Evaluation of an alternative method for production of biodiesel from processed fats derived from Category 1, 2 and 3 animal by‐products (submitted by College Proteins)

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2021

EFS2

Self Cite

A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product ( ABP ) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (Pr P S c ), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable Pr P S c , of at least 6 log 10 should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation ( EU ) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log 10 reduction in detectable Pr P S c , by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of Pr P S c from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log 10 reduction in Pr P S c . Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP .

Section: Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rml Strainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rml Strainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the application for new alternative biodiesel production process for rendered fat including Category 1 animal by‐products (BDI‐RepCat® process, AT)

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2021

EFS2

Self Cite

“…A wide range of bacterial, viral, parasitic, protozoan and fungal pathogens can be found in the feedstock materials used for biodiesel production. However, the esterification and transesterification steps and the final vacuum distillation during biodiesel production have been considered to achieve a relevant reduction of biological hazards, including TSE agents, the most resilient pathogens (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2015 , 2017 , 2020 , 2021 ).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth highlighting that, as set out in Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, alternative methods for the production of biodiesel and renewable fuels have been assessed by EFSA to ensure that any risks to public or animal health are reduced to a degree that is at least equivalent to that achieved by the processing methods that have already been approved for the same category of ABP. This is carried out by assessing whether the alternative methods achieve a relevant reduction, even for TSE agents, which are considered to be the most resistant biological hazards (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2011, 2017 , 2020 , 2021 ).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inactivation of indicator microorganisms and biological hazards by standard and/or alternative processing methods in Category 2 and 3 animal by‐products and derived products to be used as organic fertilisers and/or soil improvers

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2021

EFS2

Self Cite

The European Commission requested EFSA to assess if different thermal processes achieve a 5 log 10 reduction in Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg (775W) and (if relevant) a 3 log 10 reduction in thermoresistant viruses (e.g. Parvovirus ) as well as if different chemical processes achieve a 3 log 10 reduction of eggs of Ascaris sp., in eight groups of Category 2 and 3 derived products and animal by‐products (ABP). These included (1) ash derived from incineration, co‐incineration and combustion; (2) glycerine derived from the production of biodiesel and renewable fuels; (3) other materials derived from the production of biodiesel and renewable fuels; (4) hides and skins; (5) wool and hair; (6) feathers and down; (7) pig bristles; and (8) horns, horn products, hooves and hoof products. Data on the presence of viral hazards and on thermal and chemical inactivation of the targeted indicator microorganisms and biological hazards under relevant processing conditions were extracted via extensive literature searches. The evidence was assessed via expert knowledge elicitation. The certainty that the required log 10 reductions in the most resistant indicator microorganisms or biological hazards will be achieved for each of the eight groups of materials mentioned above by the thermal and/or chemical processes was (1) 99–100% for the two processes assessed; (2) 98–100% in Category 2 ABP, at least 90–99% in Category 3 ABP; (3) 90–99% in Category 2 ABP; at least 66–90% in Category 3 ABP; (4) 10–66% and 33–66%; (5) 1–33% and 10–50%; (6) 66–90%; (7) 33–66% and 50–95%; (8) 66–95%, respectively. Data generation on the occurrence and reduction of biological hazards by thermal and/or chemical methods in these materials and on the characterisation of the usage pathways of ABP as organic fertilisers/soil improvers is recommended.

Evaluation of a multi‐step catalytic co‐processing hydrotreatment for the production of renewable fuels using Category 3 animal fat and used cooking oils

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2022

EFS2

Self Cite

An alternative method for the production of renewable fuels from rendered animal fats (pretreated using methods 1–5 or method 7 as described in Annex IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2011/142) and used cooking oils, derived from Category 3 animal by‐products, was assessed. The method is based on a catalytic co‐processing hydrotreatment using a middle distillate followed by a stripping step. The materials must be submitted to a pressure of at least 60 bars and a temperature of at least 270°C for at least 4.7 min. The application focuses on the demonstration of the level of reduction of spores from non‐pathogenic spore‐forming indicator bacterial species (Bacillus subtilis and Desulfotomaculum kuznetsovii), based on a non‐systematic review of published data and additional extrapolation analyses. The EFSA BIOHAZ Panel considers that the application and supporting literature contain sufficient evidence that the proposed alternative method can achieve a reduction of at least 5 log10 in the spores of B. subtilis and a 12 log10 reduction in the spores of C. botulinum. The alternative method under evaluation is considered at least equivalent to the processing methods currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 2011/142.