Saludes-ABS 424 Article Review

A research challenge vision regarding management of
agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy

Problems Research
Encountered Questions
There are bottlenecks in developing innovative
1. How can we develop assessment tools to better
building blocks, molecules and materials from
predict the environmental and economic
agricultural residue.
consequences of agricultural residue
Promoting agricultural residue business in a management strategies?
circular bio-economy context is challenging. 2. How can we improve anaerobic digestion (AD)
technologies to make better use of agricultural
Environmental and economic consequences of residues?
agricultural residue management chains are 3. How can we develop new methods to convert
difficult to assess due to their complexity, agricultural residues into high-value chemicals
seasonality and regionality.
and materials?
4. How can we promote the use of agricultural
Current agricultural residue converting
residues in a circular bio-based economy?
technologies have limitations, such as the use of
energy crops instead of local agricultural
Research Methodology
residues and the low economic value of biogas.
The research methodology for this article is
transdisciplinary approach that aims to identify
Research
and analyze the key challenges associated with
Objectives agricultural waste management in a circular bio-
Provide a vision covering key challenges to ensure based economy.
sustainable agricultural residue utilizations, through The authors use a variety of methods to achieve
a trans-disciplinary approach this, including literature reviews, data analysis,
and expert consultations.
Contribute to the development of innovative holistic
approaches in supporting eco-efficient conversion
routes and smart agricultural residue management
strategies.
Results
Conventional Anaerobic Digestion (AD) performance has to A cross-sectorial vision is needed to bridge the gap
be improved based on geographical and seasonal AD waste between agricultural residues science and business
feed streams and digestate nutrients distribution, and as well opportunities in order to promote an agricultural residue
as by investigating new technological options to extend AD industrial ecology concept within a circular economy. It is
applicability and increase its eco-efficiency and end-products’ essential to set up a connection on a local basis between
safety and economic value. the different agricultural industries for the effective use of
agricultural resources, including residual resources, with
Agricultural residues are a potential resource for the sharing of environmental benefit and added value.
production of high-value chemicals. Therefore, innovative eco-
efficient and cost-effective cascading conversion processes An adequate assessment tool is still pending. It is crucial
should be developed. by enlarging both the spectrum of to develop cross-disciplinary, multi-criteria, multi-scale
agricultural residue conversion technologies and the high- and multi-actor environmental and economic performance
value, high-quality end-products port-folio, it should be assessment strategies applicable to bioconversion
possible to step up to a sustainable agricultural residue bio- technologies.
refinery concept.
Reference: Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-Coussy, H., ABS 424 - AB Waste Management Engineering
Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., Schaer, B., Batista, A. P., & Sebok, A. (2018). A research challenge
Submitted by: Kim S. Saludes, BS ABE 4C
vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy. Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology, 48(6), 614–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1471957 Submitted to: Engr. Filbert John Millan
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology
ISSN: 1064-3389 (Print) 1547-6537 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20
A research challenge vision regarding

management of agricultural waste in a circular
bio-based economy
Nathalie Gontard, Ulf Sonesson, Morten Birkved, Mauro Majone, David

Bolzonella, Annamaria Celli, Hélène Angellier-Coussy, Guang-Way Jang, Anne
Verniquet, Jan Broeze, Burkhard Schaer, Ana Paula Batista & András Sebok
To cite this article: Nathalie Gontard, Ulf Sonesson, Morten Birkved, Mauro Majone,
David Bolzonella, Annamaria Celli, Hélène Angellier-Coussy, Guang-Way Jang, Anne
Verniquet, Jan Broeze, Burkhard Schaer, Ana Paula Batista & András Sebok (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, DOI:
10.1080/10643389.2018.1471957
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1471957
© 2018 Nathalie Gontard, Ulf Sonesson,

Morten Birkved, Mauro Majone, David
Bolzonella, Annamaria Celli, Hélène
Angellier-Coussy, Guang-Way Jang, Anne
Verniquet, Jan Broeze, Burkhard Schaer, Ana
Paula Batista, and András Sebok. Published
with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Published online: 24 Aug 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18530
View related articles
Citing articles: 104 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=best20
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2018, VOL. 48, NO. 6, 614–654
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1471957
A research challenge vision regarding management of

agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy
Nathalie Gontarda, Ulf Sonessonb , Morten Birkvedc , Mauro Majoned ,
David Bolzonellae , Annamaria Cellif , Helene Angellier-Coussya,
Guang-Way Jangg, Anne Verniqueth, Jan Broezei , Burkhard Schaerj,
Ana Paula Batistaa , and Andras Sebokk
a
UMR 1208 IATE Agro-polymer Engineering and Emerging Technologies, INRA/University of
Montpellier, Montpellier Cedex 01, France; bSweden, Agrifood and Biosciences, RISE – Research
Institutes of Sweden, G€oteborg, Sweden; cDepartment of Management Engineering, Division for
Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kongens Lyngby,
Denmark; dDepartment of Chemistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; eInnovEn srl and
Department of Biotechnology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy; fDepartment of Civil, Chemical,
Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; gMaterial and
Chemical Research Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, Taiwan;
h
Department of Consulting, SOFIES - Solutions for Industrial Ecosystems S.A., Geneva,
Switzerland; iDepartment Food Technology, Wageningen Food & Biobased Research,
Wageningen, The Netherlands; jRegional Development and Sustainable Markets, ECOZEPT,
Freising, Germany; kCampden BRI Magyarorszag Nonprofit Kft.(CBHU), Budapest, Hungary
ABSTRACT KEY WORDS

Agricultural waste is a huge pool of untapped biomass resour- Agriculture; waste;
ces that may even represent economic and environmental eco-design; biogas;
burdens. They can be converted into bioenergy and bio-based bio-based materials;
circular economy
products by cascading conversion processes, within circular
economy, and should be considered residual resources. Major
challenges are discussed from a transdisciplinary perspective,
focused on Europe situation. Environmental and economic
consequences of agricultural residue management chains are
difficult to assess due to their complexity, seasonality and
regionality. Designing multi-criteria decision support tools,
applicable at an early-stage of research, is discussed.
Improvement of Anaerobic Digestion (AD), one of the most
mature conversion technologies, is discussed from a techno-
logical point of view and waste feedstock geographical and
seasonal variations. Using agricultural residual resources for
producing high-value chemicals is a considerable challenge
analysed here, taking into account innovative eco-efficient and
cost-effective cascading conversion processes (bio-refinery
concept). Moreover, the promotion of agricultural residues-
based business is discussed through industrial ecology, to pro-
mote synergy, on a local basis, between different agricultural
and industrial value chains. Finally, to facilitate a holistic
approach and optimise materials and knowledge flows
CONTACT Nathalie Gontard nathalie.gontard@inra.fr UMR 1208 IATE Agro-Polymer Engineering and
Emerging Technologies, INRA, 2 Place Pierre Viala, Bat 31, F34060 Montpellier cedex 01, France.
ß 2018 Nathalie Gontard, Ulf Sonesson, Morten Birkved, Mauro Majone, David Bolzonella, Annamaria Celli, Hélène Angellier-
Coussy, Guang-Way Jang, Anne Verniquet, Jan Broeze, Burkhard Schaer, Ana Paula Batista, and András Sebok. Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 615
management, the connection of stakeholders is discussed to

promote cross-sectorial collaboration and resource exchange
at appropriate geographic scales.
Introduction
According to FAO (2011), food production and supply chains consume
approximately 30% of the total global energy production, while increasing
bio-energy dedicated crops are criticised for competing with food crops
and hence jeopardising food security and biodiversity. Additionally, the
projected 9 billion people world population by 2050 will lead to a demand
for increased food production inevitably yielding a proportional increase in
primary agricultural residues. In 2012, these residual resources accounted
for about 50% of the fresh weight of harvested crops and represent a
potential of 90 Million Tons Oil Equivalent (MTOE), far more than any
other waste streams such as round wood production (57 MTOE), munici-
pal and other waste (42 MTOE) and tertiary forest residues (32 MTOE)
(Elbersen et al., 2012). Moreover, economic and environmental issues asso-
ciated to agricultural primary residues are correlated with the regional spe-
cialisation (e.g. infrastructure, waste processing technologies, energy supply
technologies etc.) in terms of either animal feed crop or animal production.
For example, in regions devoted to animal breeding, huge amounts of
manure residue are produced, resulting in intensive odours and bacteria
contamination, high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and high organic
matter and nutrients (e.g. nitrogen) loads. Meanwhile, in regions mainly
devoted to vegetable crop production (e.g. for animal feed) there is a deple-
tion of nutrients and organic matter, thus resulting in a global unbalance.
Agricultural waste, by-products and co-products are usually defined as
plant or animal residues that are not (or not further processed into) food
or feed, that may even be responsible for additional environmental and
economic burdens in the farming and primary processing sectors. In order
to further improve resource efficiency and improve agricultural waste man-
agement in primary production, it is considered of paramount importance
to promote a circular economy approach. Agricultural waste is, mainly, pri-
mary residues that can be turned into resources using intensified conver-
sion processes which may yield potentially sustainable bio-products such as
fertilisers, energy, materials and molecules. The conversion of this agricul-
tural residue is crucial for supporting the decoupling of economic growth
and human well-being from (primary) resources use, preventing putting
pressure on land, causing adverse effects on biodiversity and jeopardising
global food security (UNEP, 2011).
616 N. GONTARD ET AL.
Our publication aims at providing a vision covering key challenges to

ensure sustainable agricultural residue utilisations, through a trans-discip-
linary approach, aiming at contributing to the development of innovative
holistic approaches in supporting eco-efficient conversion routes and smart
agricultural residue management strategies. In the next section we will start
identifying the different waste management challenges and their intercon-
nections, while an in-depth analysis of each of them will be given in separ-
ate sections. Focus will be on European scenarios, based on available data
and statistics, while the overall proposed concepts and challenges solutions
can be extrapolated to other areas such as Asia.
Overall identification of agricultural waste management challenges and

their interconnection
The first key challenge to be discussed deals with the environmental and
economic challenges of agricultural residue management strategies, in par-
ticular in terms of lack of adequate and early prediction tools able to pro-
vide clear guidance to policy makers as well as end-users. Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) is a methodology widely used for quantifying the envir-
onmental impacts of products and services. Despite its applicability the
LCA is associated with certain data limitations (e.g. Avadi et al., 2016),
more precisely inventory data for the agricultural residue chain, which are
missing in general (i.e. very few agricultural residue chains have been
assessed and hence only very few inventory data are available) or not easily
accessible (i.e. available inventory data are most often representative for
bench or pilot scale). Above all, LCA is most commonly applied for “a pos-
teriori” comparative assessments at full scale (i.e. full industrial scale) and
the assessment methodology is therefore most often assumed unable to
guide cutting edge research and development. Other indirect assessment
means for quantification of the environmental burdens associated with new
ways of utilising agricultural residues hence need to be considered. Such
indirect assessment means are fused metabolic and LCA based approaches
as presented for urban areas by Goldstein et al. (2013). Such fused assess-
ment forms can be expanded to cover regions or rather territories yielding
fused Territorial Metabolism (TM) LCA or rather TM-LCA. Nevertheless,
outputs from LCA and TM, and combination thereof, are multidimensional
and require simplification and streamlining in order to provide clear and
applicable guidance to relevant stakeholders (including policy makers). This
highlights the need for multi-criteria decision-making analysis, facilitating
and supporting a truly multi-dimensional and multi-actors approach.
The second challenge relates to the weaknesses of current agricultural
residue converting technologies. Anaerobic Digestion (AD) processes offer
Figure 1. Example of bio-refinery and cascading technologies applied to agricultural residues

through wide range of bio-conversion technologies existing at industrial, pilot or laboratory
scale levels.
a consolidated route to convert many agricultural residues into biogas and

fertiliser, being the most widespread mature technology for agricultural
residue energetic valorisation. Despite this, a number of issues are still
unresolved: energy crops instead of local agricultural residues are often
used as primary feedstock for AD reactors, also determining an indirect
change in land use (Njakou Djomo et al., 2015). Moreover, biogas has a
low economic value and AD applicability is poor for lignocellulosic rich
waste streams (low conversion yields). Last but not least, the agricultural
reuse of anaerobic digestate as potential renewable fertiliser (Bolzonella
et al., 2017) can still pose some hygienic and environmental hazards and
there can also be storage issues due to the limitation of land disposal
imposed by the Nitrates Council Directive 91/676/EEC (EEC, 1991).
Overcoming the bottlenecks for developing innovative building blocks,
molecules and materials issued from agricultural residue is the third chal-
lenge to face. Nowadays, only a few percentage of chemicals and polymers
are bio-based (3% for chemicals according Fiorentino et al. (2017), and
about 2% for polymers according to Aeschelmann et al. (2017)) while there
is a strong demand to substitute petro-derived chemicals and building
blocks with competitive sustainable equivalents. This is needed not only to
replace increasing scarce mineral oil as raw material, but also to solve other
crucial issues such as widespread plastic waste. The main bottlenecks of
agricultural residue recovery and conversion into bio-products and bioma-
terials are mainly related to energy consumption, degrading processes,
complexity and variability in chemical composition of the waste feedstock,

presence of contaminants, and social perception. However, building organic
acids, biodegradable plastics or enzymes applications from biomass waste
resources create twice as much economic added value as compared to gen-
erating electricity, animal feed and fuel applications (Kiran et al., 2015).
Bio-refinery and cascading technologies approaches (Figure 1) adapted to
agricultural residues still need to be developed.
Another important identified challenge, the fourth one, deals with the
integration of agricultural residue business in a circular economy context.
In the past, management strategies mainly focused on a single resource for
a single final product valorisation. Thereafter, chains have been optimised
in terms of product diversification and functionality, energy or water usage
(e.g. large scale “port” bio-refinery). Cross-chain valorisation of waste and
by-products is challenging due to the heterogeneity of resources, the
changes in volumes over time and regions and the variety of conversion
and end-uses sectors. By-product streams are mostly bulky and carry sig-
nificant impact costs. Spatial clustering of different production chains is
considered one critical way to make such valorisations feasible. The eco-
nomic value of a chain’s main product is still driving most business deci-
sion making. Moreover, there is a low awareness of valorisation
opportunities in alternative sectors (clustered settings) and also with chal-
lenging consumers (in-) acceptability of agricultural residue based products.
This kind of new distribution of materials, energy and information flows
are at the heart of industrial ecology and circular economy strategies. Costs
and benefits are not automatically allocated to the same party. Adequate
business models are needed to create a setting where all parties involved
perceive a “win-win” situation.
Finally, the management of materials and knowledge flows constitutes the
fifth challenge to address in order to solve the inappropriate and unbalanced
nutrient distribution, contaminants accumulation and agricultural residue
conversion issues. In fact, past agriculture developments in many EU-coun-
tries has led to environmental, technical and socio-economic issues. Nutrient
depletion occurs in soils where exported food and feed are produced, while
these nutrients are in excess in livestock breeding regions. In the areas where
agricultural residues conversion has been implemented, such as for biogas
production, dedicated crops often substitute agricultural residues for eco-
nomic and supply reasons triggered by agriculture and energy policy meas-
ures. Moreover, agricultural residues conversion processes interact with other
energy, materials, contaminants and pathogens cycling. Therefore, it is neces-
sary to increase awareness and dialogue of stakeholders across sectors.
In order to address these five challenges, the paper is structured in five
related chapters. The need for the development of innovative eco-design
and assessment tools of circular agro-waste management strategies will be

first explained. Then, the efficient use of agricultural residues resources will
be considered by upgrading the most widespread mature technology (i.e.
AD) and by eco-designing innovative bio-processes and products. Finally,
why and how to ensure and accelerate the development of new business
concepts and stakeholders’ platform for cross-chain valorisation of agro-
waste on a territorial and seasonal basis will be discussed.
Challenge I: Environmental consequences of agricultural residues

management strategy: Assessment and early prediction
Agricultural practices are associated with considerable environmental bur-
dens affecting all environmental compartments, degrading soil, air and
water quality, through direct and indirect consumption of scarce resources
such as land, water, energy etc.) and much more obviously, through the
generation of large and diverse waste streams which are not effi-
ciently utilised.
Soil quality is critical to agriculture, thus being essential to food security
in a context of an increasing world population (Hurni et al., 2015).
Modern agriculture, and the agro-food industry, are both projecting a
multitude of stresses on soils mainly due to production intensification
which leads to soil erosion and quality degradation, unbalanced nutrient
cycles and organic matter distribution, as well as pollution due to excessive
use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and petro-based products, among
others (Zalidis et al., 2002). A serious concern is the unbalanced distribu-
tion of organic matter and nutrients irrespective of territorial/soil charac-
teristics and agricultural practices. For instance, in many arable areas, soil
nutrients and soil carbon stocks are depleted, inciting intensified use of
chemical fertilizers, amounting to 12.5 million tons (Mtons) per year in the
European Union alone (Eurostat, 2015). On the contrary, regions with
intensive livestock production are characterised by an excess of nutrients
and organic matter, mainly caused by the production of manure. Every
year, livestock breeding activities yield close to 1500 Mtons of manure, an
agricultural residue which can be utilised as fertiliser, in the European
Union (EU) (Foged et al., 2011). However, in vulnerable zones with excess
manure production (above 170 kg N/ha), farmers are obliged to pay for
manure disposal in accordance with the Nitrate Directive (EEC, 1991).
Therefore, storage of manure is compulsory and leads to problems associ-
ated to degradation thereof (e.g. odours, pathogens and GHG emissions).
In fact, livestock and manure production are both in line, impacting on air
quality due to the emission of odorous substances (e.g. ammonia), and cli-
mate change via GHG emissions accounting alone for 12–17% of total
GHG emissions (approx. 20–30% of which are methane) in EU-27

(Bellarby et al., 2013; Weiss and Leip, 2012).
In terms of environmental impacts on water recipients, it is known that
agriculture uses about 70% of total global and approx. 36% of European
freshwater withdrawals (FAO, 2014; World Bank, 2017) and is further
responsible for water quality decrease in the ecosystems. This impact pat-
tern is mainly due to common agricultural practices such as excessive use
of fertilisers for attaining high product yields, irrigation practices, use of
pesticides and sub-optimised animal farming operations (Zia et al., 2013).
All in all, common agricultural practices lead to surface and groundwater
contaminations through transport of intentionally applied contaminants
(antibiotics, pesticides, nutrients fertilizers, micro- and nano-particles from
plastic materials, various bioactive chemical pathogens from livestock
manure, waste water sludge etc.) from the arable land surface. Also unin-
tentional water recipient contamination occurs via chemicals and substan-
ces ending up on arable land by atmospheric deposition and subsequently
following the same emission routes to the aquatic environment as the
intentionally applied chemicals.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) has been identified as one of the most efficient
and mature technologies to convert agricultural primary residues into bio-
energy and bio-based products (e.g. Merlin and Boileau, 2013). Manure, as
well as other agricultural residues, can be used as a feedstock for AD in
biogas plants, generating a digestate slurry which can be used as bio-
fertiliser. Bio-fertilisers can bring back nutrients and organic matter to
arable land areas where manure potential is poor, contributing to effective
and more sustainable seasonal and territorial fertilising management plans.
For example, the extended application of AD to treat manure has been
reported to yield an increase in nitrogen availability by 5-20% (M€ oller and
M€ uller, 2012). AD could also reduce mineral fertiliser demands by around
10%, equivalent to a GHG decrease of 3–5 Mtons CO2/year (M€ oller,
Boldrin and Christensen, 2009). In addition, problems relating to excess
nitrogen can also be minimised since overall less nitrogen is used in agri-
culture. Ground water quality preservation can also be improved through
the use of AD digestate bio-fertilisers by reducing the contamination from
chemical fertilisers (M€ oller, 2015). Moreover, gaseous emissions are
reported to be reduced in general through application of AD for treatment
of agricultural residues (e.g. manure) mainly due to the capture and con-
version of methane (that otherwise would escape from manure into the
atmosphere) and due to the use of biogas to replace fossil fuels (that other-
wise would be needed to generate energy) (M€ oller, 2015). However, due to
economic and supply reasons, the cultivation of dedicated energy crops
often replaces utilisation of agricultural residues as feedstock in biogas
plants. Dedicated energy crops, and the underutilisation in combination,

increases land use for agricultural purposes, emissions of agro-chemicals as
well as degradation of the soil quality on arable land (e.g. by production of
non-rotatable crops). Considering this degradative development, it is, as
e.g. highlighted by Croxatto Vega et al. (2014), crucial to address the whole
palette of impacts associated with different agricultural residue management
strategies in order to provide clear and valid guidance to end-users (e.g.
farmers, industries, policy-makers and other stakeholders).
Of increasing environmental concern is, in addition, the growing use of
petro-based plastics in agriculture (e.g. plastic mulch) along with other plas-
tic pollutants (e.g. food packaging), with impacts far from being effectively
quantifiable. On top of potentially being capable of inducing impacts in liv-
ing organism outside arable areas, these plastic pollutants increase soil ero-
sion, reduce water holding capacity, and impact soil biological metabolisms
and diversity as well as the organic matter composition and stability of
arable soils (Steinmetz et al., 2016). Moreover, leaching of these harmful
chemicals into ground water is of particular concern. The presence of micro
and nano-plastics in aquatic, terrestrial and marine habitats has been
reported (Chae and An, 2017). The potential of these particles to cause harm
to human health remains understudied and unquantified. The production
and extended use of chemicals (e.g. agro-chemicals) and biodegradable mate-
rials (e.g. PHA, lignocellulosic composites), relying on agricultural residue
resources, can on the other hand have a significant impact on the substitu-
tion of the potentially harmful petro-based plastics in soils (e.g. Costa et al.,
2014) and on the micro and nano-particle concentrations in groundwater
(Galloway, 2015). The production and consumption of plastic materials in
agriculture and in general has rapidly increased since the 1970s. Degradation
of conventional petro-based plastics in the environment is estimated to range
from 50 up to hundreds or even thousands of years (Zalasiewicz et al.,
2016), indicating that conventional environmental impact assessment meth-
ods are insufficient to address micro and nano-particle contamination issues,
since these methods do not take into account long (i.e. century long) term
effects such as those induced by plastic micro and nano particles.
LCA, is a standardised assessment methodology (ISO 14040, 2006) widely
used for assessing the environmental impact potentials and trade-offs asso-
ciated with all stages of a product, process, or service life cycle (ideally
from cradle-to-grave). The calculation procedure of an LCA consists of 3
steps: (i) compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs
and environmental releases; (ii) quantifying the potential environmental
impacts associated with identified inputs and releases; (iii) and interpreting
the results to help decision-makers make a more informed decision.
Weaknesses pointed out in the LCA methodology mainly centres around
Figure 2. Illustration of application of TM-LCA applied for assessment of wine regions. Scaling
concept from national to departmental or regional allowing for a process-based aggregation of
individual producers (territories), shown in theoretical form for the Tarn department in France.
Based on Sohn, Croxatto Vega, and Birkved (2018).
the inventory phase due to the vast data demands. Most frequently, inven-
tories are based on, often criticised, large highly aggregated and often non
transparent databases. Even when local processes are involved assessors are
often forced to use general inventories most often representative for generic
regions (e.g. Europe, World) and hence most likely representative for a dif-
ferent technological context than the one actually being assessed. More
importantly, although not often discussed, LCA is most often applied as “a
posteriori” assessment at fully upscale stages and is therefore only rarely
used in early stages of R&D, hence with almost no possibility of feedback
and consequently no guidance for eco-design. This was identified and dis-
cussed by Hospido et al. (2010), but no concrete attempts to operationalise
it was presented. However recent developments in the application of LCA
for early stage decision support regarding bio-refining has emerged by
combination of LCA and Process Flowsheet Simulation, as presented by
Corona et al. (2018). The approach presented by Corona and co-workers is
however still in its infancy and needs further validation, especially for
application in agricultural residue utilisation. Furthermore, the LCA
method does not take into account long term impacts such as those related
to plastic pollution. Some research has been performed in assessing and
comparing the environmental performance of different manure manage-
ment strategies in the field of LCA, including anaerobic digestion (Croxatto
Vega et al., 2014) but in general only a limited number of LCA studies
have addressed novel products from agricultural residues (Al-Oqla
et al., 2014).
Another potential methodology for assessing the implications of altered
agricultural residue utilisations is Territorial Metabolism (TM), which,
being a regional scale version of urban metabolism (UM) (Wolman, 1965;
Kennedy, Cuddihy and Engel-Yan, 2007), quantifies the material and
energy flows across a certain geographic region at e.g. regional scale. Such
territories can be specific agricultural regions with a distinct palette of
products (e.g. wine regions such as Roussillon-Languedoc), which, contrary
to cities, may exist as a patchwork of e.g. wine producers producing a spe-

cific grape variety (Figure 2). As already illustrated by Goldstein et al.
(2013) the material flow and energy analyses at urban scale and hence also
at a regional scale have a range of limitations mainly caused by the incom-
parability of material flows (e.g. concrete and steel) and hence the lack of
valid proportionality (Laurent, Olsen, and Hauschild, 2010) between urban/
regional flows and resulting environmental impacts.
Fusing TM and LCA has been initiated on urban areas (UM-LCA from
Goldstein et al., 2013; Ipsen et al., 2018; Ohms et al., 2018,) and offers a
convenient and powerful means for systemic assessment of the relative
environmental implications of introducing new waste management schemes
at territorial scale (Sohn et al., 2018). Unlike territorial LCA (related to
LCA applied to a territory, Loiseau et al., 2013, 2018, Mazzi et al. 2017),
hybridizing TM with LCA deals with performing LCA on the metabolism
(i.e. changes in the metabolism induced by a given technology) of a terri-
tory. LCA fused metabolic assessments of specific geographic areas can
generally solve the material flow assessment from issues encountered in
“pure” UM and TM, by converting material flows into standardised (and
hence comparable) sets of environmental impact indicators at various
aggregation levels (e.g. mid-point, end-point and single score). TM-LCA
hence will also offer an alternative and indirect way of assessing new uti-
lisations of agricultural residues by enabling environmental performance
assessment at regional scale before and after introduction of an agricultural
residue utilisation technology (Sohn et al., 2018). The fused TM-LCA
approach and its ability to deliver a thorough and systemic picture of the
environmental performance potential of a given region or regional sub-sys-
tems, such as specific agricultural residue systems, allows for optimal agri-
cultural residue management strategies at appropriate (regional) scale and
complexity levels (Sohn et al., 2018). Considering that outputs from TM-
LCA require specific competences to be properly applied, these results need
to be streamlined in order to provide clear guidance to different end-users.
The development of cross-disciplinary and multi-criteria evaluation and
decision support tools provides a suitable platform for discussions among
stakeholders, bringing in structure and knowledge for use in complex deci-
sion situations like those related with the policy making on agricultural
residue utilisation (Sohn et al., 2017). The integrated TM-LCA multi-crite-
ria approach could also become useful for the simulation and prediction of
the environmental performance of future systems, by further extending the
approach with scenario analyses, making it possible to include regional and
seasonal aspects, various potential product life cycles (and hence trade-offs)
and compare these across a broad range of impacts indicators simultan-
eously, including undesirable contaminants in circular management. The
application of these assessment and interpretation methodologies to the

early stages of new residual resource management can foster innovation
addressing all three sustainability pillars (Economic, Environmental and
Social) coherently and enable research to focus on hot/critical points for
eco-design. By upgrading and improving existing methodological frameworks
to streamlined integrated strategic environmental assessment (multi-criteria
evaluation model supported by geographic information system application),
the decision making process within the agricultural residue management
planning is expected to be significantly facilitated and improved.
Challenge II: Converting agricultural residues into biogas and

bio-fertiliser: Required upgrading technologies
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is generally considered the most mature and
widespread agricultural residue conversion technology. According to the
European Biogas Association (EBA, 2018), there are currently around
17,500 AD plants running in Europe, most of which are farm-based, with a
total installed capacity of 9.98 GWe while the total amount of electricity
produced from biogas is estimated in more than 65 TWh. As for biome-
thane generation there are more than 500 plants in operation in Europe,
with a production capacity equivalent to 17,264 GWh.
Despite being so robust, this technology still presents several technological
limitations and weaknesses, namely due to low conversion yields of organic
material rich in lignin (Ahring et al., 2015), low economic value as well as
issues related to feedstock supply and digestate handling and storage.
AD recovery yield can vary widely depending on feedstock and oper-
ational conditions applied (M€ oller, 2015). For example, the use of lignocel-
lulosic-rich waste streams for AD has not been widely adopted due to the
recalcitrant nature of complex plant cell walls, which makes them resistant
to microbial attack, resulting in low biogas conversion yields. This has been
subject of increasing research investigating numerous different techniques
such as mechanical, chemical, thermal and biological processes (e.g.
Hendriks & Zeeman, 2009; Zheng et al., 2014; Carrere et al., 2016; Paudel
et al., 2017). However, the key issue is on assessing the real benefit of pre-
treatment in real conditions. Very often, in fact, the capital and operational
costs for pre-treatments are greater than the effective return in terms of
produced biogas (Budde et al., 2016). Mechanical pretreatments (such as
grinding and milling or ultrasound) have high energy requirements if com-
pared to their impact on methane yields (Dumas et al., 2015; Barakat et al.,
2013; Bundhoo and Mohee, 2018). Chemical treatments (e.g. acid or alkali)
are low energy but high hazardous chemicals consuming with the risk of
chemical contamination and formation of inhibitors (e.g. furans and
phenolics) (Alizadeh et al., 2005; Sambusiti et al., 2013; Carrere et al.,

2016). Except for ozone pretreatment which is described as effective at lab
scale for lignin breakdown and methane yield increase without toxic com-
pounds risk, but rise concerns about economic and environmental viability
(Doma nski et al., 2017). Hydro-thermal and steam explosion significantly
increase biogas production which compensates their high energy demand
(Carrere et al., 2016). Wet explosion is a promising technology for lignocel-
lulosic pretreatment, which combines steam explosion with oxygen addition
(thermo-chemical method). This technique can be adjusted for different
biomass feedstock and has been successfully applied to AD processes using
agricultural residues as well as manure fibres (Ahring et al., 2015). Selective
enzymatic treatments of agricultural residue have been reported to enhance
co-digestion of straw and manure at low energetic cost (Wang et al., 2016).
Rouches et al. (2016) reported a significant increase in methane production
from wheat straw pretreated with white-rot fungi, despite of some organic
matter losses. Biological pre-treatments are therefore interesting alternatives
to be further assessed for their benefit/cost balance.
According to EBA data (EBA, 2018) on electric energy and biomethane
production, the global actual biogas production in Europe is around 35 bil-
lion m3 per year. The implementation of innovative and effective pre-treat-
ments, isolated and/or combined, expanding the range of potential
feedstock can make the sector even more robust, and biogas production
could be increased by 20-30% (Paudel et al., 2017) equivalent to 7 to 10.5
billion m3 biogas per year. If we consider to substituting the energy pro-
duced from coal, which determines an emission of 0.94 kgCO2-eq per kWh
produced, with this renewable energy source we can expect a net reduction
in CO2 emissions in the range of 15–22 million tonCO2-eq per year.
Another important point to consider is that biogas presents low eco-
nomic value due to its high CO2 content (35–50%) which decreases energy
content and limits direct uses to heat production or co-generation.
Upgrading of biogas (50–65% CH4) to biomethane (>90% CH4) is usually
carried out by adsorption or scrubbing processes, in order to remove CO2,
H2S, water and other minor contaminants, which are costly and energy-
demanding (Khan et al., 2017; Angelidaki et al., 2018). The resulting puri-
fied biomethane can thereafter be used for direct natural gas grid injection
as well as for the automotive sector in conventional natural gas vehicles,
with significant reduction of hydrocarbons, nitrous oxide and other GHG
emissions and overall improvement in the combustion qualities
of methane.
Microbial electrolysis cells (MEC) is an emerging eco-efficient and low-
cost technology which can generate biomethane or hydrogen from organic
material by applying an external electric potential or a current. In a MEC,
Figure 3. Microbial Electrolysis Cell (MEC) aimed at wastewater oxidation and biogas upgrading
equipped with a cation exchange membrane (A) and anion exchange membrane (B).
“electro-active” microorganisms, or electro-trophes, are attached to the

anode and oxidise organic waste substrates to carbon dioxide by using the
electrodic material (usually graphite based) as final electron acceptor of
their metabolism. The electrons produced by the anodic oxidation reaction,
flowing across the external circuit, are used to (bio)catalyse the production
of reduced target molecules such as H2, CH3COOH or CH4 (Zhen et al.,

2017; Zeppilli et al., 2016a). This enables coupling waste treatment with the
generation of energy carriers and chemicals. If a MEC is configured for
“electromethanogenesis”, i.e. for reduction of CO2 to CH4 catalysed by elec-
tro-trophes attached to the cathode, the wastewater treatment (COD) oxi-
dation in the anode can be coupled with the biogas upgrading to
biomethane (Figure 3) (Villano et al., 2013; Blasco-G omez et al., 2017).
The implementation of MEC can decrease the energy demand for biogas
refining and increase the overall energy efficiency of biomethane produc-
tion compared to currently used technologies such as water scrubbing and
pressure swing adsorption (Andriani et al., 2014). Moreover, by using a
MEC, an additional CO2 removal mechanism occurs due to the alkalinity
generation in the cathodic chamber (Xu, Wang and Holmes, 2014) which
promotes CO2 sorption as HCO3-. Thanks to this mechanism, by using a
methane producing biocathode, a maximum yield of 9 moles of CO2 per
mole of CH4 produced can be obtained (Zeppilli et al., 2016b). By consid-
ering the latter mechanism, a reduction of the estimated energy consump-
tion of almost one order of magnitude can be supposed for the
electromethanogenesis process.
Another interesting and alternative approach is the use of two-phase AD
processes, which comprise a fermentation step (with production of bio-
logical H2) followed by a methanisation process, resulting in a biogas
enriched in H2 (up to 10–20%) (Micolucci et al., 2014). The use of two-
phase AD processes increase conversion yields up to 37% (Premier et al.,
2013) and allow the concurrent production of bio-hythane (Monlau et al.,
2013). Bio-hythane (hydrogen enriched methane) enables a reduction of
HC, NOx and GHG emissions, improved combustion qualities (higher
engine power performances) and can be directly used in conventional nat-
ural gas vehicles. Although hythaneV R fuel is already used in several coun-
tries worldwide (USA, India), hythaneV production at an industrial scale is

R
only achieved by catalytic methods with high energy requirements. A com-

petitive value of 1.5 e/kg of hydrogen (yield 10 moles H2/mole of glucose,
feedstock below 0.05 e/kg) could be targeted with this technology
(Bolzonella et al., 2018).
An attractive integration of a two-phase anaerobic digestion AD process
and MEC technology have been investigated recently (Zeppilli et al., 2017);
the results showed the possibility to use a mixture of the effluents from the
first (acidogenic fermentate) and the second stage (digestate) of a pilot scale
two-phase AD to sustain the MEC process.
Furthermore, two stage AD generates volatile fatty acids (VFAs) rich
residual effluents (Cavinato et al., 2017) which are promising precursor for
further conversion to bio-based chemicals such as polyhydroxyalkanoates
(PHAs) and derivatives (Reis et al., 2011), which have numerous potential
uses as speciality biopolymers for packaging applications (Chen, 2009).
Indeed, PHAs has been identified as a promising potential of the bio-
waste bio-refinery (Bugnicourt et al., 2014), especially because: (i) its pro-
duction process has the best potential to cope with large heterogeneity of
the waste feedstock, in particular because the first production step, i.e. the
acidogenic fermentation, is both robust and flexible and provides stable
feedstock to the PHA production; (ii) PHA includes a whole family of
copolymers with a wide range of tunable properties, so that PHA can be
the main constituent of several bioplastics and their biocomposites, with a
wide portfolio of applications (Chen, 2010); (iii) PHA is bio-based not only
because it is produced from organic biomass, but also because it is pro-
duced through a process, which is mostly biological under mild conditions
(e.g. no sterile conditions are required); (iv) in comparison with other bio-
logical processes, the PHA-producing process does not produce an excess
of sludge that needs to be handled, as the polymer makes up to 70% of the
biomass (Reis et al., 2011).
International market of PHAs was estimated at 50,000 tons in 2017, rep-
resenting 2.4% of the total bioplastic production (2.05 Mtons), with an
expected increased production in 2020 (European Bioplastics, 2017). PHA
polymers are commercially available at a price ranging between 5–8 e/kg.
By combining the use of agriculture residue as the feedstock and the inte-
gration of a mixed-culture PHA process into an AD-based technology
chain, PHA costs could be reduced significantly with respect to PHA
benchmark glucose fermentation and axenic-culture processes (Choi and
Lee, 1999; Kim, 2000; Reis et al., 2011; Fava et al., 2015). Additionally,
GHG saving can be increased by extending the valorisation of the residual
CO2 streams from innovative AD technologies into CO2 consuming tech-
nologies, such as microalgae-based products (Posadas et al., 2017).
On the other hand, AD digestate, a nutrient rich fertiliser, is able to
lessen the environmental concerns of animal husbandry (Battini et al.,
2014) and produce renewable fertilisers (Bolzonella et al., 2017), but still
raises concerns about possible hygienic (e.g. pathogens), environmental
(e.g. antibiotics, metals) hazards and storage (e.g. degradation, odours and
GHG emission) issues (Scaglia, Pognani and Adani, 2015), while storage is
necessary because of the land disposal limitation imposed by EU nitrogen
regulation (EEC, 1991).
The integration of AD with pyrolysis processes has been proposed,
namely for lignocellulosic materials (H€ ubner and Mumme, 2015; Fabbri
and Torri, 2016; Feng and Lin, 2017). Pyrolysis of solid AD digestate can
extract additional energy from this residual material, by conversion into
syngas, bio-oil and biochar fractions, which can be further used for
electricity generation. According to Monlau et al. (2015) this kind of system

can provide a 42% increase in the production of electricity compared to
stand-alone AD plants. The resulting biochar can also be used for soil
amendment, and carbon sequestration (Fabbri and Torri, 2016; Feng and
Lin, 2017). Overall due to all gains compared to the use of conventional
petrochemical products (energy, fertiliser etc.), an AD-pyrolysis dual system
could save 2905 Gton CO2 eq/year (Monlau et al., 2015).
In addition to all these technological bottlenecks that have been dis-
cussed, it is essential to assure an optimal exploitation of agricultural resi-
due sources and AD products (nutrient and energy), which can be attained
by taking care of geographical/seasonal waste distribution, end-uses and
soil requirements. Simultaneously new emerging technological options (e.g.
MEC, 2 stage AD) should be considered for their potentials and ability to
be integrated into existing AD plants at different scales. Eco-efficient and
flexible (adaptable to local and seasonal waste streams) AD plants using
alternative and efficient technologies should be largely implemented to con-
vert 75% of manure and reduce their impact on GHG emission (30%) by
lowering methane and nitrous oxide emissions, both otherwise released
after application of manure in the field (Battini et al., 2014). The establish-
ment of advanced chemical and biotechnological biogas-based platforms,
with a set of novel products (e.g. biofuels, biomaterials) can have significant
impact in terms of increased opportunities for the valorisation of agricul-
tural residues. In particular, biogas production could increase by 10–20%
from the actual 47,000 GWh per year (EBA, 2018) due to a combination of
factors like the pre-treatment of lignocellulosic feedstock and the wider
implementation of two-phase thermophilic processes.
Challenge III: Converting agricultural residues into innovative building

blocks, molecules and materials: Overcoming key bottlenecks
The potential opportunities for developing bio-products from agricultural
residues are known to be large, but, from a technological point of view,
biomass conversion processes need improvements and a more in-depth
knowledge about their potentialities as well as an environmental, economic
and societal sustainability. The petro-chemical industry exploits mature
technologies and still provides the most universally used chemicals, multi-
purpose plastic materials and energy in the global economy despite severe
growing concerns about environmental impacts (e.g. global warming, 7th
plastic continent). From a chemical and biotechnological perspective, nearly
all chemicals and building blocks for plastics can be made using renewable
raw materials. However not all the processes are commercially feasible and
Figure 4. Cascading activities around anaerobic digestion (upstream and downstream proc-
esses) to valorise agro and food processing waste.
efficient. Furthermore, products often display insufficient purity or are too

expensive (Harmsen, Hackmann and Bos, 2014).
Presently, only a few percentages of chemicals are bio-based (Fiorentino
et al., 2017; Aeschelmann et al., 2017) while platform chemicals are the
main feedstock for producing secondary chemicals, chemical intermediates
and final products (Jang et al., 2012).
Biological production of platform chemicals from agro-resources, bio-
mass waste and food processing residues has been reported in the literature
(Pfaltzgraff et al., 2013; Sheldon, 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Dugmore et al.,
2017; Fritsch et al., 2017). However, valorisation techniques have only been
validated at lab-scale. Further optimisation and method integration studies
need to be carried out. It is thus essential to develop breakthrough technol-
ogies in agricultural residue conversion and bio-refinery, in order to
increase opportunities for valorisation of waste, by-and co-products, pro-
moting environmental and economic benefits for the farming sector (e.g.
development of new products and processes).
The development of an agricultural residue based bio-refinery strategy
passes through stepping up research in breakthrough residue conversion
into value added chemicals and materials. Knowledge of agricultural resi-
due molecular structure and characteristics should be enhanced. Advanced
selective extraction and conversion processes (e.g. enzymatic, supercritical
fluid extraction, depolymerisation) should be consequently developed. This

allows to recover bioactive molecules (e.g. polyphenols, hydroxy acids, pro-
teins) that could be used as building blocks for polymers or platform mole-
cules for fine chemicals, which, in general, create more than twice added
value compared to generating electricity, animal feed and fuel applications
(Kiran et al., 2015).
Moreover, in order to develop a bio-refinery concept starting from agro-
waste and by-products, another challenge is to move towards a zero-waste
economy. This can be achieved through the development of valorisation
cascading activities around the anaerobic digestion process, which is
already available at the industrial scale. This means that upstream and
downstream processes with respect to anaerobic digestion can allow the full
valorisation of wastes, as represented in a schematic way in Figure 4.
As an example, chemical, enzymatic or physical processes can be investi-
gated and optimised in such a way to recover functional molecules with
antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, such as polyphenols from red and
white wine pomaces. These molecules can be exploited as green additives
in polymeric systems to impart specific properties to the matrix
(Kirschweng et al., 2017). They can potentially substitute controversial plas-
tic additives such as antimicrobial silver nano-particles and nanoclays,
which represents a huge market of $16.17 billion by 2020 with a CAGR of
8.7%, currently led by BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical and Clariant (Markets
and Markets, 2015). The global polyphenols market is expected to reach
33.88 kilo tons by 2024, growing at a CAGR of 8.4% from 2016 to 2024,
according to the report of Grand View Research, Inc. (Grand View
Research 2016).
Furthermore, it is notable that agricultural residues and, in particular,
aromatic lignin derivatives, can be a source of aromatic compounds that
could be further used as building blocks for the synthesis of polymers to
substitute traditional polyesters, such as petro-derived PET (Polyethylene
terephthalate) (Pion, Ducrot and Allais, 2014; Mialon, Pemba and Miller,
2010; Gioia et al., 2016; van Es, 2013).
Bisphenol A is a chemical compound massively used since the 1960s in
the production of synthetic polymers, such as polycarbonate plastics and
epoxy resins, with widespread distribution in everyday use products (e.g.
packaging, bottles) (Michałowicz, 2014). There is today evidence of
Bisphenol A widespread migration and accumulation in the environment,
as well as in food and drinking water, and even in human tissues and flu-
ids, with associated significant toxicity effects (Michałowicz, 2014).
Exploring the substitution of Bisphenol A, and other petro-based mono-
mers, by aromatic building blocks from biological sources, such as phenols,
is a large innovative opportunity for application in the polymers and
plastics sector (e.g. 28 Mtons epoxy resins market). The generic depolymer-
isation pathway of lignin can be applied to a wide range of biomass types,
namely vine residues (Deepa and Dhepe, 2015). Thanks to the large struc-
tural diversity of natural polyphenols, the exploitation of (poly)phenols as
aromatic substitutes offers different possibilities of selection and fine tuning
in specific applications, which are not available for monostructural chemi-
cals such as Bisphenol A. This diversity can avoid the accumulation of a
universal molecular species such as Bisphenol A in the environment, lower-
ing the associated risk (Aouf et al., 2014).
As regards bioplastics, they currently represent about one percent of the
approx. 320 million tonnes of plastic produced annually, with only the half
being bio-sourced (European Bioplastics, 2017). But as demand is rising
and with more sophisticated biopolymers, applications, and products
emerging, the market is continuously growing. According to the latest mar-
ket data compiled by European Bioplastics and Nova-Institute (European
Bioplastics, 2017), global bioplastics production capacity is set to increase
from around 2.05 million tonnes in 2017 to approximately 2.44 million
tonnes in 2022. The applications are multiple, from rigid packaging to
horticulture and agriculture, with a high number of manufacturers, con-
verters and end-users in Europe. As an example, the United States Flexible
Packaging Association (FPA, 2017) reported that 62% of consumer prod-
ucts goods companies expect to change their packaging within the next
year with sustainability being a key consideration and 90% of the packagers
say that sustainable design has become a key consideration in packaging-
design decisions. Biodegradable polymers lighten the environmental con-
cerns of petro-based plastics use and may be recovered in the form of com-
post and/or energy (e.g. through AD). Moreover, developing bio-based
products (e.g. bioplastics) from agro-waste can provide GHG savings from
at least 55% compared to the equivalent EU’s fossil products (Eerhart, Faaij
and Patel, 2012). The European market of polymers accounts for 60,000
companies, 1.5 million jobs, production of 60 Mtons, and combined turn-
over of close to 340 billion euro (PlasticsEurope, 2017). It could be using
80% agricultural residues resources, before re-entering the nutrient cycle,
for providing safe and eco-friendly materials and chemicals for packaging,
building and construction, automotive, agriculture and others.
Therefore, new agricultural residue based biopolymers should be developed
to facilitate the growth of the bioplastics sector regarding advanced technical
properties, cost reduction, high consumer acceptance and boosting climate
change mitigation. Replacing 50% of petrochemical polymers consumed in
Europe by alternative bio-polymers issued from agricultural residues, would
mean to consume less than 30% of agricultural residues potential (calculations
made using data from PlasticsEurope (2017) and Elbersen et al. (2012)).
Figure 5. Up-cycling of lignocellulosic wastes for the production of biocomposites.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are a group of renewable and biodegrad-

able bio-based polymers (polyesters), produced naturally by bacteria. These
are starting to gradually substitute conventional plastics (e.g. polypropylene,
low-density polyethylene) presenting similar physicochemical, thermal, and
mechanical properties (Kourmentza et al., 2017). Some small scale-units are
operating in Europe, but the main PHA production unit is located in
China (Tianan company), using maize as feedstock. This brings some sus-
tainability issues, namely in terms of competition with food use, water foot-
print and economic cost. Therefore, it is important to explore the use of
sustainable feedstock for fermentative PHA bioreactors. The production of
PHA from waste materials such as sugar molasses (Carvalho et al., 2014),
olive oil mill wastewater (Hilliou, Machado, et al., 2016) or cheese whey
(Hilliou, Teixeira, et al., 2016), has been successfully tested. Furthermore,
VFAs, such as acetate and butyrate, have been described as efficient feed-
stock for PHA production by photosynthetic mixed cultures (Fradinho,
Oehmen and Reis, 2014). Therefore, VFA-rich residue streams from two
step AD could be purified and functionalised into bi-functional monomers
for bio-polymers or further converted into biodegradable PHAs by innova-
tive photo-fermentation processes (Fradinho, Oehmen and Reis, 2014). The
latter can offer the advantage of saving energy (because no aeration is
required) and has the potential for further decrease PHA cost (see previous
section, Challenge II).
One strategy to modulate PHA properties while maintaining the full bio-
degradability of the materials and reducing the final cost of materials is to
mix it with low-cost lignocellulosic fibres. The cheapest and most
environmentally virtuous lignocellulosic fibres are those obtained from

agriculture and food industry solid by-products – their up-cycling as fillers
in biocomposites would also help waste reduction (Berthet et al., 2015,
2017) (Figure 5).
Reinforcing fillers can be easily produced by dry fractionation of a given
lignocellulosic biomass, by combining dry grinding and sorting processes
(Berthet et al., 2017; Lammi et al., 2018). Dry fractionation enables to avoid
the consumption of water or chemicals and therefore generates very little
waste (Lammi et al., 2018). Moreover, fibres can be present also in the final
solid residue obtained after extraction processes of high-value bio-active mole-
cules, such as polyphenols, from agro or food processing by-products. Also
this fibrous residue can find a final exploitation in reinforcing polymeric
materials (Totaro et al., 2018). Biocomposites from lignocellulosic residues
appear as innovative and promising materials for many sectors, including
horticulture, building, automotive and packaging, provided that the presence
of prohibitive contaminants can be discarded (Berthet et al., 2016).
Finally, the most significant building blocks derived from sugars for
polymer production have been listed as followed (White et al., 2004): 1,4-
diacids (succinic, fumaric and malic), 2,5-furan dicarboxylic acid, 3-
hydroxy propionic acid, aspartic acid, glucaric acid, glutamic acid, itaconic
acid, levulinic acid, 3-hydroxybutyrolactone, glycerol, sorbitol, and xylitol/
arabinitol. Among these top twelve promising platform chemicals, succinic
acid (SA) has emerged as one of the most competitive bio-based chemicals
(White et al., 2004; Weastra, 2013) due to its ability to form the basis for
many high-value replacement products, including phthalic anhydride,
adipic acid, and maleic anhydride. In fact, one of the major driver for the
growth of this market is represented by the increasing applications of SA,
including industrial applications (57%), pharmaceuticals (16%), food & bev-
erages (13%), and others (14%) (Sisti et al., 2016). Traditionally, SA is pro-
duced from petroleum via oxidation of n-butane but it can be obtained
from biomass sugar fermentation (Lin et al., 2012). While petrochemical
production has remained stable for years, the global bio based succinic acid
market is expected to reach market volume of 710.0 kilo tons by 2020,
growing at a CAGR of 45.6% during 2013-2020 (Allied Market Research,
2014). According to Weastra (2013) market study it is expected that bio-
based succinic acid will be more cost-effective than petro-based one in the
future. Recent advances in fermentation from different glucose sources (e.g.
corn wastes) and in purification technologies succeeded in making bio-
based SA economically attractive (Sisti et al., 2016).
Demonstration bio-SA plants have been built in North America, Europe
and Asia Pacific by leading companies (BioAmber, Reverdia, Myriant and
BASF), but the global market share of bio-SA is still very low. Innovative
strategies should be developed to decrease bio-based SA raw materials and

production cost in order to get closer to the 3.0 e/kg product value of bio-
SA specified by PEP (Process Economics Program) (Vaswani, 2010) at the
best case design capacity. SA issued from agro-wastes could replace many
petro-based chemicals, resulting in a large reduction in pollution, namely
94% decrease in GHG emissions (Lin et al., 2013). SA fermentation is trad-
itionally conducted in batch using pure substrates and there is a lack of
studies on mixed agro-waste for SA fermentation and on engineered strains
able to metabolise carbohydrate rich agro-waste (Kiran et al., 2015). The
use of metabolic and evolutionary engineered yeast, can contribute to
improve yield and concentration, limit by-products and to adapt strains to
diverse carbon sources and inhibitors from agro-wastes.
Challenge IV: Promoting agriculture residue business in a circular

bio-economy context
The concept of industrial ecology in eco-industrial parks was introduced in
the 1990s by amongst others Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989). In such sys-
tem “Wastes from one industrial process can serve as the raw materials for
another, thereby reducing the impact of industry in the environment”. An
eco-industrial park is a community of manufacturing and service businesses
seeking enhanced environmental and economic performance through col-
laboration in managing environmental and resources issues, including
energy, water and materials. By working together, the community of busi-
nesses seeks a collective benefit that is greater than the sum of the individ-
ual benefits each company would have realised if it optimised its individual
interests (Lowe, Moren and Holmes, 1996). Currently, the notion of an
eco-industrial park addresses inter-company collaborations aimed at opti-
mising resource efficiency, more commonly called industrial symbiosis. The
most famous example is “Kalundborg” in Denmark (http://www.symbiosis.
dk/en). Few studies highlight key success factors and barriers to the imple-
mentation of existing eco-industrial parks around the world (Massard,
Jacquat and Z€ urcher, 2014). But the implementation of Industrial Ecology
conceptions is still difficult because it requires a new vision of customer-
supplier relationships, new forms of organisation and new business models,
often at the crossroads of various value chains.
Most eco-industrial parks are petrochemical, chemical, or diverse indus-
tries but there are few actual projects and studies that rely on cross chain
valorisation of agriculture residues. Among the completed projects, there is
for instance one agro-industrial ecosystem in France (Bazancourt-Pomacle
Biorefinery, see Schieb et al., 2015) and a state-owned conglomerate operat-
ing China’s largest sugar refinery with over 3,800 workers and 14,700 ha
land to cultivate and utilise all sugar cane by-products since more than
four decades ago (Guitang Group, see Shi and Chertow, 2017).
However, the agro-food sector is not fully integrated in the bio-economy
landscape yet. Efforts in R&D, business modelling and framework condi-
tions are needed to favour such integration and permit a complete conver-
sion, similar to a petro-chemical refinery, of the full fresh weight of
harvested crops (food plus agriculture residue mass) into food/feed, bio-
energy and bio-products, in order to increase the potential of agricultural
biomass without pressure on land uses and plant productivity. For effective
use of agricultural resources, including agriculture residue, with better allo-
cation of environmental benefit and added value, it is required to bridge
the gap between innovative agriculture residues upgrading technologies and
business opportunities by developing a cross-sectorial vision able to review
the entire value of the agriculture residue chain.
A targeted analysis of existing eco-innovative business models, as well as
a strong business model generation methodology, can enable the develop-
ment of a few business model options, for each case study cross sectorial
value chains. This can also allow to highlight and mitigate key barriers that
need to be raised through the evolution of the framework conditions (new
policies, incentives) or through a marketing and communication strategy to
show all the benefits and raise market acceptance. Scientific evidence from
technological and scientific achievements, including territorial approach
will substantiate which options profit from local or regional proximity, and
fit in locally designed agro-parks promoting the bio-economy and the
industrial symbiosis in food, feed, energy and bio-products sectors. An
improved knowledge on agriculture residue molecular complexity and het-
erogeneity and optimal streams (mostly organic and also conventional)
management can permit to diversify the feedstock used for generating
energy (e.g. biogas), materials and commodities such as agro-chemicals,
polymers and other materials. Innovative locally adaptable strategies based
on developing agriculture residue conversion into biogas and bio-products,
or intermediate chemical building blocks, should be implemented at full-
size scale and their associated knowledge transferred across levels. This
approach can contribute to doubling biogas production by 2020 to reach
the 1.5% of the European Union’s primary energy supply and the 5% of its
overall natural gas consumption according to the National Renewable
Energy Action Plans (European Commission, 2018). It can also contribute
to reaching the 2030 EU targets in the waste area, namely net savings for
EU businesses of e600 billion, increasing resource productivity by 30%,
boosting GDP by nearly 1%, and creating 2 million additional jobs. A
favourable European and national policy and legislation context on waste
should support circular economy by setting clear objectives and supporting
business eco efficiency activities (industrial symbiosis including materials,

water, energy, and heat symbiosis).
Challenge V: Connecting stakeholders and sharing knowledge about

agriculture residue management
Elapsed agriculture development in many EU-countries has led to environ-
mental and socio-economic issues that are amplified at specific region/sup-
ply chain nexus. As referred to previously (Challenge I), while there is
incidence of soil nutrient depletion in arable areas without livestock, excess
of nutrients, odorous substances, methane emissions and pathogens trans-
mission issues occur in livestock breeding regions. On the other hand, in
urban regions large amounts of food are imported and there are significant
negative ecological impacts of organic nutrient load from wastewater and
sewage sludge (Buckwell, Heissenhuber and Blum, 2014). Although some
agriculture residue conversion processes have been implemented, their
development is hampered because most of them are currently not properly
addressing territorial environmental and economic ambitions. Dedicated
crops often substitute agriculture residue sourcing for economic and supply
reasons, for example fodder maize used as feedstock for biogas is taking a
large share of the biomass cropping area in Germany. To deal with these
constraints it is necessary to address efforts in order to increase the aware-
ness and dialogue of stakeholders across sectors.
Stakeholders are well organised at the production stage and at national
and also at European levels namely through winery, livestock or cereal pro-
ducers, and farmers’ associations. However, smart agriculture residue
chains clearly require further cross-sector dialogue and the addition of
other actors (e.g. converters, end-users, waste management, Civil Society
Organizations (CSO) representatives, knowledge providers, regional and
national policy makers, etc. to properly tackle sustainability challenges and
market opportunities, both in terms of resources and end-products, accord-
ing to the possible territorial scales depending on several factors such as
geographical, political or historical constraints. On the other hand, agricul-
ture residues valorisation interacts with a number of other systems such as
the energy system and raw material production or contaminants accumula-
tion and pathogens cycling (M€ oller, 2015). In this context, spatial data
infrastructures and databases on agriculture residues are needed for terri-
torial and socio-economic land planning policies and optimal use of resour-
ces, taking into account the INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC (European
Commission, 2007a) as an umbrella resource. Such information are
needed for multi-criteria evaluation method, decision making process and
agro-waste management strategies, e.g. GIS technology is used to support
the spatial/territorial analysis: wastes production streams, collection, trans-

port facilities, treatment plants availabilities, specific soil needs and water
quality issues, substitutable products flow, population and economic growth
and job creation etc. (Josimovic et al., 2015). For example, biogas produc-
tion makes much sense when both electricity and heat can be used via block
power stations (co-generation). Heat can at best be sold through long-
distance heating for private households or industry, or through district heat-
ing systems. Most agricultural residues are available only far from urban
regions, and especially husbandry farms are, on purpose, built in some dis-
tance of private dwellings in order to avoid noise and smell disturbance.
Consequently, the biogas-generated heat is difficult to valorise, except when
the process heat is used for drying agriculture products locally.
The concept of territorial “cyclifiers” i.e. stakeholders and materials
stream connectors developed through the creation of joint stakeholders’
platforms and other joint structures (on the availability, needs and options
for smart use of agriculture residue) is thus essential to tackle this chal-
lenge. While taking into account regional/territorial divisions with defined
agronomical, ecological and economic situations of agriculture residue
management, it is necessary to increase awareness on the need to reduce
and exploit agriculture waste and of the potential pathways for their reduc-
tion and recovery. This could enable an integrated and synergistic use of
biomass components from various types of agriculture residual resources to
achieve high performance end-use products. A shared knowledge about
market, supply chains, valorisation and marketing of agriculture residue
could also be assured through high synergetic interlinkages and intercon-
nections between stakeholders in different domains and levels with better
information flow and management, taking into account, of course, the
necessary feedback of assets into agricultural cycles. A multi-stakeholder
approach includes the practical users, policy makers, knowledge providers
and researchers and other stakeholders throughout the whole process of
research and development to improve the findings’ applicability for valor-
isation of agricultural residue and enhance their exploitation (Durham
et al., 2014). The multi-stakeholder platform can act like a consultation
body made of different concerned parties who perceive the same problem
(in this case agricultural residues management and usage problem), who
realise that it is beneficial to work together and have the potential to agree
on actions/strategies/methods for solving their problems. The platform is
usually organised on a European level and may be organised at the inter-
national level via mirror platform. The interconnection achieved with inter-
national partners brings particular relevance and dynamics into the
exchange and multiplying activities.
Figure 6. Organic agricultural land share in Europe. (Source: http://www.organic-world.net/year-

book/yearbook-2017/infographics.html.
An important priority is to understand agricultural residues chain poten-

tialities in a quantitative way through open dialogue between stakeholders,
relevant and robust data/knowledge base and using decision support tools.
Involving stakeholders from Europe and beyond into the dialogue repre-
sents a challenge as in many cases they are required to invest a significant
amount of knowledge, time and effort without getting paid for that.
Therefore, certain benefits should be provided for them; what they find
valuable in return for their efforts invested and knowledge shared. The
motives of the different stakeholders can vary; therefore, for successful col-
laboration as a first step it is suggested to use value chain analysis to iden-
tify the necessary members and their interest/motivation.
There are two particularly challenging steps in utilising the Stakeholder

Platform. First the appropriate participants representing the key stakehold-
ers of the selected value chains for valorisation of agro-waste have to be
attracted to the platform through appealing offers for them, such as access-
ing information, knowledge, participation in an interactive learning form
or networking opportunities. What benefits can be offered through
harmonised efforts and collaboration of different local/regional value chains
should be considered. The second challenging step is to maintain the inter-
est and commitment of the stakeholders. In addition to web based informa-
tion, consultations must be carried out, such as offering experimental
methods, joint development of guidance materials on typical problems of a
waste value chain, on applicable solutions, technologies, good practices,
typical failures/traps to be avoided by using collaborative work space/file
editor such as Google docs, web-based trainings etc. without forgetting face
to face meetings and forum for future cooperation. Inventory and analysis
of generation, characteristics, uses and conversion of agricultural residues
following a value chain approach and focusing on selected geographic areas
and agricultural product chains are intensified by opening the dialogue
between industry, policy-makers, CSO and research representatives.
Particular attention has to be brought to organic agriculture, as defined
by EC regulation 834/2007, 889/2008 etc. (European Commission, 2007b,
2008). Organic agriculture is holding approx. 7% of the EU agriculture sur-
faces, with higher percentages in some productions like wine or vegetables
in specific regions (Figure 6). Organic agriculture products yield positive
appreciation from consumers and citizens. Consequently, new valorisation
roads in this domain can bring about products with high added value and
new market opportunities. On the other hand, organic agriculture depends
on closed (or almost-closed) circuits of nutriments, and the feedback has to
be respected very carefully whenever nutriments or organic matter in
important quantities are taken away from the agronomic level. The organic
food processing and distribution sector is demanding strongly for sustain-
able inputs and can be a potent client for bioplastics (packaging material
conforming to food packaging standards), biofuels etc. Consumers will
accord higher acceptance and willingness to pay for products issued from
organic agriculture residues.
To achieve better waste management strategies in terms of technical,
environmental and socio-economic aspects, it is recommended to decipher
the main technical, legal, environmental, business and behavioural barriers
prior to implementing new business and marketing opportunities.
Information tools, such as agricultural residue interactive databases and
GIS, inventories of successful cases and good practice guidelines can pro-
vide input for environmental assessment and decision support tools.
Existing initiatives such as European Innovation Partnership (EIP) oper-

ational groups (e.g. EIP-Agri) as well as JU-BBI (Public Private Partnership
in Bio-Based Industries), EIBI (European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative)
and EBTP (European Biofuels Technology Platform) are expected to be
expanded and supported by supplementing multi-stakeholders’ engage-
ments for collective actions for a sustainable agricultural residue manage-
ment. Available information should be structured and converted into easily
understandable user-friendly tools, such as short practical summaries of the
methods, procedures and decision support tools, which can be disseminated
to potential end-users through the existing initiatives and intermediators.
This approach has to be supported by improvements of legislative
aspects. A strategic approach towards supporting the development of a lead
market for agricultural residue based products should be supported by
coherent, comprehensive and coordinated legislative and incentives actions,
further streamlining and better targeting the existing ones, in particular in
the areas of agriculture, the environment, health, transport, energy and
industrial policy. In fact, there is no legislation that is setting specific tar-
gets for member states in relation to energy, chemicals and other materials
production from organic and agricultural residue. Partly because informa-
tion pertaining to the socio-economic and environmental benefits of biogas
and bio-products is lacking. Apart from industry’s self-commitment on bio-
degradable polymer (voluntary certification and labelling scheme) and
funds made available from member states to support biogas installations
(Rural Development Regulation (EU) N 1305/2013 (European Union,
2013). Progress towards accurate regulatory and standard development with
respect to environmental protection should be given serious consideration
in the future based on a holistic and systematic evaluation of sustainability,
incorporating regional as well as global impacts. The achieved impacts of
regulatory developments are closely related to their adjustment to stake-
holders’ abilities and to realistic scenarios in the real environment. For
example, the regulation of biogas in Germany and the subsidies and price
guaranties has created a new market for these sub-products. Moreover,
ensuring legal compliance should have acceptable enforcing costs by the
targeted actors. Multi-stakeholders’ platforms activities enable to better tar-
get, adjust and intensify the standardisation process by representing and
connecting all the required stakeholders, including legislation
representatives.
Conclusions
The present paper intends to provide a transdisciplinary and holistic vision
on how to coherently tackle some key research challenges related to
agricultural residues management, with regards to existing and missing sci-

entific knowledge and to approach the related technological, social, eco-
nomic and environmental impacts. The main conclusions and proposals for
each identified challenge are pointed out below.
1. An adequate assessment approach which provides proper insight and guid-

ance on the seasonality, regional aspects and complexity of agricultural resi-
due management chains is still pending. Therefore, it is crucial to develop
cross-disciplinary, multi-criteria, multi-scale and multi-actor environmental
and economic performance assessment strategies (i.e. truly multi criteria
decision tool) applicable to bioconversion technologies. It is important that
these strategies are applicable already at the early stage of research and
development (i.e. supporting eco-design already at bench scale). Indirect
impacts of e.g. future technological developments within the society as a
whole also needs to be considered and accounted for in order to judge true
potentials of large investments in bioconversion technologies.
2. Conventional AD performance has to be improved based on geographical
and seasonal AD waste feed streams and digestate nutrients distribution,
and as well as by investigating new technological options to extend AD
applicability (especially toward improving digestibility of lignocellulosic
feedstock) and increase its eco-efficiency and end-products’ (energy,
nutrients and bio-polymers) safety and economic value.
3. Agricultural residues are a potential resource for the production of
high-value chemicals provided that their complex and heterogeneous
molecular structures are tackled by appropriate conversion into com-
petitive products. Therefore, innovative eco-efficient and cost-effective
cascading (upstream or downstream AD) conversion processes should
be developed. Moreover, by enlarging both the spectrum of agricultural
residue conversion technologies and the high-value, high-quality end-
products port-folio, it should be possible to step up to a sustainable
agricultural residue bio-refinery concept.
4. A cross-sectorial vision is needed to bridge the gap between agricultural
residues science and business opportunities in order to promote an agri-
cultural residue industrial ecology concept within a circular economy. It
is essential to set up a real synergy on a local basis between the different
agricultural and agro-industrial chains, the traditional food production
activities, and the other industries for the effective use of agricultural
resources, including residual resources, with sharing of environmental
benefit and added value. Industrial ecology is required to generate eco-
innovative multi-stakeholder opportunities and business models based
on a certain scale size and where risks and added value are rele-
vantly shared.
5. Since environmental- and socio-economic effects are multidimensional, a

holistic approach should be developed in order to enhance materials and
knowledge flow management. This could be achieved by promoting cross-
sectors connection, exchange at appropriate local scales and capitalising on
knowledge and information, in addition to fertilising life cycle thinking
with territorial material flow analysis, in order to develop sustainable
residual resources valorisarion strategies. In brief, territorial “cyclifiers”
connecting stakeholders and material streams should be developed.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the NoAW’s partners for their contribution at different levels to
this document and especially Maria Reis (IBET), Carol Lin (City University of Hong
Kong), Taihua Mu (IAPPST, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences), Hugo de Vries
(INRA), Patrice Buche (INRA), Fabio Fava (University of Bologna), Bosko Josimovic
(IAUS Serbia), Maria Loizidou (National Technical University of Athens), Nelly Urban
(Groupe Grap’Sud) and Bao Duep (INRA Transfert).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors acknowledge financial support from Project NoAW: No Agro-Waste -
Innovative approaches to turn agricultural waste into ecological and economic assets (http://
noaw2020.eu/). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 688338. Industrial
Technology Research Institute would like to acknowledge the financial support extended by
the Ministry of Economic Affairs Taiwan, under contract number 107-EC-17-A-22-0894.
SOFIES acknowledges financial support by the Swiss Confederation under contract number
16.0058, REF-1131-52107.
Biographical notes
Nathalie Gontard. Professor and Research Director in the field of circular bio-economy,
food and bioplastics at INRA Montpellier (France). She is currently the coordinator of
H2020 project NoAW (www.noaw2020.eu) and has led many others European/international
projects (e.g. FP7 EcoBioCAP project coordinator). She has published more than 150 A-
level papers, with an h-index of 31. Invited Professor at the University of Kyoto (Japan) in
2010. Other relevant activities include being an EFSA expert since 2006, promoter and
Editor-in-chief of “Packaging Research” journal. Awarded as Scientific Breakthrough 2017

by INRA, and Horizon 2020 Etoile de l’Europe Award in 2015. Scopus ID: 6603949527.
Ulf Sonesson. Associate Professor and Senior Scientist in the field of sustainable food pro-
duction at RISE (Research Institutes of Sweden). His research background is life-cycle
assessment (LCA) of foods, including both methodology development and application. He
did his PhD in material flow analysis, or territorial metabolism. Scopus ID: 6602861442,
ORCID: 0000-0002-0167-5603.
Morten Birkved. Associate Professor in the Department of Management Engineering,
Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Technical University of Denmark (DTU).
He is Mainly responsible for system modelling, LCA, inventory analysis and modelling as
well as principal supervision of PhD. Scopus ID: 16174563600; ORCID: 0000-0001-
6989-1647.
Mauro Majone. Full Professor in Chemical Engineering at the Department of Chemistry,
Sapienza University of Rome (Italy). He has supervised more than 80 undergraduate stu-
dents and more than 10 PhD students. His main research areas are waste and wastewater
treatment, energy and resource recovery, groundwater remediation, environmental and
industrial biotechnology. He is co-author of more than 170 papers in international scien-
tific journals with more than 4900 citations and an h-index of 42. Also author of 15 chap-
ters on international books and more than 150 communications to scientific conferences
and other publications. Scientific coordinator of research projects under public or private
commitment and responsible of Research Contracts with several private companies.
Coordinator of H2020 project RESURBIS and partner of 5 research projects under the
European Community 7 Framework Programme FP7 (MINOTAURUS, ECOBIOCAP,
ROUTES, KILLSPILL and W4C). Scopus ID: 7004617753. ORCID:0000-0002-3198-9822
David Bolzonella. Associate professor in Chemical Engineering at the Department of
Biotechnology of the University of Verona (Italy). He is also vice-President of InnovEn SRL, a
spin-off company from U. Verona dedicated to new processes validation and implementation
in the sector of environmental technologies. He is an expert in the field of anaerobic processes
for the treatment of organic residues/waste for methane, hydrogen and organic molecules pro-
duction. Published 100 papers, cited 3000 times, with an h-index of 28. ResearcherID: A-6213-
2008, Scopus ID: 8079710900, ORCID: 0000-0002-3240-7417.
Annamaria Celli. Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental
and Materials Engineering (DICAM) of the University of Bologna (Italy). Her research area
is mainly synthesis of bio-based polymers, preparation of composites and nanocomposites,
material characterization. Scientific supervisor of research agreements with national and
international companies; responsible for the University of Bologna and DICAM in H2020
projects. Published more than 75 papers, cited more than 1600 times, with an h-index of
17. She is also author of 6 chapters in international books and inventor in 6 patents.
Researcher ID: K-7631-2013, Scopus ID: 7003613488, ORCID: 0000-0002-5974-1642.
Helene Angellier-Coussy Associate Professor at the University of Montpellier (France).
Her research focuses on formalizing structure/properties relationships in bio(nano)compo-
site materials, especially for food packaging applications. She is a specialist of the eco-con-
version of lignocellulosic residues for the production of biocomposites. Scopus ID:
23033471700
Guang-Way Jang. Researcher at the Material and Chemical Research Laboratories of the
Industrial Technology Research Institute (Taiwan). Graduated from the University of Texas
at Arlington (USA) with a Doctor of Science degree in Chemistry. He is the chairman of
the Association of Bio-based Materials Industry (Taiwan). His research interests include
bio-based and hybrid materials, with expertise in sol-gel processes, nanocomposiites and
bioplastics. He has held 30 patents and co-authored more than 50 scientific journal articles
and book chapters. Scopus ID: 7102646131
Anne Verniquet. Senior Consultant at SOFIES (Switzerland), a sustainability consulting

and project management firm. She is an agronomist with an executive MBA in
Entrepreneurship and Innovation management. She is specialized in the generation of eco-
innovative business models, scenarios and financial projections.
Jan Broeze. He is a senior scientist at Wageningen Food and Biobased Research (WFBR),
an organization for strategic and applied-scientific research on agriculture and food and
non-food process and chain development (The Netherlands). He is a specialist in the field
of process optimisation and food processing by-products valorisation. Scopus ID:
55755722000, ORCID: 0000-0001-5786-6575.
Burkhard Schaer. He is the co-founder of Ecozept, a German-French based private market
research and marketing consulting agency specialized in the enhancement of sustainability
in the agro-food sector. He is director of the Department Regional Development and
Sustainable Markets. He holds a PhD in agro-food markets of the Technical University of
Munich-Weihenstephan (Germany). He has 20 years of expertise in sustainable agro food
supply chains. Scopus ID: 55540667100
Ana Paula Batista. Currently working as a Post-Doctoral Researcher at INRA-IATE
(France), she holds a degree in Agro-Industrial Engineering (University of Lisbon,
Portugal), an European PhD in Chemical Engineering (University of Huelva, Spain), and a
Post-Doctorate in Environmental Sciences (LNEG-National Energy and Geology
Laboratory, Portugal). She as co-authored 30 papers in scientific international journals, 6
book chapters and more than 80 communications in conferences (h-index 16). She has col-
laborated in several national and international projects, mainly in the areas of Food
Science, Microbial Biorefineries and Environmental Remediation. Short-term scientific mis-
sions in Italy, Chile and South Africa. ResearcherID: H-4260-2011, Scopus ID: 8705012200,
ORCID: 0000-0001-7366-1254.
Andras Sebok. General manager of Campden BRI Magyarorszag Nonprofit Kft, (CBHU)
(Hungary). He is the also a visiting professor of the Szent Istvan University at G€
od€
oll}
o.
Graduated as chemical engineer (MSc), holds a Ph.D. in Food Science (Budapeste
University, Hungary) and also a Diploma in Management Studies (Brunnel University,
UK). He has more than 38 years practical experience in research, development, innovation
and management in the food industry. His experience includes the management of R þ D,
training and advisory and technology transfer programmes including several international
ones and translation of results in new product development, new processing methods and
market research, into industrial application especially at SMEs. He is a member of the
Board of the European Technology Platform “Food for Life”, Chairman of the SME Task
Force of the ETP, Vice-Chairman of the collaboration of the National Food Technology
Platforms (NTPs) of the ETP, Scientific Coordinator of the Hungarian National Food
Technology Platform and is a member of the R&D expert group of the Food&Drink
Europe. He is the Hungarian representative in the EUREKA EuroAgriFoodchain umbrella.
He has significant project management experience. He has participated in several
Hungarian, European and other international research and capacity building projects.
ORCID
Ulf Sonesson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0167-5603
Morten Birkved http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6989-1647
Mauro Majone http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-9822
David Bolzonella http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-7417
Annamaria Celli http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-1642

Jan Broeze http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5786-6575
Ana Paula Batista http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7366-1254
References
Aeschelmann, F., Carus, M., Baltus, W., Carrez, D., Guzman, D., K€ab, H., … Ravenstijn, J.
(2017). Bio-based building blocks and polymers: global capacities and trends 2016–2021.
Nova Institute GmbH and Europeans Bioplastics Association. Retrieved from: http://bio-
based.eu/downloads/bio-based-building-blocks-and-polymers-global-capacities-and-
trends-2016-2021-2/
Ahring, B. K., Biswas, R., Ahamed, A., Teller, P. J., & Uellendahl, H. (2015). Making lignin
accessible for anaerobic digestion by wet-explosion pretreatment. Bioresource Technology,
175, 182–188.
Alizadeh, H., Teymouri, F., Gilbert, T. I., & Dale, B. E. (2005). Pretreatment of switchgrass
by ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 124(1–3),
1133–1134.
Allied Market Research. (2014). Bio Succinic Acid Market by Application (1-Butanediol,4-
Butanediol (BDO), Polyester Polyols, PBS, Plasticizers, Solvents & lubricants, Alkyd Resins,
Resins, coatings, pigments, De-icer solutions): Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry
Forecast, 2013–2020. Retrieved from https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/bio-succinic-
acid-market
Al-Oqla, F., Sapuan, M. S., Ishak, M. R., & Aziz, N. A. (2014). Combined Multi-criteria
evaluation stage technique as an agro waste evaluation indicator for polymeric compo-
sites: date palm fibers as a case study. BioResources, 9(3), 4608–4621.
Andriani, D., Wresta, A., Atmaja, T. D., & Saepudin, A. (2014). A review on optimization
production and upgrading biogas through CO2 removal using various techniques.
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 172(4), 1909–1928.
Angelidaki, I., Treu, L., Tsapekos, P., Luo, G., Campanaro, S., Wenzel, H., & Kougias, P. G.
(2018). Biogas upgrading and utilization: Current status and perspectives. Biotechnology
Advances, 36(2), 452–466.
Aouf, C., Benyahya, S., Esnouf, A., Caillol, S., Boutevin, B., & Fulcrand, H. (2014). Tara
tannins as phenolic precursors of thermosetting epoxy resins. European Polymer Journal,
55, 186–198.
Avadi, A., Nitschelm, L., Corson, M., & Vertes, F. (2016). Data strategy for environmental
assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: Case study of a French catchment. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 476–491.
Barakat, A., de Vries, H., & Rouau, X. (2013). Dry fractionation process as an important
step in current and future lignocellulose biorefineries: a review. Bioresource Technology,
134, 362–373.
Battini, F., Agostini, A., Boulamanti, A. K., Giuntoli, J., & Amaducci, S. (2014). Mitigating
the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: Case
study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. The Science of the Total Environment, 481,
196–208.
Bellarby, J., Tirado, R., Leip, A., Weiss, F., Lesschen, J. P., & Smith, P. (2013). Livestock
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Global Change Biology,
19(1), 3–18.
Berthet, M. A., Angellier-Coussy, H., Guillard, V., & Gontard, N. (2016). Vegetal fibre-
based biocomposites: Which stakes for food packaging applications? Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 133(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/app.42528
Berthet, M. A., Coussy, H., Chea, V., Guillard, V., Gastaldi, E., & Gontard, N. (2015).
Sustainable food packaging: Valorising wheat straw fibres for tuning PHBV-based com-
posites properties. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 72, 139–147.
Berthet, M. A., Mayer-Laigle, C., Rouau, X., Gontard, N., & Angellier-Coussy, H. (2017).
Sorting natural fibres: A way to better understand the role of fibre size polydispersity on
the mechanical properties of biocomposites. Composites: Part A, 95, 12–21.
Blasco-G omez, R., Batlle-Vilanova, P., Villano, M., Balaguer, M., Colprim, J., & Puig, S.
(2017). On the edge of research and technological application: a critical review of elec-
tromethanogenesis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(4), 874.
Bolzonella, D., Gottardo, M., Fatone, F., & Frison, N. (2017). Nutrients recovery from
anaerobic digestate of agro-waste: techno-economic assessment of full scale applications.
Journal of Environmental Management, 216, 111–119.
Bolzonella, D., Battista, F., Cavinato, C., Gottardo, M., Micolucci, F., Lyberatos, G., &
Pavan, P. (2018). Recent developments in biohythane production from household food
wastes: A review. Bioresource Technology, 257, 311–319.
Buckwell, A., Heissenhuber, A., & Blum, W. (2014). The sustainable intensification of euro-
pean agriculture. A Review Sponsored by the RISE Foundation.
Budde, J., Prochnow, A., Pl€ ochl, M., Suarez Qui~nones, T., & Heiermann, M. (2016). Energy
balance, greenhouse gas emissions, and profitability of thermobarical pretreatment of cat-
tle waste in anaerobic digestion. Waste Management, 49, 390–410.
Bugnicourt, E., Cinelli, P., Lazzeri, A., & Alvarez, V. (2014). Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA):
Review of synthesis, characteristics, processing and potential applications in packaging.
Express Polymer Letters, 8(11), 791–808.
Bundhoo, Z. M. A., & Mohee, R. (2018). Ultrasound-assisted biological conversion of bio-
mass and waste materials to biofuels: A review. Ultrasonics - Sonochemistry, 40, 298–313.
Carrere, H., Antonopoulou, G., Affes, R., Passos, F., Battimelli, A., Lyberatos, G., & Ferrer,
I. (2016). Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion:
From lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresource Technology, 199, 386–397.
Carvalho, G., Oehmen, A., Albuquerque, M. G. E., & Reis, M. A. M. (2014). The relation-
ship between mixed microbial culture composition and PHA production performance
from fermented molasses. New Biotechnology, 31(4), 257–263.
Cavinato, C., Da Ros, C., Pavan, P., & Bolzonella, D. (2017). Influence of temperature and
hydraulic retention on the production of volatile fatty acids during anaerobic fermenta-
tion of cow manure and maize silage. Bioresource Technology, 223, 59–64.
Chae, Y., & An, Y. J. (2017). Effects of micro- and nanoplastics on aquatic ecosystems:
Current research trends and perspectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 124(2), 624–632.
Chen, G. Q. (2009). A microbial polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) based bio- and materials
industry. Chemical Society Reviews, 38(8), 2434.
Chen, G. Q. (2010). Industrial production of PHA. In G. Q. Chen, (Ed.), Plastics from bac-
teria. microbiology monographs (vol. 14). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Choi, J., & Lee, S. Y. (1999). Factors affecting the economics of polyhydroxyalkaonoate pro-
duction by bacterial fermentation. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 51(1), 13–21.
Corona, A., Parajuli, R., Ambye-Jensen, M., Hauschild, M. Z., & Birkved, M. (2018).
Environmental screening of potential biomass for green biorefinery conversion. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 189, 344–357.
Costa, R., Saraiva, A., Carvalho, L., & Duarte, E. (2014). The use of biodegradable mulch
films on strawberry crop in Portugal. Scientia Horticulturae, 173, 65–70.
Croxatto Vega, G. C., Hoeve, M., Birkved, M., Sommer, S. G., & Bruun, S. (2014).
Choosing co-substrates to supplement biogas production from animal slurry: A life cycle
assessment of the environmental consequences. Bioresource Technology, 171, 410–420.
Deepa, A. K., & Dhepe, P. L. (2015). Lignin depolymerization into aromatic monomers
over solid acid catalysts. ACS Catalysis, 5(1), 365–379.
Doma nski, J., Marchut-Mikołajczyk, O., Polewczyk, A., & Januszewicz, B. (2017).
Ozonolysis of straw from Secale cereale L. for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource
Technology, 245, 394–400.
Dugmore, T. I. J., Clark, J. H., Bustamante, J., Houghton, J. A., & Matharu, A. S. (2017).
Valorisation of biowastes for the production of green materials using chemical methods.
Topics in Current Chemistry, 375(2), 46.
Dumas, C., Silva, G., Damasceno, G., Barakat, A., Carrere, H., Steyer, J. P., & Rouau, X.
(2015). Effects of grinding processes on anaerobic digestion of wheat straw. Industrial
Crops and Products, 74, 450–445.
Durham, E., Baker, H., Smith, M., Moore, E., & Morgan, V. (2014). The BiodivERsA stake-
holder engagement handbook. Paris: BiodivERsA .
EBA. (2018). Statistical Report of the European Biogas Association (EBA). 7th edition.
EEC. (1991). Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protec-
tion of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Official
Journal of the European Communities, No. L 375/1, 31.12.1991.
Eerhart, A. J. J. E., Faaij, A. P. C., & Patel, M. K. (2012). Replacing fossil based PET with
biobased PEF; process analysis, energy and GHG balance. Energy & Environmental
Science, 5(4, 6407.
Elbersen, B., Startisky, I., Hengeveld, G., Schelhaas, M. J., & Naeff, H. (2012). Atlas of EU
biomass potentials. Biomass Futures Project Project Deliverable 3.3. (http://www.biomass-
futures.eu/work_packages/work_packages.php)
European Bioplastics. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.european-bioplastics.org
European Commission. (2007a). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in
the European Community (INSPIRE). Official Journal of the European Union, No.
L108/125.4.2007.
European Commission. (2007b). Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on
organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No
2092/91.Official Journal of the European Union, 189 20.7.2007, 1.
European Commission (2008). Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September
2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No
834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic
production, labelling and control. Official Journal of the European Union, No. L 250/
118.9.2008.
European Commission. (2018). European Commission Renewable Energy National Action
Plans. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/national-
action-plans
European Union. (2013). Regulation (EU) N 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1698/2005. Official Journal of the European Union, No. L 347/487, 2012. 2013.
Eurostat. (2015). Consumption of inorganic fertilizers. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/

eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/AEI_FM_USEFERT
Fabbri, D., & Torri, C. (2016). Linking pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion (Py-AD) for the
conversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 38, 167–173.
FAO (2011). “Energy-smart” food for people and climate. Issue Paper. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. (2014). AQUASTAT Website. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/
water_use/index.stm#time
Fava, F., Totaro, G., Diels, L., Reis, M., Duarte, J., Beserra Carioca, O., … Sommer Ferreira,
B. (2015). Biowaste biorefinery in Europe: opportunities and research & development
needs. New Biotechnology, 32(1), 100–108.
Feng, Q., & Lin, Y. (2017). Integrated processes of anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis for
higher bioenergy recovery from lignocellulosic biomass: A brief review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 1272–1287.
Fiorentino, G., Ripa, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). Chemicals from biomass: technological versus
environmental feasibility: A review. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 11(1), 195–214.
Foged, H. L., Flotats, X., Blasi, A. B., Palatsi, J., Magri, A., & Schelde, K. M. (2011).
Inventory of manure processing activities in Europe. Technical Report No. I concerning
“Manure Processing Activities in Europe” to the European Commission, Directorate-
General Environment; 138p.
FPA (2017). U.S. flexible packaging: State of the industry report 2017. Flexible Packaging
Association.
Fradinho, J. C., Oehmen, A., & Reis, M. A. M. (2014). Photosynthetic mixed culture poly-
hydroxyalkanoate (PHA) production from individual and mixed volatile fatty acids
(VFAs): Substrate preferences and co-substrate uptake. Journal of Biotechnology, 185,
19–27.
Fritsch, C., Staebler, A., Happel, A., Cubero-Marquez, M. A., Aguil o-Aguayo, I., Abadias,
M., … Belotti, G. (2017). Processing, valorization and application of bio-waste derived
compounds from potato, tomato, olive and cereals: A review. Sustainability, 9(8), 1492.
Frosch, D., & Gallopoulos, N. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American,
261(3), 144–102.
Galloway, T. S. (2015). Micro- and nano-plastics and Human Health. In M. Bergmann, L.
Gutow, & M. Klages, (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter. New York: Springer
International Publishing.
Gioia, C., Banella, M. B., Marchese, P., Vannini, M., Colonna, M., & Celli, A. (2016).
Advances in the synthesis of bio-based aromatic polyesters: novel copolymers derived
from vanillic acid and e-caprolactone. Polymer Chemistry, 7(34), 5396–5406.
Goldstein, B., Birkved, M., Quitzau, M. B., & Hauschild, M. (2013). Quantification of urban
metabolism through coupling with the life cycle assessment framework: concept develop-
ment and case study. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 035024.
Grand View Research. (2016). Polyphenols market analysis by product (Grape seed, green
tea, apple), By application (Functional food, functional beverages, dietary supplements)
and segment forecasts to 2024. Market research report. Retrieved from https://www.
grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-polyphenols-market.
Harmsen, P. F. H., Hackmann, M. M., & Bos, H. L. (2014). Green building blocks for bio-
based plastics. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 8(3), 306–324.
Hendriks, A. T. W. M., & Zeeman, G. (2009). Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of
lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 100(1), 10–18.
Hilliou, L., Machado, D., Oliveira, C. S. S., Gouveia, A. R., Reis, M. A. M., Campanari,
S., … Majone, M. (2016). Impact of fermentation residues on the thermal, structural, and
rheological properties of polyhydroxy(butyrate-co-valerate) produced from cheese whey
and olive oil mill wastewater. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 133(2), 42818.
Hilliou, L., Teixeira, P. F., Machado, D., Covas, J. A., Oliveira, C. S. S., Duque, A. F., &
Reis, M. A. M. (2016). Effects of fermentation residues on the melt processability and
thermomechanical degradation of PHBV produced from cheese whey using mixed
microbial cultures. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 128, 269–277.
Hospido, A., Davis, J., Berlin, J., & Sonesson, U. (2010). A review of methodological issues
affecting LCA of novel food products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
15(1), 44–52.
H€ubner, T., & Mumme, J. (2015). Integration of pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion: Use of
aqueous liquor from digestate pyrolysis for biogas production. Bioresource Technology,
183, 86–92.
Hurni, H., Giger, M., Liniger, H., Studer, R. M., Messerli, P., Portner, B., … Breu, T. (2015).
Soils, agriculture and food security: the interplay between ecosystem functioning and
human well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 15, 25–34.
Ipsen, K., L., Zimmermann, R., K., Nielsen, P., S., & Birkved, M. (2018). Environmental
assessment of Smart City Solutions using a coupled urban metabolism—life cycle impact
assessment approach. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. (In Press) doi:
10.1007/s11367-018-1453-9.
ISO 14040. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management-Life cycle assessment:
Principles and framework.
Jang, Y. S., Kim, B., Shin, J. H., Choi, Y. J., Choi, S., Song, C. W., … Lee, S. Y. (2012). Bio-
Based Production of C2–C6 platform chemicals. Biotechnology and Bioengineering,
109(10), 2437–2459.
Josimovic, B., Maric, I., & Milijic, S. (2015). Multi-criteria evaluation in strategic environ-
mental assessment for waste management plan: a case study. Waste Management
Journal, 36, 331–342.
Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The changing metabolism of cities.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 43–59.
Khan, I. U., Othman, M. H. D., Hashim, H., Matsuura, T., Ismail, A. F., Rezaei-
DashtArzhandi, M., & Wan Azelee, I. (2017). Biogas as a renewable energy fuel: A
review of biogas upgrading, utilisation and storage. Energy Conversion and Management,
150, 277–294.
Kim, B. S. (2000). Production of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) from inexpensive substrates.
Enzyme Microb. Technol, 27(10), 774–777.
Kiran, E. U., Trzcinski, A. P., & Liu, Y. (2015). Platform chemical production from food
wastes using a biorefinery concept. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology,
90(8), 1364–1379.
Kirschweng, B., Tatraaljai, D., F€oldes, E., & Pukanszky, B. (2017). Natural antioxidants as
stabilizers for polymers. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 145, 25–40.
Kourmentza, C., Placido, J., Venetsaneas, N., Burniol-Figols, A., Varrone, C., Gavala, H. N.,
& Reis, M. A. M. (2017). Recent advances and challenges towards sustainable polyhy-
droxyalkanoate (PHA) production. Bioengineering, 4(4), 55.
Lammi, S., Barakat, A., Mayer-Laigle, C., Djenane, D., Gontard, N., & Angellier-Coussy, H.
(2018). Dry fractionation as a sustainable process to produce fillers from olive pomace
for biocomposites. Powder Technology, 326, 44–53.
Laurent, A., Olsen, S. I., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2010). Carbon footprint as environmental
performance indicator for the manufacturing industry. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology, 59(1), 37–40.
Lin, C. S. K., Luque, R., Clark, J. H., Webb, C., & Du, C. (2012). Wheat-based biorefining
strategy for fermentative production and chemical transformations of succinic acid.
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 6(1), 88–104.
Lin, C. S. K., Pfaltzgraff, L. A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E. B., Abderrahim, S., Clark,
J. H., … Luque, R. (2013). Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chem-
icals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy and Energy &
Environmental Science, 6(2), 426–464.
Loiseau, E., Roux, P., Junqua, G., Maurel, P., & Bellon-Maurel, V. (2013). Adapting the
LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(8), 1533–1548.
Loiseau, E., Aissani, L., Le Feon, S., Laurent, F., Cerceau, J., Sala, S., & Roux, P. (2018).
Territorial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): What exactly is it about? A proposal towards
using a common terminology and a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176,
474–485.
Lowe, E. A., Moren, S. R., & Holmes, D. B. (1996). Fieldbook for the Development of Eco-
Industrial Parks. Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Markets and Markets. (2015). Antimicrobial Plastic Market by Type (Commodity Plastic,
Engineering Plastic, and High Performance Plastic) by Application (Healthcare,
Packaging, Consumer Goods, Automotive, Construction, and Others) & by Region:
Global Forecast to 2020. Retrieved from https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-
Reports/antimicrobial-plastic-market-20591555.html
Massard, G., Jacquat, O., & Z€ urcher, D. (2014). International survey on ecoinnovation parks.
Learning from experiences on the spatial dimension of eco-innovation. Federal Office for
the Environment (FOEN) and the ERANET ECO-INNOVERA, Bern. Environmental
studies no. 1402; 310p.
Mazzi, A., Toniolo, S., Catto, S., De Lorenzi, V., & Scipioni, A. (2017). The combination of
an environmental management system and life cycle assessment at the territorial level.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 63, 59–71.
Merlin, G., & Boileau, H. (2013). Anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste: state of the art
and future trends. In A. Torres, (Ed.), Anaerobic digestion: types, processes and environ-
mental impact. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Mialon, L., Pemba, A. G., & Miller, S. A. (2010). Biorenewable polyethylene terephthalate
mimics derived from lignin and acetic acid. Green Chemistry, 12(10), 1704–1706.
Michałowicz, J. (2014). Bisphenol A-sources, toxicity and biotransformation. Environmental
Toxicology and Pharmacology, 37(2), 738–758.
Micolucci, F., Gottardo, M., Bolzonella, D., & Pavan, P. (2014). Automatic process control
for stable bio-hythane production in two-phase thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food
waste. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(31), 17563–17572.
M€oller, J., Boldrin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2009). Anaerobic digestion and digestate use:
Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution. Waste Management &
Research, 27(8), 813–824.
M€oller, K. (2015). Effects of anaerobic digestion on soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, N
emissions, and soil biological activity. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,
35(3), 1021–1041.
M€oller, K., & M€ uller, T. (2012). Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient avail-
ability and crop growth: A review. Engineering in Life Sciences, 12(3), 242–257.
Monlau, F., Barakat, A., Trably, E., Dumas, C., Steyer, J., & Carrere, H. (2013).
Lignocellulosic materials into biohydrogen and biomethane: Impact of structural features
and pretreatment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43(3),
260–322.
Monlau, F., Sambusiti, C., Antoniou, N., Barakat, A., & Zabaniotou, A. (2015). A new con-
cept for enhancing energy recovery from agricultural residues by coupling anaerobic
digestion and pyrolysis process. Applied Energy, 148, 32–38.
Njakou Djomo, S., Witters, N., Van Dael, M., Gabrielle, B., & Ceulemans, R. (2015).
Impact of feedstock, land use change, and soil organic carbon on energy and greenhouse
gas performance of biomass cogeneration technologies. Applied Energy, 154, 122–130.
Ohms, P., Andersen, C., Landgren, M., & Birkved, M. (2018). Decision support for large-
scale remediation strategies by fused urban metabolism and life cycle assessment.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. (In Press) doi: 10.1007/s11367-018-1445-9.
Paudel, S. R., Banjara, S. P., Choi, O. K., Park, K. Y., Kim, Y. M., & Lee, J. W. (2017).
Pretreatment of agricultural biomass for anaerobic digestion: Current state and chal-
lenges. Bioresource Technology, 245, 1194–1205.
Pfaltzgraff, L. A., De Bruyn, M., Cooper, E. C., Budarin, V., & Clark, J. H. (2013). Food
waste biomass: a resource for high-value chemicals. Green Chemistry, 15(2), 307–314.
Pion, F., Ducrot, P. H., & Allais, F. (2014). Renewable alternating aliphatic–aromatic copo-
lyesters derived from biobased ferulic acid, diols, and diacids: sustainable polymers with
tunable thermal properties. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics, 215(5, 431–439.
PlasticsEurope. (2017). Plastics: the Facts 2017. An analysis of European plastics production,
demand and waste data. Retrieved from https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/
5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf.
Posadas, E., Marın, D., Blanco, S., Lebrero, R., & Mu~ noz, R. (2017). Simultaneous biogas
upgrading and centrate treatment in an outdoors pilot scale high rate algal pond.
Bioresource Technology, 232, 133–141.
Premier, G. C., Kim, J. R., Massanet-Nicolau, J., Kyazze, G., Esteves, S. R. R., Penumathsa,
B. K. V., … Guwy, A. J. (2013). Integration of biohydrogen, biomethane and bioelectro-
chemical systems. Renewable Energy, 49, 188–192.
Reis, M., Albuquerque, M., Villano, M., & Majone, M. (2011). Mixed culture processes for
polyhydroxyalkanoate production from agro-industrial surplus/wastes as feedstocks. In
M. Moo-Young, (Eds.), Comprehensive biotechnology (2nd ed, vol. 6, pp. 669–683). New
York: Elsevier.
Rouches, E., Zhou, S., Steyer, J. P., & Carrere, H. (2016). White-Rot Fungi pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass for anaerobic digestion: Impact of glucose supplementation.
Process Biochemistry, 51(11), 1784–1792.
Sambusiti, C., Ficara, E., Malpei, F., Steyer, J. P., & Carrere, H. (2013). Benefit of sodium
hydroxide pretreatment of ensiled sorghum forage on the anaerobic reactor stability and
methane production. Bioresource Technology, 144, 149–155.
Scaglia, B., Pognani, M., & Adani, F. (2015). Evaluation of hormone-like activity of the dis-
solved organic matter fraction (DOM) of compost and digestate. Science of the Total
Environment, 514, 314–321.
Schieb, P. A., Lescieux-Katir, H., Thenot, M., & Clement-Larosiere, B. (2015). Biorefinery
2030: Future prospects for the bioeconomy. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Sheldon, A. (2014). Green and sustainable manufacture of chemicals from biomass: state of
the art. Green Chemistry, 16(3), 950–963.
Shi, L., & Chertow, M. (2017). Organizational boundary change in industrial symbiosis:
Revisiting the Guitang Group in China. Sustainability, 9(7), 1085.
Sisti, L., Totaro, G., & Marchese, P. (2016). PBS makes its entrance into the family of bio-
based plastics. In S. Kalia, & L. Averous, (Eds.), Biodegradable and biobased polymers:
Environmental and biomedical applications (pp. 225–286). Beverly, MA: Scrivener
Publishing.
Sohn, J. L., Kalbar, P. P., & Birkved, M. (2017). Life cycle based dynamic assessment
coupled with multiple criteria decision analysis: A case study of determining an optimal
building insulation level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 449–457.
Sohn, J., Croxatto Vega, G. C., & Birkved, M. (2018). Methodology concept for territorial
metabolism: Life cycle assessment: challenges and opportunities in scaling from urban to
territorial assessment. Procedia CIRP, 69, 89–93.
Steinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tr€ oger,
J., … Schaumann, G. E. (2016). Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agro-
nomic benefits for long-term soil degradation?. Science of the Total Environment, 550,
690–705.
Totaro, G., Sisti, L., Vannini, M., Marchese, P., Tassoni, A., Lenucci, M. S., … Celli, A.
(2018). A new route of valorization of rice endosperm by-product: Production of poly-
meric biocomposites. Composites Part B: Engineering, 139, 195–202.
UNEP. (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and
Poverty Eradication. Retrieved from: www.unep.org/greeneconomy
van Es, D. S. (2013). Rigid biobased building blocks. Journal of Renewable Materials, 1(1),
61–72.
Vaswani, S. (2010). P. E. P., & Review, 20101. Bio-Based Succinic Acid. SRI Consulting.
Villano, M., Scardala, S., Aulenta, F., & Majone, M. (2013). Carbon and nitrogen removal
and enhanced methane production in a microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresource
Technology, 130, 366–371.
Wang, X., Li, Z., Zhou, X., Wang, Q., Wu, Y., Saino, M., & Bai, X. (2016). Study on the
bio-methane yield and microbial community structure in enzyme enhanced anaerobic
co-digestion of cow manure and corn straw. Bioresource Technology, 219, 150–157.
Weastra. (2013). Determination of market potential for selected platform chemicals:
Itaconic acid, Succinic acid, 2,5-Furandicarboxylic acid. WP8.1 FP7 BioConSept Project.
Retrieved from: https://www.cbp.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/cbp/en/documents/
BioConSepT_Market-potential-for-selected-platform-chemicals_report1.pdf.
Weiss, F., & Leip, A. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life
cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 149, 124–134.
White, J. F., Werpy, T., & Holladay, J. E. (2004). Top Value Added Chemicals from
Biomass: Results of screening for potential candidates from sugars and synthesis gas,
Volume 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Retrieved from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35523.pdf
Wolman, A. (1965). The metabolism of cities. Scientific American, 213, 179–190.
World Bank. (2017). Retrieved from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-globally-
70-freshwater-used-agriculture.
Xu, H., Wang, K., & Holmes, D. E. (2014). Bioelectrochemical removal of carbon dioxide
(CO2): An innovative method for biogas upgrading. Bioresource Technology, 173,
392–398.
Zalasiewicz, Z., Waters, C. N., Ivar do Sul, J. A., Corcoran, P. L., Barnosky, A. D., Cearreta,
A., … Yonan, Y. (2016). The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a stratigraphic
indicator of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 13, 4–17.
Zalidis, G., Stamatiadis, S., Takavakoglou, V., Eskridge, K., & Misopolinos, N. (2002).
Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region
and proposed assessment methodology. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 88(2),
137–146.
Zeppilli, M., Lai, A., Villano, M., & Majone, M. (2016a). Anion vs cation exchange mem-
brane strongly affect mechanisms and yield of CO2 fixation in a microbial electrolysis
cell. Chemical Engineering Journal, 304, 10–19.
Zeppilli, M., Ceccarelli, I., Villano, M., & Majone, M. (2016b). Reduction of carbon dioxide
into acetate in a fully biological microbial electrolysis cell. Chemical Engineering
Transactions, 49, 445–450.
Zeppilli, M., Pavesi, D., Gottardo, M., Micolucci, F., Villano, M., & Majone, M. (2017).
Using effluents from two-phase anaerobic digestion to feed a methane-producing micro-
bial electrolysis. Chemical Engineering Journal, 328, 428–433.
Zhen, G., Lu, X., Kumar, G., Bakonyi, P., Xu, K., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Microbial electrolysis
cell platform for simultaneous waste biorefinery and clean electrofuels generation:
Current situation, challenges and future perspectives. Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science, 63, 119–145.
Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, F., & Li, Y. (2014). Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for
enhanced biogas production. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 42, 35–53.
Zia, H., Harris, N. R., Merrett, G. V., Rivers, M., & Coles, N. (2013). The impact of agricul-
tural activities on water quality: A case for collaborative catchment-scale management
using integrated wireless sensor networks. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 96,
126–138.

Saludes-ABS 424 Article Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saludes-ABS 424 Article Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saludes-ABS 424 Article Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A research challenge vision regarding management of

agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy

ISSN: 1064-3389 (Print) 1547-6537 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20

A research challenge vision regarding

Nathalie Gontard, Ulf Sonesson, Morten Birkved, Mauro Majone, David

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1471957

© 2018 Nathalie Gontard, Ulf Sonesson,

Published online: 24 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18530

View related articles

Citing articles: 104 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

A research challenge vision regarding management of

ABSTRACT KEY WORDS

management, the connection of stakeholders is discussed to

Our publication aims at providing a vision covering key challenges to

Overall identification of agricultural waste management challenges and

Figure 1. Example of bio-refinery and cascading technologies applied to agricultural residues

a consolidated route to convert many agricultural residues into biogas and

complexity and variability in chemical composition of the waste feedstock,

and assessment tools of circular agro-waste management strategies will be

Challenge I: Environmental consequences of agricultural residues

GHG emissions (approx. 20–30% of which are methane) in EU-27

plants. Dedicated energy crops, and the underutilisation in combination,

to cities, may exist as a patchwork of e.g. wine producers producing a spe-

application of these assessment and interpretation methodologies to the

Challenge II: Converting agricultural residues into biogas and

phenolics) (Alizadeh et al., 2005; Sambusiti et al., 2013; Carrere et al.,

“electro-active” microorganisms, or electro-trophes, are attached to the

of reduced target molecules such as H2, CH3COOH or CH4 (Zhen et al.,

tries worldwide (USA, India), hythaneV production at an industrial scale is

only achieved by catalytic methods with high energy requirements. A com-

electricity generation. According to Monlau et al. (2015) this kind of system

Challenge III: Converting agricultural residues into innovative building

efficient. Furthermore, products often display insufficient purity or are too

fluid extraction, depolymerisation) should be consequently developed. This

Figure 5. Up-cycling of lignocellulosic wastes for the production of biocomposites.

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are a group of renewable and biodegrad-

environmentally virtuous lignocellulosic fibres are those obtained from

strategies should be developed to decrease bio-based SA raw materials and

Challenge IV: Promoting agriculture residue business in a circular

business eco efficiency activities (industrial symbiosis including materials,

Challenge V: Connecting stakeholders and sharing knowledge about

the spatial/territorial analysis: wastes production streams, collection, trans-

Figure 6. Organic agricultural land share in Europe. (Source: http://www.organic-world.net/year-

An important priority is to understand agricultural residues chain poten-

There are two particularly challenging steps in utilising the Stakeholder

Existing initiatives such as European Innovation Partnership (EIP) oper-

agricultural residues management, with regards to existing and missing sci-

1. An adequate assessment approach which provides proper insight and guid-

5. Since environmental- and socio-economic effects are multidimensional, a

Anne Verniquet. Senior Consultant at SOFIES (Switzerland), a sustainability consulting

Annamaria Celli http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-1642

Eurostat. (2015). Consumption of inorganic fertilizers. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.