TY - JOUR
T1 - A step closer to circular bioeconomy for citrus peel waste
T2 - A review of yields and technologies for sustainable management of essential oils
AU - Teigiserova, Dominika Alexa
AU - Tiruta-Barna, Ligia
AU - Ahmadi, Aras
AU - Hamelin, Lorie
AU - Thomsen, Marianne
N1 - Funding Information: The research of D.A. Teigiserova and M. Thomsen was funded by the Horizon 2020 project DECISIVE (Decentralised valorization of biowaste) under grant agreement N° 689229 , Aarhus University's Centre for Circular Bioeconomy . The contribution of L. Hamelin, L. Tiruta-Barna, and A. Ahmadi were funded by the Cambioscop project, partly financed by the French National Research Agency , Programme Investissement d'Avenir ( ANR-17-MGPA-0006 ) and Region Occitanie ( 18015981 ). We would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their valuable inputs for the paper. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Elsevier Ltd Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - This study presents a critical overview of reported essential oil (EO) extractions from citrus peel wastes (CPW), including harmonized data on the various citrus species and cultivars. Harmonization is vital to enable sustainable management practices. The review only includes eco-efficient extraction techniques. In total, the review contains 66 quantified examples using i) mechanical cold press ii) thermal extraction with water or steam media iii) thermal microwave-assisted extraction iv) other innovative methods (such as ultrasound). The technologies were assessed for their potential use in cascading production to achieve economies of scope, particularly considering the use of extraction residues for subsequent fermentation to produce various products from energy carriers to enzymes. Two techniques were found insufficient for direct use in fermentation. Cold press extracts an inadequate amount of EO (average yield 2.85% DW) to ensure suitable fermentation, while solvent extraction contaminates the residues for its subsequent use. Extractions using water media, such as hydrodistillation and microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (average EO yield 2.87% DW), are feasible for the liquid-based fermentation processes, such as submerged fermentation. Steam extraction is feasible for any type of fermentation. Our review highlighted solvent-free microwave extraction (average EO yield 5.29% DW) as the most effective method, which provides a high yield in a short extraction time. We also uncovered and discussed several inconsistencies in existing yields and energy consumption published data.
AB - This study presents a critical overview of reported essential oil (EO) extractions from citrus peel wastes (CPW), including harmonized data on the various citrus species and cultivars. Harmonization is vital to enable sustainable management practices. The review only includes eco-efficient extraction techniques. In total, the review contains 66 quantified examples using i) mechanical cold press ii) thermal extraction with water or steam media iii) thermal microwave-assisted extraction iv) other innovative methods (such as ultrasound). The technologies were assessed for their potential use in cascading production to achieve economies of scope, particularly considering the use of extraction residues for subsequent fermentation to produce various products from energy carriers to enzymes. Two techniques were found insufficient for direct use in fermentation. Cold press extracts an inadequate amount of EO (average yield 2.85% DW) to ensure suitable fermentation, while solvent extraction contaminates the residues for its subsequent use. Extractions using water media, such as hydrodistillation and microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (average EO yield 2.87% DW), are feasible for the liquid-based fermentation processes, such as submerged fermentation. Steam extraction is feasible for any type of fermentation. Our review highlighted solvent-free microwave extraction (average EO yield 5.29% DW) as the most effective method, which provides a high yield in a short extraction time. We also uncovered and discussed several inconsistencies in existing yields and energy consumption published data.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111832
DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111832
M3 - Review
C2 - 33360259
AN - SCOPUS:85098120058
SN - 0301-4797
VL - 280
JO - Journal of Environmental Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Management
M1 - 111832
ER -