Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Rearing Salinity on Flesh Texture, Taste, and Fatty Acid Composition in Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides
Next Article in Special Issue
Ultra-High Hydrostatic Pressure Pretreatment on White Que Zui Tea: Chemical Constituents, Antioxidant, Cytoprotective, and Anti-Inflammatory Activities
Previous Article in Journal
An Overview on the Use of Extracts from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants to Improve Nutritional Value and Oxidative Stability of Vegetable Oils
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 20
10.3390/foods11203256
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of the Current State and Future Prospects in Resource Recovery of Chinese Cereal Vinegar Residue

by
Ke Wang
1,
Yongjian Yu
1,*,
Shuangping Liu
2,
Yuanyuan Zhu
1,
Peng Liu
1,
Zhen Yu
1 and
Yuqin Wang
1
1
School of Grain Science and Technology, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, Zhenjiang 212100, China
2
National Engineering Laboratory for Cereal Fermentation Technology, State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, School of Food Science and Technology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(20), 3256; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11203256
Submission received: 29 August 2022 / Revised: 13 October 2022 / Accepted: 14 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phytonutrients in Foods and Their By-Products: Characterization and Quantification)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Vinegar residue (VR) is a typical organic solid waste in Chinese cereal vinegar production. It is characterized by high yield, high moisture and low pH and is rich in lignocellulose and other organic matter. To avoid the environmental pollution caused by VR, it should be properly treated. The industry’s existing treatment processes, landfills and incineration, cause secondary pollution and waste of resources. Therefore, there is an urgent demand for environmentally friendly and cost-effective resource recovery technologies for VR. To date, a considerable amount of research has been performed in the area of resource recovery technologies for VR. This review summarizes the reported resource recovery technologies, mainly anaerobic digestion, feed production, fertilizer production, high-value product production and soil/water remediation. The principles, advantages and challenges of these technologies are highlighted. Finally, as a future perspective, a cascade and full utilization model for VR is proposed by considering the inherent drawbacks and economic-environmental feasibility of these technologies.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Vinegar is one of the most popular acidic condiments worldwide. In China, cereals (sorghum, wheat bran, rice, millet) are usually used as raw materials to produce vinegars with characteristic flavors [1]. Traditional cereal vinegars are commonly produced by solid-state fermentation (SSF). The production process is shown in Figure 1 [2]. Cereal starch is converted to fermentable sugars by the action of enzymes contained in the fermentation starter-Qu and is further fermented to alcohol. The alcohol mash is then mixed with wheat bran, rice hull and vinegar starter-Pei to start acetic acid fermentation (AAF). The microorganisms contained in Pei ferment alcohol into acetic acid and produce various flavors during approximately 20 days of AAF. After AAF, vinegar is leached out, and the residual solid component is vinegar residue (VR), which is a main organic solid waste of the vinegar industry. There are many different kinds of vinegars in China, among which Zhenjiang aromatic vinegar, Shanxi aged vinegar, Sichuan bran vinegar and Fujian Monascus vinegar are the most famous [3]. Due to the different raw materials and production processes of these vinegars, their VRs show some degree of variation (Table 1). In China, more than 3 million tons of VR are produced annually. Since VR has high moisture, low pH and is rich in lignocellulose and other organic matter, it could result in serious environmental pollution if not be properly treated before discharge. In addition, these characteristics of VR make it difficult to be treated. At the scale of production, the main disposal methods of VR are landfill and incineration. These methods not only cause secondary pollution to air and soil but also represent a waste of bioresources [4]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop alternative disposal methods for VR.
Chinese cereal VR contains various microbial metabolites and unutilized components from raw materials during vinegar fermentation, including starch, protein, fiber, lipids, organic acids and inorganic salts (Table 1) [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24], hence having a high resource recovery value. To maximize the disposal capacity and resource recovery value, it is important to develop and promote the use of environmentally friendly and cost-effective VR resource recovery technologies.
At present, resource recovery technologies for VR can be classified into five main categories: (1) anaerobic digestion, (2) feed production, (3) fertilizer production, (4) high-value product production and (5) soil/water remediation (Figure 2). The purpose of this review is to present a survey of these technologies, analyzing their advantages and challenges. As a prospect for the future, a cascade and full utilization model of VR is proposed to achieve optimal resource recovery.

2. Resource Recovery Technologies of VR

2.1. Anaerobic Digestion

2.1.1. Advances in Anaerobic Digestion Research

Anaerobic digestion has already been extensively applied for the treatment of organic wastes such as sewage, food waste, energy crops and other biomass to produce biogas or organic acids [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. VR is one type of organic waste with a carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C/N) of 15–30, making it appropriate to be treated by anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion processing can solve the problem of pollution caused by VR, and it can also yield a high energy value, so it is one of the most frequently used resource recovery technologies for VR (Figure 3). As a potential substrate of anaerobic digestion, it is necessary to assess the biodegradability and biogas yield performance of VR. In general, biochemical methane potential (BMP) assays are applied to assess the biodegradability and biogas potential of anaerobic digestion [49,50]. Through the BMP assay, the highest cumulative methane yield from VR was found to be 242.69 mL/g volatile solids (VS) at a feed to inoculum ratio (F/I) of 1 [8], indicating that anaerobic digestion is a promising method for VR treatment. Anaerobic digestion of VR is a complex and multistep process that involves many different microorganisms. First, macromolecules are hydrolyzed and fermented by fermenting microorganisms to produce volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and alcohols (hydrolysis/acidification process). Then, acetic acid-producing bacteria convert VFA and alcohol into acetic acid, carbon dioxide and hydrogen (synthetic acetic acid-producing process). Finally, methanogenic archaea use acid-producing products to produce methane (methanogenic process). Therefore, there are several important factors that affect the performance of anaerobic digestion, such as the organic loading rate (OLR), temperature and pH. These factors are associated with the suppression of VFA accumulation in methanogenic processes [51,52].
OLR is one of the most important parameters in anaerobic digestion, as the balance between hydrolysis/acidogenesis and methanogenesis is significantly influenced by OLR [53]. At a high OLR, the hydrolysis/acidogenesis rate is higher than the methanogenesis rate, leading to a high concentration of VFA accumulated during the hydrolysis/acidogenesis process and eventually irreversible acidification and collapse of the anaerobic digestion system [54]. Li et al. reported that the highest volumetric methane productivity of 581.88 mL/L was achieved at an OLR of 2.5 g/L/d when a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) was used for anaerobic digestion of VR [4]. Nevertheless, with increasing OLR, there was an accumulation of VFA as well as a decrease in pH, resulting in the failure of the anaerobic digestion system. In another study, the microbial community structure of anaerobic digestion with increasing OLR was evaluated. The optimum OLR was 2.0 g VS/L/d with the maximum methane yield. A higher OLR (2.5 g VS/L/d) caused a decreased diversity of the microbial community and irreversible inhibition of the anaerobic digestion process [5].
To achieve a higher methane yield, the operating conditions in the anaerobic digestion of VR were always optimized. Feng et al. applied response surface methodology (RSM) with a central composite design to optimize the anaerobic digestion of VR [6]. A maximum methane yield of 203.91 mL/g vs. and biodegradability of 46.99% were obtained at an F/I of 0.5, organic loading of 31.49 g VS/L and initial pH of 7.29. This maximum methane yield and biodegradability were enhanced by 69.48% and 52.02%, respectively, compared with the conditions before optimization. Conductive materials have been reported to accelerate and stabilize the conversion of organic substrates to methane via direct interspecies electron transfer (DIET) during anaerobic digestion [55,56]. Therefore, two conductive materials, acetylene black (AB) and hydrochar (HC), were tested to promote the anaerobic digestion performance of VR [9]. The addition of 1.0 g/L HC and AB indeed increased methane production by 50% and 232%, respectively. The higher electron conductivity and specific surface area of AB induced more efficient anabolism in anaerobic digestion compared to HC. Several studies have also highlighted the advantages of codigestion in anaerobic digestion, including improved digestibility due to synergistic effects caused by cosubstrates and process stability [57]. Wen et al. developed a new method for the efficient anaerobic codigestion of corn straw (CS) using VR as one substrate and pretreating acidifier [16]. The organic acid in VR was effective in increasing the hydrolysis rate of lignocellulose in CS. The methane yield from the codigestion of VR and pretreated CS reached 140.48 L/kg VS, which was 35.7% higher than that of the substrate mixture without pretreatment.
It should be noted that the rate-limiting step in anaerobic digestion of VR is the hydrolysis of lignocellulose [58,59]. VR consists mainly of bran, rice husk and other filling materials rich in lignocellulose. The structure of lignocellulose contributes to the low biodegradability of VR during anaerobic digestion. To improve biodegradability, pretreatment of VR is required to degrade the lignin fraction into smaller molecules, making cellulose and hemicellulose more degradable for anaerobic microorganisms [60]. Therefore, some studies on anaerobic digestion of VR have focused on pretreatment methods, including steam explosion (SE), alkali, acid, hydrothermal and ultrasonic methods. SE and hydrothermal pretreatment have been widely used in lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment [61,62,63,64]. They are clean methods because no chemicals are used in the process except water [65,66]. SE pretreatment was found by Feng et al. to disrupt the structure of lignocellulose by removing hemicellulose and lignin and effectively increase methane yield [7]. The highest methane yield of 153.58 mL/g vs. was obtained for the SE-treated VR at 0.8 MPa for 5 min, which was 27.65% higher than that of the control. Ran et al. used a hydrothermal method to pretreat washed VR, and the maximum methane yield was obtained when the hydrothermal temperature was 160 °C [11]. Alkali and acid are effective, economical and simple pretreatment methods [64]. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) pretreatment has been reported to be efficient in removing the majority of lignin and partial hemicellulose from lignocellulose, thus effectively improving the methane yield of VR. The 3% NaOH-treated VR showed the highest cumulative methane yield, 53.99% higher than that of untreated VR [12]. Acid was effective for the release of protein, cellulose and hemicellulose but not for lignin. Hydrochloric acid released more organic substrates for anaerobic digestion than oxalic acid [15]. Ultrasonic pretreatment is a mechanical and environmentally friendly method that does not require additional chemical agents. By ultrasonic pretreatment, the structure of lignocellulose can be destroyed in a very short time by cavitation formation and subsequent collapse while releasing a large amount of energy. For VR pretreated in the condition of 0.5 W/mL ultrasonic power density and 60 min ultrasound, the methane yield could be 68.7% higher than that of the untreated VR [10].

2.1.2. Challenges in Anaerobic Digestion of VR

(1)
The biodegradability is low in the absence of pretreatment, which can lead to a gradual accumulation of lignocellulose in the anaerobic digestion reactor. The accumulation of lignocellulose further causes flushing of activated sludge from the reactor and depresses the performance of anaerobic digestion.
(2)
VR pretreatment methods also have inherent problems [67]. SE, hydrothermal and ultrasonic pretreatments require high energy consumption. Acid and alkali pretreatment can lead to secondary contamination and equipment corrosion. In addition, inhibitors produced during pretreatment, such as furan derivatives, can inhibit microorganisms in anaerobic digestion systems.
(3)
The residues remaining after VR anaerobic digestion need further treatment. Therefore, the optimized conditions and pre- and posttreatment of VR anaerobic digestion should be further investigated.

2.2. Feed Production

2.2.1. Advances in Feed Production

The shortage of conventional feed such as corn, soybean and wheat has limited the development of the livestock industry in many countries. To meet the increasing demand for livestock products and alleviate the conflict between humans and animals for food, it is important to utilize unconventional feed resources [68]. Unconventional feeds made from agricultural and food industry byproducts are now becoming increasingly popular in ruminant feeding systems because of their competitive price compared to conventional feeds [69,70,71,72]. As a byproduct of cereal vinegar production in China, VR can also be used as a potential feed resource considering its nutritional composition (Table 1). In recent years, it has been applied as a nonconventional feed resource directly or in a fermented form for livestock feeding. Song et al. determined the chemical composition and ruminal degradability of VR to assess its feasibility as a feed for ruminants [20]. VR could not be well digested due to the high lignin and ash content. However, ether extract (EE) and protein contents make VR a suitable additive in ruminant diets. VR contains lactic acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, malic acid and other organic acids. Studies have shown that these fatty acids have certain biological functions in feed. Lactic acid has been successfully used to soak barley grain to adjust the ruminal energetic state, fermentation mode and inherent immunity and to increase the fat content of milk from dairy cows [73,74]. Acetic acid can be easily assimilated by ruminants and used as an energy source. Malic acid is an essential component of energy metabolism associated with the Krebs cycle and contributes a positive role in ruminal pH regulation, microbial fermentation and mean daily weight increase [75,76]. It has also been reported that organic acids entering the diet as feed additives can reduce nitrogen (N) excretion by animals [77]. Song et al. found that the addition of 40 g VR/kg to the diet of laying hens significantly reduced nitrogen excretion and uric acid nitrogen excretion, thereby reducing nitrogen pollution to water and air [21]. VR in laying hen diets could also alter intestinal pH and pepsin activity in the upper gastrointestinal tract but hardly affect the intestinal microbial community of laying hens.
VR can also be fermented by microorganisms to produce microbial fermented feed (MFF). Through fermentation, the content of protein and various nutrients (such as vitamins and amino acids) is increased, and the antinutritional factors in VR are reduced, especially lignocellulose, which can be decomposed by microorganisms. As a result, the nutritional value, nutrient bioavailability and palatability of the feed can be significantly improved. Saccharomyces, Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Aspergillus and Neurospora are commonly used in MFF production [78,79]. In general, these microorganisms have the advantages of efficient enzyme production, nontoxicity, high protein content in the cell, rapid reproduction, and no significant antagonistic relationship with other beneficial microorganisms [79]. Neurospora sitophila is a fungal species that has been certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe and edible [80]. It is usually used to ferment sugarcane bagasse, corn stover, wood cellulose and other lignocellulosic biomass to make protein- and carotenoid-rich feeds [81,82,83]. When VR was fermented with N. sitophila, the nutritional value (higher protein and carotenoid content) and degradability were significantly improved for mutton sheep as roughage feed compared with unfermented VR. In addition, the degradability of protein by ruminal microflora decreased with fermented VR, resulting in more protein being digested and absorbed postrumen [19]. Aspergillus species are commonly used for the production of phytase [84,85,86,87]. It is well known that phytase in feed can reduce the release of phosphorus from livestock and thus avoid phosphorus contamination [88]. As one of the Aspergillus species, Aspergillus ficcum has been used to ferment VR for the production of phytase-rich feed additives in SSF [24,25]. Through the Plackett–Burman (PB) design, steepest ascent path design and RSM, the highest phytase activity reached 98.37 ± 0.85 U/g dry mold. Bacillus species, particularly B. licheniformis and B. subtilis, are important probiotics for humans and animals [89]. They exhibit high stability to gastric conditions and have antimicrobial, anticancer, antioxidant, and vitamin-producing properties [90]. Hydrolyzed VR has been used in the production of feed additive containing Bacillus licheniformis. Bacillus licheniformis reached a viable count of 8.25 × 109 CFU/mL with a sporulation rate of more than 80% after 18 h of fermentation [26].

2.2.2. Challenges in Feed Production

Despite the mentioned advantages of using VR to produce feed, there are still some risks and problems that must be addressed considering the economic benefit or animal health.
(1)
Wet VR is prone to deterioration, which can result in the production of toxic mycotoxins, especially when transported over long distances without proper storage management. Livestock fed with spoiled VR can exhibit respiratory distress, diarrhea, and other toxicities. Therefore, wet VR should be dried before being transported to feed producers, but this process requires significant energy consumption.
(2)
The low energy concentration and density of VR makes livestock susceptible to satiety and further reduces feed intake. When livestock (particularly monogastric animals) were fed a high percentage of VR, the low digestibility caused by the high fiber content would speed up the passage of chyme through the intestine, thus reducing nutrient absorption [21,91].
(3)
Higher levels of alcohol left in VR can also pose a risk of poisoning in livestock. Higher levels of alcohol have been reported to cause metabolic disorders, liver disease and brain damage [92].

2.3. Fertilizer Production

2.3.1. Advances in Fertilizer Production

Currently, the widespread use of chemical fertilizers has caused significant environmental impacts, such as deterioration of the soil dynamic balance and groundwater contamination. This has promoted the research and development of organic fertilizers with minimal environmental impact [93]. Biomass waste, such as animal manure, sewage sludge waste and food industrial byproducts, are promising renewable raw materials for organic fertilizer production [94,95,96,97,98]. The good physicochemical properties of VR make it a potential organic fertilizer [99]. However, before being used as fertilizer, VR is always pretreated by composting technology to improve fertilizer efficiency. As an effective technology for the utilization of organic solid waste, composting can improve mineralization and humification [100,101]. The composting process typically consists of three stages, including the mesophilic stage, the thermophilic stage and the maturation stage [102]. Soluble and readily decomposable organic compounds are first metabolized by microorganisms. Then, cellulose, proteins and other macromolecules are broken down into humic acids by thermophilic microorganisms [103]. The thermophilic phase usually lasts for 5 days, and the temperature is maintained above 50 °C, which is effective in reducing pathogens [104,105]. When organic matter is reduced and microbial activity is inhibited by high temperatures, the composting process enters the maturation stage in which mesophilic microorganisms dominate and further decompose the remaining organic matter into humic acids [102]. The composting period of VR is commonly long due to the low pH and high lignocellulose content (Table 1). The composting process of VR always needs to be optimized to improve the efficiency and final quality of compost. Zhao used a stable maturation technique and nutrient structure improvement technique to facilitate the composting process of VR. The results showed that the two-stage fermentation technology could achieve full maturation of VR with a germination index (GI) above 100% after fermentation. The addition of plant ashes could significantly improve the composting process by shortening the period and increasing the nutrient contents [27]. Different types and dosages of additives could lead to differences in the chemical composition, nutrient content, quality and toxicity of compost. Calcium carbonate was found to significantly promote VR decay and improve compost quality [28].
VR compost products can promote the growth of crops. Du reported that VR compost-amended media (VR compost mixed with peat and vermiculite in a 6:3:1 (v/v) ratio) was beneficial for cucumber growth and could be used as a biological control for Fusarium wilt [29]. VR compost-amended media suppressed Fusarium wilt of cucumber by upregulating the activities of defense-related enzymes and pathogenesis-related proteins and by adjusting the expression levels of stress-related genes [30]. VR compost is also a potential organic substrate to control bacterial wilt of tomato seedlings through inhibiting disease and altering the activity of the soil enzymes and microbial community [31].

2.3.2. Challenges in Fertilizer Production

(1)
Gases (such as CO2, NH3 and N2O) are emitted during the composting process. These gases not only cause odor problems but also cause greenhouse issues [106]. In addition, NH3 emissions result in an excess of 70% of total nitrogen losses [107]. Therefore, process optimization should be performed to control gas emissions.
(2)
VR consists of bran, rice husk and other filling materials which contain highly crystalline lignocellulose that is recalcitrant to composting. High lignocellulose content in plant wastes has been reported to elongate the composting time in the composting pile. Therefore, to obtain good performance of composting for VR, a long composting period and a large land demand are needed [108].

2.4. High-Value Product Production

2.4.1. Advances in High-Value Product Production

VR can also be converted into high-value products through microbial fermentation or physical–chemical processes due to the characteristics of low cost, abundance and easy availability (Figure 4). At present, VR has been a potential substrate for the production of ethanol, butanol and xylose through fermentation processes. However, VR contains a high level of lignocellulose and therefore requires pretreatment and enzymolysis to hydrolyze lignocellulose into fermentable sugars prior to biotransformation. Liu et al. used NaOH-pretreated VR and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation processes to produce ethanol and xylose [22]. The optimal pretreatment conditions were 2.2% NaOH, solid-to-liquid ratio of 1:11 (w/v), 63 °C, 80 min and 4.9 IU/g xylanase. As a result, the total sugar yield was 66.1% after pretreatment, and the yields of ethanol and xylose were 319 mg/g and 179 mg/g, respectively. It is important to note that the pretreatment process can produce inhibitors to ferment microorganisms, mainly including furfural, 5-hydroxymethyl furfural and other inhibitors. These inhibitors can prevent microbial growth, substrate utilization and product synthesis, thereby greatly reducing productivity [109]. To resolve this problem, microbial strains with high inhibitor tolerance should be bred. A high inhibitor-tolerant strain, Clostridium acetobutylicum, has been generated by atmospheric and room-temperature plasma (ARTP) and used to produce biofuel butanol from hydrolyzed VR [32]. After an optimal two-step SE pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, 19.60 g of glucose, 15.21 g of xylose and 5.63 g of arabinose were obtained from 100 g of VR. At the end of the fermentation, 7.98 g/L butanol was achieved.
In addition to microbial fermentation, VR can also be converted into high-value products through physical–chemical processes. Because of the existence of ordered hydrogen bonds, cellulose was reported to naturally form alterable supramolecular structures with hydrophilic, biocompatible and chiral characteristics. Therefore, region-selective functional derivatives can be prepared from cellulose [110,111]. These species of cellulose derivatives can be applied as catalysts for the preparation of pharmaceutical intermediates and fine chemicals. By using the characteristic of high cellulose content in VR, Qiao et al. constructed a novel structural network of VR sulfates with inorganic/organic sulfo- and sulfoalkyl chemicals for catalytic application [33]. The modulated surface realized a good catalytic effect toward the synthesis of imidazolidine-2,4-dione derivatives from sulfates. VR was also used to produce syngas and phenols through pyrolysis. In addition, Liu et, al. reported that anaerobic digestion as a pretreatment method for VR could enhance the pyrolysis effect. The highest gas yield and lignin-derived phenols could reach to 43.14% and 42.16%, respectively [34].

2.4.2. Challenges in High-Value Product Production

The greatest challenge faced by this resource recovery technology is the high cost of bioconversion into high-value products through microbial fermentation compared to traditional raw materials of starch or fermentable sugars. The high cost is commonly caused by the following reasons:
(1)
VR pretreatment usually consumes large amounts of energy, chemicals and hydrolytic enzymes, thus greatly increasing the processing cost of the raw materials.
(2)
VR pretreatment can produce inhibitors to ferment microorganisms, so these inhibitors should be removed from the hydrolysate prior to fermentation, or highly inhibitor-tolerant microorganisms should be generated.
(3)
Acid and alkali pretreatment results in a large amount of wastewater that should be treated before being discharged.
(4)
The final concentration of the product at the end of fermentation is relatively lower than that of the conventional raw material, so the cost of product purification is high.

2.5. Soil/Water Remediation

2.5.1. Advances in Soil/Water Remediation

Heavy metal pollution of soil and water has attracted worldwide attention due to its serious threat to organisms and its accumulation in biota. High levels of heavy metals in soil and water result from improper treatment of waste, agricultural and industrial activities, and other human activities [112]. Heavy metals can easily accumulate in the body along the soil–crop–food chain and are toxic to wildlife and humans [113]. Therefore, there is an urgent need for effective and environmentally friendly technologies for the remediation of soil and water contaminated with heavy metals. Currently, the application of organic solid waste materials for the remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil and water has received increasing attention. This process has several benefits: (1) economical solution of organic waste disposal; (2) return of components from organic waste to the biogeochemical cycle; and (3) improvement of soil fertility [114]. In recent years, some researchers have started using VR to produce soil and water amendments. Pei et al. applied a soil amendment consisting of VR, stainless steel slag and weathered coal to immobilize lead (Pb) in the soil [35]. The release of Pb from the soil was restrained, and the adsorption of Pb by plants was mitigated accordingly. VR can also be used as a support matrix for nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI), which is ideal for the remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil and water through oxidation, reduction, precipitation and/or adsorption (Figure 5A) [115]. The use of VR as the support matrix can resolve the problems of low transport capacity, passivation and aggregation faced by nZVI, thus improving the immobilization capacity of chromium (Cr) in soil. The composite material derived from nZVI supported on VR achieved immobilization efficiencies of 98.68% Cr (VI) and 92.09% Crtotal. Almost all the exchangeable Cr was shifted to organic matter-bound and Fe-Mn oxide-bound compounds [36]. VR can also be used as a carrier material for Bacillus subtilis to enhance the biodegradation of phenanthrene in aqueous solution. Zhang et al. prepared an immobilization carrier for B. subtilis ZL09-26 with different temperature-treated VRs and found that VR dried at 50 °C (VR50) maximally promoted the growth and phenanthrene degradation of B. subtilis ZL09-26 [37]. Moreover, VR50 started after one week of use.
VR can also be converted to biochar, which can then be used for the remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil and water. Biochar is a solid, carbonaceous, porous product produced by the pyrolytic conversion of organic biomass in an oxygen-limited atmosphere [116]. It is characterized by high porosity, large surface area and abundant functional groups. Several researchers have reported that biochar can remediate heavy metal-contaminated water and soil through mechanisms of ion exchange, complexation, redox, precipitation and electrostatic interactions (Figure 5B) [116]. Biochar prepared with VR in an oxygen-limited atmosphere at 700 °C has been proven to be a promising amendment for Cd remediation in water and soil [38]. In addition, ZnCl2 could modify VR biochar (VRB) by forming a highly porous and aromatic structure. When the mass ratio of ZnCl2/VRB was 1, the ZnCl2-modified VRB reached the highest cadmium adsorption capacity (236.81 mg/g), which was significantly higher than that of the control (9.96 mg/g) [39].

2.5.2. Challenges in Soil/Water Amendment Production

(1)
Although VR-supported nZVI has been effectively used for soil and water remediation, exposure to nZVI has harmful effects on humans and the environment [115].
(2)
Biochar made from VR has great advantages in soil remediation, but the long-term effects of biochar on soil remain unclear. Therefore, to reduce the possible risks associated with biochar, more attention should be given to the long-term effects and risk assessment of biochar on soil. For example, heavy metals immobilized on biochar may be rereleased due to chemical, physical and biological degradation caused by weathering aging [116].

3. Conclusions and Future Prospective

The disposal of VR is a challenge for vinegar producers. There is growing concern about the environmental and ecological impacts associated with VR treatment, and therefore, more sustainable practices are needed. To date, several VR resource recovery technologies have been proposed and studied. However, by assessing the economic feasibility and potential environmental impacts, some of these technologies should be further investigated before industrial application. For example, the price of feed made from VR is unlikely to be high due to the low nutritional value of VR. In addition, fresh VR needs to be dried and transported to feed producers, which further increases the cost of feed production. Therefore, the technology of producing feed from VR is not economically feasible. For the technology of producing high-value products with VR, the greatest challenge for industrial applications is also the high production cost due to VR pretreatment and low productivity.
Considering the inherent defects of various technologies, a single technology generally cannot realize the full utilization of VR, so some existing technologies should be combined. Based on the characteristics of the above VR resource recovery technologies and the existing technology and facility conditions of vinegar producers, we propose a cascade and full utilization model of VR, as shown in Figure 6. Fresh VR should be pretreated first to increase the availability of anaerobic digestion and thus improve biogas production. However, pretreatment methods should be further investigated to meet the conditions as shown in Figure 6 [117]. Then, the pretreated VR is treated by anaerobic digestion reactors in vinegar plants, where easily degradable organics are digested by microorganisms to produce biogas. To further improve the performance of anaerobic digestion, several strategies as shown in Figure 6 should be adopted. Bioaugmentation can improve microbial diversity and populations favoring biogas production by inoculating certain microorganisms into the anaerobic digestion system [118]. For pretreated VR, bioaugmentation with cellulose-degrading microorganisms should be carried out. Recently, new strategies have been put into practice to improve the efficiency of bioaugmentation by immobilizing microorganisms on nanoparticles [119,120]. To improve the performance of strains during anaerobic digestion, different genetic and metabolic engineering approaches can also be used to modify key microorganisms [121,122]. Finally, residue from the anaerobic digestion reactor, including the organics difficult to degrade (such as lignocellulose) and excess activated sludge, is treated with the composting process. Similarly, further research as shown in Figure 6 should be conducted on composting processes to improve performance and compost quality [123]. It should be noted that machine learning (ML) has been gradually applied to various areas of organic solid waste treatment processes, such as anaerobic digestion, composting, thermal treatment and landfills [124]. The general principle of ML is to generalize the relationships between input and output variables through inductive reasoning and then to make informed decisions in new situations based on the relationships learned from the empirical data. ML has the advantages of having high predictive accuracy when applied to complex nonlinear problems, saving time and greatly reducing the labor and resource consumption of unnecessary repetitive experiments. These advantages allow us to use ML to improve the anaerobic digestion and composting process for VR treatment.
The biogas produced during the anaerobic digestion of VR can be used as an energy source for vinegar production, composting and further treatment of wastewater. The compost can be used as fertilizer. The full utilization model recognizes the efficient VR utilization of the whole industrial chain from the beginning to the end of VR disposal. In addition, there are some residues such as distiller’s grains (DGS) from Chinese baijiu production and brewer’s spent grain (BSG) from beer production that show similar properties to those of VR. Therefore, the proposed full utilization model could provide a reference for resource recovery of DGS, BSG and other similar residues.

Author Contributions

K.W.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Visualization. Y.Y.: Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration. S.L.: Conceptualization, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. Y.Z.: Visualization, Methodology. P.L.: Formal analysis, Data curation. Z.Y.: Visualization, Writing—review and editing. Y.W.: Writing–review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32072202).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AAFAcetic acid fermentation
ABAcetylene black
ARTPAtmospheric and room-temperature plasma
BMPBiochemical methane potential
BSGBrewer’s spent grain
CFUColony forming units
C/NCarbon-to-nitrogen ratio
CO2Carbon dioxide
CrChromium
CSTRContinuously stirred tank reactor
CSCorn straw
DGSDistiller’s grains
DIETDirect interspecies electron transfer
EEEther extract
GIGermination index
HCHydrochar
IUInternational unit
MFFMicrobial fermented feed
MLMachine learning
NANot Available
NaOHSodium hydroxide
NH3Ammonia
N2ONitrous oxide
nZVINanoscale zero-valent iron
OLROrganic loading rate
PBPlackett–Burman
RSMResponse surface methodology
SESteam explosion
SSFSolid-state fermentation
VFAVolatile fatty acid
VRVinegar residue
VRBVR biochar
VSVolatile solid
ZnCl2Zinc chloride

References

  1. Giudici, P.; Corradini, G.; Bonciani, T.; Jiajia, W.; Chen, F.; Lemmetti, F. The flavor and taste of cereal Chinese vinegars. Acetic Acid Bact. 2017, 6, 6370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, F.S.; Li, L.; Qu, J.; Chen, C.X. Cereal vinegars made by solid-state fermentation in China. In Vinegars of the World; Solieri, L., Giudici, P., Eds.; Springer: Milano, Italy, 2009; pp. 243–259. [Google Scholar]
  3. Xia, T.; Zhang, B.; Duan, W.H.; Zhang, J.; Wang, M. Nutrients and bioactive components from vinegar: A fermented and functional food. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 64, 103681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, L.; Feng, L.; Zhang, R.; He, Y.; Wang, W.; Chen, C.; Liu, G. Anaerobic digestion performance of vinegar residue in continuously stirred tank reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 186, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Chen, L.; Zhou, G.N.; Zheng, T.; Zhou, Z.Z.; Wu, Q.G.; Yuan, H.R. Effect of the organic loading rates increase on process stability and microbial community composition during the anaerobic digestion of fresh vinegar residue. Waste Biomass Valori. 2021, 12, 5505–5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Feng, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; He, Y.; Zhang, R.; Chen, C.; Liu, G. Enhanced methane production of vinegar residue by response surface methodology (RSM). AMB Express 2017, 7, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Feng, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; He, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, G.; Chen, C. Influence of steam explosion pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of vinegar residue. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 630–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Feng, L.; Li, Y.Q.; Chen, C.; Liu, X.Y.; Xiao, X.; Ma, X.X.; Zhang, R.H.; He, Y.F.; Liu, G.Q. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of vinegar residue and the influence of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas production. Bioresources 2013, 8, 2487–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guo, W.Y.; Li, Y.Q.; Zhao, K.; Xu, Q.; Jiang, H.; Zhou, H.J. Performance and microbial community analysis of anaerobic digestion of vinegar residue with adding of acetylene black or hydrochar. Waste Biomass Valori. 2019, 11, 3315–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kong, X.; Defemur, Z.; Li, M.; Zhang, Q.; Li, H.; Yue, X. Effects of combined ultrasonic and grinding pre-treatments on anaerobic digestion of vinegar residue: Organic solubilization, hydrolysis, and CH4 production. Environ. Technol. 2021, 43, 2207–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ran, G.; Li, D.; Zheng, T.; Liu, X.; Chen, L.; Cao, Q.; Yan, Z. Hydrothermal pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of washed vinegar residue. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shen, J.; Zhao, C.; Liu, G.Q.; Chen, C. Enhancing the performance on anaerobic digestion of vinegar residue by sodium hydroxide pretreatment. Waste Biomass Valori. 2016, 8, 1119–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Song, C.; Feng, J.Y.; Wang, L.G.; Cai, F.F.; Chen, C.; Liu, G.Q. Comparison of methane production performance of vinegar residue under liquid- and solid-state conditions. Environ. Prog. Sustain. 2020, 40, e13533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, L.G.; Feng, J.Y.; Cai, F.F.; Wang, J.; Chen, C.; Liu, G.Q. Anaerobic digestion and lignocellulosic compositions alteration of industrial vinegar residue after different pretreatments. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, Z.B.; Shao, S.P.; Zhang, C.S.; Lu, D.L.; Ma, H.L.; Ren, X.F. Pretreatment of vinegar residue and anaerobic sludge for enhanced hydrogen and methane production in the two-stage anaerobic system. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2015, 40, 4494–4501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wen, H.; Wachemo, A.C.; Zhang, L.; Zuo, X.; Yuan, H.; Li, X. Novel strategy for efficient anaerobic co-digestion based on the pretreatment of corn stover with fresh vinegar residue. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 288, 121412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhou, A.J.; Liu, Z.H.; Varrone, C.; Luan, Y.B.; Liu, W.Z.; Wang, A.J.; Yue, X.P. Efficient biorefinery of waste activated sludge and vinegar residue into volatile fatty acids: Effect of feedstock conditioning on performance and microbiology. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 1819–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, Y.L.; Xu, Z.Y.; Zhao, M.X.; Shi, W.S.; Huang, Z.X.; He, D.; Ruan, W.Q. Construction and evaluation of efficient solid-state anaerobic digestion system via vinegar residue. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 133, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, C.; Zhang, L.; Yang, J.; Zhang, W.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xin, J.; Chen, S. Study on the nutritional value and ruminal degradation characteristics of fermented waste vinegar residue by N. sitophila. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1449–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Song, Z.T.; Dong, X.F.; Tong, J.M.; Wang, Z.H. In sacco evaluation of ruminal degradability of waste vinegar residue as a feedstuff for ruminants. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2013, 53, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Song, Z.T.; Dong, X.F.; Tong, J.M.; Wang, Z.H. Effects of waste vinegar residue on nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance in laying hens. Livest. Sci. 2012, 150, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, K.Y.; Jiang, B.; Wang, Q.; Yang, L.R.; Lu, B.; Li, X.P.; Yuan, H.W. Study on the conditions of pretreating vinegar residue with sodium hydroxide for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation to produce alcohol and xylose. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2020, 26, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, K.Y.; Zhou, S.L.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, B.; Yang, L.R.; Lu, B.; Yuan, H.W. Enzymatic degradation of polysaccharides in Chinese vinegar residue to produce alcohol and xylose. Czech J. Food Sci. 2021, 39, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Z.; Dong, X.; Tong, J.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Q. Vinegar production residue as substrates for phytase production by Aspergillus ficuum. Waste Manag. Res. 2010, 28, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Z.H.; Dong, X.F.; Zhang, G.Q.; Tong, J.M.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, S.Z. Waste vinegar residue as substrate for phytase production. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1262–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, X.L. Research on Vinegar Residue Hydrolyzate Fermentation for Feed Microorganism Product. Master’s Thesis, Hubei University, Wuhan, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhao, Q.S. Study on the Changes of Physiochemical Characteristics of Vinegar Residue Substrate under Long-Term Using and N, P, K Nutrient Management. Ph.D. Thesis, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pang, K.Y. Utilization of Vinegar Residue as Fertilizer in Calcareous Cinnamon Soils. Master’s Thesis, Shanxi Agricultural University, Shanxi, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Du, N.; Shi, L.; Du, L.; Yuan, Y.; Li, B.; Sang, T.; Sun, J.; Shu, S.; Guo, S. Effect of vinegar residue compost amendments on cucumber growth and Fusarium wilt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2015, 22, 19133–19141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shi, L.; Du, N.; Yuan, Y.; Shu, S.; Sun, J.; Guo, S. Vinegar residue compost as a growth substrate enhances cucumber resistance against the Fusarium wilt pathogen Fusarium oxysporum by regulating physiological and biochemical responses. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2016, 23, 18277–18287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. He, M.; Shah Jahan, M.; Wang, Y.; Sun, J.; Shu, S.; Guo, S. Compost amendments based on vinegar residue promote tomato growth and suppress bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia Solanacearum. Pathogens 2020, 9, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Xia, M.; Peng, M.; Xue, D.; Cheng, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, D.; Lu, K.; Zheng, Y.; Xia, T.; Song, J.; et al. Development of optimal steam explosion pretreatment and highly effective cell factory for bioconversion of grain vinegar residue to butanol. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2020, 13, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Qiao, Y.B.; Qin, W.H.; Li, Q.S. Sulfates of sorghum vinegar residue waste as potential catalysts. Green Process. Synth. 2018, 7, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, P.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Z.Z.; Yuan, H.R.; Zheng, T. Effect of anaerobic pretreatment on vinegar residue for enhancement of syngas and phenols derived from pyrolysis. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2019, 14, e2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pei, G.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Shi, W.; Li, H. Immobilization of lead by application of soil amendment produced from vinegar residue, stainless steel slag, and weathered coal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 22301–22311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pei, G.; Zhu, Y.; Wen, J.; Pei, Y.; Li, H. Vinegar residue supported nanoscale zero-valent iron: Remediation of hexavalent chromium in soil. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zhang, L.; Yan, J.Y.; Xiao, Z.X.; Tang, S.S.; Chen, Y.L.; Sun, G.Z.; Wang, W.D.; Yu, Y.D. Using vinegar residue-based carrier materials to improve the biodegradation of phenanthrene in aqueous solution. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2021, 21, 3134–3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Li, Y.; Pei, G.; Qiao, X.; Zhu, Y.; Li, H. Remediation of cadmium contaminated water and soil using vinegar residue biochar. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 15754–15764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ding, K.; Zhou, X.; Hadiatullah, H.; Lu, Y.; Zhao, G.; Jia, S.; Zhang, R.; Yao, Y. Removal performance and mechanisms of toxic hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) with ZnCl2 enhanced acidic vinegar residue biochar. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 420, 126551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Braguglia, C.M.; Gallipoli, A.; Gianico, A.; Pagliaccia, P. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. Performance evaluation of anaerobic digestion technology for energy recovery from organic fraction of municipal solid waste: A review. Energy 2020, 197, 117253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nguyen, V.K.; Chaudhary, D.K.; Dahal, R.H.; Trinh, N.H.; Kim, J.; Chang, S.W.; Hong, Y.; La, D.D.; Nguyen, X.C.; Ngo, H.H.; et al. Review on pretreatment techniques to improve anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Fuel 2021, 285, 119105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ren, Y.Y.; Yu, M.; Wu, C.F.; Wang, Q.H.; Gao, M.; Huang, Q.Q.; Liu, Y. A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: Research updates and tendencies. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Srisowmeya, G.; Chakravarthy, M.; Devi, G.N. Critical considerations in two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste—A review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2020, 119, 109587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wainaina, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Sarsaiya, S.; Chen, H.Y.; Singh, E.; Kumar, A.; Ravindran, B.; Awasthi, S.K.; Liu, T.; Duan, Y.M.; et al. Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Xu, Y.; Lu, Y.Q.; Zheng, L.K.; Wang, Z.W.; Dai, X.H. Perspective on enhancing the anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 389, 121847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Zhao, S.; Thakur, N.; Salama, E.-S.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, L.H.; Xing, X.H.; Yue, J.W.; Song, Z.Z.; Nan, L.; Su, Y.J.; et al. Potential applications of protein-rich waste: Progress in energy management and material recovery. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2022, 182, 106315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, Y.Z.; Liu, S.P.; Huang, C.H.; Ge, X.Y.; Xi, B.D.; Mao, J. Chinese Baijiu distiller’s grains resourcing: Current progress and future prospects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 176, 105900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Labatut, R.A.; Angenent, L.T.; Scott, N.R. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2255–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Raposo, F.; Fernandez-Cegri, V.; De la Rubia, M.A.; Borja, R.; Beline, F.; Cavinato, C.; Demirer, G.; Fernandez, B.; Fernandez-Polanco, M.; Frigon, J.C.; et al. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: Evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2011, 86, 1088–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Eryildiz, B.; Lukitawesa; Taherzadeh, M.J. Effect of pH, substrate loading, oxygen, and methanogens inhibitors on volatile fatty acid (VFA) production from citrus waste by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 302, 122800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jiang, Y.; Heaven, S.; Banks, C.J. Strategies for stable anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste. Renew. Energ. 2012, 44, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Luste, S.; Luostarinen, S. Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing by-products and sewage sludge—Effect of hygienization and organic loading rate. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 2657–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nagao, N.; Tajima, N.; Kawai, M.; Niwa, C.; Kurosawa, N.; Matsuyama, T.; Yusoff, F.M.; Toda, T. Maximum organic loading rate for the single-stage wet anaerobic digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 118, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Storck, T.; Virdis, B.; Batstone, D.J. Modelling extracellular limitations for mediated versus direct interspecies electron transfer. ISME J. 2016, 10, 621–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Summers, Z.M.; Fogarty, H.E.; Leang, C.; Franks, A.E.; Malvankar, N.S.; Lovley, D.R. Direct exchange of electrons within aggregates of an evolved syntrophic coculture of anaerobic bacteria. Science 2010, 330, 1413–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Karki, R.; Chuenchart, W.; Surendra, K.C.; Shrestha, S.; Raskin, L.; Sung, S.; Hashimoto, A.; Kumar Khanal, S. Anaerobic co-digestion: Current status and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 330, 125001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lu, S.G.; Imai, T.; Ukita, M.; Sekine, M. Start-up performances of dry anaerobic mesophilic and thermophilic digestions of organic solid wastes. J. Environ. Sci. 2007, 19, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Noike, T.; Endo, G.; Chang, J.E.; Yaguchi, J.I.; Matsumoto, J.I. Characteristics of carbohydrate degradation and the rate-limiting step in anaerobic digestion. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1985, 27, 1482–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. He, Y.F.; Pang, Y.Z.; Liu, Y.P.; Li, X.J.; Wang, K.S. Physicochemical characterization of rice straw pretreated with sodium hydroxide in the solid state for enhancing biogas production. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 2775–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ruiz, H.A.; Conrad, M.; Sun, S.N.; Sanchez, A.; Rocha, G.J.M.; Romani, A.; Castro, E.; Torres, A.; Rodriguez-Jasso, R.M.; Andrade, L.P.; et al. Engineering aspects of hydrothermal pretreatment: From batch to continuous operation, scale-up and pilot reactor under biorefinery concept. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 299, 122685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Galbe, M.; Wallberg, O. Pretreatment for biorefineries: A review of common methods for efficient utilisation of lignocellulosic materials. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2019, 12, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Carrere, H.; Antonopoulou, G.; Affes, R.; Passos, F.; Battimelli, A.; Lyberatos, G.; Ferrer, I. Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion: From lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 199, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Singh, J.; Suhag, M.; Dhaka, A. Augmented digestion of lignocellulose by steam explosion, acid and alkaline pretreatment methods: A review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 117, 624–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sui, W.J.; Chen, H.Z. Water transfer in steam explosion process of corn stalk. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 76, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. He, L.L.; Huang, H.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Lei, Z.F. A review of hydrothermal pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biogas production. Curr. Org. Chem. 2015, 19, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abraham, A.; Mathew, A.K.; Park, H.; Choi, O.; Sindhu, R.; Parameswaran, B.; Pandey, A.; Park, J.H.; Sang, B.I. Pretreatment strategies for enhanced biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Alipour, D.; Rouzbehan, Y. Effects of ensiling grape pomace and addition of polyethylene glycol on in vitro gas production and microbial biomass yield. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 137, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Devendra, C.; Leng, R.A. Feed resources for animals in Asia: Issues, strategies for use, intensification and integration for increased productivity. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Negesse, T.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Nutritive value of some non-conventional feed resources of Ethiopia determined by chemical analyses and an in vitro gas method. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 154, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chuang, W.Y.; Lin, L.J.; Shih, H.D.; Shy, Y.M.; Chang, S.C.; Lee, T.T. The potential utilization of high-fiber agricultural by-products as monogastric animal feed and feed additives: A review. Animals 2021, 11, 2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shee, C.N.; Lemenager, R.P.; Schoonmaker, J.P. Feeding dried distillers grains with solubles to lactating beef cows: Impact of excess protein and fat on cow performance, milk production and pre-weaning progeny growth. Animal 2016, 10, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Iqbal, S.; Zebeli, Q.; Mazzolari, A.; Bertoni, G.; Dunn, S.M.; Yang, W.Z.; Ametaj, B.N. Feeding barley grain steeped in lactic acid modulates rumen fermentation patterns and increases milk fat content in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 6023–6032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Iqbal, S.; Zebeli, Q.; Mazzolari, A.; Dunn, S.M.; Ametaj, B.N. Feeding rolled barley grain steeped in lactic acid modulated energy status and innate immunity in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5147–5156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Montano, M.F.; Chai, W.; Zinn-Ware, T.E.; Zinn, R.A. Influence of malic acid supplementation on ruminal pH, lactic acid utilization, and digestive function in steers fed high-concentrate finishing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 780–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Martin, S.A.; Streeter, M.N.; Nisbet, D.J.; Hill, G.M.; Williams, S.E. Effects of DL-malate on ruminal metabolism and performance of cattle fed a high-concentrate diet. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 1008–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Rotz, C.A. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82 (Suppl. 13), E119–E137. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  78. Huang, L.L.; Ren, P.P.; Ouyang, Z.C.; Wei, T.; Kong, X.F.; Li, T.J.; Yin, Y.L.; He, S.P.; Yang, C.B.; He, Q.H. Effect of fermented feed on growth performance, holistic metabolism and fecal microbiota in weanling piglets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 266, 114505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sugiharto, S.; Ranjitkar, S. Recent advances in fermented feeds towards improved broiler chicken performance, gastrointestinal tract microecology and immune responses: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Deng, Y.P.; Xin, J.Y.; Liu, X.L.; Ai, R.B.; Wang, X.J. Optimization of culture conditions and medium composition for the synthesis of xylanase by resting Neurospora sitophila cells: Analysis of the effects of sugars on xylanase production using the resting cell. J. Biobased Mater. Bioenergy 2017, 11, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Li, Y.J.; Peng, X.W.; Chen, H.Z. Comparative characterization of proteins secreted by Neurospora sitophila in solid-state and submerged fermentation. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2013, 116, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Djali, M.; Kayaputri, I.L.; Kurniati, D.; Sukarminah, E.; Mudjenan, I.M.H.; Utama, G.L. Degradation of lignocelluloses cocoa shell (Theobroma cacao) by various types of mould treatments. J. Food Qual. 2021, 2021, 6127029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Moo-Young, M.; Chisti, Y.; Vlach, D. Fermentative conversion of cellulosic substrates to microbial protein by Neurospora sitophila. Biotechnol. Lett. 1992, 14, 863–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Al-Asheh, S.; Duvnjak, Z. Effect of glucose concentration on the biomass and phytase productions and the reduction of the phytic acid content in canola meal by Aspergillus carbonarius during a solid-state fermentation process. Biotechnol. Prog. 1994, 10, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Volfová, O.; Dvoráková, J.; Hanzlíková, A.; Jandera, A. Phytase from Aspergillus niger. Folia Microbiol. 1994, 39, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Gibson, D.M. Production of extracellular phytase from Aspergillus ficuum on starch media. Biotechnol. Lett. 1987, 9, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Papagianni, M.; Nokes, S.E.; Filer, K. Production of phytase by Aspergillus niger in submerged and solid-state fermentation. Process Biochem. 2002, 35, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Haefner, S.; Knietsch, A.; Scholten, E.; Braun, J.; Lohscheidt, M.; Zelder, O. Biotechnological production and applications of phytases. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 68, 588–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Elshaghabee, F.M.F.; Rokana, N.; Gulhane, R.D.; Sharma, C.; Panwar, H. Bacillus as potential probiotics: Status, concerns, and future perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Lee, N.K.; Kim, W.S.; Paik, H.D. Bacillus strains as human probiotics: Characterization, safety, microbiome, and probiotic carrier. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 28, 1297–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jørgensen, H.; Zhao, X.Q.; Eggum, B.O. The influence of dietary fibre and environmental temperature on the development of the gastrointestinal tract, digestibility, degree of fermentation in the hind-gut and energy metabolism in pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 1996, 75, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lachenmeier, D.W.; Haupt, S.; Schulz, K. Defining maximum levels of higher alcohols in alcoholic beverages and surrogate alcohol products. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2008, 50, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bhardwaj, D.; Ansari, M.W.; Sahoo, R.K.; Tuteja, N. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb. Cell Fact. 2014, 13, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Guo, Z.C.; Zhang, J.B.; Fan, J.; Yang, X.Y.; Yi, Y.L.; Han, X.R.; Wang, D.Z.; Zhu, P.; Peng, X.H. Does animal manure application improve soil aggregation? Insights from nine long-term fertilization experiments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1029–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bratina, B.; Šorgo, A.; Kramberger, J.; Ajdnik, U.; Zemljič, L.F.; Ekart, J.; Šafarič, R. From municipal/industrial wastewater sludge and FOG to fertilizer: A proposal for economic sustainable sludge management. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 1009–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Wolka, K.; Melaku, B. Exploring selected plant nutrient in compost prepared from food waste and cattle manure and its effect on soil properties and maize yield at Wondo Genet, Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 2015, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Altieri, R.; Esposito, A. Evaluation of the fertilizing effect of olive mill waste compost in short-term crops. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2010, 64, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jiang, Y.; Ju, M.T.; Li, W.Z.; Ren, Q.B.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Q.; Hou, Q.D.; Liu, Y.L. Rapid production of organic fertilizer by dynamic high-temperature aerobic fermentation (DHAF) of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 197, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zhao, Q.S.; Li, P.P.; Sun, D.M. Effects of inoculating thermophiles and Rhizopus on composting process of vinegar residue and their nutrients status. Adv. Mat. Res. 2012, 518–523, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Negi, S.; Mandpe, A.; Hussain, A.; Kumar, S. Collegial effect of maggots larvae and garbage enzyme in rapid composting of food waste with wheat straw or biomass waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rehman, R.A.; Qayyum, M.F. Co-composts of sewage sludge, farm manure and rock phosphate can substitute phosphorus fertilizers in rice-wheat cropping system. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 259, 109700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ezugworie, F.N.; Igbokwe, V.C.; Onwosi, C.O. Proliferation of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms and associated genes during composting: An overview of the potential impacts on public health, management and future. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 784, 147191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Xi, B.D.; He, X.S.; Dang, Q.L.; Yang, T.X.; Li, M.X.; Wang, X.W.; Li, D.; Tang, J. Effect of multi-stage inoculation on the bacterial and fungal community structure during organic municipal solid wastes composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 196, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ajmal, M.; Shi, A.; Awais, M.; Mengqi, Z.; Zihao, X.; Shabbir, A.; Faheem, M.; Wei, W.; Ye, L. Ultra-high temperature aerobic fermentation pretreatment composting: Parameters optimization, mechanisms and compost quality assessment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chang, R.X.; Li, Y.T.; Li, N.H.; Wu, X.H.; Chen, Q. Effect of microbial transformation induced by metallic compound additives and temperature variations during composting on suppression of soil-borne pathogens. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Meng, L.Q.; Li, W.G.; Zhang, S.M.; Wu, C.D.; Lv, L.Y. Feasibility of co-composting of sewage sludge, spent mushroom substrate and wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 226, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Yang, Y.J.; Kumar Awasthi, M.; Wu, L.L.; Yan, Y.; Lv, J.L. Microbial driving mechanism of biochar and bean dregs on NH3 and N2O emissions during composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 315, 123829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sayara, T.; Basheer-Salimia, R.; Hawamde, F.; Sanchez, A. Recycling of organic wastes through composting: Process performance and compost application in agriculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Jönsson, L.J.; Alriksson, B.; Nilvebrant, N.O. Bioconversion of lignocellulose: Inhibitors and detoxification. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2013, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Klemm, D.; Heinze, T.; Philipp, B.; Wagenknecht, W. New approaches to advanced polymers by selective cellulose functionalization. Acta Polym. 1997, 48, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Koschella, A.; Fenn, D.; Illy, N.; Heinze, T. Regioselectively functionalized cellulose derivatives: A mini review. Macromol. Symp. 2006, 244, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Yang, Q.Q.; Li, Z.Y.; Lu, X.N.; Duan, Q.N.; Huang, L.; Bi, J. A review of soil heavy metal pollution from industrial and agricultural regions in China: Pollution and risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. He, B.; Yun, Z.J.; Shi, J.B.; Jiang, G.B. Research progress of heavy metal pollution in China: Sources, analytical methods, status, and toxicity. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2013, 58, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Forjan, R.; Asensio, V.; Rodriguez-Vila, A.; Covelo, E.F. Contribution of waste and biochar amendment to the sorption of metals in a copper mine tailing. CATENA 2016, 137, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Alazaiza, M.Y.D.; Albahnasawi, A.; Ali, G.A.M.; Bashir, M.J.K.; Copty, N.K.; Abu Amr, S.S.; Abushammala, M.F.M.; Al Maskari, T. Recent advances of nanoremediation technologies for soil and groundwater remediation: A review. Water 2021, 13, 2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gao, Y.N.; Wu, P.; Jeyakumar, P.; Bolan, N.; Wang, H.L.; Gao, B.; Wang, S.S.; Wang, B. Biochar as a potential strategy for remediation of contaminated mining soils: Mechanisms, applications, and future perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 313, 114973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Valijanian, E.; Panahi, H.K.S.; Nizami, A.S.; Ghanavati, H.; Sulaiman, A.; Mirmohamadsadeghi, S.; Karimi, K. A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 1: Upstream strategies. Renew. Energ. 2020, 146, 1204–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Valijanian, E.; Panahi, H.K.S.; Nizami, A.S.; Ghanavati, H.; Sulaiman, A.; Mirmohamadsadeghi, S.; Karimi, K. A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 2: Mainstream and downstream strategies. Renew. Energ. 2020, 146, 1392–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Casals, E.; Barrena, R.; Garcia, A.; Gonzalez, E.; Delgado, L.; Busquets-Fite, M.; Font, X.; Arbiol, J.; Glatzel, P.; Kvashnina, K.; et al. Programmed iron oxide nanoparticles disintegration in anaerobic digesters boosts biogas production. Small 2014, 10, 2801–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Abdelsalam, E.; Samer, M.; Attia, Y.A.; Abdel-Hadi, M.A.; Hassan, H.E.; Badr, Y. Effects of Co and Ni nanoparticles on biogas and methane production from anaerobic digestion of slurry. Energ. Convers. Manage. 2017, 141, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Treu, L.; Campanaro, S.; Kougias, P.G.; Zhu, X.Y.; Angelidaki, I. Untangling the effect of fatty acid addition at species level revealed different transcriptional responses of the biogas microbial community members. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 6079–6090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Xia, A.; Cheng, J.; Murphy, J.D. Innovation in biological production and upgrading of methane and hydrogen for use as gaseous transport biofuel. Biotechnol. Adv. 2016, 34, 451–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Onwosi, C.O.; Igbokwe, V.C.; Odimba, J.N.; Eke, I.E.; Nwankwoala, M.O.; Iroh, I.N.; Ezeogu, L.I. Composting technology in waste stabilization: On the methods, challenges and future prospects. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 190, 140–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Guo, H.N.; Wu, S.B.; Tian, Y.J.; Zhang, J.; Liu, H.T. Application of machine learning methods for the prediction of organic solid waste treatment and recycling processes: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 319, 124114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 11 03256 g001 550
Figure 1. Production process of Chinese cereal vinegar.
Figure 1. Production process of Chinese cereal vinegar.
Foods 11 03256 g001
Foods 11 03256 g002 550
Figure 2. Chinese cereal VR resource recovery technologies [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,16,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Figure 2. Chinese cereal VR resource recovery technologies [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,16,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Foods 11 03256 g002
Foods 11 03256 g003 550
Figure 3. Strategies to improve the performance of the VR anaerobic digestion process.
Figure 3. Strategies to improve the performance of the VR anaerobic digestion process.
Foods 11 03256 g003
Foods 11 03256 g004 550
Figure 4. High-value product production from VR through microbiological fermentation or physical–chemical processes.
Figure 4. High-value product production from VR through microbiological fermentation or physical–chemical processes.
Foods 11 03256 g004
Foods 11 03256 g005 550
Figure 5. Mechanisms of nZVI (A) and biochar (B) adsorption and immobilization of heavy metals.
Figure 5. Mechanisms of nZVI (A) and biochar (B) adsorption and immobilization of heavy metals.
Foods 11 03256 g005
Foods 11 03256 g006 550
Figure 6. Processes for cascade and full utilization of Chinese cereal VR.
Figure 6. Processes for cascade and full utilization of Chinese cereal VR.
Foods 11 03256 g006
Table
Table 1. Nutrients and minerals composition of Chinese cereal VR.
Table 1. Nutrients and minerals composition of Chinese cereal VR.
ItemsUnitValue
Total solid%27.53–35.63
VS/TS%88.96–94.73
Crude protein%TS9.56–17.60
Crude fiber%TS26.70–34.92
Crude fat%TS2.70–6.53
Residual starchk/kg TS16.12–16.32
Hemicellulose%TS16.22–38.90
Cellulose%TS22.96–34.91
Lignin%TS9.20–24.78
Neutral detergent fiber%TS62.40–85.17
Acid detergent fiber%TS46.89–55.13
Acid detergent lignin%TS22.74–22.74
Ether extract%TS5.95–9.98
Acetic acidk/kg TS0.15–1.02
Lactic acidk/kg TS0.12–1.10
Tartaric acidk/kg TS0.16–0.19
Malic acidk/kg TS0.04–0.08
Ash%TS5.62–13.17
C%TS42.14–49.12
N%TS1.68–6.61
C/NNA15.50–28.68
H%TS4.88–6.83
S%TS0.08–0.38
O%TS35.25–43.44
Calciumk/kg TS2.10–2.50
Phosphorusk/kg TS0.40–0.63
pHNA3.49–4.52
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, K.; Yu, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, P.; Yu, Z.; Wang, Y. A Review of the Current State and Future Prospects in Resource Recovery of Chinese Cereal Vinegar Residue. Foods 2022, 11, 3256. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11203256

AMA Style

Wang K, Yu Y, Liu S, Zhu Y, Liu P, Yu Z, Wang Y. A Review of the Current State and Future Prospects in Resource Recovery of Chinese Cereal Vinegar Residue. Foods. 2022; 11(20):3256. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11203256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Ke, Yongjian Yu, Shuangping Liu, Yuanyuan Zhu, Peng Liu, Zhen Yu, and Yuqin Wang. 2022. "A Review of the Current State and Future Prospects in Resource Recovery of Chinese Cereal Vinegar Residue" Foods 11, no. 20: 3256. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11203256

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop