Next Article in Journal
Climate Variability, Temporal Migration, and Household Welfare among Agricultural Households in Tanzania
Next Article in Special Issue
Life Cycle Assessment of a Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Simulated with Alternative Operational Designs
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Groundwater Sensitivity to Pollution Using GIS-Based Modified DRASTIC-LU Model for Sustainable Development in the Nile Delta Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cost Analysis and Health Risk Assessment of Wastewater Reuse from Secondary and Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Plants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142214698
sustainability-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

Environmentally Friendly Technologies for Wastewater Treatment in Food Processing Plants: A Bibliometric Analysis

by
Prospero Cristhian Onofre Zapata-Mendoza
1,
Oscar Julian Berrios-Tauccaya
2,
Vicente Amirpasha Tirado-Kulieva
3,*,
Jhony Alberto Gonzales-Malca
3,4,*,
David Roberto Ricse-Reyes
2,
Andres Amador Berrios-Zevallos
5 and
Roberto Simón Seminario-Sanz
2
1
Doctorado en Arquitectura, Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru
2
Facultad de Ingeniería de Industrias Alimentarias y Biotecnología, Universidad Nacional de Frontera, Sullana 20100, Peru
3
Laboratorio de Tecnología de Alimentos y Procesos, Universidad Nacional de Frontera, Sullana 20100, Peru
4
Laboratorio de Biología Molecular, Universidad Nacional de Frontera, Sullana 20100, Peru
5
Institutos Educacionales Berrios S.C.R.L., Sullana 20100, Peru
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 14698; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214698
Submission received: 3 October 2022 / Revised: 27 October 2022 / Accepted: 3 November 2022 / Published: 8 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Recycling)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Currently, the population is experiencing severe water stress mainly due to high water consumption by industries. Food and beverage processing consumes up to 90% of freshwater, resulting in large volumes of wastewater that is often treated with complex, costly and environmentally damaging processes. The purpose of this study is to perform the first bibliometric analysis to evaluate and discuss the evolution in the use of environmentally friendly technologies for wastewater treatment in food processing plants. A total of 606 documents published up to August 2022 were retrieved from Scopus. Data were manually standardized. VOSviewer version 1.5.18 and Bibliometrix version 4.0.0 were used to perform scientific mapping and evaluate bibliometric indicators of quantity, quality and structure. Scientific production is growing exponentially due to factors such as strict environmental policies and increased environmental awareness. The average number of authors per document is 4.056 and prolific authors in the field have not yet been defined. The contribution of the countries (led by the United States with 104 documents) was associated with their gross domestic product (GDP), level of trade and industrialization. Likewise, institutions from China (third place with 70 documents) have the highest contribution in the field. On the other hand, most of the journals where the documents were published are of high quality according to different metrics. According to the most influential articles, the frequency of keywords and their dynamics over time, the use of microalgae, microorganisms and plants for the treatment of effluents generated during food processing is the main trend. The processes also focus on the recovery or recycling of compounds of interest in wastewater such as phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon to contribute to the circular economy.

1. Introduction

Currently, 10% of the population does not have access to safe water, resulting in the death (directly and indirectly) of about 1 million people annually [1], approximately 300,000 children [2]. It was predicted that in a few decades 50% of the population will experience severe water stress [3]. According to Piesse [4], the reason is that water use has tripled since 1950; annual consumption increased from 1.22 billion cubic meters to 4 billion in 2014. This growth is double the population growth rate.
The increase in water demand is attributed to its massive use in industrial processes. Food and beverage processing ranks third in water consumption, accounting for up to 90% of the world’s freshwater [5]. Figure 1 shows the water requirement to produce some foods. This industry generates vast quantities of wastewater (WW); a significant proportion is not treated and is discharged into lakes, rivers and open drains, damaging the environment and affecting the health of living beings [6,7]. The consequences depend on the characteristics (origin) of the effluent. Noukeu et al. [8] characterized effluents from 9 different food processing sectors and discussed the potential impact on the ecosystem. High concentrations of heavy metals such as cadmium and lead can inhibit plant growth and can also be toxic to humans and animals. Effluent discharge can increase the concentration of nitrogen compounds such as ammonium, nitrate and nitrite and cause eutrophication in water bodies. Low pH effluents can alter soil chemistry, affect nutrient bioavailability and increase the solubility of heavy metals. Oil and grease can reduce oxygenation in the water, affecting fish, algae and plant life. Excess solids can cause sedimentation and decrease water depth. The variation in the composition of water bodies causes changes in temperature and color, and can generate turbidity and unpleasant odors. For many other reasons, effluents generated in food processing must be treated before discharge. According to the United Nations report, the main reason for water scarcity is inadequate water management and non-reuse [9]. Water pinch analysis is a widely used strategy for water recycling. This approach is based on determining which waters generated in process A are of acceptable quality for reuse in process B. Therefore, it is essential to know the nature of each process, the minimum requirements of the water to be used and the characteristics of the effluent [10]. This also reduces the load of pollutants in the effluent [11]. Water pinch analysis has been successful in reducing freshwater consumption by 43% in sugar production [12], 63.5% in fruit juice production [13], 40% in soft drink production [14], 30% in beer production [15], 30% in citrus juice production [16] and 31.4–36% in corn production [17].
Water consumption in the food industry depends on the number and type of raw materials and final products, the size of the processing plant, the processes and equipment used, automation and cleaning operations [5]. WW comes from operations/processes related to the handling and processing of raw materials. The composition of the effluent is subject to the quality of the water used, the type of processing and its treatment; it generally consists of organic matter, microorganisms, sanitation products, metals, fertilizers, pesticides, nutrients, organic and inorganic materials [5]. There are several alternatives for WW treatment; physicochemical systems such as gravity concentration, evaporation, centrifugation, sedimentation, coagulation, flocculation, adsorption, oxidation, filtration and flotation; biological systems such as bioremediation and/or aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation; and hybrid solutions [5,7,18].
Due to the complexity of the WW generated in food processing plants, it is difficult to select an efficient treatment. To know the state of research and important trends, bibliometrics is an effective tool for quantitative analysis using mathematical and statistical methods. The bibliometric method allows us to know the dynamics of the disciplines [19], the research interest in a field, the number of citations, which topics/keywords are booming, who the main authors are, which countries and institutions are involved, in which journals the results of studies are published, as well as their interrelations and information on the evolution over time [20,21]. This allows identification priorities to be identified, gaps in the literature to be filled and new lines of research to be developed.
Bibliometric studies have been conducted on WW treatment/management in general [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Some studies focused specifically on processes such as advanced oxidation [28,29,30,31,32,33], coagulation [34] and direct osmosis [35]. However, many of the treatments use chemicals that cause damage to the environment; they are expensive and ineffective [36]. Therefore, bibliometric studies were carried out on more efficient biological processes using microorganisms, algae and some plants [37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. In this sense, this study will perform the first bibliometric analysis to evaluate and discuss the evolution in the use of environmentally friendly technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants. The main purpose is to provide a broad overview of the dynamics and current state of research to professionals related to the field of study and to the general public interested in these topics. In addition, the information provided will make it possible to identify authors (for possible collaborations) and prolific countries (to define unexplored study areas, for example), select relevant articles (recent, high impact or on specific topics) to begin research, determine journals with the greatest potential for publishing research, etc.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology used in a previous study was adapted [44]. The document search was performed in Scopus because it is the largest database of peer-reviewed literature, has high accessibility, and offers superior processing capabilities [45]. In order to carry out a more exhaustive and precise search, we chose to search for documents through the search terms [23]. After several tests, the search string was used: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“wastewater treatment” OR “sewage treatment”) AND technology AND (food OR beverage) AND (ecological OR environmental OR green OR friendly); and all types of English-language documents published up to August 2022 were retrieved.
This study considered the three indicators established by Durieux and Gevenois [46]: quantity (productivity), quality (relevance, impact) and structure (connections). Variables such as keywords, annual publications, subject areas, authors, countries, institutions and most prolific countries were analyzed. The results were downloaded in CSV format. Bibliometrix package version 4.0.0 (in RStudio v. 4.2.1) developed by Aria and Cuccurullo [47], and VOSviewer v. 1.6.18 developed by van Eck and Waltman [48] were used to perform scientific mapping by constructing bibliometric networks. The analysis was complemented with the Analyze search results service from Scopus.
Scopus does not produce data for a bibliometric study and, therefore, it may contain errors that will affect the final result [49]. To mitigate errors, two of the authors were responsible for removing duplicate data, correcting errors and adding incomplete information, as appropriate [24].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Annual Scientific Production: Classification by Subject Area and Document Type

As shown in Figure 2, a total of 606 documents on environmentally friendly technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants were retrieved from 1972 onwards. In the first three decades the number of studies was very low (50 documents up to 2002). The barrier of 10 documents was surpassed in 2003 with 13 studies, but growth was discontinuous until 2012. Since 2013 there has been a continuous and significant growth. A peak was reached in 2021 with 84 documents published and, so far, there are 57 documents in 2022. The increase in the number of documents is associated with the year in which the United Nations General Assembly established the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Target 6.3 focuses on reducing the volume of untreated WW [50]. Since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, several studies have been conducted on the importance of WW treatment to achieve target 6.3 [51].
Price [52] defined three stages of evolution of scientific information about a discipline: precursors, exponential growth and linear growth. The annual production since 1972 fits an exponential trend line with an R2 value of 0.9056 (data not shown). In this regard, research on WW treatment in food processing plants using environmentally friendly technologies is at the stage of exponential growth. This is mainly due to strict environmental policies and because the population is more environmentally conscious [53].
A document may belong to more than one subject area (category). Figure 2 shows the main subject areas on the use of environmentally friendly technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants. For a better understanding, Gallego-Valero et al. [24] suggested also analyzing the data in percentages. In the early years, no main subject areas are defined. However, in 1996 and mainly since 2003, environmental science has become the predominant area of study with 371 documents (31.156%), followed by engineering, chemical engineering, energy and biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology with 148 (12.395%), 116 (9.715%), 96 (8.040%) and 75 documents (6.281%), respectively. In addition, there are 16 different areas, representing a percentage of 6 to 3%: agricultural and biological sciences > chemistry > materials science > immunology and microbiology; 3 to 1%: earth and planetary sciences > medicine > physics and astronomy > social sciences > business, management and accounting > economics, econometrics and finance; less than 1%: pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics > mathematics > computer science > multidisciplinary > veterinary > decision sciences.

3.2. Main Authors

Table 1 shows the ranking of the authors with the highest contribution to the topic. The field of study still has much to exploit and although there are no prolific authors, Nelson, M. has the largest number of documents published (5). The publications were made in the period 2001–2009; therefore, he is not an author currently focused on the field. His most-cited document focused on the construction of subsurface flow wetlands for WW treatment; concluding that it is economical, environmentally friendly and effective [54]. If the ranking is according to the citation/number of documents ratio, Ngo, H.H. is the main author (about 176 citations per document). He published four documents from 2014 to 2021; he remains current in the field of study. His most cited document is a critical review on the use of agro-industrial wastes/byproducts as natural and low-cost biosorbents for WW treatment; specifically, to remove heavy metal ions, dyes, organics and nutrients [55]. Interestingly, Anon (period 1983–1998) and Chen W.T. (2016 only) published three documents each, but have no citations so far.
As an additional fact, the average number of authors per document is 4.056. In short, research in the field tends to be collaborative [44], which implies that it is gaining interest [45].

3.3. Main Countries

The United States is the country with the most documents published (104, Table 1). The most recent document is by Liu et al. [56], who detailed the economic and ecological benefits of using photosynthetic bacteria for WW treatment. The efficiency of this alternative for the recovery of high-value biological resources such as carotenoids, polyhydroxyalkanoates and bacteriocins was highlighted. Australia has the highest TC/TD ratio (73.846). Younas et al. [57] published the most recent document on the use of wetlands for the sustainable treatment of WW, especially for chromium removal.
The collaboration between countries is shown in Figure 3. The top 5 is made up of China, the United States, India, the United Kingdom and Italy with a total link strength (TLS) of 74, 52, 44, 41 and 37, respectively. Established groups can be seen: (a) China, United States, India, Australia, Malaysia, Canada, Egypt and South Korea; (b) Sweden, Germany, United Kingdom and Greece; (c) Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, France, Brazil and Poland. The only Latin American countries in this list are Mexico (cooperation with the United States (TLS: 2) = China = India = Pakistan > United Kingdom (TLS: 1) = Canada) and Brazil (cooperation with China (TLS: 1) = Spain = France).
According to the study by Khan et al. [58], the gross domestic product (GDP), trade and industrialization of each country have a positive and significant correlation with the concern for WW treatment. This is related considering that the United States also ranked first in GDP (2021 data in USD billions): 22,996,100 [59]. Comparing with all the countries in Table 1, the number of documents:GDP ratio is 1:1, 2:5, 3:2, 4:4, 5:6, 6:9, 7:10, 8:8, 9:7 and 10:3; there is a slight correlation. According to data from 2015, in low, lower-middle, upper-middle and high-income countries, WW treatment was carried out in a proportion of 54, 64, 69 and 85%, respectively [60]. This is also associated with the countries in Table 1. According to the World Bank, all countries are high-income, except India and Malaysia (lower-middle and upper-middle income, respectively) [61].
Tuninneti et al. [62] determined that trade is positively associated with the efficient management of water resources. The World Trade Organization [63] classifies countries into four levels according to trade per capita (1: USD 0–500, 2: USD 500.01–2000, 3: USD 2000.01–10,000 and 4: > USD 10,000). India and China are located at the first and second levels, respectively; the United States, Italy, Spain, Malaysia, Australia and Germany are located at the third level; the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are located at the fourth level. In this context, a single variable does not define the concern and research on WW treatment for each country; multiple factors need to be analyzed.

3.4. Main Institutions

The top 10 institutions in the field of study published 10.066% of the total number of documents (Table 1). Institutions from China predominate (third place with 70 documents); Ministry of Education China and Chinese Academy of Sciences share the first place in the ranking with eight documents published. The most recent document from each institution is by Gao et al. [64] and Huang et al. [65], respectively. The first dealt with the use of cold plasma (ionizing gas) as a simple, environmentally friendly, low-cost and effective tool for disinfecting and removing contaminants in WW. The second study dealt with the impact of WW management on energy, water and the environment. Since WW is treated as waste, the consumption of energy and water is high, in addition to harming the environment. To avoid this, the treatment and reuse of effluents was proposed, in addition to recycling resources. The highest citation/number of documents ratio is by University of Technology Sydney (113.429), which is consistent with it being an institution in Australia, the main country in the same category. The most recent document is by Trianni et al. [53], an interesting study highlighting the boom in research on industrial WW treatment due to stricter environmental policies and greater environmental consciousness. It was concluded that the appropriate technology should be economical and should be chosen according to the influent, characteristics of the area, social factors and regulatory standards.

3.5. Main Journals

To evaluate the journals, we determined (a) quartile (Q) in which they are positioned according to the total number of journals in a specific area; (b) journal impact factor (JIF), citation frequency of the average articles in the last two years.; (c) SCImago journal rank (SJR), scientific influence of the journals according to the number of citations received and the prestige of the journals in which the citations were made [24].
The journals with the most papers (Table 2) are Science of the Total Environment (3.465%), Bioresource Technology (2.970%), Water Science and Technology (2.970%), Journal of Environmental Management (2.805%), Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2.310%) and Water Research (2.310%). All the journals belong to quartile 1 (Q1), except Water Science and Technology (Q2), which is also the only one with exclusive open access. These journals published 16.832% of the documents on the research topic. In general, most of the journals belong to Q1 (such as Chemosphere, Journal of Cleaner Production, Water, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology and Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering) and Q2 (such as Water Environment Research, Advances in Space Research, Sustainability, Ozone Science and Engineering and Environmental Technology); are from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, United States and Switzerland; and published by Elsevier, followed by other major publishers such as MDPI, Springer, John Wiley and Sons, and Taylor and Francis. Likewise, the journals present high quality indicators such as Water Research with a TC/TD ratio of 139.286, a JIF of 13.400 and SJR of 2.81. In this context, it can be noted that most of the documents published have a significant level of quality.

3.6. Main Documents and Keywords

This section provides more specific information on advances in the field of environmentally friendly technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants; it also allows trends to be defined. The 49, 23, 13, 10 and 2% of retrieved documents are articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters and conference reviews, respectively, in addition to others (2%) such as books, notes, errata and retractions. Table 3 shows the five most-cited documents; all are reviews. There are no authors in common and none of the authors are in the Top 10 mentioned in Table 1. For a subjective measure, the average number of citations per year of publication was also evaluated. In both cases, the study by Brenan and Owende [66] occupies the first place and together with the study by Lam and Lee [67] showed information on the importance of taking advantage of the nutrient content of WW to cultivate microalgae. It is presented as a circular alternative since, in parallel, the microalgae purify the water.
The most-used keywords are shown in Table 4. Groups can be formed with related words: (a) WW treatment, (b) food industry, (c) environmental sustainability, (d) biotechnologies for treatment. At first glance, the trend is the use of biological organisms (plants, algae, microorganisms) for sustainable WW treatment. Further information is provided in Figure 4 where four keyword clusters are visualized. All clusters contain keywords with the denomination of various sustainable and efficient (bio) technologies for WW treatment. Specifically, the red cluster focuses on physical and chemical systems, highlighting different variants of filtration and membrane technology. More detail is shown below.
The yellow cluster focuses on biosorption, a passive process involving adsorption of particles (adsorbate) on the surface of cell bodies (adsorbent) [71]. Biosorption is considered as a biotechnological process with high yield, selectivity and low cost. Natural biosorbents such as marine algae, plants, plankton, and other microorganisms can be used [72]. In the cluster, biosorption and heavy metals can be related. A comprehensive review on the use of food byproducts as heavy metal bioadsorbents for WW treatment was recently conducted [73]. Algae [74] and microorganisms [75] were also reported to have high biosorption capacity for heavy metals.
The blue cluster emphasizes the use of microorganisms and algae for water purification. This cluster also gives signals on the use of biological agents to produce biofuels, ideal for meeting the increase in energy demand by taking advantage of the high and diversified organic load present in the WW generated in food processing as a raw material. Promising results were shown when bacteria, cyanobacteria, fungi, yeasts and microalgae were used for WW treatment and biofuel production simultaneously [76,77]. Microalgae are the most studied because they are versatile; they can grow in WW with low nutrient concentrations and even in unfavorable environmental conditions [78]. However, cultivation and harvesting of microalgae are expensive; therefore, microalgae–microorganism consortia were used successfully, but interactions (positive and negative) are still under study [79].
The green cluster includes keywords related to compounds present in WW such as phosphorus, nitrogen and ammonium. This is related to the fact that WW is a source of energy and resources; nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon can be recycled and reused as valuable resources for a circular economy [80]. On the other hand, ammonia is a common toxic element in WW; therefore, its elimination is essential [81]. The term biogas is related to the blue cluster on bioenergy production to contribute to the circular economy and sustainable development.
Finally, to assess how the field has developed over time, Figure 5 shows the distribution of keywords from 2011 to 2021. The position of the circle shows the average year of keyword usage, and the size determines the frequency. Membrane and filtration technologies were widely used in research conducted from 2010 to 2020. Membrane technology includes microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, liquid membrane, etc. [51]. Microfiltration, ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes have pore sizes of 0.1–10 µm, 0.1–0.001 µm and 0.5–2.0 nm, respectively [82]. Table 5 shows some characteristics of membrane technologies and Table 6 presents some studies on their use for WW treatment in food processing plants.
Membrane filtration is efficient, but its use is limited by high investment, operation and maintenance costs; high energy requirements; fouling and/or clogging due to high solute concentrations in the effluent; limited flow rates, etc. [100,101]. Therefore, various biological agents have been used since 2011 (Figure 5) and interest is continuously increasing due to their low cost, versatility, simplicity, renewability and low secondary contamination [38]. Table 7 shows a summary of research related to the topic. The use of microalgae of the genus Chlorella is highlighted because of their potential to grow in various WW and take advantage of their nutrients to increase biomass yield [102]. Chlorella spp. are widely used for WW bioremediation, mainly for heavy metal detoxification [103].

4. Conclusions

Food and beverage processing generates a large volume of WW of varied and complex composition; therefore, the use of efficient, ecological and economic treatments is necessary. This bibliometric study revealed a number of findings of interest. First, the field of study is in a stage of exponential growth and there is much to explore; there are no prolific authors. A slight positive association was found between the contribution of countries and their GDP, level of trade and industrialization. Most documents are published in high-impact journals, which also indicates the quality of the research. Mainly, research is focused on the use of biological agents as a simple, cheap and ecological alternative for the treatment of effluents generated in food processing plants; in addition to providing the advantage of recovering the nutrients of interest, giving them a subsequent use and thus establishing a circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.C.O.Z.-M., O.J.B.-T. and V.A.T.-K.; methodology, P.C.O.Z.-M., O.J.B.-T., V.A.T.-K. and J.A.G.-M.; formal analysis, P.C.O.Z.-M., O.J.B.-T., V.A.T.-K. and J.A.G.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, P.C.O.Z.-M., O.J.B.-T., V.A.T.-K., J.A.G.-M., D.R.R.-R., A.A.B.-Z. and R.S.S.-S.; writing—review and editing, D.R.R.-R., A.A.B.-Z. and R.S.S.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Universidad Nacional de Frontera.

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.

References

  1. The Water Crisis. Available online: https://water.org/our-impact/water-crisis/ (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  2. UNICEF Over 300,000 Children under Five Died from Diarrhoeal Diseases Linked to Limited Access to Safe Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in 2015—UNICEF. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/en/node/2296 (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  3. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Water: The Environmental Outlook to 2050. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/env/resources/49006778.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  4. Piesse, M. Global Water Supply and Demand Trends Point Towards Rising Water Insecurity. Available online: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-02/apo-nid276976.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  5. Barbera, M.; Gurnari, G. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Food Industry, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9783319684413. [Google Scholar]
  6. Asgharnejad, H.; Khorshidi Nazloo, E.; Madani Larijani, M.; Hajinajaf, N.; Rashidi, H. Comprehensive Review of Water Management and Wastewater Treatment in Food Processing Industries in the Framework of Water-Food-Environment Nexus. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 4779–4815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dutta, D.; Arya, S.; Kumar, S. Industrial Wastewater Treatment: Current Trends, Bottlenecks, and Best Practices. Chemosphere 2021, 285, 131245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Noukeu, N.A.; Gouado, I.; Priso, R.J.; Ndongo, D.; Taffouo, V.D.; Dibong, S.D.; Ekodeck, G.E. Characterization of Effluent from Food Processing Industries and Stillage Treatment Trial with Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) and Panicum maximum (Jacq.). Water Resour. Ind. 2016, 16, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Croates, D.; Connor, R. Nature-Based Solutions and Water, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261605 (accessed on 24 October 2020).
  10. Nemati-Amirkolaii, K.; Romdhana, H.; Lameloise, M.-L. Pinch Methods for Efficient Use of Water in Food Industry: A Survey Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Klemeš, J.J.; Varbanov, P.S.; Lam, H.L. Water Footprint, Water Recycling and Food-Industry Supply Chains. In Handbook of Waste Management and Co-Product Recovery in Food Processing; Waldron, K., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2009; Volume 2, pp. 134–168. ISBN 9781845697051. [Google Scholar]
  12. Balla, W.H.; Rabah, A.A.; Abdallah, B.K. Pinch Analysis of Sugarcane Refinery Water Integration. Sugar Tech 2018, 20, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Klemes, J.J.; Lam, H.; Foo, D. Water Recycling and Recovery in Food and Drink Processing. In Total Food-Sustainability of the Aagri-Food Chain; Waldron, K.W., Moates, G.K., Faulds, C.B., Eds.; RCS Publishing: Milan, Italy, 2010; ISBN 9781847557506/9781849730785. [Google Scholar]
  14. Majozi, T.; Foo, D.C.Y. Water Minimization in the Soft Drinks Industry. In Handbook of Water and Energy Management in Food Processing; Klemeš, J., Smith, R., Kim, J.-K., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2008; pp. 904–928. [Google Scholar]
  15. Thevendiraraj, S.; Klemeš, J.; Paz, D.; Aso, G.; Cardenas, G.J. Water and Wastewater Minimisation Study of a Citrus Plant. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003, 37, 227–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tokos, H.; Novak Pintarič, Z. Synthesis of Batch Water Network for a Brewery Plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1465–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bavar, M.; Sarrafzadeh, M.-H.; Asgharnejad, H.; Norouzi-Firouz, H. Water Management Methods in Food Industry: Corn Refinery as a Case Study. J. Food Eng. 2018, 238, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nayyar, D.; Nawaz, T.; Noore, S.A.; Singh, P. Pollution Control Technologies. In Pollution Control Technologies. Current Status and Future Prospects; Singh, S.P., Rathinam, P., Gupta, T.A., Agarwal, K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 177–208. ISBN 9789811608575. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hood, W.W.; Wilson, C.S. The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics. Scientometrics 2001, 52, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mao, G.; Hu, H.; Liu, X.; Crittenden, J.; Huang, N. A Bibliometric Analysis of Industrial Wastewater Treatments from 1998 to 2019. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 275, 115785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, Y.; Lin, M.; Zhuang, D. Wastewater Treatment and Emerging Contaminants: Bibliometric Analysis. Chemosphere 2022, 297, 133932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ding, M.; Zeng, H. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Progress in Sulfate-Rich Wastewater Pollution Control Technology. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 238, 113626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Durán-Sánchez, A.; Álvarez-García, J.; González-Vázquez, E.; Río-Rama, M.D.L.C.D. Wastewater Management: Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Literature. Water 2020, 12, 2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gallego-Valero, L.; Moral-Parajes, E.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. Wastewater Treatment Costs: A Research Overview through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marcal, J.; Bishop, T.; Hofman, J.; Shen, J. From Pollutant Removal to Resource Recovery: A Bibliometric Analysis of Municipal Wastewater Research in Europe. Chemosphere 2021, 284, 131267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Patyal, V.; Jaspal, D.; Khare, K. Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Technol. Libr. 2020, 39, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zheng, T.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Nie, C.; Smale, N.; Shi, Z.; Wang, X. A Bibliometric Analysis of Industrial Wastewater Research: Current Trends and Future Prospects. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 863–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zheng, T.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Meng, H.; Wang, L. Research Trends in Electrochemical Technology for Water and Wastewater Treatment. Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Macías-Quiroga, I.F.; Henao-Aguirre, P.A.; Marín-Flórez, A.; Arredondo-López, S.M.; Sanabria-González, N.R. Bibliometric Analysis of Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) in Wastewater Treatment: Global and Ibero-American Research Trends. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 23791–23811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ismail, S.A.; Ang, W.L.; Mohammad, A.W. Electro-Fenton Technology for Wastewater Treatment: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Research Trends, Future Perspectives and Energy Consumption Analysis. J. Water Process. Eng. 2021, 40, 101952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Raji, M.; Mirbagheri, S.A. A Global Trend of Fenton-Based AOPs Focused on Wastewater Treatment: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis. Water Pract. Technol. 2021, 16, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Simões, A.J.A.; Macêdo-Júnior, R.O.; Santos, B.L.P.; Silva, D.P.; Ruzene, D.S. A Bibliometric Study on the Application of Advanced Oxidation Processes for Produced Water Treatment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Usman, M.; Ho, Y.-S. A Bibliometric Study of the Fenton Oxidation for Soil and Water Remediation. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fang, Y.; Zheng, T.; Wu, Y.-N.; Wang, Y.; Li, F. Global Trends of Coagulation for Water and Wastewater Treatment by Utilizing Bibliometrics Analysis. Desalination Water Treat. 2019, 151, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ang, W.L.; Wahab Mohammad, A.; Johnson, D.; Hilal, N. Forward Osmosis Research Trends in Desalination and Wastewater Treatment: A Review of Research Trends over the Past Decade. J. Water Process. Eng. 2019, 31, 100886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Niknejad, N.; Nazari, B.; Foroutani, S.; Hussin, A.R.B.C. A Bibliometric Analysis of Green Technologies Applied to Water and Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jain, M.; Khan, S.A.; Sharma, K.; Jadhao, P.R.; Pant, K.K.; Ziora, Z.M.; Blaskovich, M.A.T. Current Perspective of Innovative Strategies for Bioremediation of Organic Pollutants from Wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jin, L.; Sun, X.; Ren, H.; Huang, H. Hotspots and Trends of Biological Water Treatment Based on Bibliometric Review and Patents Analysis. J. Environ. Sci. 2023, 125, 774–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, Z.; Zhu, L. The Scientometric Analysis of the Research on Microalgae-Based Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 25339–25348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Loh, Z.Z.; Zaidi, N.S.; Yong, E.L.; Syafiuddin, A.; Boopathy, R.; Kadier, A. Current Status and Future Research Trends of Biofiltration in Wastewater Treatment: A Bibliometric Review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2022, 8, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Melo, J.M.; Ribeiro, M.R.; Telles, T.S.; Amaral, H.F.; Andrade, D.S. Microalgae Cultivation in Wastewater from Agricultural Industries to Benefit next Generation of Bioremediation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 22708–22720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Okaiyeto, K.; Ekundayo, T.C.; Okoh, A.I. Global Research Trends on Bioflocculant Potentials in Wastewater Remediation from 1990 to 2019 Using a Bibliometric Approach. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 71, 567–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Qi, Y.; Chen, X.; Hu, Z.; Song, C.; Cui, Y. Bibliometric Analysis of Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis in Wastewater Treatment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Tirado-Kulieva, V.A.; Gutiérrez-Valverde, K.S.; Villegas-Yarlequé, M.; Camacho-Orbegoso, E.W.; Villegas-Aguilar, G.F. Research Trends on Mango By-Products: A Literature Review with Bibliometric Analysis. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2022, 16, 2760–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. López-Serrano, M.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. Sustainable Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: A Bibliometric Analysis of Worldwide Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Durieux, V.; Gevenois, P.A. Bibliometric Indicators: Quality Measurements of Scientific Publication. Radiology 2010, 255, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. United Nations. Goal 6: Ensure Access to Water and Sanitation for All. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  51. Obaideen, K.; Shehata, N.; Sayed, E.T.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Mahmoud, M.S.; Olabi, A.G. The Role of Wastewater Treatment in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Sustainability Guideline. Energy Nexus 2022, 7, 100112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Price, D.J.S. The Exponential Curve of Science. Discovery 1956, 17, 240–243. [Google Scholar]
  53. Trianni, A.; Negri, M.; Cagno, E. What Factors Affect the Selection of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Configuration? J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 285, 112099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nelson, M.; Odum, H.T.; Brown, M.T.; Alling, A. “Living off the Land”: Resource Efficiency of Wetland Wastewater Treatment. Adv. Space Res. 2001, 27, 1547–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abdolali, A.; Guo, W.S.; Ngo, H.H.; Chen, S.S.; Nguyen, N.C.; Tung, K.L. Typical Lignocellulosic Wastes and By-Products for Biosorption Process in Water and Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 160, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Liu, S.; Li, H.; Daigger, G.T.; Huang, J.; Song, G. Material Biosynthesis, Mechanism Regulation and Resource Recycling of Biomass and High-Value Substances from Wastewater Treatment by Photosynthetic Bacteria: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 820, 153200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Younas, F.; Niazi, N.K.; Bibi, I.; Afzal, M.; Hussain, K.; Shahid, M.; Aslam, Z.; Bashir, S.; Hussain, M.M.; Bundschuh, J. Constructed Wetlands as a Sustainable Technology for Wastewater Treatment with Emphasis on Chromium-Rich Tannery Wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 422, 126926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Khan, S.A.R.; Ponce, P.; Yu, Z.; Golpîra, H.; Mathew, M. Environmental Technology and Wastewater Treatment: Strategies to Achieve Environmental Sustainability. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. IndexMundi Comparación de Países > Producto Interno Bruto (PIB). Available online: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=65&l=es (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  60. UNESCO. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017: Wastewater: The Untapped Resource; Facts and Figures. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247553 (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  61. The World Bank World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available online: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  62. Tuninetti, M.; Ridolfi, L.; Laio, F. Charting out the Future Agricultural Trade and Its Impact on Water Resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. World Trade Organization Trade Maps. Available online: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_maps_e.htm (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  64. Gao, Y.; Li, M.; Sun, C.; Zhang, X. Microbubble-Enhanced Water Activation by Cold Plasma. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 446, 137318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Huang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Gao, B.; Ma, S.; Zhong, Q.; Wang, L.; Cui, S. Life Cycle Assessment and Society Willingness to Pay Indexes of Food Waste-to-Energy Strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 305, 114364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Brennan, L.; Owende, P. Biofuels from Microalgae-A Review of Technologies for Production, Processing, and Extractions of Biofuels and Co-Products. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 557–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lam, M.K.; Lee, K.T. Microalgae Biofuels: A Critical Review of Issues, Problems and the Way Forward. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 673–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lefebvre, O.; Moletta, R. Treatment of Organic Pollution in Industrial Saline Wastewater: A Literature Review. Water Res. 2006, 40, 3671–3682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Brenner, K.; You, L.; Arnold, F.H. Engineering Microbial Consortia: A New Frontier in Synthetic Biology. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mitch, W.A.; Sharp, J.O.; Trussell, R.R.; Valentine, R.L.; Alvarez-Cohen, L.; Sedlak, D.L. N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) as a Drinking Water Contaminant: A Review. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2003, 20, 389–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Chan, S.S.; Khoo, K.S.; Chew, K.W.; Ling, T.C.; Show, P.L. Recent Advances Biodegradation and Biosorption of Organic Compounds from Wastewater: Microalgae-Bacteria Consortium—A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Derco, J.; Vrana, B. Introductory Chapter: Biosorption. In Biosorption; Derco, J., Vrana, B., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 1–19. ISBN 0000957720. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mathew, S.; Soans, J.C.; Rachitha, R.; Shilpalekha, M.S.; Gowda, S.G.S.; Juvvi, P.; Chakka, A.K. Green Technology Approach for Heavy Metal Adsorption by Agricultural and Food Industry Solid Wastes as Bio-Adsorbents: A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Romera, E.; González, F.; Ballester, A.; Blázquez, M.L.; Muñoz, J.A. Biosorption with Algae: A Statistical Review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2006, 26, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ayangbenro, A.S.; Babalola, O.O. A New Strategy for Heavy Metal Polluted Environments: A Review of Microbial Biosorbents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. de Souza, C.E.; Sydney, A.C.N.; Hashimoto, E.H.; Soccol, C.R.; Sydney, E.B. Microbial Bioresources for Biofuels Production: Fundamentals and Applications. In Biofuels Production—Sustainability and Advances in Microbial Bioresources; Yadav, A.N., Rastegari, A.A., Yadav, N., Gaur, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–18. ISBN 9783030539320. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gudiukaite, R.; Nadda, A.K.; Gricajeva, A.; Shanmugam, S.; Nguyen, D.D.; Lam, S.S. Bioprocesses for the Recovery of Bioenergy and Value-Added Products from Wastewater: A Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 300, 113831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Peter, A.P.; Khoo, K.S.; Chew, K.W.; Ling, T.C.; Ho, S.-H.; Chang, J.-S.; Show, P.L. Microalgae for Biofuels, Wastewater Treatment and Environmental Monitoring. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 2891–2904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hu, Z.; Qi, Y.; Zhao, L.; Chen, G. Interactions Between Microalgae and Microorganisms for Wastewater Remediation and Biofuel Production. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019, 10, 3907–3919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Su, Y. Revisiting Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Metabolisms in Microalgae for Wastewater Treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 762, 144590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Karri, R.R.; Sahu, J.N.; Chimmiri, V. Critical Review of Abatement of Ammonia from Wastewater. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 261, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pan, Z.; Song, C.; Li, L.; Wang, H.; Pan, Y.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Wang, T.; Feng, X. Membrane Technology Coupled with Electrochemical Advanced Oxidation Processes for Organic Wastewater Treatment: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 376, 120909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chmiel, H.; Kaschek, M.; Blöcher, C.; Noronha, M.; Mavrov, V. Concepts for the Treatment of Spent Process Water in the Food and Beverage Industries. Desalination 2003, 152, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zielińska, M.; Galik, M. Use of Ceramic Membranes in a Membrane Filtration Supported by Coagulation for the Treatment of Dairy Wastewater. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Goswami, L.; Kumar, R.V.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. A Novel Integrated Biodegradation—Microfiltration System for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment and Energy Recovery. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 365, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Muhamad Ng, S.N.; Idrus, S.; Ahsan, A.; Tuan Mohd Marzuki, T.N.; Mahat, S.B. Treatment of Wastewater from a Food and Beverage Industry Using Conventional Wastewater Treatment Integrated with Membrane Bioreactor System: A Pilot-Scale Case Study. Membranes 2021, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lozada, G.S.L.; López, A.I.G.; Martínez-Férez, A.; Ochando-Pulido, J.M. On the Modeling and Optimization of Two-Phase Olive-Oil Washing Wastewater Treatment and Polyphenols Recovery by Ceramic Tubular Microfiltration Membranes. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. He, Y.; Xu, P.; Li, C.; Zhang, B. High-Concentration Food Wastewater Treatment by an Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor. Water Res. 2005, 39, 4110–4118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Hernández, K.; Muro, C.; Ortega, R.E.; Velazquez, S.; Riera, F. Water Recovery by Treatment of Food Industry Wastewater Using Membrane Processes. Environ. Technol. 2021, 42, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Galib, M.; Elbeshbishy, E.; Reid, R.; Hussain, A.; Lee, H.-S. Energy-Positive Food Wastewater Treatment Using an Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR). J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Mei, X.; Quek, P.J.; Wang, Z.; Ng, H.Y. Alkali-Assisted Membrane Cleaning for Fouling Control of Anaerobic Ceramic Membrane Bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 240, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Galambos, I.; Molina, J.M.; Járay, P.; Vatai, G.; Bekássy-Molnár, E. High Organic Content Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Membrane Filtration. Desalination 2004, 162, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hafez, A.; Khedr, M.; Gadallah, H. Wastewater Treatment and Water Reuse of Food Processing Industries. Part II: Techno-Economic Study of a Membrane Separation Technique. Desalination 2007, 214, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Luo, J.; Ding, L.; Wan, Y.; Paullier, P.; Jaffrin, M.Y. Fouling Behavior of Dairy Wastewater Treatment by Nanofiltration under Shear-Enhanced Extreme Hydraulic Conditions. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 88, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chen, Z.; Luo, J.; Hang, X.; Wan, Y. Physicochemical Characterization of Tight Nanofiltration Membranes for Dairy Wastewater Treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 2018, 547, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Marszałek, A.; Puszczało, E. Effect of Photooxidation on Nanofiltration Membrane Fouling During Wastewater Treatment from the Confectionery Industry. Water 2020, 12, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Vourch, M.; Balannec, B.; Chaufer, B.; Dorange, G. Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater by Reverse Osmosis for Water Reuse. Desalination 2008, 219, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ochando-Pulido, J.M.; Rodriguez-Vives, S.; Hodaifa, G.; Martinez-Ferez, A. Impacts of Operating Conditions on Reverse Osmosis Performance of Pretreated Olive Mill Wastewater. Water Res. 2012, 46, 4621–4632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Ioannou, L.A.; Michael, C.; Vakondios, N.; Drosou, K.; Xekoukoulotakis, N.P.; Diamadopoulos, E.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Winery Wastewater Purification by Reverse Osmosis and Oxidation of the Concentrate by Solar Photo-Fenton. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2013, 118, 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kanaujiya, D.K.; Paul, T.; Sinharoy, A.; Pakshirajan, K. Biological Treatment Processes for the Removal of Organic Micropollutants from Wastewater: A Review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2019, 5, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Crini, G.; Lichtfouse, E. Advantages and Disadvantages of Techniques Used for Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Alagawany, M.; Taha, A.E.; Noreldin, A.; El-Tarabily, K.A.; Abd El-Hack, M.E. Nutritional Applications of Species of Spirulina and Chlorella in Farmed Fish: A Review. Aquaculture 2021, 542, 736841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Coronado-Reyes, J.A.; Salazar-Torres, J.A.; Juárez-Campos, B.; González-Hernández, J.C. Chlorella Vulgaris, a Microalgae Important to Be Used in Biotechnology: A Review. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, e37320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Van Leeuwen, J.H.; Hu, Z.; Yi, T.; Pometto, A.L.; Jin, B. Kinetic Model for Selective Cultivation of Microfungi in a Microscreen Process for Food Processing Wastewater Treatment and Biomass Production. Acta Biotechnol. 2003, 23, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nimje, V.R.; Chen, C.-Y.; Chen, H.-R.; Chen, C.-C.; Huang, Y.M.; Tseng, M.-J.; Cheng, K.-C.; Chang, Y.-F. Comparative Bioelectricity Production from Various Wastewaters in Microbial Fuel Cells Using Mixed Cultures and a Pure Strain of Shewanella Oneidensis. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 104, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Boas, J.V.; Oliveira, V.B.; Marcon, L.R.C.; Pinto, D.P.; Simões, M.; Pinto, A.M.F.R. Effect of Operating and Design Parameters on the Performance of a Microbial Fuel Cell with Lactobacillus Pentosus. Biochem. Eng. J. 2015, 104, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Mansoorian, H.J.; Mahvi, A.H.; Jafari, A.J.; Khanjani, N. Evaluation of Dairy Industry Wastewater Treatment and Simultaneous Bioelectricity Generation in a Catalyst-Less and Mediator-Less Membrane Microbial Fuel Cell. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2016, 20, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Cecconet, D.; Molognoni, D.; Callegari, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. Agro-Food Industry Wastewater Treatment with Microbial Fuel Cells: Energetic Recovery Issues. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 500–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Firdous, S.; Jin, W.; Shahid, N.; Bhatti, Z.A.; Iqbal, A.; Abbasi, U.; Mahmood, Q.; Ali, A. The Performance of Microbial Fuel Cells Treating Vegetable Oil Industrial Wastewater. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 10, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Daneshvar, E.; Zarrinmehr, M.J.; Hashtjin, A.M.; Farhadian, O.; Bhatnagar, A. Versatile Applications of Freshwater and Marine Water Microalgae in Dairy Wastewater Treatment, Lipid Extraction and Tetracycline Biosorption; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 268, ISBN 8415683111. [Google Scholar]
  111. Gupta, S.; Pawar, S.B. An Integrated Approach for Microalgae Cultivation Using Raw and Anaerobic Digested Wastewaters from Food Processing Industry. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 269, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Purwanti, I.F.; Titah, H.S.; Tangahu, B.V.; Kurniawan, S.B. Design and Application of Wastewater Treatment Plant for “Pempek” Food Industry, Surabaya, Indonesia. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 1751–1765. [Google Scholar]
  113. Zahmatkesh, M.; Spanjers, H.; van Lier, J.B. A Novel Approach for Application of White Rot Fungi in Wastewater Treatment under Non-Sterile Conditions: Immobilization of Fungi on Sorghum. Environ. Technol. 2018, 39, 2030–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Hemalatha, M.; Sravan, J.S.; Min, B.; Venkata Mohan, S. Microalgae-Biorefinery with Cascading Resource Recovery Design Associated to Dairy Wastewater Treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 284, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hu, X.; Meneses, Y.E.; Stratton, J.; Wang, B. Acclimation of Consortium of Micro-Algae Help Removal of Organic Pollutants from Meat Processing Wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hultberg, M.; Bodin, H. Fungi-Based Treatment of Real Brewery Waste Streams and Its Effects on Water Quality. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 42, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Spennati, E.; Casazza, A.A.; Converti, A. Winery Wastewater Treatment by Microalgae to Produce Low-Cost Biomass for Energy Production Purposes. Energies 2020, 13, 2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hu, X.; Meneses, Y.E.; Hassan, A.A.; Stratton, J.; Huo, S. Application of Alginate Immobilized Microalgae in Treating Real Food Industrial Wastewater and Design of Annular Photobioreactor: A Proof-of-Concept Study. Algal Res. 2021, 60, 102524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zkeri, E.; Iliopoulou, A.; Katsara, A.; Korda, A.; Aloupi, M.; Gatidou, G.; Fountoulakis, M.S.; Stasinakis, A.S. Comparing the Use of a Two-Stage MBBR System with a Methanogenic MBBR Coupled with a Microalgae Reactor for Medium-Strength Dairy Wastewater Treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 323, 124629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Amenorfenyo, D.K.; Li, F.; Zhang, Y.; Li, C.; Zhang, N.; Huang, X. Effects of Microalgae Grown in Membrane Treated Distillery Wastewater as Diet on Growth and Survival Rate of Juvenile Pearl Oyster (Pinctada fucata Martensii). Water 2022, 14, 2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kusmayadi, A.; Lu, P.-H.; Huang, C.-Y.; Leong, Y.K.; Yen, H.-W.; Chang, J.-S. Integrating Anaerobic Digestion and Microalgae Cultivation for Dairy Wastewater Treatment and Potential Biochemicals Production from the Harvested Microalgal Biomass. Chemosphere 2022, 291, 133057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 14 14698 g001 550
Figure 1. Water requirement to produce some foods (per ton). Based on information from Piesse [4].
Figure 1. Water requirement to produce some foods (per ton). Based on information from Piesse [4].
Sustainability 14 14698 g001
Sustainability 14 14698 g002 550
Figure 2. Publications on WW treatment in food processing plants using environmentally friendly technologies.
Figure 2. Publications on WW treatment in food processing plants using environmentally friendly technologies.
Sustainability 14 14698 g002
Sustainability 14 14698 g003 550
Figure 3. Network visualization map of countries with at least 10 documents.
Figure 3. Network visualization map of countries with at least 10 documents.
Sustainability 14 14698 g003
Sustainability 14 14698 g004 550
Figure 4. Cluster density visualization map of keywords with at least 15 occurrences.
Figure 4. Cluster density visualization map of keywords with at least 15 occurrences.
Sustainability 14 14698 g004
Sustainability 14 14698 g005 550
Figure 5. Trend topics of keywords at least 15 occurrences.
Figure 5. Trend topics of keywords at least 15 occurrences.
Sustainability 14 14698 g005
Table
Table 1. Authors, countries and institutions with greater participation in studies on WW treatment with environmentally friendly technologies.
Table 1. Authors, countries and institutions with greater participation in studies on WW treatment with environmentally friendly technologies.
RankingNameTD 1F 2 (%)TC 3TC/TD
Authors
1Nelson, M.50.82512725.400
2Alling, A.40.66011228.000
3Ngo, H.H.40.660705176.250
4Trabold, T.A.40.660307.500
5Anon30.49500.000
6Chang, S.W.30.495346115.333
7Chen, W.T.30.49500.000
8Dempster, W.F.30.495299.667
9Fatta-Kassinos, D.30.495325108.333
10Guo, W.30.795400133.333
Countries
1United States10417.162499248.000
2India7612.541149619.684
3China7011.551213130.443
4United Kingdom396.436110128.231
5Italy355.776123135.174
6Spain315.116110235.548
7Malaysia284.620118642.357
8Australia264.290192073.846
9Canada233.79571030.870
10Germany203.300139069.500
Institutions
1Ministry of Education China81.32026733.375
2Chinese Academy of Sciences81.32010112.625
3University of Technology Sydney71.155794113.429
4University of Chinese Academy of Sciences71.15510214.571
5Council of Scientific and Industrial Research India60.9906310.500
6Institute of Ecotechnics50.82512725.400
7University of Galway50.8257615.200
8Università della Calabria50.82512625.200
9Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche50.82526653.200
10Universidad de Granada50.82516232.400
1 TD: total documents, 2 F: frequency: TD/606 (documents retrieved) × 100, 3 TC: total citations.
Table
Table 2. Main journals in research on WW treatment in food processing plants using environmentally friendly technologies.
Table 2. Main journals in research on WW treatment in food processing plants using environmentally friendly technologies.
RankingJournalCountryPublisherQTD 1F (%) 2TC 3TC/TDJIF 4SJR 5
1Science of the Total EnvironmentNetherlandsElsevierQ1213.46593044.28610.7531.81
2Bioresource TechnologyUnited KingdomElsevierQ1182.970157487.44411.8892.35
3Water Science and TechnologyUnited KingdomIWA PublishingQ2182.97023713.1672.4300.45
4Journal of Environmental ManagementUnited StatesAcademic PressQ1172.805114167.1188.9101.48
5Environmental Science and Pollution ResearchGermanySpringerQ1142.31044231.5715.1900.83
Water ResearchUnited KingdomElsevierQ1142.3101950139.28613.4002.81
1 TD: total documents, 2 F: frequency, 3 TC: total citations, 4 JIF: data from 2021 according to Clarivate Analytics, 5 SJR: data from 2021 according to Elsevier.
Table
Table 3. Most cited documents in the field of study.
Table 3. Most cited documents in the field of study.
RankingReferencesNumber of AuthorsYear of PublicationDocumentJournalDocument TypeTC 1TC/Y 2
1Brennan and Owende [66]22010Biofuels from microalgae-A review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-productsRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsReview3227268.917
2Lefebvre and Moletta [68]22006Treatment of organic pollution in industrial saline wastewater: A literature reviewWater researchReview89956.188
3Lam and Lee [67]22012Microalgae biofuels: A critical review of issues, problems and the way forwardBiotechnology AdvancesReview65765.700
4Brenner et al. [69]32008Engineering microbial consortia: a new frontier in synthetic biologyTrends in BiotechnologyReview60142.929
5Mitch et al. [70]62003N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) as a drinking water contaminant: A reviewEnvironmental Engineering ScienceReview57930.474
1 TC: total citations, 2 TC/Y: average number of citations per year.
Table
Table 4. Main keywords used in the documents.
Table 4. Main keywords used in the documents.
RankingKeyword 1OccurrenceRankingKeywordOccurrence
1wastewater treatment43211anaerobic digestion61
2wastewater16112water quality60
3wastewater management12413bioremediation59
4sewage9714biomass59
5effluents9215water purification57
6sustainable development7416bioreactors56
7food industry6717food processing56
8waste disposal6218agriculture53
9water pollution6219chemical oxygen demand49
10environmental technology6220environmental protection49
1 Redundant keywords such as waste water (106 occurrences), water treatment (101), water management (72), waste treatment (66), and waste management (63) were omitted; as well as unrelated keywords such as article (124), nonhuman (108), review (68), priority journal (60) and human (54).
Table
Table 5. Most-used membrane technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants. Data from Obaideen et al. [51].
Table 5. Most-used membrane technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants. Data from Obaideen et al. [51].
What Substances Do They Retain? 1MicrofiltrationUltrafiltrationNanofiltrationReverse Osmosis
Water−−−−
Monovalent ions−−−+
Multivalent ions−−++
Surfactants−+++
Oil and grease++++
Suspended solids++++
1 Retained (+) and non-retained (−) substances.
Table
Table 6. Application of membrane technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants.
Table 6. Application of membrane technologies for WW treatment in food processing plants.
TechnologyReferencesProcess 1
Microfiltration[83]Margarine
[84]Dairy
[85]Dairy
[86]N.S.
[87]Olive oil
Ultrafiltration[88]Meat, vegetables and rice
[89]Animal proteins
[90]Meat
[91]N.S.
[84]Dairy
Nanofiltration[83]Fruit juice
[92]Oil
[93]Dairy and fruit juice
[94]Dairy
[95]Dairy
[96]Confectionery
Reverse osmosis[92]Oil
[97]Dairy
[98]Olives
[99]Wine
[89]Animal proteins
1 N.S.: not specified.
Table
Table 7. Biological agents used for the friendly treatment of WW in food processing plants.
Table 7. Biological agents used for the friendly treatment of WW in food processing plants.
ReferencesProcessBiological Agent 1
[104]CornRhizopus oligosporus
[105]DairyShewanella oneidensis
[106]DairyLactobacillus pentosus
[107]DairyMicroorganisms (N.S.)
[108]DairyMicroorganisms (N.S.)
[109]Vegetable oilMicroorganisms (N.S.)
[110]DairyScenedesmus quadricauda and Tetraselmis suecica
[111]Snacks of potatoes, nuts, legumes, wheat flour, milk and soyaChlorella sorokiniana, Scenedesmus obliquus and Scenedesmus abundans
[112]MackerelScirpus grossus and Thypa angustifolia
[113]N.S.Trametes versicolor
[114]DairyMicroalgae (N.S.)
[115]MeatChlorella sp. UTEX LB2068, C. protothecoides UTEX B25, C. zofingiensis UTEX B32, C. vulgaris UTEX 259, C. protothecoides SAG 211, C. sorokiniana, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii UTEX C-4333, and Scenedesmus obliquus UTEX B2630
[116]BeerPleurotus ostreatus M2140, Agaricus bisporus M7215, Trichoderma harzianum CBS 226.95, Trametes versicolor M9912, and Lentinula edodes M3782,
[117]WineChlorella vulgaris and Arthrospira platensis
[118]MeatMicroalgae (N.S.)
[119]DairyChlorella sorokiniana
[120]DistilleryHaematococcus pluvialis, Spirulina platensis and Chlorella vulgaris
[121]DairyChlorella sorokiniana SU-1
1 N.S.: not specified.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zapata-Mendoza, P.C.O.; Berrios-Tauccaya, O.J.; Tirado-Kulieva, V.A.; Gonzales-Malca, J.A.; Ricse-Reyes, D.R.; Berrios-Zevallos, A.A.; Seminario-Sanz, R.S. Environmentally Friendly Technologies for Wastewater Treatment in Food Processing Plants: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214698

AMA Style

Zapata-Mendoza PCO, Berrios-Tauccaya OJ, Tirado-Kulieva VA, Gonzales-Malca JA, Ricse-Reyes DR, Berrios-Zevallos AA, Seminario-Sanz RS. Environmentally Friendly Technologies for Wastewater Treatment in Food Processing Plants: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):14698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214698

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zapata-Mendoza, Prospero Cristhian Onofre, Oscar Julian Berrios-Tauccaya, Vicente Amirpasha Tirado-Kulieva, Jhony Alberto Gonzales-Malca, David Roberto Ricse-Reyes, Andres Amador Berrios-Zevallos, and Roberto Simón Seminario-Sanz. 2022. "Environmentally Friendly Technologies for Wastewater Treatment in Food Processing Plants: A Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 14698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214698

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