Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Mirko Cucina
 -- 3653 2023-02-10 09:52:02 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 3653 2023-02-10 09:59:23 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Cucina, M.;  Tacconi, C. Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Contaminated Food Products. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/41082 (accessed on 21 December 2024).
Cucina M,  Tacconi C. Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Contaminated Food Products. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/41082. Accessed December 21, 2024.
Cucina, Mirko, Chiara Tacconi. "Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Contaminated Food Products" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/41082 (accessed December 21, 2024).
Cucina, M., & Tacconi, C. (2023, February 10). Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Contaminated Food Products. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/41082
Cucina, Mirko and Chiara Tacconi. "Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Contaminated Food Products." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 February, 2023.
Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Contaminated Food Products
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy12123198

Mycotoxins’ contamination of food products is a well-known issue that is gaining interest nowadays due to increasing contaminations that are also related to climate change. Considering the principles of Circular Economy, finding robust and reliable strategies for the decontamination and valorisation of mycotoxin-contaminated products becomes mandatory. Anaerobic digestion (AD) and composting appear as promising biological treatments to degrade mycotoxins and allow for recovering energy (i.e., biogas production) and materials (i.e., nutrients from digestate and/or compost). 

aflatoxins anaerobic digestion biogas composting waste management circular economy

1. Biological Treatments for Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery from Organic Wastes

Anaerobic digestion (AD) and composting are the most widespread biological systems used for organic waste treatments. These technologies allow for recovering energy and nutrients from livestock residues, sludge, the agro-industrial, municipal and food wastes, making their disposal more sustainable in both economic and environmental perspectives.
AD and composting are two distinct biological processes, where organic matter is biodegraded under anaerobic and aerobic conditions, respectively. AD can degrade organic wastes to biogas and digestate through four subsequent phases, (1) hydrolysis, (2) acidogenesis, (3) acetogenesis, and (4) methanogenesis [1]. Biogas is a gas mixture mainly composed by methane and carbon dioxide (55–70% and 30–45%), as well as small amounts of other gases (oxygen, sulphuric acid, and hydrogen) [2]. Biogas can be used as an alternative energy source through its combustion in boilers or combined heat and power units; however, the interest in biogas conversion to high-value products is increasing recently [2][3]. Digestate is widely considered as a potential organic fertilizer, being rich in plant macronutrients (N, P and K) and organic matter [4][5][6]. Ammonium-N is the most abundant form of N in digestate, making digestate a readily available N fertilizer for plants [4][6]. Concerns emerged regarding organic matter stabilization in digestate [7][8][9], but Tambone et al. [10] stated that the well-performed AD can produce stabilized digestate due to the mineralization of labile organic compounds and persistence of recalcitrant organic molecules. Nevertheless, digestate often requires post-treatments to improve its agricultural reuse (i.e., to reduce water content). AD can be operated at psychrophilic (18–20 °C), mesophilic (35–40 °C) and thermophilic (50–60 °C) temperature regimes [11], the last two conditions being more effective for organic matter degradation and biogas production. Besides some disadvantages (e.g., slow degradation, need for post-treatment of digestate, process instability), AD is characterized by several important advantages such as net energy production, reduced odor, and small area requirement [1][12].
Composting degrades aerobically organic wastes to compost and two main by-products (heat and carbon dioxide) [13]. Composting is a self-heating process that proceeds through three main phases, (1) mesophilic (25–40 °C), (2) thermophilic (55–65 °C) and (3) cooling and maturation. Compost is defined as a nutrient-rich organic amendment able to provide N, P, K, and organic matter to soil [14]. Differently from digestate, organic-N is predominant in compost, making it a long-term N source for plants [15]. During composting, labile organic matter is mineralized, and complex recalcitrant materials tend to concentrate, conferring stability to the compost [15][16]. Compost also positively affects physical properties of soil (e.g., porosity and water-holding capacity) mainly due to its reduced bulk density [17]. Lin et al. [1] reviewed the composting of organic wastes and indicated the fast degradation, small investments, and compost reuse as the main advantages of this process, the gas emissions, large area requirements and the net energy consumption being its main disadvantages.
Although AD and composting can effectively reduce environmental and financial costs of organic waste disposal, the possible contamination of soil, water and air related to the agricultural reuse of digestate, and compost emerged recently as a critical issue. In fact, the environment contamination derived by soil fertilization with waste-derived fertilizers can rise risks to human, animal, and plant health [18]. A large set of emerging contaminants can occur in organic wastes (e.g., antimicrobials, antimicrobial resistance genes, pesticides, heavy metals) and their fate during AD, and composting was recently reviewed by Congilosi and Aga [19]. Sertillanges et al. [20] evaluated the fate of organic micro-pollutants during the industrial scale treatment of organic wastes and observed that process type and compound characteristics mainly influence the pollutants’ fate, the waste origin not being significant. For instance, the antimicrobials demonstrated a variable fate during AD and composting. Some studies stated that various antimicrobials degraded completely, whereas others reported only a partial degradation [19][21][22][23]. Similar results have been reported for other emerging pollutants such as antimicrobial resistance genes, hormones, and pesticides [24][25][26]. It seems that the synergic effects of microbial activity, temperature, pH, binding to organic matrix, and mineralization during AD and composting contribute to organic pollutants’ degradation [19]. Concerning the threat of heavy metals, AD and composting cannot degrade them but biological treatments are known to reduce their bioavailability [27].

2. AD of Contaminated Food Products

AD of AF-contaminated matrices for energy and nutrients’ recovery has been investigated only in the last decade. To have a complete view of the topic of mycotoxins’ effects on AD, the present review includes also papers dealing with mycotoxins different from AFs.
Recent papers investigated the effect of mycotoxins on biogas production and digestate quality using both batch and CSTR (continuous-stirred tank reactor) trials, as well as mycotoxins’ fate during the anaerobic process (Table 1 and Table 2).
Table 1. Biogas production and process stability.
Mycotoxin Anaerobic Digestion Organic Substrate Biogas Production (NL/kg TS) Methane
(% v/v)		 Process Stability References
AFB1 Batch mesophilic Corn grain 579–617 57–60 n.a. [28]
CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 580 58 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, ammonium-N in optimal range
AFB1 CSTR mesophilic Corn flour 600–625 50–55 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, pH in optimal range [29]
FB1 + FB2 + FB3 Batch mesophilic Corn silage 170–180 55 pH in optimal range [30]
  Batch mesophilic Wholewheat flour 340 55 n.a.  
  Batch mesophilic Wheat bran 330 55 n.a.  
DON + T-2 + HT-2 Batch mesophilic Wheat fine bran 350 55 n.a. [31]
  Batch mesophilic Wheat semolina 350 50 n.a.  
  Batch mesophilic Wheat fine middlings 300 50 n.a.  
AFB1 + DON + ZEN + OTA + FB1 + T-2 + ergot alkaloid mix Batch mesophilic Corn grain 500–550 55–60 n.a. [32]
Batch thermophilic Corn grain 580–620 55–60 n.a.
DON + 3-ADON + 15-ADON + AOH + T-2 + ZEN + FB1 + FB2 + ENNB CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 680 60–65 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, pH in optimal range
DON Batch mesophilic Wheat flour 667.2–742.8 50–55 n.a. [33]
  CSTR thermophilic Corn grain 690 60–65 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, pH in optimal range [34]
AFB1 CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 700–800 (25 µg kg−1 AFB1) 60–65 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, ammonium-N, and pH in optimal range
CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 0 (100 µg kg−1 AFB1) 0 VFA accumulation and pH decrease to inhibiting values
AFB1 + DON + ZEN + OTA + FB1 + T-2 + ergot alkaloid mix Batch mesophilic Corn grain 500–550 55–60 n.a.
Batch thermophilic Corn grain 580–620 55–60 n.a.
DON + 3-ADON + 15-ADON + AOH + T-2 + ZEN + FB1 + FB2 + ENNB CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 680 60–65 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, pH in optimal range
CSTR thermophilic Corn grain 690 60–65 VFA, VFA/alkalinity, pH in optimal range
n.a.: not available.
Table 2. Mycotoxins fate during AD.
Mycotoxin Initial Contamination (µg kg−1) Anaerobic Digestion Organic Substrate Average Mycotoxin Removal References
AFB1 0.54–110.0 Batch mesophilic Corn grain 69–87% [28]
7.2 CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 61%
AFB1 2–470 CSTR mesophilic Corn flour 12–95% [29]
FB1 + FB2 + FB3 + AFB1 241.5–13874 (FB1) + 866.5–3877 (FB2) + 42.5–3591 (FB3) + 251 (AFB1) Batch mesophilic Corn silage 20–60% (FB1, FB2, FB3)
55% (AFB1)		 [30]
DON + T-2 + HT-2 368–12,916 (DON) + 5–65 (T-2+HT-2) Batch mesophilic Wholewheat flour 89.9% (DON)
100% (T-2, HT-2)		 [31]
368–12,916 (DON) + 5–65 (T-2 + HT-2) Batch mesophilic Wheat bran 88.5% (DON)
100% (T-2, HT-2)
368–12,916 (DON) + 5–65 (T-2 + HT-2) Batch mesophilic Wheat fine bran 83.9% (DON)
100% (T-2, HT-2)
368–12,916 (DON) + 5–65 (T-2 + HT-2) Batch mesophilic Wheat semolina 82.1% (DON)
100% (T-2, HT-2)
368–12,916 (DON) + 5–65 (T-2 + HT-2) Batch mesophilic Wheat fine middlings 98.7% (DON)
100% (T-2, HT-2)
AFB1 + DON + ZEN + OTA + FB1 + T-2 + ergot alkaloid mix 40 (AFB1) + 300 (DON) + 100 (ZEN) + 50 (OTA) + 100 (FB1) + 100 (T-2) + 40 (ergot alkaloid mix) Batch mesophilic Corn grain >90% (AFB1, DON, ZEN, OTA, T-2)
70% (FB1)
64% (ergot alkaloid mix)		 [32]
    Batch thermophilic Corn grain >90% (AFB1, DON, ZEN, OTA, T-2)
85% (FB1)
98% (ergot alkaloid mix)
DON + 3-ADON + 15-ADON + AOH + T-2 + ZEN + FB1 + FB2 + ENNB 4413 (DON) + 729 (3-ADON + 15-ADON) + 14 (AOH) + 28 (T-2) + 1052 (ZEN) + >80 (FB1 + FB2) + >80 (ENNB) CSTR mesophilic Corn grain >99%
CSTR thermophilic Corn grain >99%
DON 1976–80,000 Batch mesophilic Wheat flour 100% [33]
AFB1 25 CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 18.8% * [34]
100 CSTR mesophilic Corn grain 37.2% *
*: accumulation of AFB1.

2.1. Biogas Production and Digestate Quality

The first report on the AD of mycotoxin-contaminated corn was published by Salati et al. [28] (Table 1). They carried out both batch and continuous-stirred tank reactor (CSTR) experiments fed with pig slurry and AFB1-contaminated corn. In batch tests, a stable methane production (57–60% v/v) was achieved in all the trials, even when the highest concentration of AFB1 was tested (110 µg kg corn−1 wet weight). The cumulative biogas production was in accordance with values reported in literature for corn grain (350–375 NL kgTS−1). CSTR experiments were operated with 40 days of HRT through the daily addition of the fresh contaminated feedstock to reproduce a full-scale digestion process. Biogas production and chemical parameters (e.g., volatile fatty acids, ammonia content) of the CSTR experiments did not demonstrate differences between non-contaminated and contaminated tests. Salati et al. [27] concluded that AFB1 did not affect the AD of pig slurry and corn grain. These results were in accordance with Giorni et al. [29], who demonstrated that mycotoxins do not affect biogas production from the AD of cattle manure, corn silage and corn flour. They studied two different levels of AFB1 and fumosin contamination (70 and 470 µg kg flour−1 AFB1 and 1200 and 3700 µg kg flour−1 fumosins) using CSTR reactors operating with an HRT of 50 days. Biogas quantity and quality were not affected by mycotoxins, as well as process stability (FOS/TAC ratio was in the optimal range throughout the experiments).
Other studies support the conclusion that biogas can be effectively recovered from mycotoxin-contaminated matrices [30][31][32][33]. When batch AD tests carried out using corn as feedstock were spiked with 40 µg kg−1 AFB1, 300 µg kg−1 DON, 100 µg kg−1 ZEN, 50 µg kg−1 OTA, 100 µg kg−1 FB1, 100 µg kg−1 T-2 and 40 µg kg−1 of ergot alkaloid mix, neither biogas production nor its quality were affected [32]. In the same study, the semi-continuous AD of contaminated corn (4413 µg kg−1 DON, 729 µg kg−1 3-ADON + 15-ADON, 14 µg kg−1 AOH, 28 µg kg−1 T-2, 1052 µg kg−1 ZEN, 170 µg kg−1 FB1 + FB2 and >80 µg kg−1 ENNB) using 25 days of HRT demonstrated a stable and productive process, even in the face of a continuous feeding of heavily contaminated material [32]. Ferrara et al. [30] observed that fumosins’ contamination of silage (241.5–13,874 µg kg−1 FB1, 86.5–3877 µg kg−1 FB2, 42.5–3591 µg kg−1 FB3) did not hamper the methane production in batch tests.
These results were in contrast with the findings described by Tacconi et al. [34], who studied the effect of AFB1 on a semi-continuous anaerobic digestion process feed with pig slurry and corn grain. They tested the effects of the increasing AFB1 concentration on AD, operating with 15 days of HRT and high mycotoxin concentrations (25, 50, and 100 µg kg mixture−1 wet weight). The daily addition of AFB1 concentration higher than 25 µg kg−1 caused the inhibition of methanogenic bacteria, leading to volatile fatty acids’ accumulation, pH decrease and AD failure. Probably, the short HRT and the high organic loading rate used in the experiments could have affected the AD, making the process more susceptible to inhibition mechanisms.
Although most of the literature concerning the AD of mycotoxin-contaminated matrices is regarding corn and silage, contaminated wheat products were also studied in AD [31][33]. Seven naturally contaminated flour samples (DON = 0, 1976, 4586 and 10,470 µg kg−1) or artificially spiked commercial flour (DON = 0, 8000 and 80,000 µg kg−1), were digested in batch tests. The biogas potential of the wheat flours ranged from 667.2 to 742.8 Nm3 ton−1, demonstrating no significant effect of the DON concentration on the biogas volume and quality produced [33]. More recently, Soldano et al. [31] investigated the AD of different milling products of durum wheat (whole wheat flour, bran fractions, semolina, and fine middling) contaminated with DON and T-2 + HT-2 toxins. No significant correlations were found between the potential biomethane production and mycotoxins’ initial concentrations, independently from the milling fraction.
All the reviewed literature indicates the potential for energy recovery from contaminated feedstock through AD. In fact, it appears clear that biogas production and process stability are not affected by even heavy contaminated feedstock. The possible long-term inhibition of AD could be easily avoided by interchanging contaminated and non-contaminated feedstock. This strategy could be feasible, considering that mycotoxins’ contamination is a seasonal issue.
Concerning nutrients’ recovery through agricultural reuse of the digestates obtained from AD of the mycotoxin-contaminated feedstock, further assessments are needed. Besides a high fertilizer potential related to the high content of ammonium-N, P and K, the agricultural reuse of digestate faces agronomic and environmental issues (e.g., residual phytotoxicity, high salinity, mycotoxin residues) [34].

2.2. Mycotoxins’ Fate during AD

Fate of mycotoxins throughout the AD process is a major concern for the feasible recovery of energy and nutrients from contaminated products. Indeed, digestate utilization depends on the complete removal of mycotoxins, to obtain a safe product that is spreadable on agricultural soil.
Many authors have studied the microbial degradation of mycotoxins [35][36] and different bacteria commonly found in AD microflora demonstrated the ability to degrade mycotoxins (i.e., Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp.) [37][38]. In addition, AFB1 has been reported to bind to the bacterial surface of several Lactobacillus strains by hydrophobic interactions [39].
The literature agrees that AD can effectively remove mycotoxins from corn- and wheat-contaminated products [28][29][30][31][32][33] (Table 2). Mycotoxin removal depended mostly on the type of mycotoxin and the operational conditions of AD, whereas the matrix seems to be irrelevant of the removal processes. Overall, the synergic effect of microbial activity, temperature, pH, binding to cell walls, and mineralization is considered responsible for mycotoxin removal during AD.
Some classes of mycotoxins were removed easier during AD with respect to the others. For instance, DON, T-2, and HT-2 demonstrated an average removal higher than 90% in the batch and CSTR mesophilic AD of corn and wheat products [31][32][33]. Other mycotoxins demonstrated a lower removal in anaerobic conditions (i.e., the ergot alkaloid mix, and fumosins’ concentrations decreased by about 60% and 20–60% in the batch of mesophilic AD, respectively) [30][32]. AFB1 was removed with a moderate efficiency during AD, demonstrating a removal range of about 55–90% [28][30][33]. Tacconi et al. [34] is the only study that reports the AFB1 accumulation during CSTR AD, and it was probably related to the daily addition of heavy contaminated feedstock to the digester combined with a short HRT and a high OLR.
The temperature regime seems to affect mycotoxin removal, whereas batch and CSTR processes did not differ in contaminants’ degradation efficiency. De Gelder et al. [32] observed significant differences in mycotoxins’ removal between the mesophilic and thermophilic batch of AD, with the thermophilic process being more efficient than the mesophilic one. Higher thermophilic degradation has previously been described by other authors for the degradation of several emerging organic pollutants (i.e., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, di-2-(ethyl-hexyl)-phtalate, estradiol, endocrine disrupting compounds, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) [40][41].
No evidence of the feedstock composition influence on mycotoxin removal was found in literature, and this is in accordance with Sertillanges et al. [20], who did not report the global influence of the substrate type on organic micropollutants’ degradation during AD.
Nowadays, the literature does not detail whether mycotoxins’ removal during AD wis due to complete mineralization, binding to cells’ walls or transformation to other compounds. Tacconi et al. [34] detected the AFB2 during the CSTR digestion of AFB1-contaminated corn grain and they explained it through the acid-catalyzed water addition to the vinylene group of the dihydrofuran moiety of AFB1. This represents a major issue that should be addressed, since mycotoxins should be mineralized or transformed into non-toxic compounds to ensure a safe reuse of digestate in agriculture. The biotransformation of emerging organic contaminants in homologous compounds was also addressed by Zhang et al. [24], for steroid hormones such as androgens, progestogens, and glucocorticoids They demonstrated the negative removal (accumulation) of hormones during biological treatments of contaminated manure due to the bioconversion from hormones’ conjugate forms or to the transformation of one hormone into another.

3. Composting of Contaminated Products

Differently from AD, the composting of mycotoxin-contaminated matrices is still almost unexplored. Only a few papers reporting the effects of mycotoxins on composting and compost quality can be found in the literature, highlighting the need for further investigation regarding this treatment. Table 3 presents the main findings about the composting of mycotoxin-contaminated products.
Table 3. Composting of mycotoxin-contaminated products: process characteristics and mycotoxins’ fate.
Mycotoxin Initial Contamination (µg kg−1) Organic Substrate Composting Process Peak Temperature (°C) Average Mycotoxin Removal References
AFB1 100 Corn grain and pig slurry Pilot scale, passive aerated, static composting 75.5 85.7% [42]
Corn grain and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes 74.8 97.3%
AFB1 + AFB2 + AFG1 + AFG2 195.4 (AFB1) + 22.2 (AFB2) + 2.9 (AFG1) + 1.2 (AFG2) Peanut meal Laboratory scale, actively aerated, continuously mixed composting 36.4 58.6% (AFB1)
54.5% (AFB2)
96.6% (AFG1)
83.3% (AFG2)		 [43]
2955 (total AF) Peanut seeds, peanut shells, peanut leaves, and cowpea pods Pilot scale, actively aerated, 3-times a week mixed composting n.a. 77%
OTA 0.37–1.66 Coffee pulp and husks + bulking material Real scale, passive aerated, monthly mixed composting n.a. 400–600% * [44]
n.a.: not available. *: accumulation of OTA.

3.1. Composting Process Evolution and Compost Quality

The potential of plant nutrients’ recovery from mycotoxin-contaminated products through composting was explored only in the last few years [42][43]. These studies evaluated the effect of mycotoxins on the composting evolution, compost quality, and mycotoxins’ fate (Table 3). The temperature behavior during composting is an adequate real-time indicator for the optimal conditions for supporting the microbial activity and the organic matter degradation. Moreover, a minimum temperature of 55 °C must be maintained for three days during the thermophilic phase to obtain biomass hygenization [15]. An effective composting process should also produce mature and stable compost, and it can be assessed through C/N ratio determination, phytotoxicity assays, and a water-soluble organic matter analysis [15][45][46][47]. Finally, the absence or low level of toxic compounds (e.g., heavy metals) should be attained after composting to achieve the safe recycling of plant nutrients.
Akoto et al. [43] reported the first assessment of composting for peanut meal decontamination from aflatoxins. They carried out both laboratory scale and pilot scale experiments using peanut by-products contaminated with AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2. Temperature profiles demonstrated a regular behavior, indicating that aflatoxins did not produce toxic effects on thermophilic microflora. Compost obtained from the pilot scale experiment demonstrated acceptable contents of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and micronutrients, as well as a high maturation (C/N ratio was about 4.5) and low content of heavy metals.
Results from Akoto et al. [43] were confirmed in a later study where AFB1 contaminated corn grain (100 µg kg−1 AFB1, wet weight) was co-composted using two different co-substrates (pig slurry and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes) [42]. AFB1 did not affect the temperature profile during the active phase of composting, and a high temperature were reached (75.5 °C and 74.8 °C for the pig slurry and organic fraction of municipal solid waste mixtures, respectively). AFB1 did not affect maturation and stabilization processes during the composting, and the final products were characterized by an optimal C/N ratio (about 10), absence of phytotoxicity (germination index was higher than 100%, probably due to high nutrients’ concentration and the presence of phytohormone-like substances with biostimulant activity) and reduced content of water-soluble organic matter.
Preliminary studies demonstrated that the composting process evolution and compost quality are not affected by mycotoxins’ contamination of the feedstock. Similar results were obtained by other authors, who demonstrated that antibiotics, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contaminations of the composting mixture do not negatively affect the composting process and compost quality [47][48][49]. Nevertheless, the actual knowledge is still limited to the investigation of limited classes of mycotoxins (mainly aflatoxins) and small-scale experiments. Although the potential for nutrients’ recovery from mycotoxin-contaminated products through composting appears evident, deeper studies are needed to up-scale this treatment.

3.2. Mycotoxins’ Fate during Composting

The fate of mycotoxins during the composting of contaminated products was assessed to understand whether aerobic biological treatments can represent a suitable strategy for decontamination.
As already described for AD, a reduction in mycotoxins’ concentration during composting is expected, since natural composting microorganisms were reported to efficiently degrade some classes of mycotoxins (e.g., aflatoxins) [50]. For instance, fungi (Armillariella tabescens) and bacteria (Pseudomonas putida) species can degrade AFB1 into less toxic metabolites (aflatoxin D and dihydrodiol-derivates) through two different pathways: (1) modification of the difuran ring and (2) modification of the coumarin structure. Recently, the effective degradation of AFB1 using a thermophilic microbial consortium extracted from compost produced from agricultural wastes was described by Wang et al. [51]. They observed a 95% degradation of AFB1, with an optimal temperature of 55–60 °C and an optimal pH of 8–10. Moreover, the thermophilic microbial consortium exhibited the tolerance to high doses of AFB1 (up to 5000 µg L−1) and extreme heat.
The literature review confirmed that aflatoxins are effectively degraded by composting microorganisms, and aflatoxins’ removal is comparable to the one reported for AD (Table 3). Akoto et al. [43] reported a 58.6, 54.5, 96.6, and 83.3% removal for AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2, respectively, after the laboratory scale composting of contaminated peanut meal. When contaminated peanut by-products were composted in a pilot scale composting pile, 77% of removal was observed for the total aflatoxins.
The pilot scale co-composting of AFB1-contaminated corn grain with pig slurry or the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes reduced the AFB1 content from 13.04 µg kg−1 AFB1 and 12.20 µg kg−1 AFB1 to 0.35 µg kg−1 AFB1 and 1.75 µg kg−1 AFB1, respectively [42]. The average AFB1 removal was 91.5%, a remarkable result that was probably related to the synergic effects of several decontamination agents (microbial activities, high temperature during the active phase, high ammonium-N concentration, and light irradiation).
Composting has already been reported to be an effective biological treatment for organic contaminants’ reduction in organic wastes [19]. For instance, Cucina et al. [47] reported that the antibiotic daptomycin was degraded during co-composting through a protease-mediated mechanism. Similarly, extracellular enzymes produced by composting microorganisms may hydrolyze mycotoxins, making their mineralization easier.
Differently from aflatoxins, Ochratoxin A (OTA) increased steadily with the progress of the composting process of coffee pulp and husk, alone or in combination, in naturally and artificially contaminated compost [44]. Authors explained the increase in OTA content with the presence of OTA-producing fungi such as Aspergillus spp. section Nigri. Since this represents the only report on the OTA fate during composting, further studies are needed to assess whether composting can reduce OTA contamination.
As reported for AD, the literature has not yet evaluated whether mycotoxins removal at the end of composting is due to mineralization or other mechanisms (e.g., binding to cell walls or transformation to other compounds). This aspect should be evaluated in depth to ensure that the compost obtained from mycotoxin-contaminated products is safe and free from toxic compounds.

References

  1. Yang, L.; Ge, X.; Wan, C.; Yu, F.; Li, Y. Progress and Perspectives in Converting Biogas to Transportation Fuels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 1133–1152.
  2. Ge, X.; Yang, L.; Sheets, J.P.; Yu, Z.; Li, Y. Biological Conversion of Methane to Liquid Fuels: Status and Opportunities. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1460–1475.
  3. Tambone, F.; Orzi, V.; D’Imporzano, G.; Adani, F. Solid and Liquid Fractionation of Digestate: Mass Balance, Chemical Characterization, and Agronomic and Environmental Value. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 243, 1251–1256.
  4. Sheets, J.P.; Yang, L.; Ge, X.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y. Beyond Land Application: Emerging Technologies for the Treatment and Reuse of Anaerobically Digested Agricultural and Food Waste. Waste Manag. 2015, 44, 94–115.
  5. Alburquerque, J.A.; de la Fuente, C.; Campoy, M.; Carrasco, L.; Nájera, I.; Baixauli, C.; Caravaca, F.; Roldán, A.; Cegarra, J.; Bernal, M.P. Agricultural Use of Digestate for Horticultural Crop Production and Improvement of Soil Properties. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 43, 119–128.
  6. Cucina, M.; Tacconi, C.; Ricci, A.; Pezzolla, D.; Sordi, S.; Zadra, C.; Gigliotti, G. Evaluation of Benefits and Risks Associated with the Agricultural Use of Organic Wastes of Pharmaceutical Origin. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 773–782.
  7. Solé-Bundó, M.; Cucina, M.; Folch, M.; Tàpias, J.; Gigliotti, G.; Garfí, M.; Ferrer, I. Assessing the Agricultural Reuse of the Digestate from Microalgae Anaerobic Digestion and Co-Digestion with Sewage Sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 1–9.
  8. Cucina, M.; Castro, L.; Escalante, H.; Ferrer, I.; Garfí, M. Benefits and Risks of Agricultural Reuse of Digestates from Plastic Tubular Digesters in Colombia. Waste Manag. 2021, 135, 220–228.
  9. Tambone, F.; Orzi, V.; Zilio, M.; Adani, F. Measuring the Organic Amendment Properties of the Liquid Fraction of Digestate. Waste Manag. 2019, 88, 21–27.
  10. Li, Y.; Park, S.Y.; Zhu, J. Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion for Methane Production from Organic Waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 821–826.
  11. Mata-Alvarez, J.; Dosta, J.; Romero-Güiza, M.S.; Fonoll, X.; Peces, M.; Astals, S. A Critical Review on Anaerobic Co-Digestion Achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 36, 412–427.
  12. Awasthi, M.K.; Pandey, A.K.; Bundela, P.S.; Khan, J. Co-Composting of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Mixed with Different Bulking Waste: Characterization of Physicochemical Parameters and Microbial Enzymatic Dynamic. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 182, 200–207.
  13. Lin, L.; Yang, L.; Xu, F.; Michel, F.C.; Li, Y. Comparison of Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion and Composting of Yard Trimmings with Effluent from Liquid Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 169, 439–446.
  14. Cucina, M.; Tacconi, C.; Sordi, S.; Pezzolla, D.; Gigliotti, G.; Zadra, C. Valorization of a Pharmaceutical Organic Sludge through Different Composting Treatments. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 203–212.
  15. Kibler, K.M.; Reinhart, D.; Hawkins, C.; Motlagh, A.M.; Wright, J. Food Waste and the Food-Energy-Water Nexus: A Review of Food Waste Management Alternatives. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 52–62.
  16. Adugna, G. A Review on Impact of Compost on Soil Properties, Water Use and Crop Productivity. Agric. Sci. Res. J. 2016, 4, 93–104.
  17. Nkoa, R. Agricultural Benefits and Environmental Risks of Soil Fertilization with Anaerobic Digestates: A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 473–492.
  18. Congilosi, J.L.; Aga, D.S. Review on the Fate of Antimicrobials, Antimicrobial Resistance Genes, and Other Micropollutants in Manure during Enhanced Anaerobic Digestion and Composting. J. Hazard Mater. 2021, 405, 123634.
  19. Sertillanges, N.; Haudin, C.S.; Bourdat-Deschamps, M.; Bernet, N.; Serre, V.; Danel, A.; Houot, S.; Patureau, D. Process Type Is the Key Driver of the Fate of Organic Micropollutants during Industrial Scale Treatment of Organic Wastes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 734, 139108.
  20. Cheng, D.; Feng, Y.; Liu, Y.; Xue, J.; Li, Z. Dynamics of Oxytetracycline, Sulfamerazine, and Ciprofloxacin and Related Antibiotic Resistance Genes during Swine Manure Composting. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 230, 102–109.
  21. Mitchell, S.M.; Ullman, J.L.; Teel, A.L.; Watts, R.J.; Frear, C. The Effects of the Antibiotics Ampicillin, Florfenicol, Sulfamethazine, and Tylosin on Biogas Production and Their Degradation Efficiency during Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 149, 244–252.
  22. Arikan, O.A.; Sikora, L.J.; Mulbry, W.; Khan, S.U.; Rice, C.; Foster, G.D. The Fate and Effect of Oxytetracycline during the Anaerobic Digestion of Manure from Therapeutically Treated Calves. Process. Biochem. 2006, 41, 1637–1643.
  23. Zhang, J.N.; Yang, L.; Zhang, M.; Liu, Y.S.; Zhao, J.L.; He, L.Y.; Zhang, Q.Q.; Ying, G.G. Persistence of Androgens, Progestogens, and Glucocorticoids during Commercial Animal Manure Composting Process. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 665, 91–99.
  24. Sun, W.; Qian, X.; Gu, J.; Wang, X.J.; Duan, M.L. Mechanism and Effect of Temperature on Variations in Antibiotic Resistance Genes during Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30237.
  25. Riaz, L.; Wang, Q.; Yang, Q.; Li, X.; Yuan, W. Potential of Industrial Composting and Anaerobic Digestion for the Removal of Antibiotics, Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Heavy Metals from Chicken Manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137414.
  26. Kang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.J. Influence of Humic Substances on Bioavailability of Cu and Zn during Sewage Sludge Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8022–8026.
  27. Salati, S.; D’Imporzano, G.; Panseri, S.; Pasquale, E.; Adani, F. Degradation of Aflatoxin B1 during Anaerobic Digestion and Its Effect on Process Stability. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014, 94, 19–23.
  28. Giorni, P.; Pietri, A.; Bertuzzi, T.; Soldano, M.; Piccinini, S.; Rossi, L.; Battilani, P. Fate of Mycotoxins and Related Fungi in the Anaerobic Digestion Process. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 265, 554–557.
  29. Ferrara, M.; Haidukowski, M.; D’Imperio, M.; Parente, A.; de Angelis, E.; Monaci, L.; Logrieco, A.F.; Mulè, G. New Insight into Microbial Degradation of Mycotoxins during Anaerobic Digestion. Waste Manag. 2021, 119, 215–225.
  30. Soldano, M.; Pietri, A.; Bertuzzi, T.; Fabbri, C.; Piccinini, S.; Gallucci, F.; Aureli, G. Anaerobic Digestion of Mycotoxin-Contaminated Wheat: Effects on Methane Yield and Contamination Level. Bioenergy Res. 2021, 14, 313–321.
  31. de Gelder, L.; Audenaert, K.; Willems, B.; Schelfhout, K.; de Saeger, S.; de Boevre, M. Processing of Mycotoxin Contaminated Waste Streams through Anaerobic Digestion. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 122–128.
  32. Goux, X.; Bourget, L.; Giraud, F.; Cocco, E.; Guignard, C.; Hoffmann, L.; Delfosse, P. Deoxynivalenol Concentration Decrease during Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Wheat Flour. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste, Venice, Italy, 10–12 November 2010.
  33. Tacconi, C.; Cucina, M.; Pezzolla, D.; Zadra, C.; Gigliotti, G. Effect of the Mycotoxin Aflatoxin B1 on a Semi-Continuous Anaerobic Digestion Process. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 467–473.
  34. Guan, S.; Ji, C.; Zhou, T.; Li, J.; Ma, Q.; Niu, T. Aflatoxin B1 Degradation by Stenotrophomonas Maltophilia and Other Microbes Selected Using Coumarin Medium. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2008, 9, 1489–1503.
  35. McCormick, S.P. Microbial Detoxification of Mycotoxins. J. Chem. Ecol. 2013, 39, 907–918.
  36. Farzaneh, M.; Shi, Z.Q.; Ghassempour, A.; Sedaghat, N.; Ahmadzadeh, M.; Mirabolfathy, M.; Javan-Nikkhah, M. Aflatoxin B1 Degradation by Bacillus Subtilis UTBSP1 Isolated from Pistachio Nuts of Iran. Food Control 2012, 23, 100–106.
  37. Zhang, W.; Xue, B.; Li, M.; Mu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Li, J.; Shan, A. Screening a Strain of Aspergillus Niger and Optimization of Fermentation Conditions for Degradation of Aflatoxin B1. Toxins 2014, 6, 3157.
  38. Lahtinen, S.J.; Haskard, C.A.; Ouwenhand, A.C.; Salminen, S.J.; Ahokas, J.T. Binding of Aflatoxin B1 to Cell Wall Components of Lactobacillus Rhamnosus Strain GG. Food Addit. Contam. 2004, 21, 158–164.
  39. Gonzalez-Gil, L.; Papa, M.; Feretti, D.; Ceretti, E.; Mazzoleni, G.; Steimberg, N.; Pedrazzani, R.; Bertanza, G.; Lema, J.M.; Carballa, M. Is Anaerobic Digestion Effective for the Removal of Organic Micropollutants and Biological Activities from Sewage Sludge? Water Res. 2016, 102, 211–220.
  40. Samaras, V.G.; Stasinakis, A.S.; Thomaidis, N.S.; Mamais, D.; Lekkas, T.D. Fate of Selected Emerging Micropollutants during Mesophilic, Thermophilic and Temperature Co-Phased Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 162, 365–372.
  41. Tacconi, C.; Cucina, M.; Zadra, C.; Gigliotti, G.; Pezzolla, D. Plant Nutrients Recovery from Aflatoxin B1 Contaminated Corn through Co-Composting. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 103046.
  42. Akoto, E.Y.; Klu, Y.A.K.; Lamptey, M.; Asibuo, J.Y.; Davis, J.; Phillips, R.; Jordan, D.; Rhoads, J.; Hoistington, D.; Chen, J. Use of Peanut Meal as a Model Matrix to Study the Effect of Composting on Aflatoxin Decontamination. World Mycotoxin J. 2017, 10, 131–141.
  43. Bernal, M.P.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Moral, R. Composting of Animal Manures and Chemical Criteria for Compost Maturity Assessment. A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5444–5453.
  44. Adebo, O.A.; Njobeh, P.B.; Gbashi, S.; Nwinyi, O.C.; Mavumengwana, V. Review on Microbial Degradation of Aflatoxins. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3208–3217.
  45. Said-Pullicino, D.; Kaiser, K.; Guggenberger, G.; Gigliotti, G. Changes in the Chemical Composition of Water-Extractable Organic Matter during Composting: Distribution between Stable and Labile Organic Matter Pools. Chemosphere 2007, 66, 2166–2176.
  46. Cucina, M.; Zadra, C.; Marcotullio, M.C.; di Maria, F.; Sordi, S.; Curini, M.; Gigliotti, G. Recovery of Energy and Plant Nutrients from a Pharmaceutical Organic Waste Derived from a Fermentative Biomass: Integration of Anaerobic Digestion and Composting. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 3051–3057.
  47. Kacprzak, M.; Neczaj, E.; Fijałkowski, K.; Grobelak, A.; Grosser, A.; Worwag, M.; Rorat, A.; Brattebo, H.; Almås, Å.; Singh, B.R. Sewage Sludge Disposal Strategies for Sustainable Development. Environ. Res. 2017, 156, 39–46.
  48. Ho, Y.B.; Zakaria, M.P.; Latif, P.A.; Saari, N. Degradation of Veterinary Antibiotics and Hormone during Broiler Manure Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 131, 476–484.
  49. Vanhoutte, I.; Audenaert, K.; de Gelder, L. Biodegradation of Mycotoxins: Tales from Known and Unexplored Worlds. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 561.
  50. Wang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, M.; Zheng, D.; Lyu, Y.; Cheng, W.; Guo, P.; Cui, Z. Effective Degradation of Aflatoxin B1 Using a Novel Thermophilic Microbial Consortium TADC7. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 166–173.
  51. Velmourougane, K.; Bhat, R.; Gopinandhan, T.N. Composting Coffee Wastes, a Potential Source of Ochratoxigenic Fungi and Ochratoxin A Contamination. World Mycotoxin J. 2012, 5, 373–376.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Green & Sustainable Science & Technology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Mirko Cucina
,
Chiara Tacconi
View Times: 455
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 14 Feb 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback