Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability: Green Practices for the Rural Circular Economy 3031524845, 9783031524844

Table of contents :
Contents
Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
3 Biomass Feedstock and Classification of Biofuels
4 Climate Change, Greenhouse Gases, and Biofuels
5 Summary of Previous Research Findings on Biomass Energy
6 Biofuels in the United States, India, and China
6.1 United States
6.2 India
6.3 China
7 Biofuels: A Boon or Bane for Society?
References
Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices
1 Introduction
2 Reduce Overproduction and Food Waste
2.1 Improved Crop Planning and Demand Forecasting
2.2 Relaxed Cosmetic Standards for Produce
2.3 Enhanced Food Distribution and Accessibility for Underserved Communities
2.4 Food Waste Reduction Campaigns and Consumer Education
3 Sustainable Soil Management
3.1 Crop Rotation and Diversification
3.2 Cover Cropping and Green Manures
3.3 No-Till or Reduced Tillage Farming
3.4 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
3.5 Precision Agriculture and Targeted Fertiliser Application
4 Water Conservation and Management
4.1 Drip Irrigation and Precision Irrigation
4.2 On-Farm Water Recycling and Rainwater Harvesting
4.3 Drought-Resistant Crop Varieties and Crop Selection
4.4 Watershed Management and Inter-farm Cooperation
5 What Are Some Challenges to Implementing These Practices in Different Regions?
5.1 Lack of Awareness and Education
5.2 High Initial Costs
5.3 Limited Resource Access
5.4 Climate Variability
5.5 Policy and Institutional Barriers
5.6 Cultural and Social Barriers
6 Renewable Energy and Biofuels
6.1 Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production
6.2 Conversion of Crop Residues and Waste to Biofuels
6.3 Renewable Energy Sources for Agricultural Operations
6.4 Reduced Reliance on Fossil Fuels
7 Reduced Deforestation and Sustainable Grazing
7.1 Silvopasture for Integrated Land Use
7.2 Enhanced Grassland Management
7.3 Agroforestry and Nitrogen-Fixing Trees
7.4 Forest Conservation and Sustainable Land Use
8 Technological and Policy Innovations
8.1 Precision Fermentation, Aquaponics, Vertical Farming, and Other Innovations
8.2 Government Policies Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Practices
8.2.1 National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA)
8.2.2 Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)
8.2.3 Soil Health Card Scheme
8.2.4 Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY)
8.2.5 National Agriculture Market
8.2.6 Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
8.2.7 Public-Private Partnerships to Fund Agricultural Innovation and Transition
9 Social and Economic Dimensions
10 Conclusions and Future Outlook
References
Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives
1 Exploring the Newest Developments in Biowaste Conversion Technologies and Current Trends in Bioresource and Waste Management
2 Approach to Circular Economy (CE) Challenges and Conclusions
3 Energy Crisis and Biowaste Energy Potential
4 Feedstocks for Bioenergy Production
5 Bioreactor Development for Energy Production
5.1 Bioreactors for Biohydrogen Production
5.2 Bioreactors for Biodiesel Production
5.3 Bioreactors for Biogas Production
5.4 Bioreactors for Bioethanol Production
6 Conclusion
References
Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass Waste
1 Introduction
1.1 Background on Biomass Waste and Its Environmental Impact
1.2 Importance of Effective Management and Valorization Strategies
1.3 Role of Enzymes in Biomass Waste Processing
2 Enzymatic Degradation of Biomass Waste
2.1 Types of Biomass Waste Suitable for Enzymatic Degradation
2.2 Major Enzymes Involved in Biomass Degradation
2.3 Mechanisms of Enzymatic Degradation and Key Factors Affecting Enzyme Activity
2.3.1 Mechanisms of Enzymatic Degradation
2.3.2 Key Factors Affecting Enzyme Activity
3 Enzyme Engineering for Improved Degradation Efficiency
3.1 Challenges and Limitations of Enzymatic Degradation
4 Enzyme-Assisted Pretreatment of Biomass Waste
4.1 Synergistic Effects Between Pretreatment and Enzymatic Degradation
4.2 Optimization of Pretreatment Conditions
4.3 Enzymatic Pretreatment Methods and Their Advantages
4.3.1 Cellulase-Based Enzymatic Pretreatment
4.3.2 Ligninase-Based Enzymatic Pretreatment
4.3.3 Effect of Enzyme-Assisted Pretreatment on Biomass Structure and Composition
5 Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Biomass Waste
6 Enzyme-Mediated Conversion of Biomass Waste into Value-Added Products
7 Challenges and Opportunities in the Enzymatic Conversion Process
8 Potential Applications of Emerging Technologies in Enzymatic Valorization
8.1 Advanced Biofuels Production
8.2 Specialty Chemicals and Biochemicals
8.3 Bioplastics and Biopolymers
8.4 Nutraceuticals and Functional Ingredients
8.5 Waste Remediation and Environmental Applications
8.6 Circular Bioeconomy and Integrated Biorefineries
9 Conclusion and Future Research Prospects
References
Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization
1 Introduction
2 Lignocellulosics: A Potential Source for Biomass Valorization
3 Lignocellulosic Biomass: Source and Composition
3.1 Sources of Lignocellulosic Biomass
3.2 Composition of Lignocellulosic Biomass
4 Need for Lignocellulosic Biomass Pretreatment
5 Common Pretreatment Techniques
6 Nanotechnology in Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization
7 Nanotechnology in Lignocellulose Biomass Pretreatment
8 Nano-Enzymatic Systems for Enhanced Hydrolysis
9 Nanomaterials in Biofuel Production
10 Conclusion
References
A State of the Art of Biofuel Production Using Biomass Wastes: Future Perspectives
1 Introduction
2 Diversity of Biofuels
2.1 Biofuel Generations
2.2 Typical Biofuels
3 Biomass Wastes as Feedstocks for Biofuel Production
3.1 Lignocellulosic Wastes
3.2 Livestock Manures
3.3 Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
3.4 Industrial Biomass Wastes
4 Technologies for Conversion of Biomass Wastes into Biofuels
4.1 Physicochemical Conversion Processes
4.2 Thermochemical Processes
4.3 Biochemical Conversion Processes
5 Enhancement Strategies for Production of Biofuels from Biowastes
5.1 Pretreatments of Biomass Wastes
5.2 Utilization of Co-Feedstocks
5.3 Application of Hybrid Conversion Technologies
5.4 Tuning of Process Parameters
6 Conclusion and Future Perspectives
References
Role of Pretreatment Approaches to Generate Value-Added Products Using Agriculture Biomass
1 Introduction
2 Components of Agricultural Biomass
2.1 Cellulose
2.2 Hemicellulose
2.3 Lignin
3 Advantages of Pretreatment of Biomass
3.1 Physical Pretreatment
3.2 Milling
3.3 Microwave
3.4 Extrusion
3.5 Chemical Pretreatment
3.6 Alkaline
3.7 Bleaching
3.8 Acid Hydrolysis
3.9 Ionic Liquids
3.10 Deep Eutectic Solvents
3.11 Organosolv Pretreatment
3.12 Biological Pretreatment
3.13 Physicochemical Pretreatment
3.13.1 Steam Explosion
3.13.2 Ammonia Fiber Explosion
3.14 Liquid Hot Water
4 Conclusion and Future Perspectives
References
Utilising Biomass-Derived Composites in 3D Printing to Develop Eco-Friendly Environment
1 Introduction
2 3D Printing Techniques for Biomass-Derived Materials
3 Biomass-Derived 3D Printing Materials
3.1 Polylactic Acid
3.2 Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)
4 Polysaccharide-Based Materials
4.1 Chitosan
4.2 Starch
5 The Utilisation of 3D Printing Technology in Conjunction with Biomass Materials
5.1 Biomedical
5.2 Electronics
5.3 Construction Field
6 Conclusions and Perspectives
References
Bioenergy Production Using Biomass Wastes: Challenges of Circular Economy
1 Introduction
2 Biomass and Bioenergy
3 Bioenergy Conversion Techniques
3.1 Thermochemical Conversion
3.2 Pyrolysis
3.3 Gasification
3.4 Torrefaction
3.5 Combustion
3.6 Hydrothermal Liquefaction
3.7 Biochemical Conversion
3.8 Anaerobic Digestion
3.9 Alcoholic Fermentation
3.10 Photobiological Methods
3.11 Advantages and Limitations of Bioenergy Production Methods (Table 1)
4 Challenges Faced
5 Future Prospects and Alternatives
6 Conclusions
References
Application of Enzymes in Biomass Waste Management
1 Introduction
2 Biomass Waste and Its Potential
3 Significance of Enzymes in Biowaste Management
4 Potential Microbial Enzymes
5 Basic Thermostable Enzymes Against Biomass Waste
5.1 High-Temperature Enzymatic Hydrolysis
5.2 Lignocellulose Degradation
5.3 Enhanced Substrate Accessibility
5.4 Reduced Risk of Contamination
5.5 Process Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness
5.6 Process Integration
6 Common Biomass Waste Management Practices
7 Conclusion
References
Pretreatment Techniques for Derivation of Value-Added Products from Agro-Waste Biomass
1 Introduction
2 Pretreatment Techniques for Agriculture Waste
3 Physical Pretreatment
4 Chemical Pretreatment
4.1 Acid Pretreatment
4.2 Alkali Pretreatment
4.3 Oxidative Pretreatment
5 Biological Pretreatment
5.1 Fungal Pretreatment
5.2 Bacteria Pretreatment
5.3 Microbial Consortium Pretreatment
5.4 Enzyme Pretreatment
6 Physicochemical Pretreatment
6.1 Steam Explosion Pretreatment
6.2 Alkali-Heat Pretreatment
6.3 Extrusion Pretreatment
7 Green Solvent-Based Pretreatment
7.1 Ionic Liquid Pretreatment
7.2 Deep Eutectic Solvent
7.3 Supercritical Fluid
8 Conclusion and Future Perspectives
References
Significance of Enzymatic Actions in Biomass Waste Management: Challenges and Future Scope
1 Introduction
2 Enzymes Used for Biomass Conversion, Degradation, and Hydrolysis
3 Mechanism of Treatment of Biomass
3.1 Pretreatment of Biomass Wastes
3.2 Enzyme Production
3.3 Enzymatic Hydrolysis
3.4 Fermentation and Further Processing
4 Application of Biomass Waste Management for Treating Contaminated Wastewater
5 Challenges and Future Prospects
6 Conclusion
References
Bioeconomy: A Sustainable Approach for Biomass Waste Management
1 Introduction
2 Conclusion
References
Application of Flower Wastes to Produce Valuable Products
1 Introduction
2 Flower Production Worldwide
3 Flower Production in India (Fig. 2)
4 Components of the Floriculture Industry
5 Future Prospects of India’s Floriculture
6 Generation and Disposal Methods of Flower Waste in India
7 Composition of Flower Wastes
8 Utilisation of Flower Waste
9 Conclusion
References
Myco-degradation of Lignocellulosic Waste Biomass and Their Applications
1 Introduction
2 Myco-degradation Mechanism and Enzymes Involved
2.1 Cellulolysis
2.2 Hemicellulolysis
2.3 Ligninolysis
3 Fungi Used for Conversion
3.1 White-Rot Fungi
3.2 Brown-Rot Fungi
3.3 Soft-Rot Fungi
4 Applications in Varied Sectors
4.1 Biofuels
4.2 Production of Enzymes
4.3 Composites
4.4 Fine Chemicals
4.5 Pulp and Paper
5 Optimization of Myco-degradation Conditions
6 Conclusion
References
Value-Added Product Development Utilising the Food Wastes
1 Introduction
2 Food Losses and Food Wastes
3 International and National Scenario of Food Wastes
4 Nutritional Content of Food Waste
5 Conversion Methods for Food Waste into By-Products
5.1 Thermal Conversion
5.2 Chemical Conversion
5.3 Biological Conversion
6 Production of Value-Added Products from Food Waste
7 Conclusion
References
Role of Bacterial Degradation in Lignocellulosic Biomass for Biofuel Production
1 Introduction
2 Significance of Bacteria in Biomass Production
3 Lignocellulose-Degrading Bacteria
4 Cellulose Degradation
5 Lignin Degradation
6 Dual Degradation Approach of Cellulose and Lignin
7 Bacteria Involved in Degradation of Lignocellulosic Biomass
8 Enzymes for Biodegradation of Lignocellulose
9 Conclusion
References
Cultivating a Greener Tomorrow: Sustainable Agriculture Strategies for Minimizing Agricultural Waste
1 Introduction
2 Unveiling Agricultural Waste: Exploring Types and Sources
3 Nurturing Tomorrow’s Harvest: Crafting Policy Considerations for Sustainable Agriculture
4 Seeds of Change: Guiding Principles for a Flourishing Future in Sustainable Agriculture
5 Turning Trash into Treasure: Harnessing Resources from Waste for a Sustainable Tomorrow
6 Case Studies for Waste-to-Resource Projects That Worked
7 Revolutionizing Waste Reduction: Exploring Innovations and Technologies for a Sustainable Future
8 Sustainable Agriculture Versus Sustainability Driven by Agriculture
9 Balancing Choices: A Comparative Exploration
10 Unlocking Nutrient Potential: Exploring Widely Adopted Processes for Nutrient Recovery from Waste
11 Barriers to Adoption and Solutions
12 Success Stories and Case Studies
13 Horizons Unveiled: Shaping the Future and Charting Research Avenues
14 Unveiling Significance: Illuminating the Importance of Our Endeavors
15 Conclusion: Paving the Path to a Greener Tomorrow
References
Index

Citation preview

Arun Lal Srivastav Abhishek Kumar Bhardwaj Mukesh Kumar   Editors

Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability Green Practices for the Rural Circular Economy

Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability

Arun Lal Srivastav  •  Abhishek Kumar Bhardwaj Mukesh Kumar Editors

Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability Green Practices for the Rural Circular Economy

Editors Arun Lal Srivastav Chitkara University School of Engineering and Technology Chitkara University Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India

Abhishek Kumar Bhardwaj School of Life Sciences Amity University Madhya Pradesh Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India

Mukesh Kumar Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

ISBN 978-3-031-52484-4    ISBN 978-3-031-52485-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Contents

 Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Is Analysis ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Shama E. Haque and Tausif Rahman Rafi Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21 Prasann Kumar, Amit Raj, and Vantipalli Aravind Kumar Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51 Ahmed Albahnasawi, Murat Eyvaz, Motasem Y. D. Alazaiza, Nurullah Özdoğan, Ercan Gurbulak, Sahar Alhout, and Ebubekir Yuksel Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass Waste����������������������������������������������������������������   69 Usman Lawal Usman, Bharat Kumar Allam, and Sushmita Banerjee Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 Vijayalakshmi Ghosh A State of the Art of Biofuel Production Using Biomass Wastes: Future Perspectives������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 Thi An Hang Nguyen, Thi Viet Ha Tran, and Minh Viet Nguyen Role of Pretreatment Approaches to Generate Value-Added Products Using Agriculture Biomass��������������������������������������������������������������  133 Suman, Deepanshu Awasthi, Nishtha, Nikhil Gakkhar, and Bharat Bajaj Utilising Biomass-Derived Composites in 3D Printing to Develop Eco-Friendly Environment����������������������������������������������������������  153 Chetan Chauhan, Varsha Rani, Mukesh Kumar, and Rishubh Motla

v

vi

Contents

Bioenergy Production Using Biomass Wastes: Challenges of Circular Economy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171 Vijaya Ilango  Application of Enzymes in Biomass Waste Management����������������������������  189 Preeti Ranjan, Maneesh Kumar, Himanshu Bhardwaj, Priyanka Kumari, and Arti Kumari Pretreatment Techniques for Derivation of Value-Added Products from Agro-Waste Biomass��������������������������������������������������������������  207 Tran Thi Viet Ha, Nguyen Thi An Hang, and Nguyen Minh Viet Significance of Enzymatic Actions in Biomass Waste Management: Challenges and Future Scope ������������������������������������������������  223 Prangya Rath, Laxmi Kant Bhardwaj, Mini Chaturvedi, and Abhishek Bhardwaj Bioeconomy: A Sustainable Approach for Biomass Waste Management������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  239 Rwitabrata Mallick, Kuldip Dwivedi, and Swapnil Rai  Application of Flower Wastes to Produce Valuable Products����������������������  251 Avnish Chauhan, Manya Chauhan, Muneesh Sethi, Arvind Bodhe, Anirudh Tomar, Shikha, and Nitesh Singh Myco-degradation of Lignocellulosic Waste Biomass and Their Applications������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  269 Sahith Chepyala, Jagadeesh Bathula, and Sreedhar Bodiga  Value-Added Product Development Utilising the Food Wastes ������������������  287 Anduri Sravani, C. R. Patil, and Shivani Sharma Role of Bacterial Degradation in Lignocellulosic Biomass for Biofuel Production ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  303 Arti Kumari, Maneesh Kumar, and Bibekananda Bhoi Cultivating a Greener Tomorrow: Sustainable Agriculture Strategies for Minimizing Agricultural Waste����������������������������������������������  317 Dipti Bharti, Abhilekha Sharma, Meenakshi Sharma, Rahul Singh, Amit Kumar, and Richa Saxena Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  335

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis Shama E. Haque and Tausif Rahman Rafi

1 Introduction Fossil fuels (e.g., petroleum, coal, and natural gas) have historically dominated the energy sector. Combustion of fossil fuel is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions from human activities that is driving global climate change. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are altering our planet’s energy balance between incoming solar radiation and the heat released back into space, increasing the greenhouse effect, which is resulting in global climate change (Haque, 2023; Haque & Nahar, 2023; USEPA, 2023a).Renewable biomass energy, derived from biodegradable fractions of products, natural resources such as waste biomass, and residues of biological origin from agricultural fields, wood industrialization, municipal pruning, and food processing, has tremendous potential to mitigate global climate change (Osman et al., 2021; Tripathi et al., 2019; Barbieri et al., 2013) resulting from the transportation sector (Przywara et al., 2023). There are numerous disposal concerns and governance issues due to the rapidly increasing amount of biomass waste (Zhou & Wang, 2020; Tripathi et al., 2019). Specifically, in developing countries, the majority of biomass residues are either burned outdoors or left in the field to decay, having a negative impact on the environment. Due to rapid urbanization and the rising demand for construction products, there is an increasing need for energy and biomass wastes remains an underutilized resource (Tripathi et al., 2019). Waste biomass from the agricultural industry can be converted to produce energy and could serve to be a way to reduce the land occupied by landfills. Biomass conversion is the process of transforming organic plant matter into fuel and, subsequently, utilizing the fuel as a source of energy. Biomass waste can be combusted to generate heat (direct), converted into electricity (direct), or processed into biofuel S. E. Haque (*) · T. R. Rafi North South University, Bashundhara, Dhaka, Bangladesh e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. L. Srivastav et al. (eds.), Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1_1

1

2

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

(indirect). Biofuel production varies according to the types of raw materials, level of efficiency, volume produced, environmental conditions, and user requirements (Przywara et al., 2023). A minor fraction of biomass waste generated becomes a feedstock for industrial applications and electricity generation, and the remaining negatively influences the atmosphere, surface water, and groundwater quality issues (Tripathi et al., 2019). The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2011) reports that biofuels have the potential to supply approximately 27% of global transportation fuel demand by 2050. Since the 1990s, the global consumption of primary energy increased dramatically, leading to a shortage of primary energy and increased GHG emissions (USEPA, 2023a). Since 1970, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) emission has increased by more than 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial operations accounting for approximately 78% of the entire increase in GHGs between 1970 and 2011. Additionally, recently, the lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected the renewable energy sector, contributing to a collapse in the price of oil and lower prices for other fossil fuels (Jiang et al., 2021). However, since then, the world has witnessed a remarkably quick economic rebound, and in 2021, anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased to their highest yearly level ever (IEA, 2022). Subsequently, in 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine directly affected the costs of heating, cooling, and lighting and contributed to a global energy crisis (Guan et al., 2023; IEA, 2022). Due to the volatility of the global energy market as well as political and societal constraints, the international community proposed and adopted numerous policy initiatives that advocated switching from fossil fuels to energy produced by alternative energy sources (e.g., solar energy, hydrogen, and biofuels)gained more attention. Since 2006, both developed and developing nations have advanced and continued to pursue pro-biofuel strategies and regulations (UNCTAD, 2023). As of 2011, there are national mandates for mixing biofuels in 31 countries across the globe and in 29 states and provinces (REN21, 2011). For example, both the United States and the European Union approved legislation requiring significant increases in biofuel consumption over the course of the next decade (Mitchell, 2011). Specifically, the US Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 included economic incentives and expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard to increase biofuel production to 36 billion gallons by 2022, of which 21 billion gallons were required to come from cellulosic biofuel or advanced biofuels derived from feedstocks other than cornstarch (USEPA, 2023b). Additionally, to curb GHG emissions, the act states that cellulosic biofuels must reduce GHG emissions by 60%, biodiesel and advanced biofuels must reduce emissions by 50%, and conventional renewable fuels (such as corn starch ethanol) must reduce life-cycle GHG emissions relative to life-cycle emissions from fossil fuels by at least 20% (USEPA, 2023b). The 2009 European Energy and Climate Change Package set out a 10% minimum target for renewable energy consumed by the transport sector to be achieved by all European Union member states in their countries by the year 2020 (USDA, 2022). Additionally, the Renewable Energy Sources Directive and Fuel Quality Directive specify the minimum required amount of biofuel to be added to the motor fuel used in the

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

3

transport sector (Küüt et al., 2017). The Indian Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas published its “National Policy on Biofuels” in 2018, and it was further updated in 2022 (IEA, 2023). The goal of the policy is to increase domestic biofuel production while reducing petroleum product imports. In China, in response to then-­ Premier Li Keqiang’s speech promoting ethanol use in 2018, numerous Chinese provinces announced new or extended regulations to establish fuel gasoline-ethanol blending schemes by 2020 (USDA, 2019). Owing to concerns over climate change impacts resulting from fossil fuel combustion, the use of biofuels has been proposed as an important solution to this recent energy crisis (Rosillo-Calle, 2022). In general, biofuels are promoted as a low-­ carbon alternative to fossil fuels as they emit significantly lower GHG compared with their fossil fuel-derived counterparts and, unlike other fuel additives, are fully biodegradable (USDE, n.d.; OEERE, 2013). One key benefit of using biofuel is that it can lower overall CO2 emissions without significantly altering our current infrastructure (MIT, 2023). Some biofuels have significant physicochemical overlap between the characteristics of a conventional petroleum-derived fuel, and they are compatible with existing engine and fuel requirements (Pillay et al., 2008). In contrast to some petroleum-based products, they are not regarded as toxic or harmful; hence, they are relatively simple to transport or store. Although biofuels have several advantages over conventional fuels, there are still some potential drawbacks. For example, on a per-unit energy basis, biofuels are often more expensive to produce than fossil fuels. Additionally, land and water resources available for food production are in competition with feedstock growth to produce biofuel (Pachapur, 2020). In addition, the local climate, geographic location, soil fertility, and agricultural practices of a region can impact the availability of biomass feedstock for producing certain biofuels (USEPA, 2023b; Datta et al., 2019). Changes in land-use patterns can lead to an increase in GHG emissions, stress on water supplies, pollution of the environmental reservoirs, and higher food prices. However, researchers have argued that because biofuels are created from renewable feedstocks, as opposed to fossil fuels, biofuel production and use could, in theory, be sustained indefinitely (USEPA, 2023b). In an effort to determine whether biomass energy is a boon or bane for society, this review chapter focuses on a thorough and systematic review of previously published material on biomass energy usage and its impact on the surrounding environment. In terms of the organization of this chapter, following the introduction, Sect. 2 focuses on methodology, and Sect. 3 presents a discussion on various biomass feedstocks (including waste biomass) and the classification of biofuels. Next, Sect. 4 discusses climate change, GHGs, and biofuels. Subsequently, Sect. 5 presents the findings of the literature review on biomass and biofuel. Section 6 presents biofuel trends in the United States, India, and China, the world’s biggest GHG emitters. Finally, Sect. 7, inspired by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on the importance of ensuring access to clean and affordable energy (SDG 7) and climate change mitigation (SGD 13), examines whether biomass waste is a blessing or a curse for society.

4

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

2 Methodology This chapter presents a systematic literature review of available scholarly and non-­ scholarly material on the topic. Specifically, the authors extracted 97 articles and systematically (i) developed research questions to direct the study; (ii) searched the most relevant in various databases (e.g., Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and relevant academic journals); (iii) assessed the selected articles’ quality and relevance; (iv) summarized the scientific findings; and (v) analyzed/interpreted the results.

3 Biomass Feedstock and Classification of Biofuels Biomass feedstocks for energy production include agriculture products (including algae/kelp) and waste, forestry residues, wood processing residue sorted municipal solid wastes, sewage sludge, and animal waste (Fig. 1). Biomass can either be grown for feedstock purposes or be a residue, such as wood waste from the logging industry, which is usually left unused. Biomass wastes can be collected from agricultural and forestry wastes, animal wastes, industrial wastes, and municipal solid wastes as low-cost raw materials (Cho et al., 2020; Zhou & Wang, 2020). Note that of 4 billion hectares of forests worldwide, approximately half falls within developing

Fig. 1  Some common sources of biomass feedstocks

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

5

nations (PBL, 2014). The generation of recovery of residue and processing waste relies on factors such as tree species and local geographical conditions, and 1 m3 of waste remains in the forest for every cubic meter of logged material removed. Instead of fully relying on dedicated energy crops and agricultural crops, waste biomass can also be utilized to sustainably meet the energy needs. Biofuel can be in solid, liquid, and gaseous phases. Typically, nonfossil, organic materials such as firewood, charcoal, and municipal trash, are used to make solid biofuels (Manandhar et al., 2022). Biodiesel is a broad term used to describe a variety of liquid biofuels including methanol, ethanol, organic oils, and methyl esters (Chiaramonti et al., 2007). Gaseous biofuels (e.g., methane) are primarily generated from the pyrolysis or gasification of agricultural wastes and wood, as well as the fermentation of animal manure (Datta et al., 2019; Szwaja et al., 2013). Biofuels may be classified into two types: primary and secondary biofuels (Table 1). Burning woody or cellulose plant material and animal manure directly produce the primary biofuels, which utilize organic materials in their natural, unprocessed state (Rodionova et al., 2017). Due to their unrefined nature, generally, the primary biofuels are inefficient and pose a threat to the environment (Day et al., 2014). The secondary biofuels are further divided intofour generations, according to feedstock and/or biosynthetic platform (Alia et al., 2019; Rodionova et al., 2017). The first generation of biofuels is ethanol, mostly produced from edible biomass rich in starch, and biodiesel, primarily derived from vegetable oils and waste animal fats such as cooking grease (Rodionova et al., 2017). The first generation of biofuels has an adverse impact on food security because they are produced from edible plant parts. Such limitations open the door for the production of second-generation biofuels, which are produced from various feedstocks, including nonfood lignocellulosic biomasses (Raghavendra et  al., 2019; Ullah et  al., 2015). Additionally, second-­ generation biofuels have lower CO2 emissions than first-generation biofuels and fossil fuels since the growth of cellulosic biomass does not require any additional agrochemicals, water, or land-use changes (Fekete, 2013).Second-generation biofuels became a commercial reality since 2015 as countries made commitments toward a more environmentally balanced future through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris COP21 climate change agreement (UNCTAD, 2016). The third generation of biofuels is produced from microorganisms, microalgae, and seaweeds, and it is a promising way of meeting global demands (Alia et al., 2019; Rodionova et al., 2017). The latest biofuel generation, the fourth-generation, feedstock includes genetically modified organisms (e.g., cyanobacteria) for the production of ethanol along with fuel products such as butanol, isobutanol, and modified fatty acids (Goria et al., 2022; Dexter & Fu, 2009). For example, Cyanobacteria are modified to boost oil yield and for efficient bioenergy production (Simya et  al., 2018). Additionally, the feedstocks can be grown on non-arable land, and the application of bioengineering concepts to alter the characteristics and metabolism of algae increases the oil quantity in the cells. Moreover, the higher oil yield aids in atmospheric CO2 reduction.

Primary biofuels Produced Burning woody or from cellulose plant material, dry animal manure Products Substituted for conventional fossil fuel in heating, cooking, or electricity production Remarks (i) Owing to their unrefined nature, in general, these biofuels are inefficient and create a negative impact on environment

(i) Relatively low unit production investment (i) An improved method, which is (i) Regarded as (i) Aims to provide requirements, and simple and well-known developed to overcome the constraints superior more sustainable processing technologies of original biofuels biofuel production options (ii) Adverse impact on food supply, food (ii) As the inevitable by-product of the substitutes as by combining security, and arable land requirements agricultural industry is used as raw these biofuels biofuels production (iii) Limited profit margin compared to fossil material, no further agrochemical water can almost with the capture and fuels in terms of GHGs as they require a or land is needed to grow the feedstock entirely avoid storage CO2 significant amount of energy to produce, (iii) The majority of the second-­generation the drawbacks (ii) Involves using store, and utilize biofuels and the ability to utilize less of first- and genetic engineering (iv) The majority of automobiles can run on expensive feedstocks do not second-­ to increase the gasoline-­ethanol mixtures with up to necessarily result in lower-cost generation preferred 10% ethanol (by volume). E85 is a biofuels. The lower feedstock costs are biofuels characteristics of gasoline-­ethanol mixture that contains up countered by increased chemical costs organisms used in to 85% ethanol and is suitable for use in and significantly increased estimated biofuel production flexible fuel cars capital expenses

Jatropha, mahua, pongamia, neem, rubber, Biodiesel, Ethanol, butanol, karanja, castor oil, etc. gasoline, butanol, isobutanol, and propanol, and modified fatty acids ethanol

Fourth generation of biofuels Genetically modified organisms

Corn ethanol, biodiesel, and pure plant oils

Third generation of biofuels Microorganisms, microalgae, and seaweed

Second generation of biofuels Nonfood crops including the waste from food crops, agricultural residue, wood chips, and waste cooking oil seed

First generation of biofuels Sugar crops, starch crops, oilseed crops, and animal fats

Secondary biofuels

Table 1  Classification of biofuels derived from various biomass feedstocks (Suali & Suali, 2023; USEPA, 2023b; Goria et al., 2022; Ofori-Boateng, 2022; Ziolkowska, 2020; Alia et al., 2019; Datta et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2018; Rodionova et al., 2017; Aro, 2015; Day et al., 2014; S&TCI, 2006)

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

7

4 Climate Change, Greenhouse Gases, and Biofuels Burek (2010) assessed historical data from 1985 on consumption trends, and the known fossil fuel supplies found that, based on the trends at the time of the study, all fossil fuels could run out within decades, possibly as early as 2060. The prediction is based on both the increase in energy usage and the reserves of fuels. Additionally, a recent report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2023) indicates that between 2023 and 2025, the world’s electricity demand is anticipated to increase at a rate of 3% annually, which is significantly higher than the growth rate of 2022. In 2022, the effect of China’s zero-COVID policy on its economy was significant, and uncertainty remains regarding the country’s electricity demand. However, while COVID-19-related restrictions impacted China’s growth, the demand for electricity increased in both India and the United States (IEA, 2023). In an effort to minimize and prevent any community spread of the coronavirus, China carried out widespread testing, housed the effected individuals in government facilities, and established targeted lockdowns. Whereas during the same year in India, a combination of strong post-pandemic economic rebound and high summer temperatures led to an 8.4% increase in electricity demand (IEA, 2023). Furthermore, during 2022, energy demand in the United States increased substantially by 2.6% year over year, driven by economic activity and higher residential consumption to meet heating and cooling needs during hotter summers and colder-than-average winters. Isaac and van Vuuren (2009) studied the residential sector energy demand worldwide for heating and air conditioning considering the impacts of changing climate. The findings of this study indicate that due to the impacts of global climate change, by 2100, there will be a 34% decrease in the demand for heating and a 72% increase in the demand for air cooling. van Ruijven et al. (2019) investigated the growth in future energy consumption based on an analysis that considered Gross Domestic Product and temperature and 210 socioeconomic and climate scenarios. These researchers found that in the future, energy consumption will possibly increase owing to the impacts of global climate change; however, the magnitude is dependent on several interacting sources of uncertainty. Currently, the primary source of atmospheric CO2 emissions comes from the power sector due to fossil fuel combustion, and by far, fossil fuels are the dominant cause of climate change, producing over 75% of all GHG emissions and almost 90% of all CO2 emissions (UN, n.d). It is now well established that due to the impacts of climate change and global warming, the earth’s surface temperature is increasing (Haque, 2023; Haque & Nahar, 2023; IPCC, 2007). Since 1880, our planet’s temperature has risen by approximately 1.1  °C (NASA, 2022) and the growth rate has more than doubled over the last 40  years (0.18  °C per decade; Lindsey & Dahlman, 2021). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) predicts future warming trends, and by 2100, it is predicted that global average surface temperatures would rise by 1.1–6.4 °C; however, we can change the trajectory of global temperature increases by taking immediate action (IPCC, 2022).

8

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

For example, the utilization of biomass, as a source of renewable energy, and a traditional energy source can be vital in minimizing the environmental effect of fossil fuel combustion to produce energy (McKendry, 2002). However, it is noteworthy thatrecently, the USEPA (2023b) reported that depending on the feedstock, the production process, and the time horizon of the analysis, biofuels can emit even more GHGs per unit of energy than some fossil fuels. Additionally, although biofuels have environmental benefits, their production and use can also have adverse impact on the environment. For example, if spilled, pure ethanol and biodiesel break down into harmless substances, but fuel ethanol, which contains denaturants to make fuel ethanol undrinkable, is flammable (particularly ethanol; EIA, 2022).

5 Summary of Previous Research Findings on Biomass Energy In recent years, there has been a huge quantity of research in the area of biomass and biofuel. Table  2 presents a summary of the previously published research works related to biomass and biofuel.

6 Biofuels in the United States, India, and China The findings of this review indicate that globally, there are numerous biomass sources available to produce biofuels, and the biomass feedstock used is country-­ specific. Of the 4 billion hectares of forest worldwide, approximately half falls within developing countries. Since the early 1980s, the production and consumption of biofuels have generally increased annually in the United States, and various government policies and programs encouraged and/or mandated the use of biofuels (EIA, 2022). These policies and programs primarily aim to reduce the usage of fossil fuel-based transportation fuels. In the mid-2000s, following the initial phase of explosive growth, biodiesel production capacity kept growing in the United States, but in recent years, the rapid expansion of renewable diesel production capacity has threatened its potential (Gerveni et al., 2023). This surge in renewable diesel production raised a number of questions regarding the effect on biofuel, grain, and oilseed markets (Gerveni et al., 2023). On the other hand, China and India stand out with their high population density and notable food vs. fuel debates. The importance of biofuels in replacing conventional transportation fuels in these two nations has recently been highlighted in numerous studies; however, most of the work focuses on unconventional processes such as lignocellulosic feedstocks (Beckman et  al., 2018). The current status and challenges for biofuels in the United States, India, and China are briefly described in the sections below.

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

9

Table 2  Summary of previous research findings Authors Cavelius et al.

Osman et al.

Shokravi et al.

Subramaniam and Masron

Saravankumar et al.

Uddin et al.

Oliveira et al.

Year Summary of findings 2023 This study investigates the potential of biofuels from first to fourth generation. The findings reveal that it is necessary to develop renewable energy sources, of which biofuels will contribute significantly. Additionally, the use of biofuels will contribute to curbing CO2 emissions and meet the ever-increasing demand for energy. Further, the findings suggest that to reduce the effects of climate change and make the transition to a sustainable society, people are prepared to accept change from the status quo 2021 This review provides a critical assessment of current biomass to biofuel conversion pathways and related studies, which investigate environmental effects throughout the life cycle. The finding indicates that the research on biochemical conversion is significantly less explored, outweighed, and understood compared to the thermochemical conversion of biomass 2022 This study focuses on fourth-generation biofuel from genetically modified algal biomass. According to the findings, the technical and biosafety aspects of fourth-generation biofuel, along with the complexity and diversity of the pertinent regulations, legal concerns, and health and environmental impacts, are among the most pressing issues, which call for a strong commitment at the national and international levels to reach an agreement 2021 The study aims to investigate the impact of economic globalization on biofuel production using panel data from 50 developing nations between 2012 and 2016. The findings revealed that economic globalization has a favorable effect on the production of biofuels, and the evidence is robust to several robustness checks. According to the authors, promoting globalization’s economic features will promote biofuel usage and reduce their adverse influence on the environment 2019 This study investigates the possibility of adding silicon dioxide nanoparticles to maize oil methyl ester in the form of an emulsion. According to experimental findings, adding nanoparticles improves emission characteristics in diesel engines as they serve as an oxidation catalyst 2019 These researchers examined the potential of biomass energy as a source of sustainable energy in Bangladesh. Additionally, the study aims to predict the challenges associated with the future implementation of biomass energy in the country. Furthermore, due to its wide availability, biomass can be used as a sustainable energy source with support from various levels of the government 2017 These researchers investigate the political and financial motivations behind biofuel policy and their influence on government interventions and policy development. The findings reveal that biofuel policies and processes are ineffective because they are not created with the interests of the environment or pro-poor development in mind. Instead, they are established and put into effect to serve the goals of corporations seeking to maximize profits and governments worried about energy security (continued)

10

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

Table 2 (continued) Authors Rago et al.

Ji and Long

Sekoai and Yoro

Su et al.

Year Summary of findings 2018 This study provides a review of thermochemical technologies for the transformation of biomass waste to biofuel and energy in developing nations. Economic, technological, and societal concerns account for the developing nations’ resistance to the use of biomass thermochemical conversion methods. In the long run, the thermochemical conversion of biomass to biofuel can become a significant Clean Development Mechanism project with curbed GHG emissions 2016 This study offers a thorough and current assessment of the literature on the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of biofuels. The research reveals that the conclusions of published literature are inconsistent regarding the ecological or socioeconomic effects of biofuels, and there is doubt about the cleanliness and renewability of these fuels 2016 These researchers studied the development initiatives of biofuels in sub-Saharan Africa. The findings indicate that biofuel development initiatives have been stagnant in Africa owing to governmental regulations, and a lack of funding, technological know-how, and available land. Additionally, the results imply that biofuel projects will act as a stimulant for Africa’s economic expansion, infrastructure improvement, and social welfare 2015 These researchers review the national biofuel policies and strategy plans of the leading nations across the globe. The results reveal that although there is political disagreement regarding the effect of biofuels on food security and global climate change, it would be difficult for policymakers to maintain trends of biofuel production while adhering to rules for sustainable production

6.1 United States Recently, the United States passed legislation and set ambitious goals to promote the development and commercialization of biofuels (USEPA, 2023b; Hoekman, 2009). Additionally, with regard to biofuels, individual US states have adopted aggressive approaches, with initial attempts primarily concentrated on ethanol, created through the fermentation of carbohydrates from cereals, particularly corn (Hoekman, 2009). Moreover, the US Energy Independence and Security Act provided different subsidies, donations, loans, and cash awards to assist biofuel research and gave incentives for biorefineries that helped to replace 80% of fossil fuels and use cellulosic ethanol to assure the sustainable use of biofuel in the US economy (Sajid et al., 2021). According to the US Energy Information Administration (2022), in 2021, the country produced approximately 17.5 billion gallons of biofuels and consumed roughly 16.8 billion gallons. During the same year, the country exported 0.8 billion gallons of biofuels on a net basis, with gasoline-ethanol making up the lion’s share of both gross and net exports. Furthermore, the majority of biofuel is consumed in blends with refined petroleum products including gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and kerosene-type jet fuel.

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

11

It is important to note that for a developed country such as the United States, the benefits of biofuel include energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection; nonetheless, there are a number of challenges, which must be overcome before these advantages can be realized. For instance, DellaSalla and Koopman (2016) investigated biomass energy generation and forest thinning in the western United States and its influence on GHG emissions. These researchers found that in the western portion of the United States, biomass energy created as a by-product of forest clearing is being promoted as a “win-win” for lowering fire risks and substituting fossil fuels. However, many justifications regarding thinning and biomass approaches require validation regarding whether they are in fact ecologically sound and carbon neutral. In addition, extensive forest thinning and energy production from forest biomass without adequate safeguards are highly risky strategies for limiting the influences of changing climate with potentially irreversible consequences to fire-adapted forests and GHG emissions.

6.2 India Usmani (2020) studied the potential to generate biofuel from biomass in India, South Asia’s largest economy. India has a population of over 1.2 billion, and for the next several decades, the country’s population is projected to grow at an unprecedented rate (Usmani, 2020). With a demand of 5 million barrels/day, India is the third-largest consumer behind the United States and China (HT, 2022). In particular, the Indian transport industry consumes 99.6% of petrol and approximately 70% of diesel (Usmani, 2020). The total quantities of petroleum consumed in India in 2019–20 were 194.3 million metric tons (MMT), up around 5% to 204.2 MMT (HT, 2022). As of 2018, imports accounted for more than 80% of the nation’s oil needs (TET, 2018), indicating that the country’s domestic production of crude oil could only satisfy 20% of the country’s needs. Additionally, India is projected to exhaust its coal reserve and its primary source of energy, over the next three decades (Patni et  al., 2011). Its domestic natural gas reserves are limited as well. Numerous researchers indicate that the country’s fuel energy security would continue to be at risk unless alternative fuels are produced based on renewable feedstocks (Patni et al., 2011). The Indian Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MPNG, 2023) considers biofuels as the solution to insufficient fossil fuel supply and GHG emission problems. According to a 2011 Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2017) study, first-generation bioethanol has limited market potential in the country because it competes with agricultural resources and threatens food security. The study further indicates that a mix of policies, such as expanding biodiesel production, increasing energy efficiency, and increasing food productivity, will give India better food and energy security and chances for inclusive growth and carbon emission reduction. By 2030, the Indian government plans to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint by 30–35%

12

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

(TET, 2020). This goal will be attained through a five-pronged plan, which envisions biofuels playing a strategic role in India’s energy mix. In addition, by 2030, the Indian Government envisages an indicative target of blending 20% ethanol and 5% biodiesel into gasoline and diesel, respectively (MPNG, 2023). Moreover, the government has announced several efforts to boost domestic biofuel production. Liquid biofuels may be used in combination with petroleum fuels without modifying engines, which makes their widespread implementation quite simple (Usmani, 2020). Furthermore, Karunakaran (2023) reports that biofuel made from agricultural waste offers India’s farmers the great potential to be empowered, revolutionizes the rural economy, and enhances the quality of life in rural regions by creating revenue and generating employment opportunities. However, India has restrictions on the types of feedstocks that can be used to make biofuels, such as banning the use of sugarcane juice to make ethanol, which has led to the slow expansion of biofuel production in India (Beckman et al., 2018).

6.3 China China, the largest developing nation in the world, is the world’s top energy consumer (Chen et al., 2020). Kang et al. (2020) investigated bioenergy in China and found that domestic biomass resources’ collectible potential increased from approximately 18.3 exajoule (1018 J; EJ) in 2000 to 22.7 EJ in 2016. In 2016, the entire potential for energy crops (32.7EJ) amounted to roughly 27.6% of China’s energy consumption. The cumulative reduction in GHG emissions due to this potential, if it can be realized strategically to replace fossil fuels between 2020 and 2050, would be in the range of about 652.7–5859.6 Mt CO2-equivalent, with the negative GHG emissions attributable to the introduction of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage accounting for 923.8–1344.1 Mt CO2-equivalent. Due to its limited energy resources and excessive reliance on burning fossil fuels for energy generation, China is concerned about its energy security, which puts pressure on the Chinese government to adjust its energy mix (Zhang et al., 2020). The government is promoting the national biofuel initiative to address issues with energy security; however, grain-based ethanol is no longer supported by Chinese policy, which prohibits biofuel feedstocks from competing with feedstocks for human or animal use (Beckman et al., 2018; Koizumi, 2013). Moreover, Chen et al. (2020) studied microalgal biofuels in China and reported that China is working toward creating a variety of renewable energy sources and has made substantial investments in microalgal biomass and biofuel production. Additionally, to address the country’s energy and environmental concerns, China has initiated several significant research and development programs for microalgal biomass and biofuels. Weng et al. (2019) report that planting energy crops on marginal land might increase non-grain feedstocks by 10% and save approximately 0.22% of croplands, reducing the adverse influences on land resources and food security (Weng et al., 2019). As a result, this may be one of the promising routes for sustainable biofuel development in the country.

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

13

7 Biofuels: A Boon or Bane for Society? The declining market share of natural fossil fuels necessitated research organizations, decision-makers, and businesses to find other ways to provide transportation fuel. Biomass energy is a promising solution to this problem, which some researchers suggest assists in climate change mitigation while producing significant quantities of energy through a relatively simpler process (Surriya et  al., 2015). Past researchers found that better land management, job creation, the use of underutilized agricultural land in industrialized nations, the utilization of modern energy sources to rural communities in developing nations, lowing of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, improved waste management, and the recycling of nutrients are some of the benefits of biomass energy (Zhang et al., 2020). Even though biofuels appear to be a sustainable solution for ensuring energy supplies and an eco-friendly solution for curbing atmospheric CO2 emissions, there are serious concerns regarding their growing use (Jeswani et al., 2020; Azapagic, 2011). For example, biodiversity, an environmental component of sustainability, can be impacted by land conversion to produce enough biomass to significantly reduce fossil fuel dependency (Araújo et al., 2017). Silvestri (2008) conducted research on Honduran biodiesel generation using palm oil. The results of this study revealed that the production of palm oil-based biodiesel did not present new employment opportunities for Honduran rural poor communities and was more likely to affect food security while adversely influencing the environment. In addition, the findings indicate that biodiesel production from palm oil is not as advantageous as it might seem. A separate study found that the production of feedstocks and yields have both gradually but steadily increased over the last several years, along with the share of fuels based on bioenergy (Ajanovic, 2011). The current policy question revolves around whether the trade-offs between food and fuel are less harmful or unwarranted for developing countries and which aspects are likely to be critical in determining future biofuel endorsements (Das & Gundimeda, 2022). It would be beneficial to describe the many generations of biofuels that have entered the market before examining the sustainability of particular biofuels. Jeswani et al. (2020) reviewed the environmental sustainability of biofuels and found that the use of first-generation feedstocks has become an especially sensitive topic because of the competition with food production and concerns regarding using agricultural land for biofuel production. Growing agricultural product demand puts the environment in danger by increasing the likelihood of deforestation, the need to use land with high biodiversity values to meet this demand, and the usage of freshwater and agrochemicals that go along with it. Additionally, increasing food and fuel prices are anticipated to endanger the food security of nations, which import both food and gasoline, whereas in countries, which are net exporters in one and net importers of the other, the situation will be governed by the relative size of the food or energy exports and imports (USDA, 2007). Further, Lackner (2022) indicates that owing to land-use changes, fertilizer consumption, and process yields, first-generation biofuels can perform even worse than petroleum-based fuels in

14

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

terms of their net influence on changing climate. Although some of these concerns could be resolved by employing second-generation feedstocks, the practicality of some second-generation biofuels is still debatable, primarily because they are sustainably more expensive than petroleum fuels on an energy equivalent basis (Carriquiry et al., 2011). The third generation of biofuels can bypass the issues of food competition and land utilization as microalgae show great promise for future biofuel generation in the saline, brackish, and freshwater environments as they may form up to an order of magnitude more biomass per area than terrestrial biomass (Lackner, 2022; Jeswani et al., 2020). However, biofuel production from microalgae is energy-intensive and currently not profitable (Passell et al., 2013). Overall, the findings of the review indicate that while biofuels primarily help to attain SDGs 7 (energy supply security and reduction in fossil fuel use) and 13 (ameliorate global warming due to reduction in atmospheric CO2 emission), they also have detrimental effects on other such as SDG 2 (Zero hunger) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), which vary according to use of type of biomass feedstock to produced biofuels (Nazari et al., 2020). In the end, the review finds that the issue of biofuel usage is a complex interplay of two different worldviews; on the one hand, the developed nations consider biofuels as renewable and eco-friendly, whereas the developing nations are focused on having food on the table than protecting the environment. The findings of this review reveal that further research and development are required before determining whether biofuels are a boon or a bane for society. Acknowledgments  The authors are appreciative of their families for supporting them during the many hours of work spent writing this chapter.

References ADB. (2017). Food security, energy security, and inclusive growth in India: The role of biofuels. Available at: https://www.adb.org/publications/food-­security-­energy-­security-­and-­inclusive-­ growth-­india-­role-­biofuels. Accessed: July 8, 2023. Ajanovic, A. (2011). Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices? Energy, 36(4), 2070–2076. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.019. Accessed: June 9, 2023. Alia, K. B., Rasul, I., Azeem, F., et al. (2019). Microbial production of ethanol. Microbial fuel cells: Materials and applications. Materials Research Foundations, 46, 307–334. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644900116-­12. Accessed: June 9, 2023. Araújo, K., Mahajan, D., Kerr, R., & da Silva, M. (2017). Global biofuels at the crossroads: An overview of technical, policy, and investment complexities in the sustainability of biofuel development. Agriculture, 7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7040032. Accessed: June 16, 2023. Aro, E.-M. (2015). From first generation biofuels to advanced solar biofuels. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 45(S1), 24–31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­015-­0730-­0. Accessed: June 16, 2023. Azapagic, A. (2011). Assessing the sustainability of biofuels. Available at: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/assessing-­sustainability-­of-­biofuels. Accessed: July 3, 2023.

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

15

Barbieri, L., Andreola, F., Lancellotti, I., & Taurino, R. (2013). Management of agricultural biomass wastes: Preliminary study on characterization and valorisation in clay matrix bricks. Waste Management, 33(11), 2307–2315. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.014. Accessed: June 28, 2023. Beckman, J., Gooch, E., Gopinath, M., & Landes, M. (2018). Market impacts of China and India meeting biofuel targets using traditional feedstocks. Biomass & Bioenergy, 108, 258–264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.11.018. Accessed: June 28, 2023. Burek, S. (2010). When will fossil fuels finally run out and what is the technical potential for renewable energy resources? International Journal of COMADEM, 13(4), 22–27. Carriquiry, M. A., Du, X., & Timilsina, G. R. (2011). Second generation biofuels: Economics and policies. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4222–4234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.036 Cavelius, P., Englehart-Straub, S., Mehlmer, N., Lercher, J., Awaf, D., & Brück, T. (2023). The potential of biofuels from first to fourth generation. PLoS Biology, 21(3). https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063 Chen, H.  S., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2020). Microalgal biofuels in China: The past, progress and prospects. GCB Bioenergy, 12(12), 1044–1065. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ gcbb.12741 Chiaramonti, D., Oasmaa, A., & Solantausta, Y. (2007). Power generation using fast pyrolysis liquids from biomass. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1056–1086. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.07.008. Accessed: June 27, 2023. Cho, E. J., Trinh, L. T. P., Song, Y., et al. (2020). Bioconversion of biomass waste into high value chemicals. Bioresource Technology, 298, 122386. Das, P., & Gundimeda, H. (2022). Is biofuel expansion in developing countries reasonable? A review of empirical evidence of food and land use impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 372. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133501. Accessed: June 4, 2023. Datta, A., Hossain, A., & Roy, S. D. (2019). An overview on biofuels and their advantages and disadvantages. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 31(8), 1851–1858. Available at: https://doi. org/10.14233/ajchem.2019.22098 Day, C., Tseng, Y.-C., Puyol, R., & Nissan, J. (2014). Efficiency comparisons of secondary biofuels. PAM Review, 1, 70–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5130/pamr.v1i0.1386 DellaSalla, D.  A., & Koopman, M. (2016). Thinning combined with biomass energy production impacts fire-adapted forests in western United States and may increase greenhouse gas ­emissions. In Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­409548-­9.09587-­7 Dexter, J., & Fu, P. (2009). Metabolic engineering of cyanobacteria for ethanol production. Energy and Environmental Science, 2(8), 857. https://doi.org/10.1039/b811937f EIA. (2022). Biomass explained. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ biomass/#:~:text=Direct%20combustion%20is%20the%20most,biomass%20includes%20 pyrolysis%20and%20gasification. Accessed: June 25, 2023. Fekete, B. M. (2013). Biomass. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 83–87). s.n. Gerveni, M., Hubbs, T., & Irwin, S. (2023). Overview of the production capacity of U.S. biodiesel plants. farmdoc daily, (13), 32. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 22, 2023. Goria, K., Kothari, R., Singh, H.  M., Singh, A., & Tyagi, V.  V. (2022). Biohydrogen: Potential applications, approaches, and hurdles to overcome. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 399–418). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-­0-­12-­822810-­4.00020-­8 Guan, Y., Yan, J., Shan, Y., Zhou, Y., Hang, Y., et al. (2023). Burden of the global energy price crisis on households. Nature Energy, 8(3), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-­023-­01209-­8 Haque, S. E. (2023). Chapter 2 – Historical perspectives on climate change and its influence on nature. In A. Srivastav, A. Dubey, A. Kumar, S. K. Narang, & M. A. Khan (Eds.), Visualization techniques for climate change with machine learning and artificial intelligence (pp. 15–38). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­323-­99714-­0.00003-­0

16

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

Haque, S. E., & Nahar, N. (2023). Bangladesh: Climate change issues, mitigation, and adaptation in the water sector, ACS EST Water, 3, 6, 1484–1501. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00450 Hoekman, S. K. (2009). Biofuels in the U.S. – Challenges and opportunities. Renewable Energy, 34(1), 14–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.030 HT (Hindustan Times). (2022). India’s daily petroleum consumption growing faster than global average: Puri. https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/indias-­daily-­petroleum-­ consumption-­growing-­faster-­than-­global-­average-­puri-­101665762596340.html. Accessed on July 17, 2023. IEA. (2011). https://www.iea.org/news/biofuels-­can-­provide-­up-­to-­27-­of-­world-­transportation-­ fuel-­by-­2050-­iea-­report-­says-­iea-­roadmap-­shows-­how-­biofuel-­production-­can-­be-­expanded-­ in-­a-­sustainable-­way-­and-­identifies-­needed-­technologies-­and-­policy-­actions. Accessed on July 16, 2023. IEA. (2022). Global energy review: CO2 emissions in 2021. Available at: https://www.iea.org/ reports/global-­energy-­review-­co2-­emissions-­in-­2021-­2. Accessed: June 7, 2023. IEA. (2023). National policy on biofuels (2022 Amendment). Available at: https://www.iea.org/ policies/17006-­national-­policy-­on-­biofuels-­2022-­amendment. Accessed: July 7, 2023. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Accessed on June 12, 2023. IPCC. (2022). Mitigation of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixthassessment-­report-­ working-­group-­3/. Accessed on June 17, 2023. Isaac, M., & van Vuuren, D.  P. (2009). Modeling global residential sector energy demand for heating and air conditioning in the context of climate change. Energy Policy, 37(2), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.051 Jeswani, H. K., Chilvers, A., & Azapagic, A. (2020). Environmental sustainability of biofuels: A review. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 476(2243). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351. Accessed: June 16, 2023. Ji, X., & Long, X. (2016). A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 61, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.026 Jiang, P., Walmsley, T. G., & Klemeš, J. J. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on energy demand and consumption: Challenges, lessons and emerging opportunities. Applied Energy, 285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116441. Accessed: June 15, 2023. Kang, Y., Yang, Q., Bartocci, P., Wei, H., Liu, S.  S., et  al. (2020). Bioenergy in China: Evaluation of domestic biomass resources and the associated greenhouse gas mitigation potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 127, 109842. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109842 Karunakaran, K. (2023, January 18). Achieving India’s energy security and economic resilience with biofuels. Times of India Blog. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ voices/achieving-­indias-­energy-­security-­and-­economic-­resilience-­with-­biofuels/. Accessed: June 20, 2023. Koizumi, T. (2013). Biofuel and food security in China and Japan. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 21, 102–109. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.047. Accessed: June 8, 2023. Kumar, M., Babu, A. V., & Kumar, P. S. (2018). The impacts on combustion, performance and emissions of biodiesel by using additives in direct injection diesel engine. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 509–516. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.12.016 Küüt, A., Ilves, R., Küüt, K., Raide, V., Ritslaid, K. M., & Oltm, J. (2017). Influence of European Union directives on the use of liquid biofuel in the transport sector. 10th international scientific conference Transbaltica 2017: Transportation science and technology. Procedia Engineering, 187, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.346

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

17

Lackner, M. (2022). Third-generation biofuels: Bacteria and algae for better yield and sustainability. In Springer eBooks (pp.  1947–1986). Available at: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­72579-­2_90 Lindsey, R., Dahlman, L. (2021), Climate Change: Global Temperature. NOAA Climate.gov. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature. Accessed January 24, 2024. Manandhar, A., Mousavi-Avval, S.  H., Tatum, J., Shrestha, E., Nazemi, P., et  al. (2022). Solid biofuels. In Elsevier eBooks (pp.  343–370). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-­0-­12­819242-­9.00017-­8 McKendry, P. (2002). Energy production from biomass (part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresource Technology, 83(1), 37–46. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-­8524(01)00118-­3 Mitchell, D. (2011). Biofuels in Africa opportunities, prospects, and challenges. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/617361468201837240/pdf/584380PUB0ID181Afr ica09780821385166.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2024. MIT Climate Portal. Available at: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/biofuel. Accessed: July 4, 2023. MPNG. (2023). About biofuel. Available at: https://mopng.gov.in/en/refining/about-­bio-­fuel. Accessed: July 3, 2023. NASA. (2022). World of change: Global temperatures. Available at: https://earthobservatory.nasa. gov/world-­of-­change/global-­temperatures. Accessed: June 5, 2023. Nazari, M. T., Nazari, M. T., Mazutti, J., Basso, L. G., & Branli, L. (2020). Biofuels and their connections with the sustainable development goals: A bibliometric and systematic review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(8), 11139–11156. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10668-­020-­01110-­4 OEERE (Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy). (2013). Ethanol vs. Petroleum-based fuel carbon emissions. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/ethanol-­vs-­petroleum-­ based-­fuel-­carbon-­emissions. Accessed on July 16, 2023. Ofori-Boateng, C. (2022). Global profile and market potentials of the third-generation biofuels. In Woodhead Publishing series in energy, 3rd generation biofuels (pp. 745–756). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­323-­90971-­6.00018-­8 Oliveira, G. L. T., McKay, B., & Plank, C. (2017). How biofuel policies backfire: Misguided goals, inefficient mechanisms, and political-ecological blind spots. Energy Policy, 108, 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.036 Osman, A., Mehta, N., Elgarahy, A. M., Al-Hinai, A., Ml-Muhtaseb, A., et al. (2021). Conversion of biomass to biofuels and life cycle assessment: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 19(6), 4075–4118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-­021-­01273-­0 Pachapur, P. (2020). Food security and sustainability. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/Food-­S ecurity-­a nd-­S ustainability-­Pachapur-­Pachapur/ed034f35604381016e7 2f784290d968bbd00d2c1. Accessed: June 19, 2023. Passell, H. D., Dhaliwal, H., Reno, M., Wu, B., Amotz, A. B., et al. (2013). Algae biodiesel life cycle assessment using current commercial data. Journal of Environmental Management, 129, 103–111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.055 Patni, N., Pillai, S. G., & Dwivedi, A. H. (2011). Analysis of current scenario of biofuels in India specifically biodiesel and bio-ethanol. In Conference: International conference on current trends in technology, NUiCONE 11. PBL. (2014). Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Report. Integrated analysis of global biomass flows in search of the sustainable potential for bioenergy production. PBL Publication no. 1509. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-­2014-­ integrated-­a nalysis-­o f-­g lobal-­b iomass-­f lows-­i n-­s earch-­o f-­t he-­s ustainable-­p otential-­f or-­ bioenergy-­production-­1509.pdf. Accessed on July 17, 2023. Pillay, A. E., Elkadi, M., & Fok, S. C. (2008). Biofuels – Bane or blessing? Research Jounal of Chemistry and Environment, 12(2), 5–6.

18

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

Przywara, M., Przywara, R., Zapata, W., & Opalinski, I. (2023). Mechanical properties of solid biomass as affected by moisture content. AgriEngineering, 5(3), 1118–1135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering5030071 Raghavendra, H., Mishra, S., Upashe, S. P., & Floriano, J. F. (2019). Research and production of second-generation biofuels. In eBooks (pp. 383–400). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119434436.ch18 Rago, Y. P., Mohee, R., & Surroop, D. (2018). A review of thermochemical technologies for the conversion of waste biomass to biofuel and energy in developing countries. In W. Leal Filho & D. Surroop (Eds.), The Nexus: Energy, environment and climate change. Green energy and technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­63612-­2_8 REN21. (2011). Renewables 2011: Global status report (pp. 13–14). Available at: https://www. ren21.net/wp-­content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2011_Full-­Report_English.pdf. Accessed on July 17, 2023. Rodionova, M.  V., Puodyal, R.  S., Tiwari, I., Voloshin, R.  A., Zharmukhamedov, S.  K., Nam, H.  G., et  al. (2017). Biofuel production: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(12), 8450–8461. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhydene.2016.11.125 Rosillo-Calle, F. (2022). New insights into biomass and biofuels in rapidly changing energy scenario. Energies, 15(18). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186664 S&TCI. (2006). Second generation biofuels. A review from a market barrier perspective. https:// task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-­content/uploads/sites/37/2013/05/Second-­generation-­biofuels-­ A-­review-­from-­a-­market-­barrier-­perspective.pdf Sajid, Z., Da Silva, M. A. B., & Danial, S. N. (2021). Historical analysis of the role of governance systems in the sustainable development of biofuels in Brazil and the United States of America (USA). Sustainability, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126881 Saravankumar, P. T., Suresh, V., Vijayan, V., et al. (2019). Ecological effect of corn oil biofuel with SiO2 nano-additives. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 41(23), 2845–2852. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1576079 Sekoai, P.  T., & Yoro, K.  O. (2016). Biofuel development initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities and challenges. Climate, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4020033 Shokravi, H., Heidarrezaei, M., Shokravi, Z., Ong, H.C., Lau, W.J., et al. (2022). Fourth generation biofuel from genetically modified algal biomass for bioeconomic development, Journal of Biotechnology, 360, 23–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2022.10.010 Silvestri, L. C. (2008). The bitter sweet promise of biofuels sweet for few, bitter for many: A study case of Honduras Luciana, environmental science, agricultural and food sciences. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/27825584_The_Bitter_Sweet_Promise_of_Biofuels_-_Sweet_ for_few_bitter_for_many_A_sudy_case_of_Honduras. Accessed January 23, 2024. Simya, O. K., Nair, P. R., & Ashok, A. M. (2018). Engineered nanomaterials for energy applications. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 751–767). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-­0-­12-­813351-­4.00043-­2 Su, Y., Zhang, P., & Su, Y.-Q. (2015). An overview of biofuels policies and industrialization in the major biofuel producing countries. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 991–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.032 Suali, E., & Suali, L. (2023). Impact assessment of global biofuel regulations and policies on biodiversity. In Elsevier eBooks (pp.  137–161). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-­0-­323-­91159­7.00012-­6 Subramaniam, Y., & Masron, T. A. (2021). The Impact of economic globalization on biofuel in developing countries. Energy Conversion and Management, X, 10, 100064. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2020.100064. Surriya, O., Saleem, S.  S., Waqar, K., Kazi, A.  G., & Öztürk, M. (2015). Bio-fuels: A blessing in disguise. In Springer eBooks (pp.  11–54). Available at: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7887-­0_2

Is Biomass Energy a Boon or Bane for Society: A Comprehensive Analysis

19

Szwaja, S., et  al. (2013). Sewage sludge producer gas enriched with methane as a fuel to a spark ignited engine. Fuel Processing Technology, 110, 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fuproc.2012.12.008 TET. (2020). India aims to reduce carbon footprint by 30–35%: PM Narendra Modi. https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/india-­has-­set-­target-­of-­cutting-­carbon-­ footprint-­by-­30-­35-­narendra-­modi/articleshow/79336625.cms?from=mdr. Accessed on July 17, 2023. TET (The Economic Times). (2018). India’s oil import bill to jump by 25% in FY18. https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-­gas/indias-­oil-­import-­bill-­to-­jump-­by-­25-­ in-­fy18/articleshow/63464408.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_ campaign=cppst. Accessed on July 17, 2023. Tripathi, N., Hills, C. D., Singh, R. S., & Atkinson, C. J. (2019). Biomass waste utilisation in low-­ carbon products: Harnessing a major potential resource. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-­019-­0093-­5 Uddin, M. N., Taweekun, J., Techato, K., Rahman, M. A., Mafijur, M., et al. (2019). Sustainable biomass as an alternative energy source: Bangladesh perspective. Energy Procedia, 160, 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.217 Ullah, K., Sharma, V. K., Dhingra, S., Braccio, G., Ahmad, M., et al. (2015). Assessing the lignocellulosic biomass resources potential in developing countries: A critical review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 682–698. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2015.06.044 UNCTAD. (2016). Advanced biofuels set to play key role in developing countries. https://unctad. org/news/advanced-­biofuels-­set-­play-­key-­role-­developing-­countries UNCTAD. (2023). Trade Development Report 2023. Growth, debt, and climate: realigning the global financial architecture. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2023_en.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2024. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2022). Biofuels explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biofuels/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20about%2017.5%20billion,and%20net%20 exports%20of%20biofuels. Accessed January 24, 2024. USDA. (2007). Rising biofuels prices rising biofuels prices  – Blessing or curse for food security? USDA Global Conference on Agricultural Biofuels. https://www.ars.usda.gov/meetings/ Biofuel2007/presentations/Econ%20Outlook/Gurkan.pdf. Accessed on July 10, 2023. USDA. (2019). Biofuels annual China will miss E10 by 2020 goal by wide margin. GAIN Report Number: CH19047. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfile name?filename=Biofuels%20Annual_Beijing_China%20-­%20Peoples%20Republic%20 of_8-­9-­2019.pdf. Accessed on July 17, 2023. USDA. (2022). Biofuel mandates in the EU by Member State – 2022. Report Number: E42022-0044. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Bio fuel%20Mandates%20in%20the%20EU%20by%20Member%20State%20-­%202022_Berlin_ European%20Union_E42022-­0044.pdf. Accessed on July 17, 2023. USDE (United States Department of Energy). (n.d.). Biofuels & greenhouse gas emissions: Myths versus facts. https://www.energy.gov/articles/biofuels-­greenhouse-­gas-­emissions-­myths-­ versus-­facts-­0. Accessed on July 16, 2023. USEPA. (2023a). Global greenhouse gas emissions data. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ ghgemissions/global-­greenhouse-­gas-­emissions-­data. Accessed: July 9, 2023. USEPA. (2023b). Economics of biofuels. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-­ economics/economics-­biofuels. Accessed: July 10, 2023. Usmani, R. A. (2020). Potential for energy and biofuel from biomass in India. Renewable Energy, 155, 921–930. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.146. Accessed: July 10, 2023. Van Ruijven, B., De Cian, E., & Wing, I.  S. (2019). Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change. Nature Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-­019-­10399-­3

20

S. E. Haque and T. R. Rafi

Weng, Y., Chang, S., Cai, W., & Wang, C. (2019). Exploring the impacts of biofuel expansion on land use change and food security based on a land explicit CGE model: A case study of China. Applied Energy, 236, 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.024 Zhang, Q., Watanabe, M., & Lin, T. (2020). Rural biomass energy 2020: People’s Republic of China. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27997/rural-­biomass-­ energy-­2020.pdf. Accessed: June 8, 2023. Zhou, C., & Wang, Y. (2020). Recent progress in the conversion of biomass wastes into functional materials for value-added applications. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 21(1), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14686996.2020.1848213 Ziolkowska, J.  R. (2020). Chapter 1  – Biofuels technologies: An overview of feedstocks, processes, and technologies. In J.  Ren, A.  Scipioni, A.  Manzardo, & H.  Liang (Eds.), Biofuels for a more sustainable future (pp. 1–19). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­815581-­ 3.00001-­4

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices Prasann Kumar, Amit Raj, and Vantipalli Aravind Kumar

1 Introduction Agricultural waste, encompassing residues from farming activities and their implications for ecosystems, is a pivotal area of scientific interest (Sharma & Bhardwaj, 2017). This composite category engulfs diverse constituents, spanning agricultural by-products such as stems, leaves, husks, livestock dung, and urine. It further encompasses non-biodegradable components such as plastic mulch, herbicides, and fertilisers, introducing complexities to the agricultural waste domain. The variation in agricultural practices, crop types, and waste management methodologies engenders heterogeneous patterns in agricultural waste generation and composition. Notably, regions with pronounced livestock production grapple with the consequential waste produced by such activities. Conversely, the residues of cereal crops such as wheat and maize constitute a notable share of this waste stream (Koul et  al., 2022). Failure to effectively manage agricultural waste may have deleterious ecological ramifications, such as atmospheric pollution resulting from the incineration of crop remnants or water contamination stemming from the discharge of animal waste into aquatic systems. Likewise, the inadvertent disposal of non-biodegradable materials, including plastic mulch and pesticide containers, poses additional environmental threats (Kumawat et al., 2022). Minimising agricultural waste assumes paramount significance for a multitude of reasons. First, it mitigates the ecological toll exacted by farming activities. Second, it fosters the conservation of finite resources such as land and water. Moreover, reducing agricultural waste holds potential economic advantages, including cost savings in waste disposal and creating new revenue streams through repurposing by-products for agricultural use. As part of the broader objectives of sustainable agriculture, curtailing food waste is a P. Kumar (*) · A. Raj · V. A. Kumar Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. L. Srivastav et al. (eds.), Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1_2

21

22

P. Kumar et al.

critical aspiration facilitated by conservation tillage, integrated pest management (IPM), and composting (Wato et  al., 2020). Sustainable farming practices are a linchpin for maintaining soil health, safeguarding natural resources, and nurturing biological diversity and resilience (Lal, 2015). These practices, which have garnered increased attention, hold promise in enhancing the overall quality of life by simultaneously addressing various domains, including biodiversity, human health, and community cohesion (Umesha et al., 2018). The ethos of sustainable agriculture is founded on several guiding principles: Resource Conservation: The heart of sustainable agriculture lies in conserving and safeguarding natural resources such as soil, biodiversity, and wildlife. This approach aims to curtail reliance on finite resources such as water and fossil fuels (Newman & Jennings, 2012). Minimisation of Non-biodegradable Utilisation: Encouraging the judicious use of non-biodegradable materials and promoting their reuse and recycling are central tenets of sustainable agricultural philosophy. Biodiversity Enhancement: The core of sustainable agriculture entails bolstering biodiversity and ecological resilience by cultivating a diverse array of crop and livestock species (Giller et al., 1997). Natural Pest Control: Sustainable agricultural practices seek to reduce pesticide dependence while fostering natural pest control through crop rotation, biological management, and cultural practices (Singh, 2021). Economic Empowerment: A pivotal facet of sustainable agriculture is strengthening local economies through enhanced market access for farmers and skill development via training and education (Kumar et al., 2015). In the context of sustainable agriculture, food waste reduction stands as a primary objective. Practices such as composting enrich soil nutrients by breaking down organic matter and contributing to soil health and fertility (Ayilara et  al., 2020). Conservation tillage, another sustainable practice, minimises soil disturbance and erosion, reducing the need for fossil fuels and mechanical labour while preserving soil moisture and nutrient levels. Integrated pest management (IPM) is a complementary approach that reduces pesticide reliance and encourages natural pest control methods (Deguine et al., 2021). The endeavours to mitigate food waste bear socio-environmental-economic fruits, reducing waste, preserving the environment, and strengthening local economies through sustainable farming practices. By adopting these practices, farmers contribute to sustaining soil health, conserving natural resources, and fostering ecological diversity and resilience.

2 Reduce Overproduction and Food Waste With the escalating global population and the subsequent rise in food consumption, urgent measures are imperative to address the issues of food waste and overproduction. Squandered food holds significant status as a contributor to greenhouse gas

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

23

emissions and a squandering of valuable resources, entailing substantial economic and environmental repercussions. The mitigation of overproduction and food waste can be achieved through multifaceted approaches, several of which are expounded upon in this chapter (Rohini et al., 2020). These encompass refined crop planning and demand projection, relaxed aesthetic standards for produce, amplified access to nutritious sustenance for marginalised populations, initiatives targeting food waste reduction, and comprehensive consumer education (Table 1). Table 1  Agricultural waste and its sources of production and disadvantages Agricultural waste Crop residue Fruit peel

Sources of production Harvested plant parts Fruit processing and consumption

Vegetable trimmings Vegetable processing and consumption Manure Animal farming and livestock Husks and shells Sawdust Eggshells Coffee grounds Tea leaves Cotton residue Aquaculture waste Stalks and stems Nutshells Grass clippings Food scraps Leather scraps Feather waste Fish scales Shellfish shells Brewery waste Winery waste Peat moss residue Olive pits Cheese whey

Disadvantages Soil erosion, nutrient loss Landfill contribution, methane emission Waste generation, landfill impact

Water pollution, odour, greenhouse gases Grain processing Slow decomposition, disposal challenge Wood processing and carpentry Fire hazard, poor soil structure Poultry farming Slow decomposition, limited uses Coffee processing and consumption Landfill impact, waste of organic matter Tea processing and consumption Slow decomposition, limited uses Cotton farming and processing Pesticide residues, soil degradation Fish farming and processing Water pollution, disease spread Plant fibre processing Slow decomposition, limited uses Nut processing and consumption Slow decomposition, limited uses Lawn and garden maintenance Rapid decomposition, waste in landfills Household and commercial Methane emission, resource waste kitchens Leather industry by-products Poor biodegradability, pollution potential Poultry processing and feather Limited uses, waste disposal industries challenge Fish processing and consumption Limited uses, odour Shellfish processing and Slow decomposition, disposal consumption challenge Beer production Odour, waste generation Wine production Odour, waste generation Peat extraction and horticulture Habitat destruction, carbon emissions Olive oil production Slow decomposition, limited uses Cheese production Water pollution, unpleasant odour (continued)

24

P. Kumar et al.

Table 1 (continued) Agricultural waste Silk waste Nutrient-rich sludge Crab and lobster shells Potato peels Sawmill residue Paper pulp residue

Sources of production Silk production Wastewater treatment Seafood processing

Disadvantages Poor biodegradability, limited uses Water pollution, disposal challenge Limited uses, disposal challenge

Potato processing and consumption Landfill impact, waste of organic matter Wood processing and lumber Waste generation, disposal industry challenge Paper production Water pollution, habitat destruction

Source: based on the review of literature

2.1 Improved Crop Planning and Demand Forecasting Enhancing crop planning and demand projection is pivotal in combating food waste and surplus. Collaborative efforts by farmers and other stakeholders to align production with consumer preferences curtail the risk of overproduction and waste (Kusumowardani et al., 2022). This can be achieved through diverse means, such as market research, data analysis, and collaboration within the food sector. Data-driven insights facilitate streamlined production and avert excess. By fostering improved alignment between production and demand, waste reduction can be achieved, guided by comprehensive market insight and consumer interaction (Flanagan et al., 2019).

2.2 Relaxed Cosmetic Standards for Produce The reduction of food waste can also be actualised by redefining the criteria governing the aesthetic attributes of produce. Perfectly edible fruits and vegetables often meet disposal due to cosmetic non-conformities with consumer expectations. The relaxation of such standards can constrict waste while fostering the consumption of otherwise discarded produce (Gunders & Bloom, 2017). Current stringent guidelines, particularly affecting fresh produce, induce unwarranted disposals. Easing these standards not only curtails waste but also bolsters supply, as demonstrated by the efficacy of this strategy in certain supermarket implementations (Young et al., 2018).

2.3 Enhanced Food Distribution and Accessibility for Underserved Communities Distribution centres emerge as prominent sources of food waste within the food sector. Strengthening distribution networks and widening access to sustenance for resource-limited communities mitigate waste while enhancing food availability (Li

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

25

et al., 2020). Ineffectual distribution systems and constrained accessibility contribute notably to global food waste. Amplifying linkages connecting producers and consumers through measures such as infrastructure development and promotion of local grocery outlets reduces waste. The resulting convenience in acquiring and consuming fresh, nourishing food fosters community health while minimising food waste (Alattar et al., 2020).

2.4 Food Waste Reduction Campaigns and Consumer Education Raising awareness and educating consumers about the implications of food waste can catalyse change at individual and collective levels. Empowering individuals with knowledge about practices such as composting, portion control, and environmental stewardship curtails food wastage. Equipping consumers with information and actionable insights motivates adopting more sustainable behaviours. Social media campaigns, educational programmes, and community engagement platforms offer viable avenues for achieving this transformation. By furnishing individuals with informed decision-making tools, food waste reduction and promoting sustainable food systems can be advanced (Rohini et al., 2020).

3 Sustainable Soil Management Sustainable soil management is centred on maintaining and enhancing soil health while concurrently preserving the enduring productivity of agricultural land. Soil is a vital cornerstone for agriculture, housing essential minerals, and organic matter indispensable for optimal plant growth. Implementing sustainable soil management practices offers manifold benefits to farmers and land stewards, encompassing heightened soil fertility, erosion reduction, water conservation, and biodiversity enhancement. In this discourse, we delve into several critical practices of sustainable soil management (Lal et al., 2011):

3.1 Crop Rotation and Diversification The age-old practice of crop rotation involves periodic alteration of crops planted in a given field. This practice yields multifaceted advantages for soil health. By diversifying crops, soil fertility is conserved, given the distinct nutrient requirements and impacts of various crops on the soil. Additionally, crop rotation mitigates disease and pest proliferation by depriving them of their preferred food sources during

26

P. Kumar et al.

non-­cultivation periods. Crop diversification, involving the simultaneous cultivation of multiple crops within a single field, augments soil health, diminishes susceptibility to pests and diseases, and fosters resilience (Fanadzo et al., 2018).

3.2 Cover Cropping and Green Manures Incorporating non-cash crops, such as legumes or grasses, as cover or green manures emerges as an effective strategy for sustaining soil health and bolstering crop yields. Cover crops shield the soil, elevate organic matter content, and even deter weed growth (Benincasa et  al., 2017). They enhance soil fertility through atmospheric nitrogen fixation, subsequently released in a usable form. Green manures, designated plants grown for incorporation into the soil as organic matter sources, foster soil structure and fertility. These practices diminish reliance on synthetic fertilisers, augment water retention capacity, and amplify biodiversity (Meena et al., 2018).

3.3 No-Till or Reduced Tillage Farming Soil manipulation through mechanical tillage, while aiding in weed control and land preparation, harbours the potential for soil loss, nutrient depletion, and organic matter degradation (Bhattacharyya et  al., 2015). No-till or reduced tillage farming, eschewing, or limiting soil disturbance during cultivation constitutes an alternative approach. This technique reduces soil erosion, enhances soil structure, and elevates soil organic matter content. Water conservation and erosion prevention are added advantages, alongside the potential for carbon sequestration. Retaining soil microorganisms bolsters soil biodiversity while lowering fuel and labour expenses that accrue from avoiding traditional tillage (Somasundaram et al., 2020).

3.4 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Integrated pest management entails a multifaceted approach, encompassing various techniques to mitigate pest impact, thereby minimising reliance on chemical pesticides. IPM integrates practices such as crop rotation, biological control, cultural strategies, and selective chemical application. This approach curbs insect damage while minimising unintended environmental consequences and collateral damage to non-target organisms. IPM contributes to human and animal safety by diminishing pesticide exposure, retarding the emergence of resistant pests, and preserving ecological balance (Nawaz et al., 2019).

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

27

3.5 Precision Agriculture and Targeted Fertiliser Application Precision agriculture harnesses contemporary tools to optimise resource utilisation, including water and fertilisers. This entails real-time monitoring of soil moisture and nutrient levels, precise mapping of fields for input application, and computer modelling to optimise resource allocation (Roy & George, 2020). Precision agriculture entails varied strategies such as variable-rate fertiliser delivery, soil mapping, and remote sensing to monitor crop health and nutrient demands (Khanal et  al., 2017). This approach conserves water quality, curtails greenhouse gas emissions, amplifies crop yields, and reduces costs by maximising input efficiency (Shah & Wu, 2019). Careful fertiliser application mitigates nutrient runoff and leaching, protecting ecosystems. By targeting fertiliser application only where required, farmers simultaneously enhance profitability and environmental stewardship (Table 2). Table 2  List of sustainable soil management practices and their description Sustainable soil management practices Cover cropping Crop rotation No-till farming Mulching Composting Organic matter addition Reduced chemical inputs Agroforestry Integrated nutrient management Green manuring Conservation tillage Windbreak establishment Nutrient cycling Biochar application

Description Planting cover crops between main crops Alternating crops in a field over time Planting crops without ploughing or tilling Applying organic or synthetic mulch to soil Decomposing organic matter into nutrient-rich soil Adding compost, manure, or plant residues Minimising synthetic fertilisers and pesticides Integrating trees and crops in the same system Combining organic and inorganic nutrient sources Incorporating green plant material into soil Reducing the intensity of tillage operations Planting trees or shrubs to shield from wind Recycling nutrients within agroecosystems Adding charcoal-like substance to soil

Benefits Erosion prevention, soil fertility improvement Pest and disease control, nutrient management Reduced erosion, improved soil structure Moisture retention, weed suppression Improved soil structure, nutrient availability Soil fertility enhancement, water-holding capacity Improved soil and water quality Improved soil structure, carbon sequestration Balanced soil fertility, reduced nutrient runoff Nitrogen fixation, nutrient enrichment Soil erosion prevention, moisture conservation Erosion prevention, microclimate improvement Reduced nutrient loss, improved sustainability Carbon sequestration, improved soil fertility (continued)

P. Kumar et al.

28 Table 2 (continued) Sustainable soil management practices Subsoil manuring

Description Adding organic materials to subsoil Terracing Creating level platforms on steep slopes Precision agriculture Using technology to apply inputs accurately Crop residue management Retaining crop residues on the soil surface Alley cropping Planting crops between alleys of trees Vermicomposting Composting using earthworms Soil aeration Following Agroecological practices Soil pH management Nutrient management planning Soil erosion control Soil health assessment Carbon farming Agroforestry systems Riparian buffer establishment Microbial inoculants Soil structure improvement Manure management Irrigation management Agroforestry hedgerows Strip cropping

Loosening soil to improve air circulation Leaving fields unplanted for a period Designing farming systems based on local ecology Adjusting soil pH to optimal levels Developing strategies for nutrient use Implementing measures to prevent erosion Regularly evaluating soil health Focusing on carbon sequestration in agriculture Intercropping trees with crops Planting vegetation along water bodies Adding beneficial microorganisms to the soil Enhancing soil aggregation and porosity Proper handling and application of manure Efficient use of water for irrigation Planting rows of trees and shrubs on boundaries Alternating different crops in narrow strips

Benefits Improved root growth, enhanced nutrient uptake Erosion prevention increased arable land Reduced waste, improved nutrient use efficiency Improved organic matter, moisture retention Soil protection, enhanced agroecosystem diversity Nutrient enrichment, improved soil structure Enhanced root growth, soil structure improvement Weed and pest control, soil regeneration Biodiversity promotion, reduced environmental impact Improved nutrient availability, enhanced plant growth Efficient fertiliser use, reduced nutrient loss Soil conservation, maintenance of topsoil Informed decision-making, early problem detection Climate change mitigation, improved soil health Biodiversity enhancement, improved soil structure Water quality protection, erosion prevention Improved nutrient cycling, disease suppression Water infiltration improvement, root penetration Nutrient recycling, reduced water pollution Reduced water waste, enhanced water use efficiency Windbreak, habitat for beneficial organisms Erosion prevention, pest control (continued)

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

29

Table 2 (continued) Sustainable soil management practices Soil conservation tillage

Description Reducing soil disturbance while planting Soil testing and Regularly analysing soil monitoring properties Biofertiliser application Using beneficial microorganisms as fertilisers Soil amendments Adding materials to improve soil properties Erosion-resistant crops Planting crops that provide ground cover Sustainable drainage Managing water drainage to systems prevent erosion Agroecosystem diversity Growing a variety of crops and species Natural resource Responsible use of resources management such as water and energy Biopesticide application Using natural substances for pest control Soil conservation Techniques to prevent soil practices degradation Nutrient fixation Using plants to capture and fixate nitrogen Phytoremediation Using plants to remove contaminants from soil Green manure cover crops Planting specific crops to improve soil Aggregation enhancement Improving soil structure through management Reduced pesticide use Minimising the application of chemical pesticides Silvopasture Combining trees and forage for livestock Intercropping Planting different crops together Water management Indigenous knowledge integration Agroforestry alley cropping Soil amendments application

Benefits Erosion prevention, moisture conservation Informed nutrient management, problem detection Enhanced nutrient availability, reduced reliance on chemicals pH adjustment, nutrient enrichment Erosion prevention, soil protection Soil conservation reduced waterlogging Pest control, enhanced ecosystem services Reduced environmental impact, sustainable production Reduced chemical use, minimised environmental impact Reduced erosion, improved soil quality Enhanced nutrient availability, reduced leaching Soil pollution reduction, ecosystem restoration Nitrogen fixation, organic matter enrichment Enhanced water retention, root penetration Reduced environmental impact, ecosystem health Improved land-use efficiency, biodiversity Space utilisation, reduced pests, and diseases Efficiently managing water Reduced water waste, improved resources plant growth Incorporating local knowledge Sustainable practices, cultural into practices preservation Intercropping with rows of trees Soil protection, diversified yields Adding substances to enhance soil characteristics

pH adjustment, nutrient enrichment

30

P. Kumar et al.

4 Water Conservation and Management Sustaining agriculture and safeguarding natural resources necessitate pragmatic water conservation and management protocols. Escalating populations, shifting climates, and other factors have precipitated water scarcity in numerous global regions. Immediate implementation of sustainable water management practices is paramount, including drip irrigation, precision irrigation, on-farm water recycling, rainwater harvesting, deployment of drought-resistant crop varieties, and watershed management (Russo et al., 2014) (Table 3).

4.1 Drip Irrigation and Precision Irrigation Drip irrigation and precision irrigation present avenues to curtail water wastage in agriculture. Drip irrigation, utilising pipelines and emitters, directly delivers water to plant roots (Manda et al., 2021). This technique can potentially halve water consumption compared to traditional flood irrigation methods. Precision irrigation employs technology to deliver water judiciously, considering parameters such as soil moisture, climate, and crop requisites (Adeyemi et al., 2017). With real-time adjustments in water application rates, precision irrigation can surpass even drip irrigation’s water savings, promoting long-term water conservation and elevated crop yields.

4.2 On-Farm Water Recycling and Rainwater Harvesting Water recycling and rainwater collection offer strategies to minimise freshwater usage. On-farm water recycling involves reutilising household wastewater for irrigation (Kampragou et al., 2011). This approach not only reduces water costs but also aids in water conservation. Rainwater harvested from rooftops or surfaces during rainfall can be stored for subsequent use, which is particularly valuable in regions with limited precipitation (Sivanappan, 2006).

4.3 Drought-Resistant Crop Varieties and Crop Selection Adopting drought-resistant crop varieties and diversifying crop types constitute water shortage management methods. Selective breeding has yielded low-water, high-yield, drought-resistant crop varieties. These crops enable water savings without compromising harvest yields (Maleksaeidi & Karami, 2013). Thoughtful crop selection is equally vital; for instance, water-intensive crops such as rice and cotton

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

31

Table 3  Water conservation and management practices and its description and benefits Water conservation and management practices Rainwater harvesting

Description Collecting and storing rainwater for later use Drip irrigation Slowly apply water directly to plant roots Xeriscaping Landscaping with drought-­ resistant plants Greywater recycling Treating and reusing household wastewater Efficient irrigation Timing irrigation to minimise scheduling water loss Mulching Covering soil with materials to retain moisture Water-efficient appliances Using appliances that require less water Native plant landscaping Using plants adapted to the local climate Permeable pavements Allowing water to seep through the pavement Efficient industrial water use Implementing technologies for water savings Water-efficient toilets and Using fixtures that reduce water faucets consumption Soil moisture sensors Monitoring soil moisture for targeted irrigation Artificial wetlands Creating human-made wetlands for water treatment Desalination technologies Removing salt and impurities from seawater Water recycling in industry Reusing water for industrial processes Leak detection systems Installing devices to detect and stop leaks Efficient watering Using methods that minimise techniques water runoff Aquifer recharge Injecting treated water into underground aquifers Water-efficient farming Employing methods that practices optimise water usage Urban planning for water Designing cities to conserve management and manage water Fog harvesting Collecting water droplets from fog Education and awareness Informing people about water campaigns conservation Water rights and allocation Regulating water distribution policies and usage

Benefits Reduced reliance on external water sources Reduced water waste, improved plant health Reduced water consumption, lower maintenance Reduced strain on freshwater resources Improved water use efficiency, healthier plants Reduced evaporation, weed suppression Lower water consumption, reduced bills Reduced water needs, ecosystem support Groundwater recharge, reduced runoff Lower operational costs, environmental benefits Lower water usage, reduced water bills Preventing overwatering, healthier plants Water purification, habitat creation Increased freshwater availability, drought resilience Lower water intake, reduced pollution Water conservation, reduced water bills Better plant absorption, reduced wastage Groundwater replenishment, future water supply Sustainable agriculture, higher yields Reduced flooding, improved water quality Alternative water sources in arid regions Behavioural change, community involvement Fair allocation, reduced conflicts (continued)

P. Kumar et al.

32 Table 3 (continued) Water conservation and management practices Rain gardens Smart irrigation controllers Water footprint tracking Soil amendment management Harvested fog utilisation Water pricing strategies Riverbank filtration Watershed management Agricultural runoff management Efficient cooling systems Cloud seeding Water-efficient industrial processes Constructed wetlands Demand management Managed aquifer recharge Water recycling in agriculture Water sense certification Infiltration basins Green roofs Water-efficient land development Water banking Efficient industrial cooling Rainwater purification

Description Landscaping features designed to capture rain Using technology to optimise irrigation Monitoring personal and industrial water usage Adding materials to improve water retention Using harvested fog for various purposes Setting prices to reflect water scarcity Treating river water through natural filtration Protecting and restoring watersheds Preventing runoff of chemicals from farms Using water-efficient cooling technologies Introducing substances to encourage rainfall Optimising manufacturing processes for water use Creating wetland areas for water treatment Reducing water use during peak demand times Artificially recharging groundwater supplies Treating and reusing water in farming Labelling water-efficient products Capturing and infiltrating stormwater Planting vegetation on building roofs Planning urban areas with water conservation Storing excess water for future use Minimising water use in cooling processes Treating rainwater for potable use

Benefits Water conservation, enhanced aesthetics Reduced water wastage, healthier landscapes Informed consumption choices, reduced waste Enhanced soil structure, reduced runoff Additional water sources in water-scarce areas Encouraging efficient use, funding conservation Improved water quality, reduced treatment costs Enhanced water quality, reduced runoff Reduced water pollution, healthier ecosystems Reduced water consumption, lower energy use Enhanced precipitation, increased water supply Lower water consumption, reduced costs Natural filtration, habitat creation Avoided shortages, efficient water usage Groundwater restoration, drought resilience Reduced irrigation needs, sustainable farming Consumer awareness, reduced water usage Reduced runoff, groundwater recharge Improved stormwater management, insulation Reduced runoff, enhanced water quality Drought resilience, water availability Reduced water consumption, cost savings Additional water source, reduced demand (continued)

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

33

Table 3 (continued) Water conservation and management practices Floodplain restoration Water-efficient building design Subsurface drip irrigation Water-efficient landscaping Water monitoring systems Efficient water distribution networks Desalination powered by renewable energy Water-efficient appliances and fixtures Erosion control Water conservation in commercial buildings Efficient industrial cleaning processes Water-efficient land-use planning Water rights trading Riparian zone management Water-efficient irrigation systems Climate-responsive water management Industrial wastewater treatment Water-efficient behavioural strategies Wetland conservation Efficient turf management Water conservation in educational settings Monitoring and reducing leakage

Description Reestablishing natural floodplain ecosystems Designing structures for minimal water use Delivering water directly to plant roots Designing outdoor spaces for minimal water use Installing sensors to track water quality Minimising water loss in distribution systems Using renewable sources for desalination Installing products that use less water Implementing measures to prevent erosion Applying water-saving practices in businesses Minimising water use in cleaning operations Zoning to promote water-wise development Allowing trading of water use allocations Protecting and restoring riparian areas Using technologies to optimise irrigation Adjusting strategies based on climate conditions Treating and purifying industrial wastewater Encouraging responsible water usage behaviour Preserving and restoring wetland ecosystems Using water-wise practices on lawns Promoting water-saving practices in schools Identifying and fixing water system leaks

Benefits Reduced flood risk, improved water quality Reduced consumption, lower utility bills Enhanced plant health, water conservation Lower irrigation needs, improved aesthetics Early pollution detection, informed decisions Reduced leakage, increased supply efficiency Reduced environmental impact, sustainable Reduced water consumption, lower bills Soil conservation, improved water quality Lower water consumption, cost savings Reduced water consumption, cost savings Reduced runoff, enhanced water supply Flexible water allocation, efficient usage Improved water quality, habitat preservation Reduced water waste, healthier landscapes Effective water use, climate resilience Reduced pollution, protection of water bodies Reduced wastage, community involvement Biodiversity protection, water purification Reduced irrigation, healthier turf Student education, reduced water usage Reduced water loss, lower costs

34

P. Kumar et al.

might not suit regions with scant water supplies. Opting for drought-resistant crops tailored to the local conditions, such as sorghum and millet, aligns with effective water management (Laghari et al., 2012).

4.4 Watershed Management and Inter-farm Cooperation Effective water resource management can be achieved through watershed management and inter-farm collaboration. Watershed management encompasses holistic oversight of groundwater, surface water, and rainwater resources (Syme et  al., 2015). This approach ensures sustainable water utilisation and equitable accessibility. Collaborative efforts among farmers within a watershed can extend beyond water management, exemplified by cooperative irrigation infrastructure projects that enhance water efficiency and diminish total consumption (Liang et al., 2020). Cooperative irrigation scheduling and data exchange among farmers further amplify resource efficiency. In sum, embracing sustainable water management practices remains a pivotal cornerstone for the resilience of agriculture and the conservation of natural resources. Through the judicious application of techniques such as drip and precision irrigation, on-farm water recycling, rainwater harvesting, adoption of drought-­ resistant crops, and collaborative watershed management, farmers can foster optimal water utilisation and contribute to sustainable agricultural systems.

5 What Are Some Challenges to Implementing These Practices in Different Regions? While water conservation and management techniques such as drip irrigation, precision irrigation, on-farm water recycling, rainwater harvesting, drought-resistant crop varieties, and watershed management hold promise in addressing water scarcity and enhancing agricultural productivity, their broad-scale adoption is hindered by various challenges (Yadav et al., 2022). Noteworthy among these obstacles are as follows:

5.1 Lack of Awareness and Education A substantial impediment to implementing these practices lies in farmers’ and policymakers’ limited knowledge and comprehension. Many might be unaware of the potential benefits of adopting such methods or lack the requisite expertise to execute them effectively.

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

35

5.2 High Initial Costs Deploying water conservation and management practices, especially involving drip and precision irrigation technologies, can entail considerable initial expenses. These costs might be prohibitive for farmers with smaller operations or constrained access to financial resources (Brahmanand & Singh, 2022).

5.3 Limited Resource Access The availability of water resources, including groundwater, surface water, and rainwater, might be insufficient in numerous regions, impeding effective implementation. Scarce water supplies can hinder the adoption of measures such as rainwater harvesting or water recycling on farms.

5.4 Climate Variability The erratic nature of climate, encompassing droughts, floods, and extreme weather events, poses challenges to the proper execution of water conservation and management practices. Prolonged drought periods, for example, might undermine the efficacy of drought-resistant crop varieties.

5.5 Policy and Institutional Barriers The pervasive uptake of water-saving practices can sometimes be obstructed by institutional and policy barriers. Various factors, including regulatory limitations on water recycling and disparities in water rights allocation, can curtail farmers’ access to water resources (Cairns, 2018).

5.6 Cultural and Social Barriers Cultural and social dynamics can also shape the diffusion of water-saving and management methods. Integrating novel practices might encounter resistance when they clash with established farming practices or prevailing social norms (Liehr et al., 2016).

36

P. Kumar et al.

In pursuing sustainable water use and bolstered agricultural output, addressing these multifaceted challenges that inhibit the widespread adoption of effective water conservation and management practices is imperative.

6 Renewable Energy and Biofuels The contemporary agricultural sector heavily relies on fossil fuels for machinery, transportation, and fertilisers, yet this reliance contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of finite resources. Agriculture must transition towards renewable energy sources and biofuels to secure long-term viability (Table 4).

6.1 Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production The anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste can yield biogas, a renewable energy source. Anaerobic digesters break down organic matter such as manure, food scraps, and residues to produce methane-rich biogas and nutrient-rich digestate. The biogas can be converted to energy or heat for agricultural operations, while digestate can serve as an organic fertiliser, thus closing the loop on waste management (Ardebili, 2020).

6.2 Conversion of Crop Residues and Waste to Biofuels Bioconversion transforms organic waste and crop residues into usable biofuels such as ethanol or biodiesel. Processes such as fermentation convert complex organic materials into simpler chemicals suitable for biofuel production. Ethanol, for instance, can be derived from plant materials through fermentation, while biodiesel can be synthesised from the fatty acids present in biomass (Sindhu et  al., 2016; Mandari & Devarai, 2021).

6.3 Renewable Energy Sources for Agricultural Operations Leveraging renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal power can render agricultural operations sustainable and cost-effective. Solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal energy can power machinery, irrigation systems, and other farm activities, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions (Rahman et al., 2022; Bhattacharjee & Nayak, 2019).

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

37

Table 4  Renewable energy/biofuel its advantages and disadvantages Renewable energy/ biofuel Solar photovoltaic energy Wind energy Hydropower Biomass energy

Geothermal energy

Advantages

Disadvantages

Abundant, clean energy source Low operating costs, large-scale power Reliable, low operating costs Utilises organic waste, waste reduction

Intermittent, Reduced emissions, weather-dependent decentralised power Intermittent, visual impact Low carbon footprint, job creation Environmental impact, Emission-free, energy habitat disruption storage Emission of pollutants, Reduces waste, land competition potential carbon-neutrality Location-specific, Reliable, baseload resource depletion power generation

Ocean thermal energy Concentrated solar power (CSP) Bioenergy (organic materials) Municipal waste to energy

Continuous availability, minimal emissions Predictable, high energy density Constant source, potential desalination Energy storage, high efficiency Uses waste, waste reduction Waste reduction, energy recovery

Ethanol (from various feedstocks) Biodiesel (from various feedstocks)

Reduced petroleum use, lower emissions Lower emissions, existing infrastructure

Tidal energy

High installation costs, environmental impact Efficiency challenges, infrastructure costs Water use, high upfront costs Land competition, emissions Air pollution, ash disposal

Land competition, energy-intensive Land competition, potential impact on food prices Algal biodiesel High oil yield, Energy-intensive potential wastewater cultivation, technical treatment challenges Cellulosic ethanol Non-food feedstocks, Complex production, waste reduction potential environmental impact Renewable natural Methane capture, Methane leakage, gas (RNG) versatile applications infrastructure requirements Biobutanol Higher energy content, Production complexity, existing infrastructure lower energy efficiency Syngas (from Versatile, waste Efficiency loss, technical biomass gasification) utilisation challenges Green diesel (renewable diesel) Hydrothermal liquefaction Waste vegetable oil biodiesel

Similar properties to Production energy diesel, lower emissions intensity, feedstock availability Converts wet biomass, Energy-intensive versatile product range challenges in scaling up Uses waste oil, reduces Quality variability, limited environmental impact feedstock

Benefits

Renewable, minimal emissions Continuous energy, reduced fossil fuels Produces electricity day and night Reduced waste, balanced carbon cycle Reduces landfill space, generates power Renewable supports agriculture Renewable, reduced fossil fuel use Efficient land use, carbon-neutral Less competition with food crops Reduces methane emissions, sustainable Lower emissions, potential substitute Converts waste, supports circular economy Reduced emissions, suitable for engines Converts waste, renewable fuel Waste utilisation, lower carbon footprint

38

P. Kumar et al.

6.4 Reduced Reliance on Fossil Fuels Shifting towards renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and geothermal power, offers multifaceted benefits, encompassing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, decreased dependence on fossil fuels, and enhanced energy affordability (Sen et al., 2016; Soltani et al., 2021). Combining these energy technologies with sustainable practices such as water conservation and soil health management can form a comprehensive approach towards sustainable agriculture. The agriculture industry can achieve a more sustainable future by embracing renewable energy sources, transitioning to biofuels, and incorporating efficient waste management practices. Adopting these practices curbs greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels and enhances resource efficiency, soil health, and environmental stewardship.

7 Reduced Deforestation and Sustainable Grazing Greenhouse gas emission mitigation, biodiversity preservation, and rural livelihood enhancement can be significantly advanced through reduced deforestation and sustainable grazing practices. A range of methods and approaches, including silvopasture, enhanced grassland management, agroforestry and intercropping, and forest conservation, are employed within these practices (Vera et al., 2022).

7.1 Silvopasture for Integrated Land Use Silvopastoral systems merge tree cultivation, forage production, and animal grazing. Within this integrated system, trees, grasslands, and grazing animals coexist. Silvopasture systems offer improved animal welfare, enhanced business output, and healthier ecosystems. Trees aid in moisture retention, erosion reduction, carbon storage, and providing shelter and food for livestock. Moreover, they foster biodiversity by creating habitats for various organisms. Implementing silvopasture requires meticulous planning to ensure the compatibility of trees and forage with grazing animals. Proper tree selection based on grazing tolerance and fodder production capacity is crucial. Careful management of grazing intensity is needed to prevent overgrazing and secure adequate fodder production. Despite challenges, silvopasture has proven effective for sustainable livestock production, contributing to climate change mitigation and biodiversity preservation (Djanibekov et al., 2015).

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

39

7.2 Enhanced Grassland Management Grasslands are vital ecosystems that store carbon and support diverse flora and fauna. Overgrazing and land-use changes contribute to grassland degradation. Effective grassland management practices, including rotational grazing, reducing stocking rates, enhancing soil fertility, and managing invasive species, can restore degraded grasslands, promote biodiversity, and enhance ecosystem services. These practices aid in mitigating carbon sequestration and climate change (Yang et al., 2019).

7.3 Agroforestry and Nitrogen-Fixing Trees Agroforestry systems integrate trees into agricultural and livestock operations, yielding improved productivity, soil fertility, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Intercropping with nitrogen-fixing trees, like legumes, reduces the need for synthetic fertilisers while enhancing soil fertility. Trees that fix atmospheric nitrogen make it available to crops, resulting in higher yields, improved soil health, and reduced fertiliser use. Establishing agroforestry demands careful management to ensure compatibility between trees and crops and selecting suitable species for the local environment. While agroforestry requires a longer-term investment due to trees’ longer establishment time, it effectively enhances ecosystem services and promotes environmentally responsible farming (Akinnifesi et al., 2008).

7.4 Forest Conservation and Sustainable Land Use Forests are critical in carbon storage, biodiversity maintenance, and ecosystem services. However, deforestation and shifting land use threaten their existence. Protecting forests through conservation, restoration, sustainable management, and reducing agricultural conversion is essential. Tactics such as protected areas, forest restoration, and sustainable forest management complement each other in halting deforestation and safeguarding biodiversity. Forest conservation requires land-use planning, zoning regulations, and incentives for sustainable practices. Measures such as incentives for sustainable practices, proper land-use planning, and zoning regulations can deter future deforestation and promote sustainable land use (Smith et al., 2016). In conclusion, reduced deforestation and sustainable grazing practices, encompassing methods such as silvopasture, enhanced grassland management, agroforestry, and forest conservation, offer multifaceted benefits for mitigating climate

40

P. Kumar et al.

change, biodiversity conservation, and rural development. Despite the challenges posed by careful planning and local adaptations, these practices represent powerful tools for fostering environmental stewardship and long-term sustainability.

8 Technological and Policy Innovations The agricultural sector around the world is having trouble. The industry has adopted new practices and technology that can promote sustainable food production in response to the increasing global population, the effects of climate change, and the scarcity of natural resources. Recent years have seen a proliferation of technology and legislative advances to mitigate these difficulties. This chapter will discuss a few of these new developments and how they might encourage environmentally responsible farming methods.

8.1 Precision Fermentation, Aquaponics, Vertical Farming, and Other Innovations Precision fermentation is an emerging technology that can significantly alter the food production industry. Using this method, microorganisms such as yeast and bacteria produce proteins, lipids, and other nutrients usable in the food industry (Ghosh et  al., 2022). In contrast to conventional farming, precision fermentation reduces the need for land and water. Instead, this can be accomplished with minimal resources in a laboratory setting. Precision fermentation produces food with less environmental impact than conventional farming methods. The raising of animals for food, for instance, is one of the leading causes of global warming, deforestation, and water pollution. Producing food by precision fermentation eliminates the need for animal farms, reducing these effects (Awuchi et al., 2020). Aquaponics is a new method of sustainable farming that uses revolutionary technologies. Aquaponics is a method of growing plants in water that has recently been combined with aquaculture to create a self-sustaining system for cultivating fish and vegetables (Wirza & Nazir, 2021). The plants get nutrients from the fish excrement, while the fish get clean water from the plants. There are many advantages of aquaponics over conventional farming. Because water is constantly recycled throughout the system, it requires less water than conventional farming (AlShrouf, 2017). Since the fish poop contains all the nutrients the plants require, there is no need for any additional synthetic fertilisers. Aquaponics also eliminates the need for food to be transported at great distances because it can be practised in urban settings. Another cutting-edge method that can aid in sustainable farming is vertical farming. Vertical farming is cultivating plants by stacking them vertically, typically inside. Vertical farming is a method of producing a high yield from a small footprint by growing plants

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

41

vertically. There are many advantages of vertical farming over conventional farming methods. One advantage is that water may be reused multiple times, meaning less water is used than in conventional farming. The usage of pesticides on plants is also avoided because of the contained nature of the growing conditions. The fact that vertical farming can be done in cities means less food has to be transported long distances (Chatterjee et al., 2020).

8.2 Government Policies Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Practices These can be as important as technological advances in fostering sustainable agriculture. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving natural resources, and fostering biodiversity are all examples of sustainable agriculture practices that governments worldwide have begun enacting (Chopra et al., 2022). The Indian government has introduced several initiatives to encourage farmers to adopt environmentally friendly farming methods. Essential programmes and policies include: 8.2.1 National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), established in 2010, promotes sustainable farming methods in India. Promoting farming methods that can withstand changing weather conditions and a lack of water is central to the objective (Gupta et al., 2021). 8.2.2 Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) In the event of crop loss due to natural disasters or other unforeseeable circumstances, farmers can turn to the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), a crop insurance scheme. The programme inspires farmers to increase their productivity with environmentally friendly methods. 8.2.3 Soil Health Card Scheme A programme to issue soil health cards to agriculturalists, the Soil Health Card Scheme, was initiated in 2015. Advice on how much and what kind of fertilisers and other inputs should be used to improve the soil’s nutrient content is included on the cards. The programme encourages environmentally friendly farming methods such as using natural fertilisers and organic inputs.

42

P. Kumar et al.

8.2.4 Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) One programme that encourages organic farming in India is the Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY). Farmers who participate in the programme receive financial support, training, and technical assistance as they transition to organic farming (Reddy, 2018). 8.2.5 National Agriculture Market In India, agricultural goods can be bought and sold online through the National Agriculture Market (eNAM). Because of the platform’s emphasis on efficiency and openness, the agricultural marketing system is more likely to support environmentally friendly farming methods. 8.2.6 Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana The Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) programme helps states pay for agricultural improvement initiatives. This plan encourages farmers to switch to more eco-friendly methods, including agroforestry and conservation farming (Basim et al., 2022). 8.2.7 Public-Private Partnerships to Fund Agricultural Innovation and Transition Funding agricultural innovation and shifting to more sustainable and resilient farming practices are two areas where public-private partnerships (PPPs) may significantly impact. PPPs can catalyse research and development, speed up the adoption of novel innovations and practices, and leverage funds to have a more significant impact since they bring together the resources, experience, and viewpoints of both the public and private sectors (Hermans et al., 2019). PPPs can help with agricultural change and innovation in numerous ways: 1. Funding Research and Development: In order to promote agricultural production, sustainability, and resilience to climate change, PPPs can pool resources from the public and private sectors in order to fund the development and research of new technology and practices (Smyth et al., 2021). 2. Developing New Markets and Value Chains: By utilising the knowledge and connections of private sector partners, PPPs may speed up the creation of new markets and supply chains for environmentally friendly agricultural goods while guaranteeing farmers a decent return on their efforts. 3. Promoting Knowledge Sharing and Capacity Building: Public-private partnerships (PPPs) can improve communication and collaboration between govern-

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

43

ment agencies, businesses, and other organisations involved in the agricultural value chain. This can aid in the efficient and long-term implementation of novel methods (Ferroni & Castle, 2011). 4. Strengthening Policy and Regulatory Frameworks: Besides promoting sustainable land use, safeguarding biodiversity, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, PPPs can engage with governments to develop legislative and regulatory frameworks that promote sustainable agriculture (Furumo & Lambin, 2020). Several obstacles public-private partnerships in agriculture must overcome threaten their efficiency and longevity. Among the difficulties are: 1. Conflicting Interests: Many distinct parties with varying goals, interests, and priorities are typically involved in public-private partnerships. Disagreements and conflicts can arise over things such as ownership of intellectual property, distribution of profits, and management of the organisation as a whole (Heydari et al., 2020). 2. Unequal Power Dynamics: Private corporations may have an advantage over public sector partners and small farmers regarding resources, knowledge, and bargaining strength. This can lead to decision-making, resource distribution, and power dynamics inequalities. 3. Limited Accountability: It is possible that public-private partnerships are not held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as government programmes or business endeavours. This can make it difficult to monitor everything that is going on and hold anyone accountable (Keers & van Fenema, 2018). 4. Sustainability: While public-private partnerships are frequently formed to tackle certain issues or complete specific projects, they may not be viable. Reasons for this include economic fluctuations, government instability, and a lack of financial resources. 5. Equity and Social Justice: Small farmers, women, and indigenous tribes may be overlooked when public-private partnerships are formed. This can cause discrimination, unequal access to resources, and other forms of social wrongdoing.

9 Social and Economic Dimensions Agriculture is crucial for many countries’ economies since it provides food and raw materials for other sectors. However, agriculture can potentially affect ecosystems, communities, and economies significantly. Recent years have seen a rise in efforts to connect farmers with consumers, improve agricultural education, and spread environmentally friendly farming methods. This chapter will explore such initiatives’ social and economic facets, touching on farmer education, community-­ supported agriculture cooperatives, financial incentives for environmentally responsible farming methods, and fair trade.

44

P. Kumar et al.

Farmer Education, Community-Supported Agriculture, and Cooperatives: Educating Farmers Can Only Promote Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices  Farmers must consider the short-term results of their actions and the long-term effects on the ecosystem. In addition, it is essential to educate farmers on the latest sustainable agriculture practices, tools, and methods. Extension services, training programmes, and workshops are just a few methods to educate farmers (Piñeiro et al., 2020). Farmers can get help from the government or non-profit organisations that offer extension services. Several nations have set up extension programmes to give farmers access to sustainable agricultural education and resources. For instance, sustainable agriculture extension programmes receive money from the US Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (Osmond et  al., 2012). Educating farmers can also be accomplished with training programmes and workshops. Governmental organisations, NGOs, and private businesses can all run such initiatives. In Zambia, for instance, a conservation agricultural project programme instructs farmers in conservation agricultural methods, including limited tillage and crop rotation (Umar et al., 2011). Sustainable farming practices and farmer prosperity can be advanced through cooperatives and community-supported agriculture (CSA). In a CSA, customers and farmers work together, with customers purchasing a crop share in advance. Shortening the distance between producers and customers benefits farmers by ensuring a steady market, cutting down on marketing expenses, and encouraging environmentally friendly farming methods (Pingali et al., 2005). Farmers may also benefit from cooperatives or other similar models. Cooperatives are businesses in which the members own and run the business collectively and distribute the earnings and other benefits to the members. Farmers who join a cooperative can get access to new markets, sources of capital, and knowledge. They also help farmers speak with one voice regarding government decisions. Incentives for Farmers to Adopt Sustainable and Eco-Friendly Practices  Farmers might be enticed to adopt more environmentally friendly practices using financial incentives. Incentive programmes can take numerous forms, including monetary rewards, expert advice, and public acclaim. The use of financial incentives to encourage sustainable agriculture practices is widespread. Farmers who implement environmentally friendly methods may be eligible for government subsidies, grants, and tax incentives (Soundarrajan & Vivek, 2016). The Conservation Reserve Programme of the United States Department of Agriculture, for instance, offers monetary incentives to farmers who transform unproductive farmland into forested or grassy conservation reserves (Searchinger et al., 2020). Farmers eager to implement eco-friendly and sustainable practices can receive technical assistance. Training, expert opinion, and access to data on cutting-edge methods are all examples of technical support. In the United States, for instance, farmers interested in sustainable agriculture can get help from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) programme. Sustainable farming practices can be encouraged through recognition programmes as well. Farmers who attempt to adopt sustainable farming methods are sometimes recognised through recognition programmes.

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

45

Farmers in the United States, for instance, can earn rewards for their work protecting soil, water, and animal habitats under the Conservation Management Programme (Taylor & Van Grieken, 2015).

10 Conclusions and Future Outlook Profound challenges in food security, ecological integrity, and societal equity influence the global food and agricultural framework. The prevalent unsustainable methodologies within this system have led to soil quality degradation, biodiversity depletion, and escalation of global climate shifts. Many individuals experience undernourishment and malnourishment due to disparities inherent in the food supply chain, while others grapple with obesity and ailments tied to dietary patterns. Despite these formidable impediments, promising prospects come to the fore. Precision agriculture, genetic modifications, and data-driven analytics have paved the way for ecologically sound food production. A surge in consciousness among consumers and governance bodies is driving demand for equitable and ecologically mindful food systems. This surging awareness has spurred interest in organic, locally sourced, and fair-trade produce, potentially motivating farmers to embrace more sustainable methodologies. A recalibration is essential across policies, technologies, and societal norms to achieve sustainable food and agricultural outcomes. A pivotal concern lies in harmonising the endeavours of the various stakeholders within the food system. Farmers, governments, consumers, and researchers all champion sustainability, yet their undertakings often lack synchronisation. Another challenge lies in the inadequate funding of sustainable agriculture. Numerous farmers, particularly those in developing nations operating on a smaller scale, encounter difficulties in accessing financial resources and investments, a predicament that impedes the adoption of sustainable practices. The hesitancy of investors and financial institutions to engage with sustainable agriculture stems from perceived risks and uncertainties. Addressing these multifaceted challenges necessitates a systemic overhaul towards sustainable food and agriculture. This endeavour mandates a comprehensive approach spanning the entire food chain, from cultivation to consumption. The collaborative actions of food system participants should prioritise the well-being of society, the environment, and the economy. In this context, agroecology emerges as a prospective solution. By considering the holistic agroecosystem, agroecology can bolster food output while enhancing biodiversity, soil vitality, and food self-determination. It empowers farmers and fosters community-centred food systems, thereby nurturing social equity. Inspired by natural ecosystems, circular agriculture operates by cycling nutrients and resources, championing resource efficiency, resilience, and waste curtailment. In summary, the journey towards sustainable food and agriculture necessitates comprehensive transformations at a systemic level, necessitating synchronised efforts, innovative approaches, and a resolute commitment to balance ecological, societal, and economic imperatives.

46

P. Kumar et al.

References Adeyemi, O., Grove, I., Peets, S., & Norton, T. (2017). Advanced monitoring and management systems for improving sustainability in precision irrigation. Sustainability, 9(3), 353. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su9030353 Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., Ajayi, O. C., Chirwa, P. W., Kwesiga, F. R., & Harawa, R. (2008). Contributions of agroforestry research and development to the livelihood of smallholder farmers in Southern Africa: 2. Fruit, medicinal, fuelwood and fodder tree systems. Agricultural Journal, 3(1), 76–88. Alattar, M. A., DeLaney, J., Morse, J. L., & Nielsen-Pincus, M. (2020). Food waste knowledge, attitudes, and behavioural intentions among university students. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.004 AlShrouf, A. (2017). Hydroponics, aeroponic and aquaponic as compared with conventional farming. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology and Sciences, 27(1), 247–255. Ardebili, S. M. S. (2020). Green electricity generation potential from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion of farm animal waste and agriculture residues in Iran. Renewable Energy, 154, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.102 Awuchi, C. G., Awuchi, C. G., Ukpe, A. E., Asoegwu, C. R., Uyo, C. N., & Ngoka, K. E. (2020). Environmental impacts of food and agricultural production: A systematic review. European Academic Research, 8(2), 1120–1135. Ayilara, M. S., Olanrewaju, O. S., Babalola, O. O., & Odeyemi, O. (2020). Waste management through composting: Challenges and potentials. Sustainability, 12(11), 4456. https://doi. org/10.3390/su12114456 Basim, N. M. A., Rajarajan, S., & Ramkumar, P. (2022). Revitalised sustainable agriculture through ecosystem management and policy interventions: Evidences from India. In Social morphology, human welfare, and sustainability (pp. 577–602). Springer International Publishing. Benincasa, P., Tosti, G., Guiducci, M., Farneselli, M., & Tei, F. (2017). Crop rotation as a system approach for soil fertility management in vegetables. In Advances in research on fertilization management of vegetable crops (pp. 115–148). Springer. Bhattacharjee, S., & Nayak, P. K. (2019). PV-pumped energy storage option for convalescing performance of hydroelectric station under declining precipitation trend. Renewable Energy, 135, 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.12.021 Bhattacharyya, R., Ghosh, B. N., Mishra, P. K., Mandal, B., Rao, C. S., Sarkar, D., et al. (2015). Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability, 7(4), 3528–3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7043528 Brahmanand, P. S., & Singh, A. K. (2022). Precision irrigation water management-current status, scope and challenges. Indian Journal of Fertilisers, 18, 372–380. Cairns, M. R. (2018). Metering water: Analyzing the concurrent pressures of conservation, sustainability, health impact, and equity in use. World Development, 110, 411–421. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.001 Chatterjee, A., Debnath, S., & Pal, H. (2020). Implication of urban agriculture and vertical farming for future sustainability. In Urban horticulture-Necessity of the future. IntechOpen. Chopra, R., Magazzino, C., Shah, M. I., Sharma, G. D., Rao, A., & Shahzad, U. (2022). The role of renewable energy and natural resources for sustainable agriculture in ASEAN countries: Do carbon emissions and deforestation affect agriculture productivity? Resources Policy, 76, 102578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102578 Deguine, J.  P., Aubertot, J.  N., Flor, R.  J., Lescourret, F., Wyckhuys, K.  A., & Ratnadass, A. (2021). Integrated pest management: Good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(3), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-­021-­00689-­w Djanibekov, U., Dzhakypbekova, K., Chamberlain, J., Weyerhaeuser, H., Zomer, R., Villamor, G., & Xu, J. (2015). Agroforestry for landscape restoration and livelihood development in Central Asia. East Central Asia. World Agroforestry Centre.

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

47

Fanadzo, M., Dalicuba, M., & Dube, E. (2018). Application of conservation agriculture principles for the management of field crops pests. In Sustainable agriculture reviews 28: Ecology for agriculture (pp. 125–152). Springer. Ferroni, M., & Castle, P. (2011). Public-private partnerships and sustainable agricultural development. Sustainability, 3(7), 1064–1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3071064 Flanagan, K., Robertson, K., & Hanson, C. (2019). Reducing food loss and waste. Setting the global action agenda. World Resources Institute (WRI). Furumo, P. R., & Lambin, E. F. (2020). Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-­ private partnerships: A look inside post-conflict Colombia. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102055 Ghosh, S., Sarkar, T., Pati, S., Kari, Z. A., Edinur, H. A., & Chakraborty, R. (2022). Novel bioactive compounds from marine sources as a tool for functional food development. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 832957. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.832957 Giller, K. E., Beare, M. H., Lavelle, P., Izac, A. M., & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function. Applied Soil Ecology, 6(1), 3–16. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0929-­1393(96)00149-­7 Gunders, D., & Bloom, J. (2017). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. Natural Resources Defense Council. Gupta, N., Pradhan, S., Jain, A., & Patel, N. (2021). Sustainable agriculture in India 2021. CEEW Report, 122p. https://www.ceew.in/sites/default/files/CEEWFOLU-­ Sustainable-­Agriculture-­in-­India-­2021-­20Apr21 Hermans, F., Geerling-Eiff, F., Potters, J., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments–Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 88, 76–95. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.10.001 Heydari, M., Lai, K. K., & Xiaohu, Z. (2020). Risk management in public-private partnerships. Routledge. Kampragou, E., Lekkas, D.  F., & Assimacopoulos, D. (2011). Water demand management: Implementation principles and indicative case studies. Water and Environment Journal, 25(4), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-­6593.2010.00240.x Keers, B. B., & van Fenema, P. C. (2018). Managing risks in public-private partnership formation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(6), 861–875. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.05.001 Khanal, S., Fulton, J., & Shearer, S. (2017). An overview of current and potential applications of thermal remote sensing in precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 139, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.05.001 Koul, B., Yakoob, M., & Shah, M. P. (2022). Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environmental Research, 206, 112285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envres.2021.112285 Kumar, V., Wankhede, K. G., & Gena, H. C. (2015). Role of cooperatives in improving livelihood of farmers on sustainable basis. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(10), 1258–1266. Kumawat, T.  K., Sharma, V., Kumawat, V., Pandit, A., & Biyani, M. (2022). Agricultural and agro-wastes as sorbents for remediation of noxious pollutants from water and wastewater. In Sustainable materials for sensing and remediation of noxious pollutants (pp.  161–176). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­323-­99425-­5.00017-­7 Kusumowardani, N., Tjahjono, B., Lazell, J., Bek, D., Theodorakopoulos, N., Andrikopoulos, P., & Priadi, C. R. (2022). A circular capability framework to address food waste and losses in the agri-food supply chain: The antecedents, principles and outcomes of circular economy. Journal of Business Research, 142, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.020 Laghari, A. N., Vanham, D., & Rauch, W. (2012). The Indus basin in the framework of current and future water resources management. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(4), 1063–1083. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-­16-­1063-­2012

48

P. Kumar et al.

Lal, R. (2015). Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability, 7(5), 5875–5895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875 Lal, R., Delgado, J. A., Groffman, P. M., Millar, N., Dell, C., & Rotz, A. (2011). Management to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66(4), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.4.276 Li, C., Mirosa, M., & Bremer, P. (2020). Review of online food delivery platforms and their impacts on sustainability. Sustainability, 12(14), 5528. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145528 Liang, Z., Liu, X., Xiong, J., & Xiao, J. (2020). Water allocation and integrative management of precision irrigation: A systematic review. Water, 12(11), 3135. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w12113135 Liehr, S., Brenda, M., Cornel, P., Deffner, J., Felmeden, J., Jokisch, A., & Urban, W. (2016). From the concept to the tap—Integrated water resources management in Northern Namibia. In Integrated water resources management: Concept, research and implementation (pp. 683–717). Springer. Maleksaeidi, H., & Karami, E. (2013). Social-ecological resilience and sustainable agriculture under water scarcity. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(3), 262–290. https://doi. org/10.1080/10440046.2012.746767 Manda, R.  R., Addanki, V.  A., & Srivastava, S. (2021). Role of drip irrigation in plant health management, its importance and maintenance. Plant Archives, 21(1), 1294–1302. https://doi. org/10.51470/PLANTARCHIVES.2021.v21.S1.204 Mandari, V., & Devarai, S. K. (2021). Biodiesel production using homogeneous, heterogeneous, and enzyme catalysts via transesterification and esterification reactions: A critical review. Bioenergy Research, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-­021-­10333-­w Meena, B. L., Fagodiya, R. K., Prajapat, K., Dotaniya, M. L., Kaledhonkar, M. J., Sharma, P. C., et al. (2018). Legume green manuring: An option for soil sustainability. In Legumes for soil health and sustainable management (pp. 387–408). Springer. Nawaz, A., Sufyan, M., Gogi, M. D., & Javed, M. W. (2019). Sustainable management of insect-­ pests. In Innovations in sustainable agriculture (pp. 287–335). Springer. Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2012). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: Principles and practices. Island Press. Osmond, D., Meals, D., Hoag, D., Arabi, M., Luloff, A., Jennings, G., & Line, D. (2012). Improving conservation practices programming to protect water quality in agricultural watersheds: Lessons learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 67(5), 122A–127A. Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J., Elverdin, P., Ibáñez, A. M., Kinengyere, A., & Torero, M. (2020). A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nature Sustainability, 3(10), 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­020-­00617-­y Pingali, P., Khwaja, Y., & Meijer, M. (2005). Commercializing small farms: Reducing transaction cost. http://www.fao.org/3/a-­af144t.pdf Rahman, M. M., Khan, I., Field, D. L., Techato, K., & Alameh, K. (2022). Powering agriculture: Present status, future potential, and challenges of renewable energy applications. Renewable Energy, 188, 731–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.065 Reddy, A. (2018). Impact study of Paramparagath Krishi Vikas Yojana (Organic Agriculture) Scheme of India. Reddy A Amarender (2018) Impact study of Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE), Hyderabad-500030, p. 210. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3249954 Rohini, C., Geetha, P. S., Vijayalakshmi, R., Mini, M. L., & Pasupathi, E. (2020). Global effects of food waste. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 9(2), 690–699. Roy, T., & George, K.  J. (2020). Precision farming: A step towards sustainable, climate-smart agriculture. In Global climate change: Resilient and smart agriculture (pp. 199–220). Springer. Russo, T., Alfredo, K., & Fisher, J. (2014). Sustainable water management in urban, agricultural, and natural systems. Water, 6(12), 3934–3956. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6123934

Approach to Reduce Agricultural Waste via Sustainable Agricultural Practices

49

Searchinger, T. D., Malins, C., Dumas, P., Baldock, D., Glauber, J., Jayne, T., & Marenya, P. (2020). Revising public agricultural support to mitigate climate change. World Bank Publications. Sen, S., Ganguly, S., Das, A., Sen, J., & Dey, S. (2016). Renewable energy scenario in India: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 122, 25–31. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2015.06.002 Shah, F., & Wu, W. (2019). Soil and crop management strategies to ensure higher crop productivity within sustainable environments. Sustainability, 11(5), 1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11051485 Sharma, R., & Bhardwaj, S. (2017). Effect of mulching on soil and water conservation-A review. Agricultural Reviews, 38(4), 311–315. Sindhu, R., Gnansounou, E., Binod, P., & Pandey, A. (2016). Bioconversion of sugarcane crop residue for value added products–An overview. Renewable Energy, 98, 203–215. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.057 Singh, M. (2021). Organic farming for sustainable agriculture. Indian Journal of Organic Farming, 1(1), 1–8. Sivanappan, R. K. (2006, November). Rainwater harvesting, conservation and management strategies for urban and rural sectors. In National seminar on rainwater harvesting and water management (Vol. 11, No. 12, p. 1). Institution of Engineers (India), Nagpur Local Centre, Nagpur in Association with UNESCO. Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., & Pugh, T. A. (2016). Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Global Change Biology, 22(3), 1008–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 Smyth, S.  J., Webb, S.  R., & Phillips, P.  W. (2021). The role of public-private partnerships in improving global food security. Global Food Security, 31, 100588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gfs.2021.100588 Soltani, M., Kashkooli, F.  M., Souri, M., Rafiei, B., Jabarifar, M., Gharali, K., & Nathwani, J.  S. (2021). Environmental, economic, and social impacts of geothermal energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 140, 110750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2021.110750 Somasundaram, J., Sinha, N. K., Dalal, R. C., Lal, R., Mohanty, M., Naorem, A. K., & Chaudhari, S. K. (2020). No-till farming and conservation agriculture in South Asia–Issues, challenges, prospects and benefits. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 39(3), 236–279. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/07352689.2020.1782069 Soundarrajan, P., & Vivek, N. (2016). Green finance for sustainable green economic growth in India. Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.17221/174/2014-­AGRICECON Syme, G.  J., Reddy, V.  R., & Ranjan, R. (2015). Justice and equity in watershed development in Andhra Pradesh. In Integrated assessment of scale impacts of watershed intervention (pp. 317–352). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­800067-­0.00010-­4 Taylor, B.  M., & Van Grieken, M. (2015). Local institutions and farmer participation in agri-­ environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 37, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2014.11.011 Umar, B. B., Aune, J. B., Johnsen, F. H., & Lungu, O. I. (2011). Options for improving smallholder conservation agriculture in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(3), 50. Umesha, S., Manukumar, H. M., & Chandrasekhar, B. (2018). Sustainable agriculture and food security. In Biotechnology for sustainable agriculture (pp.  67–92). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­812160-­3.00003-­9 Vera, I., Wicke, B., Lamers, P., Cowie, A., Repo, A., Heukels, B., & van der Hilst, F. (2022). Land use for bioenergy: Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112409 Wato, T., Amare, M., Bonga, E., Demand, B. B. O., & Coalition, B. B. R. (2020). The agricultural water pollution and its minimization strategies–A review. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 64, 10–22.

50

P. Kumar et al.

Wirza, R., & Nazir, S. (2021). Urban aquaponics farming and cities-A systematic literature review. Reviews on Environmental Health, 36(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-­2020-­0064 Yadav, M., Vashisht, B. B., Jalota, S. K., Kumar, A., & Kumar, D. (2022). Sustainable water management practices for intensified agriculture. In Soil-water, agriculture, and climate change: Exploring linkages (pp. 131–161). Springer International Publishing. Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G., & Lehman, C. (2019). Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nature Communications, 10(1), 718. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-­019-­08636-­w Young, C. W., Russell, S. V., Robinson, C. A., & Chintakayala, P. K. (2018). Sustainable retailing–influencing consumer behaviour on food waste. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1966

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives Ahmed Albahnasawi , Murat Eyvaz , Motasem Y. D. Alazaiza Nurullah Özdoğan , Ercan Gurbulak , Sahar Alhout , and Ebubekir Yuksel

,

1 Exploring the Newest Developments in Biowaste Conversion Technologies and Current Trends in Bioresource and Waste Management The attention given to biomass derived from biowastes is highly significant due to their exceptional physical, chemical, and biological properties. These remarkable characteristics make them exceptionally well suited for a wide range of applications within the realm of biorefinery. They serve as valuable precursors for biofuels, chemicals, and various other biomaterials, contributing to the sustainable use of resources (Guan et al., 2022). Moreover, these waste materials offer a promising avenue as alternative and renewable energy sources in diverse forms (Fig.  1). Recognizing the limitations and detrimental effects associated with current waste management approaches, it becomes imperative to focus on the development of sustainable waste treatment technologies. These innovative technologies offer several advantages. They encompass waste-activated sludge pretreatment, pyrolytic processes that enable biochar production, biohydrogen production derived from lignocellulosic biomass, anaerobic fermentation utilizing herbal residues, algal biomass production, syngas production, biomethanation, enzymatic hydrolysis for A. Albahnasawi (*) · M. Eyvaz · E. Gurbulak · E. Yuksel Department of Environmental Engineering, Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey M. Y. D. Alazaiza Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, A’Sharqiyah University, Ibra, Oman N. Özdoğan Department of Environmental Engineering, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey S. Alhout Department of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, University of Palestine, Al-Zahra, Palestine © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. L. Srivastav et al. (eds.), Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1_3

51

52

A. Albahnasawi et al.

Fig. 1  Biowaste sources

biorefinery applications, and bioconversion of food waste via dark fermentation (Ladakis et al., 2022). By employing these techniques, successful bioprocesses can be achieved, simultaneously addressing the challenge of efficient bioresource management across agro-industrial, food waste, and algal biomass sectors (Saratale et al., 2022). In a study conducted by Suriapparao et al. (2022), they delved into the interaction and pyrolysis mechanism between plastic wastes and agro-residuals as feedstocks. Their findings revealed a remarkably high pyrolysis conversion index (99–100%), indicating that the proposed mechanism played a pivotal role in the sustainable management of biowaste containing hemicellulose, lignin, and cellulose, particularly for energy-related purposes. According to Pal et  al. (2022), the co-digestion of rice straw and cow dung can significantly enhance the concentration of biomethane, reaching as high as 58.30%, while maintaining low levels of H2S. As an alternative to green waste, food waste can undergo a direct two-stage anaerobic digestion process involving primary lactate-type fermentation. This approach allows for a doubled bioenergy recovery rate compared with a one-stage process. In another study by Tahir et al. (2022), lignocellulosic biomass, specifically Paulownia waste, was explored for green hydrogen production. The addition of SnO2 nano-catalysts was found to increase the biohydrogen yield by approximately 47%. Kim et  al. (2022) reported that a conductive metal compound can serve as a catalyst to enhance biohydrogen production through dark fermentation. The supplementation of magnetite resulted in a 25.60% increase in biohydrogen production. However, a more promising alternative for conventional green hydrogen production involves a combination of ultrasonic-assisted alkaline pretreatment, dark fermentation, and

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

53

microbial electrolysis cells. This integrated approach was shown using hyacinth water as an example, resulting in a bio-H2 yield approximately four times higher than that achieved with only dark fermentation/microbial electrolysis cell, as highlighted by Thu Ha Tran and Khanh Thinh Nguyen (2022) According to the findings of Liang et al. (2022), a stable bacterial community consisting of Prevotella, Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, Ruminococcus, and Succiniclasticum demonstrated remarkable efficiency in hydrolyzing hemicellulose and cellulose. The hydrolysis effectiveness ranged from 36.50% to 52.20% for hemicellulose and 29.40% to 38.40% for cellulose. In a separate study conducted by Zhu et al. (2022), the application of p-toluenesulfonic acid combined with hydrogen peroxide-assisted pretreatment proved to be highly beneficial for enhancing the production of fermentable sugars from walnut shells. This innovative approach resulted in a simultaneous increase in glucose yield of up to 94.40%. Behera et al. (2022) undertook a comprehensive review of microalgae biomass as a promising alternative source of bioenergy. They specifically explored hydrochar production through the hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) process. Additionally, they emphasized the potential use of Microcystis sp., an algal biomass, in the eco-friendly production of fertilizers. By treating the produced hydrochar with 1% citric acid, they achieved an impressive recovery rate of 95% for phosphorus (P) and a 34% increase in nutrient use efficiency compared with other chemical alternatives. In the realm of food waste digestate composting as a climate-friendly biofertilizer, Li et al. (2022) determined that the optimal dosage of zeolite addition was 10%. This specific dosage not only substantially improved the degradation rate by approximately 57%, but also led to significant reductions of carbon loss by about 43.1% and nitrogen loss by about 5.68%. Moreover, it effectively mitigated emissions of NH3 and N2O by approximately 45%. The transition from traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas to renewable alternatives poses a significant challenge. Biowastes and green wastes emerge as highly promising candidates due to the projected growth of the biofuel and renewable energy sectors. The annual growth rate is expected to reach at least 1.20%, eventually amounting to approximately 2.80% by 2035 (Piechota et al., 2023).

2 Approach to Circular Economy (CE) Challenges and Conclusions The escalating strain on our finite natural resources has captured global attention, prompting the implementation of strategic plans and initiatives for sustainable development. In this context, a recent study has delved into the potential of converting discarded coffee grounds into a diverse array of valuable bioproducts, encompassing biodiesel, bioethanol, bio-ether, bio-oil, biochar, biogas, and green biocomposites, alongside other high-value products with lower yields (Leong & Chang, 2022).

54

A. Albahnasawi et al.

Fig. 2  Biowaste composting for circular economy approach for biowaste

The existing body of literature primarily concentrates on the economic dimensions of the circular economy (Fig. 2), often overlooking the ecological and social perspectives that are equally vital. Conducting surveys becomes crucial to identify the industrial challenges that appear during the transition from a linear to a circular economy, enabling the search for practical solutions to overcome these obstacles. It is imperative to consider the implications of consumers embracing circular economy practices during the end-use phase to ensure the establishment of a sustainable circular bioeconomy. Notably, J. K. Saini et al. (2022) shed light on the potential hurdles encountered in the enzymatic bioconversion of lignocellulosic materials into biofuels and value-added chemicals within the framework of a biorefinery. Technical challenges arise, particularly in the realm of bio-based energy production, where the choice of biomass plays a pivotal role. Addressing financial challenges involves the implementation of biorefineries to effectively manage residual materials. Social challenges need improved communication and awareness surrounding biorefineries and their associated products to enhance their demand and market value. Consequently, the development of advanced skills and modifications specific to the feedstocks and expected bioproducts, coupled with government assistance, becomes crucial in ensuring the security of capital investments and mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Given the importance of these factors, undertaking meticulous and comprehensive biotechnological investigations becomes necessary to optimize financial returns while minimizing energy consumption and overall investment, thereby propelling the circular bioeconomy forward. This approach serves as a blueprint for the synergistic conversion of agricultural waste into

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

55

value-added products, facilitating the efficient circulation of essential nutrients. This succinct assessment aims to underscore the substantial potential inherent in processing biowaste sources to obtain technically, nutritionally, and organically valuable molecules, thereby inspiring the scientific and engineering communities to explore novel and more efficient waste conversion methods. Despite the vast potential and availability of biowastes, their proper use is still largely unrealized. Moreover, the study highlights how advanced bioconversion methods can supplant traditional composting techniques, yielding high-value compost and nonconventional energy. Furthermore, it offers valuable insights into the research papers published in the virtual special issue (VSI) of the Bioresource Technology Journal. The findings and research presented in this article significantly contribute to sustainable development and energy efficiency in harnessing the potential of biowastes. Finally, it underscores the necessity for well-organized and innovative research schemes to effectively address the accumulation of biowastes.

3 Energy Crisis and Biowaste Energy Potential Modern society’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels as the primary energy source is well-documented (Chuah et  al., 2021). However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has underscored the urgency of the situation, emphasizing the imperative need to transition away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy sources in order to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change on humanity (Jain et al., 2022). This critical context has spurred researchers to explore innovative technologies and processes that assess the environmental implications of different products (Chuah et al., 2022). A wealth of studies has shown the significant potential for generating bioenergy through the efficient utilization of biowaste (Bokhari et al., 2019). Figure 3 shows the value-added products derived from biowaste. The rapid pace of urbanization, industrialization, population growth, and the rise in consumerism have resulted in a substantial global production of biomass waste (Khan et al., 2020). Remarkably, approximately 44% (w/w) of all biowastes consist of solid waste, showing diverse characteristics and compositions. Astonishingly, only a fraction of the total municipal waste generated by 35 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, accounting for 44% (w/w), undergoes bio-based processing techniques to produce economically valuable compounds (Vakalis et al., 2017). Industries, the agricultural sector, and households regularly generate various biowastes that hold immense potential as sources for bioenergy production (Escamilla-Alvarado et al., 2017). In 2016 alone, a staggering 2.1 × 104 metric tons of biowaste was generated globally, and this figure is projected to rise to 2.2 × 104 metric tons by 2025. If sustainable waste management strategies are not effectively implemented, it is estimated that by 2050, a staggering 3.4 × 104 metric tons of biowaste could be generated (Paes et al., 2019). This pressing need underscores the importance of

56

A. Albahnasawi et al.

Fig. 3  Conversion biowaste to value-added products (Xu et al., 2022)

transforming biowastes into valuable bioproducts and bioenergy, emphasizing the urgency to address this challenge (Abdelghaffar, 2021). The biowaste-to-energy (BtE) technologies hold immense potential, estimated to generate approximately 26 billion US dollars, with expectations to reach 40 billion dollars by 2023. However, the lack of effective mitigation strategies results in the disposal of substantial quantities of biowaste in landfills, leading to the significant production of methane gas during decomposition and posing alarming environmental consequences. In the United States, landfills rank as the third-largest source of methane generation, contributing significantly to the overall temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect (Sotiropoulos et al., 2016). At the core of the circular economy lies the principle of promoting the reuse and recycling of products. Developing countries play a pivotal role in using most environmental resources while producing goods that yield both environmental and economic benefits (Teigiserova et  al., 2020). Key aspects of the circular economy encompass conducting life cycle assessments of products, designing strategies to optimize resource utilization, and effectively managing biowaste (Awasthi et al., 2021). The global bioeconomy aims to ensure the sustainable management of environmental resources by focusing on asset

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

57

viability and biomass sustainability (Wainaina et  al., 2020). The concepts of the bioeconomy and circular economy align harmoniously, as a circular bioeconomy involves transforming waste products into clean energy and other valuable resources through recycling and efficient management practices. Governments worldwide are increasingly prioritizing the bioeconomy as a crucial part of sustainable development, particularly in addressing the management of urban waste (Sodhi et al., 2022). Several obstacles hinder the implementation of a circular economy, including the severe environmental impact of landfilling, excessive dependence on heavy industries, and the rapid growth of urban populations (Jain et al., 2022). According to Sodhi et  al. (2022), a wide range of degradable biowaste, including food waste, agricultural waste, kitchen waste, green waste, sewage, sludge, agro-industry, and forestry residues, can be effectively managed through their conversion into bioproducts, composites (Cheng et al., 2020), nanomaterials (Cao et al., 2022), nanotube sheets (Wang et al., 2021), and biofuel (Kumar Awasthi et al., 2022). Traditionally, organic waste management has relied on landfilling, composting, and incineration, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. However, contemporary society is increasingly embracing bio-based processing technologies as alternatives to conventional methods due to their lower energy requirements, reduced investment costs, and higher recovery rates of value-added products, thereby aligning with the principles of the circular economy (Rasapoor et  al., 2020). Two key processes, anaerobic digestion and microbial degradation, play crucial roles in improving nutrient circulation from organic wastes (Zamri et al., 2021). Biorefineries provide the capacity to convert organic wastes into energy and valuable products (Bokhari et al., 2020). Processed wastes, both in liquid and solid forms, contain a wealth of minerals, proteins, and carbohydrates that can be transformed into enzymes, bioactive compounds, and pigments with diverse applications in therapeutics and industry (Cheng et  al., 2020). The rapid pace of urbanization and population growth contributes to the significant generation of biowaste, originating from various sources (Escamilla-Alvarado et al., 2017). These biowastes hold immense potential for conversion into value-added products, such as bioenergy (Abdelghaffar, 2021). Transformation techniques like microbial fuel cells (Raychaudhuri et al., 2021) and bioreactors (Park et  al., 2021) can be used to effectively harness the potential of biowaste.

4 Feedstocks for Bioenergy Production A significant portion of organic solid waste includes agricultural and food waste. Conventional methods employed to manage these waste types include incineration, composting, landfilling, and their utilization as animal feed (Kumar et al., 2022). However, incineration reduces the recovery of valuable nutrients from the waste, while landfilling presents issues such as uncontrolled microbial degradation and the generation of greenhouse gases (Mehariya et al., 2021). Unfortunately, due to inadequate mitigation measures, substantial quantities of biowaste are currently being

58

A. Albahnasawi et al.

discarded in landfills, resulting in the significant production of methane gas during the decomposition process. In fact, landfills rank as the third major source of methane generation in the United States (Sotiropoulos et  al., 2016). Moreover, the decomposition of organic matter in landfills leads to the release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and organic mercaptans, giving rise to odor-related problems. The volatile compounds emitted from landfills contribute to air pollution. Additionally, the deposition of various industrial solid wastes in landfills can lead to the mixing of surface water with the waste, thus contaminating groundwater and altering its quality. Waste treatment processes also transfer substances that directly affect the quality of soil, air, and water. Leachate, a liquid formed during the decomposition of municipal solid waste, has organic components and heavy metals (Dastjerdi et al., 2021). While using agricultural and food wastes as animal feed is cost-effective, it needs regulated implementation due to the unknown composition of the waste. Composting has appeared as a well-studied approach for managing these waste types, as it generates biofertilizer that can be beneficial for farmers (Su et al., 2020).

5 Bioreactor Development for Energy Production Bioreactors play a crucial role in facilitating cellular growth and metabolism by providing an optimal environment. They are particularly important for microbial energy conversion, which is essential for achieving sustainability in energy-­intensive processes. The design of bioreactors holds significant importance in energy production as it offers several advantages, including process simplicity, cost reduction of raw materials, decreased carbon footprint, precise control over environmental parameters, improved product yield, and efficient conversion of raw materials into fuels (Xu et al., 2018). Considering the wide range of bioenergy applications, which include both liquid fuels and gases, extensive research has led to the development of various bioreactor designs. Previous studies have contributed to the advancement of these bioreactors, catering to the specific requirements of producing different types of biofuels as sustainable energy sources (Choudri & Baawain, 2016). These specialized bioreactors are designed to optimize the production of diverse biofuels, contributing to the advancement and implementation of sustainable energy solutions.

5.1 Bioreactors for Biohydrogen Production Biohydrogen is widely acknowledged as a sustainable alternative to chemically synthesized hydrogen due to its high energy content and environmentally friendly conversion process. Although biohydrogen production is still in its early stages, the increasing demand has spurred significant advancements in biohydrogen production using various types of bioreactors, ranging from small-scale laboratory systems to large-scale commercial setups. The design of bioreactors is influenced by several

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

59

factors, including the type and concentration of the feedstock, temperature, partial pressure of hydrogen, hydraulic retention time (HRT), and pH of the culture, as these variables have a direct impact on biohydrogen production (Jabbari et al., 2019). Various types of photobioreactors, such as pond or pool-type, tubular, and flat-­ plate reactors, have been employed for biohydrogen production using diatoms, microalgae, and cyanobacteria. These microorganisms exhibit variations in their photochemical efficiency and light absorption characteristics, which in turn influence the performance of photobioreactors (Park et al., 2021). Additionally, different types of reactors, including batch, semicontinuous, and continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs), have been utilized for biohydrogen production. Among these, continuous reactors have demonstrated the highest productivity, while batch reactors yield the lowest biohydrogen production rates (Garcia-Peña et al., 2018). In addition to these reactor types, various other bioreactor designs have been developed to enhance biohydrogen yields, such as membrane bioreactors (MBRs), fluidized bed bioreactors, anaerobic sequencing batch reactors (ASBRs), anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) bioreactors, and fixed-bed bioreactors. More recently, microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) that use electro-hydrogenesis have been explored for biohydrogen production (Sim et al., 2021). However, the efficiency of biohydrogen production in MECs with nominal electrical inputs is not yet satisfactory, leading to the development of two-stage hybrid reactors. In this approach, the first stage involves the dark fermentation of biomass into acetate, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide, while the second stage focuses on converting acetate into hydrogen and carbon dioxide (Lee et al., 2009). Hybrid systems offer significant advantages over conventional methods in terms of both yield and volumetric production rates of hydrogen. Despite the promising developments in biohydrogen production, achieving sustainable and rapid biohydrogen production soon needs the proper design and optimization of bioreactors.

5.2 Bioreactors for Biodiesel Production The depletion of petroleum reserves has spurred the development of alternative renewable fuels like biodiesel, which plays a crucial role in meeting global energy demands. The economic viability of biodiesel production relies heavily on the selection of raw materials and the design of bioreactors. Initially, packed bed reactors with limited capacity were employed, but they encountered challenges such as insufficient maintenance of feed solution velocity above the minimum fluidization velocity and clogging of finer particulate matter. To overcome these issues, fluidized bed bioreactors were introduced, where the superficial velocity of the feed solution exceeded the fluidization velocity. This advancement enabled higher-capacity operation and reduced operating costs. Additionally, the development of semi-fluidized bed bioreactors combined the advantages of both packed bed and fluidized bed systems. These reactors featured a higher fluid velocity compared with conventional

60

A. Albahnasawi et al.

fluidized bed configurations and incorporated a porous plate to control bed expansion during the process (da Costa et al., 2021). Moreover, inverse fluidized bed bioreactors were introduced, with the feed solution introduced from the top and flowing down the column under the force of gravity. These reactors maintained an operating superficial velocity 20–25% higher than the minimum inverse fluidization velocity (Narayanan & Pandey, 2018). Recent technological advancements have facilitated the mathematical assessment of bioreactor performance using modeling and computer-aided design (CAD) for biodiesel production (Ding et al., 2010). The accuracy of CAD-developed architectures has been validated through experimental data, leading to successful industrial-scale biodiesel production (Abomohra et  al., 2018). While significant progress has been made in bioreactor development for biodiesel production, further extensive studies are needed to fully commercialize this technology on a global scale.

5.3 Bioreactors for Biogas Production Biogas, a renewable and sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, holds great promise for meeting the global energy demand by using various biomass sources. It consists of gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen, which are produced through the anaerobic breakdown of organic matter (Zhao et al., 2021). These gases can be further utilized through oxidation or combustion in the presence of oxygen, yielding an energy potential of approximately 28.8 MJ/MJ. The production of biogas relies on two key operating parameters: the type of organic matter and the choice of reactor design. Extensive research has been conducted on different reactor configurations, including anaerobic contact reactors, continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs), fixed film reactors (FFRs), fluidized bed reactors, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors, expanded granular sludge bed reactors, and jet flow anaerobic bioreactors (Kapoor et al., 2019). Among these options, CSTRs and FFRs are the most used. However, CSTRs suffer from limited bacterial retention, while FFRs offer more efficient degradation of complex organic matter compared with CSTRs (Mishra et al., 2021). Recent advancements in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) have been instrumental in enhancing biogas production by reducing power consumption, improving mixing performance, and gaining insights into flow characteristics affected by total solid (TS) concentrations in organic waste matter (Saini et  al., 2021). Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Annamox) bioreactors have attracted attention for their efficient biogas production, effective nitrogen management, compact footprint, and reduced costs (Wang et al., 2019). Nevertheless, further research is needed to commercialize this technology and address technical challenges such as product inhibition, methane recovery, membrane fouling, and high costs. The development of membrane bioreactors plays a critical role in biogas production. In a recent study, the design and operation of an anaerobic bioreactor for

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

61

biogas production using wastewater were explored, with a specific focus on membrane coupling and process fundamentals (Elmoutez et al., 2023). The study examined the performance of the anaerobic bioreactor at laboratory, pilot scale, and prototype levels, investigating wastewater feeding, control strategies, and system deficiencies. The combination of anaerobic ammonium oxidation and anaerobic membrane bioreactors proved valuable in terms of resource recovery and energy balance. Additionally, the study aimed to deepen our understanding of the biological and physical aspects of the process (Elmoutez et al., 2023). Another study concentrated on the co-treatment of kitchen wastewater and food waste using a two-stage anaerobic membrane bioreactor, showing improved process performance during methanogenesis through acetogenesis and hydrolysis (Le et al., 2022).

5.4 Bioreactors for Bioethanol Production The emergence of the bioethanol industry is a groundbreaking development in achieving sustainable energy. With advancements in technology, there has been significant progress in optimizing the fermentation process for bioethanol production, leading to the use of various bioreactor configurations (Mahboubi et  al., 2020). Current research is focused on harnessing nonfood, cost-effective lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production, which involves a multistep process encompassing delignification, saccharification, and fermentation (Cremonez et  al., 2021). Consolidated bioprocessing has also been developed, utilizing improved strains that enable simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Bioethanol, as one of the oldest bioenergy products, has driven the development of diverse bioreactor types, including batch reactors, continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs), and various membrane bioreactors, all of which have played a pivotal role in establishing biorefineries worldwide. For example, a specifically designed bubble column reactor demonstrated successful saccharification and bioethanol production through hydrothermal pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. This method highlights its potential for application in second-generation biorefineries. In another study, the operating conditions of a microbial bioethanol production process were optimized, resulting in the development of an optimal fed-batch bioreactor. The study validated a kinetic model for bioethanol production at the laboratory scale, with a particular focus on the economic and optimization aspects of bioreactor parameters. It proposed a model based on a multiobjective dynamic optimization approach to systematically derive operating policies (Flevaris & Chatzidoukas, 2021). Furthermore, another investigation explored syngas fermentation for bioethanol production using a tar-free bioreactor. Charcoal and syngas were employed as substrates for Clostridium butyricum, and the treatment of syngas resulted in higher colony-forming units (CFUs) compared with untreated syngas. Lignocellulosic biomass served as the substrate for syngas production in this study (Monir et al., 2020).

62

A. Albahnasawi et al.

6 Conclusion Biowaste, once overlooked, has now emerged as a valuable feedstock capable of producing a myriad of value-added products. Among the various applications arising from the processing of biowaste, bioenergy generation stands out as a particularly promising avenue. The generation of bioenergy from biowaste necessitates a thorough analysis and optimization of several parameters, including biowaste composition and conversion potential. The pursuit of innovative and sustainable technologies is crucial to effectively harness the vast potential of biowaste for enhanced bioenergy production. Notably, feedstocks such as food, agriculture, beverage, and municipal solid waste have proven to be viable resources for producing renewable energy. However, despite its immense potential, the field of bioenergy generation from biowaste is still in its early stages and requires more interdisciplinary research to become a fully sustainable alternative to conventional energy sources. This chapter presented here has systematically analyzed the bioconversion potential of biowaste into renewable energy. Furthermore, this chapter has addressed the importance of bioreactor development for energy production, while also highlighting the major challenges and future prospects in bioenergy production from biowaste. The comprehensive exploration of these topics underscores the potential of bioenergy production from biowaste as a true game changer in waste valorization and energy research. To realize the full potential of this excellent energy generation process, it is imperative to approach its development in a systematic and strategic manner, considering the techno-economic feasibilities. By doing so, bioenergy production from biowaste can genuinely appear as a sustainable and viable alternative to conventional energy sources, paving the way toward a greener and more sustainable future. Declaration of Competing Interest  The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this chapter.

References Abdelghaffar, F. (2021). Biosorption of anionic dye using nanocomposite derived from chitosan and silver nanoparticles synthesized via cellulosic banana peel bio-waste. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 24, 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ETI.2021.101852 Abomohra, A. E. F., El-Naggar, A. H., & Baeshen, A. A. (2018). Potential of macroalgae for biodiesel production: Screening and evaluation studies. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 125(2), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBIOSC.2017.08.020 Awasthi, M. K., Sarsaiya, S., Wainaina, S., Rajendran, K., Awasthi, S. K., Liu, T., Duan, Y., Jain, A., Sindhu, R., Binod, P., Pandey, A., Zhang, Z., & Taherzadeh, M. J. (2021). Techno-economics and life-cycle assessment of biological and thermochemical treatment of bio-waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144, 110837. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2021.110837

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

63

Behera, B., Mari Selvam, S., & Balasubramanian, P. (2022). Hydrothermal processing of microalgal biomass: Circular bio-economy perspectives for addressing food-water-energy nexus. Bioresource Technology, 359, 127443. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127443 Bokhari, A., Chuah, L. F., Michelle, L. Z. Y., Asif, S., Shahbaz, M., Akbar, M. M., Inayat, A., Jami, F., Naqvi, S.  R., & Yusup, S. (2019). Microwave enhanced catalytic conversion of canola-­ based methyl ester: Optimization and parametric study. In Advanced biofuels: Applications, technologies and environmental sustainability (pp. 153–166). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0 -­08-­102791-­2.00006-­4 Bokhari, A., Yusup, S., Asif, S., Chuah, L. F., & Michelle, L. Z. Y. (2020). Process intensification for the production of canola-based methyl ester via ultrasonic batch reactor: Optimization and kinetic study. In Bioreactors: Sustainable design and industrial applications in mitigation of GHG emissions (pp. 27–42). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­821264-­6.00003-­6 Cao, D., Malakooti, S., Kulkarni, V. N., Ren, Y., Liu, Y., Nie, X., Qian, D., Griffith, D. T., & Lu, H. (2022). The effect of resin uptake on the flexural properties of compression molded sandwich composites. Wind Energy, 25(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/WE.2661 Cheng, S. Y., Tan, X., Show, P. L., Rambabu, K., Banat, F., Veeramuthu, A., Lau, B. F., Ng, E. P., & Ling, T. C. (2020). Incorporating biowaste into circular bioeconomy: A critical review of current trend and scaling up feasibility. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 19, 101034. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ETI.2020.101034 Choudri, B.  S., & Baawain, M. (2016). Bioenergy from biofuel residues and wastes. Water Environment Research, 88(10), 1446–1466. https://doi.org/10.217 5/106143016X14696400495217 Chuah, L. F., Klemeš, J. J., Bokhari, A., & Asif, S. (2021). A review of biodiesel production from renewable resources: Chemical reactions. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 88, 943–948. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2188157 Chuah, L. F., Klemeš, J. J., Bokhari, A., Asif, S., Cheng, Y. W., Chong, C. C., & Show, P. L. (2022). A review of intensification technologies for biodiesel production. In Biofuels and biorefining: Volume 2: Intensification processes and biorefineries (pp.  87–116). https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-­0-­12-­824117-­2.00009-­0 Cremonez, P. A., Teleken, J. G., Weiser Meier, T. R., & Alves, H. J. (2021). Two-stage anaerobic digestion in agroindustrial waste treatment: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111854. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2020.111854 da Costa, T. B., Simões, A. N., de Menezes, C. A., & Silva, E. L. (2021). Anaerobic biodegradation of biodiesel industry wastewater in mesophilic and thermophilic fluidized bed reactors: Enhancing treatment and methane recovery. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 193(10), 3336–3350. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12010-­021-­03606-­9/TABLES/2 Dastjerdi, B., Strezov, V., Rajaeifar, M. A., Kumar, R., & Behnia, M. (2021). A systematic review on life cycle assessment of different waste to energy valorization technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125747. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.125747 Ding, J., Wang, X., Zhou, X. F., Ren, N. Q., & Guo, W. Q. (2010). CFD optimization of continuous stirred-tank (CSTR) reactor for biohydrogen production. Bioresource Technology, 101(18), 7005–7013. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2010.03.146 Elmoutez, S., Abushaban, A., Necibi, M. C., Sillanpää, M., Liu, J., Dhiba, D., Chehbouni, A., & Taky, M. (2023). Design and operational aspects of anaerobic membrane bioreactor for efficient wastewater treatment and biogas production. Environmental Challenges, 10, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVC.2022.100671 Escamilla-Alvarado, C., Poggi-Varaldo, H.  M., & Ponce-Noyola, M.  T. (2017). Bioenergy and bioproducts from municipal organic waste as alternative to landfilling: A comparative life cycle assessment with prospective application to Mexico. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(33), 25602–25617. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-­016-­6939-­Z/FIGURES/6 Flevaris, K., & Chatzidoukas, C. (2021). Optimal fed-batch bioreactor operating strategies for the microbial production of lignocellulosic bioethanol and exploration of their economic implications: A step forward towards sustainability and commercialization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126384. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.126384

64

A. Albahnasawi et al.

Garcia-Peña, E.  I., Niño-Navarro, C., Chairez, I., Torres-Bustillos, L., Ramírez-Muñoz, J., & Salgado-Manjarrez, E. (2018). Performance intensification of a stirred bioreactor for fermentative biohydrogen production. Preparative Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 48(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826068.2017.1405269/SUPPL_FILE/LPBB_A_1405269_ SM4129.DOCX Guan, R., Yuan, H., Yuan, S., Yan, B., Zuo, X., Chen, X., & Li, X. (2022). Current development and perspectives of anaerobic bioconversion of crop stalks to biogas: A review. Bioresource Technology, 349, 126615. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2021.126615 Jabbari, B., Jalilnejad, E., Ghasemzadeh, K., & Iulianelli, A. (2019). Recent progresses in application of membrane bioreactors in production of biohydrogen. Membranes, 9(8), 100. https://doi. org/10.3390/MEMBRANES9080100 Jain, A., Sarsaiya, S., Kumar Awasthi, M., Singh, R., Rajput, R., Mishra, U. C., Chen, J., & Shi, J. (2022). Bioenergy and bio-products from bio-waste and its associated modern circular economy: Current research trends, challenges, and future outlooks. Fuel, 307, 121859. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2021.121859 Kapoor, R., Ghosh, P., Kumar, M., & Vijay, V. K. (2019). Evaluation of biogas upgrading technologies and future perspectives: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(12), 11631–11661. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-­019-­04767-­1/FIGURES/3 Khan, M. B., Cui, X., Jilani, G., Tang, L., Lu, M., Cao, X., Sahito, Z. A., Hamid, Y., Hussain, B., Yang, X., & He, Z. (2020). New insight into the impact of biochar during vermi-stabilization of divergent biowastes: Literature synthesis and research pursuits. Chemosphere, 238, 124679. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2019.124679 Kim, D. H., Yoon, J. J., Kim, S. H., & Park, J. H. (2022). Acceleration of lactate-utilizing pathway for enhancing biohydrogen production by magnetite supplementation in Clostridium butyricum. Bioresource Technology, 359, 127448. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127448 Kumar Awasthi, M., Paul, A., Kumar, V., Sar, T., Kumar, D., Sarsaiya, S., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Binod, P., Sindhu, R., Kumar, V., & Taherzadeh, M.  J. (2022). Recent trends and developments on integrated biochemical conversion process for valorization of dairy waste to value added bioproducts: A review. Bioresource Technology, 344, 126193. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2021.126193 Kumar, V., Sharma, N., Umesh, M., Selvaraj, M., Al-Shehri, B.  M., Chakraborty, P., Duhan, L., Sharma, S., Pasrija, R., Awasthi, M.  K., Lakkaboyana, S.  R., Andler, R., Bhatnagar, A., & Maitra, S.  S. (2022). Emerging challenges for the agro-industrial food waste utilization: A review on food waste biorefinery. Bioresource Technology, 362, 127790. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127790 Ladakis, D., Stylianou, E., Ioannidou, S. M., Koutinas, A., & Pateraki, C. (2022). Biorefinery development, techno-economic evaluation and environmental impact analysis for the conversion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste into succinic acid and value-added fractions. Bioresource Technology, 354, 127172. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127172 Le, T. S., Nguyen, P. D., Ngo, H. H., Bui, X. T., Dang, B. T., Diels, L., Bui, H. H., Nguyen, M. T., & Le Quang, D. T. (2022). Two-stage anaerobic membrane bioreactor for co-treatment of food waste and kitchen wastewater for biogas production and nutrients recovery. Chemosphere, 309, 136537. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2022.136537 Lee, M.  J., Song, J.  H., & Hwang, S.  J. (2009). Enhanced bio-energy recovery in a two-stage hydrogen/methane fermentation process. Water Science and Technology, 59(11), 2137–2143. https://doi.org/10.2166/WST.2009.236 Leong, Y. K., & Chang, J. S. (2022). Valorization of fruit wastes for circular bioeconomy: Current advances, challenges, and opportunities. Bioresource Technology, 359, 127459. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127459 Li, D., Manu, M. K., Varjani, S., & Wong, J. W. C. (2022). Mitigation of NH3 and N2O emissions during food waste digestate composting at C/N ratio 15 using zeolite amendment. Bioresource Technology, 359, 127465. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127465

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

65

Liang, J., Fang, W., Chang, J., Zhang, G., Ma, W., Nabi, M., Zubair, M., Zhang, R., Chen, L., Huang, J., & Zhang, P. (2022). Long-term rumen microorganism fermentation of corn stover in  vitro for volatile fatty acid production. Bioresource Technology, 358, 127447. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127447 Mahboubi, A., Uwineza, C., Doyen, W., De Wever, H., & Taherzadeh, M. J. (2020). Intensification of lignocellulosic bioethanol production process using continuous double-staged immersed membrane bioreactors. Bioresource Technology, 296, 122314. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2019.122314 Mehariya, S., Goswami, R. K., Verma, P., Lavecchia, R., & Zuorro, A. (2021). Integrated approach for wastewater treatment and biofuel production in microalgae biorefineries. Energies, 14(8), 2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14082282 Mishra, A., Kumar, M., Bolan, N. S., Kapley, A., Kumar, R., & Singh, L. (2021). Multidimensional approaches of biogas production and up-gradation: Opportunities and challenges. Bioresource Technology, 338, 125514. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2021.125514 Monir, M. U., Aziz, A. A., Khatun, F., & Yousuf, A. (2020). Bioethanol production through syngas fermentation in a tar free bioreactor using Clostridium butyricum. Renewable Energy, 157, 1116–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2020.05.099 Narayanan, C. M., & Pandey, A. (2018). Studies on biodiesel synthesis using nanosilica immobilised lipase in inverse fluidized bed bioreactors. Journal of Advances in Chemistry, 15(1), 6072–6086. https://doi.org/10.24297/jac.v15i1.7108 Paes, L. A. B., Bezerra, B. S., Deus, R. M., Jugend, D., & Battistelle, R. A. G. (2019). Organic solid waste management in a circular economy perspective  – A systematic review and SWOT analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, 118086. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JCLEPRO.2019.118086 Pal, D.  B., Tiwari, A.  K., Mohammad, A., Prasad, N., Srivastava, N., Srivastava, K.  R., Singh, R., Yoon, T., Syed, A., Bahkali, A.  H., & Gupta, V.  K. (2022). Enhanced biogas production potential analysis of rice straw: Biomass characterization, kinetics and anaerobic co-­ digestion investigations. Bioresource Technology, 358, 127391. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2022.127391 Park, J. H., Chandrasekhar, K., Jeon, B. H., Jang, M., Liu, Y., & Kim, S. H. (2021). State-of-the-art technologies for continuous high-rate biohydrogen production. Bioresource Technology, 320, 124304. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2020.124304 Piechota, G., Unpaprom, Y., Dong, C.-D., & Kumar, G. (2023). Recent advances in biowaste management towards sustainable environment. Bioresource Technology, 368, 128326. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.128326 Rasapoor, M., Young, B., Brar, R., Sarmah, A., Zhuang, W. Q., & Baroutian, S. (2020). Recognizing the challenges of anaerobic digestion: Critical steps toward improving biogas generation. Fuel, 261, 116497. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2019.116497 Raychaudhuri, A., Sahoo, R. N., & Behera, M. (2021). Application of clayware ceramic separator modified with silica in microbial fuel cell for bioelectricity generation during rice mill wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology, 84(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.2166/ WST.2021.213 Saini, A. K., Radu, T., Paritosh, K., Kumar, V., Pareek, N., Tripathi, D., & Vivekanand, V. (2021). Bioengineered bioreactors: A review on enhancing biomethane and biohydrogen production by CFD modeling. Bioengineered, 12(1), 6418–6433. https://doi.org/10.1080/2165597 9.2021.1972195 Saini, J. K., Himanshu, H., Kaur, A., & Mathur, A. (2022). Strategies to enhance enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass for biorefinery applications: A review. Bioresource Technology, 360, 127517. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127517 Saratale, R. G., Cho, S. K., Bharagava, R. N., Patel, A. K., Varjani, S., Mulla, S. I., Kim, D. S., Bhatia, S. K., Ferreira, L. F. R., Shin, H. S., & Saratale, G. D. (2022). A critical review on biomass-based sustainable biorefineries using nanobiocatalysts: Opportunities, challenges,

66

A. Albahnasawi et al.

and future perspectives. Bioresource Technology, 363, 127926. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2022.127926 Sim, Y.  B., Jung, J.  H., Baik, J.  H., Park, J.  H., Kumar, G., Rajesh Banu, J., & Kim, S.  H. (2021). Dynamic membrane bioreactor for high rate continuous biohydrogen production from algal biomass. Bioresource Technology, 340, 125562. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2021.125562 Sodhi, A. S., Sharma, N., Bhatia, S., Verma, A., Soni, S., & Batra, N. (2022). Insights on sustainable approaches for production and applications of value added products. Chemosphere, 286, 131623. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2021.131623 Sotiropoulos, A., Vourka, I., Erotokritou, A., Novakovic, J., Panaretou, V., Vakalis, S., Thanos, T., Moustakas, K., & Malamis, D. (2016). Combination of decentralized waste drying and SSF techniques for household biowaste minimization and ethanol production. Waste Management, 52, 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2016.03.047 Su, L., Zhou, F., Yu, M., Ge, R., He, J., Zhang, B., Zhang, Y., & Fan, J. (2020). Solid lipid nanoparticles enhance the resistance of oat-derived peptides that inhibit dipeptidyl peptidase IV in simulated gastrointestinal fluids. Journal of Functional Foods, 65, 103773. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.JFF.2019.103773 Suriapparao, D. V., Gautam, R., & Rao Jeeru, L. (2022). Analysis of pyrolysis index and reaction mechanism in microwave-assisted ex-situ catalytic co-pyrolysis of agro-­ residual and plastic wastes. Bioresource Technology, 357, 127357. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2022.127357 Tahir, N., Nadeem, F., Jabeen, F., Rani Singhania, R., Yaqub Qazi, U., Kumar Patel, A., Javaid, R., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Enhancing biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic biomass of Paulownia waste by charge facilitation in Zn doped SnO2 nanocatalysts. Bioresource Technology, 355, 127299. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127299 Teigiserova, D.  A., Hamelin, L., & Thomsen, M. (2020). Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Science of the Total Environment, 706, 136033. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SCITOTENV.2019.136033 Thu Ha Tran, T., & Khanh Thinh Nguyen, P. (2022). Enhanced hydrogen production from water hyacinth by a combination of ultrasonic-assisted alkaline pretreatment, dark fermentation, and microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresource Technology, 357, 127340. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2022.127340 Vakalis, S., Sotiropoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Malamis, D., Vekkos, K., & Baratieri, M. (2017). Thermochemical valorization and characterization of household biowaste. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.04.017 Wainaina, S., Awasthi, M. K., Sarsaiya, S., Chen, H., Singh, E., Kumar, A., Ravindran, B., Awasthi, S. K., Liu, T., Duan, Y., Kumar, S., Zhang, Z., & Taherzadeh, M. J. (2020). Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies. Bioresource Technology, 301, 122778. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2020.122778 Wang, H., Larson, R. A., Borchardt, M., & Spencer, S. (2019). Effect of mixing duration on biogas production and methanogen distribution in an anaerobic digester. Environmental Technology, 42(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2019.1621951 Wang, X., Xu, T., de Andrade, M. J., Rampalli, I., Cao, D., Haque, M., Roy, S., Baughman, R. H., & Lu, H. (2021). The interfacial shear strength of carbon nanotube sheet modified carbon fiber composites. In Conference proceedings of the society for experimental mechanics series (pp. 25–32). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­59542-­5_4/COVER Xu, K., Lv, B., Huo, Y. X., & Li, C. (2018). Toward the lowest energy consumption and emission in biofuel production: Combination of ideal reactors and robust hosts. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 50, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPBIO.2017.08.011 Xu, M., Yang, M., Sun, H., Gao, M., Wang, Q., & Wu, C. (2022). Bioconversion of biowaste into renewable energy and resources: A sustainable strategy. Environmental Research, 214, 113929. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2022.113929

Biomass Waste and Bioenergy Production: Challenges and Alternatives

67

Zamri, M. F. M. A., Hasmady, S., Akhiar, A., Ideris, F., Shamsuddin, A. H., Mofijur, M., Fattah, I. M. R., & Mahlia, T. M. I. (2021). A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 137, 110637. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2020.110637 Zhao, J., Li, Y., & Dong, R. (2021). Recent progress towards in-situ biogas upgrading technologies. Science of the Total Environment, 800, 149667. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SCITOTENV.2021.149667 Zhu, J., Jiao, N., Li, H., Xu, G., Zhang, H., & Xu, Y. (2022). p-Toluenesulfonic acid combined with hydrogen peroxide-assisted pretreatment improves the production of fermentable sugars from walnut (Juglans regia L.) shells. Bioresource Technology, 355, 127300. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2022.127300

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass Waste Usman Lawal Usman, Bharat Kumar Allam, and Sushmita Banerjee

1 Introduction The world today faces a critical challenge in managing the mounting amounts of biomass waste generated by various industries and human activities. Biomass waste, which encompasses a varied range of organic substances derived from plants, animals, and microorganisms, poses significant environmental and economic concerns. However, within this challenge lies an opportunity for innovative solutions that not only address waste management but also unlock the untapped potential of biomass as a valuable resource. In recent years, enzymes have emerged as powerful biocatalysts that hold great promise for the effective management and valorization of biomass waste. These remarkable biomolecules, produced by living organisms, possess exceptional catalytic capabilities and can facilitate a myriad of complex biochemical reactions (Mukherjee & Gupta, 2015). Leveraging the unique properties of enzymes, researchers and scientists have been exploring novel strategies to convert biomass waste into high-value products and biofuels, thereby mitigating environmental pollution and creating a sustainable circular economy (Song et al., 2021). This chapter focuses on the transformative role of enzyme-mediated strategies in the management and valorization of biomass waste. It provides an in-depth exploration of the recent state-of-the-art techniques and highlights the potential U. L. Usman Department of Biology, Umaru Musa Yar’adua University, Katsina, Nigeria Department of Environmental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, India B. K. Allam Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University (A Central University), Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh, India S. Banerjee (*) Department of Environmental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, India e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. L. Srivastav et al. (eds.), Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1_4

69

70

U. L. Usman et al.

applications across various industries. By delving into the fundamental principles of enzymatic reactions and their interactions with biomass substrates, this chapter aims to elucidate the underlying mechanisms that enable the efficient conversion of waste into valuable resources.

1.1 Background on Biomass Waste and Its Environmental Impact Biomass waste is generated from a wide range of sources, including agriculture, forestry, food processing, and municipal activities. It encompasses various organic materials such as crop residues, wood chips, sawdust, animal manure, food scraps, and wastewater sludge. The accumulation of biomass waste poses substantial environmental challenges because of its decomposition process, which releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere (Amalina et al., 2022). Additionally, the improper handling and disposal of biomass waste can result in soil and water pollution, affecting human health and ecosystems. The environmental impact of biomass waste extends beyond its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. When biomass waste is incinerated or decomposes anaerobically in landfills, it releases pollutants for instance sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants contribute to air pollution and can have detrimental effects on air quality and human respiratory health. Furthermore, the leaching of organic and inorganic compounds from biomass waste into soil and water bodies can contaminate groundwater and surface water, disrupting ecosystems and endangering aquatic life (Abdel-Shafy & Mansour, 2018). The sheer volume of biomass waste generated globally emphasizes the urgency to address its environmental impact. In 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that approximately 2.01 billion metric tons of biomass waste were generated worldwide (Ogbu & Okechukwu, 2023). This number is projected to increase due to population growth, urbanization, and changes in consumption patterns. Recognizing the detrimental effects of unmanaged biomass waste, governments, industries, and research communities are actively seeking effective strategies to mitigate its environmental impact. Emphasizing the principles of the circular economy, these efforts aim to minimize waste generation, maximize resource recovery, and reduce reliance on nonrenewable resources (Sasmoko et  al., 2022). Enzyme-mediated strategies have emerged as promising solutions for the effective management and valorization of biomass waste, enabling its conversion into valuable products and reducing its environmental footprint. By harnessing the power of enzymes, biomass waste can be transformed into biofuels, biochemicals, biopolymers, and other valuable intermediates (Nargotra et al., 2023). Enzymes break down complex organic compounds present in biomass waste into simpler forms, facilitating their conversion into usable and marketable products. This approach offers numerous advantages as compared to the traditional methods, which include a reduction in energy consumption, milder reaction conditions, and improved selectivity.

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

71

1.2 Importance of Effective Management and Valorization Strategies Effective management and valorization strategies for biomass waste are of paramount importance due to several key reasons: (i) Environmental Sustainability: Biomass waste, if not managed properly, can have significant environmental impacts, which include air pollution such as greenhouse gas emissions and contamination of water and soil. By implementing effective management strategies, such as proper collection, sorting, and treatment, biomass waste can be minimized, and its negative environmental consequences can be mitigated. Valorization strategies, on the other hand, enable biomass waste conversion into useful products, reducing the need for resource extraction and minimizing the overall environmental footprint (Abdel-­ Shafy & Mansour, 2018). (ii) Resource Conservation: Biomass waste contains valuable organic compounds that can be utilized as a renewable resource. Effective management and valorization strategies enable the recovery and utilization of these resources, decreasing the dependency on nonrenewable resources through the conversion of biomass waste into biofuels, biochemicals, and other useful products, and we can conserve finite resources, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, and promote a more sustainable and circular economy (Okafor et al., 2022). (iii) Waste Reduction and Recycling: Biomass waste, if left unmanaged, can accumulate in landfills, occupying valuable land and emitting greenhouse gases during decomposition. By implementing efficient management strategies, such as waste reduction, recycling, and composting, the volume of biomass waste sent to landfills can be minimized. Additionally, valorization strategies allow for the transformation of biomass waste into usable products, reducing the need for virgin materials and contributing to waste diversion from landfills (Zhou & Wang, 2020). (iv) Economic Opportunities: Effective management and valorization of biomass waste can create new economic opportunities. The development of biomass waste processing facilities, biorefineries, and related industries can generate jobs and stimulate economic growth. Valorization strategies can lead to the development of bio-based products, such as biofuels, bioplastics, and biochemicals, which have a growing market demand. By tapping into the potential of biomass waste, countries and industries can diversify their economies, enhance competitiveness, and foster sustainable development (Nizami et al., 2017). (v) Climate Change Mitigation: The management and valorization of biomass waste play a crucial role in mitigating climate change. Biomass waste, if left untreated, emits greenhouse gases during decomposition or incineration. By implementing effective valorization strategies, such as anaerobic digestion or thermochemical conversion, biomass waste can be transformed into biofuels

72

U. L. Usman et al.

and other bio-based products. These biofuels can replace fossil fuels, thereby lowering the emissions of greenhouse gases and contributing to a low-carbon economy transition (Awogbemi & Von Kallon, 2022).

1.3 Role of Enzymes in Biomass Waste Processing Enzymes play a crucial role in biomass waste processing, offering efficient and eco-­ friendly solutions for the complex organic compounds’ conversion into useful products. Enzymes are biocatalysts, typically proteins, that increase biochemical reactions by reducing the activation energy needed for the occurring reaction (Robinson, 2015). They possess remarkable specificity, acting on specific substrates and catalyzing specific reactions, making them highly suitable for biomass waste processing as depicted in Fig. 1. (i) Enzymatic Degradation: Biomass waste consists of various complex polymers, such as lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. Enzymes involved in the degradation of biomass including cellulases, ligninases, and hemicellulases break down these complex polymers into simpler units. For example, cellulases hydrolyze cellulose into glucose, hemicellulose is broken down by hemicellulases into various sugars, and ligninases convert lignin into simpler aromatic compounds (Kumar & Chandra, 2020). Enzymatic degradation of

Fig. 1  Overview role of enzymes in biomass waste processing

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

73

biomass waste enables the release of valuable sugars and other intermediates that can be further utilized in various downstream processes. (ii) Enzyme-Assisted Pretreatment: Biomass waste often requires pretreatment to enhance its enzymatic digestibility. Enzyme-assisted pretreatment encompasses the use of specific enzymes to modify the biomass structure and composition, making it more susceptible to enzymatic degradation. For instance, enzymes such as ligninases can selectively remove or modify lignin, increasing the hemicellulose and cellulose accessibility to subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis (Sharma et  al., 2023a). Enzyme-assisted pretreatment methods offer advantages over traditional chemical pretreatment methods by operating under milder conditions and reducing the formation of toxic by-products. (iii) Enzymatic Hydrolysis: Enzymatic hydrolysis is a key step in biomass waste processing, where enzymes break down complex carbohydrates into simple sugars. Cellulases and hemicellulases act synergistically to cleave the bonds in the glycosidic present in the cellulose and hemicellulose respectively. The resulting sugars, such as xylose and glucose, can be used in biofuels, biochemicals, and other useful materials production. Enzymatic hydrolysis offers several advantages, including higher selectivity, lower energy requirements, and milder reaction conditions as compared to traditional acid or enzymatic processes (Houfani et al., 2020). (iv) Enzyme-Mediated Conversion: Enzymes also play a critical role in biomass waste conversion into value-added products. Various enzymes are involved in specific conversion pathways, such as biofuel production (e.g., cellulases for ethanol production) or biochemicals (e.g., enzymes for the production of platform chemicals such as succinic acid or lactic acid). Enzymes enable the transformation of biomass waste into a variety of valuable products, comprising biofuels, biopolymers, organic acids, and enzymes themselves (Fülöp & Ecker, 2020). (v) Enzyme Immobilization: Enzyme immobilization techniques are employed to increase enzymatic stability and reusability in biomass waste processing. Immobilized enzymes are attached or confined to a support material, which can be solid or porous. Immobilization improves enzyme performance, allowing for their repeated use over multiple reaction cycles. Immobilized enzymes are particularly beneficial for large-scale biomass waste processing, offering advantages such as improved operational stability, simplified enzyme separation from the reaction mixture, and reduced enzyme cost (Homaei et  al., 2013). Enzyme-mediated strategies provide several advantages in biomass waste processing, including higher reaction specificity, milder reaction conditions, reduced consumption of energy, and generation of minimal toxic by-­ products. The ongoing advancements in enzyme engineering, enzyme immobilization techniques, and process optimization are further enhancing the efficiency and scalability of enzymatic processes. Enzymes have the potential to revolutionize biomass waste processing by enabling the utilization of this abundant and renewable resource for sustainable and value-added product production (Yaashikaa et al., 2022).

74

U. L. Usman et al.

(vi) Enzyme Engineering and Optimization: Enzyme engineering techniques, such as protein engineering, allow for the modification and optimization of enzymes to improve their catalytic activity, substrate specificity, stability, and resistance to inhibitors. Through protein engineering, enzymes can be tailored to better suit specific biomass waste compositions or to perform under specific process conditions (Singh et  al., 2013). Optimization techniques, such as enzyme loading optimization and reaction parameter optimization, help maximize the efficiency and yield of enzymatic processes. These advancements in enzyme engineering and optimization contribute to the synthesis of more efficient and cost-effective enzyme-mediated biomass waste processing methods. (vii) Synergistic Enzyme Systems: Biomass waste is a complex mixture of polymers that require the concerted action of multiple enzymes for efficient conversion. Synergistic enzyme systems, composed of different enzymes working together, are employed to tackle the complexity of biomass waste (Zamora Zamora et  al., 2020). These enzyme systems involve the simultaneous or sequential action of complementary enzymes, such as cellulases, hemicellulases, and ligninases, to effectively degrade and convert the various components of biomass waste. By harnessing the synergistic interactions between enzymes, the overall efficiency of biomass waste processing can be significantly enhanced. (viii) Enzyme Technology Integration: Enzyme-mediated strategies can be combined with other techniques to further enhance the efficiency and sustainability of biomass waste processing. For example, enzymatic processes can be combined with microbial fermentation to convert sugars derived from biomass waste into biochemicals or biofuels. Additionally, enzymatic processes can be incorporated with chemical catalysis or thermochemical conversion techniques to enable a wider range of biomass waste valorization pathways. The integration of enzyme technology with other processes offers opportunities for process intensification, improved product selectivity, and higher overall process efficiency (Singh et al., 2022).

2 Enzymatic Degradation of Biomass Waste Biomass waste comprises a wide range of organic materials, including lignocellulosic biomass from agricultural residues (e.g., wheat straw, corn stover), forestry by-products (e.g., sawdust, wood chips), and food waste (Jekayinfa et al., 2020). These biomass sources are rich in complex polymers such as hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin, which can be targeted for enzymatic degradation. Enzymatic degradation is particularly effective for lignocellulosic biomass, as it can unlock the valuable components trapped within the complex structure of these materials.

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

75

2.1 Types of Biomass Waste Suitable for Enzymatic Degradation Enzymatic degradation is a powerful approach for converting complex organic compounds in biomass waste into simpler, more valuable products. Various types of biomass waste are suitable for enzymatic degradation, primarily focusing on lignocellulosic biomass (Zhou & Wang, 2020). Table 1 provides some examples.

2.2 Major Enzymes Involved in Biomass Degradation Enzymatic degradation of biomass waste relies on the activity of various enzymes that can specifically target the complex polymers present in biomass. These enzymes play a crucial role in breaking down cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, which are the major components of biomass waste (Houfani et  al., 2020). Figure  2 shows some basic enzymes used in biomass degradation. (i) Cellulases Cellulases are various groups of enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of cellulose, a linear polymer of glucose units. They consist of three main categories of enzymes: exoglucanases (also known as cellobiohydrolases), endoglucanases, and β-glucosidases. The endoglucanases randomly cleave internal bonds within the cellulose chain, generating shorter cellulose fragments. Exoglucanases act on the ends of cellulose chains, releasing cellobiose units. β-glucosidases further hydrolyze cellobiose into glucose. Cellulases are crucial for breaking down cellulose into fermentable sugars that can be utilized for Table 1  Types of biomass waste suitable for enzymatic degradation Biomass waste type Agricultural residues such as crop stalks, husks, and straw

Major biomass components Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin

Energy crops such as switchgrass or miscanthus

Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin

Food processing waste including vegetable peels, fruit pulp, and by-products from food manufacturing Municipal solid waste comprises a mixture of organic matter and cellulosic materials

Starch, cellulose, proteins

Enzymes involved Cellulases, hemicellulases, ligninases Cellulases, hemicellulases, ligninases Cellulases, hemicellulases, ligninases Amylases, cellulases, proteases

Organic matter, cellulosic materials

Cellulases, amylases, proteases

Forest residues including branches, leaves, and Cellulose, bark hemicellulose, lignin

76

U. L. Usman et al.

Fig. 2  Overview of some major enzymes involved in biomass degradation

the production of biofuel or other biochemical applications (Jayasekara & Ratnayake, 2019). (ii) Hemicellulases Hemicellulases are varied groups of enzymes used in the degradation of hemicellulose, a branched polymer consisting of various sugar units. Hemicellulases include enzymes such as xylanases, mannanases, xyloglucanases, and arabinases, which target different types of hemicellulose found in biomass waste. These enzymes hydrolyze the glycosidic bonds within hemicellulose, releasing a range of sugar monomers, for example, mannose, xylose, galactose, and arabinose. Hemicellulases are important for the complete utilization of biomass waste and the production of diverse value-added products (Jayasekara & Ratnayake, 2019). (iii) Ligninases Ligninases are enzymes that are involved in the breaking down of lignin, the complex and highly recalcitrant polymer that provides rigidity and protection to plant cell walls. Ligninases encompass different enzyme groups, comprising laccases, manganese peroxidases, and lignin peroxidases. These enzymes work through oxidative mechanisms, breaking down the aromatic structure of lignin. Ligninases play a vital role in lignin degradation, facilitating the access of other enzymes to cellulose and hemicellulose components within biomass waste (Kumar & Chandra, 2020).

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

77

(iv) Other Enzymes Besides cellulases, hemicellulases, and ligninases, other enzymes may also contribute to biomass degradation. For instance, pectinases are enzymes that degrade pectin, a complex polysaccharide found in the plants’ primary cell walls. Pectinases break down pectin into simpler sugar units, such as galacturonic acid. Enzymes such as proteases and amylases may also be used in the degradation of starch and proteins present in certain biomass waste streams. The selection of enzymes for biomass degradation is based on the specific composition and structure of the biomass waste being processed. Commercial enzyme cocktails, which consist of a mixture of different enzymes, are available and often used to ensure the efficient degradation of complex biomass substrates (Jayasekara & Ratnayake, 2019). Moreover, ongoing advancements in enzyme engineering and protein modification techniques allow for the optimization of enzyme properties, such as improved activity, stability, and substrate specificity, to enhance their performance in biomass degradation processes.

2.3 Mechanisms of Enzymatic Degradation and Key Factors Affecting Enzyme Activity Enzymatic degradation of biomass waste involves specific mechanisms by which enzymes break down complex polymers into simpler units. The efficiency of enzymatic degradation is influenced by various factors that affect enzyme activity. Understanding these mechanisms and key factors is essential for optimizing enzymatic processes for biomass waste degradation (Chen et al., 2020). Table 2 highlights some enzymes involved in biomass degradation, and the mechanisms of enzymatic degradation and the key factors that impact enzyme activity are discussed below. 2.3.1 Mechanisms of Enzymatic Degradation (a) Hydrolytic Mechanism: Many enzymes involved in biomass degradation, such as cellulases and hemicellulases, operate through a hydrolytic mechanism. They break down the glycosidic bonds within the polymer structure by adding water molecules, resulting in the bond cleavage and the release of smaller sugar units (Estela & Luis, 2013). This hydrolysis process enables the conversion of complex carbohydrates into fermentable sugars. (b) Oxidative Mechanism: Ligninases, including manganese peroxidases, lignin peroxidases, and laccases, employ an oxidative mechanism to degrade lignin. These enzymes utilize reactive oxygen species (ROS) to break down the aromatic structure of lignin, resulting in the production of smaller lignin fragments. Oxidative degradation of lignin involves the formation of free radicals and the subsequent cleavage of chemical bonds (Estela & Luis, 2013).

78

U. L. Usman et al.

Table 2  Enzymes involved in biomass degradation

Enzyme type Cellulases are enzymes that target cellulose, a major component of biomass. Their function is to hydrolyze the glycosidic bonds within cellulose, breaking it down into smaller sugar units, such as glucose Hemicellulases are enzymes that act on hemicellulose, another important component of biomass. They hydrolyze the complex structure of hemicellulose, releasing various sugar units, such as xylose, mannose, and arabinose Ligninases are enzymes employed in the degradation of lignin, a complex polymer found in the cell walls of plants. Their function is to degrade and break down the intricate structure of lignin, enabling the separation of lignin from other biomass components Amylases are enzymes that target starch, a carbohydrate reserve in many plant-based materials. They catalyze the hydrolysis of starch into simpler sugar units, such as maltose and glucose Proteases also known as proteolytic enzymes act on proteins present in biomass. Their function is to hydrolyze peptide bonds, breaking down proteins into amino acids or smaller peptides

Biomass component targeted Cellulose

Function Hydrolyze cellulose

Hemicellulose

Hydrolyze hemicellulose

Lignin

Degrade lignin

Starch

Hydrolyze starch

Proteins

Hydrolyze proteins

2.3.2 Key Factors Affecting Enzyme Activity (a) pH: Enzyme activity is influenced by pH, as enzymes have an optimal pH range at which they exhibit the highest activity. Different enzymes involved in biomass degradation have varying pH optima. For example, cellulases typically have an optimal pH range between 4.5 and 6.5, while ligninases may have optimal pH values ranging from acidic to alkaline conditions. Maintaining the appropriate pH for the specific enzymes used is crucial for achieving optimal enzymatic activity (Robinson, 2015). (b) Temperature: Enzyme activity is also temperature-dependent, with each enzyme having an optimal temperature range. Higher temperatures generally enhance enzymatic activity, but excessive heat can lead to enzyme denaturation and loss of activity. Enzymes involved in biomass degradation often exhibit optimal activity within a moderate temperature range, typically between 40  °C and 70  °C, depending on the specific enzyme. Careful control of temperature is necessary to maintain enzyme stability and activity during biomass degradation (Robinson, 2015). (c) Substrate Concentration: The concentration of the substrate, such as cellulose or hemicellulose, affects enzyme activity. Generally, enzyme activity increases with increasing substrate concentration until a saturation point is reached. Beyond this point, further increases in substrate concentration may not signifi-

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

79

cantly enhance enzyme activity. Optimizing the substrate concentration is important to ensure efficient enzymatic degradation without excessive substrate wastage (German et al., 2011). (d) Enzyme-Substrate Affinity: Enzyme-substrate affinity denotes the strength of the interaction between the enzyme and its substrate. The affinity determines the efficiency with which the enzyme can bind to and catalyze the degradation of the substrate. Enzymes with high affinity exhibit stronger binding to the substrate, leading to increased degradation efficiency. Modifying enzyme-­ substrate affinity through enzyme engineering techniques can enhance the catalytic efficiency of enzymes involved in biomass degradation (Robinson, 2015). (e) Enzyme Stability: Enzyme stability refers to the ability of the enzyme to maintain its activity over time under specific conditions. Stability is influenced by factors such as temperature, pH, and the presence of inhibitors. Enhanced stability allows enzymes to retain their activity during prolonged degradation ­processes, minimizing the need for frequent enzyme replacement and improving overall process efficiency (German et al., 2011). (f) Enzyme Loading: Enzyme loading refers to the amount of enzyme used in the biomass degradation process. The appropriate enzyme loading is crucial for achieving efficient degradation without excessive enzyme costs. Optimization of enzyme loading involves balancing the degradation efficiency with the cost-­ effectiveness of the process (Guo et al., 2023).

3 Enzyme Engineering for Improved Degradation Efficiency Enzyme engineering plays a crucial role in improving the degradation efficiency of enzymes involved in biomass waste processing. Recent advancements in enzyme engineering techniques have enabled the modification and optimization of enzymes to enhance their catalytic activity, substrate specificity, stability, and resistance to inhibitors (Zhu et al., 2022). These advancements have significantly contributed to improving the efficiency of enzymatic degradation processes. Figure 3 shows some recent advancements in enzyme engineering for improved degradation efficiency.

3.1 Challenges and Limitations of Enzymatic Degradation While enzymatic degradation holds great promise for the efficient management and valorization of biomass waste, several challenges and limitations need to be addressed. Understanding these challenges is crucial for developing effective strategies and technologies to overcome them. Here are some key challenges and limitations associated with enzymatic degradation:

80

U. L. Usman et al.

Fig. 3  An overview of some recent developments in enzyme engineering processes

(i) Recalcitrant Nature of Biomass Waste: Biomass waste, particularly lignocellulosic materials, possesses a complex and recalcitrant structure. The presence of lignin, a highly resistant polymer, hinders the access of enzymes to cellulose and hemicellulose, making degradation more challenging. Lignin also acts as a physical barrier, limiting the efficiency of enzymatic degradation. Strategies such as pretreatment methods (chemical, physical, or biological) are employed to overcome this challenge by disrupting the lignin structure and improving enzyme accessibility to the target polymers (Mishra et al., 2018). (ii) Substrate Heterogeneity and Variability: Biomass waste from different sources can vary significantly in terms of composition, structure, and properties. This heterogeneity poses a challenge for enzymatic degradation, as enzymes need to be tailored to suit specific biomass compositions. Different biomass sources may require different enzyme cocktails or specific enzymes with enhanced substrate specificity. Developing enzyme systems that can efficiently degrade a wide range of biomass feedstocks remains a challenge (Sweeney & Xu, 2012). (iii) Enzyme Production Costs: Enzyme production costs can be a significant barrier to large-scale enzymatic degradation processes. Many enzymes used in biomass degradation, especially those with high specificities, are costly to produce. The scale-up of enzyme production and purification processes needs to be optimized to ensure cost-effectiveness. Strategies such as enzyme immobi-

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

81

lization and enzyme recycling can help reduce enzyme consumption and minimize overall production costs (Sakhuja et al., 2021). (iv) Enzyme Stability and Inhibition: Enzymes used in biomass degradation may face stability challenges due to harsh process conditions, such as high temperatures and extreme pH. These conditions can cause enzyme denaturation or reduced activity over time. Moreover, the presence of inhibitors, such as lignin-­derived compounds or other by-products from biomass degradation, can inhibit enzyme activity. Enhancing enzyme stability and developing enzymes with improved tolerance to inhibitors are areas of ongoing research (Robinson, 2015). (v) Process Integration and Scale-Up: Integrating enzymatic degradation into existing biomass waste processing infrastructures and scaling up enzymatic processes pose significant challenges. The compatibility of enzymatic processes with other process steps, such as pretreatment, fermentation, or downstream separation, needs to be addressed for efficient integration. Furthermore, the development of cost-effective and scalable reactor systems and process optimization strategies is essential to enable large-scale enzymatic degradation of biomass waste (Balan, 2014). (vi) Techno-Economic Considerations: Evaluating the techno-economic feasibility of enzymatic degradation processes is crucial for their practical implementation. The cost-effectiveness of enzymatic processes should be carefully assessed, considering factors such as enzyme production costs, substrate availability and costs, downstream processing requirements, and market demand for the resulting products. The economics of biomass waste degradation need to be competitive with alternative waste management and valorization approaches (Robinson, 2015). (vii) Regulatory and Public Acceptance: The adoption of enzymatic degradation processes for biomass waste management may face regulatory challenges and public acceptance issues. Ensuring the safety and environmental impact of the enzymatic processes, addressing concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used for enzyme production, and complying with regulations governing waste management and product quality are important considerations (Wesseler et al., 2023).

4 Enzyme-Assisted Pretreatment of Biomass Waste Enzyme-assisted pretreatment is a critical step in the effective management and valorization of biomass waste. It involves the application of enzymes to modify the structure and composition of biomass waste, enhancing its susceptibility to subsequent enzymatic degradation. Enzyme-assisted pretreatment strategies can improve the accessibility of enzymes to target polymers and increase the overall efficiency of

82

U. L. Usman et al.

Table 3  Enzymatic pretreatment methods and advantages Pretreatment method Acid pretreatment involves the biomass treatment with acids such as hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid. It offers effective delignification, breaking down the lignin component of biomass, which improves the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose to subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. Acid pretreatment also leads to high sugar release due to the breakdown of hemicellulose into fermentable sugars Alkaline pretreatment employs alkaline solutions such as sodium hydroxide or ammonium hydroxide to treat biomass. It efficiently removes hemicellulose from the biomass matrix, enhancing the accessibility of cellulose for enzymatic hydrolysis. Alkaline pretreatment also reduces the formation of inhibitors that can hinder enzymatic reactions, improving overall process efficiency Steam explosion is a pretreatment method that subjects biomass to high-pressure steam followed by rapid decompression. This process disrupts the biomass structure, resulting in the swelling of cellulose and the creation of porous structures. It enhances the accessibility of enzymes to cellulose, improving enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency Liquid hot water pretreatment involves treating biomass with water under high temperature and pressure. It solubilizes and removes hemicellulose from the biomass while maintaining the integrity of cellulose. Liquid hot water pretreatment operates under milder conditions compared to other methods, reducing energy requirements and facilitating subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis Organosolv pretreatment utilizes organic solvents, such as ethanol or methanol, in combination with dilute acid or base to treat biomass. This method effectively removes lignin from biomass while preserving cellulose and hemicellulose components. Organosolv pretreatment enables high sugar yields and produces high-quality lignin for various applications

Advantages Effective delignification, high sugar release

Efficient hemicellulose removal, reduced inhibitor formation

Disrupts biomass structure enhances enzyme accessibility

Mild conditions, low energy requirement

Effective lignin removal, high sugar yield

biomass degradation (Sharma et al., 2023b). Table 3 explores the key aspects and approaches of enzyme-assisted pretreatment in biomass waste processing.

4.1 Synergistic Effects Between Pretreatment and Enzymatic Degradation Enzyme-assisted pretreatment can synergistically enhance the efficiency of subsequent enzymatic degradation. Pretreatment methods modify the structure and composition of biomass waste, increasing the exposure of cellulose and hemicellulose to enzymes. This leads to improved enzymatic hydrolysis rates, reduced enzyme requirements, and enhanced overall degradation efficiency (Zhao et al., 2021). The combination of pretreatment and enzymatic degradation offers a more effective approach for biomass waste valorization compared to enzymatic degradation alone.

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

83

4.2 Optimization of Pretreatment Conditions The optimization of pretreatment conditions is crucial to achieving the desired outcomes in enzyme-assisted pretreatment. Parameters such as pretreatment temperature, duration, pH, enzyme loading, and substrate concentration need to be carefully controlled and optimized to maximize the efficiency of pretreatment (Sharma et al., 2023a). Optimization aims to achieve the highest possible delignification and hemicellulose removal while minimizing the degradation of cellulose and reducing the formation of inhibitory compounds. Understanding biomass composition and characteristics is essential for developing pretreatment strategies tailored to specific biomass waste sources.

4.3 Enzymatic Pretreatment Methods and Their Advantages Enzymatic pretreatment methods utilize specific enzymes to modify the structure and composition of biomass waste, enhancing its susceptibility to subsequent conversion processes. These methods offer several advantages over other pretreatment approaches, such as physical or chemical methods. Here, we explore enzymatic pretreatment methods and their associated advantages: 4.3.1 Cellulase-Based Enzymatic Pretreatment Cellulase-based enzymatic pretreatment involves the application of cellulases, a group of enzymes that specifically target cellulose, to modify the cellulose structure in biomass waste. Cellulases can hydrolyze the glycosidic bonds within cellulose, leading to the disruption of cellulose fibers and the formation of smaller cellulose fragments. This enzymatic pretreatment method offers the following advantages (Jayasekara & Ratnayake, 2019): (a) Specificity: Cellulases exhibit high specificity for cellulose, selectively targeting and degrading cellulose polymers. This allows for the precise modification of cellulose without significantly affecting other components, such as hemicellulose or lignin. (b) Mild Operating Conditions: Cellulase-based enzymatic pretreatment operates under mild conditions, typically at moderate temperatures and near-neutral pH. This reduces energy consumption and minimizes the generation of harmful by-products, making the process environmentally friendly. (c) Enzyme Recycling: Enzymes used in cellulase-based enzymatic pretreatment can be recovered and recycled for repeated use. This helps to minimize enzyme costs and improves the overall economic feasibility of the process.

84

U. L. Usman et al.

(d) Compatibility with Downstream Processes: Enzymatic pretreatment using cellulases can be seamlessly integrated with subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis or fermentation processes. The compatibility between the enzymes used in pretreatment and downstream processes ensures the efficient conversion of cellulose into desired products, such as sugars, biofuels, or biochemicals. 4.3.2 Ligninase-Based Enzymatic Pretreatment Ligninase-based enzymatic pretreatment involves the application of ligninolytic enzymes, for example, manganese peroxidases, lignin peroxidases, or laccases to modify the lignin structure in biomass waste. These enzymes can break down lignin, facilitating the subsequent conversion of cellulose and hemicellulose components. Enzymatic pretreatment using ligninases offers the following advantages (Kumar & Chandra, 2020): (a) Selective Lignin Degradation: Ligninases specifically target lignin, leaving cellulose and hemicellulose relatively intact. This selectivity allows for the controlled modification of lignin, enhancing the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose for subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis or fermentation. (b) Reduced Formation of Inhibitory Compounds: Ligninase-based enzymatic pretreatment leads to the breakdown of lignin, reducing the formation of inhibitory compounds that can negatively impact downstream processes. By reducing the inhibitory effects of lignin-derived compounds, enzymatic pretreatment enhances the efficiency and yields of subsequent conversion processes. (c) Enzyme Compatibility and Synergy: Ligninases can work synergistically with other enzymes, such as cellulases or hemicellulases, in a cocktail approach. The combined action of ligninases and other enzymes can enhance the overall efficiency of biomass degradation, resulting in higher sugar yields and improved product quality. (d) Environmental Friendliness: Enzymatic pretreatment using ligninases operates under mild conditions, requiring moderate temperatures and near-neutral pH. This minimizes the use of harsh chemicals and reduces the environmental impact associated with conventional chemical pretreatment methods. 4.3.3 Effect of Enzyme-Assisted Pretreatment on Biomass Structure and Composition Enzyme-assisted pretreatment plays a significant role in modifying the structure and composition of biomass waste, enhancing its susceptibility to subsequent conversion processes. The application of specific enzymes during pretreatment brings about several changes in biomass, leading to improved accessibility, increased enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency, and higher yields of desired products (Ramos

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

85

et  al., 2020). Below are some of the effects of enzyme-assisted pretreatment on biomass structure and composition: (i) Disruption of Biomass Structure Enzyme-assisted pretreatment leads to the disruption of the complex structure of biomass waste, particularly lignocellulosic materials. The enzymes employed in pretreatment act on specific components of biomass, such as cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin, resulting in structural modifications (Abraham et  al., 2020). The key effects of enzyme-assisted pretreatment on biomass structure include the following: (a) Cellulose Modification: Enzymatic pretreatment, especially with cellulases, breaks down cellulose chains into smaller fragments, leading to the disruption of the crystalline structure of cellulose. This increases the accessible surface area and accessibility of cellulose for subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. (b) Hemicellulose Degradation: Enzymes targeting hemicellulose, such as hemicellulases, hydrolyze the glycosidic bonds within hemicellulose, resulting in the breakdown of the hemicellulosic polysaccharides. This modification of hemicellulose structure improves the exposure of cellulose and other components, allowing for more efficient enzymatic degradation. (c) Lignin Modification: Enzymes, such as ligninases or peroxidases, modify the lignin component of biomass waste. They catalyze oxidative reactions or cleave specific bonds within lignin, leading to the partial breakdown or modification of lignin polymers. This alters the lignin structure, loosening its association with cellulose and hemicellulose and improving its accessibility for subsequent conversion processes. (ii) Increased Porosity and Surface Area Enzyme-assisted pretreatment increases the porosity and surface area of biomass waste, facilitating the access of enzymes or microorganisms to the target polymers. The effects of enzyme-assisted pretreatment on porosity and surface area include the following: (a) Increased Porosity: The breakdown of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin during pretreatment creates pores and voids within the biomass structure. This increases the overall porosity of biomass, enhancing the diffusion of enzymes or microorganisms and facilitating the accessibility of enzymes to the target polymers (Sharma et al., 2023a). (b) Increased Surface Area: Enzymatic pretreatment breaks down biomass components into smaller fragments, exposing a larger surface area for enzymatic hydrolysis or microbial fermentation. The increased surface area improves the contact between enzymes or microorganisms and the biomass substrate, leading to enhanced conversion rates and higher yields of desired products.

86

U. L. Usman et al.

(iii) Removal of Inhibitory Compounds Enzyme-assisted pretreatment can remove or modify inhibitory compounds present in biomass waste, improving the efficiency of subsequent conversion processes. The effects of enzyme-assisted pretreatment on inhibitory compounds include the following: (a) Removal of Lignin-Derived Inhibitors: Lignin degradation during pretreatment reduces the concentration of lignin-derived inhibitors, such as phenolic compounds or furan derivatives. These inhibitors can hinder enzymatic hydrolysis or microbial fermentation. Enzyme-assisted pretreatment helps to remove or modify these inhibitory compounds, leading to improved conversion rates and yields. (b) Detoxification of Hemicellulosic Hydrolysates: Enzymatic pretreatment can also detoxify hemicellulosic hydrolysates by removing or modifying inhibitory compounds, such as acetic acid, furfural, or hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). These compounds can inhibit enzymatic or microbial activities and reduce the efficiency of subsequent conversion processes. Enzyme-assisted pretreatment enhances the detoxification of ­hemicellulosic hydrolysates, allowing for improved performance during downstream processes. (iv) Preservation of Valuable Components Enzyme-assisted pretreatment aims to selectively modify the recalcitrant components of biomass waste while preserving valuable components for subsequent conversion processes. The effects of enzyme-assisted pretreatment on valuable components include the following: (a) Preservation of Cellulose: Enzymatic pretreatment selectively targets lignin and hemicellulose, while preserving the cellulose component of biomass. This ensures that cellulose, the primary target for enzymatic hydrolysis, remains intact and accessible for efficient conversion into sugars or other valuable products. (b) Preservation of Extractable Compounds: Enzyme-assisted pretreatment can preserve extractable compounds, such as oils, flavors, or bioactive molecules present in biomass waste. By selectively modifying the biomass structure, enzymes can facilitate the extraction of valuable compounds without significant degradation or loss.

5 Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Biomass Waste Enzymatic hydrolysis is a fundamental step in the valorization of biomass waste, playing a crucial role in converting complex biomass polymers into valuable products. It involves the use of specific enzymes to degrade cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable sugars, which can be further utilized for the production of biofuels,

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

87

biochemicals, or other high-value products (Houfani et al., 2020). The enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass waste holds significant importance for several reasons. (i) Conversion of Cellulose into Fermentable Sugars Cellulose, the main component of biomass waste, is a highly abundant and renewable polysaccharide. However, its crystalline structure and complex organization make it resistant to direct enzymatic degradation. Enzymatic hydrolysis addresses this challenge by utilizing cellulases, including endoglucanases, exoglucanases, and β-glucosidases, to break down cellulose into glucose and other fermentable sugars. These sugars serve as valuable substrates for subsequent fermentation processes, enabling the production of biofuels, such as ethanol, or biochemicals, such as organic acids or platform chemicals (Houfani et al., 2020). (ii) Extraction of Hemicellulosic Sugars Hemicellulose, another component of biomass waste, consists of a diverse range of polysaccharides, such as xylan, mannan, and xyloglucan. Enzymatic hydrolysis of hemicellulose involves the use of specific hemicellulases, such as xylanases or mannanases, to break down hemicellulosic polymers into their constituent sugar monomers, such as xylose and mannose. These ­hemicellulosic sugars are valuable feedstocks for various fermentation processes, contributing to the production of biofuels, biochemicals, or other bioproducts (Houfani et al., 2020). (iii) Efficiency and Specificity of Enzymatic Action Enzymatic hydrolysis offers high specificity and selectivity in biomass waste degradation. Enzymes, such as cellulases and hemicellulases, act specifically on the target polymers, cleaving the glycosidic bonds and releasing monosaccharides. Unlike chemical or thermochemical methods, enzymatic hydrolysis avoids the production of unwanted by-products or the degradation of valuable components. Enzymes can be tailored to the specific composition of biomass waste, allowing for efficient and selective degradation, leading to higher yields of desired products (Yang et al., 2011). (iv) Environmental Sustainability Enzymatic hydrolysis is an environmentally sustainable approach for biomass waste valorization. Compared to traditional chemical or thermochemical methods, enzymatic hydrolysis operates under mild conditions, typically at moderate temperatures and near-neutral pH. This reduces energy consumption, minimizes the generation of harmful by-products, and contributes to a lower carbon footprint. Enzymes used in hydrolysis can be derived from renewable sources or produced through microbial fermentation, further enhancing the sustainability of the process (Manikandan et al., 2023). (v) Compatibility with Diverse Biomass Feedstocks Enzymatic hydrolysis is highly versatile and compatible with a wide range of biomass feedstocks. It can be applied to lignocellulosic materials, such as agricultural residues (corn stover, wheat straw), dedicated energy crops (switchgrass, miscanthus), or forest residues (wood chips, sawdust). Enzymes

88

U. L. Usman et al.

used in hydrolysis can be optimized and tailored to the specific composition and structure of different biomass sources, ensuring efficient degradation and high product yields (Saini et al., 2015). (vi) Process Integration and Valorization of Waste Streams Enzymatic hydrolysis can be seamlessly integrated with other biomass conversion processes, such as enzymatic fermentation or downstream purification steps. The integration allows for the utilization of waste streams or by-products generated from other processes, enabling a more comprehensive and efficient valorization of biomass waste (Sharma et al., 2023a). For example, lignin or other by-products from enzymatic hydrolysis can be further processed and utilized for the production of value-added chemicals or materials.

6 Enzyme-Mediated Conversion of Biomass Waste into Value-Added Products Enzyme-mediated conversion of biomass waste offers tremendous potential for the production of a wide range of value-added products. By harnessing the power of enzymes, various biomass components can be transformed into renewable fuels, chemicals, materials, and other high-value products (Bhardwaj et al., 2021). Below is an overview of the key value-added products derived from biomass waste through enzyme-mediated conversion. (i) Biofuels Biomass waste can be enzymatically converted into biofuels, serving as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Enzymatic hydrolysis breaks down cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable sugars, which can be further converted into biofuels through microbial fermentation. The main biofuels derived from biomass waste include the following: (a) Bioethanol: Enzymatic hydrolysis followed by fermentation of sugars produces bioethanol, a renewable fuel with applications in transportation and as a blend in gasoline. (b) Biodiesel: Enzymatic conversion of lipids extracted from biomass waste, such as algae or waste cooking oil, into biodiesel offers a greener alternative to petroleum-based diesel. (c) Biogas: Anaerobic digestion of biomass waste, such as agricultural residues or organic waste, yields biogas rich in methane. Enzymatic hydrolysis can enhance the production of fermentable sugars for improved biogas yield. (ii) Biochemicals and Platform Chemicals Biomass waste can be enzymatically converted into a range of bio-based chemicals, replacing their fossil fuel-derived counterparts (Ewing et al., 2022).

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

89

Enzymatic hydrolysis followed by microbial fermentation enables the production of bio-based chemicals and platform chemicals, including: (a) Organic acids: Enzymatic conversion of sugars derived from biomass waste can yield organic acids such as lactic acid, acetic acid, or succinic acid, which find applications in food, pharmaceuticals, and chemical industries. (b) Polyols: Biomass waste-derived sugars can be enzymatically converted into polyols such as xylitol or sorbitol, which have applications in food, pharmaceuticals, and as renewable building blocks for polymers. (c) Amino Acids: Enzymatic conversion of biomass waste can yield amino acids, such as glutamic acid or lysine, which are used in food, animal feed, and pharmaceutical applications. (d) Platform Chemicals: Biomass waste can serve as a valuable source of platform chemicals such as levulinic acid, furfural, and ­hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), which can be further transformed into a variety of chemicals and materials. (iii) Biopolymers and Biomaterials Biomass waste can be enzymatically converted into biopolymers and biomaterials, offering sustainable alternatives to petroleum-based plastics and materials (Narancic et al., 2020). Enzymatic processes enable the conversion of biomass components into the following: (a) Bioplastics: Enzymatically derived sugars can be fermented to produce biopolymers such as polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and cellulose-based materials, which have applications in packaging, textiles, and biomedical industries. (b) Bio-Based Fibers: Biomass waste-derived cellulose can be enzymatically processed and spun into bio-based fibers for textile applications, reducing reliance on synthetic fibers. (c) Lignin-Based Materials: Enzymatic modification of lignin, a component of biomass waste, can yield lignin-based materials with applications in adhesives, composites, or coatings. (iv) Animal Feed and Fertilizers Biomass waste can be enzymatically treated to improve its nutritional value for animal feed or to produce organic fertilizers. Enzymatic processes can enhance the breakdown of biomass components, making them more digestible and bioavailable for animal nutrition (Yafetto et al., 2023). (a) Animal Feed: Enzymatic treatment of biomass waste can improve its digestibility and nutrient content and remove antinutritional factors, making it suitable for incorporation into animal feed formulations. (b) Fertilizers: Enzymatic conversion of biomass waste can yield organic fertilizers rich in nutrients, providing a sustainable source of plant nutrients while minimizing environmental impacts.

90

U. L. Usman et al.

7 Challenges and Opportunities in the Enzymatic Conversion Process Enzymatic conversion processes offer great potential for the sustainable utilization of biomass waste. However, they also present various challenges that need to be addressed for widespread implementation. At the same time, these challenges also present opportunities for further research and innovation (Benti et al., 2021). Table 4 depicts some key challenges and opportunities in the enzymatic conversion process. Table 4  Challenges and opportunities in the enzymatic conversion process Category Substrate complexity and variability

Challenges Biomass waste exhibits complex and variable composition, making it challenging to develop efficient enzymatic conversion processes. The presence of lignin, structural complexity, and varying ratios of cellulose and hemicellulose affect enzyme accessibility and hydrolysis efficiency Enzyme cost Enzymes used in biomass and availability conversion processes can be costly, limiting the economic feasibility of enzymatic approaches. Availability and sourcing of enzymes at the required scale also pose challenges for large-scale implementation

Opportunity Developing robust enzyme cocktails or engineered enzymes with improved substrate specificity and tolerance to inhibitors can enhance the efficiency of enzymatic conversion. Furthermore, advances in pretreatment technologies can help overcome substrate complexity and improve the accessibility of enzymes to biomass components Research efforts to optimize enzyme production, reduce costs, and improve enzyme stability can enhance the commercial viability of enzymatic conversion processes. Strategies such as enzyme recycling, immobilization, and the development of robust enzyme production systems can contribute to cost reduction and increased availability Protein engineering techniques can be Enzymes may exhibit reduced Enzyme stability under the harsh conditions employed to improve enzyme stability stability and compatibility encountered in biomass conversion and activity under challenging conditions. Engineering enzymes with processes, such as high increased tolerance to temperature, pH, temperatures, extreme pH, or the presence of inhibitors. Compatibility or inhibitors can enhance their performance in biomass conversion issues between enzymes and other processes. Formulating enzyme cocktails process conditions can hinder with complementary stability profiles enzyme performance can also overcome compatibility issues and improve overall process efficiency Comprehensive process design and Integrating enzymatic conversion Process optimization, including reactor design, integration and processes with other process steps, such as pretreatment, fermentation, mass transfer considerations, and process scale-up modeling, can enable efficient integration or downstream processing, can be and scale-up of enzymatic conversion challenging. Scaling up enzymatic processes from the laboratory scale processes. Collaboration between researchers, industry, and policymakers to the industrial scale also presents technical and economic complexities can facilitate the development of standardized protocols and guidelines for scaling up enzymatic processes (continued)

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

91

Table 4 (continued) Category Product selectivity and yield optimization

Challenges Enzymatic conversion processes may generate by-products or exhibit suboptimal selectivity, limiting the overall yield of the desired products. Competitive reactions, enzyme kinetics, and metabolic pathways can influence product selectivity and yield

Techno-­ economic feasibility

Achieving techno-economic feasibility is crucial for the successful commercialization of enzymatic conversion processes. The cost of enzymes, biomass feedstock, process integration, and downstream processing must be balanced to ensure economic viability

Opportunity Optimization strategies, such as enzyme engineering, metabolic engineering, and process parameter optimization, can enhance product selectivity and yield. Improving enzyme specificity, modifying enzyme kinetics, or implementing process control strategies can help achieve higher conversion efficiencies and desired product yields Continual research and development focused on enzyme cost reduction, process optimization, and valorization of low-cost biomass feedstocks can enhance the techno-economic feasibility of enzymatic conversion processes. Integration of enzymatic processes with other value-added products or by-products can improve overall process economics

8 Potential Applications of Emerging Technologies in Enzymatic Valorization Emerging technologies in enzymatic valorization have the potential to revolutionize biomass waste management by enabling more efficient and sustainable utilization of renewable resources. These technologies leverage advancements in enzyme engineering, bioprocessing, and system optimization to expand the range of applications and enhance the value-added products derived from biomass waste (Wiltschi et al., 2020). Below are some potential applications of emerging technologies in enzymatic valorization.

8.1 Advanced Biofuels Production Emerging technologies can contribute to the development of advanced biofuels through the enzymatic valorization of biomass waste. Enzyme engineering and optimization enable efficient conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, bio-butanol, and biodiesel. Integrated enzymatic processes, coupled with microbial fermentation or chemical conversion, can enhance the production of advanced biofuels with improved energy density and reduced environmental impact (Sharma et al., 2023a).

92

U. L. Usman et al.

8.2 Specialty Chemicals and Biochemicals Enzymatic valorization technologies offer the potential for the production of a wide range of speciality chemicals and biochemicals from biomass waste. By utilizing tailored enzyme systems, enzyme cocktails, and multienzyme platforms, biomass waste components can be selectively converted into valuable intermediates, such as organic acids, amino acids, and platform chemicals. These chemicals find applications in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and chemical industries, providing sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel-derived products (Patel & Shah, 2021).

8.3 Bioplastics and Biopolymers Enzymatic valorization technologies can contribute to the production of bioplastics and biopolymers from biomass waste. Through enzymatic hydrolysis and polymerization processes, biomass components such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin can be converted into biodegradable plastics and polymers. Enzyme engineering and immobilization techniques enhance the catalytic efficiency and stability of enzymes, facilitating the synthesis of high-performance biopolymers with tailored properties (Singhania et al., 2022).

8.4 Nutraceuticals and Functional Ingredients Emerging enzymatic valorization technologies enable the production of nutraceuticals and functional ingredients from biomass waste. Enzymatic processes can be employed to extract, modify, or transform bioactive compounds present in biomass waste into value-added products. For example, enzymes can facilitate the extraction and modification of antioxidants, flavonoids, or polyphenols for use in dietary supplements, functional foods, or personal care products (Bala et al., 2023).

8.5 Waste Remediation and Environmental Applications Enzymatic valorization technologies hold potential for waste remediation and environmental applications. Enzymes can be utilized to degrade and detoxify pollutants present in biomass waste or wastewater streams. Enzymatic processes can also be employed for the bioremediation of contaminated soils or the treatment of industrial effluents. These applications contribute to the sustainable management of biomass waste and the mitigation of environmental pollution (Bala et al., 2022).

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

93

8.6 Circular Bioeconomy and Integrated Biorefineries Emerging enzymatic valorization technologies play a vital role in establishing a circular bioeconomy by enabling the integration of biomass waste valorization within integrated biorefineries. Integrated biorefineries leverage multiple processes, including enzymatic conversion, pretreatment, fermentation, chemical conversion, and downstream processing, to maximize the utilization of biomass feedstocks and generate a diverse range of value-added products. Enzymatic valorization technologies provide efficient and sustainable pathways for the conversion of biomass waste into multiple products, contributing to the circular utilization of resources (Colussi et al., 2021).

9 Conclusion and Future Research Prospects Enzyme-mediated strategies offer a sustainable and efficient pathway for the management and valorization of biomass waste. This chapter has explored the diverse and promising field of enzyme-mediated strategies for the effective management and valorization of biomass waste. Through an in-depth examination of various aspects, we have gained valuable insights into the role of enzymes in biomass waste processing and the potential they hold for sustainable resource utilization. Biomass waste poses significant environmental challenges, including waste accumulation, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, through effective management and valorization strategies, biomass waste can be transformed into valuable products, mitigating environmental impact and contributing to a circular bioeconomy. Enzymes play a central role in biomass waste processing, offering unique capabilities for the degradation, pretreatment, hydrolysis, and conversion of biomass components. This chapter has provided a comprehensive understanding of the types of biomass waste suitable for enzymatic degradation, the major enzymes involved, and the mechanisms and factors influencing enzyme activity. We have also explored recent advancements in enzyme engineering, which hold promise for enhancing degradation efficiency and expanding enzyme functionality. Enzymatic pretreatment and hydrolysis have emerged as crucial steps in biomass waste valorization. By breaking down complex biomass structures and converting them into more accessible forms, enzymes facilitate the efficient utilization of biomass waste. This chapter has elucidated the various enzymatic pretreatment methods, the types of enzymes used for hydrolysis, and the factors influencing enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency. Furthermore, the enzyme-mediated conversion of biomass waste into value-added products has been discussed extensively. By harnessing the versatility of enzymes and their ability to target specific biomass components, various value-­ added products such as biofuels, speciality chemicals, bioplastics, and nutraceuticals can be produced.

94

U. L. Usman et al.

Future research directions include the following: (i) Discovery and Engineering of Novel Enzymes Future research should focus on exploring and harnessing novel enzymes from diverse sources, such as extremophiles, metagenomics, and genetically modified microorganisms. By identifying enzymes with unique properties and high substrate specificity, researchers can expand the enzymatic toolbox for biomass waste valorization. Additionally, enzyme engineering techniques, including protein design and directed evolution, can be employed to enhance enzyme performance and tailor their activity to specific waste streams. (ii) Optimization of Enzyme Production and Utilization Efficient and cost-effective enzyme production is critical for large-scale implementation. Future research should investigate strategies to improve enzyme yield, stability, and compatibility with different substrates and operating conditions. This includes exploring alternative enzyme production hosts, developing innovative fermentation processes, and optimizing enzyme immobilization techniques. Furthermore, the integration of in situ enzyme production within biorefinery systems can enhance process efficiency and reduce costs. (iii) Exploration of Advanced Biorefinery Concepts Biorefineries play a vital role in converting biomass waste into value-added products. Future research should focus on exploring advanced biorefinery concepts, such as hybrid processes, cascading utilization of biomass components, and integrated biorefinery systems. Enzyme-mediated strategies can be optimized and integrated with other conversion technologies, such as microbial fermentation, thermochemical conversion, and electrochemical processes. These interdisciplinary approaches will enable the efficient utilization of diverse biomass feedstocks and maximize the production of fuels, chemicals, materials, and energy. (iv) Life-Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Analysis To ensure the sustainability of enzyme-mediated strategies, future research should include a comprehensive life-cycle assessment (LCA) and sustainability analysis. This involves evaluating the environmental, economic, and social impacts of enzyme-mediated processes throughout their life cycle. LCA can guide process optimization, identify hotspots, and inform decision-making to minimize environmental footprints and promote sustainable waste management practices.

References Abdel-Shafy, H. I., & Mansour, M. S. M. (2018). Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejpe.2018.07.003 Abraham, A., Mathew, A. K., Park, H., Choi, O., Sindhu, R., Parameswaran, B., Pandey, A., Park, J. H., & Sang, B. I. (2020). Pretreatment strategies for enhanced biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122725

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

95

Amalina, F., Razak, A. S. A., Krishnan, S., Sulaiman, H., Zularisam, A. W., & Nasrullah, M. (2022). Biochar production techniques utilizing biomass waste-derived materials and environmental applications – A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hazadv.2022.100134 Awogbemi, O., & Von Kallon, D. V. (2022). Valorization of agricultural wastes for biofuel applications. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11117 Bala, S., Garg, D., Thirumalesh, B.  V., Sharma, M., Sridhar, K., Inbaraj, B.  S., & Tripathi, M. (2022). Recent strategies for bioremediation of emerging pollutants: A review for a green and sustainable environment. Toxics. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10080484 Bala, S., Garg, D., Sridhar, K., Inbaraj, B.  S., Singh, R., Kamma, S., Tripathi, M., & Sharma, M. (2023). Transformation of agro-waste into value-added bioproducts and bioactive compounds: Micro/nano formulations and application in the agri-food-pharma sector. Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10020152 Balan, V. (2014). Current challenges in commercially producing biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass. ISRN Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/463074 Benti, N. E., Gurmesa, G. S., Argaw, T., Aneseyee, A. B., Gunta, S., Kassahun, G. B., Aga, G. S., & Asfaw, A. A. (2021). The current status, challenges and prospects of using biomass energy in Ethiopia. Biotechnology for Biofuels. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-­021-­02060-­3 Bhardwaj, N., Kumar, B., Agrawal, K., & Verma, P. (2021). Current perspective on production and applications of microbial cellulases: A review. Bioresources and Bioprocessing. https://doi. org/10.1186/s40643-­021-­00447-­6 Chen, C. C., Dai, L., Ma, L., & Guo, R. T. (2020). Enzymatic degradation of plant biomass and synthetic polymers. Nature Reviews Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-­020-­0163-­6 Colussi, F., Michelin, M., Gomes, D. G., Rocha, C. M. R., Romaní, A., Domingues, L., & Teixeira, J. A. (2021). Integrated technologies for extractives recovery, fractionation, and bioethanol production from lignocellulose. Biomass, Biofuels, Biochemicals: Circular Bioeconomy: Technologies for Biofuels and Biochemicals. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­323-­89855-3.00001-­7 Estela, R., & Luis, J. (2013). Hydrolysis of biomass mediated by cellulases for the production of sugars. Sustainable Degradation of Lignocellulosic Biomass – Techniques, Applications and Commercialization. https://doi.org/10.5772/53719 Ewing, T. A., Nouse, N., van Lint, M., van Haveren, J., Hugenholtz, J., & van Es, D. S. (2022). Fermentation for the production of biobased chemicals in a circular economy: A perspective for the period 2022–2050. Green Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1gc04758b Fülöp, L., & Ecker, J. (2020). An overview of biomass conversion: Exploring new opportunities. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9586 German, D. P., Chacon, S. S., & Allison, S. D. (2011). Substrate concentration and enzyme allocation can affect rates of microbial decomposition. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-­2028.1 Guo, H., Zhao, Y., Chang, J. S., & Lee, D. J. (2023). Enzymes and enzymatic mechanisms in enzymatic degradation of lignocellulosic biomass: A mini-review. Bioresource Technology. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128252 Homaei, A. A., Sariri, R., Vianello, F., & Stevanato, R. (2013). Enzyme immobilization: An update. Journal of Chemical Biology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12154-­013-­0102-­9 Houfani, A. A., Anders, N., Spiess, A. C., Baldrian, P., & Benallaoua, S. (2020). Insights from enzymatic degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose to fermentable sugars– A review. Biomass and Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105481 Jayasekara, S., & Ratnayake, R. (2019). Microbial cellulases: An overview and applications. Cellulose. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84531 Jekayinfa, S. O., Orisaleye, J. I., & Pecenka, R. (2020). An assessment of potential resources for biomass energy in Nigeria. Resources. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9080092 Kumar, A., & Chandra, R. (2020). Ligninolytic enzymes and its mechanisms for degradation of lignocellulosic waste in environment. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03170 Manikandan, S., Vickram, S., Sirohi, R., Subbaiya, R., Krishnan, R.  Y., Karmegam, N., Sumathijones, C., Rajagopal, R., Chang, S.  W., Ravindran, B., & Awasthi, M.  K. (2023). Critical review of biochemical pathways to transformation of waste and biomass into bioenergy. Bioresource Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128679

96

U. L. Usman et al.

Mishra, S., Singh, P.  K., Dash, S., & Pattnaik, R. (2018). Microbial pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biomethanation and waste management. 3 Biotech. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13205-­018-­1480-­z Mukherjee, J., & Gupta, M. N. (2015). Biocatalysis for biomass valorization. Sustainable Chemical Processes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40508-­015-­0037-­2 Narancic, T., Cerrone, F., Beagan, N., & O’Connor, K. E. (2020). Recent advances in bioplastics: Application and biodegradation. Polymers. https://doi.org/10.3390/POLYM12040920 Nargotra, P., Sharma, V., Lee, Y. C., Tsai, Y. H., Liu, Y. C., Shieh, C. J., Tsai, M. L., Di Dong, C., & Kuo, C.  H. (2023). Microbial lignocellulolytic enzymes for the effective valorization of Lignocellulosic biomass: A review. Catalysts. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13010083 Nizami, A.  S., Rehan, M., Waqas, M., Naqvi, M., Ouda, O.  K. M., Shahzad, K., Miandad, R., Khan, M. Z., Syamsiro, M., Ismail, I. M. I., & Pant, D. (2017). Waste biorefineries: Enabling circular economies in developing countries. Bioresource Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2017.05.097 Ogbu, C. C., & Okechukwu, S. N. (2023). Agro-industrial waste management: The circular and bioeconomic perspective. Agricultural Waste  – New Insights [Working Title]. https://doi. org/10.5772/intechopen.109181 Okafor, C. C., Nzekwe, C. A., Ajaero, C. C., Ibekwe, J. C., & Otunomo, F. A. (2022). Biomass utilization for energy production in Nigeria: A review. Cleaner Energy Systems. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cles.2022.100043 Patel, A., & Shah, A. R. (2021). Integrated lignocellulosic biorefinery: Gateway for production of second generation ethanol and value added products. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobab.2021.02.001 Ramos, L. P., Suota, M. J., Fockink, D. H., Pavaneli, G., Da Silva, T. A., & Łukasik, R. M. (2020). Enzymes and biomass pretreatment. Recent Advances in Bioconversion of Lignocellulose to Biofuels and Value Added Chemicals Within the Biorefinery Concept. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-­0-­12-­818223-­9.00004-­7 Robinson, P.  K. (2015). Enzymes: Principles and biotechnological applications. Essays in Biochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSE0590001 Saini, J. K., Saini, R., & Tewari, L. (2015). Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production: Concepts and recent developments. 3 Biotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-­014-­0246-­5 Sakhuja, D., Ghai, H., Rathour, R.  K., Kumar, P., Bhatt, A.  K., & Bhatia, R.  K. (2021). Cost-­ effective production of biocatalysts using inexpensive plant biomass: A review. 3 Biotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-­021-­02847-­z Sasmoko, Zaman, K., Malik, M., Awan, U., Handayani, W., Jabor, M.  K., & Asif, M. (2022). Environmental effects of bio-waste recycling on industrial circular economy and eco-­ sustainability. Recycling. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling7040060 Sharma, L., Alam, N.  M., Roy, S., Satya, P., Kar, G., Ghosh, S., Goswami, T., & Majumdar, B. (2023a). Optimization of alkali pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification of jute (Corchorus olitorius L.) biomass using response surface methodology. Bioresource Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128318 Sharma, S., Tsai, M. L., Sharma, V., Sun, P. P., Nargotra, P., Bajaj, B. K., Chen, C. W., & Dong, C.  D. (2023b). Environment friendly pretreatment approaches for the bioconversion of Lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels and value-added products. Environments – MDPI. https:// doi.org/10.3390/environments10010006 Singh, R. K., Tiwari, M. K., Singh, R., & Lee, J. K. (2013). From protein engineering to immobilization: Promising strategies for the upgrade of industrial enzymes. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14011232 Singh, R., Langyan, S., Rohtagi, B., Darjee, S., Khandelwal, A., Shrivastava, M., Kothari, R., Mohan, H., Raina, S., Kaur, J., & Singh, A. (2022). Production of biofuels options by contribution of effective and suitable enzymes: Technological developments and challenges. Materials Science for Energy Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2022.05.001

Enzyme-Mediated Strategies for Effective Management and Valorization of Biomass…

97

Singhania, R. R., Patel, A. K., Raj, T., Chen, C. W., Ponnusamy, V. K., Tahir, N., Kim, S. H., & Dong, C. D. (2022). Lignin valorisation via enzymes: A sustainable approach. Fuel. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122608 Song, B., Lin, R., Lam, C. H., Wu, H., Tsui, T. H., & Yu, Y. (2021). Recent advances and challenges of inter-disciplinary biomass valorization by integrating hydrothermal and biological techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110370 Sweeney, M. D., & Xu, F. (2012). Biomass converting enzymes as industrial biocatalysts for fuels and chemicals: Recent developments. Catalysts. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal2020244 Wesseler, J., Kleter, G., Meulenbroek, M., & Purnhagen, K. P. (2023). EU regulation of genetically modified microorganisms in light of new policy developments: Possible implications for EU bioeconomy investments. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/ aepp.13259 Wiltschi, B., Cernava, T., Dennig, A., Galindo Casas, M., Geier, M., Gruber, S., Haberbauer, M., Heidinger, P., Herrero Acero, E., Kratzer, R., Luley-Goedl, C., Müller, C. A., Pitzer, J., Ribitsch, D., Sauer, M., Schmölzer, K., Schnitzhofer, W., Sensen, C. W., Soh, J., et al. (2020). Enzymes revolutionize the bioproduction of value-added compounds: From enzyme discovery to special applications. Biotechnology Advances. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2020.107520 Yaashikaa, P. R., Devi, M. K., & Kumar, P. S. (2022). Advances in the application of immobilized enzyme for the remediation of hazardous pollutant: A review. Chemosphere. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134390 Yafetto, L., Odamtten, G. T., & Wiafe-Kwagyan, M. (2023). Valorization of agro-industrial wastes into animal feed through microbial fermentation: A review of the global and Ghanaian case. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14814 Yang, B., Dai, Z., Ding, S. Y., & Wyman, C. E. (2011). Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic biomass. Biofuels. https://doi.org/10.4155/bfs.11.116 Zamora Zamora, H.  D., de Freitas, C., Bueno, D., Shimizu, F.  L., Contiero, J., & Brienzo, M. (2020). Biomass Fractionation Based on Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Biorefinery Systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­15-­9593-­6_9 Zhao, B., Al Rasheed, H., Ali, I., & Hu, S. (2021). Efficient enzymatic saccharification of alkaline and ionic liquid-pretreated bamboo by highly active extremozymes produced by the co-culture of two halophilic fungi. Bioresource Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124115 Zhou, C., & Wang, Y. (2020). Recent progress in the conversion of biomass wastes into functional materials for value-added applications. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14686996.2020.1848213 Zhu, B., Wang, D., & Wei, N. (2022). Enzyme discovery and engineering for sustainable plastic recycling. Trends in Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.02.008

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization Vijayalakshmi Ghosh

1 Introduction The world is currently facing two major challenges, the need to transition to renewable energy sources and the imperative to adopt sustainable materials. These challenges are driven by concerns over climate change, finite fossil fuel reserves, and the detrimental environmental impact of traditional energy production and material extraction. The world’s dependence on fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, has resulted in significant greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change and global warming. Renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass, offer a promising solution to mitigate these environmental issues. The growing global demand for renewable energy is fueled by the recognition that a transition to sustainable alternatives is essential to reduce carbon emissions and combat the adverse effects of climate change. The pressing need to combat climate change and reduce our dependence on finite fossil fuels has driven the global demand for renewable energy sources and sustainable materials. As the world strives to transition toward a greener and more sustainable future, lignocellulosic biomass valorization has emerged as a promising solution. Lignocellulosic biomass, derived from plant materials such as agricultural residues, forest waste, and dedicated energy crops, holds immense potential as a renewable feedstock for the production of bioenergy, biofuels, and sustainable materials (Chen, 2017; Rai et al., 2022). The global demand for renewable energy sources and sustainable materials has sparked a growing interest in lignocellulosic biomass valorization. The depletion of fossil fuel reserves and the harmful environmental impact of their extraction and combustion have led to an urgent quest for alternative energy sources. Renewable energy, such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power, has gained traction due to its low-carbon footprint and potential to reduce V. Ghosh (*) GD Rungta College of Science & Technology, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. L. Srivastav et al. (eds.), Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1_5

99

100

V. Ghosh

greenhouse gas emissions. However, these sources often suffer from intermittent availability and energy storage challenges. Lignocellulosic biomass valorization offers a complementary solution by providing a storable and dispatchable source of renewable energy (Elumalai et al., 2018; Scarlat et al., 2015; Valdivia et al., 2016). Lignocellulosic biomass is abundant and widely available, making it an attractive feedstock for various applications. Its versatility allows it to be converted into multiple valuable products, including biofuels, bioproducts, and sustainable materials. This multifunctionality of lignocellulosic biomass makes it a significant contender in meeting the diverse demands of a renewable and sustainable future. Bioenergy, derived from the conversion of biomass, plays a pivotal role in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing energy security. Lignocellulosic biomass can be transformed into biofuels such as bioethanol, biobutanol, and biodiesel through biochemical and thermochemical processes. Advanced technologies, such as enzymatic hydrolysis and gasification, have improved the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these conversion pathways. As a result, lignocellulosic biomass valorization contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. In addition to bioenergy and biofuels, lignocellulosic biomass valorization offers the potential for sustainable materials. Biocomposites, bioplastics, and biodegradable packaging materials can be derived from lignocellulosic sources, reducing the environmental impact of traditional materials like plastics and concrete. Sustainable materials made from lignocellulosic biomass promote the principles of circular economies, where waste is minimized, and resources are used efficiently. The growing interest in lignocellulosic biomass valorization has been accelerated by significant technological advancements. Research and development efforts have led to improved pretreatment techniques, novel enzyme systems, and innovative conversion processes. These developments have enhanced the efficiency of lignocellulosic biomass conversion, making it a more economically viable and scalable option for meeting global energy and material demands. The increasing awareness of environmental challenges and the global shift toward sustainable practices have prompted governments and industries to invest in renewable energy sources and sustainable materials. Supportive policies, subsidies, and incentives have further stimulated interest in lignocellulosic biomass valorization projects, driving innovation and commercialization efforts worldwide. The global demand for renewable energy sources and sustainable materials has catalyzed a growing interest in lignocellulosic biomass valorization. As the world seeks to reduce carbon emissions, combat climate change, and transition to a more sustainable future, lignocellulosic biomass offers a versatile and abundant resource with the potential to provide renewable energy, biofuels, and sustainable materials. Technological advancements and supportive policies have accelerated the development and commercialization of lignocellulosic biomass conversion technologies, making them increasingly viable and attractive options for addressing the pressing challenges of our time. The integration of lignocellulosic biomass valorization into our energy and material supply chains brings us closer to a greener, more sustainable, and environmentally conscious world. Pretreatment of biomass is a significant step required for the removal of lignin that helps in the modification of the structure and composition of the biomass, thus

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

101

allowing efficient hydrolysis in the subsequent step for the production of fermentable sugars. The sugars obtained after hydrolysis with the use of suitable microbes can be employed for the production of biofuels and green chemicals. Nanotechnology represents a techno-scientific revolution that is being extensively applied in different fields including bioenergy, biofuel, and environmental management. This chapter brings about an insight into the application of nanobiotechnology in lignocellulosic biomass valorization (Sankaran, 2021).

2 Lignocellulosics: A Potential Source for Biomass Valorization In the quest for sustainable and renewable resources, lignocellulosics have emerged as a promising feedstock for biomass valorization. Lignocellulosic materials, abundant in plant cell walls, are composed of cellulose (38–50%), hemicellulose (17–32%), and lignin (15–30%), making them a valuable resource with diverse applications (Garlapati, 2020). Biomass valorization refers to the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into various high-value products, including bioenergy, biofuels, bioproducts, and sustainable materials. Lignocellulosics have the potential as a versatile source for biomass valorization, emphasizing its significance in fostering a greener and more sustainable future (Bhatia, 2020; Beisl et  al., 2017; Amthor, 2003). Lignocellulosic biomass is readily available and abundant, making it an attractive alternative to finite fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources. This feedstock can be sourced from various agricultural residues, forest waste, dedicated energy crops, and industrial by-products. As renewable materials, lignocellulosics offer a sustainable and environmentally friendly solution to meet the increasing global demand for energy and materials. One of the primary applications of lignocellulosic biomass valorization is bioenergy production. Through biochemical and thermochemical processes, lignocellulosics can be converted into biofuels like bioethanol, biobutanol, and biohydrogen. The bioenergy derived from lignocellulosics is a clean and low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and climate change mitigation. The versatility of lignocellulosic biomass as a bioenergy source helps promote energy security and mitigate the environmental impact of traditional energy production. Lignocellulosics have the potential to revolutionize the transportation sector by serving as feedstock for advanced biofuels. These biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and renewable diesel, can be used in existing internal combustion engines with minimal modifications, reducing the carbon footprint of transportation significantly. By providing sustainable alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, lignocellulosic-based biofuels contribute to reducing air pollution, dependency on imported oil, and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In addition to bioenergy and biofuels, lignocellulosic biomass valorization can lead to the production of various bioproducts and sustainable materials. Biocomposites, biodegradable plastics, and biomaterials

102

V. Ghosh

derived from lignocellulosics offer eco-friendly alternatives to conventional materials such as plastics and concrete. These sustainable materials promote circular economies by reducing waste and extending the lifespan of resources, contributing to a more resource-efficient and waste-free society. While lignocellulosics offer immense potential for biomass valorization, their complex and recalcitrant nature presents challenges. The rigid structure of plant cell walls, primarily composed of cellulose and hemicellulose surrounded by lignin, hinders efficient enzymatic hydrolysis and conversion processes. To overcome these challenges, ongoing research and technological advancements have focused on developing efficient pretreatment methods, novel enzyme systems, and innovative conversion processes. These advancements are paving the way for cost-effective and commercially viable lignocellulosic biomass valorization. Lignocellulosics represent a remarkable and versatile source for biomass valorization. With their abundance, renewability, and diverse composition, these materials offer a sustainable solution to meet the global demand for bioenergy, biofuels, bioproducts, and sustainable materials. The valorization of lignocellulosic biomass contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating climate change, and fostering a greener and more sustainable future. As technology continues to progress, lignocellulosic biomass valorization will play an increasingly pivotal role in driving the transition toward a more resource-efficient, eco-friendly, and sustainable society. Embracing the potential of lignocellulosics is a critical step toward achieving a more sustainable and prosperous future for generations to come (Jönsson et al., 2013).

3 Lignocellulosic Biomass: Source and Composition Lignocellulosic biomass is a valuable and renewable resource derived from plant materials, which are rich in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. This composition makes lignocellulosic biomass an essential feedstock for various applications, including bioenergy production, biofuels, bioproducts, and sustainable materials. Lignocellulosic biomass acts as a suitable candidate for sustainable renewable resources because being the majorly unutilized and are abundantly available worldwide. Understanding the source and composition of lignocellulosic biomass is crucial for harnessing its potential to foster a greener and more sustainable future (Fig. 1).

3.1 Sources of Lignocellulosic Biomass Lignocellulosic biomass can be derived from a diverse range of plant materials, offering a plentiful and renewable source for various applications (Adewuyi, 2022; Costa et al., 2015; Kaparaju et al., 2008; Lo et al., 2021; Saini et al., 2015). Some of the primary sources of lignocellulosic biomass include agricultural residue, forest

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

Lignocellulose Sources

103

Lignocellulose Composition

Agricultural residues

Cellulose

Forest waste

Hemicellulose

Energy crops

Lignin

Industrial by-products

Fig. 1  Sources and composition of lignocellulose

waste, energy crops, and industrial by-products. Crop residues such as straw, corn stover, rice husks, and sugarcane bagasse are abundant sources of lignocellulosic biomass. These residues are by-products of agricultural activities and represent an underutilized resource that can be harnessed for sustainable applications. Wood waste, sawdust, and bark from forestry operations are considered lignocellulosic biomass sources. As sustainable forest management practices are adopted, the potential for utilizing forest waste as a valuable feedstock increases. Dedicated energy crops, such as switchgrass, miscanthus, and woody biomass crops, are grown specifically for their potential in bioenergy production. These crops offer high yields and fast growth rates, making them suitable for large-scale biomass cultivation. Various industries, including the paper and pulp industry, generate significant amounts of lignocellulosic waste, such as black liquor and paper sludge. Utilizing these by-products can contribute to waste reduction and the circular economy (Rezania, 2020).

3.2 Composition of Lignocellulosic Biomass Lignocellulosic biomass is primarily composed of three main components: cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Each of these components plays a distinct role in the structure and properties of the plant material. Cellulose is the most abundant component of lignocellulosic biomass, constituting about 40–50% of its composition. It is a linear polysaccharide made up of glucose units linked together, forming long chains. Cellulose provides structural strength and rigidity to plant cell walls,

104

V. Ghosh

making it a crucial component for the structural integrity of plants. Hemicellulose is a heterogeneous group of polysaccharides that makes up around 20–35% of the lignocellulosic biomass. Unlike cellulose, hemicellulose is branched and contains various sugar units, such as xylose, mannose, and glucose. Hemicellulose contributes to the flexibility of plant cell walls and plays a significant role in facilitating the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into valuable products. Lignin is a complex aromatic polymer that accounts for about 15–30% of the composition of lignocellulosic biomass. It provides rigidity and strength to plant cell walls, making the biomass resistant to microbial degradation. Lignin is the primary barrier in the efficient conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into bioenergy and other products, as its recalcitrance hinders access to cellulose and hemicellulose. Apart from cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, lignocellulosic biomass also contains minor components such as extractives (e.g., resins, waxes), ash, and other minor sugars. These components can vary depending on the source of the lignocellulosic biomass and its pretreatment history. Lignocellulosic biomass is a valuable and renewable resource derived from various plant materials. Its composition, primarily comprising cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, makes it a significant feedstock for bioenergy production, biofuels, bioproducts, and sustainable materials. The diversity of lignocellulosic biomass sources, from agricultural residues to forest waste and energy crops, ensures a reliable and consistent supply for various applications. Understanding the composition of lignocellulosic biomass and its sources is essential for harnessing its full potential and advancing a greener and more sustainable future. Embracing lignocellulosic biomass as a valuable resource contributes to reducing carbon emissions, mitigating climate change, and fostering a more environmentally conscious and resource-efficient society.

4 Need for Lignocellulosic Biomass Pretreatment Lignocellulosic biomass, composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, is a promising and renewable resource with diverse applications in bioenergy production, biofuels, bioproducts, and sustainable materials. However, the efficient utilization of lignocellulosic biomass presents significant challenges due to its complex and recalcitrant nature. Lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment is a crucial step in the conversion process that aims to overcome these challenges. The recalcitrance of lignocellulosic biomass is a major obstacle in its efficient conversion to valuable products. The rigid and compact structure of plant cell walls, primarily composed of cellulose and hemicellulose surrounded by lignin, restricts the accessibility of enzymes and microorganisms to the polysaccharides. As a result, the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable sugars becomes slow and inefficient, hindering the overall bioconversion process. Lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment is necessary to disrupt this recalcitrant structure, making the cellulose and hemicellulose more accessible for subsequent conversion steps. During pretreatment, lignin and hemicellulose are partially removed or modified, exposing cellulose fibers and creating pores in the biomass structure. This enhanced surface

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

105

area and improved porosity facilitate the penetration of enzymes, such as cellulases and hemicellulases, leading to increased enzymatic digestibility. As a result, the hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable sugars is accelerated, improving the overall efficiency of bioconversion processes. Lignocellulosic biomass contains various inhibitory compounds, such as furans, phenols, and organic acids, which are generated during biomass pretreatment and hydrolysis. These compounds can interfere with enzyme activity, hinder microbial growth, and negatively impact fermentation processes. Pretreatment helps to reduce the formation of inhibitory compounds and remove or detoxify those already present in the biomass. This allows for a more favorable environment for enzymatic hydrolysis and microbial fermentation, leading to higher product yields and improved process economics. Lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment also aids in the separation of lignin from cellulose and hemicellulose, simplifying downstream processing steps. By partially delignifying the biomass, pretreatment reduces the load on downstream separation and purification processes. This process results in the production of cleaner and more refined streams of cellulose and hemicellulose, which can be directly utilized in subsequent conversion steps. The success of lignocellulosic biomass conversion processes is heavily dependent on the efficiency and economics of the overall system. By enhancing the accessibility and digestibility of cellulose and hemicellulose, lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment significantly improves process efficiency, leading to higher yields of bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts. Moreover, pretreatment reduces the enzyme loading required for hydrolysis and allows for faster reaction rates, leading to cost savings and improved commercial viability. The need for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment is evident in its ability to overcome biomass recalcitrance, enhance enzymatic digestibility, reduce inhibitory compounds, and optimize process efficiency and economics. By breaking down the complex and rigid structure of lignocellulosic biomass, pretreatment significantly improves the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose, leading to higher yields of bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts (Dahadha et al., 2017).

5 Common Pretreatment Techniques Several pretreatment techniques have been developed to address the challenges associated with lignocellulosic biomass conversion (Fig. 2). Some of the most commonly employed pretreatment methods include the following: (1) Physical Physical

Chemical

Biological

Pre-treatments

Pre-treatment

Pre-treatments

• Miling • Grinding • Size reduction

• Acids • Alkali • Organic solvents

• Microbes • Enzymes

Fig. 2  Pretreatment methods for lignocellulosic biomass valorization

106

V. Ghosh

pretreatment, where mechanical processes, such as milling, grinding, and size reduction, can disrupt the biomass structure and increase surface area, aiding in enzymatic access, (2) chemical pretreatment, where acidic, alkaline, or organic solvents can be used to break down lignin and hemicellulose, making cellulose more accessible to enzymes, (3) biological pretreatment, where some microorganisms, such as white-­rot fungi, produce enzymes that selectively degrade lignin, facilitating biomass delignification, and (4) physicochemical pretreatment, where combining physical and chemical methods can synergistically enhance biomass accessibility and enzymatic digestibility. Various pretreatment techniques, such as physical, chemical, biological, and physicochemical methods, offer flexible approaches to address the unique characteristics of different biomass sources. Out of these methods, chemical and physicochemical are the most efficient pretreatment methods. However, the crux of such methods is the large expenditure toward heat, power, and manpower with the addition of environmental issues due to the production of toxic inhibitors. In recent years, to overcome such problems, nanotechnology-based treatment strategies seem to be a promising alternative approach that can be integrated into the present pretreatment processes. Nanotechnology has emerged as a promising approach to overcome these challenges, enabling enhanced pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, thereby accelerating the lignocellulosic biomass valorization process.

6 Nanotechnology in Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization Nanobiotechnology, an emerging interdisciplinary field, plays a pivotal role in enhancing biomass valorization processes. Nanobiotechnological-based biomass valorization involves the integration of nanotechnology and biotechnology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of biomass conversion. Nanobiotechnological-based biomass valorization represents a significant advancement in the conversion of renewable biomass resources into valuable products. Nanomaterials, enzymes, microorganisms, research institutions, and commercial enterprises are key players in driving this field forward. Nanomaterials have revolutionized biomass pretreatment, enabling more efficient enzymatic hydrolysis and reducing energy consumption. Enhanced enzymes and nanozymes have improved the efficiency of biomass conversion, while nanocarriers have optimized the performance of microorganisms in bioprocessing. Research institutions and collaborative efforts have been instrumental in advancing nanobiotechnological tools and knowledge, supported by government agencies and organizations. Commercial enterprises play a crucial role in scaling up and implementing nanobiotechnological solutions in industrial applications. The combined efforts of these key players hold the potential to unlock the full potential of biomass resources, contributing to a greener, more sustainable, and economically viable future. Embracing nanobiotechnologicalbased biomass valorization is a crucial step toward achieving a more resource-efficient and environmentally friendly society.

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

107

7 Nanotechnology in Lignocellulose Biomass Pretreatment Pretreatment is a crucial step in the valorization of lignocellulosic biomass, as it enhances the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose to enzymatic hydrolysis. Conventional pretreatment methods often involve the use of harsh chemicals and high temperatures, which can lead to significant energy consumption and environmental concerns. Nanotechnology offers innovative solutions to this problem. Nanoparticles, such as metal oxides (e.g., titanium dioxide, iron oxide), metal nanoparticles (e.g., gold, silver), carbon-based nanomaterials (e.g., carbon nanotubes, graphene), magnetic nanoparticles, and nanocellulose have shown great promise in breaking down the complex and recalcitrant structure of lignocellulosic biomass (Khan et  al., 2019; Patel et  al., 2019; Sukhanova et  al., 2018) (Fig.  3). These nanomaterials increase the surface area and accessibility of biomass, enabling more efficient enzymatic hydrolysis and subsequent conversion processes. Nanoparticles modify the biomass surface, break down lignin, and disrupt the lignocellulosic structure, thereby increasing the accessibility of enzymes to cellulose and hemicellulose (Guisbiers et al., 2012). Also, nanomaterials facilitate the removal of inhibitory compounds and reduce energy consumption during pretreatment, making the entire process more environmentally friendly and economically viable. Additionally, nanocarriers can be used to deliver pretreatment agents more efficiently, reducing their dosage and overall environmental impact. Pretreatment is a crucial step in the lignocellulosic biomass conversion process. It aims to disrupt the lignin-carbohydrate complex and increase the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose to enzymatic hydrolysis. Nanotechnology has introduced novel and efficient pretreatment techniques that enhance the overall efficiency of the valorization process. Ionic liquids (ILs) are designer solvents with

Metal Nanoparticle

Nanomaterials in Lignocellulose Biomass Valorization

Carbon based nanomaterials

Fig. 3  Nanomaterials in lignocellulose biomass valorization

Metal Oxide Nanoparticle

108

V. Ghosh

unique physicochemical properties that can efficiently dissolve lignocellulosic biomass. Nanoparticle-enhanced ILs have demonstrated superior lignin removal capabilities, thereby reducing the recalcitrance of biomass and facilitating enzymatic hydrolysis. Metal or metal oxide nanoparticles have been utilized as catalysts in pretreatment processes. These nanoparticles can selectively break down lignin, thereby reducing its inhibitory effects on enzyme accessibility to cellulose and hemicellulose. Nanocatalysts have shown significant potential in improving the efficiency of pretreatment methods. Nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) derived from cellulose-­rich biomass has exhibited excellent potential as an effective pretreatment agent. It can disrupt the lignin-carbohydrate complex and create a more accessible surface area for enzyme action, leading to higher sugar yields during hydrolysis. The chemistry of biomass may be improved at a molecular level by using nanomaterials for pretreatment (Rai et al., 2019). Reusability may be improved by utilizing magnetic nanoparticles, which are easier to remove from the reaction medium and hence more cost-effective as a whole. As with chemical pretreatment, the hydrolytic action of nanoparticles or their microemulsions has been shown for LB processing (Rai et al., 2017). The increasing needs for energy around the world are satisfied by the utilization of fossil fuels and the application of appropriate technology, such as nanotechnology, which provides a viable solution to the problems associated with conventional pretreatment procedures.

8 Nano-Enzymatic Systems for Enhanced Hydrolysis Enzymatic hydrolysis is a key process in lignocellulosic biomass valorization, where cellulose and hemicellulose are broken down into fermentable sugars. However, the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis is often hindered by nonproductive adsorption of enzymes onto lignin and limited accessibility to the substrate. Nanotechnology offers innovative approaches to improve enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency. Nanobiotechnology has enabled the development of enzyme systems with enhanced stability, reusability, and catalytic activity. Nanozymes are nanomaterials with intrinsic enzyme-like activity which have emerged as a novel class of catalysts for biomass conversion. These nanozymes can mimic the activity of natural enzymes, providing advantages such as reduced enzyme loading and improved resistance to harsh process conditions. With the integration of nanobiotechnological approaches, enzyme-based biomass conversion processes are becoming more efficient and cost-effective. Nanocarriers, such as nanoparticles or nanogels, have been employed to immobilize enzymes. This immobilization not only enhances enzyme stability and recyclability but also improves the efficiency of the enzymatic hydrolysis process by increasing the local enzyme concentration on the biomass surface. Nanocarriers are used for enzyme delivery, protecting enzymes from deactivation and enhancing their catalytic efficiency (Kaur, 2021). Nanotechnology has enabled the manipulation of enzyme structures at the nanoscale, leading to engineered enzymes with improved thermal stability, substrate specificity, and catalytic

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

109

activity. These engineered enzymes have shown promising results in breaking down lignocellulosic biomass more efficiently. Nanocatalysts can be immobilized onto the surface of cellulases, improving their stability and activity. Functionalized nanoparticles can also be employed to modify the lignin structure, reducing its inhibitory effects on enzymatic hydrolysis. These nano-enzymatic systems have shown promising results in accelerating the hydrolysis process and increasing the yield of fermentable sugars (Srivastava et al., 2014, 2015). Nanocellulose is derived from cellulose nanofibrils and has unique properties, such as a large surface area and high mechanical strength. Nanocellulose has been used as a reinforcing agent in biocomposite materials for biofuel production. It enhances the mechanical properties of biofuels, making them more suitable for applications in the automotive and aviation industries. Magnetic nanoparticles, such as iron oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles, have been used to immobilize enzymes for enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass. By attaching enzymes to the surface of magnetic nanoparticles, they can be easily recovered and reused in subsequent hydrolysis reactions. This approach reduces enzyme costs and enhances the efficiency of biofuel production. Zeolites are nanoporous materials with high surface areas and ion-exchange capabilities. Nanozeolites have been used as catalysts in the cracking of lignocellulosic biomass to produce bio-oils. The porous structure of nanozeolites facilitates the conversion of complex biomass molecules into smaller and more valuable bio-oil fractions. Nanogels are cross-linked polymeric nanoparticles with tunable properties. They have been used to encapsulate enzymes and protect them from harsh conditions during enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass. Nanogels enable controlled enzyme release, improving the efficiency of the hydrolysis process. Nanofibers, such as carbon nanofibers and silica nanofibers, have been used as electrode materials in biofuel cells. These nanofibers have high electrical conductivity, which enhances the electron transfer in biofuel cells and increases their overall efficiency. Nanosensors have been developed to monitor the fermentation process in biofuel production. These sensors can detect changes in pH, temperature, and gas concentrations, providing real-time feedback and control over the fermentation process, leading to improved biofuel yields. Advanced imaging techniques at the nanoscale level have provided insights into the enzymatic hydrolysis process. Understanding the interactions between enzymes and the biomass surface at the nanoscale has led to the design of more effective enzymatic cocktails and process conditions. Perfluoroalkylsufonic acid and alkylsulfonic acid functionalized magnetic NP treatment of wheat straw resulting in a 46% increase in sugar production when compared to the control treatment (35%). Perfluoroalkylsufonic acid and alkylsulfonic acid might have stabilized and dispersed hemicellulose hydrolysis with an acidity level comparable to sulfuric acid solutions (Wang et  al., 2012). Using magnetic nanoparticles has a number of advantages, according to the authors, the most notable of which is their remarkable ability to pretreat lignocellulosic biomass with small amounts of material while remaining recyclable for future applications. The combined impact of alkaline pretreatment with magnetite NPs on rice straw for biogas generation was also identified (Khalid et al., 2019).

110

V. Ghosh

9 Nanomaterials in Biofuel Production Nanotechnology has also revolutionized the field of biofuel production from lignocellulosic biomass. Biofuels, such as bioethanol and biodiesel, are essential alternatives to fossil fuels, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and reducing dependency on nonrenewable resources. Nanomaterials play a vital role in optimizing the various stages of biofuel production (Table 1). For instance, in the fermentation process for bioethanol production, nanocatalysts can improve the efficiency of enzymatic or microbial conversion of sugars into ethanol. Nanomaterials can also be employed as efficient catalysts in biodiesel production, converting triglycerides into biodiesel through transesterification reactions. Additionally, nanosensors and nanoprobes can be utilized for real-time monitoring and control of biofuel production processes, ensuring optimal conditions and enhancing overall productivity.

10 Conclusion Nanotechnological advancements have demonstrated tremendous potential in enhancing lignocellulosic biomass valorization. Nanotechnology demonstrates diverse applications of nanoparticles in various stages of biofuel production from biomass pretreatment to enzymatic hydrolysis and microbial fermentation. Nanoparticles offer unique properties and capabilities that contribute to the advancement and optimization of biofuel production processes, making them a valuable tool in the transition to a more sustainable and eco-friendly energy future. Through innovative pretreatment methods and nano-enzymatic systems, nanotechnology facilitates the efficient conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into valuable products, including biofuels and bio-based chemicals. Furthermore, the sustainable nature of nanomaterials contributes to a more eco-friendly and economically viable approach Table 1  Application of nanoparticles to improve biofuel production S. no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Nanoparticle Nickel and cobalt NiO Fe3O4 Fe3O4 and SiO2 FeO Nickel NiO and CoO Magnetite CaO Ni and Co

Product Biogas and biodiesel Bioethanol Biohydrogen Biohydrogen Biohydrogen Biohydrogen Biohydrogen Biohydrogen Biodiesel Biodiesel

Materials Weeds

References Tahir et al. (2020)

Potato peels Sugarcane straw Sorghum sweet Stover Grasses straw Fermentation Industrial effluent Sugarcane juice Sunflower oil Chenopodium album

Sanusi et al. (2021) Srivastava (2022) Shanmugam et al. (2020) Yang and Wang (2018) Zhang et al. (2021) Mishra et al. (2018) Reddy (2017) Veljković et al. (2009) Ali et al. (2020)

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

111

to biomass valorization. As research and development in nanotechnology continue to progress, we can expect even more breakthroughs in the field, paving the way for a more sustainable and greener future. However, it is essential to address any potential environmental and health concerns associated with the use of nanomaterials to ensure the responsible and safe deployment of these advancements. Overall, nanotechnology holds the promise of revolutionizing the bio-based industry and accelerating the transition toward a more sustainable and renewable economy.

References Adewuyi, A. (2022). Underutilized lignocellulosic waste as sources of feedstock for biofuel production in developing countries. Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, 1–21. https://doi. org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.741570 Ali, S., Shafique, O., Mahmood, S., Mahmood, T., Khan, B., & Ahmad, I. (2020). Biofuels production from weed biomass using nanocatalyst technology. Biomass and Bioenergy, 139, 105595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105595 Amthor, J. (2003). Efficiency of lignin biosynthesis: A quantitative analysis. Annals of Botany, 91(6), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcg073 Beisl, S., Friedl, A., & Miltner, A. (2017). Lignin from micro- to nanosize?: Applications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(11), 2367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijms18112367 Bhatia, S. (2020). Recent developments in pretreatment technologies on lignocellulosic biomass: Effect of key parameters, technological improvements, and challenges. Bioresource Technology, 300, 122724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122724 Chen, H. (2017). A review on the pretreatment of lignocellulose for high-value chemicals. Fuel Processing Technology, 160, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.12.007 Costa, S., Aguiar, A., Luz, S., Pessoa, A., & Costa, S. (2015). Sugarcane straw and its cellulose fraction as raw materials for obtainment of textile fibers and other bioproducts. Dahadha, S., Amin, Z., Lakeh, A., & Elbeshbishy, E. (2017). Evaluation of different pretreatment processes of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biomethane production. Energy & Fuels, 31(10), 10335–10347. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02045 Elumalai, S., Agarwal, B., Runge, T., & Sangwan, R. (2018). Biofuel and biorefinery technologies. Garlapati, V. (2020). Circular economy aspects of lignin: Towards a lignocellulose biorefinery. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 130, 109977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2020.109977 Guisbiers, G., Mejía-Rosales, S., & Deepak, F. (2012). Nanomaterial properties: Size and shape dependencies. Journal of Nanomaterials. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/180976 Jönsson, L., Alriksson, B., & Nilvebrant, N. (2013). Bioconversion of lignocellulose?: Inhibitors and detoxification. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.118 6/1754-­6834-­6-­16 Kaparaju, P., Serrano, M., Thomsen, A., Kongjan, P., & Angelidaki, I. (2008). Bioethanol, biohydrogen and biogas production from wheat straw in a biorefinery concept. Bioresource Technology, 100(9), 2562–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.011 Kaur, P. (2021). Nanomaterial conjugated lignocellulosic waste: Cost-effective production of sustainable bioenergy using enzymes, 3. Biotech, 11(11), 480. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13205-­021-­03002-­4 Khalid, M., Waqas, Z., & Nawaz, I. (2019). Synergistic effect of alkaline pretreatment and magnetite nanoparticle application on biogas production from rice straw. Bioresource Technology, 275, 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.051

112

V. Ghosh

Khan, I., Saeed, K., & Khan, I. (2019). Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities. Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 12(7), 908–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.05.011 Lo, C., Chang, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Wu, H., & Sun, Y. (2021). Lignin recovery from rice straw biorefinery solid waste by soda process with ethylene glycol as co-solvent. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 126, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2021.07.030 Mishra, P., Thakur, S., Mahapatra, D., Wahid, Z., Liu, H., & Singh, L. (2018). Impacts of nano-­ metal oxides on hydrogen production in anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent  – A novel approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(5), 2666–2676. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.108 Patel, K., Singh, R., & Kim, H. (2019). Carbon-based nanomaterials as an emerging platform for theranostics. Materials Horizons, 6(3), 434–469. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8MH00966J Rai, A., Al Makishah, N., Wen, Z., Gupta, G., Pandit, S., & Prasad, R. (2022). Recent developments in lignocellulosic biofuels, a renewable source of bioenergy. Fermentation, 8(4), 161. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8040161 Rai, M., Ingle, A., Gaikwad, S., Dussán, K., & da Silva, S. (2017). Nanotechnology for bioenergy and biofuel production. Rai, M., Ingle, A., Pandit, R., Paralikar, P., Biswas, J., & da Silva, S. (2019). Emerging role of nanobiocatalysts in hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass leading to sustainable bioethanol production. Catalysis Reviews: Science and Engineering, 61(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.108 0/01614940.2018.1479503 Reddy, K. (2017). Biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate: Effects of pH, S/X, Fe2+, and magnetite nanoparticles. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 8790–8804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-­017-­8560-­1 Rezania, S. (2020). Different pretreatment technologies of lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: An overview. Energies, 199, 117457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117457 Saini, J., Saini, R., & Tewari, L. (2015). Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production?: Concepts and recent developments, 3. Biotech, 5, 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-­014-­0246-­5 Sankaran, R. (2021). The expansion of lignocellulose biomass conversion into bioenergy via nanobiotechnology. Frontiers in Nanotechnology, 3, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnano.2021.793528 Sanusi, I., Suinyuy, T., & Kana, G. (2021). Impact of nanoparticle inclusion on bioethanol production process kinetic and inhibitor profile. Biotechnology Reports, 29, e00585. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00585 Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J., Monforti-ferrario, F., & Nita, V. (2015). The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy?: Policies and facts. Environment and Development, 15, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.03.006 Shanmugam, S., Krishnaswamy, S., Chandrababu, R., Veerabagu, U., Pugazhendhi, A., & Mathimani, T. (2020). Optimal immobilization of Trichoderma asperellum laccase on polymer coated Fe3O4@SiO2 nanoparticles for enhanced biohydrogen production from delignified lignocellulosic biomass. Fuel, 273, 117777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117777 Srivastava, N. (2022). Biohydrogen production via integrated sequential fermentation using magnetite nanoparticles treated crude enzyme to hydrolyze sugarcane bagasse. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(72), 30861–30871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.198 Srivastava, N., Rawat, R., Sharma, R., Oberoi, H., Srivastava, M., & Singh, J. (2014). Effect of nickel cobaltite nanoparticles on production and thermostability of cellulases from newly isolated thermotolerant Aspergillus fumigatus NS (Class: Eurotiomycetes). Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 174, 1092–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-­014-­0940-­0 Srivastava, N., Singh, J., Ramteke, P., Mishra, P., & Srivastava, M. (2015). Improved production of reducing sugars from rice straw using crude cellulase activated with Fe3O4/Alginate nanocomposite. Bioresource Technology, 183, 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.059 Sukhanova, A., Bozrova, S., Sokolov, P., Berestovoy, M., Karaulov, A., & Nabiev, I. (2018). Dependence of nanoparticle toxicity on their physical and chemical properties. Nanoscale Research Letters, 13, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-­018-­2457-­x

Nanotechnological Advancements for Enhancing Lignocellulosic Biomass Valorization

113

Tahir, N., Tahir, M., Alam, M., Yi, W., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Exploring the prospective of weeds (Cannabis sativa L., Parthenium hysterophorus L.) for biofuel production through nanocatalytic (Co, Ni) gasification. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 13, 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13068-­020-­01785-­x Valdivia, M., Galan, J., Laffarga, J., & Ramos, J. (2016). Biofuels 2020: Biorefineries based on lignocellulosic materials. Applied Microbiology International, 9(5), 585–594. https://doi. org/10.1111/1751-­7915.12387 Veljković, V., Stamenković, O., Todorović, Z., Lazić, M., & Skala, D. (2009). Kinetics of sunflower oil methanolysis catalyzed by calcium oxide. Fuel, 88(9), 1554–1562. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.02.013 Wang, D., Ikenberry, M., Peña, L., & Hohn, K. (2012). Acid-functionalized nanoparticles for pretreatment of wheat straw. Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology, 3(2), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbnb.2012.33032 Yang, G., & Wang, J. (2018). Improving mechanisms of biohydrogen production from grass using zero-valent iron nanoparticles. Bioresource Technology, 266, 413–420. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.004 Zhang, J., Zhao, W., Yang, J., Li, Z., Zhang, J., & Zang, L. (2021). Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic dark fermentation with nickel ferrite nanoparticles supplementation for biohydrogen production. Bioresource Technology, 329, 124853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2021.124853

A State of the Art of Biofuel Production Using Biomass Wastes: Future Perspectives Thi An Hang Nguyen, Thi Viet Ha Tran, and Minh Viet Nguyen

1 Introduction There is a global growing interest in recycling biomass wastes into biofuels as depicted in Fig. 1. This is driven by rising energy demand, fossil fuel depletion, and climate change (Lee et al., 2023). It also results from an elevated demand for waste disposal, which otherwise causes environmental burdens (Sonu et al., 2023). Various biomass wastes can be used for biofuel production, including agroforestry wastes (known as lignocellulosic biomass) (Beltrán-Ramírez et al., 2019), animal manures (Jung et al., 2021), industrial wastes (Gil, 2022), and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes (MSW) (Yu et al., 2023). Each category of biomass waste has its own properties, influencing subsequent conversion processes (Irmak, 2019). Depending on a specific biomass waste and desired bioenergy end products (e.g., solid, liquid, gaseous biofuels, or heat), different pretreatment methods can be applied, such as physical, chemical, physicochemical, and biological methods (Nadir et al., 2019). To convert biomass wastes into biofuels, numerous technologies have been examined that can be classified as physicochemical, thermochemical, and biochemical methods (Anekwe et al., 2022). While conventional technologies present significant limitations, emerging technologies offer several advantages (e.g., high

T. A. H. Nguyen (*) ∙ T. V. H. Tran Faculty of Advanced Technologies and Engineering, VNU Vietnam Japan University, Hanoi, Vietnam M. V. Nguyen VNU Key Laboratory of Advanced Material for Green Growth, VNU University of Science, Hanoi, Vietnam © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. L. Srivastav et al. (eds.), Valorization of Biomass Wastes for Environmental Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52485-1_6

115

116

T. A. H. Nguyen et al.

Fig. 1  Number of published articles on biomass waste, biofuel, and both keywords in the period of 2012–2022 according to the ScienceDirect database

energy efficacy, less inhibitors formation, marginal environmental impacts, low carbon footprint) (Kumar et al., 2022). To enhance the techno-economic viability of existing WtE technologies, applying of co-feedstocks (Fang et al., 2017), advanced pretreatment methods (Al Ramahi et al., 2021), integrated conversion technologies, and tuning of process parameters (Yu et  al., 2023) are proven to be effective solutions. This chapter provides an overview of the diversity of biofuels, major types of biomass wastes, numerous WtE conversion technologies, process enhancement strategies, and future perspectives.

2 Diversity of Biofuels 2.1 Biofuel Generations There are four biofuel generations, depending on feedstock sources. The first-­ generation biofuels are produced from food crops (e.g., corn, sugarcane, soybean) using traditional techniques. Bioalcohols, biodiesels, biogas, bioethers, biosyngas, and vegetable oil are examples of the first-generation biofuels. Contrarily, the second-­generation biofuels derive from nonfood-based materials (e.g., agroforestry wastes), including biohydrogen and bioethanol. The third-generation biofuels are algae-based biofuels, namely, biohydrogen and biomethane (Anekwe et al., 2022). The fourth-generation biofuels originate from industrial waste or metabolic products of algae (Sonu et al., 2023).

A State of the Art of Biofuel Production Using Biomass Wastes: Future Perspectives

117

2.2 Typical Biofuels Biofuels originate from biomass and can exist in solid, liquid, or gas phases (Gil, 2022). Solid biofuels are pellets produced from agroforestry residues and wood industries by a several-step procedure, namely, drying, milling, pressing, packaging, and storing. To improve the energy density of pellets, several techniques have been used, such as briquetting, torrefaction (Sahoo et al., 2019), steam explosion, hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) (Kang et al., 2019), and biological treatment (Beltrán-Ramírez et al., 2019). Liquid biofuels comprise biodiesel, bio-oil, bioethanol, and butanol (Beltrán-­ Ramírez et al., 2019). Biodiesel is made from animal fats, vegetable oils, and waste cooking oil. It can substitute for diesel because of its nontoxicity, biodegradability, no sulfur, and benzene containing. Biodiesel is produced via a three-step process including pretreatment, transesterification, and separation. Pretreatments are divided into acidic, basic, thermal, enzymatic, or combined treatments. Bio-oil is a mixture of organic compounds (e.g., acids, alcohols, aldehydes, esters, ketones, and phenols) attained via pyrolysis or liquefaction. Fast pyrolysis offers low cost, whereas liquefaction produces low yield at excessive cost. Pyrolysis of agro-industrial wastes (e.g., mustard, palm kernel, cottonseed, and neem oil cakes) helps to valorize them and prevent environmental pollution. For the application of bio-oils as biofuels, pretreatments are required, including cracking and hydrotreating to remove O2. Since bio-oils emit less CO2 and NOx than diesel, it is considered a green fuel. Bioethanol is the most widely used alcoholic biofuel as it has renewable agricultural feedstocks and is environmentally benign. It is produced via a four-step process, including pretreatment, saccharification, fermentation, and distillation. Butanol presents advantages, namely, high heat of combustion, less volatility, and blending ability with gasoline without engine modification requirement. It is produced via anaerobic fermentation using Clostridia genus (Anekwe et al., 2022). Gaseous biofuels consist of biogas and biohydrogen. Biogas is generated from agricultural, animal, green, food wastes, etc., via anaerobic digestion (AD) process. Biogas (mainly CH4 and CO2) is used for heat or electricity generation. Biogas production involves four steps, including hydrolysis, acidification, acetate formation, and methane (CH4) generation. To intensify biogas formation, pretreatments are needed, including acid hydrolysis, steam explosion, alkaline hydrolysis, and liquid hot water (Beltrán-Ramírez et al., 2019). Biohydrogen is formed via gasification or microbial fermentation of biomass. Gasification presents significant drawbacks, such as intensive energy consumption and high emissions (e.g., C, S, NOx). Contrarily, microbial fermentation is more eco-friendly and can be divided into dark fermentation, photo-fermentation, and sequential dark-photo-fermentation. Biohydrogen is mainly produced at laboratory scale. Biohydrogen production can be enhanced by employing pretreatments of feedstocks. Factors governing biohydrogen formation are feedstock categories, pretreatment methods, and types of microorganisms (Salakkam et al., 2019).

118

T. A. H. Nguyen et al.

3 Biomass Wastes as Feedstocks for Biofuel Production Biomass is the plant or animal derived from organic matters (e.g., sugars, starches, lignocelluloses). It is a potential source of renewable bioenergy due to its plentiful supply, low cost, and low greenhouse gas (GHG) emission (Chandraratne & Daful, 2022). Converting biomass wastes into biofuels results in many benefits, such as i) minimizing the requirement of biomass waste disposal, (ii) reducing environmental risks (e.g., water contamination, odor pollution, GHG emission, pests, and insect breeding), and (iii) generating alternative energy to fossil fuels (Chandraratne & Daful, 2022). Biomass wastes include lignocellulosic, livestock and solid municipal and industrial wastes.

3.1 Lignocellulosic Wastes Lignocellulosic waste is a major feedstock for biofuel production, comprising complex biopolymers, e.g., cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. The annual lignocellulosic waste worldwide was 181.5 billion tons (Lee et al., 2023). It can be categorized as (i) field/crop residues, e.g., rice straw (Asadi & Zilouei, 2017), corn stalks (Kang et al., 2019), and defective coffee beans (Santana et al., 2020); (ii) forest residues, e.g., sawdust (Czekała et al., 2018) and woodchips (Sahoo et al., 2019); and (iii) industrial wastes, e.g., edible oil waste (Amenaghawon et al., 2021), fruits and vegetables processing waste (Edwiges et al., 2018), apple pulp waste (Gökçek et al., 2023), brewery processing waste (Panjičko et al., 2017), potato waste (Sekoai et al., 2019), and rice bran (Tandon et al., 2018). Various biofuels can be produced from lignocellulosic wastes including (i) liquid biofuels (e.g., bioethanol, biodiesel, ether) and (ii) gaseous biofuels (e.g., biogas, biohydrogen) (Sonu et  al., 2023). Amenaghawon et al. (2021) produced biodiesel by transesterification of edible oil wastes at 1200 °C with a biodiesel yield of 59.89–98.54%. To date, the use of lignocellulosic wastes for biofuel production still faces difficulties due to their properties (e.g., complex structure, recalcitrance, dissolution difficulty, low density, high moisture) (Irmak, 2019). Besides, there are other challenges, such as availability, storage, stable supply, affordable cost, and uniformity (Clauser et al., 2021).

3.2 Livestock Manures Livestock manures are characterized by the following chemical constituents: cellulose (7.7–42.4%), hemicellulose (9.2–31.4%), lignin (3–14.5%), protein (16–48.4%), lipid (2.6–22%), ash (8.7–15.7%), and other inorganic matters (Jung et al., 2021). Thanks to their diverse chemical constituents (e.g., protein, lipid, carbohydrates) and massive production, livestock manures can be used for the

A State of the Art of Biofuel Production Using Biomass Wastes: Future Perspectives

119

production of various biofuels (e.g., heat, biogas, bioethanol, biodiesel). Though livestock manures can be directly used for heat generation via burning, they demonstrate a substantially lower higher heating value (HHV) (12–19 MJ/kg) than bioethanol (29.7  MJ/kg) or biodiesel (38–41  MJ/kg). Livestock manures are also employed for bioethanol production. The lower degree of polymerization and smaller particle sizes of livestock manures compared to lignocellulosic wastes favor sugar formation (Jung et al., 2021). Moreover, as livestock manures are rich in lipids (11–14%), they are applied in biodiesel production via two steps, namely, lipid extraction and transesterification (Jung et al., 2021). It was reported by Kim et al. (2020) that by transesterification of swine manure with an acidic catalyst (H2SO4) at 60 °C for 24 h, the obtained biodiesel yield was 14.2% based on lipid content. This yield is lower than that of chicken, goat manure (35.7%), and cow manure (54.1%) (Gomaa & Abed, 2017). Besides, livestock manures are utilized for biogas generation via AD. The biogas and biomethane yields from livestock manures were in the ranges of 0.16–0.42 and 0.07–0.36  m3/kg VS, respectively (Jung et  al., 2021). According to the U.S. EIA (2019), livestock manures are the second largest feedstocks for biogas production in Europe (6.1 MTOE). Livestock manures also exhibit limitations for biofuel production. First, high moisture content (up to 80%) leads to intensive energy consumption for pre-drying, thus increasing the cost of ethanol. It also affects transesterification of lipids to produce biodiesel. It was recommended to integrate AD with fermentation to enhance both bioethanol and biogas production. Second, high nitrogen content (>2%) adversely influences acid hydrolysis. Specifically, the raw dairy manure (2.6% N) resulted in a 10–20% lower yield of pentose than the pretreated dairy manure (1.3% N) in acid hydrolysis. Finally, the C/N ratios of livestock manures (