sector: A survey-based evidence from Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Soltanian, Salman & Kalogirou, Soteris A. & Ranjbari, Meisam & Amiri, Hamid & Mahian, Omid & Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Jafary, Tahereh & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Gupta, Vijai Kumar & Aghaei, Siavash & Pe, 2022. "Exergetic sustainability analysis of municipal solid waste treatment systems: A systematic critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Aitor Barrio & Fernando Burgoa Francisco & Andrea Leoncini & Lars Wietschel & Andrea Thorenz, 2021. "Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of a Novel Bio-Based Multilayer Panel for Construction Applications," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Jiarui Liu & Azusa Oita & Kentaro Hayashi & Kazuyo Matsubae, 2022. "Sustainability of Vertical Farming in Comparison with Conventional Farming: A Case Study in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Yongming Wang & Umar Iqbal & Yingmei Gong, 2021. "The Performance of Resilient Supply Chain Sustainability in Covid-19 by Sourcing Technological Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    19. Wang, Xiaojun & Zhang, Shukai & Schneider, Niels, 2021. "Evaluating the carbon emissions of alternative food provision systems: A comparative analysis of recipe box and supermarket equivalents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Ugo De Corato, 2021. "Bioplastics from Winemaking By-products in the Buildings Sector: A Feasibility Study on the Main Opportunities, Barriers and Challenges," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 1313-1333, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:154:y:2022:i:c:s1364032121010509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.