Advancing waste valorization and end-of-life strategies in the bioeconomy through multi-criteria approaches and the safe and sustainable by design framework

Advancing waste valorization and end-of-life strategies in the bioeconomy through multi-criteria approaches and the safe and sustainable by design framework Ana Arias a,b,* , Gumersindo Feijoo b , Maria Teresa Moreira b , Arnold Tukker a , Stefano Cucurachi a a Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), PO Box 9518, 2300, RA Leiden, Netherlands b CRETUS, Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Bioeconomy Sustainability Waste valorization Life cycle assessment Safe and sustainable by design ABSTRACT Proper waste management is a key element in the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy. Population growth and the demand for food and services have led to an ever-increasing production of biotic waste whose disposal in landfills is no longer considered a sustainable option. For this reason, efforts are being made to find an appropriate management strategy for biotic waste, whose organic content allows it to be considered as a resource for the development of biotechnological and/or biorefinery processes. Assessing the sustainability of alternative options is of paramount importance. To this end, this systematic review researches trends in waste management in terms of technology and sustainability profile according to the life-cycle approach and multi-criteria analysis. The aim is to provide insights into potential resource recovery and waste valorization schemes towards highvalue-added products in the marketplace, beyond their direct energy recovery. Our results show that future studies should focus on the development of multi-criteria analysis from an SSbD perspective, so that all pillars of sustainability and risk assessment are properly assessed from an early design stage. 1. Introduction The impact of industrial and human activities on the quality of the environment, the depletion of fossil resources, the demand for more equitable jobs and the interest in healthy and environmentally friendly products by consumers are elements under the spotlight [1–3]. There is a growing awareness of the need for change, in which the transition of the productive model towards a more responsible and cleaner one is required. This is why new initiatives have been launched to drive this transition, such as the EU Green Deal and the Action Plan for the Circular Economy, among others. In this context, the bioeconomy approach appears as an effective and efficient framework to move further towards a greener and a sustainable transition [4,5]. The bio-based economy is considered necessary to address and solve current global challenges, which encompass food security, efficient use of natural resources, maintenance of ecological limits, economic development and social welfare [6,7]. In this complex panorama, one of the key drivers for this transition is the transformation and adaptation of sustainable food-related value chains [8,9]. The EU Council discussed the challenges of increasing sustainable agricultural production, working on closing nutrient cycles and boosting research and innovation to increase the competitiveness of bio-based products. For this, it is necessary to foster symbiosis between all stakeholders involved in the value chain in order to develop new opportunities to reduce waste, improve the efficient use of resources and increase the sustainability of the food-related sector [10,11]. It is in this context that this systematic review is framed, as it delves into an analysis of biotic waste management and valorization technologies of residual streams related to the agriculture, forestry, and food sector. This systematic review provides an overview of the technologies that have been most extensively assessed and includes the identification of the sustainable and multi-criteria assessments available in the literature to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management strategies to drive change and resilience. With respect to the sustainability assessment, the articles considered are the ones following the Life Cycle thinking approach, which is a standardized method developed on the international guideline ISO 14040 [12], considering the analysis of all the pillars: environmental [13], economic[14] and social [15,16]. On * Corresponding author. Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), PO Box 9518, 2300, RA Leiden, Netherlands. E-mail addresses: [email protected],[email protected] (A. Arias). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114907 Received 3 May 2024; Received in revised form 4 September 2024; Accepted 5 September 2024 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 Available online 9 September 2024 1364-0321/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/ ). the other hand, also the scope and applicability of the Safe-and-Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework for a European bioeconomy has also been included. The SSbD is, by nature, a multidimensional framework that encompasses the analysis of health, safety, environment, economics and risk of the target processes. The SSbD framework is a voluntary framework that aims to enhance green and sustainable industrial processing, looking to avoid the use of chemicals and compounds that could entail a hazard on the health and/or on the environment. The assessment under this framework requires the development of five main stages: three concerting the safety dimension (hazard assessment, human health &safety aspects, human health & environmental aspects), environmental dimension (environmental sustainability assessment following the LCA methodology) and social and economic dimension (including the sustainable analysis of those areas of concern) [17]. This systematic review provides information and practical lessons on the technological strategies to enhance and improve the recovery and valorization of residual streams coming from the bioeconomy sectors. It also identifies the bio-products that have been the core of the research analysis in the literature, as well as it develops an analysis on the methodological assessments that have been used to evaluate these valorization processes under a sustainable perspective. This review could be a guidance for the development of future research, technological strategies and actions towards residues valorization. willing to promote a more sustainable, circular and resilient bio-based sector. Furthermore, through the analysis of sustainability-related methodologies, it is expected that the results of the review will bridge the gap between theoretical and practical strategies in the pursuit of successful EoL strategies. The main novelty of this review is (1) the provision of an integrated assessment: this review is based on the combination of life cycle assessments, economic evaluation, social analysis and circularity approaches, providing a multicriteria and comprehensive analysis of waste valorization strategies. This combined approach provides a nuance deep analysis of the environmental and economic constraints and challenges to waste-to-resources processes, which has not been deeply analyzed in the literature, (2) the systematic analysis developed highlights the previously explored, and unexplored, trade-offs and synergies about waste valorization technologies and assessment trends, which is considered as a crucial analysis for guiding future research on circular and sustainable waste management, (3) the triple analysis between life cycle perspectives, SSbD and technologies offers a global overview and a forwardlooking perspective on how the technologies should be further improved or implemented to achieve a more sustainable and circular bioeconomy, and (4) this review discuss, in a very first time, about the integration of SSbD framework on the waste-to-resource valorization technologies and assessments, and this approach is considered as an strategic decision-making in the production sector, currently under development by the European Commission. It has been discussed about how SSbD could be applied, and which challenges and needs are required to enhance its use and to provide a more holistic and comprehensive analysis concerning safety, sustainability and circularity as a whole from early-stages of design. All these aspects could contribute significantly to both academic literature and practical applications in sustainable waste management technologies, fostering a sustainable and efficient bioeconomy. 2. Methodology In order to assess the waste management and EoL valorization strategies related to the bioeconomy sector, a systematic review on the articles available on the literature that have analyzed this area of research has been developed. According to Grant and Booth[18], this review could be catalogued as systematic as it seeks to select the most relevant research articles on the field in a narrative manner, including also a thorough analysis and discussion on what has been found on the literature, together with a description of the current gaps and future challenges and recommendations. The aim is to be able to answer the following research questions (RQ) related to the technological development on waste valorization strategies, as well as the analysis of those technologies under a sustainable and/or circular approach, under a life cycle and SSbD frameworks. RQ1 What are the most recurrent waste management and EoL valorization technologies that have been analyzed in the last 10 years? RQ2 Do the articles available for RQ1 include an environmental sustainability assessment? Do they follow an LCA perspective? Which functional unit and methodology were considered for the assessment? Which environmental impacts were assessed? RQ3 Do the articles available for RQ1 include an economic sustainability or techno-economic assessment? Is the valorization strategy economically viable? RQ4 Do the articles available for RQ1 include a social sustainability assessment? What methodology is used? How many indicators are provided? RQ5 Do the articles available for RQ1 include a circularity assessment? How many indicators are provided? Does the valorization strategy follow a circular economy approach? To find an answer to the above research questions, PRISMA guidelines, providing an adequate procedure to identify, select and analyze studies, and the SCOPUS database have been used, and considered the combination of the following keywords: RQ1 “waste valorization AND technologies AND food OR agriculture OR forestry”[time frame 2014–2024],RQ2 “RQ1 keywords AND life cycle assessment OR LCA” [time frame 2014–2024], RQ3 “RQ1 keywords AND life cycle cost OR LCC OR techno-economic assessment OR TEA [time frame 2014–2024],RQ4 “RQ1 keywords AND social assessment OR analysis”[time frame 2014–2024],RQ5 “RQ1 keywords AND circularity”[time frame 2014–2024]. The following exclusion criteria were considered: (1) review articles or conference/symposium proceedings or book chapters are not included, only research articles, (2) the articles must be written in English, (3) the articles must be available in Open Access and (4) articles and papers should be in the scope of the topic of analysis. After the application of these exclusion criteria, 206 studies were considered suitable for review. The PRISMA flowchart, that provides information about the different phases considered for the development of this systematic review, including the maping of the number of records identified and included on each phase, is shown in Fig. 1, ending up with the final research articles selected for analysis. 3. Results This section is divided into a first analysis of the most relevant valorization strategies in the literature, from a technological point of view (Section 3.1.1), to continue with the evaluation of the waste streams that have been most studied from the perspective of their valorization (Section 3.1.2). In addition to the technological aspect and the typology of wastes used as raw material for the development of biorefinery models, the type of bioproducts obtained from these valorization schemes has also been evaluated (Section 3.1.3), as well as the combination of all these aspects, i.e. the correlation between technology-waste-product (Section 3.1.4). On the other hand, in the pursuit for the transition to the bioeconomy, it is not only important to develop more circular production models, but also to advocate for the more sustainable ones. The fact that a process is bio-based does not mean that it is more sustainable than its chemical counterpart, which is why the use of assessment methodologies is essential. In this regard, Section 3.2 includes an analysis of the research articles that have considered an evaluation using a life cycle approach, both from an A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 2 environmental and economic point of view (Section 3.2.1), as well as from a social perspective (Section 3.2.2), which are the three pillars of sustainability. In addition, it has been appreciated that other authors have considered to evaluate biorefinery models from a multi-criteria perspective, which is discussed in Section 3.2.3. Finally, the link between biorefineries and the SSbD framework is argued in Section 3.4. 3.1. State-of-the-art on waste-based biorefinery models 3.1.1. Most relevant valorization strategies Once the evaluation of the 327 research manuscripts was completed, it has been proceeded with classifying the reviewed articles according to the type of technology used for the valorization of waste from the industrial, food, agricultural, domestic and municipal sectors. As can be seen in Fig. 2, there are a large number of waste valorization technologies, as well as combinations between them, although the ones that stand out are technologies based on heat recovery, that indeed are valorization strategies but on a lower level of interest, as the calorific value of the waste streams is the target value, and anaerobic digestion for the production of biogas, as well as liquid and solid digestates, which can be used as biofertilizers. In the case of the biotechnological treatment, fermentation is widely studied, given the possibility of the valorization of the fermentable sugars for the formulation of culture media for diverse microbial strains. The recovery of high-value compounds from waste is also a focus of research, using a variety of extraction and separation techniques. Solvent extraction is one of the most traditional methods to recover valuable compounds from waste although the consumption of large quantities of chemical solvents is an issue to take into account. For this reason, the use of less chemical-intensive extraction technologies has been investigated in recent years, although their large-scale application is still under development. Among these, ultrasound-assisted extraction is based on the disruption of cell walls by the application of highfrequency sound waves, thus increasing the surface area available for extraction. Extraction yields are usually higher and extraction times shorter compared to solvent extraction, which as shown in Fig. 3. Moreover, it requires virtually no chemical solvents for the process and requires mild operating conditions, which avoids degradation of the compounds due to high temperature. In addition to ultrasound, microwave and supercritical fluid extraction technologies stand out. This technology implies the use of microwave energy to heat the extraction solvent in contact with the solid matrix, making it a less useful technology for heat-sensitive bioactive compounds. Regarding the use of supercritical fluid extraction, the use of carbon dioxide is the most widely used, usually in combination with ethanol to improve the yield of the process. The use of supercritical fluid extraction relies on the use of CO 2 in combination with ethanol under high-pressure conditions. It is characterized by high selectivity, efficiency and short extraction time, and is usually coupled with a condenser to recover 100 % of the Fig. 1. Methodological approach for the selection of articles to be further analyzed considering PRISMA guidelines. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 3 supercritical fluid and solvent used for extraction. Another technology that also stands out is the use of membranes, mainly nanofiltration, ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis, to recover and concentrate nutrients, bioactive compounds and other inorganic and organic products. It is mostly used in combination with other valorization technologies. The exclusive use of membrane technologies for waste valorization could pose several problems, from high energy consumption, leading to high environmental burdens and associated production costs, to fouling of membranes or reduced selectivity, among others, so coupling with other technologies is considered the best alternative. 3.1.2. Most relevant waste streams to be valorized In addition to assessing and categorizing the type of technology used Fig. 2. Most relevant technologies used for waste valorization found on research articles from 2014 until 2024. Fig. 3. Analogy between type of waste and type of technology used for waste valorization strategy. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 4 for waste recovery, it could also be classified regarding the type of waste valorized in the assessed literature, which include vegetable, fruit and crop waste. In this case, the technologies that have been most extensively studied in the literature have been selected, as can be seen in Fig. 3. As for the type of technology that stands out most in their valorization, it is extraction, specifically ultrasound-assisted extraction, followed by microwave-assisted extraction, although fermentation also plays an important role. In addition to agricultural residues, there are also industrial residues associated with the agri-food sector, as for example olive mill waste [19, 20], or fruit industrial processing waste [21–23], and food waste from household [24]. For both of these, the extraction technology is no longer a priority, since their content of bioactive compounds is not as high compared to those present in vegetable, crop and fruit residues. The use of agro-food waste as a carbon source for fermentative processes is the most studied option in the literature, without ruling out recovery through anaerobic digestion, especially for domestic waste [25–28]. Finally, for garden waste, organic municipal waste and general biomass waste, anaerobic digestion is the outstanding valorization strategy that has been evaluated in the literature [29–32], while for dairy, fish and meat waste or kitchen waste, i.e. oils, anaerobic digestion processes [33,34], membrane processes[35] and supercritical fluid extraction [36] have also been considered. 3.1.3. Most relevant bio-products valorized Considering the type of product, three stand out by far, with the extraction of bioactive compounds being the most prominent, specifically by means of ultrasound-assisted extraction technology, with a significant share of microwave-assisted extraction and conventional solvent extraction. Bioactive compounds include antioxidants, peptides, proteins, carotenoids, linolenic acid, omega 3, among others (see Fig. 4). Products related to bioenergy and biofuel are obtained through anaerobic digestion and fermentation technology. The anaerobic digestion process results in the production of biogas, which can be converted into thermal energy and electricity through a coupled cogeneration system. This has been the approach analyzed by [37], based on the valorization of the bio-waste fraction of the municipal solid waste of Madeira and Porto Santo Island through anaerobic digestion coupled with a combined heat and power system, achieving conversion values that amounts to the production of 7.54 GWh of electricity and 12.14 GWh of heat by valorizing 64 ktons of biowaste. The use of biowaste has also been studied by Gross et al. [38], concretely the biowaste fraction of Indian municipalities, but also in combination with manure and crop residues, and concluded that its energy valorization with anaerobic digestion could be able to substitute around 60 % of the total energy used in households of villages, and around 10 % in chase of households in cities, which could help on achieving more circular towns and cities [38]. Besides, it has also been evaluated the option of having centralized or decentralized anaerobic digestion systems for the valorization of organic waste, as analyzed by [39], as the location of the facility could have a significant effect on the advantage of using the electricity and heat produced in the surrounding communities. The analysis done, considering various scenarios, highlighted the environmental benefits of using anaerobic digestion technologies rather than incineration of the organic waste, as well as those decentralized facilities, focused on biogas production, are the ones saving higher quantity of GHG emissions and energy, thus being more sustainable. On the other hand, even though agricultural and municipal waste are the residual raw materials preferred to develop anaerobic digestion, also dairy waste has been studied as a possible material for energy recovery. The assessment has shown that by the valorization of 1 L of dairy manure per day with an anaerobic digestion system combined with hydrothermal liquefaction unit, it is possible to get 1.03 kWh of electricity, 275 L of biocrude and 198 kg of hydrochar, thus being a cascade process with high added value compounds obtained [40]. On the other hand, the fermentation process is commonly used to produce biofuels such as bioethanol or biohydrogen, which requires dark fermentation. The production of bioethanol has been articleed by, for example [41], using mango and orange peel wastes fermented by a mixed culture of various bacteria strains (Enterobacter cloacae, Fig. 4. Analogy between type of bio-product and type of technology used for its production. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 5 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus cereus), and providing a yield on bioethanol production that amounts to 32 % after 72 h of batch fermentation process. It has also been articleed the use of the digestate coming from the anaerobic digestion process, in order to achieve a more circular energy recovery strategy, achieving a bioethanol yield that amounts to 37 g/kg of total solid content on the digestate, and thus providing an extra electricity production of 8483 kWh per day [42]. Biochemicals and biomolecules also have an important weight in the literature, obtained mainly by fermentation processes, but also by extraction processes, with supercritical fluid extraction standing out, followed by ultrasound-assisted extraction. Some of the products included in this category are lactic acid (obtained by the fermentation of mixed bakery waste [43], fruit waste [44], potato waste [45] and/or food waste [46]) ferulic acid (produced by an enzymatic extraction process using as raw material industrial residues as brewers spent grains [47]), xylooligosaccharides (mainly using agrowaste and considering enzymatic conversion or hydrothermal treatment for its production [48, 49]), or enzymes such as alpha amylase, produced by the fermentation of rice by-products [50], or β-1,4-endoxylanase, obtained by the enzymatic hydrolysis of wheat straw [51]. In the context of anaerobic digestion, it is very common to use digestate to produce organic fertilizers or biochar [52], as its high organic content makes it an ideal composition to improve the quality and nutrient balance of agricultural soils. Other less relevant products in the literature are animal feed [53], given their low economic benefit compared to bioactive compounds, and also biological products used for other treatments, such as use in bioremediation, as adsorbents [54] or for vermicomposting [55], and those were considered as “bio-based products for alternative treatments”. 3.1.4. Correlation between technologies, waste streams and bio-products The relationship between the type of technologies most prominent in the literature, the type of waste used as a resource to be valorized and the category of bioproduct obtained is presented in Table 1. It is worth mentioning that, although a trend has been observed between the type of waste stream and the technology used for its valorization, our assessment shows that several studies have chosen to analyze different typologies of technologies in order to assess which of them is more suitable for the biorefinery or biotechnology model. For example, studies tend to associate the anaerobic digestion technology with municipal and agricultural waste, mainly for obtaining bioenergy and bio-oil, although there is also a strong tendency to valorize the digestate obtained for the production of organic fertilizers and biochar. In the case of extraction technologies, whether conventional, ultrasonic, supercritical fluid or microwave, there is a clear trend towards the use of agricultural waste. Regarding the type of product, it is also clear that the main objective of valorization is to obtain bioactive and biochemical compounds or biomolecules. As for fermentation, there is no clear focus on the type of waste used, although industrial and agricultural waste have been studied to a greater extent, but on the type of bioproducts obtained: bioenergy and bio-oil, as well as biomolecules and biochemicals. As for membrane technology, it is undoubtedly the one in which the development of a smaller number of valorization strategies has been considered, and a great variety of target bioproducts has been observed. The main reason for this result may be due to the fact that this technology is usually coupled with other waste valorization techniques, whereby its main consideration is to increase the purity of the value-added bioproducts and thus improve their quality. 3.2. Biorefineries assessed under a life-cycle approach 3.2.1. Life cycle assessments of valorization of biotic waste with biorefineries Some of the studies evaluated include a combination of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and economic analysis, using different methodologies Table 1 Relation between type of technology, type of waste to be valorized and type of bio-product obtained. Technology Residue BP1 a BP2 a BP3 a BP4 a BP5 a BP6 a BP7 a Anaerobic digestion Biomass waste 1 1 1 Dairy, fish and meat-products waste 3 1 Food waste 3 1 Garden waste 2 Industrial waste 1 Kitchen waste 1 Organic municipal waste 6 1 3 Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 7 1 Wood and leaves waste 1 1 Conventional solvent extraction Dairy, fish and meat-products waste 1 Industrial waste 1 Kitchen waste 1 Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 1 1 3 Fermentation Dairy, fish and meat-products waste 2 1 Digestate 1 2 Food waste 1 1 1 Industrial waste 2 5 1 Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 5 1 1 3 1 1 Membrane process Dairy, fish and meat-products waste 1 1 Industrial waste 1 1 Kitchen waste 1 Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 1 Microwave assisted extraction Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 2 8 Supercritical fluid extraction Dairy, fish and meat-products waste 1 Food waste 1 Industrial waste 2 1 Kitchen waste 1 Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 1 3 3 Ultrasound assisted extraction Industrial waste 2 Vegetable, crops and fruit waste 3 10 Wood and leaves waste 2 a Acronyms: BP1: Bioenergy &bio-oil, BP2: Biochemicals &biomolecules, BP3: Biopolymers, BP4: Bioactive compounds, BP5: Organic fertilizers &compost & biochar, BP6: Animal feed and BP7: Bio-based products for alternative treatments. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 6 (i.e. Life Cycle Cost (LCC), Techno-economic assessment (TEA), cost and benefit analysis (CBA), etc.), while others are more focused on a single pillar of sustainability, environmental or economic, rather than performing a combination between those. Given this, for all the life cyclebased found in literature covering environmental and economic aspects, those have been analyzed specifying the methodological details considered for its development. To this end, with respect to the environmental pillar, a classification has been made according to the functional units as follows: "input" (I) based, i.e. the quantity or input of waste into the production system, or "product" (P) based, related to the output or target product(s) of the recovery system. This classification allows assessing a wide variety of products and wastes. It is worth mentioning that when two or more outputs are obtained, it is common to select the input as the functional unit, as this is simpler and would also allow the development of an allocation of environmental impacts, which could be either a mass allocation or an economic allocation. In 62 % of the manuscripts, the mass or volume of the inflow to the system was considered as the functional unit (Table 2), e.g. "1 m 3 of food waste”[56], "1 ton of municipal solid waste" [57–60], "total mass of residues produced in one year" [56,61–63] or "1 ton of food waste" [64–67]. Regarding the “product”base functional unit, some examples are “1 MJ of bioethanol”[68,69], “1 kg of extracted compound”[70,71], “1 kWh of power”[72,73] or “antioxidant capacity”[69,74]. Regarding the methodologies used to characterize the environmental impacts of the considered valorization schemes, the use of the impact assessment method ReCiPe stands out in 45 % of the articles analyzed [156], followed by the following methodologies: CML [157] with 25 %, IPCC [158] with 17 % (specially for the calculation of the Carbon Footprint), and the Environmental Footprint (EF), which was considered in 13 % of the articles analyzed (Table 2). For the studies applying ReCiPe, most of thems use the ReCiPe MidPoint approach, characterized by the provision of a total of 18 midpoint impact categories, from ecotoxicity to eutrophication, impact on human health, carbon footprint or depletion of fossil resources, among others. While some of them assessed all 18 impact categories [72, 103,120], others focused on the evaluation of eutrophication, toxicity, photochemical oxidation and global warming [140], on water footprint and eutrophication [155], or on the consumption of mineral and fossil resources, particulate matter formation, global warming and land use [108]. The CML method considers 11 mid-point impact categories, such as three ecotoxicity categories (terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecotoxicity), two related to eutrophication (marine and freshwater eutrophication), one assessing resource depletion, namely "Abiotic resource use", and also it scores human toxicity. As was the case with studies applying ReCiPe, some papers cover all CML impact categories [65,154,86], while others consider e.g. only global warming potential [109,123], sometimes in combination with the eutrophication and acidification potential [121]. For studies referring to the IPCC, the only impact category covered is global warming [85,90,105,144]. In the case of alternative methodologies to score the environmental effects of waste recovery strategies, it has been used in combination with ReCiPe, CML, Chemical Energy Demand (CED), USEtox and Accumulated Exceedance, to assess the impact categories of acidification, eutrophication, fossil resources depletion, human toxicity, ozone depletion, primary and renewable energy demand, and abiotic resource depletion [63,66,125,77]. The EF method has only been used in a few research articles, namely using food waste and agricultural waste as resources for bioenergy and bio-oil using anaerobic digestion/hydrothermal carbonization technologies [61,113], and biochemicals &biomolecules, and biochemicals and biomolecules, namely volatile fatty acids and essential oils and citric acid, using assisted extraction technologies [137,79]. In addition, also not-as-common methodologies have been used apart for the aforementioned ones, such as the EASETECH model [60,141,106], GREET model [69,91,92], TRACI [81,93] and cumulative energy demand (CED) [70, 125,122], among others. Another aspect analyzed is the relationship between the LCA and the type of waste, the technology used for recovery and the bioproduct obtained. In this respect, the classification considered is analogous to that used in the previous section. With regard to the type of waste, three types of waste stand out for which the LCA has been used for studying the environmental impacs of their treatment: food waste, which represents 30 % of the total number of studies analyzed, followed by forestry waste (wood and leaf waste) with 29 %, and agricultural waste (vegetables, crops and fruit) with 28 %. For the remaining waste types, the development of environmental assessment in the literature is reduced to ranges between 1 and 5%. 3.2.2. Economic assessments for analyzing waste valorization strategies under a biorefinery approach With regard to the economic assessments, the parameters analyzed in the selected research articles were also evaluated, as shown in Table 3. As can be seen, both LCC and techno-economic evaluation (TEA), more generic economic analyses, cost-benefit analyses (CBA) and, to a lesser extent, the use of material flow cost accounting (MFCA, a method used to improve material efficiency, standardized on ISO 14501) are used. In general, when a TEA is chosen as the economic assessment methodology, the valorization process has also been simulated; therefore, these studies also assess the suitability of the equipment used, identifying volumes, production capacities and energy requirements, among others. On the other hand, the use of the LCC methodology follows the guidelines of the ISO 15686 standard, where CAPEX (Capital Expenditure), OPEX (Operational Expenditure) and NPV (Net Present Value) are estimated to assess the economic viability of the valorization process. On the other hand, more general economic analyses usually also include the calculation of the Minimum Selling Price (MSP) of the desired product, which allows to assess its market potential. Only one research study articleed the use of the analysis of the costs associated with carbon fees, thus limiting it to assessing the environmental costs [153]. In addition to the economic parameters mentioned above, the calculation of Return on Investment (ROI) [88], Internal Rate of Return (IRR) [154,90,139], Payback Value [139,111] or Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) [91,111] was also conducted. While the first three are common parameters in cost analysis, providing complementary values to CAPEX, OPEX and NPV, under the same function of analyzing the economic viability of the valorization process, the LCOE is not so common. It is defined as the average cost required to produce 1 kWh of energy and is calculated as the ratio between the total annualized cost and the total amount of energy produced [160]. Regarding the relationship between economic valuation, the type of waste, the valorization technology and the type of bioproduct, there is a clear trend towards the use of food waste (33 % of the articles studied), municipal organic waste (28 %) and agricultural waste (26 %). In terms of technology, anaerobic digestion and fermentation are the main areas, with a percentage of importance of 49 % and 21 %, respectively. It has been observed that many research articles evaluate different technologies. While it is true that there is a tendency to opt for more innovative recovery models, seeking greater benefits in terms of quality and added value of the product obtained, there is a fairly widespread tendency to opt for the energy recovery of waste, both because of its greater simplicity and lower cost compared to other technologies. Accordingly, as found in the context of the analysis of environmental LCA studies, the production of bioenergy and bio-oil is the most interesting topic in the literature, accounting for 51 % of the articles evaluated, followed by the production of bioactive compounds, accounting for 29 %. 3.2.3. Valorization of biotic streams and social assessment The number of research articles covering the social pillar of A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 7 Table 2 Analysis of the available environmental and economic assessment articles on the aforementioned waste resources, technologies and bio-products. Ref. Methodology FU Methodology Raw material Product type Technology LCA LCC/ others I P ReCiPe CML IPCC EF Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 [58] Y N X X EcoIndicator99 X X X X [75] Y EA X X X X X X [76] Y N X Impact2002+X X X X X [77] Y N X X X X X X X X [78] Y N X X X X X [68] Y EA X X X X X X [79] Y N X X X X X [80] Y N X GHG equations X X X [69] Y TEA X GREET model X X X X X X [57] Y N X Impact2002+X X X [81] Y LCC X TRACI X X X X [65] Y N X X X X X X X [82] Y N X X X X X [83] Y N X X X X X X [84] Y N X EcoIndicator99 X X X X [85] Y N X X X X X X X X [86] Y N X X X X X X X [87] Y N X X Impact2002+X X X [88] Y EA X X X X X X X [64] Y N X X X X X X [89] Y N X X X X X X [90] Y LCC X X X X X X X [91] Y TEA X GREET model X X X [92] Y TEA X GREET model X X X [73] Y N X X EcoIndicator99 X X X [93] Y N X TRACI X X X X X [94] Y N X X X X X X X [56] Y LCC X X X TRACI X X X X [95] Y MFCA X X X X X [96] Y EA X X X X X X X [97] Y LCC X X X X X X X [66] Y N X X X X AE, USETox X X X X X X [98] Y N X X X X X X [63] Y N X X X AE, USETox X X X [99] Y N X X X X X X [59] Y N X X X X X X X [60] Y N X EASETECH model X X X X [100] Y N X X CED X X X X [61] Y N X X X X X X [101] Y N X X X X X X X [102] Y N X X X X X X X X [72] Y N X X X X X [103] Y N X X X X X X X [104] Y CBA X X X X X X [105] Y EA X X X X X X X X [106] Y TEA X EASETECH model X X X [107] Y N X X X X X X X [71] Y N X X X X X [62] Y N X Characterization X X X X X [108] Y N X X X X X X X [109] Y N X X X X X X (continued on next page) A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 8 Table 2 (continued) Ref. Methodology FU Methodology Raw material Product type Technology LCA LCC/ others I P ReCiPe CML IPCC EF Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 [110] Y N X X X X X X X [70] Y N X X CED X X X X X [111] Y EA X X X X X X X [112] Y CC X X X [113] Y N X X X X X X X [114] Y N X X X X X X X [115] Y N X X X X X [116] Y N X X X X [117] Y N X X X X X X X [118] Y N X X X X X X [119] Y N X X X X X X X [120] Y N X ImpactWorld+X X X X X [121] Y N X X X X X X [122] Y N X X X X X X [123] Y N X X CED X X X [124] Y N X X X X X X [125] Y N X X X X X X X X [126] Y N X X CED X X X [127] Y N X X CED X X X X X X [128] Y N X ILCD2011 X X X X [129] Y LCC X GREET model X X X X [130] Y TEA X X X X X X [74] Y N X X X X X [131] N EA X X X [132] Y CBS X X X X X X [133] Y TEA X X X X X X [134] Y N X X X X X X [135] Y N X X Primary ED X X X [136] Y N X X X X X [137] Y TEA X X X X X [138] Y LCC X X X X X X X [139] Y TEA X X X X X [140] Y N X X X X X [141] Y LCC X EASETECH model X X X X X X [142] Y N X X X X X X X [143] Y N X X X X X X X [144] Y EA X X X X X X X [145] Y TEA X X X X X X [146] Y N X KPIs X X X [147] Y N X EASETECH model X X X X X [148] Y N X X X X X [67] Y N X X X X X X X [149] Y EA X X X [150] Y CBA X X X X X X X [151] Y N X X X X X X X [152] Y N X ILCD2011 X X X [153] Y Tax C X EASETECH model X X X X X X [154] Y LCC X X X X X X [155] Y N X X AWARE X X X *Raw material: 1-Biomass waste, 2-Dairy, fish and meat-products waste, 3-Food waste, 4-Garden waste, 5-Industrial waste, 6-Kitchen waste, 7Organic municipal waste, 8-Vegetable, crops and fruit waste, 9-Wood and leaves waste. Product type: P1: Bioenergy &bio-oil, P2: Biochemicals &biomolecules, P3: Biopolymers, P4: Bioactive compounds, P5: Organic fertilizers &compost &biochar, P6: Animal feed, P7: Bio-based products for alternative treatments. Technology: T1-anaerobic digestion, T2-conventional solvent extraction, T3-fermentation, T4-membrane process, T5-microwave assisted extraction, T6-supercritical fluid extraction, T7-ultrasound assisted extraction, T8-incineration, T9-gasification, pyrolysis, combustion, hydrothermal carbonization, mechanical treatment. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 9 [65] Mondello G, Salomone R, Ioppolo G, Saija G, Sparacia S, Lucchetti MC. Comparative LCA of alternative scenarios for waste treatment: the case of food waste production by the mass-retail sector. Sustainability 2017;9. https://doi. org/10.3390/su9050827. [66] Salemdeeb R, zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Kim MH, Balmford A, Al-Tabbaa A. Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options. J Clean Prod 2017;140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.049. [67] Zhang Z, Han W, Chen X, Yang N, Lu C, Wang Y. The life-cycle environmental impact of recycling of restaurant food waste in Lanzhou, China. Appl Sci 2019;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9173608. [68] Meng F, Dornau A, Mcqueen Mason SJ, Thomas GH, Conradie A, McKechnie J. Bioethanol from autoclaved municipal solid waste: assessment of environmental and financial viability under policy contexts. Appl Energy 2021;298. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117118. [69] Wang Y, Baral NR, Yang M, Scown CD. Co-processing agricultural residues and wet organic waste can produce lower-cost carbon-negative fuels and bioplastics. Environ Sci Technol 2023;57. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06674. [70] Gadkari S, Kumar D, Qin Z hao, Ki Lin CS, Kumar V. Life cycle analysis of fermentative production of succinic acid from bread waste. Waste Manag 2021; 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.013. [71] Santiago B, Feijoo G, Moreira MT, Gonz´ alez-García S. Identifying the sustainability route of asparagus co-product extraction: from waste to bioactive compounds. Food Bioprod Process 2021;129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fbp.2021.08.005. [72] Aberilla JM, Gallego-Schmid A, Azapagic A. Environmental sustainability of small-scale biomass power technologies for agricultural communities in developing countries. Renew Energy 2019;141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2019.04.036. [73] Nubi O, Morse S, Murphy RJ. Electricity generation from municipal solid waste in Nigeria: a prospective LCA study. Sustainability 2022;14. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14159252. [74] Bouchez A, Vauchel P, P´ erino S, Dimitrov K. Multi-criteria optimization including environmental impacts of a microwave-assisted extraction of polyphenols and comparison with an ultrasound-assisted extraction process. Foods 2023;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12091750. [75] Lin Z, Ooi JK, Woon KS. An integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization model for health-environment-economic nexus in food waste management sector. Sci Total Environ 2022;816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151541. [76] Ebrahimian F, Mohammadi A. Assessing the environmental footprints and material flow of 2,3-butanediol production in a wood-based biorefinery. Bioresour Technol 2023;387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129642. [77] Moretti C, Vera I, Junginger M, L´ opez-Contreras A, Shen L. Attributional and consequential LCAs of a novel bio-jet fuel from Dutch potato by-products. Sci Total Environ 2022;813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152505. [78] Hu X, Subramanian K, Wang H, Roelants SLKW, Soetaert W, Kaur G, Lin CSK, Chopra SS. Bioconversion of food waste to produce industrial-scale sophorolipid syrup and crystals: dynamic life cycle assessment (dLCA) of emerging biotechnologies. Bioresour Technol 2021;337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2021.125474. [79] Teigiserova DA, Hamelin L, Tiruta-Barna L, Ahmadi A, Thomsen M. Circular bioeconomy: life cycle assessment of scaled-up cascading production from orange peel waste under current and future electricity mixes. Sci Total Environ 2022; 812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152574. [80] Xia L, Chen W, Lu B, Wang S, Xiao L, Liu B, Yang H, Huang CL, Wang H, Yang Yang, Lin L, Zhu X, Chen WQ, Yan X, Zhuang M, Kung CC, Zhu YG, Yang Yi. Climate mitigation potential of sustainable biochar production in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2023;175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113145. [81] Lee E, Oliveira DSBL, Oliveira LSBL, Jimenez E, Kim Y, Wang M, Ergas SJ, Zhang Q. Comparative environmental and economic life cycle assessment of high solids anaerobic co-digestion for biosolids and organic waste management. Water Res 2020;171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115443. [82] Bernstad Saraiva A, Souza RG, Valle RAB. Comparative lifecycle assessment of alternatives for waste management in Rio de Janeiro –Investigating the influence of an attributional or consequential approach. Waste Manag 2017;68. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.002. [83] Thushari I, Babel S. Comparative study of the environmental impacts of used cooking oil valorization options in Thailand. J Environ Manage 2022;310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114810. [84] Lombardi L, Carnevale EA, Corti A. Comparison of different biological treatment scenarios for the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2015;12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0421-y. [85] Muhammad NIS, Rosentrater KA. Comparison of global-warming potential impact of food waste fermentation to landfill disposal. SN Appl Sci 2020;2. https://doi. org/10.1007/s42452-020-2035-6. [86] Shih MF, Lin CY, Lay CH. Comparison of potential environmental impacts and waste-to-energy efficiency for kitchen waste treatment scenarios in central Taiwan. Processes 2021;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9040696. [87] Malesani R, Schievano A, Di Maria F, Sisani F, Pivato A. Compost heat recovery systems: global warming potential impact estimation and comparison through A life cycle assessment approach. Detritus 2022;19. https://doi.org/10.31025/ 2611-4135/2022.15196. [88] Galgani P, van der Voet E, Korevaar G. Composting, anaerobic digestion and biochar production in Ghana. Environmental-economic assessment in the context of voluntary carbon markets. Waste Manag 2014;34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wasman.2014.07.027. [89] Camacho CI, Est´ evez S, Conde JJ, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Dark fermentation as an environmentally sustainable WIN-WIN solution for bioenergy production. J Clean Prod 2022;374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134026. [90] Abdeljaber A, Zannerni R, Masoud W, Abdallah M, Rocha-Meneses L. Ecoefficiency analysis of integrated waste management strategies based on gasification and mechanical biological treatment. Sustainability 2022;14. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14073899. [91] Lokesh K, West C, Kuylenstierna JC, Fan J, Budarin V, Priecel P, LopezSanchez JA, Clark JH. Economic and agronomic impact assessment of wheat straw based alkyl polyglucoside produced using green chemical approaches. J Clean Prod 2019;209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.220. [92] Sahoo K, Mani S. Economic and environmental impacts of an integrated-state anaerobic digestion system to produce compressed natural gas from organic wastes and energy crops. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;115. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109354. [93] Yang X, Zhang Q, Ergas SJ. Enhancement of system and environmental performance of high solids anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic banana waste by biochar addition. Sustainability 2023;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086832. [94] Mong GR, Liew CS, Chong WWF, Mohd Nor SA, Ng JH, Idris R, Chiong MC, Lim JW, Zakaria ZA, Woon KS. Environment impact and bioenergy analysis on the microwave pyrolysis of WAS from food industry: comparison of CO2 and N2 atmosphere. J Environ Manage 2022;319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2022.115665. [95] Pinto SM, Campos S, Oliveira L, Atilano J, Barros L, Pereira eC. Environmental and economic assessment of food additive production from mushroom bioresidues. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2022;6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cesys.2022.100083. [96] Angouria-Tsorochidou E, Walk S, K¨ orner I, Thomsen M. Environmental and economic assessment of household food waste source-separation efficiency in a German case study. Cleaner Waste Systems 2023;5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. clwas.2023.100092. [97] Slorach PC, Jeswani HK, Cu´ ellar-Franca R, Azapagic A. Environmental and economic implications of recovering resources from food waste in a circular economy. Sci Total Environ 2019;693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2019.07.322. [98] Prioux N, Ouaret R, Hetreux G, Belaud JP. Environmental assessment coupled with machine learning for circular economy. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2023; 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02275-4. [99] Muradin M. Environmental impact assessment of organic waste conversion technology for additives to liquid fuels. Polityka Energetyczna 2020;23. https:// doi.org/10.33223/epj/118731. [100] Cremiato R, Mastellone ML, Tagliaferri C, Zaccariello L, Lettieri P. Environmental impact of municipal solid waste management using Life Cycle Assessment: the effect of anaerobic digestion, materials recovery and secondary fuels production. Renew Energy 2018;124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.033. [101] Vandermeersch T, Alvarenga RAF, Ragaert P, Dewulf J. Environmental sustainability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.008. [102] Slorach PC, Jeswani HK, Cu´ ellar-Franca R, Azapagic A. Environmental sustainability of anaerobic digestion of household food waste. J Environ Manage 2019;236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.001. [103] Balcioglu G, Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. Evaluating the environmental and economic sustainability of energy from anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks in Turkey. Sustain Prod Consum 2022;32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2022.06.011. [104] Bruno M, Marini M, Angouria-Tsorochidou E, Pulselli FM, Thomsen M. Ex ante Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis of an anaerobic digester in Italy. Cleaner Waste Systems 2022;3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. clwas.2022.100021. [105] Moretti C, L´ opez-Contreras A, de Vrije T, Kraft A, Junginger M, Shen L. From agricultural (by-)products to jet fuels: carbon footprint and economic performance. Sci Total Environ 2021;775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2021.145848. [106] Voss R, Lee RP, Seidl L, Keller F, Fr¨ ohling M. Global warming potential and economic performance of gasification-based chemical recycling and incineration pathways for residual municipal solid waste treatment in Germany. Waste Manag 2021;134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.07.040. [107] Byun J, Han J. Green methane as a future fuel for light-duty vehicles. Fermentation 2022;8. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8120680. [108] Liu J, Nauta J, van Eekert MHA, Chen WS, Buisman CJN. Integrated life cycle assessment of biotreatment and agricultural use of domestic organic residues: environmental benefits, trade-offs, and impacts on soil application. Sci Total Environ 2023;897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165372. [109] Hajabdollahi Ouderji Z, Gupta R, Mckeown A, Yu Z, Smith C, Sloan W, You S. Integration of anaerobic digestion with heat Pump: machine learning-based technical and environmental assessment. Bioresour Technol 2023;369. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128485. [110] Opatokun SA, Lopez-Sabiron AM, Ferreira G, Strezov V. Life cycle analysis of energy production from food waste through anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis and integrated energy system. Sustainability 2017;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su9101804. [111] Richard EN, Hilonga A, Machunda RL, Njau KN. Life cycle analysis of potential municipal solid wastes management scenarios in Tanzania: the case of Arusha City. Sustainable Environment Research 2021;31. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s42834-020-00075-3. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 16 [112] Lee U, Bhatt A, Hawkins TR, Tao L, Benavides PT, Wang M. Life cycle analysis of renewable natural gas and lactic acid production from waste feedstocks. J Clean Prod 2021;311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127653. [113] Sarrion A, Medina-Martos E, Iribarren D, Diaz E, Mohedano AF, Dufour J. Life cycle assessment of a novel strategy based on hydrothermal carbonization for nutrient and energy recovery from food waste. Sci Total Environ 2023;878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163104. [114] Elginoz N, Khatami K, Owusu-Agyeman I, Cetecioglu Z. Life cycle assessment of an innovative food waste management system. Front Sustain Food Syst 2020;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00023. [115] Mata TM, Rodrigues S, Caetano NS, Martins AA. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol from corn stover from soil phytoremediation. Energy Articles 2022;8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.059. [116] Tagliaferri C, Evangelisti S, Clift R, Lettieri P, Chapman C, Taylor R. Life cycle assessment of conventional and advanced two-stage energy-from-waste technologies for methane production. J Clean Prod 2016;129. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.092. [117] Tian H, Wang X, Lim EY, Lee JTE, Ee AWL, Zhang J, Tong YW. Life cycle assessment of food waste to energy and resources: centralized and decentralized anaerobic digestion with different downstream biogas utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111489. [118] Righi S, Bandini V, Marazza D, Baioli F, Torri C, Contin A. Life Cycle Assessment of high ligno-cellulosic biomass pyrolysis coupled with anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2016;212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.052. [119] Rotthong M, Takaoka M, Oshita K, Rachdawong P, Gheewala SH, Prapaspongsa T. Life cycle assessment of integrated municipal organic waste management systems in Thailand. Sustainability 2023;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010090. [120] Barjoveanu G, P˘ atr˘ auțanu OA, Teodosiu C, Volf I. Life cycle assessment of polyphenols extraction processes from waste biomass. Sci Rep 2020;10. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70587-w. [121] Vinitskaia N, Zaikova A, Deviatkin I, Bachina O, Horttanainen M. Life cycle assessment of the existing and proposed municipal solid waste management system in Moscow, Russia. J Clean Prod 2021;328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.129407. [122] Batuecas E, Tommasi T, Battista F, Negro V, Sonetti G, Viotti P, Fino D, Mancini G. Life Cycle Assessment of waste disposal from olive oil production: anaerobic digestion and conventional disposal on soil. J Environ Manage 2019;237. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.021. [123] Lui J, Sloan W, Paul MC, Flynn D, You S. Life cycle assessment of waste-tohydrogen systems for fuel cell electric buses in Glasgow, Scotland. Bioresour Technol 2022;359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127464. [124] Mayer F, Bhandari R, G¨ ath SA. Life cycle assessment on the treatment of organic waste streams by anaerobic digestion, hydrothermal carbonization and incineration. Waste Manag 2021;130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wasman.2021.05.019. [125] Monteiro H, Moura B, Iten M, Mata TM, Martins AA. Life cycle energy and carbon emissions of ergosterol from mushroom residues. Energy Articles 2020;6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.157. [126] Schmidt Rivera XC, Gallego-Schmid A, Najdanovic-Visak V, Azapagic A. Life cycle environmental sustainability of valorisation routes for spent coffee grounds: from waste to resources. Resour Conserv Recycl 2020;157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.104751. [127] Garcia-Garcia G, Rahimifard S, Matharu AS, Dugmore TIJ. Life-cycle assessment of microwave-assisted pectin extraction at pilot scale. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2019;7. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b06052. [128] Nordahl SL, Devkota JP, Amirebrahimi J, Smith SJ, Breunig HM, Preble CV, Satchwell AJ, Jin L, Brown NJ, Kirchstetter TW, Scown CD. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and human health trade-offs of organic waste management strategies. Environ Sci Technol 2020;54. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. est.0c00364. [129] García-Vel´ asquez C, van der Meer Y. Mind the Pulp: environmental and economic assessment of a sugar beet pulp biorefinery for biobased chemical production. Waste Manag 2023;155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.10.038. [130] Bacenetti J, Duca D, Negri M, Fusi A, Fiala M. Mitigation strategies in the agrofood sector: the anaerobic digestion of tomato pur´ ee by-products. An Italian case study. Sci Total Environ 2015;526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2015.04.069. [131] Liu Y, Huang T, Peng D, Huang J, Maurer C, Kranert M. Optimizing the codigestion supply chain of sewage sludge and food waste by the demand oriented biogas supplying mechanism. Waste Manag Res 2021;39. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0734242X20953491. [132] Castellani P, Ferronato N, Ragazzi M, Torretta V. Organic waste valorization in remote islands: analysis of economic and environmental benefits of onsite treatment options. Waste Manag Res 2023;41. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734242X221126426. [133] Arias A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Process and environmental simulation in the validation of the biotechnological production of nisin from waste. Biochem Eng J 2021;174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2021.108105. [134] Narisetty V, Nagarajan S, Gadkari S, Ranade VV, Zhang J, Patchigolla K, Bhatnagar A, Kumar Awasthi M, Pandey A, Kumar V. Process optimization for recycling of bread waste into bioethanol and biomethane: a circular economy approach. Energy Convers Manag 2022;266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enconman.2022.115784. [135] Meng F, Ibbett R, de Vrije T, Metcalf P, Tucker G, McKechnie J. Process simulation and life cycle assessment of converting autoclaved municipal solid waste into butanol and ethanol as transport fuels. Waste Manag 2019;89. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.003. [136] Chen WS, Strik DPBTB, Buisman CJN, Kroeze C. Production of caproic acid from mixed organic waste: an environmental life cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06220. [137] Pinto ASS, McDonald LJ, Jones RJ, Massanet-Nicolau J, Guwy A, McManus M. Production of volatile fatty acids by anaerobic digestion of biowastes: technoeconomic and life cycle assessments. Bioresour Technol 2023;388. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129726. [138] Nubi O, Morse S, Murphy RJ. Prospective life cycle costing of electricity generation from municipal solid waste in Nigeria. Sustainability 2022;14. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su142013293. [139] Upcraft T, Tu WC, Johnson R, Finnigan T, Van Hung N, Hallett J, Guo M. Protein from renewable resources: mycoprotein production from agricultural residues. Green Chem 2021;23. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1gc01021b. [140] Pujara Y, Govani J, Patel HT, Pathak P, Mashru D, Ganesh PS. Quantification of environmental impacts associated with municipal solid waste management in Rajkot city, India using Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Advances 2023;12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100364. [141] Tonini D, Wandl A, Meister K, Unceta PM, Taelman SE, Sanjuan-Delm´ as D, Dewulf J, Huygens D. Quantitative sustainability assessment of household food waste management in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. Resour Conserv Recycl 2020;160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104854. [142] Sanjuan-Delm´ as D, Taelman SE, Arlati A, Obersteg A, V´ er C, ´ Ov´ ari ´ A, Tonini D, Dewulf J. Sustainability assessment of organic waste management in three EU Cities: analysing stakeholder-based solutions. Waste Manag 2021;132. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.07.013. [143] Somorin T, Campos LC, Kinobe JR, Kulabako RN, Afolabi OOD. Sustainable valorisation of agri-food waste from open-air markets in Kampala, Uganda via standalone and integrated waste conversion technologies. Biomass Bioenergy 2023;172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106752. [144] Etzold H, R¨ oder L, Oehmichen K, Nitzsche R. Technical design, economic and environmental assessment of a biorefinery concept for the integration of biomethane and hydrogen into the transport sector. Bioresour Technol Rep 2023; 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2023.101476. [145] Lopes TF, Carvalheiro F, Duarte LC, Gírio F, Quintero JA, Aroca G. Technoeconomic and life-cycle assessments of small-scale biorefineries for isobutene and xylo-oligosaccharides production: a comparative study in Portugal and Chile. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 2019;13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bbb.2036. [146] Feiz R, Johansson M, Lindkvist E, Moestedt J, Påledal SN, Ometto F. The biogas yield, climate impact, energy balance, nutrient recovery, and resource cost of biogas production from household food waste—a comparison of multiple cases from Sweden. J Clean Prod 2022;378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2022.134536. [147] Thyberg KL, Tonjes DJ. The environmental impacts of alternative food waste treatment technologies in the U.S. J Clean Prod 2017;158. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.169. [148] Arcentales-Bastidas D, Silva C, Ramirez AD. The environmental profile of ethanol derived from sugarcane in Ecuador: a life cycle assessment including the effect of cogeneration of electricity in a sugar industrial complex. Energies 2022;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155421. [149] Cˆ amara-Salim I, Conde P, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. The use of maize stover and sugar beet pulp as feedstocks in industrial fermentation plants –an economic and environmental perspective. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2021;2. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cesys.2020.100005. [150] Ascher S, Watson I, Wang X, You S. Township-based bioenergy systems for distributed energy supply and efficient household waste re-utilisation: technoeconomic and environmental feasibility. Energy 2019;181. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.191. [151] Cort´ es A, Moreira MT, Domínguez J, Lores M, Feijoo G. Unraveling the environmental impacts of bioactive compounds and organic amendment from grape marc. J Environ Manage 2020;272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2020.111066. [152] San Martin D, Ramos S, Zufía J. Valorisation of food waste to produce new raw materials for animal feed. Food Chem 2016;198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2015.11.035. [153] Albizzati PF, Tonini D, Chammard CB, Astrup TF. Valorisation of surplus food in the French retail sector: environmental and economic impacts. Waste Manag 2019;90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.034. [154] Pasciucco F, Francini G, Pecorini I, Baccioli A, Lombardi L, Ferrari L. Valorization of biogas from the anaerobic co-treatment of sewage sludge and organic waste: life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of different recovery strategies. J Clean Prod 2023;401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136762. [155] Hoehn D, Margallo M, Laso J, Ruiz-Salm´ on I, Fern´ andez-Ríos A, Campos C, V´ azquez-Rowe I, Aldaco R, Quinteiro P. Water footprint assessment of food loss and waste management strategies in Spanish regions. Sustainability 2021;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147538. [156] Huijbregts M, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMFM, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Zijp M, van Zelm R. ReCiPe 2016 - a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. In: Article I: characterization. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2016. [157] Guin´ ee J. Handbook on life cycle assessment - operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978784. [158] Mackay A. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment article of the A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 17 intergovernmental panel on climate change. J Environ Qual 2008;37. https://doi. org/10.2134/jeq2008.0015br. [159] Lin Z, Ooi JK, Woon KS. An integrated life cycle multi-objective optimization model for health-environment-economic nexus in food waste management sector. Sci Total Environ 2022;816:151541. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SCITOTENV.2021.151541. [160] Kamran M. Microgrid and hybrid energy systems. Fundamentals of Smart Grid Systems 2023:299–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99560-3.00006-5. [161] Moura P, Henriques J, Alexandre J, Oliveira AC, Abreu M, Gírio F, Catarino J. Sustainable value methodology to compare the performance of conversion technologies for the production of electricity and heat, energy vectors and biofuels from waste biomass. Cleaner Waste Systems 2022;3:100029. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.CLWAS.2022.100029. [162] Kowalski Z, Kulczycka J, Makara A, Verh´ e R, De Clercq G. Assessment of energy recovery from municipal waste management systems using circular economy quality indicators. Energies 2022;15:8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ EN15228625. 15, 8625. [163] Tsydenova N, Morillas AV, Salas AAC. Sustainability assessment of waste management system for Mexico City (Mexico)—based on analytic hierarchy process. Recycling 2018;3:45. https://doi.org/10.3390/RECYCLING3030045. 3, 45. [164] Heidari R, Yazdanparast R, Jabbarzadeh A. Sustainable design of a municipal solid waste management system considering waste separators: a real-world application. Sustain Cities Soc 2019;47:101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SCS.2019.101457. [165] Neehaul N, Jeetah P, Deenapanray P. Energy recovery from municipal solid waste in Mauritius: opportunities and challenges. Environ Dev 2020;33:100489. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVDEV.2019.100489. [166] Milutinovic B, Stefanovic G, Kyoseva V, Yordanova D, Dombalov I. Sustainability assessment and comparison of waste management systems: the Cities of Sofia and Niˇ s case studies. Waste Manag Res 2016;34:896–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734242X16654755. [167] Ben Hnich K, Martín-Gamboa M, Khila Z, Hajjaji N, Dufour J, Iribarren D. Life cycle sustainability assessment of synthetic fuels from date palm waste. Sci Total Environ 2021;796:148961. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SCITOTENV.2021.148961. [168] Morone P, Imbert E. Food waste and social acceptance of a circular bioeconomy: the role of stakeholders. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 2020;23:55–60. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.COGSC.2020.02.006. [169] Aschemann-Witzel J, Stangherlin IDC. Upcycled by-product use in agri-food systems from a consumer perspective: a review of what we know, and what is missing. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2021;168:120749. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2021.120749. [170] Calvo-Porral C, L´ evy-Mangin JP. The circular economy business model: examining consumers’acceptance of recycled goods. Adm Sci 2020;10:28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ADMSCI10020028. 10, 28. [171] McCarthy B, Kapetanaki AB, Wang P. Circular agri-food approaches: will consumers buy novel products made from vegetable waste? Rural Soc 2019;28: 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2019.1656394. [172] Polyportis A, Mugge R, Magnier L. Consumer acceptance of products made from recycled materials: a scoping review. Resour Conserv Recycl 2022;186:106533. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2022.106533. [173] European Commission. Directorate-General for Communication, Circular economy action plan –For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/05068. [174] Møller H, Lyng KA, R¨ o¨ os E, Samsonstuen S, Olsen HF. Circularity indicators and added value to traditional LCA impact categories: example of pig production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2023;1:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-023-02150-4/ FIGURES/6. [175] de Kraker J, Kujawa-Roeleveld K, Villena MJ, Pab´ on-Pereira C. Decentralized Valorization of Residual Flows as an Alternative to the Traditional Urban Waste Management System: The Case of Pe˜ nalol´ en in Santiago de Chile. Sustainability 2019;11:6206. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11226206. 11, 6206. [176] Cobo S, Dominguez-Ramos A, Irabien A. Minimization of resource consumption and carbon footprint of a circular organic waste valorization system. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2018;6:3493–501. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ACSSUSCHEMENG.7B03767/SUPPL_FILE/SC7B03767_SI_001.PDF. [177] Gnansounou E, Alves CM, Pach´ on ER, Vaskan P. Comparative assessment of selected sugarcane biorefinery-centered systems in Brazil: a multi-criteria method based on sustainability indicators. Bioresour Technol 2017;243:600–10. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2017.07.004. [178] Hagman L, Feiz R. Advancing the circular economy through organic by-product valorisation: a multi-criteria assessment of a wheat-based biorefinery. Waste Biomass Valorization 2021;12:6205–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12649-02101440-Y/FIGURES/5. [179] Kr´ ol-Badziak A, Pishgar-Komleh SH, Rozakis S, Księ˙ zak J. Environmental and socio-economic performance of different tillage systems in maize grain production: application of Life Cycle Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision Making. J Clean Prod 2021;278:123792. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JCLEPRO.2020.123792. [180] Vasileiadis VP, Moonen AC, Sattin M, Otto S, Pons X, Kudsk P, Veres A, Dorner Z, van der Weide R, Marraccini E, Pelzer E, Angevin F, Kiss J. Sustainability of European maize-based cropping systems: economic, environmental and social assessment of current and proposed innovative IPM-based systems. Eur J Agron 2013;48:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2013.02.001. [181] Mathis M, Blom JF, Nemecek T, Bravin E, Jeanneret P, Daniel O, de Baan L. Comparison of exemplary crop protection strategies in Swiss apple production: multi-criteria assessment of pesticide use, ecotoxicological risks, environmental and economic impacts. Sustain Prod Consum 2022;31:512–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.SPC.2022.03.008. [182] Sanaei S, Chambost V, Stuart PR. Systematic assessment of triticale-based biorefinery strategies: sustainability assessment using multi-criteria decisionmaking (MCDM). Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 2018;12:S73–86. https:// doi.org/10.1002/BBB.1482. A. Arias et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207 (2025) 114907 18