Ovalbumin production using cultivation of Trichoderma reesei and low carbon energy could mitigate environmental impacts of ovalbumin derived from chicken eggs

0


  • 1.

    Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198-209 (2021).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Smil, V. Nitrogen and food production: proteins for human consumption. Ambio 31, 126-131 (2002).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Van der Warf, H. & Petit, J. Assessment of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agric. Ecosystem. About. 93, 131-145 (2002).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Foods by Producers and Consumers. Science 360, 987-992 (2018).

    ADS
    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Takahashi, N., Orita, T. & Hirose, M. Production of chicken ovalbumin in Escherichia coli. Uncomfortable 161, 211-216 (1995).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Ercili-Cura, D. & Barth, D. Cellular agriculture: foods grown in the laboratory (American Society of Chemistry, 2021).

  • seven.

    Voutilainen, E., Pihlajaniemi, V. & Parviainen, T. Economic comparison of dietary protein production with unicellular organisms from lignocellulose side streams. Bioresour. Technol. representing 14, 100683 (2021).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 8.

    United States Food and Drug Administration. GRAS notice for non-animal whey proteins resulting from fermentation by Trichoderma reesei https://www.fda.gov/media/136754/download (2019).

  • 9.

    Zhou, X. et al. Promotion of new plant-based dishes to older consumers using ‘daily special’ as an incentive strategy in 4 EU countries. Food grade Prefer. 75, 260-272 (2019).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • ten.

    Wender, BA et al. Anticipatory life cycle analysis for responsible research and innovation. J. Responsible for Innov. 1, 200-207 (2014).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Dijkman, TJ, Basset-Mens, C., Antón A. & Núñez, M. in Life cycle assessment: theory and practice (eds Hauschild, MZ, Rosenbaum, RK & Olsen, SI) 723-754 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).

  • 12.

    Guinea, JB et al. in Lifecycle Assessment Handbook: ISO Standards Operational Guide (eds Guinea, JB et al.) 525-634 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).

  • 13.

    Moro, A. & Lonza, L. The carbon intensity of electricity in European Member States: impacts on GHG emissions from electric vehicles. Transp. Res. D Transp. About. 64, 5-14 (2018).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Treyer, K. Electricity production, high voltage, to market, Finland, IF, allocation, cut-off by classification. Ecoinvent database, version 3.6 (2014).

  • 15.

    Treyer, K. Electricity production, high voltage, to market, Poland, PL, allocation, cut-off classification. Ecoinvent database, version 3.6 (2014).

  • 16.

    Global Food LCA Database. Archetype feed basket, industrial poultry laying system, as DM (WFLDB) / RER, U https://quantis-intl.com/metrics/databases/wfldb-food/ (Quantis, 2018).

  • 17.

    Tsai, J.-H., Huang, J.-Y. & Wilson, D. Life cycle assessment of cleaning-in-place operations in egg yolk powder production. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123936 (2021).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 18.

    European Commission. Regulation (EU) No. 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 16, 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 842/2006 https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/regulation-eu-no-517-2014 (European Environment Agency, 2014).

  • 19.

    Van Paassen, M., Braconi, N., Kuling, L., Durlinger, B. & Gual, P. Agri-footprint 5.0 Part 1: Methodology and basic principles https://www.agri-footprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Agri-Footprint-5.0-Part-1-Methodology-and-basic-principles-17-7-2019.pdf (Agricultural footprint, 2019).

  • 20.

    Category 2 Product Environmental Footprint Rules Guide, Version 6.3, December 2017 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3.pdf (European Commission, 2017).

  • 21.

    SimaPro. LCA software to help you drive change https://www.pre-sustainability.com/sustainability-consulting/sustainable-practices/custom-sustainability-software (2020).

  • 22.

    Huijbregts, MAJ et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonized method for evaluating the impact of the life cycle at the median and final level. Int. J. Life cycle assessment. 22, 138-147 (2017).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Boulay, A.-M. et al. The WULCA Consensus Characterization Model for Water Scarcity Footprints: Assessing the Impacts of Water Use as a Function of Remaining Available Water (AWARE). Int. J. Life cycle assessment. 23, 368-378 (2018).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 24.

    Gésan-Guiziou, G. et al. Life cycle analysis of a milk protein fractionation process: contribution of the production and cleaning steps to the unit process level. Sep. Purif. Technol. 224, 591-610 (2019).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 25.

    Santos, HCM Jr., Maranduba, HL, de Almeida Neto, JA & Rodrigues, LB Life cycle analysis of the cheese production process in a small dairy industry in Brazil. About. Sci. Pollute. Res. Int. 24, 3470-3482 (2017).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Zouaghi, S. et al. Study of the effect of an antifouling surface modification on the environmental impact of a pasteurization process: an LCA study. ACS Support. Chem. Ing. seven, 9133-9142 (2019).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 27.

    Noya, LI et al. An Environmental Assessment of the Food Supply Chain Using Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study of Gluten-Free Biscuit Products. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 451-461 (2018).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 28.

    Althaus, H.-J. et al. Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Data v. 2.2 (2010) https://docplayer.net/14249358-Implementation-of-life-cycle-impact-assessment-methods.html (Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, 2007).

  • 29.

    Humbird, D. et al. Process design and economy for the biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol: dilute acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of the corn stalk https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47764.pdf (NREL, 2011).

  • 30.

    Harjanne, A. & Korhonen, JM Abandonment of the concept of renewable energy. Energy policy 127, 330-340 (2019).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 31.

    Ahkola, H. et al. Presence of active pharmaceutical ingredients in the continuum of surface and groundwater used in the production of drinking water. About. Sci. Pollute. Res. 24, 26778-26791 (2017).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 32.

    Environmental Services of the Helsinki Region. Where does your drinking water come from? https://hsyk01mstrxfa10prod.dxcloud.episerver.net/en/water-and-sewers/how-the-water-supply-works/#Veden%20hankinta%20ja%20puhdistus (HSY, 2021).

  • 33.

    Eurostat. Annual freshwater withdrawals by source and sector https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ENV_WAT_ABS__custom_344624/default/table?lang=en (Eurostat, 2020).

  • 34.

    Umweltbundesamt Hauptsitz. Drinking water in Germany again classified “Very good” https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/drinking-water-in-germany-again-rated-very-good (UBA, 2018).

  • 35.

    Wiebe, M. Myco-protein Fusarium venenatum: a well established product for human consumption. Appl. Microbiole. Biotechnology. 58, 421-427 (2002).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 36.

    Simmons, T. Guide to good practices and management of uncertainties in national greenhouse gas inventories: CO2 Emissions from stationary combustion of fossil fuels (IPCC, 2000).

  • 37.

    Emission Factor Database 2006 https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/find_ef.php (IPCC, 2020).

  • 38.

    TO WRAP UP. Case study: UK beverage industry. Cleaning in place www.wrap.org.uk (WRAP, 2006).

  • 39.

    Eide, MH, Homleid, JP & Mattsson, B. Life cycle analysis (LCA) of cleaning-in-place processes in dairies. Lebensme. Wiss. Technol. 36, 303-314 (2003).

    CASE

    Google Scholar

  • 40.

    Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority. Viikinmäki wastewater treatment plant. HSY 1/2017 https://www.hsy.fi/sites/Esitteet/EsitteetKatalogi/viikinmaki_tekninenesite_en.pdf (HSY, 2017).

  • 41.

    Järviö, N., Maljanen, N.-L., Kobayashi, Y., Ryynänen, T. & Tuomisto, HL An attributional assessment of the life cycle of microbial protein production: a case study on the use of bacteria oxidizing hydrogen. Sci. About. 776, 145764 (2021).

    ADS
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 42.

    United States Department of Agriculture. FoodData Central: eggs, yolks only, raw https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1100203/nutriments (USDA, 2020).

  • 43.

    United States Department of Agriculture. FoodData Central: egg, white only, raw https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1100199/nutriments (USDA, 2020).

  • 44.

    Daengprok, W., Garnjanagoonchorn, W. & Mine, Y. Fermented pork sausage enriched with commercial calcium lactate or chicken eggshell. Sci meat. 62, 199-204 (2002).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 45.

    European Commission. Climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/alternatives_en (European Commission, 2014).

  • 46.

    Järviö, N., Henriksson, PJG & Guinea, JB Including GHG emissions from LULUC mangrove forests in LCA: a case study of shrimp farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Int. J. Life cycle assessment. 23, 1078-1090 (2018).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 47.

    United States Department of Agriculture. FoodData Central: Egg, White, Dried https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/323793/nutrients (USDA, 2019).

  • 48.

    Helton, JC, Johnson, JD, Sallaberry, CJ & Storlie, CB Survey of sampling methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliab. Ing. Syst. Saf. 91, 1175-1209 (2006).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 49.

    Heijungs, R. On the number of Monte Carlo trials in comparative probabilistic LCA. Int. J. Life cycle assessment. 25, 394-402 (2020).

    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 50.

    Mendoza Beltran, A. et al. Quantified uncertainties in comparative life cycle analysis: what to conclude? About. Sci. Technol. 52, 2152-2161 (2018).

    ADS
    CASE
    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 51.

    Lee, JS, Lee, MH, Chun, Y.-Y. & Lee, KM Uncertainty analysis of water scarcity footprint based on AWARE model taking into account temporal variations. The water ten, 341 (2018).

    Item

    Google Scholar

  • 52.

    Heijungs, R. Selecting the best product alternative in a sea of ​​uncertainty. Int. J. Life cycle assessment. 26, 616-632 (2021).

    Item

    Google Scholar


  • Share.

    About Author

    Comments are closed.