Turning agricultural waste into ecological and economic assets: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Turning agricultural waste into ecological and economic assets: ECOBIOCAP experience and NoAW ambition M. Majone 1 and N. Gontard 2 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, 00185, Italy 2 INRA, Montpellier, F34060, France, EcoBioCAP and NoAW coordinator Presenting author e ‐ mail: mauro.majone@uniroma1.it

A bio ‐ based technology and business network Bio ‐ based products Farmer Bio ‐ based industry network Crop by ‐ products waste Industry A or waste treatment Market Crops renewable Industry B Industry C feedstock Food ‐ Where is the triggering point in the loop? processing Industrial Which is(are) main driver(s)? industry by ‐ products waste and Which is(are) main constraint(s)? wastewater Food Either ‐ environmental ‐ regulatory ‐ social Consumers OFMSW ‐ economical and urban ‐ technical wastewater Are there any red ‐ flags?

Sustainable abd advanced packaging to reduce fresh food losses and wastes  Half of the fresh fruit and vegetable production is lost before consumption  Most of the losses during distribution/consumption, when packaging is involved Passive MAP DRIVERS REQUIREMENTS • Reducing food waste and losses • Improving control of the • Controlling unwanted migrations from the structure/properties (mass %O 2 packaging towards food transfer) relationships in agro/bio ‐ %CO 2 materials Selective pack • Reducing problems of packaging waste • Fulfilling packaging functions, management through customized bio ‐ composites • Limiting the use of non ‐ renewable resources • Solving packaging negative issues & food resources to produce packaging (biodegradable packaging from • Recovering by ‐ products/waste from agro ‐ renewable feedstock) industries taking into account the whole food/packaging system and implicating a consortium of researchers & the different stakeholders ● Top ‐ down requirement ‐ driven approaches ● Process and product innovation ● Multi ‐ criteria Decision ‐ making tools ● Extensive product testing 3

Packaging selection needs multi ‐ criteria choices “ I would like a packaging material made from renewable resources , but I want optimal gas permeabilites in order to guarantee the product quality, transparent if possible and with a cost for raw material less than 2 € / kg … ”. solution Development of a Stakeholder preferences Fresh Decision Support System and needs produce • Consumer preferences database • Industrial constraints • Waste management policy Virtual MAP • Cost, etc. simulation Packaging Packaging Multi ‐ criteria database database flexible querying Ranked list of most relevant packagings

Which was EcoBioCAP approach? 4 years (2011 ‐ 2015) 16 partners Aim: To provide the EU food industry with customizable, ecoefficient, biodegradable packaging solutions. How this next ‐ generation packaging was developed? • Using advanced biocomposite structures based  on bio ‐ based constituents (biopolyesters, fibres, proteins, polyphenolic compounds, bio ‐ adhesives and bio additives etc.)  which were derived from food industry by ‐ products (oil, dairy, cereals and beer) • by applying innovative processing strategies to enable customisation of the packaging’s properties  to fit the functional, cost, safety and environmental impact requirements  of targeted fresh perishable products (fruits and vegetables, cheeses and ready to eat meals). 8 countries Demonstration activities with industrial partners (incl. SMEs) to check EcoBioCAP products towards their full exploitation.

multi ‐ criteria choices multi ‐ criteria evaluation Food loss reduction Wheat straw, ( or olive pomace, Sugar Cane beer spent grains, Molasses bacterial cellulose) (SCM) Oil Mill wastewater (OMW) Cheese Whey (CW)

Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biopolymers  Natural Microbial polyesters C. necator containing PHA granules  Widespread: ~75 genera, 300 species  Mostly short ‐ chain length (scl) HB HV PHBV Chanprateep J Biosci Bioeng, 2010 Pro’s Con’s • Not a single polymer, but a family of • High cost: pure culture processes, copolymers which require substrate ad hoc • Properties dependent on monomer formulaton, sterility, energy • PHA market is mostly limited to composition and several other factors; thus also largely tunable omopolymer PHB or PHBV with • 3 times “Bio” very low HV content 1. Produced from renewable feestock – Limits in processability 2. Produced through biological – Rigid and brittle process (most steps) – More restricted range of uses 3. Easily biodegradable

solution: PHA by using microbial mixed cultures (MMC) Potential advantages  No need of sterile conditions in the process (less energy, simpler equipments)  Ubiquitous, abundant and inexpensive inoculum (activated sludge, and no OGM)  No need of well ‐ defined substrates (a wide range of waste feedstock)  More tunable process (e.g. better adaptation to seasonal changes of feedstock)  Easier to obtain the copolymer P(HB/HV) instead the omopolymer PHB, with better and wider properties solutions Potential disadvantages  Still, lower productivity (less cell density Process productivity improvements  More difficult extraction Increase of PHA content, (less PHA content in the cells) Investigation of impurities effects Long ‐ term experiments with true substrates,  Concerns on possibly poorer Improved process control, characteristics and/or larger variability Extensive investigation of polymer properties, Modifications trough biocomposites,  Not well established yet (lack of pilot scale Preliminary scale up of PHA production data) process ( ≈ 2 kg PHA at different HV/HB ratios)

Pilot Scale Experimental Setup

Transforming constituents into bioplastic and biocomposites Compounding PHBV materials (either CW ‐ based Ecobiocap or commercial one): with fibres, plasticizer, or other biopolymers Processing pure PHBV and composites ‐ injection moulding (trays) ‐ flat film extrusion ‐ blown film extrusion ‐ Electrospinning (including adesives) ‐ Wide possibility to adjust composite properties through adjustment of processing parameters ‐ Characterisation of packaging relevant properties ‐ mechanical tests ‐ permeation measurements <10% impurities in PHBV could be not detrimental

BIO- COMPOSITE MATRIX = PHBV FILLER = Wheat straw • Poly(3 ‐ hydroxybutyrate ‐ co ‐ 3 ‐ fibers valerate) By ‐ product of wheat • Bacterial biodegradable polyester industry Tianan Enmat Y1000 (3 %HV) • μ m • T g = 0 ‐ 5°C, T m =160 ‐ 170°C First reduction Cutting milling « coarse » powder Intermediate reduction Impact milling « Fine » powder Wheat straw fibers  Around 25 to 200€/ton  Around 5€/kg Up to 30wt%

Effect on transfer properties CO 2 & O 2 permeabilities Water Vapour Permeability 1,E ‐ 11 1,0E ‐ 12 Perm. CO2 8,E ‐ 12 Perm. O2 Gaz permeability 1,0E ‐ 13 (mol/m.s.Pa) (mol/m.s.Pa) 6,E ‐ 12 WVP 1,0E ‐ 14 4,E ‐ 12 1,0E ‐ 15 2,E ‐ 12 0,E+00 1,0E ‐ 16 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Fiber content (wt%) Fiber content (wt%) Increasing fiber content  Increased permeabilities • • Due to the hydrophilic nature of the wheat straw fibers + percolating pathway for the diffusion of gases • PHBV/wheat straw fibers composites suitable to pack respiring food products (as lid films)

Mechanical properties Present tensile properties vs. tray material requirements 50 • Young’s Modulus : 0.3 ‐ 2 Gpa  Ok 40 • Stress at break : > 20 MPa  OK for PHBV, limit for biocomposites Stress (Mpa) 30 • Strain at break : > 5% PHBV  Too low 20 Plasticization Strain at break should be improved 10 PHBV at higher PHBV HV ratios: need to + 20% Wheat Straw Fibers (150µm) produce higher 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 amounts 10 Strain (%)

Products extensively tested Consumer survey Shelf Life study • Qualitative questionnaire: to •Gas composition & respiration: explore the consumers’ EcoBioCAP films slightly modified the acceptance, preference and internal atmosphere. buying intent (141 consumer) • Weight loss: lower than control • Tasting sessions: the impact of •pH, soluble solids, colour, firmness, packaging variations in terms of decay & microbiology: no statistical sensorial attributes of fresh differences strawberries (79 consumers) Ecotoxycology tests Biodegradability tests Challenge migration •Inertness of PHBVs: PHBV materials suitable for food contact. tests Ethanol 95% (v/v) was the most severe food simulant, with a strong & specific migration impact on their physical ‐ chemical stability (plasticizing effect). of contaminants • Stability negatively affected by the addition of wheat straw fibres: Composites can be used as food contact materials only for low or intermediate water activity products and/or fat products.