Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-food Wastes: Food Ingredients 103235884X, 9781032358840

Citation preview

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes Food ingredients are important molecules of the most diverse chemical classes responsible for conferring nutrition, stability, color, flavor, rheological and sensorial characteristics, in addition to several other important uses in the food industry. In this way, the production routes of these ingredients have gained more and more attention from consumers and producing industries, who expect that, in addition to their technological properties, these ingredients are still obtained without synthetic means, with savings of natural resources and mainly with less environmental impact. This book is intended for bioengineers, biologists, biochemists, biotechnologists, microbiologists, food technologists, enzymologists, and related professionals/ researchers. • Explores recent advances in the valorization of agri-food waste into food ingredients • Provides technical concepts on the production of various food ingredients of commercial interest • Explores novel technologically advanced strategies for the extraction of bioactive compounds from food wastes • Presents important classes of food ingredients obtained from alternative raw materials • Presents sustainable food waste resources and management strategies • Presents different pretreatment technologies and green extraction meth­ odologies to support a green environment in the circular economy concept. • Challenges in applications of re-derived bioactive compounds from food wastes in food formulations

Advances and Applications in Biotechnology Series Editors Gustavo Molina, Institute of Science and Technology – UFVJM, Diamantina – Brazil Vijai Kumar Gupta, Biorefining and Advanced Materials Research Center; Center for Safe and Improved Food at SRUC, UK

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes: Bioactive Molecules Volume 1 Prof. Gustavo Molina, Dr. Minaxi Sharma, Dr. Rachid Benhida, Prof. Dr. Vijai Kumar Gupta, Prof. Ramesh Chander Kuhad Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-food Wastes: Industrial Applications Volume 2 Gustavo Molina, Minaxi Sharma, Rachid Benhida, Vijai Kumar Gupta, Ramesh Chander Kuhad Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-food Wastes: Industrial Enzymes Volume 3 Gustavo Molina, Minaxi Sharma, Vipin Chandra Kalia, Franciele Maria Pelissari, and Vijai Kumar Gupta Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-food Wastes: Food Ingredients Volume 4 Gustavo Molina, Minaxi Sharma, Vipin Chandra Kalia, Franciele Maria Pelissari, Vijai Kumar Gupta

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes Food Ingredients

Edited by

Gustavo Molina Minaxi Sharma Vipin Chandra Kalia Franciele Maria Pelissari Vijai Kumar Gupta

Designed cover image: ©Shutterstock First edition published 2023 by CRC Press 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 320, Boca Raton FL 33431 and by CRC Press 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC © 2023 selection and editorial matter Gustavo Molina, Minaxi Sharma, Vipin Chandra Kalia, Franciele Maria Pelissari, Vijai Kumar Gupta, individual chapters, the contributors Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www. copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. For works that are not available on CCC please contact [email protected] Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-1-032-35884-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-37601-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-34130-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.1201/9781003341307 Typeset in Times by MPS Limited, Dehradun

Contents Editor Biographies...................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste for the Extraction of Carotenoids: Food Applications..........................................................1 Praveen Kumar Dikkala, Suman Biyyani, Gopinath Mummaleti, Aparna Kuna, Pradeepa Roberts, Kairam Narsaiah, Chayanika Sarma, Monika Sharma, Gauri Dutt Sharma, Zeba Usmani, and Minaxi Sharma

Chapter 2

Bio-Valorization of Citrus-Waste for the Production of Bioactive Molecules for Food Applications.....................................21 Suman Kashyap

Chapter 3

Agri-Food Waste Utilization: Obtaining Protein Hydrolysates and Bioactive Peptides as Functional Ingredients for Food Application ........................................................................................45 Jessika Gonçalves dos Santos Aguilar, Ruann Janser Soares de Castro, and Hélia Harumi Sato

Chapter 4

Microbial Fructo-Oligosaccharides Derived from Agri-Food Waste .................................................................................................73 Praveen Kumar Dikkala, Gopinath Mummaleti, Reshu Rajput, Ritika Modi, Chayanika Sarma, Gazula Himabindu, Yarrakula Srinivas, Monika Sharma, Vijai Kumar Gupta, Zeba Usmani, and Minaxi Sharma

Chapter 5

Valorization of Vegetal Wastes for the Production of Antioxidants and Vitamins.............................................................. 103 Lopamudra Sahu, Ritesh Pattnaik, and Sandeep K. Panda

Chapter 6

Microbial Production of Citric Acid by Agro-Industrial Residues from Solid-State Cultivation ...........................................................113 R.G. Bastos, B.S. Campanhol, H.C. Ribeiro-Muraca, and D.V.M. Hewitt

v

vi

Chapter 7

Contents

Agricultural Wastes: A Feedstock for Citric Acid Production Through Microbial Pathway ...........................................................133 Saloni Sachdeva, Rajesh Banu, and Yogalakshmi Kadapakkam Nandabalan

Chapter 8

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid Using Agri-Food Wastes.............................................................................................. 157 Thamylles Thuany Mayrink Lima, Dalila Luzia de Oliveira Soares, and José Guilherme Prado Martin

Chapter 9

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Circular Bioeconomy and Biorefinery: Advances and Perspectives ..............................................................................189 Ana Mendoza, Shiva, Rosa M. Rodríguez-Jasso, Elia Tomás-Pejó, and Héctor A. Ruiz

Chapter 10 Microbial Valorisation of Agroindustrial Wastes for the Generation of Novel Food Flavours ...............................................213 Mário Cesar Jucoski Bier, Renata Gomes, Khiomara Khemeli Dellani de Lima, and Adriane Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros Index......................................................................................................................231

Editor Biographies Professor Gustavo Molina graduated in Food Engineering, earned his Master’s degree (2010) and his Ph.D. (2014) at the University of Campinas – Unicamp (Campinas – Brazil), and part of his doctoral research was developed at the Laboratoire de Génie Chimique et Biochimique at the Université Blaise Pascal (Clermont-Ferrand – France). Since 2013 he has been an Associate Professor at UFVJM (Diamantina – Brazil) in Food Engineering and a supervisor of students and researchers, being the head of the Laboratory of Food Biotechnology and conducting scientific and technical research. Dr. Minaxi Sharma is currently working as Senior Researcher at CARAH (Ath), Belgium. She has expertise in the area of food science and technology, nanoencapsulation, food waste valorization and food chemistry. Prof. Vipin Chandra Kalia received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Genetics from ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR-IARI.), New Delhi, India. He superannuated as Deputy Director, CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (CSIR-IGIB), New Delhi, India, in 2016. He was Emeritus Scientist at CSIR-IGIB in 2017. Since 2018, as a Professor Department of Chemical Engineering at Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea. Prof. Franciele Maria Pelissari graduated in Food Engineering; earned her Master’s degree (2009) at the University of Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Brazil; and her Ph.D. (2013) at the University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil. Since 2013, she has been an associate professor at the Institute of Science and Technology program at the Federal University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, Brazil, in Food Engineering, and also a full professor in the graduate program in Food Science and Technology. Dr. Vijai Kumar Gupta received his Ph.D. in Microbiology in the year 2009 from Dr. RML Avadh University, India. Currently, he is working as an Associate Professor (Biochemistry) at AgroBioSciences (AgBS)/Chemical & Biochemical Sciences (CBS), UM6P University, Morocco.

vii

1

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste for the Extraction of Carotenoids: Food Applications Praveen Kumar Dikkala School of Food Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada (JNTUK), Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India

Suman Biyyani Department of Microbiology, Forest College and Research Institute (FCRI), Mulugu, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Gopinath Mummaleti Department of Food Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India

Aparna Kuna MFPI - Quality Control Laboratory, Prof. Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Pradeepa Roberts Millet Processing and Incubation Centre, Prof. Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Kairam Narsaiah AS & EC Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Chayanika Sarma Department of Food Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India DOI: 10.1201/9781003341307-1

1

2

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Monika Sharma Department of Botany, Shri Awadh Raz Singh Smarak Degree College, Faizabad University, UP, India

Gauri Dutt Sharma University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya, India

Zeba Usmani and Minaxi Sharma Department of Applied Biology, University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya, India

CONTENTS 1.1 1.2 1.3

Introduction.......................................................................................................2 Global Production and Valorization of Tomato Waste .................................. 4 Biochemistry of Different Bio-Active Components from Tomato Pomace.......................................................................................5 1.4 Sustainable Valorization for Bioactive Components Extraction ....................6 1.4.1 Physico-Chemical Valorization Techniques........................................7 1.4.1.1 Conventional Solvent Extraction ..........................................7 1.4.1.2 Super Critical Fluid Extraction .............................................8 1.4.1.3 Pulsed Electric Field Extraction............................................ 8 1.4.1.4 Ohmic Heating Extraction.....................................................8 1.4.1.5 Ultra Sound and Microwave-Assisted Extractions...............9 1.4.1.6 Accelerated Solvent Extraction.............................................9 1.4.1.7 Hydrothermal Liquification .................................................10 1.4.2 Biotechnological Valorization............................................................10 1.4.2.1 By Microbial Fermentation .................................................10 1.4.3 Enzyme-Assisted Extraction .............................................................. 12 1.5 Applications of Carotenoids in Food Industry..............................................13 1.6 Future Scope and Conclusions....................................................................... 14 References................................................................................................................ 15

1.1 INTRODUCTION From initial processing to final consumption, there are many phases in the food chain. In each and every phase, food wastage is the major concern that causes adverse impacts on nutritional security, environment, natural resources (Sharma et al., 2021; Xue et al., 2017). The agricultural and food industrial wastes (AFIW) have been reutilized by many industries, which could reduce industrial costs, including capital costs (Pellegrini et al., 2018). Effective utilization of AFIW, which are rich sources of different natural compounds, can be efficiently used as secondary sources for developing value-added products (Sharma and Bhat, 2021). The incorporation of valuable components obtained from food waste in food formulations for the improvement of nutritional quality is an emerging area of research

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

3

(Herrera et al., 2010). One such AFW source is tomato (Solanum lycopersium) waste that includes pomace, peel, and seeds, which is the second-most widely produced vegetable crop globally and consumed either directly (fresh tomato) or used for processing different tomato products such as puree, juice, concentrate, sauce, soup, ketchup, whole dried tomatoes, and tomato powder. Tomatoes and tomato-based products provide greater than 85% of the total lycopene intake to the human body (Amiri-Rigi et al., 2016). The global production of tomatoes is about 180 million tonnes approximately of which about 39 million tonnes are going to industry to process (https://www.tomatonews.com/en/background_47.html). From tomatoes, the global revenue amount is about $190.4 billion in the year 2018, which was raised by 6.5% in 2019 (Amiri-Rigi et al., 2016). These numbers reflect the total revenues of both the exporters and importers (excluding the retail market costs and logistics costs) (Global Tomato Industry Report, 2020). Approximately 40 million tonnes of tomatoes are processed annually generating tomato pomace (byproduct), which is a mix of vascular tissues, tomato peels, and seeds and a small fraction of the pulp (Szabo et al., 2018). Around 5–30% of the main product is produced as a byproduct. The amount of pomace produced varies depending on the raw material and processing conditions, and it has been reported that an amount of 600 thousand to 2 million tonnes of tomato pomace is produced (Yasmin et al., 2020). Tomato pomace consists of nearly 33% of seed, 27% of skin, 40% of pulp, in the dried form 56% of skin and pulp and 44% of seed (Poojary and Passamonti, 2015; Ruiz-Celma et al., 2012). Tomato byproducts have significantly high amounts of dietary fiber and bioactive phytochemicals like anthocyanins, sterols, terpenes, polyphenols, and carotenoids (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2012). Chanforan et al. (2012) reported that the overall nutritional quality of tomato products did not decrease, except vitamin C, with industrial processing and also during storage. Tomato pomace particularly skin contains the highest amount of lycopene (Papaioannou and Karabelas, 2012; Strati and Oreopoulou, 2014). Apart from lycopenes and carotenoids, tomatoes are abundant sources of tocopherols, terpenes, sterols, and polyphenols (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2012). The extracts obtained from tomatoes (pomace) are the richest sources of phenolic antioxidants, particularly heat- and oxidation-resistant compounds (Ćetkovicć et al., 2012). Major studies on tomato pomace are on carotenoid characterization (lycopenes and β-carotenes). In the extraction of carotenoids, seasonal production plays an important role, with the highest proportions of lycopene and β-carotene during the summer season (Riggi and Avola, 2008). Considering the high potential of tomato wastes, recovery of nutrients and antioxidant bioactive compounds can also contribute to improved nutritional security by reducing degenerative diseases caused by oxidative damage and cancer. Moreover, in-vivo studies are being performed to analyze the bioavailability and real benefits of these tomato extracts (Stajcic et al., 2015). The wastes from tomato industries are creating environmental issues although they are valuable sources of different bioactive components (Szabo et al., 2018). Prior to consideration as a nutraceutical source, it is very important to explore its environmental and economic sources (profit analysis). Different valorization techniques such as ultrasonic, green-solvent, microwave, or supercritical fluid extraction can be adopted for the extraction of different bioactive components from tomato wastes. The aim of this

4

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

FIGURE 1.1 Schematic representation of valorization of tomato waste and byproducts for carotenoids and their potential applications.

chapter is to present an overview of the valorization techniques in detail. Figure 1.1 is showing valorization technologies for tomato waste and their valuable applications.

1.2 GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND VALORIZATION OF TOMATO WASTE Tomatoes are one of the most significant vegetables used worldwide because of their taste, nutritional value, different forms, and colors. Currently, the global production of tomatoes were around 164 million tons approximately showed by Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics (FAOSTAT) (Amiri-Rigi et al., 2016). From tomatoes, the global revenue amount is about $190.4 billion in the year 2018, which was raised by 6.5% in 2019. These numbers reflect the total revenues of both the exporters and importers (excluding the retail market costs and logistics costs) (Global Tomato Industry Report, 2020). Tomatoes are the most cultivated vegetable with 17.9 million tons of production in the European Union in 2016. Tomatoes and tomato-based products provide greater than 85% of lycopene intake in the human body (Amiri-Rigi et al., 2016). EUROSTAT (The Statistical Office of the European Union) stated that greater than 10 million tons of tomatoes were processed to produce different varieties of products (ketchup, pastes, puree, sauces, canned tomatoes). After

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

5

industrial processing, large amounts of waste are generated includes, vascular tissues, tomato peels, and seeds etc. (Szabo et al., 2018). Tomato pomace, consists of 33% of seed, 27% of skin, 40% of pulp, in the dried form 56% of skin and pulp, and 44% of seed (Poojary and Passamonti, 2015).

1.3 BIOCHEMISTRY OF DIFFERENT BIO-ACTIVE COMPONENTS FROM TOMATO POMACE Comparative studies were done on processed and raw tomatoes for different phytochemical substances (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2012). Different phytochemicals (tocopherols, terpenes, polyphenols) and bioactive components (carotenoids) were present in huge amounts, even after processing those which are able to withstand processing conditions industrially. More than 600 carotenoids are naturally present in fruits, vegetables, fungi, bacteria, and algae and are divided into lycopene, xanthophylls, and carotenes based on the functional group. Carotenoids are also hydrophobic with polyene chain that changes the polarity of carotenoids, influences biological membranes and molecules. The carotenoids in plant tissues dissolve in oily solvents and are esterified with sugars, proteins and fatty acids. Carotenoids are divided into hydrocarbon carotenoids and xanthophylls based on the presence of oxygen in their structure (Story et al. 2010). The non-oxygenated carotenoids are carotenes including α-, β-, & γ-carotenes, lycopene, phytofluene, and phytoene. The oxygenated carotenoids are xanthophylls that contain oxygen in hydroxyl, keto, carboxy, methoxy, and epoxy groups (Oliver and Palou 2000). The carotenoids are yellow to red in color that belongs to the tetraterpenes group. The most important bioactive components present in industrial tomato byproducts are carotenoids, lycopene along with some amount of zeaxanthin, phytofluenes, neurosporenes, luteins, α-carotenes, β-carotenes, gamma-carotenes, and ξ-carotenes (Szabo et al., 2018). Carotenes are composed of eight isoprenoid units in a carbon chain backbone having alternative double bonds with cyclic/acyclic functional groups (GómezGarcía and Ochoa-Alejo, 2013). The conjugated double bonds of the compounds are attributed to their antioxidant activity by which these compounds can scavenge the free radicals to make them stabilize wherever required. The conjugated double bonds of the carotenoids are responsible for the characteristic color of materials and regulate various biological functions such as photosynthesis, energy transfer, protection from light, etc. As the carotenoids are precursors of vitamin A, α-carotene and γ-carotene are having the ability to synthesize one molecule of vitamin A, whereas one β-carotene molecule can produce two molecules of vitamin A (Sajilata et al., 2008). Lycopene is an aliphatic carotenoid found in tomatoes, grapes, and watermelons (Engelmann et al., 2011). Lycopene is generally found in trans form chemically, which is a quite stable form, so it is important to avoid cis-trans isomerization reactions while incorporation of lycopene in food formulations. The peel, pomace, and seeds generated from the processing industry can be a feasible wellspring of lycopene as the skin only contains five times more lycopene per unit of mass as compared to its pulp. Lutein carotenoids contain an alcohol group in their structure with hydroaromatic α structure (Mikami and Hosokawa 2013). It is a dihydroxy carotene with ionone rings carrying hydroxyl groups. Astaxanthin is a

6

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

FIGURE 1.2 Biochemical structures of various carotenoids.

metabolite of zeaxanthin a keto carotenoid with hydroxyl and ketone groups. The lycopene and β-carotene contents in the dried tomato wastes were about 510.6 mg/kg and 95.6 mg/kg, respectively. The total phenolic content and the flavonoid content were recorded to be about 1229.5 mg GAE/kg and 415.3 mg QE/kg, respectively (Nour et al., 2018). The structures of various carotenoids were shown in Figure 1.2.

1.4 SUSTAINABLE VALORIZATION FOR BIOACTIVE COMPONENTS EXTRACTION Tomato peel, pomace, and seeds as tomato waste can be valorized in different ways for the recovery of different value-added ingredients due to differences in chemical composition. The functional ingredients that are developed from tomato wastes are mainly used for the development of functional and nutraceuticals foods. The valorization of the waste is a holistic approach that envelope several sequential technologies such as pretreatment, extraction, purification and isolation, encapsulation, and

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

7

TABLE 1.1 The Comprehensive Utilization of Tomato Pomace for the Production of Lycopene Residue of tomato

Extraction Process

Yield

Reference

Pomace

Solvent extraction

119.8 (wet)

Al-Wandawi et al. (1985)

Pomace

Solvent extraction

820 (dry)

Machmudah et al. (2012)

Pomace Pomace

Supercritical fluid extraction Supercritical fluid extraction

459 (dry) 314 (dry)

Machmudah et al. (2012) Vagi et al. (2007)

Pomace

Solvent extraction

734 (dry)

Knoblich et al. (2005)

Pomace Pomace

Solvent extraction Supercritical fluid extraction

24.5 (dry) 14.86 (dry)

Pomace

Supercritical fluid extraction

31.25 (wet)

Pomace Pomace

Solvent extraction Solvent extraction

19.8 (dry) 739 (wet)

Rozzi et al. (2002) Rozzi et al. (2002) Yi et al. (2009) Kaur et al. (2008) Lavelli and Torresani, (2011)

Pomace

Solvent extraction

6.07 mg/100 g

Perretti et al. (2013)

Pomace Pomace

Sunflower oil as green solvent Solvent extraction

2.59 mg/100 g 5.22

Perretti et al. (2013) Yilmaz et al. (2016)

Pomace

Ultrasound-assisted extraction

7.01

Yilmaz et al. (2016)

Pomace Pomace

Supercritical fluid extraction Supercritical fluid extraction

72.90 45.92

Kehili et al. (2017) Machmudah et al. (2012)

Pomace

Supercritical fluid extraction

31.72

Vagi et al. (2007)

Pomace Pomace

Supercritical fluid extraction Enzyme-assisted extraction

28.26 2.30

Huang et al. (2008) Azabou et al. (2016)

Pomace

Ethyl lactate-enzyme-assisted extraction

8.94

Strati and Oreopoulou (2014)

Pomace

Ethyl lactate- green solvent extraction & high hydrostatic pressure extraction

8.36

Strati and Oreopoulou (2014)

incorporation in functional food formulations. The extraction potential of different organic solvents was examined to optimize the extraction parameters for maximum yield (solvent form, extraction time, temperature, and extraction steps) (Strati and Oreopoulou, 2011). Lycopene content of peel is about five times more than as compared with its pulp per unit of mass. Tomato pomace and tomato skin are the richest sources of lycopene and other carotenoids. Different types of valorization techniques like physico-chemical, enzymatic, and biotechnological techniques can be adopted to process the tomato pomace, as shown in Table 1.1 (Baiano and Del Nobile, 2016).

1.4.1 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL VALORIZATION TECHNIQUES 1.4.1.1 Conventional Solvent Extraction Different chemical waste valorization techniques were used to extract several different bioactive ingredients from tomato pomace. Amongst them, solvent extraction is one of the most common and traditional one. Various types of organic solvents

8

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

such as hexane, petroleum ether, isopropyl alcohol, methanol, cyclohexane, di-ethyl ether, etc. are used for the extraction of carotenoids as they are non-polar compounds. Solvent type is the key parameter in the process of solvent extraction. With the optimization of different extraction parameters such as solvent type, time and temperature of extraction, extraction steps, extraction time, size of the particle, moisture content, etc. the extraction potential of different organic solvents was enhanced (Strati and Oreopoulou, 2011). Different researchers gave the conclusion that ethyl lactate gives the highest carotenoid content (Ishida and Chapman, 2009; Kaur et al., 2008). The process of solvent extraction is the commonest method in carotenoid recovery because of its high hydrophobicity and less water solubility. For the extraction of carotenoids and other bioactive ingredients, Soxhlet extraction and agitation are the major techniques. The solvents that are used for extraction should be non-toxic for human health. But, the organic solvents used in the solvent extraction process have adverse effects on human health that cannot be removed entirely from the extracts. Therefore, research for alternative solvents with very less negative impacts should be conducted (Ho et al., 2015). This problem was solved by the use of edible oils as solvents and deep eutectic solvents, generally called green solvents, and also by utilizing innovative extraction technologies. 1.4.1.2 Super Critical Fluid Extraction It usually depends upon the properties of the fluids. With the increase in pressure and temperature greater than the critical point, the solvating power of the gas is increased (Cadoni et al., 1999). The most commonly used compound in super-critical fluid extraction is carbon dioxide because of its low critical temperature and pressure. Carbon dioxide is the most favored alternative to organic solvent due to its properties (inexpensive, non-toxic, non-explosive). The liphophilic substances can be easily solubilized with the use of carbon dioxide. Several studies showed that super- critical fluid extraction is best for the recovery of carotenoids from the tomato pomace and wastes (Baysal et al., 2000). With the increase in pressure and temperature of carbon dioxide, the extracted amount of lycopene is increased. With the increase in density of supercritical carbon dioxide, the number of carotenoid solubilization is increased. 1.4.1.3 Pulsed Electric Field Extraction A combination of solvents (hexane: acetone: ethanol) and pulsed electric field (PEF) technology, the extraction of carotenoids increase, along with decreased usage of green solvents. The permeabilization of tomato pomace at different electrical field strengths was about 90 µs, according to the cell disintegration index. PEF permeabilization did not increase the output of carotenoids from tomato pulp, whereas it increased by 39% in the peel when compared with the control at PFE treatment (5 kV/cm) Addition of acetone mixture with solvent did not affect the carotenoids extraction positively after the treatment with PEF, but this process reduced the hexane utilization from 45% to 30% without any negative impact on the carotenoid’s extraction (Luengo et al., 2014). 1.4.1.4 Ohmic Heating Extraction In the food industry, solvent extraction with different organic solvents and polar or non-polar combinations have been assessed for carotenoid extraction (Strati and

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

9

Oreopoulou, 2011). It is very difficult to apply ohmic technology to non-conductive and non-homogenous food systems. In addition, many systems/foods are rich in proteins that can come up with the formation of deposits on the surface of OH electrodes, which can result in an electrical arc if not properly cleaned (Kumar, 2018). The above-mentioned drawbacks can be easily managed by using other greener solvents for the extraction of carotenoids from tomato processing waste. It seemed promising to extract lycopene from tomatoes by means of vegetable oils, environmentally friendly solvents, rather than more harmful organic solvents (hexane, chloroform, petroleum ether) because of its fat-soluble and environmental concern (Lenucci et al., 2015). 1.4.1.5 Ultra Sound and Microwave-Assisted Extractions These are promising greener strategies for improved extraction of lycopene when compared with conventional methods for valorization of tomato pomace. The ultrasound waves and microwaves modify the structure of the cell wall due to electromagnetic waves and are adapted for the extraction of lycopene from tomato waste (Kusuma and Mahfud, 2016). The combination of technologies are better than conventional techniques, in terms of less environmental pollution, reduction in solvent usage, and more extraction in a short time. However, certain disadvantages like the usage of additional filtration for the removal of solid residues are also reported. The microwave might be influenced by the volatile compounds (Ho et al., 2015; Baiano et al., 2014). Ultrasound-assisted extraction of lycopene from tomato wastes is eco-friendly using solvents like ethyl lactate, ethyl acetate, with enhanced extraction. Silva et al. (2019) reported improved carotenoids yield up to 125.3 µg/g using ultrasound-assisted extraction. The ultrasound treatment increased the yield of extractable lycopene and it is clearly showed as an alternative source for extractable lycopene. 1.4.1.6 Accelerated Solvent Extraction The extraction technology used for bioactive components with the application of temperature and pressure ranging from 50°C to 200°C and 9–15 Mpa, respectively, is called as accelerated solvent extraction or pressurized liquid extraction. In this extraction technique, the extractant solvent is in liquid state synergizes with the high temperature which influences the enhanced extraction of bioactive components like lycopene. The solubility of the bioactive components was enhanced due to the solvents that are forced into the matrix. With the process of accelerated solvent extraction, Naviglio et al. (2008), extracted the lycopene at 0.7–0.9 MPa pressure using tap water as an extracting medium from tomato pomace obtained from a processing industry. The molecular aggregates of lycopene and water were extracted using pressure and depressure cycles. Another technique i.e., high hydrostatic pressure extraction at 100–800 MPa pressure with low temperature (room temperature) is also gaining huge attention in extraction studies of carotenoids from food wastes, especially from tomato processing wastes. Some studies showed that higher hydrostatic pressure extraction yields more amount of bioactive components when compared to conventional extraction technologies (Strati et al., 2014). High hydrostatic pressure extraction is more advantageous over conventional extraction

10

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

methods as it consumes less time, uses less solvent, gives more yield, and has more convenient technology that can be operated at room temperature (Zhang, 2015). 1.4.1.7 Hydrothermal Liquification Hydrothermal liquification plays an important role in biomass conversion technologies. This technique is most commonly used to renovate the inedible food waste biomass into oily compounds that have further applications to produce valuable chemicals such as fatty acids, phenols, and polyols, which are valorized into different biofuels like biodiesel (Zhang, 2015).

1.4.2 BIOTECHNOLOGICAL VALORIZATION Biotechnological processes play an important role in tomato waste valorization. Due to the huge moisture content present in the tomato pomace, it cannot be stored for more than 6 to 7 days due to its putrescible nature. With different results from the fermentation tests and adapted parameters, it was clearly concluded that tomato byproducts are considered a low-cost potential alternative source for bioethanol production with optimization process. Usually, residues from tomato processing industries increase the cost of disposal (Bacenetti et al., 2015). Not only this, uncontrolled anaerobic fermentation releases more methane that impacts the tropospheric zone in the atmosphere (Bacenetti et al., 2015). Hence, valorization of tomato pomace is a safe alternative to reduce their negative impacts on the environment. Cascade fractionation (innovative extraction process) plays an important role in the extraction of different valuable industrial byproducts from tomatoes. Various extraction products such as carotenoids, oleoresins, tomato seed oils, proteins, serve as a good source of lignocellulosic material for bioethanol production (Kehili et al., 2017). Different lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus species, yeast strains such as Saccharomyces boulardii, S. cerevisiae, and S. boulardii improved the nutritional value of the different tomato byproducts and described in Table 1.2. Fermentation of tomato pomace with lactic acid bacteria and yeasts improves the nutritional value in terms of minerals such as calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, enhanced energy, protein content, fat, and titrable acidity. However, fermentation has a negative impact on pH and TSS (total soluble solid). Tomato pomace fermentation with lactic acid improves nutritional quality with a reduction in fiber content, which is a good source of animal feed supplement (Roja et al., 2017). With proteolytic bacteria (Bacillus subtilis), the antioxidant and antimicrobial hydrolysates were produced with the fermentation of protein fractions of tomato seeds (Moayedi et al., 2016). 1.4.2.1 By Microbial Fermentation The fermentation processes, not only improved the extraction yield of the bioactive components but also enhance the stability and bioavailability of carotenoids (betacarotene, lycopene, and astaxanthin) and improve the cleavage of their derivatives (Mapelli-Brahm et al., 2020). The tomato wastes were fermented at different temperatures from 15 to 20°C with Saccharomyces bayanus, BV 818 at a concentration of 0.03 to 100g (Owusu et al., 2014). They reported that the pH and temperature during fermentation had a great influence on the extraction efficiency

Microbial strains

Fusarium solani pisi

Pediococcus acidilactici

Lactobacillus sakei Fusarium solani pisi

Rhodotorula glutinis

Rhodotorula glutinis Pediococcus pentosaceus

Saccharomyces bayanus

Tomato waste

Tomato peels

Tomato pulp

Tomato pulp Tomato seeds

Tomato waste

Tomato extract Tomato pulp

Tomato pomace

Temperature: 15, 20 °C; pH-4.11

Temperature: 28°C; 150 rpm Temperature: 30–35°C

Temperature: 30°C; 120 rpm; 72 h

Temperature: 30–35°C Temperature: 37, 45 and 50°C; pH-4.5, 5, 8, and 9

Temperature: 30–35°C

Temperature: 37, 45 and 50°C; pH-4.5, 5, 8 and 9

Processing conditions

Hexane:Acetone:Ethanol in 10:5:5 ratios

Acetone Hexane:Acetone in 1:1 ratio

Petroleum ether

Hexane:Acetone in 1:1 ratio Ethanol

Hexane:Acetone in 1:1 ratio

Ethanol

Solvent extraction

3.06

13.43 5.68

3.64

5.68 2.7

5.68

2.7

Yield (mg/100 g)

Owusu et al. (2015)

Wang et al. (2007) Bartkiene et al. (2013)

Chandi et al. (2010)

Bartkiene et al. (2013) Azabou et al. (2016)

Bartkiene et al. (2013)

Azabou et al. (2016)

Reference

TABLE 1.2 The Different Extraction Technologies using Microbial Fermentation of Tomato Waste for the Production of Carotenoids

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste 11

12

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

and yield of lycopene and beta-carotenes. The total antioxidant levels and reducing powers were highest at 3.2 pH and 20°C temperature (Owusu et al., 2015). A research study by Jamal et al. (2017) showed that lycopene extraction was improved using solid-state fermentation with Aspergillus niger, whereby the cellulases produced after fermentation degraded the cell-wall constituents that facilitated the release of intracellular contents. There was some influence of independent factors such as moisture content (60–80%), inoculum size (5–15%), and incubation time (2, 3, and 4 days) on the recovery of the carotenoids. The optimized conditions for maximum extraction of lycopene were moisture content of about 80%, inoculum size – 15% after 4 days of incubation. Another study by Kim et al. (2010) reported improved lycopene recovery from tomato wines (4.2 mg/100 g), due to the effect of alcoholic fermentation using different yeast strains (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. bayanus lalvin EC-1118 sp.) and sugars. Lycopene concentration was reported at about 45 mg/100 g of tomato wines with optimal fermentation conditions and bio-accessibility of lycopene was improved (Lu et al., 2020). In tomato byproducts, seeds are the richest sources of proteins. Fermentation of tomato seeds with Lactobacillus plantarum degraded the tomato seeds into bioactive peptides having the capability to improve the antioxidant activities of protein isolates (Shehzadi et al., 2018).

1.4.3 ENZYME-ASSISTED EXTRACTION The low-cost commercial food-grade enzymes can be used in the extraction of carotenoids with the possibility to improve the efficiency and yield of the targeted compounds from the lab scale to the industrial level. Optimization of different pretreatments (heat-treated dilute acid and ultrasound-assisted dilute acid) and enzymatic methods could be adapted to extract the highest amount of fermentable sugars with tomato pomace. Enzymatic pretreatments for extraction of bioactive components from tomato pomace contain many advantages; it reduces the time and solvent consumption and also enhances the quality and quantity. However, there are some limitations to this technique, such as the cost of enzymes, enzyme preparations for complete hydrolysis, and industrial feasibility for different conditions (Puri et al., 2012; Zuorro et al., 2011). From these studies, it was observed that lycopene recovery was enhanced greatly by the use of mixed enzymatic preparations with different low-cost commercial food-grade enzymatic preparations with optimum cellulolytic and pectinolytic activities and the possibility of implementation at the industrial level. The cellulase enzymes optimization showed an improvement in the fermentable sugars in tomato pomace. Conditions optimized for the extraction of sugars were good with 1.5% cellulase enzyme used at 6 h of incubation. Along with this, the application of pretreatments (heat-treated dilute acid) and enzymatic hydrolysis process on tomato pomace improved the ester and alcoholic compounds, which have applications in different food, cosmetic, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies. Another study by Zuorro et al. (2011), reported the improvement in lycopene recovery using a mixture of two enzymatic preparations, used for the extraction from tomato peel waste. The lycopene content was improved from 8- to 18-fold with 50:50% of

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

13

pectinolytic and cellulolytic enzymes mixture. In this process, the extraction optimized conditions were temperature at 30°C, extraction time 3.18 h and enzyme mixture load was about 0.16 kg/kg of peel waste. The study showed that the use of cell wall degrading enzymes was a promising approach to improve the recovery of lycopene from tomato peel waste.

1.5 APPLICATIONS OF CAROTENOIDS IN FOOD INDUSTRY Visual aesthetics and appearance are the most important factors for the successful acceptability and marketability of the product, as they give the first impression to consumers about the products. The use of food additives particularly colorants have strict regulations in many countries. Most of the consumer complaints regarding the food industry are mainly about the use of synthetic food colors that affect the health of consumers. The demand for natural food additives such as colorants is rising due to an increase in awareness of consumers towards natural products rather than chemical additives (Santos et al., 2011). The biosynthesis of carotenoids from microorganisms was gaining importance and competing with the chemical synthesis procedures. The global market for the pigments produced from microorganisms was increasing when compared to the chemically synthesized pigments (Strati and Oreopoulou, 2014). In the food processing industry, the carotenoids are extracted to use them as colorants in juices, beverages, confectioneries, margarine, sausages, and cheeses. The foods fortified with carotenoids are mainly due to their coloring property and health benefits such as antioxidant activity. The red color of tomatoes is mainly due to the presence of lycopene, a commercially important potential natural dark red color pigment. The carotenoids are present mostly in darkpigmented fruits and vegetables. The β-carotene is the best-known food carotenoids and found along with α-carotene in some foods. Lutein and zeaxanthin are isomers, that help in the prevention of macular degeneration. Unique carotenoids like bixin are found in annatto and crocin is found in saffron (Rodriguez, 1999). The lycopene of tomatoes is stable to extreme temperatures, pH and these are effective at low concentrations. Oleoresin and tomato pulp powder were used for color stabilization and for preventing oxidative degradation in beef patties by Sánchez-Escalante et al. (2003). They reported that the oleoresin was found to be highly effective against lipid oxidation. The tomato powder was incorporated in pork patties by Kim et al. (2013) and in beef burgers by Luisa García et al. (2009), and the results revealed lower thiobarbituric acid values than other control samples. The patties incorporated with tomato powder showed high redness and low discoloration rate when compared to control. The sensory scores were also higher for patties incorporated with tomato powder than other samples. The incorporation of carotenoids in food products such as macaroni not only improves the nutritional and organoleptic acceptability but also reduces undesirable reactions during processing and consumer intake (Ajila et al., 2010). The firmness of the product will be maintained even after processing and cooking losses. Astaxanthin extracted from muscle proteins of shrimp and lycopene from tomato were extracted and incorporated in edible films to develop antioxidant edible films. The films on storing for 1 month recorded 32% of lycopene and 17% of astaxanthin

14

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

degradation, but the antioxidant activity was found to be stable (Mohd Hatta and Othman, 2020). The effect of carotenoids extracted from industrial tomato wastes on the enrichment of edible oils was studied and reported that refined oil had better thermal stability followed by extra olive oil and sunflower oil (Benakmoum et al., 2008). Encapsulation of carotenoids is another important technique that helps to improve the usage of carotenoids. Encapsulation of astaxanthin with cashew gum for forming coacervate with gelatin and stability was studied by Martins and Ferreira (2017). The results showed that the coloring capacity and stability increased with encapsulated carotenoid than with the non-encapsulated carotenoid. Carotenoids have several biological functions and their nutritional importance and health benefits were well studied. The carotenoids protect the cells and tissues from oxidative damage, enhance the immune system, protect from sunburn, and also protect from some cancers. Carotenoids also prevent oxidation of low-density lipoprotein thereby reducing coronary heart diseases and atherosclerosis (Alem Zeb et al., 2004).

1.6 FUTURE SCOPE AND CONCLUSIONS Carotenoids are highly valuable components that are wasted in the form of AFW if left unextracted. Several studies on the beneficial effects of carotenoids created interest in researchers to explore carotenoids. On the other hand, interest in natural food additives particularly colorants is increasing every day due to the health benefits of natural colorants in comparison with synthetic additives. The market for carotenoids is increasing globally for their application in food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, beverage, nutraceutical and animal feed industry. The tomato processing industry produces huge amounts of byproducts with potential bioactive components, which are healthy, and therefore are in great demand by food industry. Lycopene is the major carotenoid present in tomato which has a huge demand in food processing as a colorant and antioxidant. Extraction of carotenoids is usually done using organic solvents due to the lipophilic character of the carotenoids, but these organic solvents have a high impact on the environment, apart from their residual presence in the final end product, which is toxic for human consumption. This problem was solved by the use of edible oils as solvents and supercritical fluid extraction techniques. However, these techniques were found to be costly and extraction parameters should be selected carefully to achieve higher yields of carotenoids with high antioxidant activity. To improve the extraction rate, yield, reduce the time, reduce the cost, and protect the thermolabile components, few supporting methods such as high hydrostatic pressures, microwave, ultrasound, and radiofrequency techniques are gaining momentum alone or in combinations. These green extraction techniques need to be further developed to extract carotenoids of high quality with good yield, stability, and activity along with low cost and low hazard to the environment. Limited studies reported the incorporation of carotenoids to develop active packaging materials and edible films to extend the shelf life of products, which can be further explored. Rapid increase in the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology helps in producing the carotenoids in higher amounts naturally by using microorganisms. Genetic engineering techniques can be employed and explored for the green synthesis of carotenoids in higher amounts using microbes.

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

15

The cultivation of microorganisms is easier and higher yields can be achieved in less time. The extraction of carotenoids from natural algae and fungi needs to be explored as a potential source. The fermentation process can make many complex modifications in the substrates and also produces several bioactive compounds in the process of fermentation. The fermentative production of carotenoids using agro and food industry waste as low-cost substrates need to be exploited to enhance the production of carotenoids without affecting the environment. Encapsulation of carotenoids, using several synthetic gums is also gaining importance due to the improved stability and activity of the encapsulated material. However, the use of natural compounds such as protein and carbohydrate formulations as wall materials for encapsulation of carotenoids, along with absorption, bioavailability, and bioaccessibility of encapsulated carotenoids needs further exploration. The incorporation of carotenoids in food systems and the stability of carotenoids during the processing and storage of food products need to be studied.

REFERENCES Ajila, C. M., Aalami, M., Leelavathi, K., Rao, U. J. S. P. (2010). Mango peel powder: A potential source of antioxidant and dietary fiber in macaroni preparations. Innovative Food Sci and Eme Technol 11 (1): 219–224. Al-Wandawi, H., Abdul-Rahman, M., Al-Shaikhly, K. (1985). Tomato processing wastes as essential raw materials source. J Agri Food Chem 33: 804–807. Amiri-Rigi, A., Abbasi, S., Scanlon, M. G. (2016). Enhanced lycopene extraction from tomato industrial waste using microemulsion technique: Optimization of enzymatic and ultrasound pre-treatments. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 35: 160–167. Azabou, S., Abid, Y., Sebii, H., Felfoul, I., Gargouri, A., Attia, H. (2016). Potential of the solid-state fermentation of tomato by-products by Fusarium solani pisi for enzymatic extraction of lycopene. LWT-Food Sci and Technol 68: 280–287. Bacenetti, J., Duca, D., Negri, M., Fusi, A., Fiala, M. (2015). Mitigation strategies in the agro-food sector: The anaerobic digestion of tomato puree by-products. An Italian Case Study Sci Total Environ 526: 88–97. Baiano, A., Bevilacqua, L., Terracone, C., Contò, F., Del Nobile, M. A. (2014). Single and interactive effects of process variables on microwave-assisted and conventional extractions of antioxidants from vegetable solid wastes. J Food Eng 120: 135–145. Baiano, A., Nobile, M. A. D. (2016). Antioxidant compounds from vegetable matrices: Biosynthesis, occurrence, and extraction ystems. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 56 (12): 2053–2068. Bartkiene, E., Vidmantiene, D., Juodeikiene, G., Viskelis, P., Urbonaviciene, D. (2013). Lactic acid fermentation of tomato: Effects on cis/trans lycopene isomer ratio, β-carotene mass fraction and formation of L(+)- and D(–)-lactic acid. Food Technol and Biotechnol 51 (4): 471–478. Baysal, T., Ersus, S., Starmans, D. A. J. (2000). Supercritical Co2 extraction of β-carotene and lycopene from tomato paste waste. J Agri Food Chem 48: 5507–5511. Benakmoum, A., Abbeddou, S., Ammouche, A., Kefalas, P., Gerasopoulos, D. (2008). Valorisation of low quality edible oil with tomato peel waste. Food Chem 110 (3): 684–690. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.02.063 Cadoni, E., De Giorgi, M. R., Medda, E., Poma, G. (1999). Supercritical Co2 extraction of lycopene and β-carotene from ripe tomatoes. Dyes Pigmen 44: 27–32.

16

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Ćetković, G., Savatović, S., Č anadanović-Brunet, J., Djilas, S., Vulić, J., Mandić, A., Cˇetojevic-Simin, D. (2012). Valorisation of phenolic composition, antioxidant and cell growth activities of tomato waste. Food Chem 133: 938–945. Chandi, G. K., Singh, S. P. B. S. (2010). Optimization of carotenoids by Rhodotorula Glutinis. Food Sci and Biotechnol 19 (4): 881–887. 10.1007/s10068-010-0125-8 Chanforan, C., Loonis, M., Mora, N., Caris-Veyrat, C., Dufour, C. (2012). The impact of industrial processing on health-beneficial tomato microconstituents. Food Chem 134: 1786–1795. Engelmann, N. J., Clinton, S. K., Erdman. J. W. (2011). Nutritional aspects of phytoene and phytofluene, carotenoid precursors to lycopene. Adv Nutrition 2 (1): 51–61. Global Tomato Industry Report (2020). Trends & opportunities by country, consumption, production, price developments, imports and exports (2007-2025), Published on February 14, 2020, Source: Research and Markets. https://www.globenewswire.com/ news‐release/2020/02/14/1985135/28124/en/Global‐Tomato‐Industry‐Report‐ 2020‐Trends‐Opportunities‐by‐Country‐Consumption‐Production‐Price‐Developments‐Imports‐and‐Exports‐2007‐2025.html García, M. L., Calvo, M. M., Selgas. M. D. (2009). Beef hamburgers enriched in lycopene using dry tomato peel as an ingredient. Meat Science 83 (1): 45–49. 10.1016/j.meatsci. 2009.03.009 Gómez-García, M., Ochoa-Alejo, N. (2013). Biochemistry and molecular biology of carotenoid biosynthesis in chili peppers (Capsicum spp.). Int J Mol Sci 14 (9): 19025–19053. 10.3390/ijms140919025 Hatta, F. A. M., Othman, R. (2020). Carotenoids: Properties, processing and applications. Carotenoids as potential bio-colorants: A case study of astaxanthin recovered from shrimp waste 9: 289–325. 10.1016/B978-0-12-817067-0.00009-9 Herrera, P. G., Sánchez-Mata, M. C., Cámara, M. (2010). Nutritional characterization of tomato fiber as a useful ingredient for food industry. Innov Food Sci Emerg Techol 11: 707–711. 10.1016/j.ifset.2010.07.005 Ho, K. K. H. Y., Ferruzzi, M. G., Liceaga, A. M., San Martín-González, M. F. (2015). Microwave-assisted extraction of lycopene in tomato peels: Effect of extraction conditions on all-trans and cis-isomer yields. LWT Food Sci Technol 62: 160–168. https://www.tomatonews.com/en/background_47.html Huang, W., Li, Z., Niu, H., Li, D., Zhang, J. (2008). Optimization of operating parameters for supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of lycopene by response surface methodology. J Food Engineer 89: 298–302. Ishida, B. K., Chapman, M. H. (2009). Carotenoid extraction from plants using a novel, environmentally friendly solvent. J Agric Food Chem 57: 1051–1059. Jamal, P., Hashlamona, A., Jaswir, I., Akbar, I., Nawawi, W. M. F. W. (2017). Extraction of lycopene from tomato waste using solid state fermentation. Int Food Res J 24: S416–S421. Kalogeropoulos, N., Chiou, A., Pyriochou, V., Peristeraki, A., Karathanos, V. T. (2012). Bioactive phytochemicals in industrial tomatoes and their processing byproducts. LWT - Food Sci Technol 49: 213–216. 10.1016/j.lwt.2011.12.036 Kaur, D., Wani, A. A., Oberoi, D. P. S., Sogi, D. S. (2008). Effect of extraction conditions on lycopene extractions from tomato processing waste skin using response surface methodology. Food Chem 108 (2): 711–718. Kehili, M., Kammlott, M., Choura, S., Zammel, A., Zetzl, C., Smirnova, I., Allouche, N., Sayadi, S. (2017). Supercritical Co2 extraction and antioxidant activity of lycopene and beta-carotene enriched oleoresin from tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) peels byproduct of a Tunisian industry. Food Biopro Process 102: 340–349. Kim, I. S., Jin, S. K., Yang, M. R., Chu, G. M., Park, J. H., Rashid, R. H. I., Kim, J. Y., Kang. S. N. (2013). Efficacy of tomato powder as antioxidant in cooked pork Patties. AsianAustr J Animal Sci 26: 1339–1346.

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

17

Kim, O-M., Jang, S-Y., Woo, S-M., Jo, Y-J., Choi, M-S., Jeong, Y-J. (2010). Changes in the physicochemical properties of tomato wine by alcohol fermentation. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 39: 1516–1521. Knoblich, M., Anderson, B., Latshaw, D. (2005). Analyses of tomato peel and seed byproducts and their use as a source of carotenoids. J Sci Food Agric 85: 1166–1170. Kumar, T. (2018). A review on ohmic heating technology: Principle, applications and scope. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol 11(4): 679–687. Kusuma, H. S., Mahfud, M. (2016). Preliminary study: Kinetics of oil extraction from sandalwood by microwave-assisted hydro-distillation. International conference on innovation in engineering and vocational education, Dresden, Germany, Materials Science and Engineering 128: 012009. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/128/1/012009 Lavelli, V., Torresani, M. C. (2011). Modelling the stability of lycopene-rich by-products of tomato processing. Food Chem 125: 529–535. Lenucci, M. S., De Caroli, M., Marrese, P. P., Iurlaro, A., Rescio, L., Böhm, V., Dalessandro, G., Piro, G. (2015). Enzyme-aided extraction of lycopene from high-pigment tomato cultivars by supercritical carbon dioxide. Food Chem 170: 193–202. Lu, Y., Mu, K., McClements, D. J., Lianga, X., Liu, X., Liu. F. (2020). Fermentation of tomato juice improves in vitro bio-accessibility of lycopene. J Funct Foods 71: 104020. Luengo, E., Álvarez I., Raso, J. (2014) Improving carotenoid extraction from tomato waste by pulsed electric fields. Frontiers Nutr 1: 1–12. Machmudah, S., Zakaria, Winardi, S., Sasaki, M., Goto, M., Kusumoto, N., Hayakawa, K. (2012). Lycopene extraction from tomato peel by-product containing tomato seed using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Food Eng 108 (2): 290–296. Mapelli-Brahm, P., Barba, F. J., Remize, F., Garcia, C. A., Fessard, A., Khaneghah, A. M., Sant’Ana, A. S., Lorenzo, J. M., Montesano, D., Meléndez-Martínez, A. J. (2020). The impact of fermentation processes on the production, retention and bioavailability of carotenoids: An overview. Trends Food Sci Technol 99: 389–401. Martins, N., Ferreira, I. C. F. R. (2017). Wastes and by-products: Upcoming sources of carotenoids for biotechnological purposes and health-related applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 62: 33–48. 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.01.014 Mikami, K., Hosokawa. M. (2013). Biosynthetic pathway and health benefits of fucoxanthin, an algae-specific xanthophyll in brown seaweeds. Int J Mol Sci 14 (7): 13763–13781. Moayedi, A., Hashemi, M., Safari, M. (2016). Valorisation of tomato waste proteins through production of antioxidant and antibacterial hydrolysates by proteolytic bacillus subtilis: Optimization of fermentation conditions. J Food Sci Technol 53: 391–400. Naviglio, D., Caruso, T., Iannece, P., Aragòn, A., Santini, A. (2008). Characterization of high purity lycopene from tomato wastes using a new pressurized extraction approach. J Agric Food Chem 56: 6227–6231. Nour, V., Panaite, T. D., Ropota, M., Turcu, R., Trandafir, I., Corbu, A. R. (2018). Nutritional and bioactive compounds in dried tomato processing waste. CyTA – J of Food 16: 222–229. Oliver, J., Palou, A. (2000). Chromatographic determination of carotenoids in foods. J Chromat A 881: 543–555. Owusu, J., Ma, H., Afoakwah, N. A., Amissah, A., Ahima, J. (2015). Lycopene and β-carotene recovery from fermented tomato waste and their antioxidant activity. Annals University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, Fascicle VI: Food Technol 39 (1): 36–48. Owusu, J., Ma, H., Wang, Z., Afoakwa, N. A., Amissah, A. (2014). Volatile profiles of tomato wine before and after ageing. Maejo Int J Sci Technol 8: 129–142. Papaioannou, E. H., Karabelas, A. J. (2012). Lycopene recovery from tomato peel under mild conditions assisted by enzymatic pre-treatment and non-ionic surfactants. Acta Biochimica Polonica 59(1): 71–74.

18

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Pellegrini, M., Lucas-Gonzalez, R., Sayas-Barberá, E., Fernández López, J., Pérez-Álvarez, J. A., Viuda-Martos, M. (2018). Bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity of chia (Salvia Hispanica L.) seeds. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 73(1): 47–53. Perretti, G., Troilo, A., Bravi, E., Marconi, O., Galgano, F., Fantozzi, P. (2013). Production of a lycopene-enriched fraction from tomato pomace using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Super Fluids 82: 177–182. Poojary, M. M., Passamonti, P. (2015). Extraction of lycopene from tomato processing waste: Kinetics and modelling. Food Chem 173: 943–950. Puri, M., Sharma, D., Barrow, C. J. (2012). Enzyme-assisted extraction of bioactives from plants. Trends Biotechnol 30: 37–44. Riggi, E., Avola, G. (2008). Fresh tomato packing houses waste as high added-value biosource. Resour Conser Recyc 53: 96–106. Rodriguez-Amaya, D. B. (1999). A Guide to Carotenoid Analysis in Foods. Life Sciences. Roja, H. N., Munishamanna, K. B., Veena, R., Palanimuthu. V. (2017). Solid state fermentation of tomato pomace waste by different lactic acid bacteria and yeast strains for quality and nutritional improvement. Agri Update 12: 347–354. 10.15740/HAS/AU/ 12.TECHSEAR(2)2017/347‐354 Rozzi, N. L., Singh, R. K., Vierling, R. A., Watkins B. A. (2002). Supercritical fluid extraction of lycopene from tomato processing by-products. J Agric Food Chem 50: 2638–2643. Ruiz-Celma, A., Cuadros, F., López-Rodríguez, F. (2012). Characterization of pellets from industrial tomato residues. Food Bioprod Process 90 (4): 700–706. 10.1016/j.fbp.2012. 01.007. Sajilata, M. G., Singhal, R. S., Kamat. M. Y. (2008). The Carotenoid pigment zeaxanthin – A review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Safety 7 (1): 29–49. Sánchez-Escalante, A., Torrescano, G., Djenane, D., Beltrán, J. A., Roncalés, P. (2003). Stabilisation of colour and odour of beef patties by using lycopene-rich tomato and peppers as a source of antioxidants. J Sci Food Agri 83 (3): 187–194. Santos, D. T., Albuquerque, C. L. C., Meireles, M. A. A. (2011). Antioxidant dye and pigment extraction using a homemade pressurized solvent extraction system. Procedia Food Sci 1: 1581–1588. Sharma, M., Bhat, R. (2021). Extraction of carotenoids from pumpkin peel and pulp: Comparison between innovative green extraction technologies (ultrasonic and microwave-assisted extractions using corn oil). Foods 10(4): 787. Sharma, M., Usmani, Z., Gupta, V. K., Bhat, R. (2021). Valorization of fruits and vegetable wastes and by-products to produce natural pigments. Critical Reviews Biotechnol 41(4): 535–563. Shehzadi, M., Malik, K., Basher, N., Anwar, P. (2018). Manufacturing of bioactive peptides from tomato seeds to isolate from Lactobacillus Plantarum fermentation and improvement of antioxidant activity. Nutrition Food Sci Int J 5(2): 1–3. Silva, Y. P. A., Ferreira, T. A. P. C., Celli, G. B., Brooks, M. S. (2019). Optimization of lycopene extraction from tomato processing waste using an eco-friendly ethyl lactate–ethyl acetate solvent: A green valorisation approach. Waste Biom Valor 10: 2851–2861. 10.1007/s12649‐018‐0317‐7 Stajcic, S., Ćetković, G., Č anadanović-Brunet, J., Djilas, S., Mandic, A., Č etojević-Simin, D. (2015). Tomato waste: Carotenoids content, antioxidant and cell growth activities. Food Chem 172: 225–232. Story, E. N., Kopec, R. E., Schwartz, S. J., Harris G. K. (2010). An update on the health effects of tomato lycopene. Annual Review Food Sci Technol 1: 189–210. Strati, I. F., Oreopoulou, V. (2011). Effect of extraction parameters on the carotenoid recovery from tomato waste. Int J Food Sci Tech 46: 23–29.

Microbial Valorization of Tomato Waste

19

Strati, I. F., Oreopoulou, V. (2014). Recovery of carotenoids from tomato processing byproducts – A review. Food Res Int 65: 311–321. 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.09.032 Szabo, K., Cătoi, A.-F., Vodnar, D. C. (2018). Bioactive compounds extracted from tomato processing by-products as a source of valuable nutrients. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 73: 268–277. Vagi, E., Simandi, B., Vasarhelyine, K. P., Daood, H., Kery, A., Doleschall, F., Nagy, B. (2007). Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of carotenoids, tocopherols and sitosterols from industrial tomato by-products. J Supercrit Fluids 40: 218–226. Wang, S. L., Sun, J. S., Han, B. Z., Wu, X. Z. (2007). Optimization of β-carotene production by Rhodotorula Glutinis using high hydrostatic pressure and response surface methodology. J Food Sci 72: M325–M329. 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00495.x Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., Cheng, S. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environ Sci Technol 51(12): 6618–6633. Yasmin, J., Lohumi, S., Ahmed, M. R., Kandpal, L. M., Faqeerzada, M. A., Kim, M. S., Cho, B.-K. (2020). Improvement in purity of healthy tomato seeds using an image-based one-class classification method. Sensors 20 (9): 2690. 10.3390/s20092690. Yi, C., Shi, J., Xue, S. J., Jiang, Y., Li, D. (2009). Effects of supercritical fluid extraction parameters on lycopene yield and antioxidant activity. Food Chem 113: 1088–1094. Yilmaz, T., Kumcuoglu, S., Tavman, S. (2016). Ultrasound-assisted extraction of lycopene and β-carotene from tomato-processing wastes. Ital J Food Sci 29: 186–194. Zeb, A., Mehmood, S. (2004). Carotenoids contents from various sources and their potential health applications. Pakistan J Nutrition 3: 199–204. 10.3923/pjn.2004.199.204 Zhang, R. Y. (2015). What to do with tomato plant wastes after ketchup? Available online: http://www.biofuelnet.ca/author/ryan-yongsheng-zhang/ (accessed 30 January 2021). Zuorro, A., Fidaleo, M., Lavecchia, R. (2011). Enzyme-assisted extraction of lycopene from tomato processing waste. Enzyme Microb Tech 49: 567–573.

2

Bio-Valorization of Citrus Waste for the Production of Bioactive Molecules for Food Applications Suman Kashyap Professor, School of Sciences Department of Biotechnology Jain (Deemed-to-be), University JC road, Bengaluru, India

CONTENTS 2.1

Introduction.....................................................................................................22 2.1.1 Citrus Fruits of Indian Continent and their Origin ...........................23 2.1.2 Macroscopic Structure and Composition of Citrus Fruit..................24 2.1.3 Bioactive and Nutritional Components of Citrus Wastes.................25 2.1.4 Uses of Citrus Fruits in Food Processing Units ...............................25 2.2 Biological Effects of Citrus Flavonoids ........................................................27 2.2.1 Health Benefits of Flavonoids ...........................................................28 2.2.1.1 Antitumor Effects ................................................................ 28 2.2.1.2 Anti-Atherosclerotic Effects................................................29 2.2.1.3 Antidiabetic Effects .............................................................29 2.2.1.4 Free Radical Scavenging..................................................... 29 2.3 Characterization of Citrus Peel Waste...........................................................30 2.3.1 Citrus Waste Valorization..................................................................30 2.4 Citrus Fruit Waste and its Byproducts ..........................................................31 2.4.1 Essential Oil Extraction .....................................................................32 2.4.2 Pectin Production ...............................................................................32 2.4.3 Production of Bio-Fuel....................................................................... 33 2.4.4 Kraft Paper: Food Packing Material..................................................33 2.4.5 Citrus Peel Waste Packaging Films...................................................33 2.4.6 Fiber from Citrus Peel Waste as Encapsulating Agent ....................34 2.4.7 Production of Biologically Degradable Packaging Materials from Citrus Peels................................................................................34 2.4.8 Elimination of Heavy Metals by Citrus Solid Waste ....................... 34 2.4.9 Production of Activated Carbon from Citrus Peel Waste ................35 2.4.9.1 Scope.................................................................................... 35 References................................................................................................................ 36 DOI: 10.1201/9781003341307-2

21

22

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

2.1 INTRODUCTION Citrus fruits are grown habitually and consumed fruit worldwide (Zou et al., 2016). The name “Citrus” is a generic term and belongs to the Rutaceae family. Table 2.1 describes the various citrus fruit genus and their common names (Sidana et al., 2013; Berk, 2016). Globally, citrus production in 2017 was around 92,088,000 metric tons that included 51.86% of oranges; 32.60% of tangerines, 7.20% of mandarins and 8.34% of grapefruit, respectively. As per US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data (2018), the depiction of citrus consumption is 68.44% while the remaining 21.51% is used for further processing. Approximately 18% of total citrus fruit varieties grown are reserved for industrial preparation, especially in the preparation and canning of juices (Zema et al., 2018a). Approximately 40–60% of the fruit parts are considered as waste, after consumption. Industrial processing of citrus fruits in the production of citrus products generates significant volumes of wastes like peel, pulp, and seed residues (Zema et al., 2018b; Balu et al., 2012; Satari and Karimi, 2018). Worldwide around 110–120 million tons of citrus waste generated from industries is the greatest challenge faced in the current scenario. Industrial citrus waste generated is creating pollution of land, underground water table, and is of great concern for wet/semi-solid waste management (Sharma et al., 2017). Approximately 45–60% of these fruit waste include peels, membranes, juice vesicles, and seeds. They can serve as beneficial sources for various products (Taghizadeh-Alisaraei, et al., 2017), which may enhance the economy of the citrus processing industries. It was noticed that the citrus peel, which contains a significant amount of flavonoids, is considered an economically valuable source for high-value compounds (Sharma et al., 2018). Management of citrus waste is the most challenging task; therefore, it could not be processed adequately. Consequently, citrus waste was used either as animal feed or dumped into landfills, which can lead to pollution as its management becomes expensive and with other environmental terms especially in developing countries (Mahato et al., 2018). Pollution caused by citrus waste is because of its easy fermentability (Tripodo et al., TABLE 2.1 Citrus Fruit Genus and its Common Names (Sidana et al., 2013; Berk, 2016) Scientific Name

Common Name

Citrus sinensis C. reticulata

Sweet Orange Mandarins

C. aurantium

Oranges (Sour and bitter)

C. grandis C. limonia

Pomelo Rangpur

C. limetta

Limon

C. limettioides C. jambhiri

Sweet Lime Rough Lemon

C. deliciosa

Citrus hybrid mandarin 3 pomelo

C. karna

Karna Nimbu/ Khatta Nimbu

Bio-Valorization of Citrus Waste

23

2004). Citrus waste is chemically complex, bulky, heterogenous, and biodegradable with a high chemical oxygen demand, i.e., citrus waste has shown low pH (3–4), 80–90% of moisture, and 95% of organic matter (Negro et al., 2016). Citrus fruit waste bio valorization is the biological action of conversion of citrus fruit waste biomass into fuel, energy, materials, and chemicals focused mainly on environs criterion and persistent goals (Nzihou, 2010; Arancon et al., 2013). Production of citrus juice generates peels, seeds, etc. that are of great source of biomolecules viz., oil, organic acids, soluble sugars, amino acids, vitamins, fiber, lipids, and vitamins (Fernández-López et al., 2004). Bio valorization of citrus fruit waste can result in economic gain and protect the environment.

2.1.1 CITRUS FRUITS

OF INDIAN

CONTINENT

AND THEIR

ORIGIN

Citrus and many other citrus species have been reported to have originated from the north-east. India is now the home for citrus having a variety of important species exhibiting vast genetic diversity and the world’s third highest citrus producer after China and USA. In developing countries like India, citrus fruit varieties have become a primary choice in the daily diet as citrus have been found to be rich in antioxidants and exhibiting nutraceutical properties. Citrus genetic resources are spanning across five major groups namely, acid lime, oranges, pummel grapefruits, mandarins, wild, and semi-wild species. Citrus fruits production has increased by 1.3-fold since 2008 and simultaneously its import-export has also increased which signifies the popularity of citrus fruits in India. The citrus fruit growing most frequently in India is the mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata). In India, it takes up close to 40% of the total land used for citrus farming. The mandarin (Citrus reticulata), sweet orange (Citrus sinensis), and acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia) are India’s three most significant commercial citrus species, accounting for 41, 23, and 23%, respectively, of the nation’s total citrus fruit production. Commercially, a. Kinnow mandarin is grown in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, western part of Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh; b. Khasi mandarin in north-eastern region comprising states like Assam, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh; c. Darjeeling mandarin in Darjeeling; d. Coorg mandarin in the Coorg area; e. Acid lime in Kheda district of Gujarat, Akola in Maharashtra, Periyakulam in Tamil Nadu; f. Nagpur mandarin in Vidarbha region (four principal districts viz., Aurangabad, Jalna, Parbhani, and Nanded) of Maharashtra and adjoining areas of Madhya Pradesh; g. Mosambi in Marathwada region of Maharashtra; Sathgudi in Andhra Pradesh (Tirupati, Anantpur). The generation of food waste is a great concern from social, economical, and environmental points of view.

24

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

2.1.2 MACROSCOPIC STRUCTURE

AND

COMPOSITION

OF

CITRUS FRUIT

The structure of the citrus fruit is as follows: Cuticle – peel or rind outside, The Flavedo – A thin covering of an epidermis with multitudinous oil filled sacks i.e., rich in essential aromatic oil, a profit-oriented product, used in flavoring and aromatic industry (Miller, Winston and Schomer, 1940). The Albedo – The spongy layer made up of parenchymatous cells, contains 20% of pectin and has high dietary fiber content (Silke and Ankit, 2009). The inner edible fruit pulp or flesh – Consists of locules which are segmented, separated by a epidermal membrane, contains myriads of vesicles with seeds in it and sacs containing juice (Davis, 1932). The core or central axis – Contains white, spongy tissue and the segment membranes together called as “rag” of the juice extracted from citrus fruit (Matlack, 1931).

The diagrammatic perspective of citrus fruit and its structural constitution has been shown in Figure 2.1. Citrus fruits gained popularity because of its rich biological constituents like amino acids, sugars, and organic acids. The citrus fruit rich in dietary components contains a considerable proportion of vitamins viz A, B, C; phytochemicals viz limonoids and carotenoids; minerals; fiber and phenolic compounds. Flavonoids, polymethoxy flavones (PMFs), play a significant role as being anti-oxidant (Chen et al., 2017) and as anti-cancerous (Ke et al., 2015). Significant evidence now available on citrus fruit has revealed its antioxidant and antimutagenic properties. Citrus fruit is known for zero fat content, cholesterol or sodium are positively correlated with cardiovascular, immune system, and bone (Codoñer-Franch and Valls-Bellés, 2010; Bermejo and Cano, 2012).

FIGURE 2.1 The diagrammatic perspective of citrus fruit and its structural constitution.

Bio-Valorization of Citrus Waste

25

Citrus fruits and their juices are highly nutritious and are consumed by the majority of people worldwide. Citrus fruits are rich in vitamin C content (Kundu et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2020) and other bioactive compounds viz., flavonoids, vitamins, limonoids, phenolic acids, and volatile terpenoids help in the prevention of various diseases and are responsible for a healthy lifestyle (Berk, 2016).

2.1.3 BIOACTIVE

AND

NUTRITIONAL COMPONENTS

OF

CITRUS WASTES

Phytochemicals present in the citrus fruits provide sufficient amount of vitamin C, vitamin B9 or folate, potassium (K), and pectin that are reported to benefit human health. The most significant role of citrus species in the deterrence of life-threatening diseases has also been studied (Anagnostopoulou et al., 2006, Guimarães et al., 2009). The phenolic and antioxidant profiles of citrus fruits, its extracts, and the flavonoids present have revealed its promising biological characteristic attributes (Middleton and Kandaswami, 1994; Montanari et al., 1998; Samman et al., 1996). After consumption of the juice, the outer rind or peel is disposed off as waste. Research on citrus waste has reported it to comprise secondary metabolites with considerable antioxidant activity (Manthey and Grohmann, 2001). Citrus peel being the primary waste has proven to contain pectin, molasses, and limonene. Nutrient-rich cattle feed was produced using dried citrus peel and pulp (Bocco et al., 1998). Research on the peels of citrus varieties comprising polyphenols, vitamins, minerals, dietary fibers, essential oils, and carotenoids has reported the citrus fruit as a healthy, nourishing fruit. With regard to this, citrus fruits have been reported to be considered a therapeutic remedy/ cure for several diseases like scurvy, which can be cured by consumption of oranges (Magiorkinis et al., 2011); kidney stone formation can be prevented by regular consumption of oranges, lime, and lemon juices (Pak, 2004); hepatic lipid metabolism can be effectively modulated by citrus flavonoids (Cha et al., 2001); inflammatory reactions can be prevented and modulated by regular consumption of orange juice (Assis et al., 2013). Biologically active, remarkable, and valuable components such as oxyprenylated natural products like 3,3-dimethylallyloxy-(C5), geranyloxy-(C10), and the farnesyloxy-(C15) connected molecules have been identified in citrus species (Munakata et al., 2012; Curini et al., 2006). From the peel and the citrus juice, natural components viz prenyloxycoumarins (auraptene), bergamottin, imperatorin, heraclenin, oxypeucedanin have been extracted (Epifano and Genovese, 2013; Epifano, 2014). Citrus varieties are known for its rich reserve of bioactive components like flavonoids, β-carotene, limonoids, fibers, essential oils, minerals, acridone alkaloids, and nutrients like vitamins – C, B, B1 (thiamine), B2 (riboflavin), B3 (niacin/nicotinic acid), B5 (pantothenic acid), B6 (pyridoxine), and B9 (folic acid) have been studied (Hamdan et al., 2011; Benavente-Garcia et al., 1997). Consequently, increasing acceptance and consumption of citrus varieties signifies that citrus fruits impart beneficial and preventive effects on several degenerative diseases (Wang et al., 2014).

2.1.4 USES

OF

CITRUS FRUITS

IN

FOOD PROCESSING UNITS

Studies have shown that antioxidants are engaged to impede the formation of compounds viz, butylated-hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT),

26

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

consequently reducing the nutritional and sensory quality that sometimes even can act as toxins (Burlow, 1990). Several clinical trials performed on rats reported that fabricated antioxidants like BHA can trigger cancer cell development (Ito et al., 1983). Fabricated research studies pave way towards positivity and the preference of researchers with consumers for naturally occurring foods, food products, and food additives that are as healthy and unsullied (Cozzi et al., 1997; Farag et al., 1986). Food processing industries are now involved in biologically active component identification and extraction from the byproducts that can result in value addition (Moure et al., 2001). Researchers are involved in developing innovative techniques that produce some important bioactive components from the citrus residual waste and their applications that are being focused towards economic and secure environmental features. Citrus waste is considered to be an economical renewable resource from which bioactive molecules are extracted that finds its application in food, pharmaceutical industries, and in the production of biologically safe fuels like ethanol, biogas and fuels employing physico-chemical, microbial, fermentation processes (Mahato et al., 2018; Negro et al., 2016; Fagbohungbe et al., 2016; Mamma and Christakopoulos, 2014b; Zema et al., 2018a; Su et al., 2016; Mahato et al., 2019a; Sharma et al., 2018; Mahato et al., 2019b). Citrus fruit peels contain a substantial amount of pectins (Mohapatra et al., 2010). Pectins are a network of carbohydrate molecules, chemically organized as a galacturonic acid polymer with several inconsistent methyl ester groups (Maran et al., 2013). Pectins were extracted from the citrus residual waste that are known to have exceptionally high biological value because of the presence of bioactive compounds with promising health benefits (Singh et al., 2020). Biologically active components include high-quality fibers, pectins, and bioactive compounds viz., polyphenols – flavonoids and phenolic acids, carotenoids, and essential oils (Figuerola, et al., 2005; Rafiq et al., 2018; Putnik et al., 2017; Hosseini et al., 2016) and its wide applications in the food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics industries have been reported (Sharma et al., 2017). Earlier citrus waste was used in animal feed (Mirzaei-Aghsaghali and MaheriSis, 2008), compost production (Bernal-Vicente et al., 2008), and fuel production (Casquete et al., 2015). Alternatively, ecologically sustainable and appropriate management of citrus residual wastes in the production of nanocellulose (Mariño et al., 2015), pectinase (Garzón and Hours, 1992; Ahmed et al., 2016), larvicides (Din et al., 2011), bioethanol (Boluda-Aguilar and López-Gómez, 2013), biofuels (Choi et al., 2013; Lohrasbi et al., 2010; Pourbafrani, et al., 2010; Alvarez et al., 2018), including nanoparticles of iron (Wei et al., 2016) and silver with cytotoxic activity (Ahmed et al., 2018) have been proposed. Citrus peels are potential sources of valuable essential oils, approximately 0.5–3 kg oil can be extracted from per ton of citrus peel waste. The essential oils extracted finds applications in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, alcoholic beverages, confectioneries, and in maintaining the shelf-life of foodstuff. Recently some articles “not peer reviewed,” reported the link between citrus hesperidin with COVID-19 disease, the interaction of hesperidin with SARS-CoV-2 main protease receptor – PDB:6Y84 (Das et al., 2021) and crystal structure main protease – PDB:6LU7, Spike glycoprotein-RBD – PDB:6LXT and PD-ACE2

Bio-Valorization of Citrus Waste

27

PDB:6VW1 (Utomo et al., 2020), might have said to shown repressive effect against viral infection and replication. Clinical trials have been suggested contingent on the interaction of the product with receptors of SARS-CoV-2, to exhibit its prophylactic or therapeutic activity against COVID-19 (Meneguzzo et al., 2020a, 2020b).

2.2 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CITRUS FLAVONOIDS The biological effects of flavonoids in in vitro include transition in enzymatic activity, free-radical scavenging, impediment in cell proliferation. Potentially flavonoids also act as anti-allergic, antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-ulcer (Hamdan et al., 2011; Yoshida et al., 2010; Özçelik et al., 2008; Li et al., 2006; Havsteen, 2002). Citrus peels are rich reserves of flavonoids, so they have been extracted to be used by food and pharmaceutical industries for various food applications (Londoño-Londoño et al., 2010). Flavanones and many polymethoxylated flavones are present in ample amounts in citrus peels. The presence of flavanone glycosides viz., polymethoxy flavones present in the citrus fruit peels is believed to have shown a positive impact on human health. Studies have shown that citrus peel also accommodates sufficient quantities of numerous polyphenolic compounds bearing chemical backbone of naringin, quercetin, rutin, and hesperidin. Whereas, flavonoids like kaempferol, narirutin, didymin, sinensetin, diosmin, and tangeretin are seen in micro quantities in citrus peels. Thus, identification, extraction, and application of flavonoids as natural food supplement in various food industries is attracting the attention of consumers and researchers to intensify the quality and shelf life of food thereby to have constructive human health. Recently, citrus processing waste (CPW) utilized in the making of single-cell proteins (Kalara et al., 1989), bio-ethanol (Boluda-Aguilar et al., 2010), bio-hydrogen (Venkata Mohan et al., 2009), and multiple enzymes (Puri et al., 2008; Puri et al., 2011). Flavonoids present in the citrus processing waste aid in delaying the oxidation process of low-density proteins that turns down the rate of heart diseases (Peluso et al., 2006). The principal flavonoids known to be present in citrus (Benavente-Garcia et al., 1997) are listed in Table 2.2. Naringin-flavanone glycosides (Mamma et al., 2008), tangeritin-polymethoxylated flavones aglycons, and rutin-flavone glycosides (Sawalha et al., 2009) are the primary flavonoid components of citrus peel. In the citrus fruit and peel, flavonoid naringin is present in a substantial amount. Naringin is a flavone glycoside with a chemical backbone of C6-C3-C6 carbon framework. Chemically, naringin contains glucose and rhamnose-two sugar molecules, which are linked to try-hydroxyl flavonols. Therefore, naringin is involved in lowering the cholesterol, can act as anti-proliferative and antioxidant. In vitro studies on flavonoids, have thrown light on naringin showing a positive influence in preventing the incurable diseases namely, asthma and cerebrovascular disease (Yoshida et al., 2010). Naringin gets transformed into naringenin, a free radical scavenger, that helps in reducing the oxidative damage of DNA molecule (Gao et al., 2006) and L-rhamnose. Hydrolysis of naringin resulted in rhamnose, is used as an antecedent in the aromatic and flavoring compound production, as a chiral compound in chemical synthesis, and as an inducer of recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli (Zverlov et al., 2000).

28

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

TABLE 2.2 Principal Flavonoids Present in Citrus sp. with Chemical Structure (Benavente-Garcia et al., 1997) Citrus sp.

Flavonoid

Molecular weight/Chemical Structure

C. paradise C. aurantium

Naringin

C. aurantium

Neoeriocitrin

C. sinensis C. sinensis C. limonia

Hesperidin Diosmin

C-ring structure

604 Da/ C29O14H32

FLA

596.53 Da/ C27H32O15

FLA

583 Da/ C30O12 H31 583 Da/ C30O12 H31

FLA FLO

C. limonia

Rutin

664.57 Da/ C27H30O16.3(H2O)

FOL

C. paradisi C. aurantium

Naringenin Eriodictyol

271 Da/ C15O5H11 290.27 Da/ C15H14O6

FLA FLA

C. sinensis

Hesperetin

288 Da/ C15O6H13

FLA

C. paradisi C. limonia C. aurantium

Apigenin Luteolin

270 Da /C15O5H10 286 Da /C15O6H10

FLO FLO

C. sinensis

Diosmetin

288 Da/ C15O6H12

FLO

C. paradisi C. limonia

Kaempferol Quercetin

286.24 Da/ C15H10O6 302 Da/ C15O7H10

FOL FOL

C. aurantium C. paradise C. limonia

Tangeretin

372.37 Da/ C20H20O7

FOL FOL FOL

Note: FLA, flavanone; FLO, flavone; FOL, flavonol.

The citrus peel contains another flavanone glycoside, hesperidin having the chemical formula C28H34O16. In lemons and oranges, hesperidin is present predominantly and is well known as Vitamin P. Naringin and hesperidin, both exhibit similar structural features. Rutin is another flavonoid glycoside found abundantly in citrus varieties and has the chemical formula C27H30O16.

2.2.1 HEALTH BENEFITS

OF

FLAVONOIDS

2.2.1.1 Antitumor Effects Studies have proven that flavonoids play a major role in inhibiting carcinogenesis (Fotsis et al., 1997). Apigenin, fisetin, and luteolin are some potent flavonoids that have been reported to be cell proliferation inhibitors (Caltagirone et al., 2000). Clinical studies conducted on Mice revealed that the quercetin and apigenin were potent inhibitors of melanoma, controlled angiogenesis, and the invasive and metastatic potential was greatly influenced by flavonoids in mice. Regulation of

Bio-Valorization of Citrus Waste

29

angiogenesis is initiated by endogenous angiogenic and angiostatic factors that work on the healing process. Whereas in the case of cancer, unregulated, pathological angiogenesis occurs. Flavonoids are potent angiogenesis inhibitors of protein kinases that have a significant role in signal transduction (Androutsopoulos et al., 2010). 2.2.1.2 Anti-Atherosclerotic Effects Flavonoids possess antioxidative properties, regular consumption helps lower the mortality rate because of coronary heart disease, especially in aged men (Hertog et al., 1993; Gorinstein et al., 2006). An inverse correlation existing between the intake of flavonoid content and the total plasma cholesterol levels was reported earlier (Arai et al., 2000). Similarly, flavonoid intake was reported to be inversely related to prevent dementia (Commenges et al., 2000). In the case of dementia, oxidative stress and vascular damage are postulated and research has described the contribution of red wine in the prevention of the onset of dementia (Orgogozo et al., 1997). 2.2.1.3 Antidiabetic Effects In streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats, quercetin being antidiabetic was reported to assist the reformation process of islets of Langerhans in the pancreas of rats to produce insulin (Vessal et al., 2003). Subsequently, insulin production and increased Ca2+ uptake from isolated islets are revitalized by flavonoid quercetin, so have recommended flavonoid intake in case of noninsulin-dependent diabetes (Hif and Howell. 1984; Hif and Howell 1985). Hesperidin and naringin, citrus flavonoids play a significant role in controlling the progression of hyperglycemia thereby intensifying hepatic glycolysis and glycogen level concentration by diminishing hepatic gluconeogenesis (June et al., 2004). 2.2.1.4 Free Radical Scavenging The potentiality of flavonoids in peroxyl radical scavenging studies has illustrated the involvement of flavonoids in the oxidation of low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and in the inhibition of peroxidation of lipids (Castelluccio et al., 1995). In vitro studies on flavonoids and phenolic substances have been studied to be powerful inhibitors of the deamination of DNA and nitrous acid-dependent nitration (Oldreive et al., 1998). Flavonoids from plants can contribute to a gastroprotective effect under corditis where increased reactive nitrogen molecules are generated. The phenolic compounds and the flavonoids having hydroxyl groups can interact with the transition metal ions to build stable chelates or cycle of reduction-oxidation reaction takes place that assist in reducing the copper or iron into oxidized quinone and pro-oxidant form. The citrus industry constitutes about 50% of seeds and peel residues (Bocco et al., 1998; Ignat et al., 2011). The citrus waste consists of flavonoids and phenolic compounds which also contain high concentration of polyphenols than the fruit (Balasundram et al., 2006).

30

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

2.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF CITRUS PEEL WASTE Vitamin C concentration is plenteous in citrus juice, and citrus-processing industries are involved in nutrient-rich beverage production. Citrus industries can process citrus juice (50%) of its weight while the remaining waste residues like seeds, whole citrus fruit, pulp and peel that fall short to fulfill the standard essential requirements and have been reported to contain 80% of moisture content (Garcia-Castello et al., 2011; Rezzadori et al., 2012). Covering a year, 7.8 million tons of citrus waste is generated in India while an average of 119.7 million tons of citrus waste production is reported worldwide. The citrus residual waste generated by the citrus processing industries is either directly dumped onto the landfills or rivers or burnt to ashes causing soil, air, or water pollution and leading to attenuation of dissolved oxygen level in polluted water (Wadhwa and Bakshi, 2013). Consequences of direct disposal of untreated citrus residual waste may be contamination of water, deterioration of soil qualities, and other environmental issues (Braddock, 1995; Martín et al., 2010).

2.3.1 CITRUS WASTE VALORIZATION During juice extraction from the citrus fruits, sacks break open to release volatile oils readily available in the pockets of the flavedo, i.e., the mesocarpe of the fruit. The essential oils are rich in β-Citronellol, Citronellol, D-limonene, α-pinene, and α-terpinolene (Sahraoui et al., 2011). Applications of volatile essential oils in the food industries as flavor-inducing agents in beverage and cosmetic industries in the preparation of perfumes and soaps (Pereira, 2008; Raeissi et al., 2008). Research on terpenes present in citrus-essential oil exhibited anti-fungal activities (Caccioni et al., 1998). The D-limonene present in the citrus essential oil is a versatile chemical compound that could be utilized in oil extraction instead of perilous petroleum solvents like petroleum ether and further to be used as an effective cleaning agent (Virot et al., 2008). D-limonene was used as extraction solvent in carotenoid extraction and that the combination of microwave, ultrasound, and D-limonene reported having been succeeded in developing a green environmental approach where complete valorization of waste could happen within the stipulated time by providing value-added compounds (Boukroufa et al., 2017). Organic waste residues generated from citrus juice processing industries represent excessive, easily available, and economic sources of renewable biomass. Ligno-cellulosic waste from the citrus processing industries is a renewable biomass source in the making of new, sustainable chemicals and fuels (Ranzi et al., 2008). Bio valorization of citrus waste residue in the production of biofuels by the process of combustion, thermolysis, gasification, pyrolysis (Alvarez et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2015; Miranda et al., 2009; Volpea et al., 2015; Zapata et al., 2009). During the last few decades, the food processing industries have resulted in expeditious development, expected losses, and waste generation during citrus fruit processing. Huge fruit loss and biomass waste incidentally have squandered critical resources like land (soil), water, energy, fertilizers, chemicals, and labor. The massive fruit loss and wasted food commodities parallelly would contribute to environmental pollution as the waste gets decomposed in the landfills and releases

Bio-Valorization of Citrus Waste

31

deleterious greenhouse gases (Venkat, 2011; Vilariño et al., 2017). Domestic waste generated by household activities, vegetable and fruit processing units releases elevated volumes of waste biomass directly into the environment (Gowe, 2015). Mandarins generate 84% of the final product and 16% of peels (Joshi et al., 2012). Around 5.5 MMT of citrus fruit waste including pomace after extraction of juice is produced. Annually, Canning industries and frozen food firms of vegetables and fruits generate approximately around 6 MMT of solid waste, which includes 20–30% leaves, stems, and stalks (Panouillé et al., 2007). Citrus peel contains 2.5–9.0% of proteins (Dugo and Di Giacomo, 2002; Pfaltzgraff et al., 2013; Mamma and Christakopoulos, 2014b). Protein expression profiling of citrus fruit resulted in 1,109 proteins amidst the citrus peel comprised 366 proteins and the peel and pulp comprised 46 proteins (Fasoli and Righetti, 2015; Lerma‐García et al., 2016). Organic agriculture is a sustainable alternative to conventional system as it aids in environmental protection (Pimentel, 2005), improved food quality, and human health (Suthar and Singh, 2008; Suthar, 2009; Pratap et al., 2011). It restricts the use of agrochemicals and genetically modified organisms; rather focuses on other agricultural practices like organic manure (compost, vermicompost, green manures, animal manures), crop rotations, and biological control of pests to maintain productivity. Increasing awareness among consumers has uplifted the demand of organic products in the global scenario. However, the organic supply has not been competent to meet the demand. Therefore, farmers are encouraged to move into organic farming. Nutrient management of cropland is an important factor for agricultural success. Thus, organic manures like vermicompost have become a boon for organic agriculture and farmers. Vermicompost is an organic manure produced by the biological processing of organic waste that is fed by earthworms. It has emerged as a sustainable technology for the management of organic waste, production of organic manure, and reduction in the application of chemical fertilizers to agricultural lands. It was reported that composting of the organic portion of municipal solid waste along with orange peel residual waste developed 37% less odor formation (Siles et al., 2016). Currently, advancements in citrus waste valorization viz., extraction of essential oils, manufacture of food-grade craft paper, biofuels, biosafety packaging materials, activated carbons and adsorbents are grabbing elevated interest among consumers and producers.

2.4 CITRUS FRUIT WASTE AND ITS BYPRODUCTS Fruit processing Industries are generating the waste in either wet/fresh form or dehydrated/dried form to develop that into a feed for animals (Moreira et al., 2004). Citrus fruits are utilized in producing 50% juice while the remaining 50% becomes waste that comprises celluose, pectins, D-limonene, and α-terpineol (Figure 2.2). Citrus waste residue contains pectin which can bind to the water molecule. While drying the waste supplementation of calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide and lime to maintain the pH to 5.5–6.5, also to disintegrate the hydrophilic attributes of pectins to ease water and the carbohydrate molecules in the pulp of citrus fruit (Cocke and Atlanta, 1976; Teixeira, 2001; Wing, 2003). Research analysis were carried out on the citrus residual waste utilization as ruminant feed and productivity of the animal

32

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

FIGURE 2.2 Production of 50% citrus juice and 50% waste comprising bioactive components.

(Bampidis and Robinson, 2006). In vitro fermentation of citrus pulp resulted in higher lactic acid content (Cullen et al., 1986). So, the byproduct feed rich in pectin content, used as energy feed has been held responsible for the growth and lactation in ruminants. Therefore, the byproduct feed has been considered as biologically decomposable neutral detergent fiber, without having a dismissive impact on rumen ecosystem.

2.4.1 ESSENTIAL OIL EXTRACTION Essential oils extracted from the citrus waste residue were used in the cellulolytic fiber production that supports semi-solid fermentation and dietary fiber supplement (Chau and Huang 2003; Bortoluzzi and Marangoni, 2006; Bicu and Mustata, 2011). After essential oil extraction, liquid residues obtained were used in the enzyme production. High-value essential oils have wider applications in the pharmaceutical industry, in the food and beverage industries as flavor-producing agents, in cleaning products etc., while the economy was well justified (Anagnostopoulou et al., 2006; Raeissi et al., 2008). Terpenes, oxygenated derivates such as esters, aldehydes (citral), and alcohols are the main volatile components of essential oil (Shaw, 1979). As an alternative to hazardous petroleum ether, essential oils with wide applications are used as nontoxic solvent in paints, wax, resin, glue, and oleochemical industries (Virot et al., 2008). Extraction of citrus (lemon) essential oil by the process of steam distillation, blended with diesel oil in 20:80 ratio was also studied. Citrus essential oil especially the oil extracted from lemon when blended at 20% has exhibited fuellike properties viz., 42,059 kJ/kg gross calorific value, 44 cetane index, 843 kg/m3 density, 2.5 × 10−6 at 40 C kinematic viscosity and 110 g/L of fermentable monosaccharides was compared to a sugar solution using a stirred tank bioreactor and Lactobacillus delbureckii sp. delbrueckii. The authors concluded that it presented similar lactic acid titres and yields; besides, a slight dilution of the orange peel hydrolyzate improved the lactic acid production. Batch fermentation of sugarcane molasses added corn steep liquor as a nitrogen source by Lactobacillus casei MTCC 1423 was tested for the lactic acid production (Thakur, Panesar, and Saini 2019b). The maximum yields were obtained considering sodium alginate beads with 2.5 mm of diameter, biomass concentration of 40 g, 150 rpm of shakin speed, 175 g/L of substrate concentration, and incubation at 37°C during 72 h and pH 7.0. Regarding waste reuse in biotechnological processes, an important point to be considered is related to seasonality. Some wastes are available during a limited period, such as fruit origin, differently dairy bio-products, for example. Even based on seasonality, lactic acid production by waste fermentation can be performed all year long since its availability is carefully analyzed in order to ensure the needed amounts for this purpose (Costa et al., 2020). In order to resolve this problem, (Fazzino et al., 2021) studied the ensiling method as an interesting alternative to ensure orange peel wastes to lactic acid production by microbial fermentation during the year. The research evaluated the stimulation of LAB by either biological (inoculation with leachate from an ensiling process) or chemical (MnCl2 supplementation) methods for lactic acid production. The leachate inoculation provided a higher concentration of lactic acid (+113%) in comparison with the control treatment. According to the authors, this approach can represent a low-cost alternative easily implemented at full-scale for lactic acid production from orange peel wastes. Ricci et al. (2019) analyzed different LAB species to assess their potential in using orange peel as a substrate to produce lactic acid: L. plantarum 285, L. casei 2246, L. rhamnosus 1018 and L. paracasei 4186, alone or in co-culture. Lactobacillus casei, in isolated cultivation, presented the best performance, resulting in the highest concentration and productivity of lactic acid. Values similar were found in co-cultivation with L. plantarum and L. paracasei, with a better performance than when both species were analyzed separately. The use of co-culture can be valuable to obtain a higher concentration of lactic acid from orange peel wastes. A wide diversity of microorganisms has been shown to be able to produce lactic acid using agro-industrial substrates. Bacteria and fungi are the most efficient, but yeasts and microalgae are also capable of producing. Rhizopus sp. (fungi), Pichia stipitis (yeast), and Sargassum siliquosum (microalgae) have been used in the production of lactic acid (Lin et al., 2020). A characteristic to be highlighted consists of the ability of Rhizopus to produce only the L(+)- lactic acid isomer, widely used by the food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industry, as it is metabolized by the human body by tricarboxylic acid cycle, avoiding toxicity problems (Zhang, Jin, and Kelly 2007). However, most industrial production is associated with the action of LAB group (Abdel-Rahman, Tashiro, and Sonomoto 2013; Krishna et al., 2019).

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid

177

Regarding bacteria, different genera include species lactic acid producers, such Aerococcus, Enterococcus, Lactococcus, Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Oenococcus, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, Tetragenococcus, Vagococcus, and Weissella (Abedi and Hashemi 2020). Lactobacillus is one of the most important in the industrial lactic acid production (Alves de Oliveira et al., 2018). Even if many microorganisms produce lactic acid, a lot of them do not reach good yields. There are several obstacles related to waste reuse for lactic acid production, mainly those with high lignocellulosic content. In order to release fermentable sugars from this matrix, a pretreatment step must be applied (Bajpai 2016). Considering the difficulties about chemical, physical, and physical-chemical pretreatment methodologies, as discussed in previous sections, biological processes correspond to the most studied and used (Hassan, Williams, and Jaiswal 2018). Its advantages include low energy expenditure compared to other methods, generation of non-toxic byproducts for microbial growth, there is no use of chemicals, among others. Because of these factors, biological methods are considered ecologically correct (Sindhu, Binod, and Pandey 2016). However, biological processes, such as fungal pretreatment, demand longer periods and sterile conditions, making their industrial application more difficult. Thus, the optimization process is important to accelerate biological pretreatment. Factors such as pH, temperature, and aeration of the medium must be applied in order to optimize lignocellulolytic microbial action. In addition, strains can also be submitted to genetic modification tools aiming at the improvement to selectivity for lignin degradation, since microorganisms consume sugars even during pretreatment (Bader et al., 2010; van Kuijk et al., 2015). For this purpose, alternative approaches have demonstrated the exploitation potential of microbial consortia in lignocellulose pretreatment steps. These consortia may contain bacteria, yeasts, and filamentous fungi that will act together on biomass recalcitrance. Unlike pretreatment using pure strains, microbial consortia do not require a sterilized substrate (Zheng et al., 2014). Hua et al. (2014) demonstrated the efficiency of a consortium in the production of organic acids, such as lactic acid, using rice straw as a substrate. Abdel-Rahman, Tashiro, and Sonomoto, (2013) used a microbial consortium containing Bacillus isolated from marine animal resources to produce optically pure lactic acid. Kitchen waste was used as a substrate, including different fruits and vegetable peels, fish, and rice. The authors showed the best results (34.5 g of L-lactic acid with 100% optical purity) at 50°C. The high purity levels are considered important for industrial applications, mainly if it includes PLA production, which nowadays has received great visibility (Ahmad, Banat, and Taher 2020). Finally, an important point to be highlighted is related to waste storage. Zengshuai Zhang et al., 2021 investigated the effect of storage time on food waste attributes and its influence on lactic acid production. According to the authors, most part of sugars was consumed during 7–15 days of food waste storage, with a final consumption around 68.0% after 15 days. Micro-aerobic conditions (13 mL air/g) and B-glucosidase use were used to improve the polysaccharides hydrolysis. The results showed that the monosaccharides content was increased in 76.6% in the conditions evaluated. The highest lactic acid titer and yield observed were 32.1 g/L and 0.76 g/g sugar, respectively.

178

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

8.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS Lactic acid comprises a desirable compound for industries due to its wide range of applications in different sectors. Its production by microbial fermentation has been applied in industrial scale because of several advantages in comparison with chemical synthesis. The best cost-benefit ratio when using agro-industrial wastes as substrates and reducing environmental damages consists of the main reasons for its exploitation. In this context, the use of agri-wastes normally discarded as a fermentative substrate is an interesting way of adding value and practicing a more sustainable economy. Although lactic acid production from agro-industrial wastes presents several benefits, there are still obstacles to be overcome in order to have a more economical and efficient process. The main challenges are associated with achieving higher yields, productivity, and optical purity. It is essential to reduce the final price and make lactic acid production from wastes economically viable on an industrial scale. In this sense, novel research considering agro-industrial waste as a substrate for lactic acid production are indispensable to meet a global demand for non-petrochemical products. If the lactic acid reaches a lower value than it is currently, an expansion of its use will probably be observed coming soon.

REFERENCES Abdel-Rahman, Mohamed Ali and Kenji Sonomoto. 2016. “Opportunities to Overcome the Current Limitations and Challenges for Efficient Microbial Production of Optically Pure Lactic Acid.” Journal of Biotechnology 236: 176–192 . 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.08.008 Abdel-Rahman, Mohamed Ali, Yukihiro Tashiro, and Kenji Sonomoto. 2011. “Lactic Acid Production from Lignocellulose-Derived Sugars Using Lactic Acid Bacteria: Overview and Limits.” Journal of Biotechnology 156 (4): 286–301. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.06.017 Abdel-Rahman, Mohamed Ali, Yukihiro Tashiro, and Kenji Sonomoto. 2013. “Recent Advances in Lactic Acid Production by Microbial Fermentation Processes.” Biotechnology Advances 31 (6): 877–902. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.04.002 Abdel-Rahman, Mohamed Ali, Yukihiro Tashiro, Takeshi Zendo, and Kenji Sonomoto. 2013. “Improved Lactic Acid Productivity by an Open Repeated Batch Fermentation System Using Enterococcus Mundtii QU 25.” RSC Advances 3 (22): 8437–8445. 10.1039/c3 ra00078h Abe, Shin-ichiro and Motoyoshi Takagi. 1991. “Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Cellulose to Lactic Acid.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering 37 (1): 93–96. 10.1002/ bit.260370113 Abedi, Elahe, and Seyed Mohammad Bagher Hashemi. 2020. “Lactic Acid Production – Producing Microorganisms and Substrates Sources-State of Art.” Heliyon 6 (10): 1–32. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04974 Aboseidah, Akram, Abdel-Hamied Rasmey, Magdy Osman, Nehal Kamal, and Salha Desouky. 2017. “Optimization of Lactic Acid Production by a Novel Strain, Enterococcus Faecalis KY072975 Isolated from Infants Stool in Egypt”. European Journal of Biological Research 7 (January): 22–30. 10.5281/zenodo.242164 Absolute Reports. 2020. “Lactic Acids Market Size 2020 by Global Growth, Share, Regions, Demand Status, Latest Trends, Insights and Forecast to 2026.” Available in: https:// www.mordorintelligence.com

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid

179

Ahmad, Ashfaq, Fawzi Banat, and Hanifa Taher. 2020. “A Review on the Lactic Acid Fermentation from Low-Cost Renewable Materials: Recent Developments and Challenges.” Environmental Technology & Innovation 20 (November). 1–21. 10.1016/ j.eti.2020.101138 Ahring, Birgitte K., Joseph J. Traverso, Nanditha Murali, and Keerthi Srinivas. 2016. “Continuous Fermentation of Clarified Corn Stover Hydrolysate for the Production of Lactic Acid at High Yield and Productivity.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 109 (May). 10.1016/j.bej.2016.01.012 Ajala, Elijah Olawale, Yusuf Olanrewaju Olonade, Mary Adejoke Ajala, and Gbolagade Sunday Akinpelu. 2020. “Lactic Acid Production from Lignocellulose – A Review of Major Challenges and Selected Solutions.” ChemBioEng Reviews 7 (2). 10.1002/ cben.201900018 Alonso, Saúl, Mónica Herrero, Manuel Rendueles, and Mario Díaz. 2014. “Physiological Heterogeneity in Lactobacillus Casei Fermentations on Residual Yoghurt Whey.” Process Biochemistry 49 (5). 10.1016/j.procbio.2014.01.033 Altaf, Md., B.J. Naveena, M. Venkateshwar, E. Vijay Kumar, and Gopal Reddy. 2006. “Single Step Fermentation of Starch to l(+) Lactic Acid by Lactobacillus Amylophilus GV6 in SSF Using Inexpensive Nitrogen Sources to Replace Peptone and Yeast Extract – Optimization by RSM.” Process Biochemistry 41 (2). 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.07.011 Alves de Oliveira, Regiane, Andrea Komesu, Carlos Eduardo Vaz Rossell, and Rubens Maciel Filho. 2018. “Challenges and Opportunities in Lactic Acid Bioprocess Design—From Economic to Production Aspects.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 133 (May). 10.1016/ j.bej.2018.03.003 Anwar, Zahid, Muhammad Gulfraz, and Muhammad Irshad. 2014. “Agro-Industrial Lignocellulosic Biomass a Key to Unlock the Future Bio-Energy: A Brief Review.” Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences 7 (2). 10.1016/j.jrras. 2014.02.003 Babilas, Philipp, Ulrich Knie, and Christoph Abels. 2012. “Cosmetic and Dermatologic Use of Alpha Hydroxy Acids.” JDDG: Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft 10 (7). 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2012.07939.x Bader, J., E. Mast-Gerlach, M.K. Popović, R. Bajpai, and U. Stahl. 2010. “Relevance of Microbial Coculture Fermentations in Biotechnology.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 109 (2). 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04659.x Baek, Seung‐Ho, Eunice Y. Kwon, Sang‐Jeong Bae, Bo‐Ram Cho, Seon‐Young Kim, and Ji‐Sook Hahn. 2017. “Improvement of D ‐Lactic Acid Production in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Under Acidic Conditions by Evolutionary and Rational Metabolic Engineering.” Biotechnology Journal 12 (10). 10.1002/biot.201700015 Baek, Seung-Ho, Eunice Y. Kwon, Yong Hwan Kim, and Ji-Sook Hahn. 2016. “Metabolic Engineering and Adaptive Evolution for Efficient Production of D-Lactic Acid in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 100 (6). 10.1007/ s00253-015-7174-0 Bahry, Hajar, Rawa Abdalla, Agnès Pons, Samir Taha, and Christophe Vial. 2019. “Optimization of Lactic Acid Production Using Immobilized Lactobacillus Rhamnosus and Carob Pod Waste from the Lebanese Food Industry.” Journal of Biotechnology 306 (December). 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2019.09.017 Bajpai, Pratima. 2016. “Background and General Introduction.” SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science book series. 1–5. 10.1007/978-981-10-0687-6_1 Beitel, Susan Michelz, Luciana Fontes Coelho, and Jonas Contiero. 2020. “Efficient Conversion of Agroindustrial Waste into D(-) Lactic Acid by Lactobacillus Delbrueckii Using Fed-Batch Fermentation.” BioMed Research International 2020 (April). 10.1155/2020/4194052

180

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Bustamante, Daniel, Marta Tortajada, Daniel Ramón, and Antonia Rojas. 2019. “Production of D-Lactic Acid by the Fermentation of Orange Peel Waste Hydrolysate by Lactic Acid Bacteria.” Fermentation 6 (1). 10.3390/fermentation6010001 Carpinelli, Macedo, João Victor, Fabiane Fernanda de Barros Ranke, Bruna Escaramboni, Tania Sila Campioni, Eutimio Gustavo Fernández Núñez, and Pedro de Oliva Neto. 2020. “Cost-Effective Lactic Acid Production by Fermentation of Agro-Industrial Residues.” Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 27 (August). 10.1016/j.bcab. 2020.101706 Castillo, Martinez, Fabio Andres, Eduardo Marcos Balciunas, José Manuel Salgado, José Manuel Domínguez González, Attilio Converti, and Ricardo Pinheiro de Souza Oliveira. 2013. “Lactic Acid Properties, Applications and Production: A Review.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 30 (1). 10.1016/j.tifs.2012.11.007 Chacón, Micaela G., Christopher Ibenegbu, and David J. Leak. 2020. “Simultaneous Saccharification and Lactic Acid Fermentation of the Cellulosic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Using Bacillus Smithii.” Biotechnology Letters, November. 43: 667–675. 10.1007/s10529-020-03049-y Chen, Hao, Bo Chen, Zihang Su, Kang Wang, Boxuan Wang, Yong Wang, Zhihao Si, Yilu Wu, Di Cai, and Peiyong Qin. 2020. “Efficient Lactic Acid Production from Cassava Bagasse by Mixed Culture of Bacillus Coagulans and Lactobacillus Rhamnosus Using Stepwise PH Controlled Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation.” Industrial Crops and Products 146 (April). 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112175 Chen, Po-Ting, Zih-Syuan Hong, Chieh-Lun Cheng, I-Son Ng, Yung-Chung Lo, Dillirani Nagarajan, and Jo-Shu Chang. 2020. “Exploring Fermentation Strategies for Enhanced Lactic Acid Production with Polyvinyl Alcohol-Immobilized Lactobacillus Plantarum 23 Using Microalgae as Feedstock.” Bioresource Technology 308 (July). 10.1016/ j.biortech.2020.123266 Choi, Hwa-Young, Hee-Kyoung Ryu, Kyung-Min Park, Eun Gyo Lee, Hongweon Lee, Seon-Won Kim, and Eui-Sung Choi. 2012. “Direct Lactic Acid Fermentation of Jerusalem Artichoke Tuber Extract Using Lactobacillus Paracasei without Acidic or Enzymatic Inulin Hydrolysis.” Bioresource Technology 114 (June). 10.1016/ j.biortech.2012.03.075 Costa, Stefania, Daniela Summa, Bruno Semeraro, Federico Zappaterra, Irene Rugiero, and Elena Tamburini. 2020. “Fermentation as a Strategy for Bio-Transforming Waste into Resources: Lactic Acid Production from Agri-Food Residues.” Fermentation 7 (1). 10.3390/fermentation7010003 Cubas-Cano, Enrique, Cristina González-Fernández, Ignacio Ballesteros, and Elia TomásPejó. 2020. “Efficient Utilization of Hydrolysates from Steam-Exploded Gardening Residues for Lactic Acid Production by Optimization of Enzyme Addition and PH Control.” Waste Management 107 (April). 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.003 Cubas-Cano, Enrique, Cristina González-Fernández, Mercedes Ballesteros, and Elia TomásPejó. 2018. “Biotechnological Advances in Lactic Acid Production by Lactic Acid Bacteria: Lignocellulose as Novel Substrate.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 12 (2). 10.1002/bbb.1852 Cui, Fengjie, Yebo Li, and Caixia Wan. 2011. “Lactic Acid Production from Corn Stover Using Mixed Cultures of Lactobacillus Rhamnosus and Lactobacillus Brevis.” Bioresource Technology 102 (2). 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.063 Cunha, Marília Crivelari da, Michelle Thiemi Masotti, Olga Lucía Mondragón-Bernal, and José Guilherme Lembi Ferreira Alves. 2018. “Highly Efficient Production of L (+)-Lactic Acid Using Medium with Potato, Corn Steep Liquor and Calcium Carbonate by Lactobacillus Rhamnosus ATCC 9595.” Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 35 (3). 10.1590/0104-6632.20180353s20170024

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid

181

Datta, Rathin, and Michael Henry. 2006. “Lactic Acid: Recent Advances in Products, Processes and Technologies—a Review.” Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 81 (7). 10.1002/jctb.1486 Dedenaro, Giovanni, Stefania Costa, Irene Rugiero, Paola Pedrini, and Elena Tamburini. 2016. “Valorization of Agri-Food Waste via Fermentation: Production of l-Lactic Acid as a Building Block for the Synthesis of Biopolymers.” Applied Sciences 6 (12). 10.33 90/app6120379 Elakkiya, M, D. Prabhakaran, and M. Thirumarimurugan. 2016. “Methods of Cell Immobilization and Its Applications.” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 5 (4): 5429–5433. Eş, Ismail, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah, Francisco J. Barba, Jorge A. Saraiva, Anderson S. Sant’Ana, and Seyed Mohammad Bagher Hashemi. 2018. “Recent Advancements in Lactic Acid Production – A Review.” Food Research International 107 (May). 10.1016/ j.foodres.2018.01.001 Escaramboni, Bruna, Eutimio Gustavo Fernández Núñez, Ana Flavia Azevedo Carvalho, and Pedro de Oliva Neto. 2018. “Ethanol Biosynthesis by Fast Hydrolysis of Cassava Bagasse Using Fungal Amylases Produced in Optimized Conditions.” Industrial Crops and Products 112 (February). 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.12.004 Farooq, Umar, Faqir Anjum, Tahir Zahoor, Sajjad Rahman, Muhammad Randhawa, Dr Anwaar Ahmed, and Kashif Akram. 2012. “Optimization of Lactic Acid Production from Cheap Raw Material: Sugarcane Molasses.” Pakistan Journal of Botany 44 (February): 333. Fazzino, Filippo, Francesco Mauriello, Emilia Paone, Rossana Sidari, and Paolo S. Calabrò. 2021. “Integral Valorization of Orange Peel Waste through Optimized Ensiling: Lactic Acid and Bioethanol Production.” Chemosphere 271 (May). 10.1016/j.chemosphere. 2021.129602 Gao, Ting, Yukki Wong, Chungkei Ng, and Kwokping Ho. 2012. “L-Lactic Acid Production by Bacillus Subtilis MUR1.” Bioresource Technology 121 (October). 10.1016/j.biortech. 2012.06.108 Ghaffar, Tayyba, Muhammad Irshad, Zahid Anwar, Tahir Aqil, Zubia Zulifqar, Asma Tariq, Muhammad Kamran, Nudrat Ehsan, and Sajid Mehmood. 2014. “Recent Trends in Lactic Acid Biotechnology: A Brief Review on Production to Purification.” Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences 7 (2). 10.1016/j.jrras.2014.03.002 Global Market Insights. 2020. “Lactic Acid Market Size By Application (Industrial, Food & Beverage, Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care), Polylactic Acid (PLA) Market Size By Application (Packaging, Agriculture, Transport, Electronics, Textiles), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2020 – 2026.” https://www.gminsights.com Guan, Ningzi, and Long Liu. 2020. “Microbial Response to Acid Stress: Mechanisms and Applications.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 104 (1). 10.1007/s00253-01910226-1 Hama, Shinji, Shino Mizuno, Maki Kihara, Tsutomu Tanaka, Chiaki Ogino, Hideo Noda, and Akihiko Kondo. 2015. “Production of d -Lactic Acid from Hardwood Pulp by Mechanical Milling Followed by Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation Using Metabolically Engineered Lactobacillus Plantarum.” Bioresource Technology 187 (July). 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.106 Hassan, Nursia, and Ani Idris. 2016. “Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Lactic Acid from Empty Fruit Bunch at High Solids Loading.” BioResources 11 (2). 10.15376/biores.11.2.3799-3812 Hassan, Shady S., Gwilym A. Williams, and Amit K. Jaiswal. 2018. “Emerging Technologies for the Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass.” Bioresource Technology 262 (August). 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.099

182

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Hayek, Saeed A., and Salam A. Ibrahim. 2013. “Current Limitations and Challenges with Lactic Acid Bacteria: A Review.” Food and Nutrition Sciences 04 (11). 10.4236/fns. 2013.411A010 Hetényi, Kata, Áron Németh, and Béla Sevella. 2011. “Role of PH-Regulation in Lactic Acid Fermentation: Second Steps in a Process Improvement.” Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 50 (3). 10.1016/j.cep.2011.01.008 Hua, Binbin, Yucai Lü, Jungang Wang, Boting Wen, Yanzhuan Cao, Xiaofen Wang, and Zongjun Cui. 2014. “Dynamic Changes in the Composite Microbial System MC1 During and Following Its Rapid Degradation of Lignocellulose.” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 172 (2). 10.1007/s12010-013-0566-7 Huang, Li Ping, Bo Jin, Paul Lant, and Jiti Zhou. 2005. “Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Potato Starch Wastewater to Lactic Acid by Rhizopus Oryzae and Rhizopus Arrhizus.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 23 (3). 10.1016/j.bej.2005. 01.009 International Coffee Organization. 2020. World coffe production. http://www.ico.org/ documents/cy2019-20/cmr-0920-p.pdf. Jana, Pradip, Mousumi Shyam, Sneha Singh, Venkatesan Jayaprakash, and Abhimanyu Dev. 2021. “Biodegradable Polymers in Drug Delivery and Oral Vaccination.” European Polymer Journal 142 (January). 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.110155 John, Rojan P., G.S. Anisha, K. Madhavan Nampoothiri, and Ashok Pandey. 2009. “Direct Lactic Acid Fermentation: Focus on Simultaneous Saccharification and Lactic Acid Production.” Biotechnology Advances 27 (2). 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2008.10.004 Jukonyte, Ruta, Daiva Zadeike, Elena Bartkiene, Vita Lele, Darius Cernauskas, Skaidre Suproniene, and Grazina Juodeikiene. 2018. “A Potential of Brown Rice Polish as a Substrate for the Lactic Acid and Bioactive Compounds Production by the Lactic Acid Bacteria Newly Isolated from Cereal-Based Fermented Products.” LWT 97 (November). 10.1016/j.lwt.2018.07.012 Juturu, Veeresh, and Jin Chuan Wu. 2016. “Microbial Production of Lactic Acid: The Latest Development.” Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 36 (6). 10.3109/07388551.2015. 1066305 Komesu, Andrea, Maria Regina Wolf Maciel, and Rubens Maciel Filho. 2017. “Separation and Purification Technologies for Lactic Acid – A Brief Review.” BioResources 12 (3). 10.15376/biores.12.3.6885-6901 Konuray, Gözde, and Zerrin Erginkaya. 2018. “Potential Use of Bacillus Coagulans in the Food Industry.” Foods 7 (6). 10.3390/foods7060092 Kourkoutas, Y., A. Bekatorou, I.M. Banat, R. Marchant, and A.A. Koutinas. 2004. “Immobilization Technologies and Support Materials Suitable in Alcohol Beverages Production: A Review.” Food Microbiology 21 (4). 10.1016/j.fm.2003.10.005 Krishna, Battula, Saibaba K.V Narayana, Sarva Sai Nikhilesh Gantala, Besetty Tarun, and R Gopinadh. 2019. “Industrial Production of Lactic Acid and Its Applications”. International Journal of Biotech Research 1 (1): 42–54. Krull, Susan, Silvia Brock, Ulf Prüße, and Anja Kuenz. 2020. “Hydrolyzed Agricultural Residues—Low-Cost Nutrient Sources for l-Lactic Acid Production.” Fermentation 6 (4). 10.3390/fermentation6040097 Kuijk, S.J.A. van, A.S.M. Sonnenberg, J.J.P. Baars, W.H. Hendriks, and J.W. Cone. 2015. “Fungal Treated Lignocellulosic Biomass as Ruminant Feed Ingredient: A Review.” Biotechnology Advances 33 (1). 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.10.014 Kwan, Tsz Him, Anestis Vlysidis, Zhiliang Wu, Yunzi Hu, Apostolis Koutinas, and Carol Sze Ki Lin. 2017. “Lactic Acid Fermentation Modelling of Streptococcus Thermophilus YIB1 and Lactobacillus Casei Shirota Using Food Waste Derived Media.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 127 (November). 10.1016/j.bej.2017.08.012

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid

183

Kwan, Tsz Him, Yunzi Hu, and Carol Sze Ki Lin. 2018. “Techno-Economic Analysis of a Food Waste Valorisation Process for Lactic Acid, Lactide and Poly(Lactic Acid) Production.” Journal of Cleaner Production 181 (April). 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.179 la Torre, Isabel de, Miguel Ladero, and Victoria E. Santos. 2020. “D-Lactic Acid Production from Orange Waste Enzymatic Hydrolysates with L. Delbrueckii Cells in Growing and Resting State.” Industrial Crops and Products 146 (April). 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020. 112176 Laopaiboon, Pattana, Arthit Thani, Vichean Leelavatcharamas, and Lakkana Laopaiboon. 2010. “Acid Hydrolysis of Sugarcane Bagasse for Lactic Acid Production.” Bioresource Technology 101 (3). 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.08.091 Li, Lun, Di Cai, Chengyu Wang, Juntian Han, Wenqiang Ren, Jia Zheng, Zheng Wang, and Tianwei Tan. 2015. “Continuous L -Lactic Acid Production from Defatted Rice Bran Hydrolysate Using Corn Stover Bagasse Immobilized Carrier.” RSC Advances 5 (24). 10.1039/C4RA04641B Li, Zheng, JiKe Lu, ZiXin Yang, Lu Han, and Tianwei Tan. 2012. “Utilization of White Rice Bran for Production of L-Lactic Acid.” Biomass and Bioenergy 39 (April). 10.1016/ j.biombioe.2011.12.039 Lin, Hong-Ting Victor, Mei-Ying Huang, Te-Yu Kao, Wen-Jung Lu, Hsuan-Ju Lin, and Chorng-Liang Pan. 2020. “Production of Lactic Acid from Seaweed Hydrolysates via Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermentation.” Fermentation 6 (1). 10.3390/fermentation6010037 Loow, Yu-Loong, Ta Yeong Wu, Jamaliah Md. Jahim, Abdul Wahab Mohammad, and Wen Hui Teoh. 2016. “Typical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass into Reducing Sugars Using Dilute Acid Hydrolysis and Alkaline Pretreatment.” Cellulose 23 (3). 10.1007/ s10570-016-0936-8 Ma, Kedong, Toshinari Maeda, Huiyan You, and Yoshihito Shirai. 2014. “Open Fermentative Production of L-Lactic Acid with High Optical Purity by Thermophilic Bacillus Coagulans Using Excess Sludge as Nutrient.” Bioresource Technology 151 (January). 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.022 Mazumdar, Suman, Matthew D Blankschien, James M Clomburg, and Ramon Gonzalez. 2013. “Efficient Synthesis of L-Lactic Acid from Glycerol by Metabolically Engineered Escherichia Coli.” Microbial Cell Factories 12 (1). 10.1186/1475-2859-12-7 McDermott, A., P. Whyte, N. Brunton, J. Lyng, J. Fagan, and D.J. Bolton. 2018. “The Effect of Organic Acid and Sodium Chloride Dips on the Shelf-Life of Refrigerated Irish Brown Crab (Cancer Pagurus) Meat.” LWT 98 (December). 10.1016/j.lwt.2018. 08.039 Meng, Ying, Yanfen Xue, Bo Yu, Chenghua Gao, and Yanhe Ma. 2012. “Efficient Production of L-Lactic Acid with High Optical Purity by Alkaliphilic Bacillus Sp. WLS20.” Bioresource Technology 116 (July). 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.103 Min, Da-Jeong, Kook Hwa Choi, Yong Keun Chang, and Jin-Hyun Kim. 2011. “Effect of Operating Parameters on Precipitation for Recovery of Lactic Acid from Calcium Lactate Fermentation Broth.” Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 28 (10). 10. 1007/s11814-011-0082-9 Mis Solval, Kevin, Alexander Chouljenko, Arranee Chotiko, and Subramaniam Sathivel. 2019. “Growth Kinetics and Lactic Acid Production of Lactobacillus Plantarum NRRL B-4496, L. Acidophilus NRRL B-4495, and L. Reuteri B-14171 in Media Containing Egg White Hydrolysates.” LWT 105 (May). 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.01.058 Moon, Se-Kwon, Young-Jung Wee, and Gi-Wook Choi. 2012. “A Novel Lactic Acid Bacterium for the Production of High Purity L-Lactic Acid, Lactobacillus Paracasei Subsp. Paracasei CHB2121.” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 114 (2). 10.1 016/j.jbiosc.2012.03.016 Mordor Intelligence. 2019. “Lactic Acid Market – Growth, Trends and Forecasts (2020–2025).”

184

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Mussatto, Solange I., Marcela Fernandes, Ismael M. Mancilha, and Inês C. Roberto. 2008. “Effects of Medium Supplementation and PH Control on Lactic Acid Production from Brewer’s Spent Grain.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 40 (3). 10.1016/j.bej.2 008.01.013 Narayanan, Niju, Pradip K. Roychoudhury, and Aradhana Srivastava. 2004. “L (+) Lactic Acid Fermentation and Its Product Polymerization.” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 7 (2). 10.2225/vol7-issue2-fulltext-7 Neu, Anna-Katrin, Pleissner, Daniel, Mehlmann, Kerstin, Schneider, Roland, PuertaQuintero, Gloria Inés, & Venus, Joachim (2016). Fermentative utilization of coffee mucilage using Bacillus coagulans and investigation of down-stream processing of fermentation broth for optically pure l(+)-lactic acid production. Bioresource Technology, 211, 398–40510.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.122. Nguyen, Cuong Mai, Gyung Ja Choi, Yong Ho Choi, Kyoung Soo Jang, and Jin-Cheol Kim. 2013. “D- and l-Lactic Acid Production from Fresh Sweet Potato through Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 81 (December). 10.1016/j.bej.2013.10.003 Nguyen, Cuong Mai, Jin-Seog Kim, Jae Kwang Song, Gyung Ja Choi, Yong Ho Choi, Kyoung Soo Jang, and Jin-Cheol Kim. 2012. “D-Lactic Acid Production from Dry Biomass of Hydrodictyon Reticulatum by Simultaneous Saccharification and CoFermentation Using Lactobacillus Coryniformis Subsp. Torquens.” Biotechnology Letters 34 (12). 10.1007/s10529-012-1023-3 Niccolai, Alberto, Emer Shannon, Nissreen Abu-Ghannam, Natascia Biondi, Liliana Rodolfi, and Mario R. Tredici. 2019. “Lactic Acid Fermentation of Arthrospira Platensis (Spirulina) Biomass for Probiotic-Based Products.” Journal of Applied Phycology 31 (2). 10.1007/s10811-018-1602-3 Nolasco-Hipolito, Cirilo, Octavio Zarrabal, Rubena Kamaldin, Ling Teck-Yee, Samuel Lihan, Kopli Bujang, and Youji Nitta. 2012. “Lactic Acid Production by Enteroccocus Faecium in Liquefied Sago Starch.” AMB Express 2 (1). 10.1186/2191-0855-2-53 Okano, Kenji, Tsutomu Tanaka, Chiaki Ogino, Hideki Fukuda, and Akihiko Kondo. 2010. “Biotechnological Production of Enantiomeric Pure Lactic Acid from Renewable Resources: Recent Achievements, Perspectives, and Limits.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 85 (3). 10.1007/s00253-009-2280-5 Oota, Shinichi, Yuta Hatae, Kei Amada, Hidekazu Koya, and Mitsuyasu Kawakami. 2010. “Development of Mediated BOD Biosensor System of Flow Injection Mode for Shochu Distillery Wastewater.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 26 (1). 10.1016/j.bios. 2010.06.040 Ou, Mark S., Lonnie O. Ingram, and K. T. Shanmugam. 2011. “L(+)-Lactic Acid Production from Non-Food Carbohydrates by Thermotolerant Bacillus Coagulans.” Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 38 (5). 10.1007/s10295-010-0796-4 Pandey, Ashok, Carlos R Soccol, Poonam Nigam, and Vanete T Soccol. 2000. “Biotechnological Potential of Agro-Industrial Residues. I: Sugarcane Bagasse.” Bioresource Technology 74 (1). 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00142-X Panesar, Parmjit S., John F. Kennedy, Charles J. Knill, and Maria Kosseva. 2010. “Production of L(+) Lactic Acid Using Lactobacillus Casei from Whey.” Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 53 (1). 10.1590/S1516-89132010000100027 Papadimitriou, Konstantinos, Ángel Alegría, Peter A. Bron, Maria de Angelis, Marco Gobbetti, Michiel Kleerebezem, José A. Lemos, et al. 2016. “Stress Physiology of Lactic Acid Bacteria.” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 80 (3). 10.1128/ MMBR.00076-15 Pavot, Vincent, Morgane Berthet, Julien Rességuier, Sophie Legaz, Nadège Handké, Sarah C Gilbert, Stéphane Paul, and Bernard Verrier. 2014. “Poly(Lactic Acid) and Poly

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid

185

(Lactic- Co -Glycolic Acid) Particles as Versatile Carrier Platforms for Vaccine Delivery.” Nanomedicine 9 (17). 10.2217/nnm.14.156 Pejin, Jelena, Miloš Radosavljević, Sunčica Kocić-Tanackov, Dragana Mladenović, Aleksandra Djukić-Vuković, and Ljiljana Mojović. 2017. “Fed-Batch L -(+)-Lactic Acid Fermentation of Brewer’s Spent Grain Hydrolysate.” Journal of the Institute of Brewing 123 (4). 10.1002/jib.452 Peres, Carina, Ana I. Matos, João Conniot, Vanessa Sainz, Eva Zupančič, Joana M. Silva, Luís Graça, Rogério Sá Gaspar, Véronique Préat, and Helena F. Florindo. 2017. “Poly(Lactic Acid)-Based Particulate Systems Are Promising Tools for Immune Modulation.” Acta Biomaterialia 48 (January). 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.012 Pleissner, Daniel, Francesca Demichelis, Silvia Mariano, Silvia Fiore, Ivette Michelle Navarro Gutiérrez, Roland Schneider, and Joachim Venus. 2017. “Direct Production of Lactic Acid Based on Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Mixed Restaurant Food Waste.” Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (February). 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2016.12.065 Qi, Benkun, and Yao Risheng. 2007. “L-Lactic Acid Production from Lactobacillus Casei by Solid State Fermentation Using Rice Straw.” BioResources 2 (August). 10.15376/ biores.2.3.419-429 Rawoof, Salma Aathika Abdur, P. Senthil Kumar, Dai-Viet N. Vo, Kubendran Devaraj, Yuvarani Mani, Thiruselvi Devaraj, and Sivanesan Subramanian. 2020. “Production of Optically Pure Lactic Acid by Microbial Fermentation: A Review.” Environmental Chemistry Letters, September. 10.1007/s10311-020-01083-w Ricci, Annalisa, Ana Belen Diaz, Ildefonso Caro, Valentina Bernini, Gianni Galaverna, Camilla Lazzi, and Ana Blandino. 2019. “Orange Peels: From By‐product to Resource through Lactic Acid Fermentation.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 99 (15). 10.1002/jsfa.9958 Sauer, Michael, Danilo Porro, Diethard Mattanovich, and Paola Branduardi. 2010. “16 Years Research on Lactic Acid Production with Yeast – Ready for the Market?” Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 27 (1). 10.1080/02648725.2010.10648152 Sayed, Waiel, Wesam Salem, Zeinab Sayed, and Abdelmoneim Abdalla. 2020. “Production of Lactic Acid from Whey Permeates Using Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Cheese.” SVU-International Journal of Veterinary Sciences 3 (2). 10.21608/svu.202 0.35000.1064 Shi, Zhouming, Peilian Wei, Xiangcheng Zhu, Jin Cai, Lei Huang, and Zhinan Xu. 2012. “Efficient Production of L-Lactic Acid from Hydrolysate of Jerusalem Artichoke with Immobilized Cells of Lactococcus Lactis in Fibrous Bed Bioreactors.” Enzyme and Microbial Technology 51 (5). 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2012.07.007 Sindhu, Raveendran, Parameswaran Binod, and Ashok Pandey. 2016. “Biological Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass – An Overview.” Bioresource Technology 199 (January). 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.030 Sreedharamurthy, Mannepula, Dr. Vijay Siva Kumar Bathala, Vijaya Sarathi, Vijaya Sarathi Obulam, Reddy Sarathi, and Obulam. 2015. “A Comparative Study on Utilisation of Citrus and Mango Peels for Lactic Acid Production and Optimisation by Rhizopus Oryzae in Submerged Fermentation.” European Journal of Biotechnology and Bioscience 18 (September). Takkellapati, Sudhakar, Tao Li, and Michael A. Gonzalez. 2018. “An Overview of BiorefineryDerived Platform Chemicals from a Cellulose and Hemicellulose Biorefinery.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 20 (7). 10.1007/s10098-018-1568-5 Talukder, Md. Mahabubur Rahman, Probir Das, and Jin Chuan Wu. 2012. “Microalgae (Nannochloropsis Salina) Biomass to Lactic Acid and Lipid.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 68 (October). 10.1016/j.bej.2012.07.001

186

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Tamakawa, Hideyuki, Shigehito Ikushima, and Satoshi Yoshida. 2012. “Efficient Production of L-Lactic Acid from Xylose by a Recombinant Candida Utilis Strain.” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 113 (1). 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2011.09.002 Tan, Jiaming, Mohamed Ali Abdel-Rahman, and Kenji Sonomoto. 2017. “Biorefinery-Based Lactic Acid Fermentation: Microbial Production of Pure Monomer Product.” Advances in Polymer Science book series, 279. 10.1007/12_2016_11. Tang, Jialing, Xiaochang C. Wang, Yisong Hu, Yongmei Zhang, and Yuyou Li. 2017. “Effect of PH on Lactic Acid Production from Acidogenic Fermentation of Food Waste with Different Types of Inocula.” Bioresource Technology 224 (January). 10. 1016/j.biortech.2016.11.111 Taniguchi, M., T. Tokunaga, K. Horiuchi, K. Hoshino, K. Sakai, and T. Tanaka. 2004. “Production of L-Lactic Acid from a Mixture of Xylose and Glucose by Co-Cultivation of Lactic Acid Bacteria.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 66 (2). 10.1007/ s00253-004-1671-x Tarraran, Loredana, and Roberto Mazzoli. 2018. “Alternative Strategies for Lignocellulose Fermentation through Lactic Acid Bacteria: The State of the Art and Perspectives.” FEMS Microbiology Letters 365 (15). 10.1093/femsle/fny126 Tashiro, Yukihiro, Wataru Kaneko, Yanqi Sun, Keisuke Shibata, Kentaro Inokuma, Takeshi Zendo, and Kenji Sonomoto. 2011. “Continuous D-Lactic Acid Production by a Novelthermotolerant Lactobacillus Delbrueckii Subsp. Lactis QU 41.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 89 (6). 10.1007/s00253-010-3011-7 Thakur, Avinash, Parmjit S. Panesar, and Manohar Singh Saini. 2019a. “Optimization of Process Parameters and Estimation of Kinetic Parameters for Lactic Acid Production by Lactobacillus Casei MTCC 1423.” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 9 (2). 10.1 007/s13399-018-0347-1 Thakur, Avinash, Parmjit Singh Panesar, and Manohar Singh Saini. 2019b. “L(+)-Lactic Acid Production by Immobilized Lactobacillus Casei Using Low Cost Agro-Industrial Waste as Carbon and Nitrogen Sources.” Waste and Biomass Valorization 10 (5). 10. 1007/s12649-017-0129-1 Thitiprasert, Sitanan, Kentaro Kodama, Somboon Tanasupawat, Phatthanon Prasitchoke, Tanapawarin Rampai, Budsabathip Prasirtsak, Vasana Tolieng, Jiraporn Piluk, Suttichai Assabumrungrat, and Nuttha Thongchul. 2017. “A Homofermentative Bacillus Sp. BC001 and Its Performance as a Potential l-Lactate Industrial Strain.” Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 40 (12). 10.1007/s00449-017-1833-8 Tokiwa, Yutaka, Buenaventurada Calabia, Charles Ugwu, and Seiichi Aiba. 2009. “Biodegradability of Plastics.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10 (9). 10.3390/ijms10093722 Venus, Joachim, Silvia Fiore, Francesca Demichelis, and Daniel Pleissner. 2018. “Centralized and Decentralized Utilization of Organic Residues for Lactic Acid Production.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (January). 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.259 Wang, Limin, Bo Zhao, Fengsong Li, Ke Xu, Cuiqing Ma, Fei Tao, Qinggang Li, and Ping Xu. 2011. “Highly Efficient Production of D-Lactate by Sporolactobacillus Sp. CASD with Simultaneous Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Peanut Meal.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 89 (4). 10.1007/s00253-010-2904-9 Wang, Qingzhao, Xueming Zhao, Jauhleene Chamu, and K.T. Shanmugam. 2011. “Isolation, Characterization and Evolution of a New Thermophilic Bacillus Licheniformis for Lactic Acid Production in Mineral Salts Medium.” Bioresource Technology 102 (17). 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.003 Wang, Ying, Yukihiro Tashiro, and Kenji Sonomoto. 2015. “Fermentative Production of Lactic Acid from Renewable Materials: Recent Achievements, Prospects, and Limits.” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 119 (1). 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.06.003

Microbial Production of Lactic Acid

187

Wang, Yongze, Tian Tian, Jinfang Zhao, Jinhua Wang, Tao Yan, Liyuan Xu, Zao Liu, et al. 2012. “Homofermentative Production of D-Lactic Acid from Sucrose by a Metabolically Engineered Escherichia coli.” Biotechnology Letters 34 (11). 10.1007/ s10529-012-1003-7 Wasewar, Kailas. 2005. “Separation of Lactic Acid: Recent Advances.” Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly 19 (June): 159–172. Wischral, Daiana, Johanna Méndez Arias, Luiz Felipe Modesto, Douglas de França Passos, and Nei Pereira. 2019. “Lactic Acid Production from Sugarcane Bagasse Hydrolysates by Lactobacillus Pentosus: Integrating Xylose and Glucose Fermentation.” Biotechnology Progress 35 (1). 10.1002/btpr.2718 Wu, Xuefeng, Shaotong Jiang, Mo Liu, Lijun Pan, Zhi Zheng, and Shuizhong Luo. 2011. “Production of L-Lactic Acid by Rhizopus Oryzae Using Semicontinuous Fermentation in Bioreactor.” Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 38 (4). 10.1007/s1 0295-010-0804-8 Yang, Yadie, Minglonghai Zhang, Zixin Ju, Po Ying Tam, Tao Hua, Muhammad Waseem Younas, Hasan Kamrul, and Hong Hu. 2020. “Poly(Lactic Acid) Fibers, Yarns and Fabrics: Manufacturing, Properties and Applications.” Textile Research Journal, December. 10.1177/0040517520984101 Yuwa-amornpitak, Thalisa, and Kannika Chookietwatana. 2018. “Bioconversion of Waste Cooking Oil Glycerol from Cabbage Extract to Lactic Acid by Rhizopus Microsporus.” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 49 (November). 10.1016/j.bjm.2018.06.007 Zhang, Li, Xin Li, Qiang Yong, Shang-Tian Yang, Jia Ouyang, and Shiyuan Yu. 2015. “Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation of Xylo-Oligosaccharides Manufacturing Waste Residue for l-Lactic Acid Production by Rhizopus Oryzae.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 94 (February). 10.1016/j.bej.2014.11.020 Zhang, Liang, Hai Zhao, Mingzhe Gan, Yanlin Jin, Xiaofeng Gao, Qian Chen, Jiafa Guan, and Zhongyan Wang. 2011. “Application of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF) from Viscosity Reducing of Raw Sweet Potato for Bioethanol Production at Laboratory, Pilot and Industrial Scales.” Bioresource Technology 102 (6). 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.115 Zhang, Yixing, and Praveen v. Vadlani. 2015. “Lactic Acid Production from Biomass-Derived Sugars via Co-Fermentation of Lactobacillus Brevis and Lactobacillus Plantarum.” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 119 (6). 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.10.027 Zhang, Yuming, Xiangrong Chen, Jianquan Luo, Benkun Qi, and Yinhua Wan. 2014. “An Efficient Process for Lactic Acid Production from Wheat Straw by a Newly Isolated Bacillus Coagulans Strain IPE22.” Bioresource Technology 158 (April). 10.1016/ j.biortech.2014.02.128 Zhang, Zengshuai, Panagiotis Tsapekos, Merlin Alvarado-Morales, and Irini Angelidaki. 2021. “Impact of Storage Duration and Micro-Aerobic Conditions on Lactic Acid Production from Food Waste.” Bioresource Technology 323 (March). 10.1016/ j.biortech.2020.124618 Zhang, Zhan Ying, Bo Jin, and Joan M. Kelly. 2007. “Production of Lactic Acid from Renewable Materials by Rhizopus Fungi.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 35 (3). 10.1016/j.bej.2007.01.028 Zhang, Zhenting, Yanan Li, Jianguo Zhang, Nan Peng, Yunxiang Liang, and Shumiao Zhao. 2020. “High-Titer Lactic Acid Production by Pediococcus Acidilactici PA204 from Corn Stover through Fed-Batch Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation.” Microorganisms 8 (10). 10.3390/microorganisms8101491 Zhao, Bo, Limin Wang, Cuiqing Ma, Chunyu Yang, Ping Xu, and Yanhe Ma. 2010. “Repeated Open Fermentative Production of Optically Pure L-Lactic Acid Using a Thermophilic Bacillus Sp. Strain.” Bioresource Technology 101 (16). 10.1016/ j.biortech.2010.03.051

188

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Zhao, Kai, Qingan Qiao, Deqiang Chu, Hanqi Gu, Thai Ha Dao, Jian Zhang, and Jie Bao. 2013. “Simultaneous Saccharification and High Titer Lactic Acid Fermentation of Corn Stover Using a Newly Isolated Lactic Acid Bacterium Pediococcus Acidilactici DQ2.” Bioresource Technology 135 (May). 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.063 Zheng, Yi, Jia Zhao, Fuqing Xu, and Yebo Li. 2014. “Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Enhanced Biogas Production.” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 42 (June). 10.1016/j.pecs.2014.01.001

9

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Circular Bioeconomy And Biorefinery: Advances and Perspectives Ana Mendoza, Shiva, and Rosa M. Rodríguez-Jasso Biorefinery Group, Food Research Department, Faculty of Chemistry and Science, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

Elia Tomás-Pejó IMDEA Energy Institute, Biotechnological Processes for Energy Production Unit, Móstoles, Spain

Héctor A. Ruiz Biorefinery Group, Food Research Department, Faculty of Chemistry and Science, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México

CONTENTS 9.1 9.2

9.3

Introduction...................................................................................................190 Biorefinery and its Classification................................................................. 191 9.2.1 First-Generation................................................................................ 191 9.2.2 Second Generation ........................................................................... 192 9.2.3 Third Generation ..............................................................................192 Feedstock for LA Production Using Agro-Industrial Wastes.....................192 9.3.1 Feedstock for LA Production Using Agro-Industrial Wastes: Chemical Composition .....................................................................193

DOI: 10.1201/9781003341307-9

189

190

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

9.4

LA Production .............................................................................................. 195 9.4.1 LA Bacteria ......................................................................................195 9.4.1.1 Classification of LA Bacteria............................................ 196 9.4.2 Pretreatment Methods....................................................................... 197 9.4.2.1 Physical Pretreatment ........................................................197 9.4.2.2 Chemical Pretreatment ...................................................... 198 9.4.2.3 Physicochemical Pretreatment........................................... 198 9.4.2.4 Biological Pretreatment ..................................................... 199 9.4.3 Strategies for LA Production ...........................................................200 9.4.3.1 Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation............. 200 9.4.3.2 Saccharification and Semi-Simultaneous Fermentation ... 200 9.4.4 Separation and Purification Processes .............................................200 9.5 Applications of LA.......................................................................................202 9.5.1 Biopolymers......................................................................................203 9.6 Conclusions and Perspectives ...................................................................... 203 Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................205 References.............................................................................................................. 205

9.1 INTRODUCTION Recent biotechnology research generations have a great interest in establishing relatively small value-added molecules generated from the bioconversion of organic-rich waste (agro-industrial waste, food waste, or lignocellulosic biomass) into organic acids such as lactic acid (LA). These small value-added compounds can act as a precursor for a wide range of industrial applications in the biomedical, pharmaceutics, chemical, biocosmetics, and food industry (Abdel-Rahman et al., 2019; Alves de Oliveira et al., 2019). According to recent studies, the global population is entirely reliant on fossil fuels to meet its energy and other resource needs (Katakojwala & Mohan, 2021). However, this system based on fossil fuels is causing a series of environmental, economic, geopolitical, and equity problems because they are unsustainable and unstable (Kalmykova et al., 2018; Park et al., 2013). Moreover, for many years the philosophy that governs the linear economy has ensured that societies examine significant CO2 emissions as identical with economic growth. Therefore, this thinking has become a challenge to transition towards a more sustainable economy (Mardani et al., 2018). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), some countries changing their structures towards a circular bioeconomy, which principal characteristic is the knowledge-based development and use of biological resources and processes, and also the principles for providing products and services in a sustainable manner in all economic sectors (Venkata Mohan et al., 2019). Biorefineries followed the concept of circular bioeconomy. This concept is being implemented in certain countries to meet the demand for chemical products, renewable energy, and new materials (Ng et al., 2020). Biorefineries are classified according to the raw material, in first, second and third generation (Hassan et al., 2019). Second-generation biorefineries are essential sources capable of taking advantage of various organic raw materials but mainly use those wastes generated by the

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 191

agricultural and food industry. The different raw materials can be exploited and produce a wide range of high-added-value compounds, such as LA (Romo-Buchelly et al., 2019). LA is a final product of the fermentation process carried out by LA bacteria. It is used commercially in the food industry as an acidifying agent, pH regulator, emulsifier, and preservative. However, its main production interest is to synthesize numerous chemical compounds and the production of bioplastics, including polylactic acid (PLA) (Das, 2012; Jiang et al., 2019).

9.2 BIOREFINERY AND ITS CLASSIFICATION A biorefinery represents an emerging solution in the context of resource depletion triggered by the high demand for food, energy, economic development, and associated environmental problems. A biorefinery is considered an integrated system close to zero waste. The following processes allow sustainable non-fossil raw materials, such as biomass, from forestry, agricultural, paper, marine, and other industries or other organic residues (e.g., municipal solid wastes). This kind of biomass turns into a wide range of products that include fuels, materials, and chemicals with high added value (Katakojwala & Mohan, 2021; Yousuf et al., 2019) (Please see Fig. 9.1). Besides, biorefineries are a strategy to use wastes as raw material in the processes; they also can reduce the environmental problems generated. Furthermore, to achieve a circular bioeconomy, it is necessary to develop new socioeconomic development pathways. Depending on the type of biomass, biorefineries used for biotransformation are classified into three generations (Popa, 2018; Venkata Mohan et al., 2019).

9.2.1 FIRST-GENERATION The first-generation biorefineries use lignocellulosic biomass such as corn, wheat, and sugar cane food crops that are rich in sugar and starch. The first generation is actually

FIGURE 9.1 Process diagram of the concept of a biorefinery.

192

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

in the market. Still, even though these crops represent an alternative renewable source for obtaining a wide range of products, their future is limited because they are socially and environmentally unsustainable. It is socially unsustainable because the used raw materials compete between human’s nutritional needs and their use for the production of various bioproducts. Also, the first generation generates a negative impact on the environment because the use of fertilizers are rising the nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in oceans (Hassan et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019).

9.2.2 SECOND GENERATION It is for this reason that first-generation biorefineries represent some disadvantages. New technologies are emerging, such as the case of second-generation biorefineries. These use lignocellulosic biomass as raw material, but this comes from non-food crops like food waste and waste generated in the agricultural and forestry sector. For this reason, feedstocks used in second-generation biorefineries do not compete with the population´s nutritional requirements (Moncada et al., 2014). Lignocellulosic biomass is highly available, composed of carbohydrates, and shows low prices as it is mainly generated as waste in various anthropogenic activities. Second-generation biorefineries are still in the research stage to develop more effective technologies and reduce the cost of production of their products, but the main interest is in the potential that the biomass used represents (Cubas-Cano et al., 2020; Giuliano et al., 2016).

9.2.3 THIRD GENERATION Third-generation biorefineries such as second-generation biorefineries have emerged as alternatives for producing different products and avoiding food crops. In this case, marine biomass such as micro and macroalgae is used as raw materials. These biorefineries’ potential is the production of high-added-value products together with the production of fluid or gaseous biofuels (Baghel et al., 2020; Balina et al., 2017). Seaweed includes species of red, green, and brown macroalgae; its classification depends on the composition of photosynthetic pigments. Mainly, green algae have been the object of study in the production of biofuels (Hassan et al., 2019).

9.3 FEEDSTOCK FOR LA PRODUCTION USING AGROINDUSTRIAL WASTES Lignocellulosic biomass is a vital source of sugars, mainly glucose and xylose. The sugar content in lignocellulose depends on the type of biomass. A more significant portion of these sugars downgrade due to the high temperature at the pretreatment stage and are released with discarded water. Several researchers propose a way to utilize that discarded water to produce LA (Han et al., 2018). Millions of tons of food waste and agricultural waste like sugarcane, rice straw, peanut, soy hulls, cotton, and other crops are produced annually. Second-generation biorefinery currently conducts large-scale research on lignocellulosic biomass’s chemical and biotransformation (Bassan et al., 2016). The LA production parameter

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 193

that plays an important role is the supportive biomass for micro-organism cultivation. Since microbial fermentation is the most critical phase in the commercial development of LA, supporting biomass for microbial growth has a significant impact. Agricultural operations such as stem, stalk residue, husk, shell, peel, lint, and straw are all examples of lignocellulosic feedstocks that are readily available. On the other hand, a fruit residue, such as seeds, pulp, or stubble, is also an attractive option for the researchers; another categorized preference is for legumes like rice, wheat, sorghum, barley, and, importantly, corn. On continuing these categories, a large amount of the agro-industrial waste such as sugarcane bagasse, sorghum bagasse, brewer’s spent grains, cassava bagasse, soybean meal, and cheese whey (nutrient-rich waste-water) are supportive biomass for microbial strain adaptation for the fermentation (Alves de Oliveira et al., 2019; Mussatto et al., 2012; Liang et al., 2020; Mladenović et al., 2019). Numerous applications such as in food, chemical, cosmetic, medical, and pharmaceuticals intensify the demand for LA annually, which has been reported 1947.2 thousand tons in 2018, (Abdel-Rahman et al., 2019). On behalf of that provision scale of LA required enough amount of biomass. Annual production of agro-industrial waste or lignocellulosic biomass to fulfill the production of biobased products is 200 * 109 worldwide. This kind of large-scale economic demand for chemicals like LA addresses the issue of waste disposal complications (Grewal & Khare, 2018). The growing market for bioproducts is directly dependent on agro-industrial waste as a result of industrial modernization. In this regard, sugarcane and rice straw are the most promising lignocellulosic biomasses. From which sugarcane is produced 1.6 billion tons annually, produces hundreds of millions of metric tons of bagasse (Khattab & Watanabe, 2019a), and for rice straw processing it generates 770 million tons per year, which results in 1.5 tons of waste per ton of rice (Roberto et al., 2020). According to (Pinheiro et al., 2019), Breweries generate approximately 3.5 million tons of bagasse each year. In the tropical and sub-tropical regions, bananas are also the second largest food crop that is generating 5.33 million tons of banana peels (dry) annually. On the other hand, a significant food product, oranges, are also contributing to 80% of production only in the European Union, respectively (Abdel-Rahman et al., 2019; Ricci et al., 2019). Due to their ideal quality of renewability, high polysaccharide content, high availability, and non-competitive characteristics, these agro-industrial byproducts have significant potential as an alternative technology for the manufacture of organic acid. (Palacios et al., 2017). The production of LA is carried out mainly by bacterial fermentation, which holds 90% of the quantity of acid with nutrients for the microbes (Krull et al., 2020).

9.3.1 FEEDSTOCK FOR LA PRODUCTION USING AGRO-INDUSTRIAL WASTES: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION The elemental components of agro-industrial feedstocks are cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin; fruits include pectin, vitamins, and other low molecular weight compounds and soluble nitrogen sources that could serve as a nutrient source or substitute for microbe development. Sugars, fibers, proteins, and minerals make up most of the composition, which varies in percentage depending on the type

194

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

FIGURE 9.2 Lignocellulosic biomass chemical structure.

of biomass (Please see Fig. 9.2). For the production of LA, there are categories of biomass that are available worldwide. On behalf of structural integrity, most plant biomass constitutes cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Cellulose comprises glucose units that form cellobiose which uses two anhydrous glucose rings associated with the β-1,4 glycosidic linkage in a repeated manner. Approximately 10,000 units make a chain of cellulose attached via the van der walls and hydrogen bonds for the packaging in a microfibril formation in a crystalline form with less-ordered amorphous regions, which reduces the solubility of components. Hemicellulose comprises of mainly xylan, xyloglucan, glucomannan, mannan, and galactomannan, which act as a copolymer with cellulose (Singh et al., 2019). The covalent and noncovalent bonds formed by incorporating of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin in the cell wall give biomass its recalcitrance (Pereira et al., 2014). The insoluble property is caused by the presence of lignin complex in heteropolymer form with precursors such as coniferyl alcohol, sinapyl alcohol, and p-coumaryl alcohol through the ether linkage. The lignin layer reduces the enzymatic reactivity due to these properties and becomes challenging to modify into another viable product (Du et al., 2020; Mussatto et al., 2012; Oamen et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). On the other hand, fruit crops are high with nutrient-rich content (nitrogen) that could enhance the risk of contamination by supporting microbial growth. Some fruit crops, such as banana leaves, consist of proteins, carbohydrates, sucrose, and fructose. Orange peels do characterize to be rich in fat, proteins, pectins, hemicellulose, cellulose, insoluble lignin, and a fraction of salts (Hassan et al., 2019; Palacios et al., 2017; Ricci et al., 2019). Nowadays, in the category of food waste, cheese whey is also attracting the attention of researchers for the production of LA, which is wastewater rich with sugar protein content-generating by the dairy industries during the production of dairy products, for example, cheese and yogurt with a high percentage of lactose and proteins. A considerable inconvenience during LA production is the requirement of organic nitrogen source for the growth of

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 195

microorganisms, lactobacilli, and a maximum number of renewable feedstocks lacking with this ability that accomplishes directly dependent on external sources. Third-generation biomass-related microalgae and microalgae are plentiful sources of organic nitrogen sources that could be seen as a possible feedstock for LA production to help microbial development (Nagarajan et al., 2020).

9.4 LA PRODUCTION The production of LA can be carried out by chemical synthesis routes or by fermentation routes. The method used for the synthesis of lactic acid is the hydrolysis of lactonitrile (Please see Fig. 9.3). One disadvantage attributed to this route is that it always leads to the production of a racemic mixture of DL-LA from the petrochemical resource, which makes it impossible to control the chemical and physical properties of the end-product, as some industries such as medical, pharmaceutical, and food requires a high enantiomeric purity of L (+) - or D (−) - LA for specific applications (Eş et al., 2018; Grewal et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Microbial fermentation routes produce approximately 90% of LA. This route becomes the dominant method, in addition to having multiple advantages over chemical ways, such as the availability of a wide range of renewable substrates of low cost, a lower amount of energy consumption, and high purity (Alves de Oliveira et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016). Due to the previously estimated production characteristics of lignocellulosic substrates that can be involved in LA, a series of steps is involved: pretreatment where the cell wall is broken, enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification carried out by hydrolytic enzymes such as cellulases, xylanases, and cellobiases, microbial fermentation and finally processing for the recovery of pure lactic acid (Grewal et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2020).

9.4.1 LA BACTERIA By using advanced species such as lactic acid bacteria (LAB), high yield and LA production can be accomplished. LAB are gram-positive, acid-tolerant, mesoaerophilic,

FIGURE 9.3 Conversion process of fermentable sugars from lignocellulosic biomass to lactic acid and ethanol.

196

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

non-spore-forming bacteria with bacilli or cocci-like morphology. LAB are organisms with high nitrogen source requirements because they lack biosynthetic pathways in their native form. LABs belong to the Lactobacillaceae family and the Lactobacillale order, and the most common species included belong to the genera of Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, Streptococcus, and Lactococcus, including the genera Enterococcus, Carnobacterium, Oenococcus, Weissellacoccus, and Vaissellacoccus (Cubas-Cano et al., 2018). The Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas pathway (EMP), the pentose phosphate pathway (PP), and the phosphoketolase pathway (PK) are the metabolic pathways involved in the production of LA; take into account this, the LABs are classified as following form (Carpinelli Macedo et al., 2020; Juturu & Wu, 2016). 9.4.1.1 Classification of LA Bacteria 9.4.1.1.1 Homolactic LAB The homolactic group bacteria use the EMP glycolytic pathway and the PP pathway to catabolize glucose and generate LA as a final product under standard conditions (Alves de Oliveira et al., 2018). Although most LABs can use hexoses as a carbon source for LA production, they cannot use pentoses derived from hemicellulose (Alves de Oliveira et al., 2018). The LABs included in this group are Pediococcus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, Vagococcus, and some species of the genus Lactobacillus. The homolactic metabolic action exhibited by bacteria is to convert hexoses into pyruvate through the EMP pathway, where the enzyme aldose is encoded, and then into lactate where the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase is used. The theoretical maximum yield of LA in this metabolic pathway leads to the production of 2 mol of LA and 2 of ATP per 1 mol of glucose (Carpinelli Macedo et al., 2020; Cubas-Cano et al., 2018). In some strains, glucose is metabolized via PP, 3 mol of glucose is converted into 5 mol of GAP through the action of the enzymes transketolase and transaldolase, the resulting GAP is converted into pyruvate after that into LA as the final product, of which a theoretical maximum yield of 1.67 mol of LA per 1 mol of glucose is provided (Cubas-Cano et al., 2018). 9.4.1.1.2 Heterolactic LAB The LABs involved in this category can metabolize pentoses and hexoses through the PK pathway; the bacteria assigned to this group are the genus Leuconostoc and some Lactobacillus bifermentans, L. sanfranciscensis, and L. brevis. The function of its metabolism is that glucose 6-phosphate is initially converted into ribulose 5-phosphate and 1 mole of CO2. This is accomplished by a reaction involving the enzyme phosphoketolase, 1 mole of acetyl phosphate, and one mole of GAP. Later, the EMP pathway converts GAP to LA, and the acetyl phosphate formed is either hydrolyzed to acetic acid (3) or becomes ethanol (4). However, it must be considered that when pentoses are used as carbon sources, acetyl phosphate can only be converted to acetic acid because there is no production of NAD (P) H to produce ethanol. Finally, the theoretical maximum yield is the production of 1 mole of LA per 1 mole of hexose or pentose (Juturu & Wu, 2016).

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 197

9.4.2 PRETREATMENT METHODS Some studies state that first-generation and second-generation feedstocks require the basic three steps for the availability of fermentable sugars as pretreatment, saccharification, and fermentation. Second-generation feedstock majorly reflects the recalcitrance properties and hinders the accessibility of enzymes over the fermentable internal units. Pretreatment is needed to address biomass recalcitrance. Water-soluble and water-insoluble carbohydrate units make up lignocellulosic biomass. Watersoluble units such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose easily degenerate during the pretreatment method over the high temperature and release during the detoxification process as wastewater; due to such issues, the step-wise selection of pretreatment becomes mandatory (Grewal & Khare, 2018; Han et al., 2018). The significant challenges first to utilize the lignocellulosic-derived sugars with the utilization of disorganized pentose and hexose sugar which may release with the wastewater during the washing of biomass, and second is to reduce the sugar-derived degradation products to support the microbial growth at the fermentation stage. According to these strategies, there are some recommendable pretreatment methods (Please see Fig. 9.4). 9.4.2.1 Physical Pretreatment Chipping, grinding, and milling are the most popular pretreatment methods used to minimize cellulose crystallinity. Milling is used in various ways, including ball milling (BM) and wet disk milling (WDM), to provide simple fractionation of the feedstock, which is mostly for first-generation and second-generation biomass. In a more complex manner, mechanical irradiation, microwave irradiation, and

FIGURE 9.4 Different pretreatment processes for biomass fractionation.

198

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

pyrolysis techniques are appropriate to improve biomass digestibility (Idrees et al., 2013; Khattab & Watanabe, 2019b). Mechanical pretreatment techniques such as grinding, chipping, and ball milling are advanced for the low lignin-containing biomass such as fruit feel or empty fruit bunch. Physical pretreatment procedures incorporated with extrusion, pulsed electric energy, and liquid hot water techniques are less capable for high lignin-containing biomass, where the additional procedure could boost. Still, several phases of physical pretreatment could increase the expense of the end product. Ultrasonic, gamma rays, electromagnetic beam, and microwave irradiation are examples of irradiation. Pulsed electric energy systems are also examples of irradiation (Kumar et al., 2020). 9.4.2.2 Chemical Pretreatment For the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass, a wide variety of acids are available. Still, for LA production, it is essential to examine the type of inhibitory compound production, such as 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, furfural, and formic acid. These inhibitory compounds may later inhibit microbial growth and discontinue the pathway of fermentation. Commonly for reducing recalcitrance property, acid pretreatment, alkali pretreatment, and steam explosion are supportive ones, but pretreatment with “green solvents” is also an option because of their unique properties. For example, these can dissolve polar and non-compounds (Karnaouri et al., 2020). Green solvents also provide the facility to diffuse organic, nonorganic, and polymeric compounds under defined parameters. The literature also mentions a new approach to handling feedstock with protease to lower the cost of pretreatment. Neutral protease, alkaline protease, flavoenzyme, trypsin, and pepsin are inexpensive agents that can provide the pretreatment facility without hindering the end concentration of LA. The mild organosolv pretreatment process is also effective for biomass fractionation without using an acid catalyst, minimizing inhibitory compound yield (Romaní et al., 2016). A specific ratio of organo-solvent with O2 to create pressure fractionation diminishes the obligation of an acid catalyst and neutralizing agent for the saccharification process (Karnaouri et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2018). Besides all, chemical pretreatment carried out by sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, maleic acid; alkali agents are sodium hydroxide, ammonia, ammonium sulfite; organic solvent such as benzene, butanol, benzene-water, ethanol has been proposed to the biorefineries for the formulation of LA. The traditional sulfide and sulfite pulping process decreases xylan and cellulose’s crystallinity and provides the maximum saccharification yield of fermentable sugars (Idrees et al., 2013). Chemical pretreatment applications are subcategories as alkali ((NaOH, KOH, NH4OH, Ca (OH)2)); acid using fumaric, malic acid hydrochloric, and sulfuric acid; oxidative such as oxygen, ozone, H2O2; some metallic salts, hydrotropes as sodium benzoate, sodium cymene sulfonate (Kumar et al., 2020). 9.4.2.3 Physicochemical Pretreatment Steam explosions, carbon dioxide explosions, ammonia fiber explosions, liquid-hot water, and swelling agents such as hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and wet oxidation are examples of physicochemical pretreatments that provide physiological alteration for biomass fractionation. Dry acid supplemented into the cellulosic LA development

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 199

with sufficient detoxification to retain wastewater compounds (water-soluble carbohydrates). The dry acid pretreatment method is carried out by sulfuric acid but with a high solid load (60–45%), which provides a dry medium to the biomass, obstructing the wastewater generation. On the other hand, the detoxification method contains a low percentage of neutralizing agents with disk milling, which prohibits the wastewater generation and loss of water-soluble carbohydrates and reduces the inhibitory compound formation (Han et al., 2018; Idrees et al., 2013). The combination of two or more pretreatments as lignin phase with decompression benefits from physical-chemical pretreatment. Partially hydrolysis techniques follow high modification in the morpho-chemical structure of biomass to obtain higher porosity, but they vary depending on biomass. Pretreatment with physicochemical agents successfully acts on amorphous regions (lignin and hemicellulose), hydrolyzing ester bonds, releasing acetyl groups, and allowing for further biomass fractionation (Bassan et al., 2016). Since there is such a diverse selection of lignocellulosic feedstock, various pretreatments are available; steam explosion is still commonly used over biomass. It is regarded as being more effective for hardwood and agricultural residue than fruit crops. Under regulated conditions, pressurized steam will decompress the plant cell wall, causing structural changes in lignin. Biomass pretreatment techniques evolved to minimize inhibitory compounds, which primarily destroy the microbial cell membrane and interact with glycolytic enzymes during the fermentation process, causing a lag period (Cubas-Cano et al., 2020; Fockink et al., 2017). Physicochemical pretreatment can be used in conjunction with other methods such as gamma irradiation, chemically aided liquid hot water therapy, and ultrasonic-assisted chemical pretreatment to optimize the range of feedstocks (Kumar et al., 2020). 9.4.2.4 Biological Pretreatment Biological pretreatment techniques include the enzyme applications using cellulases, laccase, hemicellulases, proteases, and pectinase; micro-organisms like white rot fungi, brown rot fungi, and bacterial cells as a microbial consortium. Biological application required more defined parameters, just as the particle size of biomass, moisture, humidity, incubation period, pH of the medium, and nutrient requirement as per the requirement of a variety of micro-organisms (Kumar et al., 2020). However, with one-pot biobased LA production followed by pretreatment and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation carried out, biorefineries provide a low-cost end product for further utilization. To address all of the challenges in optimizing bio-based LA simultaneous saccharification and fermentation and solidstate fermentation by microorganisms capable of fermenting sugars into the desired products (Grewal & Khare, 2018). To support SSF by reducing the expense of pretreatment application, Sporolactobacillus, laevolacticus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Sporolactobacillus ilulins, and Lactobacillus bulgaricus with some mutated strains of Escherichia coli and Bacillus coagulans are majorly used bacterial strains are available to improve the fermentation efficiency also reducing the high cost of commercial enzymes (Alves de Oliveira et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018). Recent studies expended well that saccharification and fermentation using micro-organisms enhance the relatively high concentration of product on the requirement of ample space,

200

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

prolonged incubation time, and maintaining aseptic conditions for the LA microorganism production. Some acidophilic and thermophilic microbial strains are available at the industrial scale, supporting a high acidic medium and high temperature, respectively (Carpinelli Macedo et al., 2020; Londoño-Hernández et al., 2017).

9.4.3 STRATEGIES

FOR

LA PRODUCTION

The saccharification and fermentation stage involved in the LA process it is commonly done independently. However, different strategies allow bioconversion in a single system, such as simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and saccharification and semi-simultaneous fermentation (SSSF) (Chen et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2016) (Please see Fig. 9.5). 9.4.3.1 Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation In SSF, enzymes and microorganisms are active simultaneously within the same system. This method has the advantage of lowering machinery costs, processing time, and the inhibition caused by the substrate, which results in an aggregation of sugars while enzymatic hydrolysis is performed separately. However, the conditions applied in the SSF processes, such as pH and temperature, must be suitable for both the enzyme cocktail and the microorganism because if there is a significant difference between the optimal temperature, this becomes a problem as the LA yield and production rates are affected (Gonçalves et al., 2014; Romo-Buchelly et al., 2019; Van Der Pol et al., 2016). 9.4.3.2 Saccharification and Semi-Simultaneous Fermentation As the previous research states that enzymes and microorganisms require different temperature conditions to carry out their activity, a new strategy is proposed, SSSF; with this operation, the benefits offered by SSF and the technique are taken advantage of independently. During SSSF, a prehydrolytic phase is added quickly, affecting the optimal conditions for enzymatic hydrolysis. The enzymes require approximately 50°C; once the established period is over, the temperature is lowered below 40°C. Micro-organisms are added, stimulated to promote fermentation (Gonçalves et al., 2014; L. Zhang et al., 2014).

9.4.4 SEPARATION

AND

PURIFICATION PROCESSES

The separation and purification process are fundamental within the chemical industry, but approximately 30–40% represent the total production costs; due to this, the development of an efficient method of separation and purification of LA is of vital importance for economic viability (Cubas-Cano et al., 2018; Komesu et al., 2017). Currently, the method most used for separation purposes is calcium lactate; this method is already within the processes of LA industries such as NatureWorks and Purac (López-Garzón & Straathof, 2014). The process involves adding calcium hydroxide to the fermentation broth, leading to calcium lactate crystals, which tend to precipitate. Despite being an industrialized method, it must be considered that the appearance of large amounts of

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 201

FIGURE 9.5 Lignocellulosic biomass conversion process to lactic acid, using different microorganisms.

202

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

these crystals can inhibit the growth of LA bacteria present in the process, and purification with this method generates large amounts of gypsum (CaSO4), which causes economic and environmental problems (Komesu et al., 2017). For this reason, there are alternative methods for LA recovery, such as extraction, crystallization, adsorption, ion exchange, electrodialysis, membrane separation, and reactive distillation (Bishai et al., 2015; Li et al., 2021).

9.5 APPLICATIONS OF LA Due to the different properties, LA is an essential industrial product, and its applications can be broadly divided into food and non-food industries (Please see Fig. 9.6). The FDA’s approval and designation of LA as generally safe (GRAS) for animal and human use have made it a highly appropriate commodity in the food industry. Around 70% of LA demand goes to this sector (Lübeck, 2019). LA has various uses, from bread products, beverages, animal products, confectionery, dairy products, salads, dressings, and instant meals. The action of lactic acid present in these products usually serves as a flavoring, acidulant, and pH-regulating agent or inhibitor of bacterial spoilage in a wide variety of processed foods (Lübeck, 2019). The wide range of applications that LA covers are in bakery products, beverages, meat products, confectionery, dairy products, salads, dressings, instant foods, among others. The action of lactic acid present in these products usually serves as a flavoring, acidulant, and pH-regulating agent or inhibitor of bacterial spoilage in a wide variety of processed foods (Das, 2012; Eş et al., 2018). Certain LA derivatives, such as lactate esters, can be used as emulsifiers and enhance agents in food products due to their emulsifying and hygroscopic properties (Eş et al., 2018). In non-food industries, the pharmaceutical industry uses LA in controlled drug release systems, dialysis for the manufacture of prostheses and surgical sutures (Komesu et al., 2017); in the cosmetic industry, it is used in the construction of hygiene and aesthetic products, this due to the moisturizing, antimicrobial and rejuvenating effects of the skin that LA presents, in addition to being able to be

FIGURE 9.6 Lactic acid applications under a biorefinery scheme.

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 203

administered in oral hygiene products (Castillo Martinez et al., 2013). LA also has applications in the leather tanning industry; within decalcification processes, the textile industry is used as a fixative for dyeing. This product can produce ethanol, propylene glycol, acrylic polymers, propylene oxide, acetaldehyde, propanoic acid, 2,3-pentanedione, ethyl lactate lactide within the chemical industry, and polylactic acid (Komesu et al., 2017).

9.5.1 BIOPOLYMERS The current demand for PLA in the polymer industry has been growing due to its biodegradability, biocompatibility, and wide variety of applications in the biomedical, automobile, and textile industries (Jiang et al., 2019). PLA is a bio-based thermoplastic aliphatic polyester and has similar properties to PET and PS. In general, the synthesis of PLA with LA can follow three different routes, such as direct condensation polymerization, azeotropic dehydration condensation, and ring split polymerization (Lambert & Wagner, 2017; Mehariya et al., 2020). Furthermore, it must consider in the process; water present in the LA molecules is eliminated in acid catalysts to form lactides. The lactides are polymerized, and the product is obtained. On the other hand, due to the chiral nature of the LA used in the process, different forms of PLA can be obtained, such as PDLLA or PLLA, which will influence their acquired physical properties (Kuo et al., 2015; Régibeau et al., 2020). One of the ecological attributes in the production of biopolymers is that it is possible to minimize environmental and marine pollution caused by the plastic waste of petrochemical origin. PLA is a commodity with one of the highest potentials among polyesters of biological origin, including the various applications it provides to different industrial sectors, being an ecological option, and its availability and price. Annual global PLA production for 2019 does project to reach 7.85 million tons and exceed $ 4.84 billion, figures that continue to rise today. The primary current industries involved in the production of this biomaterial are NatureWorks LLC (USA), Purac, Tate & Lyle and Synbra (Netherlands), Futerro (Belgium), Toyobo and Teijin (Japan), Uhde InventaFischer (Germany), Hiusan Biosciences (China) (Isikgor & Becer, 2015; Juturu & Wu, 2016).

9.6 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES The recovery of agro-industrial waste has been focused on research, representing a resource integrated into a biorefinery platform. The importance of waste does pursue to tackle the environmental issue that has arisen and allow the processing of various compounds of high added value and their potential use in multiple industries. LA, a highly sought-after compound, has been recast as something new due to the mechanism by which it does produce; however, improving fermentation conditions and microbial strains are areas of potential for achieving high yield rates.

36.39 ± 0.16

39.8 ± 0.6

38.3 ± 0.1 36.27 ± 0.02

42.36 ± 2.11

30.6 ± 0.2

Soybean straw

Sugarcane bagasse Sunflower stalk

Walnut shell

Wheat straw

41.94 ± 0.45

49.48 ± 0.08 34.5 ± 0.0

20.6 ± 0.0 5.90 ± 1.90

35.7 ± 0.0 34.3 ± 0.60

Oat straw

Peanut shell Potato peel

Rice straw

30.12 ± 1.35

29.87 ± 1.14

Cotton stalk Cotton straw

Sorghum straw Soya stalks

13.7 ± 0.2 20.07 ± 0.0

57.4 ± 1.0

36.4 ± 0.0 45.54 ± 0.0

Corn stover

27.2 ± 0.4

22.0 ± 0.1

10.26 ± 1.16

20.1 ± 0.1 10.06 ± 0.0

22.6 ± 1.0

19.18 ± 0.25 24.8 ± 0.0

17.5 ± 0.8

23.15 ± 0.87 21.7 ± 0.2

32.9 ± 1.2

40.64 ± 0.92 33.9 ± 0.9

9.76 ± 0.52 32.49 ± 0.21

30.68 ± 0.76

Canola straw Corn stalk

11.97 ± 0.31 21.43 ± 0.09

Hemicellulose

Barley straw

33.53 ± 2.08

Banana peel Barley husk

Cellulose

Almond shell

Agroindustrial waste

Composition (%)

20.3 ± 0.1

27.19 ± 2.43

29.0 ± 1.0 18.34 ± 0.0

12.81 ± 0.88

30.42 ± 0.34 19.8 ± 0.0

4.09 ± 0.07

34.1 ± 0.0 4.30 ± 0.13

5.23 ± 0.22

25.5 ± 0.6 16.82 ± 0.0

14.4 ± 1.0

21.33 ± 0.54 24.3 ± 0.9

16.8 ± 1.1

2.18 ± 0.05 19.22 ± 0.34

23.25 ± 1.25

Lignin

TABLE 9.1 Chemical Composition of Different Types of Agroindustrial Waste

21.7 ± 0.0

19.18 ± 2.13

6.0 ± 0.3 2.36 ± 0.02

–

– 10.39 ± 0.0

11.41 ± 0.28

1.2 ± 0.0 11.0 ± 0.1

14.36 ± 0.26

– 5.71 ± 0.0

2.2 ± 0.4

– –

3.9 ± 0.05

9.21 ± 0.02 15.49 ± 0.30

–

Ashes

( Chen et al., 2021)

( Harini & Chandra Mohan, 2020)

( Espirito Santo et al., 2018) ( De Souza et al., 2020)

( Martelli-Tosi et al., 2017)

( Andrade Alves et al., 2019) ( Hiloidhari et al., 2020)

( Peng et al., 2019)

( Ge et al., 2020) ( Ben Atitallah et al., 2019)

( Zhao et al., 2018)

( Semerci & Güler, 2018) (J. Wang et al., 2016)

( Gill et al., 2021)

(C. Wang et al., 2020) ( Sui et al., 2021)

( Álvarez et al., 2020)

( Oberoi et al., 2011) ( Garrote et al., 2008)

( Singh et al., 2019)

Reference

204 Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 205

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Ana Mendoza thanks the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT, Mexico) for her Master Fellowship support.

REFERENCES Abdel-Rahman, M. A., Hassan, S. E. D., Roushdy, M. M., Azab, M. S., & Gaber, M. A. (2019). Free-nutrient supply and thermo-alkaline conditions for direct lactic acid production from mixed lignocellulosic and food waste materials. Bioresource Technology Reports, 7(June), 100256. 10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100256 Álvarez, C., González, A., Alonso, J. L., Sáez, F., Negro, M. J., & Gullón, B. (2020). Xylooligosaccharides from steam-exploded barley straw: Structural features and assessment of bifidogenic properties. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 124, 131–142. 10.1016/j.fbp.2020.08.014 Alves de Oliveira, R., Komesu, A., Vaz Rossell, C. E., & Maciel Filho, R. (2018). Challenges and opportunities in lactic acid bioprocess design—From economic to production aspects. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 133, 219–239. 10.1016/j.bej.2018.03.003 Alves de Oliveira, R., Schneider, R., Vaz Rossell, C. E., Maciel Filho, R., & Venus, J. (2019). Polymer grade L-lactic acid production from sugarcane bagasse hemicellulosic hydrolysate using Bacillus coagulans. Bioresource Technology Reports, 6(February), 26–31. 10.1016/j.biteb.2019.02.003 Andrade Alves, J. A., Lisboa dos Santos, M. D., Morais, C. C., Ramirez Ascheri, J. L., Signini, R., dos Santos, D. M., Cavalcante Bastos, S. M., & Ramirez Ascheri, D. P. (2019). Sorghum straw: Pulping and bleaching process optimization and synthesis of cellulose acetate. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 135, 877–886. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.05.014 Baghel, R. S., Suthar, P., Gajaria, T. K., Bhattacharya, S., Anil, A., & Reddy, C. R. K. (2020). Seaweed biorefinery: A sustainable process for valorising the biomass of brown seaweed. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121359. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121359 Balina, K., Romagnoli, F., & Blumberga, D. (2017). Seaweed biorefinery concept for sustainable use of marine resources. Energy Procedia, 128, 504–511. 10.1016/j.egypro. 2017.09.067 Bassan, J. C., Bezerra, T. M. de S., Peixoto, G., da Cruz, C. Z. P., Galán, J. P. M., Vaz, A. B. dos S., Garrido, S. S., Filice, M., & Monti, R. (2016). Immobilization of trypsin in lignocellulosic waste material to produce peptides with bioactive potential from whey protein. Materials, 9(5). 10.3390/ma9050357 Ben Atitallah, I., Antonopoulou, G., Ntaikou, I., Alexandropoulou, M., Nasri, M., Mechichi, T., & Lyberatos, G. (2019). On the evaluation of different saccharification schemes for enhanced bioethanol production from potato peels waste via a newly isolated yeast strain of Wickerhamomyces anomalus. Bioresource Technology, 289(June), 121614. 10.1016/ j.biortech.2019.121614 Bishai, M., De, S., Adhikari, B., & Banerjee, R. (2015). A platform technology of recovery of lactic acid from a fermentation broth of novel substrate Zizyphus oenophlia. 3 Biotech, 5(4), 455–463. 10.1007/s13205-014-0240-y Carpinelli Macedo, J. V., de Barros Ranke, F. F., Escaramboni, B., Campioni, T. S., Fernández Núñez, E. G., & de Oliva Neto, P. (2020). Cost-effective lactic acid production by fermentation of agro-industrial residues. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 27(June), 101706. 10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101706 Castillo Martinez, F. A., Balciunas, E. M., Salgado, J. M., Domínguez González, J. M., Converti, A., & Oliveira, R. P. de S. (2013). Lactic acid properties, applications and

206

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

production: A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 30(1), 70–83. 10.1016/ j.tifs.2012.11.007 Chen, H., Huo, W., Wang, B., Wang, Y., Wen, H., Cai, D., Zhang, C., Wu, Y., & Qin, P. (2019). L-lactic acid production by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of dilute ethylediamine pre-treated rice straw. Industrial Crops and Products, 141, 111749. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111749 Chen, H., Mao, J., Jiang, B., Wu, W., & Jin, Y. (2021). Carbonate-oxygen pretreatment of waste wheat straw for enhancing enzymatic saccharification. Process Biochemistry, 104(October 2020), 117–123. 10.1016/j.procbio.2021.03.016 Cubas-Cano, E., González-Fernández, C., Ballesteros, I., & Tomás-Pejó, E. (2020). Efficient utilization of hydrolysates from steam-exploded gardening residues for lactic acid production by optimization of enzyme addition and pH control. Waste Management, 107, 235–243. 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.003 Cubas-Cano, E., González-Fernández, C., Ballesteros, M., & Tomás-Pejó, E. (2018). Biotechnological advances in lactic acid production by lactic acid bacteria: lignocellulose as novel substrate. In Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining (Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 290–303). John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 10.1002/bbb.1852 Das, D. (2012). Lactic acid bacteria in food industry. In Microorganisms in Sustainable Agriculture and Biotechnology (p. 757–772). Springer, Dordrecht. https://link.springer. com/chapter/10.1007/978‐94‐007‐2214‐9_33 De Souza, J. B., Michelin, M., Amâncio, F. L. R., Vital Brazil, O. A., Polizeli, M. de L. T. M., Ruzene, D. S., Silva, D. P., Mendonça, M. da C., & López, J. A. (2020). Sunflower stalk as a carbon source inductive for fungal xylanase production. Industrial Crops and Products, 153(May), 112368. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112368 Du, J., Liang, J., Gao, X., Liu, G., & Qu, Y. (2020). Optimization of an artificial cellulase cocktail for high-solids enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic materials with different pretreatment methods. Bioresource Technology, 295(August 2019), 122272. 10.1016/ j.biortech.2019.122272 Eş, I., Mousavi Khaneghah, A., Barba, F. J., Saraiva, J. A., Sant’Ana, A. S., & Hashemi, S. M. B. (2018). Recent advancements in lactic acid production – A review. Food Research International, 107, 763–770. 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.01.001 Espirito Santo, M., Rezende, C. A., Bernardinelli, O. D., Pereira, N., Curvelo, A. A. S., deAzevedo, E. R., Guimarães, F. E. G., & Polikarpov, I. (2018). Structural and compositional changes in sugarcane bagasse subjected to hydrothermal and organosolv pretreatments and their impacts on enzymatic hydrolysis. Industrial Crops and Products, 113(December 2017), 64–74. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.01.014 Fockink, D. H., Urio, M. B., Sánchez, J. H., & Ramos, L. P. (2017). Enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-treated sugarcane bagasse: effect of enzyme loading and substrate total solids on its fractal kinetic modeling and rheological properties. Energy and Fuels, 31(6), 6211–6220. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00818 Garrote, G., Cruz, J. M., Domínguez, H., & Parajó, J. C. (2008). Non-isothermal autohydrolysis of barley husks: Product distribution and antioxidant activity of ethyl acetate soluble fractions. Journal of Food Engineering, 84(4), 544–552. 10.1016/ j.jfoodeng.2007.06.021 Ge, S., Wu, Y., Peng, W., Xia, C., Mei, C., Cai, L., Shi, S. Q., Sonne, C., Lam, S. S., & Tsang, Y. F. (2020). High-pressure CO2 hydrothermal pretreatment of peanut shells for enzymatic hydrolysis conversion into glucose. Chemical Engineering Journal, 385(October 2019), 123949. 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123949 Gill, M. K., Kocher, G. S., & Panesar, A. S. (2021). Optimization of acid-mediated delignification of corn stover, an agriculture residue carbohydrate polymer for improved ethanol production. Carbohydrate Polymer Technologies and Applications, 2(December 2020), 100029. 10.1016/j.carpta.2020.100029

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 207 Giuliano, A., Poletto, M., & Barletta, D. (2016). Process optimization of a multi-product biorefinery: The effect of biomass seasonality. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 107, 236–252. 10.1016/j.cherd.2015.12.011 Gonçalves, F., Ruiz, H. A., Nogueira, C., Silvino, E., Teixeira, J. A., Ribeiro, G., & Macedo, D. (2014). Comparison of delignified coconuts waste and cactus for fuel-ethanol production by the simultaneous and semi-simultaneous saccharification and fermentation strategies, Fuel, 131, 66–76. 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.021 Grewal, J., & Khare, S. K. (2018). One-pot bioprocess for lactic acid production from lignocellulosic agro-wastes by using ionic liquid stable Lactobacillus brevis. Bioresource Technology, 251, 268–273. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.056 Grewal, J., Sadaf, A., Yadav, N., & Khare, S. K. (2020). Agroindustrial waste based biorefineries for sustainable production of lactic acid. In Waste Biorefinery. Elsevier B.V. 10.1016/b978-0-12-818228-4.00005-8 Han, X., Hong, F., Liu, G., & Bao, J. (2018). An approach of utilizing water-soluble carbohydrates in lignocellulose feedstock for promotion of cellulosic l -lactic acid production. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 66(39), 10225–10232. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b03592 Harini, K., & Chandra Mohan, C. (2020). Isolation and characterization of micro and nanocrystalline cellulose fibers from the walnut shell, corncob and sugarcane bagasse. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 163, 1375–1383. 10.1016/ j.ijbiomac.2020.07.239 Hassan, S. S., Williams, G. A., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2019). Moving towards the second generation of lignocellulosic biorefineries in the EU: Drivers, challenges, and opportunities. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (Vol. 101, pp. 590–599). Elsevier Ltd. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.041 Hiloidhari, M., Bhuyan, N., & Gogoi, N. (2020). 16. Agroindustry wastes: biofuels and biomaterials feedstocks for sustainable rural development. In Refining Biomass Residues for Sustainable Energy and Bioproducts (Issue 2005). Elsevier Inc. 10.1016/B978-0-12-81 8996-2.00016-8 Idrees, M., Adnan, A., & Qureshi, F. A. (2013). Optimization of sulfide/sulfite pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for lactic acid production. BioMed Research International, 2013. 10.1155/2013/934171 Isikgor, F. H., & Becer, C. R. (2015). Lignocellulosic biomass: a sustainable platform for the production of bio-based chemicals and polymers. Polymer Chemistry, 6(25), 4497–4559. 10.1039/c5py00263j Jiang, S., Xu, P., & Tao, F. (2019). L-Lactic acid production by Bacillus coagulans through simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic corncob residue. Bioresource Technology Reports, 6, 131–137. 10.1016/j.biteb.2019.02.005 Juturu, V., & Wu, J. C. (2016). Microbial production of lactic acid: the latest development. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 36(6), 967–977. 10.3109/07388551.2015.1066305 Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, L. (2018). Circular economy – From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135(November 2017), 190–201. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034 Karnaouri, A., Asimakopoulou, G., Kalogiannis, K. G., Lappas, A., & Topakas, E. (2020). Efficient D-lactic acid production by Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus through conversion of organosolv pretreated lignocellulosic biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 140(January), 105672. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105672 Katakojwala, R., & Mohan, S. V. (2021). A critical view on the environmental sustainability of biorefinery systems. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 27, 100392. 10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.100392 Khattab, S. M. R., & Watanabe, T. (2019a). Bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: status and perspectives. In Bioethanol Production from Food Crops. Elsevier Inc. 10.1016/b9780-12-813766-6.00010-2

208

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Khattab, S. M. R., & Watanabe, T. (2019b). Policía Nacional Revolucionaria Objetivos del curso – taller. In Bioethanol Production from Food Crops. Elsevier Inc. 10.1016/B9780-12-813766-6/00010-2 Komesu, A., de Oliveira, J. A. R., Martins, L. H. da S., Maciel, M. R. W., & Filho, R. M. (2017). Lactic acid production to purification: A review. BioResources, 12(2), 4364–4383. 10.15376/biores.12.2.4364-4383 Krull, S., Brock, S., Prüße, U., & Kuenz, A. (2020). Hydrolyzed agricultural residues—lowcost nutrient sources for l-lactic acid production. Fermentation, 6(4). 10.3390/ FERMENTATION6040097 Kumar, B., Bhardwaj, N., Agrawal, K., Chaturvedi, V., & Verma, P. (2020). Current perspective on pretreatment technologies using lignocellulosic biomass: An emerging biorefinery concept. Fuel Processing Technology, 199(July 2019), 106244. 10.1016/ j.fuproc.2019.106244 Kuo, Y., Yuan, S., Wang, C., Huang, Y., Guo, G., & Hwang, W. (2015). Bioresource Technology production of optically pure L-lactic acid from lignocellulosic hydrolysate by using a newly isolated and D-lactate dehydrogenase gene-deficient Lactobacillus paracasei strain. Bioresource Technology, 198, 651–657. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.071 Lambert, S., & Wagner, M. (2017). Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: The road ahead. Chemical Society Reviews, 46(22), 6855–6871. 10.1039/c7cs00149e Li, C., Gao, M., Zhu, W., Wang, N., Ma, X., Wu, C., & Wang, Q. (2021). Recent advances in the separation and purification of lactic acid from fermentation broth. Process Biochemistry, 104(March), 142–151. 10.1016/j.procbio.2021.03.011 Liang, S., Wei, J., Song, Y., & Zhou, S. (2020). Improvement and metabolomics‐based analysis of d‐lactic acid production from agro‐industrial wastes by Lactobacillus delbrueckii submitted to adaptive laboratory evolution. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 68(29), 7660–7669. 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c00259 Liu, P., Zheng, Z., Xu, Q., Qian, Z., Liu, J., & Ouyang, J. (2018). Valorization of dairy waste for enhanced D-lactic acid production at low cost. Process Biochemistry, 71, 18–22. 10.1016/j.procbio.2018.05.014 Londoño-Hernández, L., Ramírez-Toro, C., Ruiz, H. A., Ascacio-Valdés, J. A., AguilarGonzalez, M. A., Rodríguez-Herrera, R., & Aguilar, C. N. (2017). Rhizopus oryzae – Ancient microbial resource with importance in modern food industry. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 257(June), 110–127. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017. 06.012 López-Garzón, C. S., & Straathof, A. J. J. (2014). Recovery of carboxylic acids produced by fermentation. Biotechnology Advances, 32(5), 873–904. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014. 04.002 Lübeck. (2019). Application of lactic acid bacteria in green biorefineries. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699. Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., Cavallaro, F., Loganathan, N., & Khoshnoudi, M. (2018). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and economic growth: A systematic review of two decades of research from 1995 to 2017. Science of the Total Environment, 649, 31–49. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.229 Martelli-Tosi, M., Assis, O. B. G., Silva, N. C., Esposto, B. S., Martins, M. A., & TapiaBlácido, D. R. (2017). Chemical treatment and characterization of soybean straw and soybean protein isolate/straw composite films. Carbohydrate Polymers, 157, 512–520. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.10.013 Mehariya, S., Iovine, A., Casella, P., Musmarra, D., Chianese, S., Marino, T., Figoli, A., Sharma, N., & Molino, A. (2020). Bio-based and agriculture resources for production of bioproducts. In Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes (pp. 263–282). Elsevier. 10.1016/b978-0-12-816778-6.00012-6

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 209 Mladenović, D., Pejin, J., Kocić-Tanackov, S., Djukić-Vuković, A., & Mojović, L. (2019). Enhanced lactic acid production by adaptive evolution of Lactobacillus paracasei on agro-industrial substrate. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 187(3), 753–769. 10.1007/s12010-018-2852-x Moncada, J., Tamayo, J. A., & Cardona, C. A. (2014). Integrating first, second, and third generation biorefineries: Incorporating microalgae into the sugarcane biorefinery. Chemical Engineering Science, 118, 126–140. 10.1016/j.ces.2014.07.035 Mussatto, S .I., Ballesteros, L. F., Martins, S., & Teixeira, J. A. (2012). Use of agro‐industrial wastes in solid‐state fermentation processes. Industrial Waste, 274. https://www. intechopen.com/chapters/30860 Nagarajan, D., Nandini, A., Dong, C. Di, Lee, D. J., & Chang, J. S. (2020). Lactic acid production from renewable feedstocks using poly (vinyl alcohol)-Immobilized lactobacillus plantarum 23. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 59(39), 17156–17164. 10.1021/acs.iecr.0c01422 Ng, H. S., Kee, P. E., Yim, H. S., Chen, P. T., Wei, Y. H., & Chi-Wei Lan, J. (2020). Recent advances on the sustainable approaches for conversion and reutilization of food wastes to valuable bioproducts. In Bioresource Technology (Vol. 302). Elsevier Ltd. 10.1016/ j.biortech.2020.122889 Nguyen, T. H., Granger, J., Pandya, D., & Paustian, K. (2019). High-resolution multiobjective optimization of feedstock landscape design for hybrid first and second generation biorefineries. Applied Energy, 238(October 2018), 1484–1496. 10.1016/ j.apenergy.2019.01.117 Oamen, H. P., Ojo, E. O., Hobbs, P. J., & Retter, A. (2019). Hydrolysis of plant biomass at different growth stages using enzyme cocktails for increased fermentable hydrolysates. Scientific African, 3, e00077. 10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00077 Oberoi, H. S., Vadlani, P. V., Saida, L., Bansal, S., & Hughes, J. D. (2011). Ethanol production from banana peels using statistically optimized simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process. Waste Management, 31(7), 1576–1584. 10.1016/j.wasman. 2011.02.007 Ouyang, S., Zou, L., Qiao, H., Shi, J., Zheng, Z., & Ouyang, J. (2020). One-pot process for lactic acid production from wheat straw by an adapted Bacillus coagulans and identification of genes related to hydrolysate-tolerance. Bioresource Technology, 315(July), 123855. 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123855 Park, J. M., Kondo, A., Chang, J. S., Perry Chou, C., & Monsan, P. (2013). Biorefineries. Bioresource Technology. 135, 1. 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.132 Peng, J., Abomohra, A. E. F., Elsayed, M., Zhang, X., Fan, Q., & Ai, P. (2019). Compositional changes of rice straw fibers after pretreatment with diluted acetic acid: Towards enhanced biomethane production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 775–782. 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2019.05.155 Pereira, F. B., Romaní, A., Ruiz, H. A., Teixeira, J. A., & Domingues, L. (2014). Industrial robust yeast isolates with great potential for fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 161, 192–199. 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.043 Pinheiro, T., Coelho, E., Romaní, A., & Domingues, L. (2019). Intensifying ethanol production from brewer’s spent grain waste: Use of whole slurry at high solid loadings. New Biotechnology, 53(April 2018), 1–8. 10.1016/j.nbt.2019.06.005 Popa, V. I. (2018). Biomass for fuels and biomaterials. In Biomass as Renewable Raw Material to Obtain Bioproducts of High-Tech Value (pp. 1–37). Elsevier. 10.1016/ B978-0-444-63774-1.00001-6 Palacios, S., Ruiz, H. A., Ramos-Gonzalez, R., Martínez, J., Segura, E., Aguilar, M., ... &Ilyina, A., & Michelena, G. (2017). Comparison of physicochemical pretreatments of banana peels for bioethanol production. Food Science and Biotechnology, 26(4), 993–1001. 10.1007/s10068-017-0128-9

210

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Régibeau, N., Hurlet, J., Tilkin, R. G., Lombart, F., Heinrichs, B., & Grandfils, C. (2020). Synthesis of medical grade PLLA, PDLLA, and PLGA by a reactive extrusion polymerization. Materials Today Communications, 24(April). 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101208 Ricci, A., Diaz, A. B., Caro, I., Bernini, V., Galaverna, G., Lazzi, C., & Blandino, A. (2019). Orange peels: from by-product to resource through lactic acid fermentation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(15), 6761–6767. 10.1002/jsfa.9958 Roberto, I. C., Castro, R. C. A., Silva, J. P. A., & Mussatto, S. I. (2020). Ethanol production from high solid loading of rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation in a non-conventional reactor. Energies, 13(8). 10.3390/en13082090 Romaní, A., Ruiz, H. A., Teixeira, J. A. , & Domingues, L. (2016). Valorization of Eucalyptus wood by glycerol‐organosolv pretreatment within the biorefinery concept: an integrated and intensified approach. Renewable Energy, 95, 1–9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/abs/pii/S0960148116302907 Romo-Buchelly, J., Rodríguez-Torres, M., & Orozco-Sánchez, F. (2019). Biotechnological valorization of agro industrial and household wastes for lactic acid production. Revista Colombiana de Biotecnología, 21(1), 113–127. 10.15446/rev.colomb.biote.v21n1.69284 Semerci, I., & Güler, F. (2018). Protic ionic liquids as effective agents for pretreatment of cotton stalks at high biomass loading. Industrial Crops and Products, 125(April), 588–595. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.09.046 Singh, A., Jasso, R. M. R., Gonzalez-Gloria, K. D., Rosales, M., Belmares, R., Aguilar, C. N., Rani, R., & Ruiz, H. A. (2019). The enzyme biorefinery platform for advanced biofuels production. Bioresource Technology Reports, 7(June), 100257. 10.1016/j.biteb.2019. 100257 Sui, W., Liu, X., Sun, H., Li, C., Mahmud, A., & Wang, G. (2021). Industrial Crops & Products Improved high-solid loading enzymatic hydrolysis of steam exploded corn stalk using rapid room temperature γ -valerolactone delignification. Industrial Crops & Products 2020, 113389. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113389 Van Der Pol, E. C., Eggink, G., & Weusthuis, R. A. (2016). Production of L(+)-lactic acid from acid pretreated sugarcane bagasse using Bacillus coagulans DSM2314 in a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation strategy. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 9(1), 1–12. 10.1186/s13068-016-0646-3 Venkata Mohan, S., Dahiya, S., Amulya, K., Katakojwala, R., & Vanitha, T. K. (2019). Can circular bioeconomy be fueled by waste biorefineries—A closer look. Bioresource Technology Reports, 7(April), 100277. 10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100277 Wang, C., Zhang, J., Hu, F., Zhang, S., Lu, J., & Liu, S. (2020). Bio-pretreatment promote hydrolysis and acidification of oilseed rape straw: Roles of fermentation broth and microoxygen. Bioresource Technology, 308(March), 123272. 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123272 Wang, J., Chen, X., Chio, C., Yang, C., Su, E., Jin, Y., Cao, F., & Qin, W. (2019). Delignification overmatches hemicellulose removal for improving hydrolysis of wheat straw using the enzyme cocktail from Aspergillus niger. Bioresource Technology, 274(October 2018), 459–467. 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.029 Wang, J., Wei, Q., Zheng, J., & Zhu, M. (2016). Effect of pyrolysis conditions on levoglucosan yield from cotton straw and optimization of levoglucosan extraction from bio-oil. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 122, 294–303. 10.1016/j.jaap. 2016.09.013 Wang, Y., Wang, M., Cai, D., Wang, B., Wang, Z., Qin, P., & Tan, T. (2016). Efficient llactic acid production from sweet sorghum bagasse by open simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. RSC Advances, 6(42), 35771–35777. 10.1039/c6ra04538c Yousuf, A., Pirozzi, D., & Sannino, F. (2019). Fundamentals of lignocellulosic biomass. In Lignocellulosic Biomass to Liquid Biofuels. (pp. 1–15). Academic Press. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128159361000010

Lactic Acid Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste in Terms of Biorefinery 211 Zhang, L., You, T., Zhang, L., Yang, H., & Xu, F. (2014). Enhanced fermentability of poplar by combination of alkaline peroxide pretreatment and semi-simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Bioresource Technology, 164, 292–298. Zhao, Y., Sun, F., Yu, J., Cai, Y., Luo, X., Cui, Z., & Wang, X. (2018). Co‐digestion of oat straw and cow manure during anaerobic digestion: Stimulative and inhibitory effects on fermentation. Bioresource Technology, 269, 143–152. https://www.sciencedi rect. com/science/article/abs/pii/S096085241831143X Zhang, W., Xu, X., Yu, P., Zuo, P., He, Y., Chen, H., Liu, Y., Xue, G., Li, X., & Alvarez, P. J. J. (2020). Ammonium enhances food waste fermentation to high-value optically active lLactic acid. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, 8(1), 669–677. 10.1021/ acssuschemeng.9b06532 Zhou, J., Ouyang, J., Xu, Q., & Zheng, Z. (2016). Cost-effective simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of L-lactic acid from bagasse sulfite pulp by Bacillus coagulans CC17. Bioresource Technology, 222, 431–438. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.119

10

Microbial Valorisation of Agroindustrial Wastes for the Generation of Novel Food Flavours Mário Cesar Jucoski Bier, Renata Gomes, Khiomara Khemeli Dellani de Lima, and Adriane Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros Federal University of Paraná, Department of Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology, Centro Politécnico, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil

CONTENTS 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5

Introduction................................................................................................. 213 Aroma ......................................................................................................... 214 Biosynthesis and Biotransformation/Flavour Production Process ............ 215 Food and Agricultural Wastes ...................................................................217 Flavour Functional Groups ........................................................................ 217 10.5.1 Alcohols........................................................................................220 10.5.2 Esters............................................................................................. 220 10.5.3 Aldehydes ..................................................................................... 221 10.5.4 Ketones .........................................................................................222 10.5.5 Terpenoids .................................................................................... 223 10.5.6 Lactones........................................................................................224 10.5.7 Acids ............................................................................................. 224 10.5.8 Others............................................................................................ 225 10.6 Conclusion/Perspectives .............................................................................225 References.............................................................................................................. 226

10.1 INTRODUCTION The food and beverage industry is one of the most important in the market, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% between 2021 and 2023, reaching USD 7,527.5 billion (Wood 2020). However, even in the e-commerce market, this industry acquired relevant values, being considered the sector with the fastest growth, corresponding to, by 2023, 3% of the revenue coming from this type of commercialisation (Statista 2020). DOI: 10.1201/9781003341307-10

213

214

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

This substantial growth carries with itself one of the main changes observed, throughout the years, on consumer demand: the search for products containing natural ingredients, a necessity that is connected to concerns about their quality of life and the possible long-term effects caused by artificial products. Flavours represent a quarter of the global additive production, but most are chemically synthesised, which corresponded to 56.9% of the market in 2018 (Braga, Guerreiro, and Belo 2018; Wood 2020). The market of biotechnological products in 2019 had a value of about USD 1.61 billion, with a CAGR of 9.3% between 2020 and 2027. The stability and demand that are strictly related to the biotechnological flavours are one the pillars of this industry, representing 38.44% of the revenue in 2019 (Grand View Research 2020; Akacha and Gargouri 2015; Berger 2015; Felipe, Oliveira, and Bicas 2017). In the United States, which is the second-largest market of food and beverages worldwide – representing 22% in 2019 (Wood 2020) – revenue for the production of organic flavours is estimated at USD 47 billion. Investments in research and development amounted to around USD 395 million between 2009 and 2019. With this, the importance of research and the development of technologies, as well as improvements in the conditions of non-synthetic flavour production on an industrial level, is noted and supported by the knowledge of the biochemistry machinery and the genetics of microorganisms and/or plants. The market for biotechnological flavours is showing an increasing trend, but it still faces challenges with regard to production on an industrial scale. The main bottlenecks present in the production chain range from raw materials to the stability and quality of the final product (Sharma et al., 2020). The current development of research and industrial processes to make the flavours obtained biotechnologically feasible includes characteristics such as versatility and sustainability. These new bioprocesses, in addition to being environmentally friendly, are also concerned with establishing a system to guarantee product quality and consumer safety. The flavours obtained through the microbial route have significant potential and the high enantioselectivity of the resulting compounds should be mentioned, as this leads to the development of a product of high purity. There is continuous manufacturing throughout the year, the improvements and control of flavour acquisition can be achieved with traditional biotechnology, there are lower energy costs as a result of mild processing conditions, and the products are labeled as ‘natural’, which is of considerable attractiveness to the consumer.

10.2 AROMA Aroma substances are volatile compounds perceived by the odour receptor sites of the smell organ, specifically by the olfactory tissue of the nasal cavity. Aromas reach the receptors through the nose and via the throat after being released by chewing. One compound might contribute to the typical odour or taste of a specific food, while in another food it might cause a negative odour, taste, or both, resulting in an off-flavour (Belitz et al., 2009). While aromas are responsible for the odour, flavours are important for both odour and taste. Those substances whose aroma

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

215

provided the characteristics of food and beverages are called key odorants. Among the aroma substances, special attention is paid to those compounds that provide the characteristic aroma of the food which are, consequently, called key odorants. The lowest concentration of a compound that is just enough for the recognition of its odour is called the odour threshold of the volatile compounds. Compounds that are considered aroma substances are primarily those which are present in foods at concentrations higher than the odour and/or taste thresholds. Compounds with concentrations lower than the odour and/or taste thresholds also contribute to aroma when mixtures of them exceed these thresholds (Belitz et al., 2009). Theoretically, every naturally occurring aroma or flavour molecule can be produced. In addition to the isolation and screening of microorganisms and their products, the identification of a suitable biosynthetic pathway and host enables efficient production that is optimised by controlling metabolic flux, designing optimal genetic backgrounds, and regulating gene expression (Miks-Krajnik et al., 2016; Carroll, Desai, and Atsumi 2016).

10.3 BIOSYNTHESIS AND BIOTRANSFORMATION/FLAVOUR PRODUCTION PROCESS The production of flavour compounds can be biotechnologically obtained through the action of microorganisms and enzymes. In addition, the culture of tissues and plant cells has also been used to obtain flavours. Biosynthesis, which is also called de novo synthesis (Figure 10.1), occurs through fermentation processes, which use the capacity of microorganisms to catabolise the compounds available in the culture media, using carbohydrates, amino acids, fats and proteins as substrates. These compounds are converted into various aromatic metabolites of commercial interest (Bicas et al., 2010; Berger et al., 1999). Biotransformation (Figure 10.2) refers to the use of microbial cells to make specific changes to the desired product (Berger 1999; Akacha and Gargouri 2015).

FIGURE 10.1 Production of flavours by De Novo Synthesis (Modified: Schrader, 2007).

216

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

FIGURE 10.2 Production of flavours by Biotransformation (Modified: Schrader, 2007).

Biotransformation leads to a specific major product that is generated in conversions. Comparing both of the processes, the literature describes biotransformation as the approach with the better industrial application potential due to its higher yields, which does not relate to a mixture, as it is in the de novo synthesis (Braga, Guerreiro, and Belo 2018). With this, the quantity of the product obtained, as well as the nature of the compound, depends on factors like pH, carbon and nitrogen levels, temperature, stirring and metabolic pathways of the strains, among other things (Malakar, Paul, and Jolvis Pou 2019). Amid the main microorganisms, in addition to bacteria, there has been a lot of interest in the production of flavours by filamentous fungi, as there are strains like basidiomycetes, with a volatile compound production spectrum similar to that of plants generating terpenes, ketones, lactones and other interesting compounds, even at low concentrations. Yeasts, on the other hand, have produced terpenes like linalool, limonene and citronellal (Akacha and Gargouri 2015; Felipe, Oliveira, and Bicas 2017). Metabolic pathways, along with the medium formulation, bioreactor model, and downstream steps, are some of the main factors for the production of flavour compounds, as the chemical reactivity and the hydrophobicity of secondary metabolites can interfere with microbial growth, due to interactions with cell membranes, possibly causing deleterious effects, leading to product inhibition events (consumption or toxicity). These situations are frequently outlined in the literature (Akacha and Gargouri 2015; Malakar, Paul, and Jolvis 2019; Sharma et al., 2020). It is necessary to consider the problems that occur throughout the incubation time, as well as the short biocatalyst lifetime. Factors like cost, robustness, the ability to design simple structures and easy scale-up, the search for less-energetic consumption, and the capacity to maintain the stability and viability of cells are key for great yields and productivity.

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

217

10.4 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL WASTES Agricultural waste, byproducts and coproducts are usually defined as plant or animal residues that are not (or not further processed into) food or feed, and which may even be responsible for additional environmental and economic burdens in the farming and primary processing sectors (Gontard et al., 2018). One-third of the food (approximately 1.3 billion tonnes) produced globally for human consumption is lost or wasted every year. Fruits and vegetables, as well as roots and tubers, have the highest wastage rates of any food, representing 40–50% (520–650 million tonnes) of the global quantitative food losses and waste per year (Ravindran et al., 2018). The amount of food and agricultural wastes such as peels, pulps, aqueous residues and others, raises serious disposal issues and contributes to environmental pollution. Consequently, considerable costs are incurred by various industries (Guneser et al., 2017; Laufenberg, Kunz, and Nystroem 2003). Although being used as feed and biomass, these wastes are usually rich in carbohydrates, bioactive compounds, precursors and nutrients, which can make them useful for the production of chemicals, flavours and for the microbial fermentation process. This enables the valorisation process of the wastes and makes them byproducts and coproducts. The use of agroindustrial wastes in aroma and flavour production is especially interesting because their use still allows them to be recognised as natural, makes the process much cheaper by replacing expensive substrates and offers a great potential for new and unexplored processes and products. Some of the most notable wastes used for microbial fermentation are sugarcane bagasse, cassava bagasse, orange peel and bagasse, coffee husk, apple pomace, olive mill, turpentine water and banana peel. There are plenty of studies reporting the production of aroma compounds by microbial fermentation using wastes and byproducts (Table 10.1). Although many aroma compounds have not had their microbial production or fermentation using wastes reported yet, the generation of food aroma and flavours or their precursors by a variety of methods is increasing. The characterisation of flavour precursors by Benítez et al. (2011) from industrial onion wastes and the production of aroma compounds and flavour precursors after the extraction of apple pomace, pine needle and orange waste by Bier et al. (2016) summarises this.

10.5 FLAVOUR FUNCTIONAL GROUPS Aroma compounds influencing the flavour of foods belong to practically all classes of chemical organic compounds, and more precisely alcohols, fatty acids, esters, ketones, lactones, terpenoids, aldehydes and many others (Jeleń and Gracka 2016; El Hadi et al., 2013; Sharma et al., 2020; Carroll, Desai, and Atsumi 2016). The first huge example of flavour with biotechnological potential to be cited is vanillin, the largest additive applied in the food and beverage industry. Produced for the first time in 1987 by the Haarmann & Reimer company, starting with coniferin, this compound can be used in an extended list of products, including ice cream, chocolate, sweet drinks, fruit juices, soft drinks and dairy products, also acting like

D-limonene

Trans-verbenol, transpinocarveol, myrtenol, αterpineol, and p-cymen-8-ol

Acetaldehyde, ethyl acetate, 2methyl-butanol and 3methylbutano Limonene-1,2-diol (major), αterpineol, terpinen-4-ol and carvone (minor)

Limonene-1,2-diol, α-terpineol, (−)-carvone, α-tocopherol, dihydrocarveol and valencene

Olive mill

Turpentine (wood processing waste)

Grape pomace

Orange waste (Peel and pulp)

Orange waste extract

Apple pomace

Isoamyl acetate

Ethanol, ethyl acetate, and acethaldehyde 132 volatile compounds belonging to different chemical families

Sugarcane molasses

2-phenylethanol (rose aroma) 6-pentyl-α-pyrone (coconut aroma)

Sugarcane bagasse Sugarcane bagasse

Coffee residues

Product

Substrate/wastes

Diaporthe sp.

Diaporthe sp.

Indigenous yeast flora

Picea abies

Rhizopus orizae and Candida tropicallis

Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Hanseniaspora valbyensis, and Hanseniaspora uvarum

Ceratocystis fimbriata

Pichia fermentans

Pichia kudriavzevii Trichoderma viride EMCC-107

Microorganism

TABLE 10.1 Production of Flavours by a Variety of Agroindustrial Wastes

Biotransformation of R(+)-limonene present in orange waste through SSF

Biotransformation of R(+)-limonene present in orange waste extract through Smf

Fermentation of grape pomace must

Smf of turpentine mixtures for biotransformation

Smf of a solution base on olive mill

SSF of coffee pulp and husk supplemented with glucose SSF by autochthonous and commercial yeasts

Submerged fermentation (Smf)

Solid state fermentation (SSF) SSF

Method

Bier et al. (2019)

Bier, Medeiros, and Soccol (2017)

Gerogiannaki-Christopoulou et al. (2004)

Dvorakova, Valterova, and Vanek (2011)

Guneser et al. (2017)

Madrera, Bedriñana, and Valles (2015)

Medeiros et al. (2003)

Rossi et al. (2017)

Martínez-Avila et al. (2020) Hoda Hanem Mohamed Fadel et al. (2015)

Reference

218 Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

2,3-dimethylpyrazine, methylpyrazine and 2phenylethanol

Butyric acid

Acetoin and dyacetil (butter aroma compound)

Mother liquor from the recovery of lactose Industrial fermentation waste

Recycled waste paper

Vanillin and vanillyl alcohol

Wheat bran

Lactic acid

Lactobacillus brevis

Methyl ketones

Municipal solid waste, Corn stover

Paper sludge

Isolated Lactococcus lactis

Esters, 2-pentatone and isoamyl alcohol Vanillin

Banana Waste (peel and pulp) Rice bran oil waste

Immobilised Clostridium tyrobutyricum

Rhizopus oryzae MTCC5384

Engineered E. coli strain, JM109(pBB1)

Smf fermentation of the hydrolysate of recycled waste paper

Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation

Hydrodistillation of waste medium after incubation of Lactobacillus brevis

Smf of mother liquor combined with FCH-110

Bioconversion of ferulic acid derived from enzymatic hydrolysis of wheat bran

Hydrolysates followed by fermentation

Obtention of the vanillin precursor ferulic acid from the waste, formulation of medium and smf

Aspergillus niger CGMCC0774 and Pycnoporus cinnabarinus CGMCC1115 Engineered Escherichia coli strain

Smf fermentation of banana must

Smf fermentation of the substrate supplemented with Lphenylalanine and glucose.

SSF of enriched milled orange peel

Pichia kluyveri

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

2-phenylethanol

Cassava starch wastewater

Vitilevure MT (S. cerevisiae)

Volatile esters, specially: isoamyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl decanoate.

Orange peel

Huang et al. (2016)

Dhandapani et al. (2019)

Ono et al. (2015)

Liu et al. (2020)

Di Gioia et al. (2007)

Yan et al. (2019)

Zheng et al. (2007)

de Matos et al. (2017)

Oliveira et al. (2015)

Mantzouridou, Paraskevopoulou, and Lalou (2015)

Generation of Novel Food Flavours 219

220

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

a food preservative as a consequence of its antimicrobial action against organisms like A. niger, B. subtilis and S. aureus (Berger 2007; Han 2020).

10.5.1 ALCOHOLS There are plenty of flavour compounds classified as alcohols based on their chemical structure. Alcohols are compounds that are commonly found in nature, present in many fruits, and used in numerous products. Most of these alcohols are known due to the fermentation of beverages carried out by yeasts, especially when related to wine and beer production. In the fermentation process, in addition to ethanol, some other alcohols can prevail such as isoamyl alcohol, perillyl alcohol and 2-methyl-1-propanol. Also, some complex and long-chain compounds like 2phenylethanol can be produced as well. The use of waste for the production of flavour compounds is not as common, although it has been gaining strength in recent years. One of the most notable alcohols responsible for aroma, 2-phenylethanol, was produced by Martínez-Avila et al. (2020) using a mixture of sugarcane bagasse and its precursors. In addition to the high productivity achieved, with the use of the waste there was no need for additional micronutrients or adjusting the pH of the media. Madrera, Bedriñana, and Valles (2015) achieved the production of 132 different volatile compounds by the solid-state fermentation of apple pomace; however, the highest yield obtained was of ethanol.

10.5.2 ESTERS Esters are some of the most common flavouring agents because of their fruity aroma that can be used in jellies, candies, yogurts, cheese, and other products. In addition to food, esters are often applied for beverages, usually related to candy, fruity and perfume-like aroma characteristics in beer, wine, sake, and liquors. Isoamyl acetate stands out among the esters due to its banana-like flavour, making it the most reported acetate ester in alcoholic beverages. Ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate and 2phenylethyl acetate are also important esters, especially for wine production. Another important group of esters is composed of medium-chain fatty acid ethyl esters, which include ethyl hexanoate and ethyl octanoate (sour apple aroma) (Sharma et al., 2020). Due to the vast amount of esters that are considered important as aromas, it is not difficult to find studies reporting their microbial production. However, the use of agroindustrial residues for the biosynthesis of ester compounds is still limited, but rapidly advancing. Medeiros et al. (2003) achieved the production of twelve different products using Ceratocystis fimbriata in the solid-state fermentation of coffee pulp and husk with the addition of glucose. The highest yields reported were of ethyl acetate, ethanol and acetaldehyde. The use of orange peel has been increasing recently due to the amount of sugar used for its biosynthesis and the precursors applied for its biotransformation. According to Meneguzzo et al. (2019) orange waste represents a heavy burden for the orange juice industry, estimated at several million tonnes per year worldwide; nevertheless, this by-product is endowed with valuable bioactive compounds, such

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

221

as pectin, polyphenols, and terpenes. Mantzouridou, Paraskevopoulou, and Lalou (2015) achieved the production of six different esters responsible for the aroma of banana (ethyl acetate), pineapple (ethyl octanoate), cream (ethyl dodecanoate), rose-honey (phenylethyl acetate) and grape (ethyl decanoate), achieving the highest yield in the production of strawberry aroma (ethyl hexanoate). The food industry’s interest in wastes to produce flavours precursors is notable and has been growing. For example, a Brazilian patent document BRPI 2011001711 A2 describes the conversion of malt and cassava bagasse by the fungi Neurospora sitophila to ethyl hexanoate (Pastore et al., 2012).

10.5.3 ALDEHYDES Aldehydes have a variety of industrial uses, but they are very familiar for their effects on olfaction and gustation. Some notable aldehydes are benzaldehyde, anisaldehyde, vanillin, and cinnamaldehyde, all of which are responsible for the natural fragrances of almond, sweet blossom, vanilla, and cinnamon, respectively. As most microbes do not naturally accumulate aldehydes, the microbial production of these molecules from simple carbon sources requires at least two parallel approaches: pathway construction for product generation and strain engineering for product accumulation. A starting point for pathway construction is consideration of the enzymatic reactions that can produce the desired aldehydes from cellular metabolites. Carboxylic acids are found throughout cellular metabolism, and many can be converted to aldehydes with the aid of a single enzyme (Kunjapur and Prather 2015). Named vanillaldehyde or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy benzaldehyde, vanillin is a phenolic aldehyde that presents itself as a crystalline compound, which is easily affected by light and air, being less soluble in water but highly soluble in organic solvents like ethanol (Han 2020). It is an intermediate in the degradation of substrates like ferulic acid (FA), phenolic stilbenes, eugenol, and isoeugenol, and has been broadly studied since the beginning of the modern industry of flavour production (Akacha and Gargouri 2015). In the market, vanillin can be acquired from the natural extraction of plants, synthetically or for biotechnological pathways, with an annual production estimated at 20,000 Mt and a growth expectation represented by a CAGR of 8.2% between 2016 and 2025, largely as a consequence of the demand coming from the food and beverage industry, which consumes 60% of the additives (Han 2020). Vanillin is perhaps the most important flavour in the world and one of the most expensive when it comes to the natural compound. From genetic engineering to process optimisations, several studies aim to achieve high yields of vanillin production and many other flavours to make their biotechnological production viable. An interesting way of reducing the costs of flavours is, therefore, the use of wastes as substrates. While the microorganisms can use the sugar from the waste for the production of aroma compounds during biosynthesis, the presence of a precursor in the waste is necessary for biotransformation processes. Thus, several wastes can be used as a source of important precursors such as FA and limonene. Zheng et al. (2007) obtained FA through the extraction of rice bran oil waste and applied it for

222

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

the biotransformation by fungi, obtaining natural vanillin, while Di Gioia et al. (2007) obtained vanillin and vanillyl alcohol through the bioconversion of the precursor obtained by the hydrolysis of wheat bran. Vanillin is produced on an industrial scale from FA over bacterial fermentation of agroindustrial residues, especially rice bran. Rice bran has to be pretreated to obtain FA which is separated from other cell wall compounds and then purified, resulting in a new non-used residue. This process is currently applied in three companies, producing between 400 tonnes/year and 500 tonnes/year, with prices in the range from USD 400/kg to USD 600/kg (Ciriminna et al., 2019). Acetaldehyde is an important flavour compound of wine and is responsible for the green apple aroma. Gerogiannaki-Christopoulou et al. (2004) verified, in addition to acetaldehyde, that ethyl acetate, 2-methyl-butanol and 3-methylbutanol were also produced in the fermentation of grape pomace for the production of wine. Grape pomace is the main residue in wine and juice processing. During wine production, approximately 25% of the grape weight results in byproduct/waste (termed ‘pomace’, which comprises skins and seeds) (Dwyer 2014). Similar to second-generation ethanol, grape pomace, sugarcane bagasse and several lignocellulosic residues can be used as a source of sugar for the production of ethanol. It is notable, however, that grape pomace and many other wastes can have more significant uses than the production of ethanol or energy.

10.5.4 KETONES Ketones can have an impact on a wide variety of cosmetic aromas, in foods like fruits and coffee, and also beverages like beer. Monoketones such as the methylketones octan-3-one and alkan-2-ones can impart a cheese-like odour. Another common ketone in food is the diketone butane-2,3-dione, which is usually known as dyacetil. Important for dairy products like margarine and butter, dyacetil is an undesirable compound in fermentation for wine production. Perhaps the most important flavour ketone, the raspberry ketone (4Hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone) used for perfumery and food, occurs in fruits like cranberries, blackberries and raspberries. It is one of the most expensive natural flavours used in the food industry, with a cost of $20,000 per kg. The raspberry ketone can be extracted from fruits with a very low yield and also, biosynthesised by the de novo pathway. Although the biotechnological production of the raspberry ketone has already been reported (Beekwilder et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2016), studies concerning its production or that of its precursor using agroindustrial wastes are yet to be reported, showing that this flavour still has a lot to be researched. In fact, the production of raspberry ketone has only been possible so far due to genetic engineering. Among the production of a variety of alcohols and esters, de Matos et al. (2017) achieved the production of 2-pentanone in the fermentation of the must of banana peel by Pichia kluyveri. Yan et al. (2019) obtained methyl-ketones after the production of hydrolysates from lignocellulosic municipal solid wastes. The production of methyl ketones was achieved after one-pot ionic liquid pretreatment, enzymatic saccharification and Escherichia coli fermentation.

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

223

10.5.5 TERPENOIDS Terpenoids are important compounds that are commonly found in the essential oil of plants and are very important for the food industry and cosmetics industry with several applications in health due to their bioactive properties such as antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antitumoral. Terpenoids (or isoprenoids) comprise a very large family with over 70,000 known molecules. They are classified based on the number of carbons in their skeletal structure: hemi- (C5), mono- (C10), sesqui- (C15), di- (C20), and tri(C30) terpenoids as well as carotenoids (C40). Limonene (orange peel), linalool (floral, citrus), geraniol (floral hops, citrus), and citronellol (floral) are the key flavour and fragrance constituents of increasing industrial interest (Miks-Krajnik 2016). Notable terpenoid aldehydes include citral, which provides a lemon scent, and safranal, which is one of the primary molecules responsible for a saffron aroma. Other important terpenoids are carvone, menthol, α-terpineol and their derivatives. Apart from some other groups of compounds, the microbial production of terpenoids usually occurs due to the biotransformation process. This makes the use of wastes that contain biotransformation precursors such as limonene and α-pinene even more interesting due to their availability and costs. Although the use of agroindustrial wastes is generally reported in solid-state fermentation (SSF), the use of extracts of liquid wastes for terpenoids production is often reported as well. Bier et al. (2019) obtained a variety of terpenoids such as carvone, limonene-1,2-diol and dihydrocarveol through the SSF of orange waste composed of peel and pulp using the endophitic fungus Diaporthe sp. The same fungus was also used for the submerged fermentation of orange waste extract, leading to the production of αterpineol, carvone and limonene-1,2-diol (Bier, Medeiros, and Soccol 2017). Besides limonene, other important precursors for the biotransformation of terpenoids are α-pinene and β-pinene which are common compounds in the bark of pine trees. Dvorakova, Valterova, and Vanek (2011) used a turpentine mixture resultant from wood processing as a substrate for the production of several valuable products such as trans-verbenol, myrtenol and α-terpineol. On an industrial scale, the US company Amyris used sugarcane as a substrate with a genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae to synthesise sesquiterpenes for the production of patchouli and BiofeneTM for the production of trans-βfarnesene (Felipe, Oliveira, and Bicas 2017). In these cases, it is important to notice how the use of wastes can spare the addition of precursors that could be expensive, hard to extract, or which would not allow the product to be labeled as natural due to the use of chemicals. The valorisation of residues into byproducts and their exploration as a source of flavour compounds or their precursors can be very promising. Orange oil, which contains more than 90% of the terpene R-(+)-limonene which is applied into the flavour industry to produce compounds that value 10 to 30 times the raw material, can generate compounds that have a value between USD 300/L and USD 500/L, while the substrate has a value of around USD 34/L (Felipe, Oliveira, and Bicas 2017, FAOSTAT 2020, Bier et al., 2016).

224

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

10.5.6 LACTONES Lactones are cyclic esters of gamma- and delta-hydroxy acids, which contribute a coconut-like, creamy, sweet, fruity, or nutty flavour. The biotechnological route for the production of lactones during fermentation by various microorganisms is investigated by many researchers. The milky, buttery and coconut-like flavour notes provided by these compounds are generally considered desirable in dairy products. (Sharma et al., 2020). Agroindustrial wastes rich in glucose can be suitable for the production of lactones responsible for aroma in food. The production of interesting lactones related to coconut aroma has been reported by Fadel et al. (2015). The authors reach high concentrations of the lactone 6-pentyl-α-pyrone (6-PP) and saturated lactones, δ-octalactone, γ-nonalactone, γ-undecalactone, γ-dodecalactone and δ-dodecalactone as minor compounds, using the solid-state fermentation of sugarcane bagasse. Another flavouring agent and food additive that is important to provide flavours like peach, strawberry and apricot is γ-decalactone. Also known as 4-hexyl-4-butanolide or 4-denolide, it is an organic compound in the class of gamma butyrolactones, described as a molecule containing an aliphatic ring with four carbon atoms and one oxygen atom, besides a ketone group adjacent to the oxygen atom (Fact.Mr 2020; National Center for Biotechnology Information 2020). This compound can be found in nature in both the membranes of eukaryotic cells and in fruits, such as peach and strawberry, being widely implemented in the fermented product market (Fact.Mr 2020). In the 1980s, γ-decalactone in its natural form was extremely expensive, reaching up to USD 10,000/kg, which prompted the market to invest in the research and development of optimised processes, earning values of USD 300/kg for those which were biotechnologically originated, while those of synthetic origin corresponded to USD 150/kg in 2008 (Felipe, Oliveira, and Bicas 2017; Schrader et al., 2004). Currently, this market is tending to grow due to the demand for ingredients with multiple benefits that are improving the functionality of the food, with the largest contributor being North America, followed by the Asia-Pacific region. The players involved in the production of γ-decalactone belong to both small-scale and large-scale companies, like Conagen Inc., Blue California, and Kao Chemicals (Fact.Mr 2020). Conagen Inc., for example, has been investing in R&D to produce the compound based on genetic engineering tools, with the objective of increasing bacterial production, optimizing processes, and efficiently designing metabolic pathways (Conagen, 2019) Andrade et al. (2017) worked on the production of γ-decalactone with two tropical yeast strains, Y. lipolytica CCMA 0242 and Lindera saturnus CCMA 0243, under experimental conditions, having castor oil and glycerol as substrates in fedbatch and batch fermentations.

10.5.7 ACIDS Two of the most important acids for the food industry are butyric acid, present in cheese and butter, with a cheese-type odour and a sour-type smell, and lactic acid, found in fermented foods, beverages and dairy products, which represents a sour, malty, sweetish, cereal-like flavour employed as a food preservative and flavouring agent.

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

225

Because of their importance in a wide variety of microorganisms that are capable of metabolism, with low specificity and a vast amount of substrates rich in the reducing sugars glucose and xylose, the microbial production of lactic acid and butyric acid is already a reality. The microbial production of lactic acid has been achieved through the hydrolysis of food wastes (Tang et al., 2016), paper sludge (Dhandapani et al., 2019), and orange peel waste (Bustamante et al., 2020). The production of butyric acid has also been achieved using similar methods, as reported by Huang et al. (2016) after the hydrolysis of recycled waste paper and its fermentation by immobilised Clostridium tyrobutyricum.

10.5.8 OTHERS Other important flavour compounds can be classified into the groups of sulfur, furanones, phenolic compounds, heterocyclic aroma compounds and pyrazines. In fact, many compounds can be included in more than one group at a time, as seen with vanillin, which is considered a phenolic aldehyde as well as a terpenoid. This actually happens with a lot of terpenoids, derivatives of terpenes that can belong to a wide variety of functional groups such as menthol (alcohol) and carvone (ketone). Pyrazines are heterocyclic aromatic compounds containing nitrogen that can exhibit a variety of odours, essentially the nutty and roasted flavour. Pyrazines have been used as flavours in the food industry, including the aroma of potatoes, meat, nuts, and coffee. A few studies have already reported the microbial production of pyrazines, but the use of agroindustrial wastes for their production is still scarce. Fadel et al. (2018) achieved the production of nutty-like chocolate aroma after incubation of the bacteria Corynebacterium glutamicum in enzymatic soybean meal hydrolysate supplemented with threonine and lysine. In addition, Ono et al. (2015) found several pyrazine compounds responsible for aroma like 2,3-dimethylpyrazine, methylpyrazine, 2-phenylethanol and other compounds after the hydrodistillation of the industrial fermentation waste of Lactobacillus brevis, opening up a new path for researches concerning the utilisation of the liquid waste from fermentation processes.

10.6 CONCLUSION/PERSPECTIVES Despite the variety of information available in articles and patents relating to research and development, it is important for the development of flavours by biotechnological routes, to adjust processes to achieve greater productivity, and become an economically viable alternative. One of the alternatives enabling the biotechnological production of several aroma compounds is the addition of residues in its production process. Thus, costs can be reduced in addition to adding value to waste and byproducts. The use of the residues to produce flavour is an eco-friendly alternative, but the process may need some adaptation. Many residues have a complex composition and may lead to the limitation or inhibition of the growth of microorganisms, and consequently the low conversion rate into desirable products. In this case, some pretreatment (chemical, physical or biological) is necessary.

226

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Currently, it is known that any compound of interest in the market could potentially be obtained, as genetically modifying microorganisms (GMOs) are able to biotransform precursors into desired products or even facilitate their ability to use complex substrates. However, this alternative is not always well accepted. In most countries, only compounds isolated from natural sources, as well as microbiological and/or enzymatic production (whose precursors come from natural sources), can be labeled as ‘natural’. Therefore, the use of GMOs in the current flavours market is restricted and the processes that use only microorganisms generally regarded as safe are preferable.

REFERENCES Akacha, Najla Ben, and Mohamed Gargouri. 2015. “Microbial and Enzymatic Technologies Used for the Production of Natural Aroma Compounds: Synthesis, Recovery Modeling, and Bioprocesses.” Food and Bioproducts Processing 94: 675–706. 10.1016/j.fbp.2014. 09.011 Andrade, Dayana Pereira de, Beatriz Ferreira Carvalho, Rosane Freitas Schwan, and Disney Ribeiro Dias. 2017. “Gamma-Decalactone Production by Yeast Strains under Different Conditions.” Food Technology and Biotechnology 55 (2): 225–230. 10.17113/ftb.55. 02.17.5009 Beekwilder, Jules, Ingrid M. Van der Meer, Ole Sibbbesen, Mans Broekgaarden, Ingmar Qvist, Joern D. Mikkelsen, and Robert D. Hall. 2007. “Microbial Production of Natural Raspberry Ketone.” Biotechnology Journal 2 (10): 1270–1279. doi: 10.1002/biot. 200700076 Belitz, H-D, Grosch, W. and Schieberle, P. 2009. Food Chemistry. 4th ed., Springer, Berlin. 10.1007/978‐3‐540‐69934‐7_6 Benítez, Vanesa, Esperanza Mollá, María A. Martín-Cabrejas, Yolanda Aguilera, Francisco J. López-Andréu, Katherine Cools, Leon A. Terry, and Rosa M. Esteban. 2011. “Characterization of Industrial Onion Wastes (Allium Cepa L.): Dietary Fibre and Bioactive Compounds.” Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 66 (1): 48–57. doi: 10.1007/ s11130-011-0212-x Berger, Ralf. G, Jan A. M. De Bont, Gerrit Eggink, M. Manuela Da Fonseca, Maik Gehrke, Jean-Bernard Gros, Frederik Van Keulen, Ulrich Krings, Christian Larroche, David J. Leak, Mariet J. Van Der Werf. 1999. “Biotransformations in the Flavour Industry.” In: Swift K. A. D. (ed). Current Topics in Flavours and Fragrances. Springer, Dordrecht. 10.1007/978-94-011-4022-5_8 Berger, Ralf G. 2015. “Biotechnology as a Source of Natural Volatile Flavours.” Current Opinion in Food Science 1 (1): 38–43. 10.1016/j.cofs.2014.09.003 Berger, Ralf Günter, editor. Flavours and Fragrances: Chemistry, Bioprocessing and Sustainability. Germany: Springer, 2007. Bicas, Juliano Lemos, Silva, Júnio Cota, Dionísio, Ana Paula, and Pastore, Gláucia Maria 2010. “Biotechnological production of bioflavors and functional sugars.” Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 30 (1): 7–8. 10.1590/s0101-20612010000100002. Bier, Mário César Jucoski, Adriane Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros, and Carlos Ricardo Soccol. 2017. “Biotransformation of Limonene by an Endophytic Fungus Using Synthetic and Orange Residue-Based Media.”Fungal Biology 121 (2): 137–144. 10.1016/j.funbio. 2016.11.003 Bier, Mário César Jucoski, Adriane Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros, Norbert De Kimpe, and Carlos Ricardo Soccol. 2019. “Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of the Fermented Product from the Biotransformation of R- (+) -Limonene in Solid-State Fermentation of Orange Waste by Diaporthe Sp.” Biotechnology Research and Innovation 3 (1): 168–176. doi: 10.1016/j.biori.2019.01.002

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

227

Bier, Mario Cesar Jucoski, Adriane Pedroni Bianchi Medeiros, Juarez Souza Oliveira, Lílian Cristina Côcco, Jefferson da Luz Costa, Júlio César Carvalho, and Carlos Ricardo Soccol. 2016. “Liquefied Gas Extraction: A New Method for the Recovery of Terpenoids from Agroindustrial and Forest Wastes.” The Journal of Supercritical Fluids 110: 97–102. doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2015.12.016 Bustamante, Daniel, Marta Tortajada, Daniel Ramón, and Antonia Rojas. 2020. “Production of D-Lactic Acid by the Fermentation of Orange Peel Waste Hydrolysate by Lactic Acid Bacteria.” Fermentation 6 (1): 10–12. doi: 10.3390/fermentation6010001 Braga, Adelaide, Carlos Guerreiro, and Isabel Belo. 2018. “Generation of Flavors and Fragrances Through Biotransformation and De Novo Synthesis.” Food and Bioprocess Technology 11 (12): 2217–2228. 10.1007/s11947-018-2180-8 Carroll, Austin L., Shuchi H. Desai, and Shota Atsumi. 2016. “Microbial Production of Scent and Flavor Compounds.” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 37: 8–15. doi: 10.1016/ j.copbio.2015.09.003 Ciriminna, Rosaria, Alexandra Fidalgo, Francesco Meneguzzo, Francesco Parrino, Laura M. Ilharco, and Mario Pagliaro. 2019. “Vanillin: The Case for Greener Production Driven by Sustainability Megatrend.” ChemistryOpen 8 (6): 660–667. 10.1002/open. 201900083 Conagen. 2019. “Conagen expands portfolio beyond gamma-decalactone to 20 new non-gmo lactones.” https://conagen.com/press-item/conagen-expands-portfolio-beyond-gammadecalactone-to-20-new-non-gmo-lactones. Dhandapani, Balaji, Dhanya Vishnu, Shabnam Murshid, Ram A. Prasath, R. Muruganandh, D. Prasanth, Sudharshan Sekar, and K. Senthilkumar. 2019. “Production of Lactic Acid from Industrial Waste Paper Sludge Using Rhizopus Oryzae MTCC5384 by Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation.”Chemical Engineering Communications 208 (6): 822–830. 10.1080/00986445.2019.1657422 Dvorakova, M., I. Valterova, and T. Vanek. 2011. “Biocatalytic Conversion of Turpentine a Wood Processing Waste into Oxygenated Monoterpenes.” Biocatalysis and Biotransformation 29 (5): 204–211. doi: 10.3109/10242422.2011.609590 Fact.MR. 2020. “Gamma-Decalactone Market Forecast, Trend Analysis & Competition Tracking – Global Review 2019 to 2029.” https://www.factmr.com/report/4152/ gamma-decalactone-market. Fadel, Hoda H.M., Shereen N. Lotfy, Mohsen M.S. Asker, Manal G. Mahmoud, and Sahar Y. Al-Okbi. 2018. “Nutty-like Flavor Production by Corynbacterium Glutamicum 1220T from Enzymatic Soybean Hydrolysate. Effect of Encapsulation and Storage on the Nutty Flavoring Quality.” Journal of Advanced Research 10: 31–38. doi: 10.1016/ j.jare.2018.01.003 Fadel, Hoda Hanem Mohamed, Manal Gomaa Mahmoud, Mohsen Mohamed Selim Asker, and Shereen Nazeh Lotfy. 2015. “Characterization and Evaluation of Coconut Aroma Produced by Trichoderma Viride EMCC-107 in Solid State Fermentation on Sugarcane Bagasse.” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 18 (1): 5–9. 10.1016/j.ejbt.2014.10.006 Felipe, Lorena de Oliveira, Ana Maria de Oliveira, and Juliano Lemos Bicas. 2017. “Bioaromas – Perspectives for Sustainable Development.” Trends in Food Science and Technology 62: 141–153. 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.02.005 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2020. FAOSTAT Statistical Database. [Rome]:FAO. Gerogiannaki-Christopoulou, Maria, N. V. Kyriakidis, E. Panagiotis, and Athanasopoulos. 2004. “Effect of Grape Variety (Vitis Vinifera L.) and Grape Pomace Fermentation Conditions on Some Volatile Compounds of the Produced Grape Pomace Distillate.” Journal International Des Sciences de La Vigne et Du Vin 38 (4): 225–230. doi: 10. 20870/oeno-one.2004.38.4.912

228

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Gioia, Diana Di, Luigi Sciubba, Leonardo Setti, Francesca Luziatelli, Maurizio Ruzzi, Dario Zanichelli, and Fabio Fava. 2007. “Production of Biovanillin from Wheat Bran.” Enzyme and Microbial Technology 41 (4): 498–505. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.04.003 Gontard, Nathalie, Ulf Sonesson, Morten Birkved, Mauro Majone, David Bolzonella, Annamaria Celli, Hélène Angellier-Coussy, et al. 2018. “A Research Challenge Vision Regarding Management of Agricultural Waste in a Circular Bio-Based Economy.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 48 (6): 614–654. 10.1 080/10643389.2018.1471957 Guneser, Onur, Asli Demirkol, Yonca Karagul Yuceer, Sine Ozmen Togay, Muge Isleten Hosoglu, and Murat Elibol. 2017. “Production of Flavor Compounds from Olive Mill Waste by Rhizopus Oryzae and Candida Tropicalis.” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 48 (2): 275–285. doi: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.08.003 Hadi, Muna Ahmed Mohamed El, Feng Jie Zhang, Fei Fei Wu, Chun Hua Zhou, and Jun Tao. 2013. “Advances in Fruit Aroma Volatile Research.” Molecules 18 (7): 8200–8229. doi: 10.3390/molecules18078200 Han, James. 2020. “What is Vanillin in Food? Types, Production, Uses, and Differences with Vanilla extract.” https://foodadditives.net/flavors/vanillin/#:~:text=Vanillin %2C%20with%20the%20chemical%20formula,naturally%20occurring%20and %20synthetically%20produced Huang, Jin, Hongliang Dai, Ren Yan, and Pu Wang. 2016. “Butyric Acid Production from Recycled Waste Paper by Immobilized Clostridium Tyrobutyricum in a Fibrous-Bed Bioreactor.” Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 91 (4): 1048–1054. doi: 10.1002/jctb.4680 Jeleń, Henryk and Anna Gracka. 2016. “Characterization of Aroma Compounds: Structure, Physico-Chemical and Sensory Properties.” In Flavour: From Food to Perception, 126–153. doi: 10.1002/9781118929384.ch6 Kunjapur, Aditya M. and Kristala L.J. Prather. 2015. “Microbial Engineering for Aldehyde Synthesis.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 81 (6): 1892–1901. doi: 10.1128/ AEM.03319-14 Kyle Dwyer, Farah Hosseinian, and Michel Rod. 2014. “The Market Potential of Grape Waste Alternatives.” Journal of Food Research 3 (2): 91–106. doi: 10.5539/Abstract Laufenberg, Günther, Benno Kunz, and Marianne Nystroem. 2003. “Transformation of Vegetable Waste into Value Added Products: (A) the Upgrading Concept; (B) Practical Implementations.” Bioresource Technology 87 (2): 167–198. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524 (02)00167-0 Lee, Danna, Natoiya D.R. Lloyd, Isak S. Pretorius, and Anthony R. Borneman. 2016. “Heterologous Production of Raspberry Ketone in the Wine Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae via Pathway Engineering and Synthetic Enzyme Fusion.” Microbial Cell Factories 15 (1): 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12934-016-0446-2 Liu, Jian Ming, Lin Chen, Robin Dorau, Søren Kristian Lillevang, Peter Ruhdal Jensen, and Christian Solem. 2020. “From Waste to Taste – Efficient Production of the Butter Aroma Compound Acetoin from Low-Value Dairy Side Streams Using a Natural (Nonengineered) Lactococcus Lactis Dairy Isolate.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 68 (21): 5891–5899. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c00882 Madrera, Roberto Rodríguez, Rosa Pando Bedriñana, and Belén Suárez Valles. 2015. “Production and Characterization of Aroma Compounds from Apple Pomace by SolidState Fermentation with Selected Yeasts.” LWT – Food Science and Technology 64 (2): 1342–1353. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.07.056 Malakar, Santanu, Sanjib Kr Paul, and K. R. Jolvis Pou. 2019. Biotechnological Interventions in Beverage Production. Biotechnological Progress and Beverage Consumption: Volume 19: The Science of Beverages. Elsevier Inc. 10.1016/B978-0-12-816678-9.00001-1

Generation of Novel Food Flavours

229

Mantzouridou, Fani Th, Adamantini Paraskevopoulou, and Sofia Lalou. 2015. “Yeast Flavour Production by Solid State Fermentation of Orange Peel Waste.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 101: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2015.04.013 Martínez-Avila, Oscar, Antoni Sánchez, Xavier Font, and Raquel Barrena. 2020. “2Phenylethanol (Rose Aroma) Production Potential of an Isolated Pichia Kudriavzevii Through Solid-State Fermentation.” Process Biochemistry 93 (December 2019): 94–103. 10.1016/j.procbio.2020.03.023 Matos, Mara Eli de, Adriane Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros, Gilberto Vinicius de Melo Pereira, Vanete Thomaz Soccol, and Carlos Ricardo Soccol. 2017. “Production and Characterization of a Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Obtained by Fermentation of Banana Waste (Musa Cavendishii) from Selected Yeast.” Fermentation 3 (4): 1–8. 10.3390/ fermentation3040062 Medeiros, Adriane Bianchi Pedroni, Pierre Christen, Sevastianos Roussos, Juliana Carine Gern, and Carlos Ricardo Soccol. 2003. “Coffee Residues as Substrates for Aroma Production by Ceratocystis Fimbriata in Solid State Fermentation.” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 34 (3): 245–248. doi: 10.1590/s1517-83822003000300013 Meneguzzo, Francesco, Cecilia Brunetti, Alexandra Fidalgo, Rosaria Ciriminna, Riccardo Delisi, Lorenzo Albanese, Federica Zabini, et al. 2019. “Real-Scale Integral Valorization of Waste Orange Peel via Hydrodynamic Cavitation.” Processes 7 (9): 1–24. doi: 10. 3390/pr7090581 Miks-Krajnik, Marta, Marta Zoglowek, Gemma Buron-moles, and Jochen Forster. 2017. “Microbial Production of Isoprenoids” In: Lee Sang Yup, Consequences of Microbial Interactions with Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Lipids: Production of Fuels and Chemicals, 1–19. 10.1007/978-3-319-31421-1. National Center for Biotechnology Information. “PubChem Compound Summary for CID 12813, gamma-Decalactone.” Accessed October 13, 2020. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/compound/gamma-Decalactone. Oliveira, Simone M.M., Simone D. Gomes, Luciane Sene, Divair Christ, and Julia Piechontcoski. 2015. “Production of Natural Aroma by Yeast in Wastewater of Cassava Starch Industry.” Engenharia Agricola 35 (4): 721–732. doi: 10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v35n4p721732/2015 Ono, Toshirou, Atsushi Usami, Satoshi Nakaya, Hideto Shinpuku, Yasunori Yonejima, Atsushi Ikeda, and Mitsuo Miyazawa. 2015. “Agroecosystem Development of Industrial Fermentation Waste – Characterization of Aroma-Active Compounds from the Cultivation Medium of Lactobacillus Brevis.” Journal of Oleo Science 64 (5): 585–594. doi: 10.5650/jos.ess14257 Pastore G.M., Souza de Carvalho D., Molina G., and Dionisio, A.P. 2012. Fermentative production of ethyl hexanoate by Neurospora sitophila cultured on agroindustrial wastes. BR Patent BRPI 2011001711 A2, filed April 25, 2011. Ravindran, Rajeev, Shady S. Hassan, Gwilym A. Williams, and Amit K. Jaiswal. 2018. “A Review on Bioconversion of Agro-Industrial Wastes to Industrially Important Enzymes.” Bioengineering 5 (4): 1–20. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering5040093 Rossi, Suzan Cristina, Adriane Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros, Thiago André Weschenfelder, Agnes de Paula Scheer, and Carlos Ricardo Soccol. 2017. “Use of Pervaporation Process for the Recovery of Aroma Compounds Produced by P. Fermentans in Sugarcane Molasses.” Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 40 (6): 959–967. doi: 10.1007/s00449-0171759-1 Schrader, J., M. M. W. Etschmann, D. Sell, J.-M. Hilmer, and J. Rabenhorst. 2004. “Applied Biocatalysis for the Synthesis of Natural Flavour Compounds.” Biotechnology Letters 26: 463–472. Schrader, J., 2007. “Microbial Flavour Production”. In: Berger RG (ed.) Flavors and Fragrances, 507–574. Springer, Germany.

230

Microbial Bioprocessing of Agri-Food Wastes

Sharma, Abha, Pushpendra Sharma, Jyoti Singh, Surender Singh, and Lata Nain. 2020. “Prospecting the Potential of Agroresidues as Substrate for Microbial Flavor Production.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4 (February). doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00018 Statista. “Food & Beverages.” Accessed October 03, 2020. https://www.statista.com/ outlook/253/100/food-beverages/worldwide. Tang, Jialing, Xiaochang Wang, Yisong Hu, Yongmei Zhang, and Yuyou Li. 2016. “Lactic Acid Fermentation from Food Waste with Indigenous Microbiota: Effects of PH, Temperature and High OLR.” Waste Management 52: 278–285. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman. 2016.03.034 Wood, Laura. 2020. “Global Food and Beverages Market (2020 to 2030) - COVID-19 Impact and Recovery”. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200514005421/en/ Global-Food-and-Beverages-Market-2020-to-2030---COVID-19-Impact-andRecovery---ResearchAndMarkets.com. Yan, Jipeng, Ling Liang, Qian He, Chenlin Li, Feng Xu, Jian Sun, Ee Been Goh, et al. 2019. “Methyl Ketones from Municipal Solid Waste Blends by One-Pot Ionic-Liquid Pretreatment, Saccharification, and Fermentation.” ChemSusChem 12 (18): 4313–4322. doi: 10.1002/cssc.201901084 Zheng, Lirong, Pu Zheng, Zhihao Sun, Yanbing Bai, Jun Wang, and Xinfu Guo. 2007. “Production of Vanillin from Waste Residue of Rice Bran Oil by Aspergillus Niger and Pycnoporus Cinnabarinus.” Bioresource Technology 98 (5): 1115–1119. doi: 10.1016/ j.biortech.2006.03.028

Index Acetyl-CoA, 116, 137 Acetyl phosphate, 196 Agar, 168 Agricultural wastes, 133, 135, 139–147, 150, 213, 217, 133 Agri-food waste, 45, 47, 48, 64, 73–75, 79, 81, 85, 86, 88, 89, 157, 165, 166, 168, 172 Alginate, 85, 175, 176 Alkaloids, 25, 104, 105 Anti-bacterial activity, 57, 60 Antibiotics, 27, 120 Anti-cancer, 53, 77, 105 Antihypertensive activity, 47, 49–56, 58, 60–62, 77 Antihypertensive peptide, 49, 52, 56, 58, 60, 61 Anti-inflammatory activity, 27, 51, 77, 105 Antimicrobial activities, 10, 47, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 91, 92, 105, 202, 220, 223 Antimicrobial peptides, 49, 57 Antioxidant, 3, 5, 10, 12–14, 23–27, 47, 49–52, 54–62, 77, 92, 103–108, 114, 135, 223 Bagasse, 34, 81, 88, 114, 115, 117, 120, 122–125, 141, 168, 172, 175, 193, 204, 217, 218, 220–222, 224 Bioactive compounds, 3, 15, 25, 26, 62, 103–107, 109, 217, 220 Bioactive molecules, 21, 26 Bioactive peptides, 12, 45–47, 50, 52–54, 56, 57, 59–64 Bioethanol, 10, 26 Biofuels, 10, 21, 26, 30, 31, 33, 118, 192 Biologically Degradable Packaging Materials, 21, 34 Biomass, 10, 23, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 120–122, 126, 139, 141–144, 148–150, 162, 165–168, 172, 176, 177, 190–195, 197–199, 201, 217 Bioplastics, 160, 191 Biopolymers, 190, 203 Biorefineries, 36, 106, 190–192, 198, 199 Bioremediation, 118, 120 Bio-valorization, 21, 104 Cardiovascular diseases, 47, 90, 92 Carotenoids, 1–15, 24–26, 104, 106–108, 223 Cell wall, 9, 12, 13, 77, 194, 195, 199, 222 Cellulose, 33, 120–122, 139, 140–142, 144, 168, 169, 172, 193, 194, 197, 204 Cheese, 52, 53, 174, 175, 193, 194, 220, 222, 223 Chitinase, 120

Circular bioeconomy, 189–191 Citric acid production, 113, 115, 116, 119, 121–125, 133–140, 143–150 Co-culture, 113, 119, 120, 166, 176 Collagen, 54, 55, 60–62, 159 Dairy products, 92, 159, 194, 202, 217, 222, 224 Diabetes mellitus, 90 Encapsulation, 6, 14, 15, 75, 160, 168 Engineered microbes, 74, 85 Enzyme-assisted extraction, 2, 7, 12, 106 Essential oils, 25, 26, 30–32, 35 Ethyl-lactate, 7–9, 203 Fermented foods, 78, 121, 224 Filamentous fungi, 113, 115, 117–121, 123, 124, 177, 216 Food additive, 13, 14, 26, 91, 93 Food applications, 1, 21, 27 Food flavours, 213 Food industries, 27, 30, 46, 47, 108, 120, 202 Fructans, 87 Fructo-oligosaccharides, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80, 83–85, 87, 90 Fruit and vegetable wastes, 81, 104, 108 Functional ingredients, 6, 45, 48, 63 Functional oligosaccharides, 75, 76, 79, 81, 91 Functional properties, 47, 49, 54, 59, 62, 75, 79, 91 Gelatin, 14, 49, 54, 60, 85 Green solvents, 3, 7–9, 14, 106, 198 Hemicellulose, 33, 120–122, 139–143, 168, 169, 172, 193, 194, 196, 199, 204 Heterofermentative bacteria/pathway, 162, 167, 169 Hyperglycemia, 29 Lactic acid bacteria (LAB), 10, 51, 158, 166, 195 Lactic acid production, 157, 158, 160–162, 165, 166–178, 189 Lactones, 213, 216, 217, 224 Lignin, 33, 121, 122, 139, 141–143, 168, 172, 177, 193, 194, 198, 199, 204 Lignocellulose, 168, 172, 177, 192 Limonene, 25, 30, 33, 34, 216, 218, 221, 223 Lycopene, 3–10, 12–14, 107

231

232 Microbial production, 74, 75, 82, 113–115, 124–126, 157, 217, 220, 221, 223, 225 Microbial valorization, 1 Microwave-assisted extraction, 2, 9, 106 Molasses, 25, 81, 86–89, 93, 115, 122, 136, 138, 139, 144, 145, 147, 174, 176, 218 Monomers, 142, 147, 162, 168, 169 Nucleotides, 158 Nutrient supplementation, 157, 165 Oleoresin, 10, 13 Organic acids, 23, 24, 35, 115, 116, 118, 119, 123, 133–135, 149, 158, 169, 175, 177, 190 Organic compounds, 120, 144, 147, 217 Oxidative stress, 29, 47, 59 Pathogenic bacteria, 90 Pectin, 21, 24–26, 31–34, 75, 77, 193, 194, 221 Peel waste, 12, 13, 21, 26, 30, 33–35, 172, 176, 255 Phenolic compounds, 24, 27, 29, 34, 169, 225 Phytosterols, 107, 108 Pigments, 13, 192 PLA (Poly-lactic acid), 160, 175, 176, 191 Polymer, 26, 34, 83, 84, 141, 203 Polyphenols, 3, 5, 25, 26, 29, 34, 50, 87, 104, 221 Polysaccharides, 79, 123, 140, 177 Pressurized liquid extraction, 9, 106 Protein hydrolysates, 45–47, 49, 50, 52–54, 56, 59, 63

Index Pulsed electric field extraction, 2, 8 Recombinant biotechnology, 74, 85 Saccharification, 157, 169, 170, 175, 190, 195, 197–200, 219, 222 Saponins, 105 Secondary metabolites, 25, 118, 120, 216 Solid state cultivation, 113, 115 Solid state fermentation, 12, 82, 83, 87, 88, 144, 147, 148, 150, 218, 220, 223, 224 Solvent extraction, 2, 7–9, 11 Starch, 50, 51, 85, 87, 114, 122, 135, 138, 139, 147, 165, 174, 175, 191, 219 Submerged cultivation, 114, 115 Supercritical fluid extraction, 3, 7, 14, 108 Sustainability, 56, 59, 214 Terpenoids, 25, 105, 106, 213, 217, 223, 225 Therapeutic, 25, 27, 55, 93, 105 Ultrasound-assisted extraction, 7, 9, 12, 106 Value-added products, 2, 104, 108, 118, 139, 166 Vegetable processing, 104 Vegetal waste, 103, 105, 107 Vitamins, 23–25, 35, 103–108, 158, 166, 193 Waste valorization, 7, 10, 21, 30, 31 Whey, 52, 53, 93, 174, 175, 193, 194