Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production

Academic Editors: Barbara Borczak and Joanna Kapusta-Duch Received: 4 May 2025 Revised: 4 June 2025 Accepted: 8 June 2025 Published: 11 June 2025 Citation: Trujillo-Cayado, L.A.; Sánchez-García, R.M.; García-Domínguez, I.; Rodríguez-Luna, A.; Hurtado-Fernández, E.; Santos, J. Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ app15126555 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Review Emerging Trends in Sustainable Biological Resources and Bioeconomy for Food Production Luis A. Trujillo-Cayado 1,*, Rosa M. Sánchez-García 2, Irene García-Domínguez 2, Azahara Rodríguez-Luna 2, Elena Hurtado-Fernández 2and Jenifer Santos 2,* 1Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla, c/Virgen de África 7, 41011 Sevilla, Spain 2Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Avda. de las Universidades s/n, Dos Hermanas, 41704 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] (R.M.S.-G.); [email protected] (I.G.-D.); [email protected] (A.R.-L.); [email protected] (E.H.-F.) *Correspondence: [email protected] (L.A.T.-C.); [email protected] (J.S.) Abstract: The mounting global population and the challenges posed by climate change underline the need for sustainable food production systems. This review synthesizes evidence for a dual-track bioeconomy, green (terrestrial plants and insects) and blue (aquatic algae), as complementary pathways toward sustainable nutrition. A comprehensive review of the extant literature, technical reports, and policy documents published between 2015 and 2025 was conducted, with a particular focus on environmental, nutritional, and technoeconomic metrics. In addition, precision agriculture datasets, gene-editing breakthroughs, and circular biorefinery case studies were extracted and compared. As demonstrated in this study, the use of green resources, such as legumes, oilseeds, and edible insects, results in a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water footprints compared with conventional livestock production. In addition, these alternative protein sources offer substantial benefits in terms of bioactive lipids. Blue resources, centered on microand macroalgae, furnish additional proteins, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, and antioxidant pigments and sequester carbon on non-arable or wastewater substrates. The transition to bio-based resources is facilitated by technological innovations, such as gene editing and advanced extraction methods, which promote the efficient valorization of agricultural residues. In conclusion, the study strongly suggests that policy support be expedited and that research into bioeconomy technologies be increased to ensure the sustainable meeting of future food demands. Keywords: bioeconomy; biological resources; circular economy; food production; sustainability 1. Introduction 1.1. Context of the Global Problem Global population growth is one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century, with profound implications for the sustainability of biological resources and global food security. The world’s population has now surpassed 8 billion people and is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, according to United Nations estimates [ 1 ]. This increase is putting unprecedented pressure on food production systems and the ecosystems that support them, threatening both the capacity of natural resources and the stability of the economies that depend on them [ 2 ]. The intensification of agricultural production to meet future food needs has led to an expansion of arable land and intensive use of soils, resulting Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126555 Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 2 of 19 in the degradation of ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, and depletion of water resources. Agriculture, which already accounts for about 70% of global freshwater use and a third of greenhouse gas emissions, urgently needs to shift to more sustainable models to avoid overshooting planetary boundaries [3,4]. Climate change is profoundly altering agricultural production systems around the world, directly affecting the availability of essential biological resources for human food [ 5 ]. As global temperatures continue to rise, rainfall patterns are becoming more erratic and extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and heat waves are intensifying. These changes affect crop productivity, alter natural growing cycles, and degrade the ecosystems that support agriculture. In addition, biodiversity loss, exacerbated by climate change, threatens the stability of agricultural ecosystems and the ecological services they provide, such as pollination and natural pest control [6]. Transforming food production for a sustainable future requires both technological innovation and systemic reform. Key strategies include adopting precision agriculture to reduce resource waste, promoting mixed and intercropping systems to improve soil health and resilience, and scaling up soilless methods like hydroponics, aquaponics, and vertical farming for efficient year-round production. Enhancing post-harvest infrastructure—such as cold storage and rural logistics—can significantly cut food losses. These advancements must be supported by public policies that incentivize sustainable practices, invest in research, and protect smallholders. Additionally, reforming markets and supply chains to support local food systems and improve traceability is essential to ensure efficiency, equity, and environmental integrity in future food systems. Similarly, the transition to a circular bioeconomy, based on the efficient use of biological resources and the reduction of the environmental impact of agriculture, is emerging as a viable alternative to ensure food security in an uncertain future [7]. Sustainable biological resources offer strategic solutions to mitigate these pressures and support long-term human development. These resources—such as insect protein, algae, mycoproteins, and plant-based alternatives—can reduce dependence on resource-intensive systems like livestock farming, which require large amounts of water, feed, and land. 1.2. The Bioeconomy as a Tool to Achieve Sustainability Given the scale and urgency of today’s global challenges—ranging from climate instability and biodiversity loss to food insecurity and resource depletion—it is increasingly clear that conventional economic and production models are insufficient to ensure longterm sustainability. These interconnected crises demand systemic change that aligns environmental stewardship with economic development. In this context, the bioeconomic approach emerges as a strategic solution. By leveraging renewable biological resources, circular systems, and innovation in biotechnology, the bioeconomy offers a pathway to meet growing societal needs while reducing environmental impact and regenerating natural systems [8]. Bioeconomy is an economic model based on the sustainable use of renewable biological resources—such as plants, animals, micro-organisms, and biomass—to produce food, energy, materials, and industrial products. This approach uses advances in biotechnology, bioengineering, and environmental sciences to generate economic value from biological processes, with the aim of reducing dependence on non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and mitigating environmental impacts [ 9 ]. The bioeconomy is closely related to the food industry as it provides innovative solutions to the challenges of food production in a more sustainable and efficient way. In relation to SDG 2, the bioeconomy can improve food security through the development of new agricultural technologies, such as climate-resilient crops and biofertilizers that Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 3 of 19 regenerate soils, enabling more efficient and sustainable food production. In addition, the conversion of agricultural residues into bioproducts (such as biofuels or bioplastics) can diversify income sources in rural areas, contributing to local economic development and poverty reduction [10]. In relation to SDG 12, the bioeconomy promotes a circular economy in which waste is valorized and the environmental impact of production is minimized. For example, reusing agricultural by-products or food waste to produce biogas or compost not only reduces waste but also creates new opportunities to produce clean energy or improve soil quality. This efficient and sustainable approach helps reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources, reduces the environmental footprint of the food industry, and is directly aligned with responsible production and consumption goals [10]. The transition to a sustainable bioeconomy represents a fundamental shift in the way we use natural resources, moving away from reliance on fossil fuels to an approach based on biomass and other renewable biological resources. This shift is crucial because fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas are not only finite and non-renewable, but their intensive use has contributed significantly to climate change, pollution, and ecosystem degradation. In contrast, biomass—which includes plants, agricultural residues, algae, and other organic materials—is a renewable resource that can be regenerated through natural processes or sustainable agricultural practices, offering a greener and more efficient alternative. 1.3. Policies and Regulatory Frameworks In recent years, there has been a significant push towards policies that promote sustainability and the bioeconomy in food production, both globally and locally. These policies aim to transform food systems towards more sustainable models, minimizing environmental impacts, promoting the efficient use of natural resources, and encouraging the circular economy and the development of biotechnologies [11]. The United Nations has set 17 SDGs, which include specific targets for transforming food systems towards sustainability. Of particular note are targets related to zero hunger (SDG 2), responsible production and consumption (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13), which promote the bioeconomy and reducing waste in food production. On the other hand, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) promotes a sustainable bioeconomy model in the food sector through its Strategic Framework, which focuses on improving resource efficiency, reducing waste, and utilizing agricultural and food by-products. Finally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), through initiatives such as the Paris Agreement, promotes emission reductions in the agricultural sector and the transition to sustainable practices, including incentives for low-emission and climate-resilient agricultural systems. In light of the aforementioned global challenges, this review is driven by three primary motivations. Firstly, the escalating imperative to ensure food security for a progressively expanding global population underscores the necessity to identify sustainable and scalable biological resources. Secondly, there is mounting environmental pressure to reduce the ecological footprint of conventional food systems, particularly livestock production, which necessitates a transition to alternative, low-impact protein sources. Thirdly, recent policy developments and international sustainability frameworks, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, have increasingly emphasized the importance of the bioeconomy in achieving systemic reform. In response to these drivers, the present review focuses on emerging green (terrestrial) and blue (aquatic) biological resources and their role in fostering resilient, circular, and low-carbon food systems aligned with global sustainability objectives. Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 4 of 19 The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine emerging trends in the sustainable use of biological resources within the context of the green and blue bioeconomy as they relate to food production. Special emphasis is placed on novel food sources such as plant-based proteins, edible insects, algal bioactives, and microbial fermentation products, as well as on innovative approaches to valorizing agricultural residues. The review also aims to explore how these strategies align with global sustainability frameworks (particularly the Sustainable Development Goals) and contribute to enhancing food security, minimizing environmental impact, and promoting circular economy principles in the agrifood sector. 2. Methodology The present narrative review was designed to provide a systematic yet integrative appraisal of emerging biological resources for a green-and-blue bioeconomy. Initially, the authors established the scope of the inquiry by delineating three evidence domains (environmental performance, nutritional quality, and techno-economic feasibility) and subsequently constrained the investigation to primary and gray literature published from January 2015 to March 2025, a period that coincided with a marked acceleration in the development of bio-based innovations. A comprehensive search strategy was implemented in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, complemented by targeted retrieval of policy papers from FAO, EU Directorate-General RTD, and OECD databases, and of patent and market reports via Google Scholar and Espacenet. Search strings are to be composed of Boolean operators, with core concepts (e.g., bioeconomy OR circular economy) to be linked with resource-specific terms (plant proteins, edible insects, micro-/macro-algae, singlecell protein). Duplicates were removed in EndNote, and titles/abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers against three inclusion criteria: The primary focus of the research should be on food or feed applications. In addition, the provision of at least one quantitative environmental, nutritional, or economic indicator is essential. Finally, the research must be supported by a peer-reviewed source or one that is publicly verifiable. Due to the narrative format and heterogeneity of the indicators, it was not possible to conduct a formal risk-of-bias scoring or meta-analysis. This leaves the findings vulnerable to publication bias and selective reporting. Restricting the search to English-language studies published between 2015 and 2025 may have excluded earlier or non-English studies. 3. Green Bioeconomy Resources Green non-conventional bioeconomy resources, particularly plant-based and insectbased alternatives, are gaining considerable attention due to their potential to address global sustainability challenges. 3.1. Plant-Based Resources In the green bioeconomy, plant-based resources play a pivotal role in the shift towards sustainable and environmentally friendly food production systems. Plant-derived proteins and oils are receiving growing attention not only as nutritional components but also due to their bioactive properties, which offer significant health benefits. With increasing global concerns over food security, environmental sustainability, and human health, plant-based resources are viewed as an essential tool in addressing these interconnected challenges [12–14]. Plant-based resources are inherently renewable and exhibit a considerably lower environmental impact compared to animal-derived products. They demand significantly less water, land, and energy, while also generating fewer greenhouse gas emissions [ 12 , 13 ]. Legume crops possess significant potential for conservation agriculture, serving effectively Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 5 of 19 as both active growing crops and crop residues [ 15 ]. For instance, legumes significantly contribute to soil fertility through a symbiotic interaction with rhizobia, microorganisms that convert atmospheric nitrogen into a biologically available form via biological nitrogen fixation (BNF). This mechanism enhances soil nitrogen content, benefitting both the host plant and surrounding crops, while concurrently decreasing reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, thus promoting more sustainable agricultural practices. They contribute highquality organic matter to the soil [ 16 ], enhancing nutrient circulation and improving water retention [ 17 ]. Furthermore, these plant crops can be grown in a wide range of climates, ensuring the diversification of food production systems and enhancing food security [ 18 ]. The shift toward plant-based diets, combined with the bioeconomy’s focus on sustainability, is driving innovations in the ways plants are utilized for human consumption [19–21]. As mentioned earlier, the environmental footprint of plant-based resources is considerably smaller compared to animal-based products. A 2020 study by Poore and Nemecek demonstrated that shifting from animal-based to plant-based proteins in the United States could reduce individual food-related greenhouse gas emissions by up to 73% [ 13 ]. This is largely because plant cultivation requires fewer resources and leads to reduced deforestation and land degradation [ 12 , 13 ]. For instance, producing 1 kg of beef requires approximately 15,000 litters of water, whereas 1 kg of lentils only requires about 1200 litters [ 22 ]. In fact, it takes 2 to 15 kg of plant foods to produce just 1 kg of meat, highlighting the greater efficiency of grain-based diets [23]. Plant-based proteins and oils are often lower in saturated fats and cholesterol compared to animal-based alternatives, making them more suitable for maintaining cardiovascular health [ 24 ]. Moreover, plants are being investigated not only for their nutritive value and macronutrient content, such as proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, but also for their bioactive compounds, which have demonstrated potential in promoting health and preventing diseases with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial properties [ 14 ]. The growing awareness of the negative health effects of red and processed meat, along with concerns about the environmental impact of animal products, is driving the shift toward sustainable plant-based diets with reduced animal product consumption [ 20 , 25 ]. Plant-based proteins and oils are being incorporated into a variety of food products, from meat substitutes and dairy alternatives to snacks and nutritional supplements [ 23 ]. To date, various applications of pea protein within the food industry have been thoroughly researched. These include its use in encapsulating bioactive ingredients, creating edible films, producing extruded products, and substituting for cereal flours [ 26 ]. Plant-based meat alternatives, such as those made from soy, pea protein, or wheat gluten (seitan), have gained significant traction in the market [ 19 , 20 , 25 , 26 ]. The plant-based meat alternatives global market is projected to increase from USD 1.6 billion in 2019 to USD 3.5 billion by 2026 [25]. Functional foods are foods that offer potential health benefits beyond basic nutrition, contributing to overall well-being and potentially reducing the risk of certain diseases. Due to the previously mentioned health benefits, plant-based ingredients with bioactive properties are increasingly being incorporated into functional foods that are designed to provide health advantages beyond basic nutrition [ 27 , 28 ]. Examples of such benefits include plant oils like flaxseed oil and hemp oil, which are rich in omega-3 fatty acids that support heart health and cognitive function [ 29 , 30 ]. Additionally, plant-derived polyphenols, such as those found in green tea, are being integrated into foods and beverages for their potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties and their effects against cancer and other diseases such as diabetes and neurological and cardiovascular diseases [31]. Within the food sector, plant-based resources align with the goals of the bioeconomy by offering a means of producing nutritious, affordable, and eco-friendly foods [ 12 , 13 , 22 ]. Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 6 of 19 Furthermore, the development of plant-based products encourages innovation in agriculture and food technology, driving the creation of new supply chains and business models that support local economies and reduce dependency on imported commodities [ 20 , 21 , 25 ]. However, while shifting to plant-based agriculture is often linked to land conservation, this assumes optimal land conversion practices and overlooks regional variations in soil fertility, crop suitability, and socio-political constraints [ 32 ]. In certain contexts, livestock production may still offer advantages in terms of livelihoods, cultural significance, or the use of marginal lands unsuitable for crops. In addition, there is limited longitudinal and region-specific data on the long-term effects of large-scale dietary shifts on agricultural biodiversity, food system resilience, and rural economies. Second, more inter-disciplinary research is needed to assess how emerging plant-based innovations interact with social equity and food sovereignty frameworks [33]. 3.2. Insect-Based Resources The concept of sustainability is gaining increasing importance on a global scale. Consequently, it is imperative to identify alternative food sources to replace traditional ingredients that are less sustainable. One potential option could be to utilize proteins, lipids, and fibers derived from edible insects as food components, serving as substitutes for existing ones [ 34 ]. The practice of consuming insects as a regular dietary component has been documented in numerous regions across the globe for millennia [ 35 ]. This phenomenon is referred to as entomophagy. As van Huis et al. (2013) [ 35 ] demonstrate, the following insects are of interest in this study: beetles, caterpillars, bees, wasps, ants, grasshoppers, locusts, crickets, cicadas, leaf and planthoppers, scale insects and true bugs, termites, dragonflies, and flies [36]. Insects can provide many benefits for human health as they have a high nutritional value. In this sense, insects are rich in protein, healthy fats, calcium, iron, and zinc [ 35 ]. However, the resulting nutritional profile of insects depends on the species, development stage, diet, and processing [ 36 ]. There are some advantages associated with the use of insects as novel food. Insect farming is presented as a sustainable alternative to traditional livestock to meet the growing demand for protein products in the market and emerging nutritional needs [ 37 ]. Moreover, there is an environmental effect that the consumption of insects can have. In terms of food production, insects lead to lower emissions of greenhouse gases or ammonia than traditional farm animals; they do not require extensive land for their production, insects are more efficient in converting feed to protein as they are cold-blooded animals, and they can be fed with organic waste [ 35 ]. Therefore, insects are presented as a very good candidate for the future of sustainable food production [ 38 , 39 ]. The insects most commonly farmed for food and feed are the yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.), the house cricket (Acheta domesticus L.), the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens L.), and the common housefly (Musca domestica L.) [40]. Insects are not only used as direct raw materials in the food industry, but they also have the potential to produce a wide range of high-value products. One of the most notable products is honey, which is produced by bees, with an estimated annual production of 1.2 million tons. Another significant product is carmine, a red dye derived from scale insects that is widely used in coloring food, textiles, and pharmaceuticals [ 35 ]. On a global level, the most consumed insects, 31%, are beetles (Coleoptera). They are followed by caterpillars (Lepidoptera), at 18%; bees, wasps, and ants (Hymenoptera), at 14%; grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets (Orthoptera), at 13%; and cicadas, leafhoppers, planthoppers, and scale insects (Hemiptera), at 10%. For the food industry, mealworms, which are the larvae of the mealworm beetle (Tenebrio molitor), are one of the favorite applicants [ 41 ]. In addition, Tenebrio molitor,Acheta domesticus, and Locusta migratoria are very versatile insects, as Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 7 of 19 they can be used as complements of edibles such as potatoes, legumes, cereal-based products, pasta-based products, soups, nuts, oilseeds and chickpeas, meat analogues, and beverages [42]. While the use of insects as a food source has been practiced for centuries, insects are seen as a relatively new culinary trend in many Western countries. As a result, one important factor to consider when incorporating insects or their derivatives into food production is the applicable regulatory framework [ 43 ]. One potential solution involves extracting proteins and lipids from insects for use as ingredients in food products [ 34 ]. Although edible insects are often proposed as a potential alternative food source, it is crucial to recognize the associated allergy risks. Edible insects can trigger allergic reactions that could affect humans as they contain some proteins that are contemplated as allergens, such as arginine kinase, α -amylase, and tropomyosin [ 44 ]. Another important consideration is the possibility of cross-reactivity between allergens found in different insect species as well as the presence of chitin in the exoskeletons of some insects [ 45 , 46 ]. Chitin may pose nutritional challenges and can impact protein digestibility, although some enzymes in the human gastrointestinal tract have been shown to digest chitin [ 47 , 48 ]. However, appropriate techniques for preparing food can decrease the chance of cross-reactivity and allergy risks in food that contains insects. Methods like heat treatment and enzymatic breakdown are examples of these techniques [49]. When considering insects as a new source of food, it is important to understand and comply with the relevant legal guidelines and regulations [ 44 ]. For this reason, the production and marketing of insects as a food source in Europe is regulated by EU Reg 2015/2283 [ 50 ]. However, the legal classification of insects remains ambiguous, often fluctuating between being considered livestock, pests, or industrial inputs, which affects how they are regulated, subsidized, and integrated into national bioeconomy strategies. Despite their growing importance, insects exist in a legal gray area. Most jurisdictions lack comprehensive regulations addressing their farming, processing, welfare, and trade. In many cases, food and feed safety laws are not well-adapted to insect products, approval processes are slow, and welfare considerations are nearly absent [ 51 ]. Additionally, the use of insects in environmental services or biotechnology raises questions about biodiversity, invasive species, and intellectual property, which require legal oversight. To support a sustainable bioeconomy, legal systems must provide clear definitions, create insect-specific standards, and ensure regulatory consistency across sectors and borders. Furthermore, while many studies tout insect farming as environmentally beneficial, the environmental impact of large-scale insect farming is still not fully understood. Key questions remain around energy use in climate-controlled rearing environments, the longterm ecological effects of diverting organic waste to insect feed, and the carbon footprint of processing insects into consumer-ready products. There is also ambiguity around consumer acceptance. Cultural preferences and psychological aversions (the “yuck factor”) in Western societies present significant barriers to the mainstream adoption of edible insects [ 35 ]. Despite technological advancements in integrating insect-based ingredients into familiar food forms, shifting consumer perceptions remains a challenge—one that is often underemphasized in technical or environmental assessments. In summary, while there is widespread consensus about the potential of insects as sustainable and nutritious food sources, the field must address several contradictions and gaps related to nutritional variability, consumer behavior, safety and scalability. 4. Blue Bioeconomy Resources The blue bioeconomy represents an innovative and sustainable approach to harnessing marine and aquatic biological resources with significant potential to address global food Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 8 of 19 security challenges. In recent years, considerable attention has been focused on exploring the diverse applications of marine organisms, driven by their rich biodiversity and unique biochemical properties. This section of the review highlights emerging trends and recent advancements in two critical areas of the blue bioeconomy: algae and marine collagen. Algal-Derived Resources Algae are emerging as a promising alternative protein source due to their high nutritional value, rapid growth rate, and minimal environmental footprint. Both microalgae (such as Spirulina and Chlorella) and macroalgae (seaweeds) contain significant amounts of protein, essential amino acids, vitamins, and antioxidants. Unlike traditional crops, algae can be cultivated on non-arable land using saline or wastewater, making them highly sustainable. Their versatility in food applications—from supplements to meat alternatives—positions algae as a key player in the future of sustainable nutrition. Marine algae, encompassing both microalgae and macroalgae, represent a heterogeneous group of photosynthetic organisms that are not taxonomically unified but are functionally critical to aquatic ecosystems and the global carbon cycle. These organisms reduce atmospheric CO 2 through oxygenic photosynthesis—predominantly via chlorophyll a—contributing to nearly 50% of global photosynthetic activity [52]. From a biotechnological perspective, both groups of algae offer distinct advantages and limitations that are critical to valorization pathways in the blue economy. Microalgae are characterized by high growth rates, metabolic plasticity (autotrophic, mixotrophic, or heterotrophic modes), and the ability to be cultivated under controlled conditions (e.g., photobioreactors), making them ideal for large-scale industrial use. They are widely exploited for the production of high-value compounds such as proteins, lipids, carotenoids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and antioxidants, with applications in nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, aquaculture, and wastewater treatment [53]. Meanwhile, macroalgae play a key ecological role in coastal ecosystem stability, primary productivity, and habitat provision. They are traditionally used in food, agriculture, and hydrocolloids (e.g., agar, alginates, carrageenan) and are gaining momentum for biofuel, bioplastic, and bioactive compound production. However, macroalgal biomass—especially in the form of marine macroalgal waste (MMW) from blooms like Sargassum—can also pose environmental risks, including GHG emissions and disease vector proliferation. The valorization of algal biomass, particularly from waste streams, supports a circular bioeconomy by converting low-value or problematic residues into valuable bioproducts, though technical and economic challenges remain in optimizing scalability, biomass consistency, and extraction efficiency. Thus, understanding the physiological, ecological, and biotechnological differences between microand macroalgae is essential for leveraging their full potential in sustainable marine resource exploitation [54]. Algal proteins derived from microalgae such as Spirulina,Chlorella, and Nannochloropsis have attracted increasing attention as sustainable and nutritious alternatives to traditional animal-based proteins. These microalgal proteins are rich in essential amino acids, such as leucine, lysine, and phenylalanine, alongside valuable micronutrients like vitamins and minerals, making them suitable for human nutrition, pharmaceutical applications, and industrial formulations. Notably, species like Spirulina platensis and Chlorella vulgaris contain approximately 51–58% protein by dry weight, with high concentrations of essential amino acids such as leucine, lysine, and phenylalanine [ 55 ]. Nannochloropsis species, including N. oculata and N. gaditana, also demonstrate notable protein content, with values ranging from 35% to 71% of dry matter. These microalgae are particularly rich in glutamic acid and aspartic acid, contributing to their umami flavor profile [ 56 – 58 ]. Chlorella stands out not only for its high protein content but also for its versatility in cultivation, particularly Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 9 of 19 in wastewater treatment systems, thus providing an environmentally responsible and economically viable approach to food security and sustainability [ 59 ]. The amino acid profile of algal proteins is comparable to that of traditional plant proteins, making them an appealing choice for various applications. Beyond their nutritional value, algal proteins are gaining attention for their bioactive properties, which are particularly relevant in the pharmaceutical sector. Bioactive peptides derived from these proteins have shown potential antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant activities, making them viable candidates for nutraceuticals and drug delivery systems [ 60 ]. These bioactive peptides can also be utilized in the development of supplements aimed at supporting immune function, reducing inflammation, and combating oxidative stress. Furthermore, algal proteins can serve as carriers or excipients in drug delivery formulations, thereby improving the bioavailability of active compounds. A key aspect of algal protein utilization is its digestibility, which varies depending on the species and processing methods used. Digestibility is a critical factor influencing the bioavailability of these proteins, and several studies have explored this aspect. For instance, research shows that the crude protein digestibility of Nannochloropsis is about 54% in noncell-disrupted forms, while Chlorella can reach up to 84% digestibility when cell disruption techniques are employed [ 61 ]. This variation highlights the importance of processing techniques to improve the digestibility and absorption of algal proteins. Additionally, cell-wall disruption is necessary to enhance the release of intracellular proteins and other bioactive compounds, ensuring that the proteins are bioavailable in human consumption. The commercial utilization of algal proteins, however, faces several challenges. Production costs remain high due to the need for specialized cultivation systems, such as photobioreactors, and efficient protein extraction techniques. Furthermore, the variability in protein content among different species and cultivation conditions adds complexity to large-scale production. Despite these challenges, algal protein production offers significant environmental advantages over traditional animal farming, including a lower carbon footprint and the potential for carbon sequestration during cultivation. Furthermore, the use of waste streams for algal cultivation, as demonstrated with Chlorella, can contribute to a circular economy by recycling nutrients and minimizing waste [62]. Algal oils, especially those derived from marine microalgae, are valuable sources of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs), primarily omega-3 fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). These fatty acids are essential for human health, playing crucial roles in cardiovascular protection, neural development, visual acuity, and the modulation of inflammatory responses [ 63 ]. Among algae, microalgae are the predominant producers of these oils, whereas macroalgae tend to have a lower total lipid content and a different fatty acid composition, with fewer LC-PUFAs and more structural lipids [64]. Algal lipids are composed of various fatty acid types, including saturated fatty acids (SFAs), monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), which can be further classified into omega-3 (e.g., DHA, EPA), omega-6 (e.g., linoleic acid), and omega-9 (e.g., oleic acid) families. Omega-3 fatty acids, particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are of significant interest due to their anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and cardiovascular benefits. Algal species such as Rugulopteryx okamurae have demonstrated high omega-3 content, with DHA levels comparable to or exceeding those found in traditional fish oils [ 65 ]. The distribution of these fatty acids within lipid classes—triacylglycerols (TAGs), phospholipids, and glycolipids—affects their nutritional and functional properties. DHA, for instance, is often concentrated at the sn-2 position in TAGs, which enhances its digestibility and absorption in the human gut [63]. Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 16 of 19 14. Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T.; Moreno-Rojas, J.M. Potential Health Benefits of Plant Food-Derived Bioactive Components: An Overview. Foods 2021,10, 839. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple Benefits of Legumes for Agriculture Sustainability: An Overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017,4, 2. [CrossRef] 16. Hernanz, J.; Sánchez-Girón, V.; Navarrete, L. Soil Carbon Sequestration and Stratification in a Cereal/Leguminous Crop Rotation with Three Tillage Systems in Semiarid Conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009,133, 114–122. [CrossRef] 17. Angus, J.; Kirkegaard, J.; Hunt, J.; Ryan, M.; Ohlander, L.; Peoples, M. Break Crops and Rotations for Wheat. Crop Pasture Sci. 2015,66, 523–552. [CrossRef] 18. Zuza, E.J.; Lambert, K.; Macmillan, T.; Chiyemura, F.; Araya, Y.; Bowskill, V.; Oluseye, A.; Ng’endo Kanui, M.; Keding, G.; Butler, G.; et al. Crop Species Diversity: A Key Strategy for Sustainable Food System Transformation and Climate Resilience. Food Energy Secur. 2024,13, e558. [CrossRef] 19. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Plant-Based Meat Analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and Processing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 103–126. 20. Andreani, G.; Sogari, G.; Marti, A.; Froldi, F.; Dagevos, H.; Martini, D. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. Nutrients 2023,15, 452. [CrossRef] 21. Pingali, P.; Boiteau, J.; Choudhry, A.; Hall, A. Making Meat and Milk from Plants: A Review of Plant-Based Food for Human and Planetary Health. World Dev. 2023,170, 106316. [CrossRef] 22. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops and Derived Crop Products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011,15, 1577–1600. [CrossRef] 23. Joshi, V.; Kumar, S. Meat Analogues: Plant Based Alternatives to Meat Products-A Review. Int. J. Food Ferment. Technol. 2015,5, 107. [CrossRef] 24. Petersen, K.S.; Flock, M.R.; Richter, C.K.; Mukherjea, R.; Slavin, J.L.; Kris-Etherton, P.M. Healthy Dietary Patterns for Preventing Cardiometabolic Disease: The Role of Plant-Based Foods and Animal Products. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2017,1, cdn-117. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Alcorta, A.; Porta, A.; Tárrega, A.; Alvarez, M.D.; Vaquero, M.P. Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations. Foods 2021,10, 293. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Ge, J.; Sun, C.-X.; Corke, H.; Gul, K.; Gan, R.-Y.; Fang, Y. The Health Benefits, Functional Properties, Modifications, and Applications of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Protein: Current Status, Challenges, and Perspectives. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 1835–1876. [CrossRef] 27. Dillard, C.J.; German, J.B. Phytochemicals: Nutraceuticals and Human Health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000,80, 1744–1756. [CrossRef] 28. Santos-Buelga, C.; González-Paramás, A.M.; Oludemi, T.; Ayuda-Durán, B.; González-Manzano, S. Plant Phenolics as Functional Food Ingredients. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2019,90, 183–257. 29. Dunford, N. Hemp and Flaxseed Oil: Properties and Applications for Use in Food. In Specialty Oils and Fats in Food and Nutrition; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 39–63. 30. Shen, L.; Li, F.; Jiang, C.; Cao, X.; Jin, J.; Wang, X.; Wei, W. Comparative Analysis of DHA Positional Distribution and Triacylglycerol Molecular Species in Algal Oil (Schizochytrium sp.) from Different Oil Processing. Food Biosci. 2024,58, 103634. [CrossRef] 31. Khan, N.; Mukhtar, H. Tea Polyphenols in Promotion of Human Health. Nutrients 2018,11, 39. [CrossRef] 32. Gomiero, T. Alternative Land Management Strategies and Their Impact on Soil Conservation. Agriculture 2013,3, 464–483. [CrossRef] 33. Kraak, V.I.; Aschemann-Witzel, J. The Future of Plant-Based Diets: Aligning Healthy Marketplace Choices with Equitable, Resilient, and Sustainable Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2024,45, 253–275. [CrossRef] 34. Sosa, D.A.T.; Fogliano, V. Potential of Insect-Derived Ingredients for Food Applications. Insect Physiol. Ecol. 2017,2017, 215–231. 35. van Huis, A.; Itterbeeck, J.V.; Klunder, H.; Mertens, E.; Halloran, A.; Muir, G.; Vantomme, P. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. 36. Oonincx, D.; Dierenfeld, E. An Investigation into the Chemical Composition of Alternative Invertebrate Prey. Zoo Biol. 2012,31, 40–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. Hirsch, A.; Cho, Y.-H.; Kim, Y.H.B.; Jones, O.G. Contributions of Protein and Milled Chitin Extracted from Domestic Cricket Powder to Emulsion Stabilization. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2019,1, 17–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 38. Sun-Waterhouse, D.; Waterhouse, G.I.; You, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Ma, L.; Gao, J.; Dong, Y. Transforming Insect Biomass into Consumer Wellness Foods: A Review. Food Res. Int. 2016,89, 129–151. [CrossRef] 39. Trujillo-Cayado, L.A.; García-Domínguez, I.; Rodríguez-Luna, A.; Hurtado-Fernández, E.; Santos, J. Cricket Protein as an Innovative Emulsifier for Avocado Oil: Formulation and Characterization of Sustainable Emulsions. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 1674. [CrossRef] 40. Dossey, A.T.; Morales, J.A.; Rojas, M.G. Insects as Sustainable Food Ingredients; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 978-0-12-802856-8. Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 17 of 19 41. Nowak, V.; Persijn, D.; Rittenschober, D.; Charrondiere, U.R. Review of Food Composition Data for Edible Insects. Food Chem. 2016,193, 39–46. [CrossRef] 42. Han, X.; Heinonen, M. Processing Improves Physical and Oxidative Stability of Cricket Protein Emulsions. Food Chem. Adv. 2022, 1, 100125. [CrossRef] 43. Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Hartmann, C.; Mora, C. How to Measure Consumers Acceptance towards Edible Insects?—A Scoping Review about Methodological Approaches. In Edible Insects in the Food Sector: Methods, Current Applications and Perspectives; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 27–44. 44. Lange, K.W.; Nakamura, Y. Edible Insects as Future Food: Chances and Challenges. J. Future Foods 2021,1, 38–46. [CrossRef] 45. Verhoeckx, K.C.; van Broekhoven, S.; den Hartog-Jager, C.F.; Gaspari, M.; de Jong, G.A.; Wichers, H.J.; van Hoffen, E.; Houben, G.F.; Knulst, A.C. House Dust Mite (Der p 10) and Crustacean Allergic Patients May React to Food Containing Yellow Mealworm Proteins. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2014,65, 364–373. [CrossRef] 46. de Gier, S.; Verhoeckx, K. Insect (Food) Allergy and Allergens. Mol. Immunol. 2018,100, 82–106. [CrossRef] 47. Belluco, S.; Losasso, C.; Maggioletti, M.; Alonzi, C.C.; Paoletti, M.G.; Ricci, A. Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013,12, 296–313. [CrossRef] 48. Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Nutritional Composition and Safety Aspects of Edible Insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013,57, 802–823. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49. Pali-Schöll, I.; Meinlschmidt, P.; Larenas-Linnemann, D.; Purschke, B.; Hofstetter, G.; Rodríguez-Monroy, F.A.; Einhorn, L.; Mothes-Luksch, N.; Jensen-Jarolim, E.; Jäger, H. Edible Insects: Cross-Recognition of IgE from Crustacean-and House Dust Mite Allergic Patients, and Reduction of Allergenicity by Food Processing. World Allergy Organ. J. 2019,12, 100006. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 50. Delgado, L.; Garino, C.; Moreno, F.J.; Zagon, J.; Broll, H. Sustainable Food Systems: EU Regulatory Framework and Contribution of Insects to the Farm-To-Fork Strategy. Food Rev. Int. 2023,39, 6955–6976. [CrossRef] 51. Lotta, F. Insects as Food: The Legal Framework. In Edible Insects in the Food Sector: Methods, Current Applications and Perspectives; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 105–118. 52. Falkowski, P.; Scholes, R.J.; Boyle, E.; Canadell, J.; Canfield, D.; Elser, J.; Gruber, N.; Hibbard, K.; Högberg, P.; Linder, S.; et al. The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science 2000,290, 291–296. [CrossRef] 53. Gallego, I.; Medic, N.; Pedersen, J.S.; Ramasamy, P.K.; Robbens, J.; Vereecke, E.; Romeis, J. The Microalgal Sector in Europe: Towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy. New Biotechnol. 2025,86, 1–13. [CrossRef] 54. Pardilhó, S.; Cotas, J.; Pereira, L.; Oliveira, M.B.; Dias, J.M. Marine Macroalgae in a Circular Economy Context: A Comprehensive Analysis Focused on Residual Biomass. Biotechnol. Adv. 2022,60, 107987. [CrossRef] 55. Karabulut, G.; Purkiewicz, A.; Goksen, G. Recent Developments and Challenges in Algal Protein and Peptide Extraction Strategies, Functional and Technological Properties, Bioaccessibility, and Commercial Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2024,23, e13372. [CrossRef] 56. García-Encinas, J.P.; Ruiz-Cruz, S.; Juárez, J.; Ornelas-Paz, J.d.J.; Del Toro-Sánchez, C.L.; Márquez-Ríos, E. Proteins from Microalgae: Nutritional, Functional and Bioactive Properties. Foods 2025,14, 921. [CrossRef] 57. Wu, J.Y.; Tso, R.; Teo, H.S.; Haldar, S. The Utility of Algae as Sources of High Value Nutritional Ingredients, Particularly for Alternative/Complementary Proteins to Improve Human Health. Front. Nutr. 2023,10, 1277343. [CrossRef] 58. Wang, Y.; Tibbetts, S.M.; McGinn, P.J. Microalgae as Sources of High-Quality Protein for Human Food and Protein Supplements. Foods 2021,10, 3002. [CrossRef] 59. Bakshi, S.; Kanetkar, P.; Bunkar, D.S.; Browne, C.; Paswan, V.K. Chlorella sp. as a Promising Protein Source: Insight to Novel Extraction Techniques, Nutritional and Techno-Functional Attributes of Derived Proteins. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2025, 1–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60. Geada, P.; Moreira, C.; Silva, M.; Nunes, R.; Madureira, L.; Rocha, C.M.; Pereira, R.N.; Vicente, A.A.; Teixeira, J.A. Algal Proteins: Production Strategies and Nutritional and Functional Properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2021,332, 125125. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 61. Wild, K.J.; Steingaß, H.; Rodehutscord, M. Variability in Nutrient Composition and in Vitro Crude Protein Digestibility of 16 Microalgae Products. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018,102, 1306–1319. [CrossRef] 62. Ali, S.S.; Al-Tohamy, R.; Al-Zahrani, M.; Schagerl, M.; Kornaros, M.; Sun, J. Advancements and Challenges in Microalgal Protein Production: A Sustainable Alternative to Conventional Protein Sources. Microb. Cell Factories 2025,24, 61. [CrossRef] 63. Li, F.; Ning, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, H.; Yuan, Q.; Wang, X.; Wei, W. Positional Distribution of DHA in Triacylglycerols: Natural Sources, Synthetic Routes, and Nutritional Properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2025, 1–19. [CrossRef] 64. Santos-Sánchez, N.F.; Valadez-Blanco, R.; Hernández-Carlos, B.; Torres-Ariño, A.; Guadarrama-Mendoza, P.; Salas-Coronado, R. Lipids Rich in Ømega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids from Microalgae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016,100, 8667–8684. [CrossRef] 65. Rivero-Pino, F.; Gonzalez-de la Rosa, T.; Torrecillas-Lopez, M.; Barrera-Chamorro, L.; del Rio-Vazquez, J.L.; Marquez-Paradas, E.; Fernandez-Prior, A.; Garcia-Vaquero, M.; Garcia-Gomez, J.C.; Montserrat-de la Paz, S.; et al. Characterization of Rugulopteryx Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 18 of 19 Okamurae Algae: A Source of Bioactive Peptides, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and Volatile Compounds. Food Chem. 2025,473, 143084. [CrossRef] 66. Hitl, M.; Kladar, N.; Banovi´c Fuentes, J.; Bijeli´c, K.; Ðermanovi´c, M.; Torovi´c, L. Knowledge and Consumption Patterns of Omega-3 Fatty Acids among the Central Balkan Population—A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients 2024,17, 122. [CrossRef] 67. Chen, W.; Li, T.; Du, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, Q. Microalgal Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: Hotspots and Production Techniques. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2023,11, 1146881. [CrossRef] 68. Marsol-Vall, A.; Aitta, E.; Guo, Z.; Yang, B. Green Technologies for Production of Oils Rich in N-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids from Aquatic Sources. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022,62, 2942–2962. [CrossRef] 69. Arun, J.; Vigneshwar, S.S.; Swetha, A.; Gopinath, K.P.; Basha, S.; Brindhadevi, K.; Pugazhendhi, A. Bio-Based Algal (Chlorella Vulgaris) Refinery on de-Oiled Algae Biomass Cake: A Study on Biopolymer and Biodiesel Production. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151579. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 70. Diwan, B.; Parkhey, P.; Gupta, P. From Agro-Industrial Wastes to Single Cell Oils: A Step towards Prospective Biorefinery. Folia Microbiol. 2018,63, 547–568. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 71. Wang, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Wang, K.; Tang, C.; Liu, Y.; Li, J. Prebiotic Carbohydrates: Effect on Physicochemical Stability and Solubility of Algal Oil Nanoparticles. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020,228, 115372. [CrossRef] 72. Li, Y.P.; Ahmadi, F.; Kariman, K.; Lackner, M. Recent Advances and Challenges in Single Cell Protein (SCP) Technologies for Food and Feed Production. npj Sci. Food 2024,8, 66. [CrossRef] 73. Fasihi, M.; Jouzi, F.; Tervasmäki, P.; Vainikka, P.; Breyer, C. Global Potential of Sustainable Single-Cell Protein Based on Variable Renewable Electricity. Nat. Commun. 2025,16, 1496. [CrossRef] 74. Majumder, R.; Miatur, S.; Saha, A.; Hossain, S. Mycoprotein: Production and Nutritional Aspects: A Review. Sustain. Food Technol. 2024,2, 81–91. [CrossRef] 75. Shahid, M.; Shah, P.; Mach, K.; Rodgers-Hunt, B.; Finnigan, T.; Frost, G.; Neal, B.; Hadjikakou, M. The Environmental Impact of Mycoprotein-Based Meat Alternatives Compared to Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: A Systematic Review. Future Foods 2024,10, 100410. [CrossRef] 76. Finnigan, T.J.; Theobald, H.; Bajka, B. Mycoprotein: A Healthy and Sustainable Source of Alternative Protein-Based Foods. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2024,16, 105–125. [CrossRef] 77. Aziz, A.; Noreen, S.; Khalid, W.; Mubarik, F.; Niazi, M.K.; Koraqi, H.; Ali, A.; Lima, C.M.G.; Alansari, W.S.; Eskandrani, A.A.; et al. Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Different Vegetable Sprouts and Their Potential Role in the Formulation of Functional Foods against Various Disorders: A Literature-Based Review. Molecules 2022,27, 7320. [CrossRef] 78. Recharla, N.; Riaz, M.; Ko, S.; Park, S. Novel Technologies to Enhance Solubility of Food-Derived Bioactive Compounds: A Review. J. Funct. Foods 2017,39, 63–73. [CrossRef] 79. More, P.R.; Jambrak, A.R.; Arya, S.S. Green, Environment-Friendly and Sustainable Techniques for Extraction of Food Bioactive Compounds and Waste Valorization. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022,128, 296–315. [CrossRef] 80. Soni, N.; Yadav, M.; Malarvannan, M.; Sharma, D.; Paul, D. Current Developments and Trends in Hybrid Extraction Techniques for Green Analytical Applications in Natural Products. J. Chromatogr. B 2025,1256, 124543. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81. Patil, B.S.; Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Chidambara Murthy, K.N.; Vikram, A. Bioactive Compounds: Historical Perspectives, Opportunities, and Challenges. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009,57, 8142–8160. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 82. Rana, A.; Samtiya, M.; Dhewa, T.; Mishra, V.; Aluko, R.E. Health Benefits of Polyphenols: A Concise Review. J. Food Biochem. 2022, 46, e14264. [CrossRef] 83. Chiorcea-Paquim, A.-M.; Enache, T.A.; De Souza Gil, E.; Oliveira-Brett, A.M. Natural Phenolic Antioxidants Electrochemistry: Towards a New Food Science Methodology. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020,19, 1680–1726. [CrossRef] 84. de Oliveira, I.; Santos-Buelga, C.; Aquino, Y.; Barros, L.; Heleno, S.A. New Frontiers in the Exploration of Phenolic Compounds and Other Bioactives as Natural Preservatives. Food Biosci. 2025,68, 106571. [CrossRef] 85. Piccolella, S.; Crescente, G.; Candela, L.; Pacifico, S. Nutraceutical Polyphenols: New Analytical Challenges and Opportunities. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2019,175, 112774. [CrossRef] 86. Crozier, A.; Jaganath, I.B.; Clifford, M.N. Dietary Phenolics: Chemistry, Bioavailability and Effects on Health. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2009, 26, 1001–1043. [CrossRef] 87. Zeb, A. Concept, Mechanism, and Applications of Phenolic Antioxidants in Foods. J. Food Biochem. 2020,44, e13394. [CrossRef] 88. Michalak, M. Plant-Derived Antioxidants: Significance in Skin Health and the Ageing Process. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022,23, 585. [CrossRef] 89. Faustino, M.; Veiga, M.; Sousa, P.; Costa, E.M.; Silva, S.; Pintado, M. Agro-Food Byproducts as a New Source of Natural Food Additives. Molecules 2019,24, 1056. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 6555 19 of 19 90. da Silva, L.C.; Viganó, J.; de Souza Mesquita, L.M.; Dias, A.L.B.; de Souza, M.C.; Sanches, V.L.; Chaves, J.O.; Pizani, R.S.; Contieri, L.S.; Rostagno, M.A. Recent Advances and Trends in Extraction Techniques to Recover Polyphenols Compounds from Apple By-Products. Food Chem. X 2021,12, 100133. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. Deng, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, D. Ultrasound-Assisted Accelerated Penetration Extraction of Polyphenols from Pomegranate Peels: Enhanced Mass Transfer by Calcium Ion Precipitation and Utilization of Fick’s Law. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2024,17, 1017–1029. [CrossRef] 92. Araujo, R.G.; Rodríguez-Jasso, R.M.; Ruíz, H.A.; Govea-Salas, M.; Pintado, M.; Aguilar, C.N. Recovery of Bioactive Components from Avocado Peels Using Microwave-Assisted Extraction. Food Bioprod. Process. 2021,127, 152–161. [CrossRef] 93. Xavier Machado, T.d.O.; Portugal, I.B.M.; Padilha, C.V.D.S.; Ferreira Padilha, F.; dos Santos Lima, M. New Trends in the Use of Enzymes for the Recovery of Polyphenols in Grape Byproducts. J. Food Biochem. 2021,45, e13712. [CrossRef] 94. García-Roldán, A.; Piriou, L.; Jauregi, P. Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents as a Green Extraction of Polyphenols from Spent Coffee Ground with Enhanced Bioactivities. Front. Plant Sci. 2023,13, 1072592. [CrossRef] 95. Sambanthamurthi, R.; Tan, Y.; Sundram, K.; Abeywardena, M.; Sambandan, T.; Rha, C.; Sinskey, A.J.; Subramaniam, K.; Leow, S.-S.; Hayes, K.C.; et al. Oil Palm Vegetation Liquor: A New Source of Phenolic Bioactives. Br. J. Nutr. 2011,106, 1655–1663. [CrossRef] 96. Healy, L.E.; Zhu, X.; Poji´c, M.; Sullivan, C.; Tiwari, U.; Curtin, J.; Tiwari, B.K. Biomolecules from Macroalgae—Nutritional Profile and Bioactives for Novel Food Product Development. Biomolecules 2023,13, 386. [CrossRef] 97. Kumari, P.; Bhargava, B. Phytochemicals from Edible Flowers: Opening a New Arena for Healthy Lifestyle. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 78, 104375. [CrossRef] 98. Milovanovic, S.; Grzegorczyk, A.; ´ Swi ˛atek, Ł.; D˛ebczak, A.; Tyskiewicz, K.; Konkol, M. Dandelion Seeds as a New and Valuable Source of Bioactive Extracts Obtained Using the Supercritical Fluid Extraction Technique. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2022,29, 100796. [CrossRef] 99. Lu, X.; Wang, C.; Zhao, M.; Wu, J.; Niu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Süntar, I.; Jafari, S.M.; Qiao, X.; et al. Improving the Bioavailability and Bioactivity of Garlic Bioactive Compounds via Nanotechnology. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022,62, 8467–8496. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 100. Khan, Z.S.; Amir, S.; Sokaˇc Cvetni´c, T.; Jurinjak Tušek, A.; Benkovi´c, M.; Jurina, T.; Valinger, D.; Gajdoš Kljusuri´c, J. Sustainable Isolation of Bioactive Compounds and Proteins from Plant-Based Food (and Byproducts). Plants 2023,12, 2904. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 101. Kiokias, S.; Oreopoulou, V. Review on the Antioxidant Activity of Phenolics in o/w Emulsions along with the Impact of a Few Important Factors on Their Interfacial Behaviour. Colloids Interfaces 2022,6, 79. [CrossRef] 102. Martins, V.F.; Pintado, M.E.; Morais, R.M.; Morais, A.M. Valorisation of Micro/Nanoencapsulated Bioactive Compounds from Plant Sources for Food Applications towards Sustainability. Foods 2022,12, 32. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.